Why doesn't the math add up?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (60)
sorted by:
The headline is wrong on its stated distance.
The shortest "shortest path distance" (straight line as measured from the Earth) between Earth and Mars is about 40M miles. The longest shortest path distance is about 250M miles. This depends on where the Earth and Mars are in their relative solar orbits.
These are straight line measurements though. The actual path for orbit change (delta V within the framework of solar and planetary gravitational fields) is along a curve because you can't just accelerate/decelerate the whole time. Thus you can't take a straight line path to get somewhere, thus the "shortest distance" is along the curve (geodesic) that gives the best delta V path within the gravitational field that is pulling you towards the sun and/or the planet when you get closer.
The distance of 120M miles is perfectly reasonable given these parameters along that curved path.
This orbital transfers along the respective orbits. Also including acceleration and deceleration, average speed is not cruising speed.
Still not enough miles
Because I did not read the article until later in this discussion, I did not realize which velocity the OP was stating. Please see my later replies in this discussion.
1
2
Every article from CNN to Nat Geo to NASA says the perseverance TRAVELED 300,000,000 miles. Can you show me one source that backs up your claim?
Every article saying something is proof of Mockingbird media, not proof of the truth of something.
Here is something that should help to understand the basics. I only watched about a minute from the timestamp in this link. It should be sufficient to understand this curved path I am talking about.
I may not have explained it perfectly. The reason the path is curved is because the rocket engine has enough fuel for a limited burst of acceleration, thus the probe must rely on its initial velocity (whatever it achieves after its fuel is spent) to intersect with the Mars Orbit at the same time Mars reaches that point in its orbit.
But the probe is being accelerated towards the sun by gravity (away from the desired Mars orbit) thus the path that must be traveled by the probe is a curve (orbit) using only its initial velocity to achieve an intersection of its orbit (around the sun, that we gave it when we sent it off from Earth) and the orbit of Mars around the sun (that it has had for a very long time).
Everything you're saying sounds like pseudoscience gibberish to me. Does E=MC2 too?
...
I mean, if you want to throw every result of every experiment in all of time out the window then how can anything have meaning in any discussion about anything?
I have shown you orbital mechanics and how to achieve a transfer orbit in the simplest way possible. If you choose to say "that can't possibly be true because it doesn't fit my beliefs" without actually addressing the argument itself, there is no way to have a discussion. At that point you are just putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nananananana".
What kind of discussion can anyone have under those circumstances?
If you wish to address specifics in orbital mechanics I am happy to have those discussions. If you wish to present evidence that there are flaws in orbital mechanics (or really the entire idea of gravity, since orbital mechanics are just an extension of gravity) then please present your evidence. "Nananananana" does nothing for me, nor for anyone else. All it does is appease your cognitive dissonance in your apparent attempt to adhere to your current beliefs given the presentation of evidence to the contrary.
Not definitive but KSP, Scott Manley, Matt Lowne.