scienceeeee
Tags: bufu
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
135 comments displayed.
#38 to #14
-
amsel (12/15/2014) [-] Before the cannonball is fired, it's going 60 mph towards the left. It's then fired out of the cannon with the amount of power it would usually take to accelerate the cannonball from 0 to 60 mph towards the right. However, since the starting velocity of the cannonball was 60 mph towards the left, the resulting velocity became 0 mph.
#17 to #14
-
demigodofmadness (12/15/2014) [-] I'm not sciencexplain but I'll do my best.
Truck go fast. Cannon shoot ball in opposite direction just as fast. Cannon ball ends up going at 0 fasts.
Truck go fast. Cannon shoot ball in opposite direction just as fast. Cannon ball ends up going at 0 fasts.
#21 to #17
-
thingexplain (12/15/2014) [-] As an explain, I can confirm that equal and opposite fasts results in zero fasts. What the cannon did, effectively, was apply braking force to the cannonball with an explosion. This method of braking is not recommended for small children or pets or anything that isn't a cannonball.
#62 to #21
-
demigodofmadness (12/15/2014) [-] That's good advice in general when shooting things out of a cannon. Don't shoot small children or pets out of a cannon regardless of whether or not said cannon is on a pickup truck.
#37 to #17
-
priestoftheoldones (12/15/2014) [-] >0 fasts
The sides have ascended this and the next dimension.
The sides have ascended this and the next dimension.
#61 to #60
-
demigodofmadness (12/15/2014) [-] No, after being shot it's essentially in the same state it would be in if someone standing still just dropped it onto the ground.
And no, the shot from the cannon wouldn't weaken the ball anymore than a shot from a cannon normally would. I know, some might think, "But it's speed suddenly went from fast to 0 fasts" Well normally it would go from 0 fasts to fast, so there's no difference in the magnitude of acceleration, which is what hurts things.
And no, the shot from the cannon wouldn't weaken the ball anymore than a shot from a cannon normally would. I know, some might think, "But it's speed suddenly went from fast to 0 fasts" Well normally it would go from 0 fasts to fast, so there's no difference in the magnitude of acceleration, which is what hurts things.
#137 to #17
-
priestoftheoldones (12/16/2014) [-] How many times did you level up because of this comment?
#2
-
robertelee (12/14/2014) [-] **robertelee used "*roll picture*"**
**robertelee rolled image**
only a dodge is fast enough to pull that off
**robertelee rolled image**
only a dodge is fast enough to pull that off
#4 to #3
-
robertelee (12/14/2014) [-] **robertelee used "*roll picture*"**
**robertelee rolled image**
i understand the concept
although i do enjoy my dodges and work on all makes and models i will be more than happy to engage in a conversation over the superiorities and downfalls of current vehicles
**robertelee rolled image**
i understand the concept
although i do enjoy my dodges and work on all makes and models i will be more than happy to engage in a conversation over the superiorities and downfalls of current vehicles
#5 to #4
-
lolfacejimmy (12/14/2014) [-]
your comment would have been funnier if the test was done around 100 mph but as all highway use vehicles are required to do highway speeds its just not funny to me
i have not opinion of any brand other that looks and i like me some ford raptor
i have not opinion of any brand other that looks and i like me some ford raptor
#6 to #5
-
robertelee (12/14/2014) [-] **robertelee used "*roll picture*"**
**robertelee rolled image**
i agree that the raptor is an amazing truck
in the collision repair field ive seen what happens to them and ford trucks in general and they just are not built well from a repairable stand point
**robertelee rolled image**
i agree that the raptor is an amazing truck
in the collision repair field ive seen what happens to them and ford trucks in general and they just are not built well from a repairable stand point
#13 to #6
-
robertelee (12/14/2014) [-] **robertelee used "*roll picture*"**
**robertelee rolled image**
apparently its a multitude of ford faggots on here
**robertelee rolled image**
apparently its a multitude of ford faggots on here
#25 to #4
-
holyfuckingcow (12/15/2014) [-] I'll get in on that. Buy something german you uncultured swine Not saying I wouldn't smash my balls with a hammer to own a challenger tho
#132 to #25
-
robertelee (12/15/2014) [-] got a 74 super beetle with a Porsche engine in it does that count
#32
-
guano (12/15/2014) [-] does that mean if they were going forward, the bal would stay in the barel?
#56 to #32
-
anon (12/15/2014) [-]
If they were going forward at 60mph the ball would be traveling at 120mph relative to the ground. It would be 60mph relative to the truck. But 120mph relative to the perosn on the ground. Remember it is initially going 60mph relative to the ground and 0mph relative to the truck before firing.
#64 to #32
-
syrenthra (12/15/2014) [-] as other people are saying, you can even test this yourself. Just toss a ball forward and think about it. Also, if you toss anything into the air when driving, it will always come back to you (if you threw it straight up and no crazy wind resistance if you through it in open air)
#110 to #32
-
wagastragas (12/15/2014) [-]
it would go to 120. If the car sudenly double its speed when the canon ball gets fired, then yeah it would stay inside the barrel.
#98 to #85
-
onlyanonymous (12/15/2014) [-] plus the faster they go the heavier they get so they would tear a hole through the universe as it reached the speed of light
#90 to #86
-
vaginalentry (12/15/2014) [-] That and the fact that time actually slows down when you're moving that fast because anything travelling with that speed that has mass causes a gravitational effect on time causing it to slow, forever keeping anything with mass from reaching the speed of light. This is how we know photons are mass less and things like electrons and neutrinos have mass, because they cant be accelerated to light speed. Source astrophysics major
#92 to #83
-
noschool (12/15/2014) [-]
no cause technically you can't just combine velocities,there is a formula v=(v1+v2)/(1+((v1v2)/c^2)) so technically to find the velocity for a ball launched at 60mph on a truck going 60mph it'd be v=60+60/(1+60*60/670 616 629^2) because of special relativity. so it'd be going about 119.99936mph not 120mph. if you plug in the speed of light the new velocity is still the speed of light.
670 616 629+10/(1+670 616 629*10/670 616 629^2)=v
670 616 629=v
670 616 629+10/(1+670 616 629*10/670 616 629^2)=v
670 616 629=v
#48 to #46
-
sketchysketchist (12/15/2014) [-] **sketchysketchist used "*roll picture*"**
**sketchysketchist rolled image**
NO NO NO!
MAKE IT STOP!
Everything I assumed was a lie!!!
**sketchysketchist rolled image**
NO NO NO!
MAKE IT STOP!
Everything I assumed was a lie!!!
#52 to #49
-
sketchysketchist (12/15/2014) [-] I know, but I always thought that it was the other way around.
Cannon going backwards while shooting forwards being stronger blast, and vice versa making it weak.
That just seemed to make more sense.
Cannon going backwards while shooting forwards being stronger blast, and vice versa making it weak.
That just seemed to make more sense.
#1
-
wilicious (12/14/2014) [-]
It's fired from the cannon at the same velocity as the car. If the cannon was transparent, the cannonball would seem to be stationary.
#24 to #1
-
fredthedead (12/15/2014) [-] No.
The cannonball is accelerating inside the cannon. Its only stationary when the acceleration is complete and it has left the cannon.
duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
The cannonball is accelerating inside the cannon. Its only stationary when the acceleration is complete and it has left the cannon.
duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
#93 to #88
-
jacobpicardy (12/15/2014) [-]
being from western new york i can confirm that all of this happened. chaos ensued when the power went out. the ******* broke my grandma's spine.
#18
-
phendranadrifts (12/15/2014) [-] This reminded me of an episode of American Dragon Jake Long where he spends part of the episode worrying his ass off that he's going to get hit by a bolder going 160 mph from the future misfortune twin. I forget her name .
when he does get hit, he's traveling at 159 mph and so it doesn't smash him to bits
Been years since I saw that. Good times. Good times...
when he does get hit, he's traveling at 159 mph and so it doesn't smash him to bits
Been years since I saw that. Good times. Good times...
#131 to #95
-
iamtheceej (12/15/2014) [-] It's not that we're surprised that this happens, it's the fact that visually it is cool to see.
#100 to #95
-
Midirr ONLINE (12/15/2014) [-] It is.
But most people have perceptions of the world that are wrong mostly based on daily experiences.
For example: An object that is moving continues to move in the same direction and at the same velocity.
People often find this strange because they'll think something like "But when I stop pushing the pedals on my bike, I'll sow down and stop, so this can't be right."
Since they don't think about friction or anything like that.
This is no different. You shoot something thus it will launch away from you. They don't think about the force generated by the car. And they will be surprised.
Either way it's a really cool experiment.
But most people have perceptions of the world that are wrong mostly based on daily experiences.
For example: An object that is moving continues to move in the same direction and at the same velocity.
People often find this strange because they'll think something like "But when I stop pushing the pedals on my bike, I'll sow down and stop, so this can't be right."
Since they don't think about friction or anything like that.
This is no different. You shoot something thus it will launch away from you. They don't think about the force generated by the car. And they will be surprised.
Either way it's a really cool experiment.
#106 to #100
-
starlordoriginal (12/15/2014) [-]
Be careful of your phrasing. There is no force generated by the car that wants to move the cannonball to the left. That is simply the inertia of the cannonball which at that moment wants to keep the ball moving 60mph to the left. The only major force on the cannonball is the force generated by pressure due to the expansion of gases when the powder ignites. This force (over the distance of the cannon barrel) accelerates the ball to approximately 60 mph in the opposite direction, so the net velocity becomes 0, and gravity accelerates the ball downward so it just falls.
I understand what you meant by the force generated by the car, but technically there is no force trying to move the cannonball left. Inertia is not a force.
I understand what you meant by the force generated by the car, but technically there is no force trying to move the cannonball left. Inertia is not a force.
#73
-
tonkkax (12/15/2014) [-] Old ethics teacher talked ******** about if the speed of light was truly fastest, couldn't you be able to shoot a gun on a train that moves at the speed of light and have the bullet go faster than the speed of light.
I suggested that the bullet would either stay in the chamber or break trough the back of the gun because bullets only go at like 400mph
I suggested that the bullet would either stay in the chamber or break trough the back of the gun because bullets only go at like 400mph
#111 to #108
-
starlordoriginal (12/15/2014) [-]
If we're talking relativity then you've got to remember that when you reach extremely fast, or extremely slow speeds, you experience time much differently than everyone else. (slow as in, you hop off the earth and then decelerate yourself so you no longer have the velocity that the earth was moving with, and the solar system was moving, and the galaxy was moving). C is a constant, the speed of light doesn't change. But when you move extremely quickly, your movement through time is slowed thus relative to you light around you appears to accelerate past the speed of light. It's the same reason that GPS satellites have to correct for relativity, because at geo-synchronice orbit, the clock onboard becomes more and more off (about a minute behind per day).
#117 to #114
-
starlordoriginal (12/15/2014) [-]
You're calling half of the **** Einstein said about Special Relativity ******** . You used his theory to prove me wrong, and then when I brought up a separate idea stated by the same theory, you call it ******** .
When you reach if you were on earth and I was moving excessively fast compared to you, I'd experience time slower and each minute I spent moving, you'd experience more than a minute and be older than I was when I stopped. If I moved slow compared to you, my minutes would be seconds for you and I'd be older than you when I stop.
When you reach if you were on earth and I was moving excessively fast compared to you, I'd experience time slower and each minute I spent moving, you'd experience more than a minute and be older than I was when I stopped. If I moved slow compared to you, my minutes would be seconds for you and I'd be older than you when I stop.
#121 to #117
-
onlyanonymous (12/15/2014) [-] youre twisting me words to make yourself sound like hot **** , what i said was light is relative and you have done nothing but prove that point over and over again throughout this entire one sided argument trying your darndest to be some super de duper metaasstrophyascieachemist so that you can feel special and not like some total ****** neckbeard euphoric m'lady rescuing betafag
gg no re
gg no re
#124 to #121
-
starlordoriginal (12/15/2014) [-]
When you said Light was relative, I thought you meant it literally changed speeds relative to certain circumstances. I misunderstood what you meant at first.
#127 to #125
-
starlordoriginal (12/15/2014) [-]
no worries dude, I'm gonna go to school now, come back and thumb everything up
#113 to #111
-
onlyanonymous (12/15/2014) [-] also i said the speed of light was relative you said no i said yes and then you agreed with me
#115 to #113
-
starlordoriginal (12/15/2014) [-]
I didn't agree with you, you said the speed of light changes relative to the speed of the observer. I stated that it remains constant, but appears to change relative to the observer.
#116 to #115
-
onlyanonymous (12/15/2014) [-] it doesnt appear to change, it stays relative to the observer
#118 to #116
-
starlordoriginal (12/15/2014) [-]
Sorry, that's what I meant by appears to change.
To the observer, it maintains C, but if you were moving at C, then maintaining relative C would require 2C. Sorry if I misworded that. So yes, you are correct in that.
To the observer, it maintains C, but if you were moving at C, then maintaining relative C would require 2C. Sorry if I misworded that. So yes, you are correct in that.
#119 to #118
-
starlordoriginal (12/15/2014) [-]
It would appear to be moving at 2C, but not actually.
#120 to #119
-
starlordoriginal (12/15/2014) [-]
I'm now realizing that we're both on the same page. I simply misunderstood what you meant by relative in the first comment. We're agreeing with each other, I just used a different reference frame. I liked this talk though, thank you.
#112 to #111
-
onlyanonymous (12/15/2014) [-] the speed of light in a vacume does not change relative to the person observing it. if i am not moving at all to me light moves at velocity = c. if im going 99.999999% the speed of light, to me light moves at v=c like you explained in your comment
#42
-
heartbleed ONLINE (12/15/2014) [-] Now how many times did they have to try that in order to get it to work...
#74 to #44
-
shunkahawolf (12/15/2014) [-] in the episode they had to do it around 30 times because they were working with inconsistent equipment and couldnt get it 100% correct
#82 to #81
-
shunkahawolf (12/15/2014) [-] ahh, it was mythbusters so they didnt have a control group, just a truck and an air cannon.
#54
-
derangedberger (12/15/2014) [-] Now I want to see the same thing, but with another car behind it also going 60mph
#27
-
anon (12/15/2014) [-] unless the universe is more ****** up that i can comprehend i would assume that if the cannon was pointing forwards instead of backwards it would be going about twice as fast, does this mean that if we make a laser pointer go about half the speed of light (hypothetically), we can make light go 1,5 times the speed of light?
#41 to #27
-
rickysan (12/15/2014) [-] Good question, but unfortunately the answer is no.
The reason is that the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit in this universe. You simply can't go faster.
Example if you have an object going 5 m/s an hour and you thow a object off that object at 3 m/s then the thrown object will be going at 8 m/s.
But lets say you are going 3 m/s slower than the speed of light (2 999 997 m/s) and throw an object at 5 m/s then it will only go 3 m/s faster, topping off at 3 000 000 m/s (speed of light).
======
Now it gets tricky.
Lets say you got two cars moving at different speeds. They both have lasers on them. They fire their lasers when they are next to each other. The light beams travel at the same speed and will arive at every situation at the same time, but the cars move at different speeds.
So if lets some after 10 minutes the cars are stopped and measurements are made where the cars are and where the light has reached. This is distance. Now the distance between the end point and the cars will differer even tho they should be the same, this is because space shrinks the faster you go.
And that is called special Relitivity
The reason is that the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit in this universe. You simply can't go faster.
Example if you have an object going 5 m/s an hour and you thow a object off that object at 3 m/s then the thrown object will be going at 8 m/s.
But lets say you are going 3 m/s slower than the speed of light (2 999 997 m/s) and throw an object at 5 m/s then it will only go 3 m/s faster, topping off at 3 000 000 m/s (speed of light).
======
Now it gets tricky.
Lets say you got two cars moving at different speeds. They both have lasers on them. They fire their lasers when they are next to each other. The light beams travel at the same speed and will arive at every situation at the same time, but the cars move at different speeds.
So if lets some after 10 minutes the cars are stopped and measurements are made where the cars are and where the light has reached. This is distance. Now the distance between the end point and the cars will differer even tho they should be the same, this is because space shrinks the faster you go.
And that is called special Relitivity
#51 to #41
-
gregduro (12/15/2014) [-]
Although nothing has gone faster that does not necessarily mean nothing can. Currently scientists are trying to compress space and time behind an object while expanding space and time in front using anti matter in order to achieve going faster then the speed of light.
#80 to #27
-
anon (12/15/2014) [-]
no. nothing can go faster than light. when youre dealing with things going really fast, you need to use relativistic mechanics to calculate things like velocity, kinetic energy and momentum (which doesnt comply with common sense but is experimentally determined to be true). relativistic mechanics never allows any velocity to exceed the speed of light
#136
-
footfetishist (12/15/2014) [-] Here's more about this. That's a soccer ball, not a cannonball. 
