Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
NASA Toolkit from NASA.gov
Quote:
Return the position of a target body relative to an observing
body, optionally corrected for light time (planetary aberration)
and stellar aberration.
|
Quote:
abcorr indicates the aberration corrections to be applied to
the position of the target body to account for
one-way light time and stellar aberration.
|
Quote:
'LT' Correct for one-way light time (also
called "planetary aberration") using a
Newtonian formulation. This correction
yields the position of the target at the
moment it emitted photons arriving at
the observer at 'et'.
|
Quote:
'LT+S' Correct for one-way light time and
stellar aberration using a Newtonian
formulation. This option modifies the
position obtained with the "LT" option to
account for the observer's velocity
relative to the solar system
barycenter. The result is the apparent
position of the target---the position and
velocity of the target as seen by the
observer.
|
|
These are all inferences based on what is believed to be happening. If it turns out that Lessans is correct based on actual observances on Earth, then scientists will have to rethink what they believe is occurring and why. These examples are not conclusive proof LadyShea. |
Um, those are the terms and definitions that NASA actually uses in its programs. They apparently work since we have landed on Mars and have orbited other planets with probes.
They seem to be correct inferences.
If it turns out Lessans was right, then somehow NASA got extremely lucky multiple times since they were using completely wrong calculations. |
That is not true LadyShea. I am not arguing with scientists. I'm only arguing as to what it is we are seeing, and I'm not satisfied with the explanation.