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:
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.
Yes
I'm not plugging my ears. I'm telling you that what you're saying doesn't explain anything and is loaded with bullshit and sophistry.
NASA: Vehicle traveled 300m miles. You: Vehicle didn't travel 300m miles because "delta V within the framework of solar and planetary gravitational fields"
Gibberish.
Not definitive but KSP, Scott Manley, Matt Lowne.