flak monkey
|
| posted on 17/5/06 at 12:59 PM |
|
|
Monty Python, a quote for all occasions 
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/5/06 at 01:03 PM |
|
|
No sure it is politically correct these days but it either had to be that or the bit from the Ian Drury song "Ain't Half Been Some Clever
B*****ds"about Einstien saying atoms were the littlest.
Einstein can't be classed as witless.
He claimed atoms were the littlest.
When you did a bit of splittemness,
Frighten everybody shitless.
[Edited on 17/5/06 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 17/5/06 at 05:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by caber
Back to the serius stuff for Mike, The reason cats die in falls from between 3rd and 6th floor but not above is that they stop panicing and get into
flight mode with all paws spread out this increases aewrodynamic drag and reduces terminal velocity sufficiently for a rough but safeish landing. It
doesn't always apply to overweight or skinny cats. Amazing animals really!
Caber
Actually i knew this one, just through i'd try and divert the discussion again  looks like i failed!
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 17/5/06 at 05:51 PM |
|
|
thats got to be theoretical rubbish as how can a plane fire a gun / rocket when its going x hundred miles per hour.
(i know nothing - just doesn't make sense to me, if i'm in a car doing 30mph and i throw a tennis ball it hits its target at 30mph + what
ever i can add to it! if you don't believe me, pop round to nuneaton and we'll test out my theory )
|
|
|
robertst
|
| posted on 17/5/06 at 05:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chris mason
theoretically if you fired a bullet from a gun while travelling at the speed of light, YOU WOULD BLOW YOUR HAND OFF!!!!!
(don't try this, not as if anyone has the capabilities anyway)
as you pull the trigger the bullet would accelerate and attempt to leave the barrel at say 1000m per sec, but as your travelling at a speed far faster
than that, the bullet will remain in the gun and explode as it comes back down the barrel.
only breifed the answers to the original post so apologies if someone has already said this.
Chris
since when do bullets explode? the shell is the only thing that explodes and therefore thrusts the bullet forward.
assuming that you are travelling in a vaccum because in earth, air friction just makes it impossible before you burn. and also assuming that you dont
have to be massless to travel at the speed of light AND that there IS a higher speed than light (you never know. einey said speed of light was the
fastest, but that was in the 50s if i'm not wrong?)
SOOOO. theoretically and taking all these assumptions, the bullet fired will actually travel at the speed of light as you were going at PLUS the 1000
m/s and as there is no air resistance, the bullet would not come back to you. or maybe it will, but that is another story
Tom
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 17/5/06 at 06:05 PM |
|
|
No ..........
because you're saying that the friction on the ball will slow it down and as i've got a motor overcoming the friction i'll keep
going.
I agree,
the bullet will leave my gun at speed of light + 500mph (approx). It will travel at speed of light + 500mph - friction for a while until i catch up to
it.
It will not explode in the gun unless the friction is so high it never leaves the gun. This is different to what i read your original answer to
say.
(i realise i'm coming across very 'angry' here, i'm just rushing to get out to watch the footy, had a crap day and got a
stinking cold. Not angry at all, just really curious about this)
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 17/5/06 at 06:15 PM |
|
|
ok, you're spitting is a good way of proving your argument (no i'm not trying it!)
although i stand by tennis ball argument as well.
I think you're theory is more thought out and demonstrates the issues but .....
if we do it in a vacum!!!!!!!!!! aha...... my bullet will break the speed of light!
And to whomever suggested that no one has built a car faster than the speed of sound - you've never seen my car run. Neither have i but my point
is still valid!
|
|
|
trogdor
|
| posted on 17/5/06 at 09:54 PM |
|
|
what would happen if u fired a gun while travelling just below or at the speed of light is that it would travel away from u as it normally would, just
the time passing for it would be slower than time passing for u. this compensates for not breaking the speed of light, it would be travelling at the
speed of light too.
i think this is correct, or it could be aload of crap, i really should ask my housemate who does physics at degree level but hes out getting wasted!
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 17/5/06 at 10:07 PM |
|
|
what about if you had a 100 tonne weight in your 1 tonne car that was going just less than the speed of light, you then threw this behind you -
therefore using newtonion motion propelling you forward ..... would you exceed the speed of light?
What if you farted at the same time? Would it still smell?
|
|
|
trogdor
|
| posted on 17/5/06 at 11:40 PM |
|
|
u would acclerate, but ur speed wouldn't increase as time would slow down. about the smell i don't know, i guess u would travel so fast u
would leave it behind v quickly!
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 18/5/06 at 06:31 AM |
|
|
Bullit theorie
i´m confinced its true.
why? the speed wich has the bullet makes it go away from you.
but the same speed increases the error it has made (in fact it amplifies the angle los)
again its only true if you fire it parallel to the ground, in reality you fire it slightly upwards to compensate the loss of heigh.
due to its speed then the compensate angle is amplified (the heigh above parrallel ground/start level)
in fact you should change the question and ask your self wy would the bullit be longer in the air??
Regards,
Tks
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 18/5/06 at 07:20 AM |
|
|
the bullet thing is correct. As you say, what would make it stay up longer. In fact, i suspect it holds true even in air.
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 18/5/06 at 09:48 AM |
|
|
Winderlicker warning.
If you jump up in a train carriage why doesn't the back wall smack into you instead of you landing back in the same place, if the earth orbits
the sun at 18.5 miles (30 kilometres) per second why don't we all get speeding tickets. What's all this got to do with brakes from the
first question, which I thought was a p!sstake anyway, if you thought that the brakes weren't going to work properly if the pipes were different
lengths you'd never trust them again. I have an added worry as the rear wheels on my car are larger than the fronts so will the back end go
faster and I'll end up spinning round on the spot like a top. Don't build a car is my only advice to robertst, the mental effort will
cause you nothing but pain and anguish and you will probably end up in a mentalist institution with rubber cutlery, walls and underwear.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 18/5/06 at 10:30 AM |
|
|
this firing a gun at the speed of light - the point being misses is relativity.
all speed mesurements are made with regards to some reference.
the person, gun and bullet in the gun are travelling at the speed of light.
as far as the person is concenred, the speed of the bullet, when fired is measured with the person as the reference so as far as the person is
concerned the bullet goes away as normal, no laws are violated. It is related to the post jumping in a moving carriage.
The thing that puzzles me is what does an external observer see? 
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 18/5/06 at 05:38 PM |
|
|
depends if he has his eyes open.
Perhaps the question should be, how fast can the observer move his head / eyes to watch me go past at the speed of light firing a gun!
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 18/5/06 at 07:36 PM |
|
|
The reason you cannot accelerate a body past the speed of light is that it's mass increases that faster it gets. As you appraoch the speed of
light, a bodies mass tends toward infinity, requiring an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it any further. The bullet would not break the light
speed barrier!
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 18/5/06 at 07:38 PM |
|
|
The faster you travel, the slower time goes as well. As proven in the 80s by taking an atomic clock on supersonic flight across the atlantic.
Astronaughts age slower than people on earth while they are in space travelling at umpteen 1000 mph.
Isnt physics fun
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 18/5/06 at 07:43 PM |
|
|
But they also recieve massive amounts of radiation, thus aging them a little faster than all on earth.
That's the funny thing about the speed of light. Since light can be proven to have a mass, how can it go at the speed of light, yet not aquire
infinite mass?
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 18/5/06 at 08:12 PM |
|
|
arrgghh - my brain hurts?
surely if an object falls at 9.8m/s and it goes faster than 9.8m/s nothing bad actually happens to it!
why is light different?
|
|
|
tadltd
|
| posted on 18/5/06 at 09:52 PM |
|
|
What about dark matter - where light can't penetrate? Is this because it is travelling FASTER than the speed of light...
Best Regards,
Steve.
www.turnerautosport.com
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 18/5/06 at 11:07 PM |
|
|
I thought dark merely wasn't visible from earth. Doesn't mean light can't go there, just that we can't detect it.
Light is a VERY funny substance, it can be proved to be both a pure wave form and a discrete particle with a mass. Noramlly these two things are
mutually exclusive. But light has the properties of both, ie travels at the spped of light (impossable for any substance with a mass), but has
discrete energy levels, implying particles and therfore mass.
|
|
|
tadltd
|
| posted on 18/5/06 at 11:35 PM |
|
|
Aren't back holes made of dark matter...?
Best Regards,
Steve.
www.turnerautosport.com
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 19/5/06 at 07:33 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DIY Si
But they also recieve massive amounts of radiation, thus aging them a little faster than all on earth.
That's the funny thing about the speed of light. Since light can be proven to have a mass, how can it go at the speed of light, yet not aquire
infinite mass?
Lights funny stuff, it can be consdiered to be a particle (i.e. photon) or a wave, depending on how useful the concept is what whatever you are trying
to prove!
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 19/5/06 at 07:34 AM |
|
|
black holes are made up from super compressed matter.
dark matter is found everywhere but doesnt interact with normal matter/light/etc so is kinda pointless except to will in some holes in theories.
the speed of pressure (going back to the first post) is the speed of sound in that material so in brake pipe would be ~1200m/s so the longer brake
pipe would mean one side would startbraking first but the time difference would be ~1/10000s.
|
|
|
flidz101
|
| posted on 19/5/06 at 03:05 PM |
|
|
Going back to the original question, even if you have an infinately long pipe the transfer of force down the pipe will travel at the speed of light,
not faster. This is because the repulsion of adjacent molecules' outer electron shells (which provides the incompressible force) travels down
the pipe at the speed of light: in effect, its like a giant mexican wave travelling at the speed of light.
|
|
|
