Dividing distance by time: light-yrs/sec if you travel 4.24 light years in 6.2 sec

kay1994

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
3
So, I am trying to calculate how many light years per second you would be traveling if you travel 4.24 light years in 6.2 seconds. Not breaking the speed of a light year down, I get 0.68 dividing 4.24 by 6.2. What has me confused and why I would like a little help with this is when I try to calculate the light years per second for traveling the same 4.24 light years in 201804 seconds, I get a number bigger than 0.68 instead of smaller. Am I dividing wrong or is it correct to get a bigger number instead of a decimal one that is smaller than 0.68?
 
So, I am trying to calculate how many light years per second you would be traveling if you travel 4.24 light years in 6.2 seconds. Not breaking the speed of a light year down, I get 0.68 dividing 4.24 by 6.2. What has me confused and why I would like a little help with this is when I try to calculate the light years per second for traveling the same 4.24 light years in 201804 seconds, I get a number bigger than 0.68 instead of smaller. Am I dividing wrong or is it correct to get a bigger number instead of a decimal one that is smaller than 0.68?

I can't tell if you divided wrong, or how, without seeing your work. But certainly you should get a smaller result when you divide by a larger number.

Of course, you realize that you can't go faster than light (one light-year per year), so the whole scenario is counter-factual.
 
My math was 4.24 divided by 201804 for the second equation. I get 2.1 as the answer instead of a decimal number like 0.1 or such from a calculator. Would it possibly be I just need to move over the decimal and make it 0.21?

I am aware it is a counter factual situation. I like sci-fi and was calculating numbers for consistency between things because I sometimes get bored and make up scenarios. There's no way in reality we'd go faster than the speed of light any time soon if ever.
 
My math was 4.24 divided by 201804 for the second equation. I get 2.1 as the answer instead of a decimal number....
Any number in the base-10 system is "a decimal number". Did you perhaps mean "a number with decimal places"? If so, "2.1" has a decimal place; namely, the point-one.

Of greater issue is the fact that you're dividing about four and a quarter by approximately two hundred thousand, somehow getting roughly 2, and thinking that perhaps about one-fifth would be better.

If you divide 4.2 by 2, you will get 2.1. If you divide 4.2 by 200,000, you will get 0.000021. What are you doing, exactly, that you are getting "2.1"?

Please be specific. Thank you! ;)
 
My math was 4.24 divided by 201804 for the second equation. I get 2.1 as the answer instead of a decimal number like 0.1 or such from a calculator. Would it possibly be I just need to move over the decimal and make it 0.21?

I think I see what you did. On the calculator in Windows, when I enter 4.24 / 201804, it says 2.1010485421498087252978137202434e-5. (Other calculators have slightly different notation.) You are missing the "e-5" at the end, or just not knowing what it means. It's calculator representation of scientific notation, meaning "times ten to the -5". So the calculator's answer is really 2.1010485421498087252978137202434 * 10-5, or close to 2.1 * 10-5, which means 0.000021. A different calculator, or a different setting for how it displays numbers, might have shown it to you in this form.

It might also be good practice for you to try doing the division by hand, and see what you get. It's important to have a feel for what answers should look like, so calculators don't mislead you. (But it's good that you recognized at least that 2.1 didn't make sense as an answer, because it was too large -- I understand that what you meant by "a decimal number" was "less than 1".)

Does that clear things up?
 
Top