FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
Why do you insist on using a popular science article from 2008 when I pointed you to a journal article on the subject from 2010?
As a matter of fact the popsci article you link to quotes the authors of the newer journal article I pojnted you to. You're quite welcome to write the authors and tell them they're off by a factor of 32 but you're unlikely to make much headway with just a popsci article.
Although perhaps you greatly misunderstand acceleration. It is a cumulative matter. At the end of each year the probe is 400km closer to the sun than its start of the year velocity would predict.
Over 31 years it would be 1/2 ((8.0 * 10^-10) * (31 * 365 * 24 * 60 * 60)^2 = 382,293,217m which works out to 382,293km at 1.6 km to the mile roughly 240,000 miles. So annually the probes travel 400km less than expected but cumulatively it works out to 240,000 miles. Note that if you want to talk about annual decceleration, which is what you said to start with, then it is 400km.
Being both clueless and a blowhard must really be wearing on you.
Firm
The fact that you were wrong doesn't seem to be able to penetrate your skull. you said that annually the probes traveled 8000 miles less than expected. That was only true for one year, about 1987. It is always true (assuming the accuracy of the acceleration figure) that the probes travel 400km less per year than expected by their start of year velocity.
It must be hard being you and being unable to do basic math but feeling empowered to insult others on it.
Let's walk through this a bit, shall we?
1. You state that it covers 400 kilometers less per year than expected. Or, converted to miles, about 250 miles less. (400 kilometers = 248.5 miles, according to Google).
2. You state that the total distance between the expected location, and the actual location is on the order of 240,000 miles (which is about what I said).
3. You agree that the travel time under discussion is 31 years.
Basic math gives you a problem here.
If the craft only "loses" 250 miles per year, over 31 years, that is 7,750 miles total "loss". Yet the actual difference is 240,000 miles, as you agree. 240,000 divided by 31 years gives an average of about 8k miles per year (approximately, anyway).
This math is immaterial of any deceleration effect.
But let's look at your assertion that it does, as well:
1. Now, if you are saying that the amount of deceleration was reduced each year and
2. That 1987 was the highest year, and
3. It has been smaller ever since, and
4. Currently (well, in 2003) the difference was only 250 miles ..
.. you still have a problem, because you still need a yearly average of 8,000 miles a year to equal 240,000 miles.
And there is no way you can go from a high year of 8,000 miles down to 250 miles and come up with 240,000 miles without the craft accelerating during that time frame.
Perhaps you know something about the little grey men in their saucers helping out here?  
Go fish.
Firm
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread