Ball fired from a cannon at 60mph, from a truck going 60mph
Nice science
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 18:30, Share, Reply)
Nice science
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 18:30, Share, Reply)
going the other way
would it just get stuck in the barrel? or travel at 120mph? I'm assuming the first?
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:47, Share, Reply)
would it just get stuck in the barrel? or travel at 120mph? I'm assuming the first?
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:47, Share, Reply)
The second one.
Remember that the cannonball is already moving at 60mph before the powder goes off.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 20:35, Share, Reply)
Remember that the cannonball is already moving at 60mph before the powder goes off.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 20:35, Share, Reply)
so if you were travelling at the speed of light
would it go at the speed of light +60mph then?
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 20:59, Share, Reply)
would it go at the speed of light +60mph then?
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 20:59, Share, Reply)
well no
that's against to laws of physics, nothing exceeds the speed of light
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 22:15, Share, Reply)
that's against to laws of physics, nothing exceeds the speed of light
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 22:15, Share, Reply)
^This
Physics stops it happening for some reason. Everything slows down the closer it gets. I don't know this to be true though but this is what people say. I don't understand the maths but I trust them this is correct. A bit like the Bible
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 22:41, Share, Reply)
Physics stops it happening for some reason. Everything slows down the closer it gets. I don't know this to be true though but this is what people say. I don't understand the maths but I trust them this is correct. A bit like the Bible
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 22:41, Share, Reply)
That is not strictly true.
It is only so because that is how we measure it. We use light to measure time and distance. So for us, time stands still if we reach the speed of light. But we know distance does not, because light has a finite speed and so you will not be everywhere at once.
So we know time and speed bring us to some happy sums that work out. But only if we measure in light speed. Add distance, and the sums get a little shakey.
Do you know, I never get invited to dinner parties?
( , Wed 1 Apr 2015, 0:07, Share, Reply)
It is only so because that is how we measure it. We use light to measure time and distance. So for us, time stands still if we reach the speed of light. But we know distance does not, because light has a finite speed and so you will not be everywhere at once.
So we know time and speed bring us to some happy sums that work out. But only if we measure in light speed. Add distance, and the sums get a little shakey.
Do you know, I never get invited to dinner parties?
( , Wed 1 Apr 2015, 0:07, Share, Reply)
Because
nothing, that has mass, can travel at the speed of light
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 22:38, Share, Reply)
nothing, that has mass, can travel at the speed of light
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 22:38, Share, Reply)
What about photons then, they have mass AND can travel at the speed of light.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 23:15, Share, Reply)
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 23:15, Share, Reply)
they have zero rest mass
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 23:24, Share, Reply)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 23:24, Share, Reply)
The question is unanswerable.
You could not get a cannon up to c.
( , Wed 1 Apr 2015, 2:02, Share, Reply)
You could not get a cannon up to c.
( , Wed 1 Apr 2015, 2:02, Share, Reply)
Bad mistake to read that during a meeting. Had to pretend I inhaled water and made myself look the right twat.
Still LOLing
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:15, Share, Reply)
Still LOLing
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:15, Share, Reply)
Only a few more minutes, then off to a private spot for some deserved self abuse.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:30, Share, Reply)
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:30, Share, Reply)
nice one
but would this work like jumping up from a plummeting lift at the last second?
That's the one thing I've always wanted to know if it's true from the age of maybe 11 I think.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:02, Share, Reply)
but would this work like jumping up from a plummeting lift at the last second?
That's the one thing I've always wanted to know if it's true from the age of maybe 11 I think.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:02, Share, Reply)
Not, not really
Not, that is, unless you can jump really, really high. If a normal person jumps in a falling lift they just end up falling slightly lower for about a second.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:07, Share, Reply)
Not, that is, unless you can jump really, really high. If a normal person jumps in a falling lift they just end up falling slightly lower for about a second.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:07, Share, Reply)
If you could jump high enough and not be injured on landing
Then would there be any need to jump in the first place?
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:17, Share, Reply)
Then would there be any need to jump in the first place?
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:17, Share, Reply)
High isn't exactly the right word, but hard doesn't sound quite right.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:18, Share, Reply)
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:18, Share, Reply)
Don't forget that even if you miraculously jump at the right moment without being able to see the ground hurtling towards you the roof will crush you at 40 floors per second as the lift collapses.
Followed by the cable coiling neatly onto your exploded corpse.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:32, Share, Reply)
Followed by the cable coiling neatly onto your exploded corpse.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 19:32, Share, Reply)
Hahaha
I had always thought this from Cartoons. Step off at the last second no damage
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 22:34, Share, Reply)
I had always thought this from Cartoons. Step off at the last second no damage
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 22:34, Share, Reply)
I thought this was about dodgy comedy duos from the seventies
I'm a bit disappointed.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 20:03, Share, Reply)
I'm a bit disappointed.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 20:03, Share, Reply)
Isn't this an animation...
..and therefore doesn't actually prove anything? Just a thought.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 20:53, Share, Reply)
..and therefore doesn't actually prove anything? Just a thought.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 20:53, Share, Reply)
I can't really be bothered to explain,
but no. Speed is relative to time and space. The ball went from a standing start relative to its position, which was static at the time of ignition. It would therefore be doing 60 mph and would travel as such. The fact the platform is moving is immaterial.
Think of it if it fired forwards. Would the ball stay in the barrel despite all that chemical energy behind it? No. It would fire. And the same goes for backwards.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 23:53, Share, Reply)
but no. Speed is relative to time and space. The ball went from a standing start relative to its position, which was static at the time of ignition. It would therefore be doing 60 mph and would travel as such. The fact the platform is moving is immaterial.
Think of it if it fired forwards. Would the ball stay in the barrel despite all that chemical energy behind it? No. It would fire. And the same goes for backwards.
( , Tue 31 Mar 2015, 23:53, Share, Reply)