Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'mathematics'.

• Search By Tags

Type tags separated by commas.

Forums

• General
• Announcements
• Welcome Aboard
• Kerbal Space Program 1
• KSP1 Discussion
• KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
• KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
• KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
• KSP1 Mission Reports
• KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
• KSP1 Mods
• KSP1 Expansions
• Kerbal Space Program 2
• KSP2 Discussion
• KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
• Challenges & Mission Ideas
• The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
• Mission Reports
• KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
• Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
• KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
• KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
• KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
• Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
• KSP2 Mod Discussions
• KSP2 Mod Releases
• KSP2 Mod Development
• Community
• Science & Spaceflight
• Kerbal Network
• The Lounge
• KSP Fan Works
• International
• International

Found 6 results

2. Why can I achieve higher altitudes when flying in Orbit than straight up?

Hey guys! So today I was playing some KSP and I built a rocket which is meant to orbit Kerbin at a low altitude first and then increase the Apoapsis up to 1 000 000 km (So I can get some sweet science from low and high Orbit). After having achieved the 1 mil km I did a stupid mistake and I had to revert to start.This time, I decided to go for a more lazy approach. I decided not to achieve Orbit and just fly straight up. Now something happened which doesnt make any sense in my current understanding of the world. I was only able to achieve about 400 000 km - less than half the amount I was able to reach when flying in orbit. I dont know how this can make any sense: In my first flight I was spending way more time in atmosphere, why I should have lost more speed than in my second attempt. Also I just dont understand how flying vertically results in much lower altitudes than flying horizontally "only". I would be very happy if someone could explain the mathematics behind that. TY very much in advance!
3. How can i learn multiplication table and orbital mechanics

Simple as that. When i was a youngling during my high school days, i disliked math and she disliked me back, like every kid does here where i'm from. After i enrolled in a law college, math kind grew on me. Well, at least the abstract approach to it (ie wikipedia articles like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski's_undefinability_theorem), in which i like reading it, but barely grasp 2,5% of what it actually means). So to say the least, this relationship issue remained somewhat unaltered, but with a plot twist. I now loved math, but she totally did not love me back, still. Then i met Jebediah, Bill, Bob and Valentina, and it changed my life. Now that i'm older, wiser and more patient. I think its time to put the multiplication table out of the cabinet and teach myself orbital mechanics. Therein lies the will to change How to do it? Any tips from the smart people around here on this issue? Any good books on how to get things done? Any online free courses that you know of? I want to be able to actually understand the problems, being able to solve it the hard and easy ways. But it doesn't hurts to ask, are there any life hacks or cheats available? To further enlight the spectrum of my math skills, they are that of a 12 years old (6 years old by japanese standards). The goal is to have somewhat a a grasp of college level calculus, at least into the introduction of it. By then i'll be realized as a human being already, and maybe i'll finally figure out how to to dock directly after ascent. Thanks!!! [snip]
4. The Natural Base?

I've been thinking about this for a while and my question is: What is your opinion on there being a natural base or counting system? Taking a Platonic view of the universe, is there any 'system' to the universe regarding numbers, not just 'there are x apples'? I mean, we might just be measuring the universe wrong. Most people would probably default to either base one or binary (base two), but why? Is there any reason that the numbers one and two are special? This brings us to my second questions: Integers. Why are they considered different and get precedence over other numbers? What is even the definition of an integer, I mean even though the number 5 doesn't have any decimals in base ten, if written in base Pi, it's irrational. It might also be that x whole apples are necessarily an integer number of apples, but the operating word is whole and it might just be us that are centred around whole, full and integer, even though they might not be different or special in any way. -T (P.S. Maths counts as science in this forum right?)
5. Mathematics. What is it anyway?

I'm a curious fellow. Another topic here on the forums or rather a detour in this topic (the metric vs imperial topic, to be exact) stirred up that curiosity. What is mathematics anyway? So, I began looking around. First stop was ye ol' Wikipedia. Now Wikipedia can be a great source of information but it can be a wild ride sometimes (too often, in fact). Here is what is driving me up the walls (from Wikipedia's article on mathematical structure): "In mathematics, a structure on a set, or more generally a type, consists of additional mathematical objects that..:" So, to understand structure, I should know what a set is but wait no, a set apparently is only part of something bigger, a type so I should look that up first, or should I look at mathematical objects first, to understand better what a type is? So what I did was, as soon as I came across anything to the likes of "based on [new concept here]", or "a sub-set of [new concept here]" etc, I followed those links hoping to get to an even more fundamental er, fundament that would explain a certain idea or term. Soon I came across the article on mathematical objects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object Now we are rushing towards the realm of philosophy. Still I feel there are even more fundamental terms I should understand before really understanding mathematical objects. Looking around, it is true that often you will find say an explaination of A that requires a prior explaination of B, which itself refers to A for prior explaination, or to C which in turn refers back to A. Circular explainations are tricky. Most of the time, it seems, they ultimately fail to explain but one can not rule out that at the very base, there are in fact some A that can only exist if B exists and vice versa, the two are not the same but one can not exist without the other, and together they do form a unit (in lack of a better word) of foundation which all other ideas rest upon. If anyone here have ever dived into the depth of mathematics, here's a question: Where would one want to start to learn about mathematics in it's purest form if one wants to start at the very start, where the foundations have no further foundations underneath?
6. Turin-esque Halting problem. Discerning the undiscernale

This article i found this morning http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2586 I have to say, i never believe anything that i read in Nature or Science in the general science topics. Nature broke me of that in 1986 with thier article about homeopathic behaviors of IgE and the followup test of the lab using the magician the Amazing Randy. Henceforth i consider the Journals to be coffee table science magazines. I read the editorials and i follow the collections, for example the NASA exposee on plutos new horizon, and some of the paleonstuff, always good to search the authors names in other journals though like JHE AJHG AJPA, etc and see if you can find an article that would have the best field specific peer review. Science claims they seek the most qualified referees for each paper, however thier very high rate of retractions suggests otherwise. They always can come up with an answer for you to explain thier failures, the best answer is caveot emtor.
×

• Community

• Release Notes

• Social Media

• Store
×
• Create New...