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 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.
You are saying this, but you aren't addressing the part that is confusing to you, so I can't help explain it in a way that will help you to understand. Assuming that what I am saying is bullshit is an assumption. It would be more accurate (I think) to say that you don't understand what I am saying. That could be that you haven't put enough time into trying to understand, or that I have not explained it sufficiently well (did you even watch the video for the one minute I recommended?). I am not blaming you for not understanding. I don't know where the fault in your lack of comprehension lies. What it is not however is bullshit even if it is not correct. What I am saying is backed up by millions (billions? trillions?) of real experiments including many that I have done myself.
The vehicle obviously didn't travel 300m miles. You performed the calculation yourself. That headline is wrong. It also doesn't make sense from the evidence I have presented (even if you don't understand why). But a headline being wrong is no big deal. It's not even necessarily a lie. It's just wrong. People who write articles don't check the math of their headlines. They go to fact checkers (which are part of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN)) to get their stories. No one is checking their math. No one cares about reporting reality. They only care about printing a story.
In no way does an incompetent reporter signify a breakdown in all of physics.
I said a lot more than that to help explain what that means. Suggesting this is all I said is purposeful out of context lying to support your statement that it was "pseudoscience" and "bullshit". I am trying to explain something that isn't even covered in physics until third year to someone who is suspicious of all of physics (which is reasonable, but not while also ignoring all of the evidence that supports the math).
I will respond to this post to keep an important reply on the front page.
Yes, they do in fact state that the total path distance is 292M miles.
The missing key to understanding is what "velocity" means (or in this case speed). Speed is always relative to something else. In this case, the speed of the probe at 24,600 mph is relative to the Earth. The speed when it arrives at mars relative to Mars will be 11,900 mph. The speed along the curved path of 292M miles relative to the Sun (or really to any stationary observer) is the speed of the Earth around the sun times the relative angle of the probes velocity vector (after fuel is spent) + the speed of the probe relative to the Earth (24,600mph) = 52,000 mph relative to the curved path (or a stationary observer measuring the speed along the curved path). Which means it will take 233 days to reach the Mars orbit when Mars reaches the same point in its orbit. It will arrive with a speed of 11,900 mph relative to Mars.
Fun note: the speed according to the probe's point of view is zero.
This btw is also the speed according to your point of view when sitting at your desk; for the exact same reason.
Let me put it another way (to compliment my other response to this post).
If you throw a ball and you aim at the target directly, gravity will pull it down and you won't reach your target. Instead you throw it at an angle up so that when it reaches the target distance it will also be at the target height.
If you start with the same initial velocity (the strength of your arm) and you want to throw it further you need to adjust your angle up higher.
If you are on a train however, and you throw it with the same velocity it will travel much farther because the velocity of the train will add to the strength of your arm. You then have to adjust the angle lower to hit your target.
This isn't just an analogy to what the probe is doing, this is exactly what the probe is doing for exactly the same reason. They are "throwing" the probe, with the strength of a rocket, on a moving train (the Earth) to hit a moving target (Mars). Given the total strength of the arm (rocket) plus the velocity of the train (Earth) they calculate the angle they have to launch at to hit the moving target. This gives the start of the curved path, which will be a much longer path (along the path) than that calculated if you were to draw a ruler line from the thrower to the target.
The total velocity will be the strength of the arm (rocket) plus the velocity of the train (Earth) relative to someone standing on the ground (the Sun). But from the train (Earth) it will look much slower, because the train is moving in the same direction.
You can read. Nasal isn't on Mars and never has been.