Truth,,,from consequences wrote:
I move that anyone who fires a gun (or an arrow!) randomly into the air should be sentenced to having their own weapon fired non-randomly at their own head. Do I have a second?
twiztidhybrid wrote:Wow, the phrase "the answer is in the question" sure fits this one perfectly...
Why is there so much argument over specifics that have many variables from different situations?
twiztidhybrid wrote:Welcome to the JBO war forum(R). Home of the brightest minds in the universe(TM). However, I might suggest you read the first few posts of the thread at least.
Why is it being argued that a bullet fired up can't kill anyone when there are definitely cases where it actually happened?
twiztidhybrid wrote:They were probably too busy bitching your English teachers out after trying to translate your papers
Why have people physics teachers not told their students that the conditions went over in a general Physics class are under ideal conditions in order to give a general idea of how to derive information?
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:You appear to frequent at least these online message boards, so you should be familiar with how sensible "common sense" actually is. I'm trying to present information at a basic level for those who can't comprehend anything more detailed. Judging by your arguments thus far, even this has been too much.
you're trying to obfuscate common sense with high school physics.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:SO MUCH FACEPALM ACTION HERE, that I don't know where to start. I guess I should first point out that the density of a bullet is more than 10x that of a piece of hail.
falling bullets kill as many people as hail of the same weight...you know...none...hail of the same mass, weight, size, or density is not even enough to dent aircraft aluminum...something that is weaker than your skull bones.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:See above.
in order for hail to even become close to fatal; it has to be around softball sized--larger, more dense, more heavy, and more massive than even aircraft projectiles.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:Ai yai yai How long do you think it takes either to reach terminal velocity? Seriously...
hail also falls further--has more time to potentially reach terminal velocity--than bullets do, because it's not everyday we see .223 punching holes through clouds...
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:Ah, satire. It all makes sense now. 9.5/10 Stephen Colbert meets Bill Nye.
use your god damn brains.
Weebel wrote:Well, duh. Even different rounds of the same caliber would have different TV's. And determining these values based upon aerodynamic qualities alone would be foolhardy because of the nature (and randomness) of the tumbling motion. Experimental determination of the TV would be the only sufficient method.
I actually looked up the TV for the bullet I didnt bother doing the math.
Weebel wrote:As has been pointed out, we're well beyond basic physics with this discussion, although even the basic concepts seem to be eluding most...
I have very little physics training, ill be honest, most the stuff I do know is self taught, so I'll admit I might be leaving some things out.. But I do have a grasp on these things, I just dont have the time atm to actully study a physics book (although I have)
Weebel wrote:You missed a perfect chance there. C'mon, puns are fun!
But I do know from common sense that dropping a penny off the roof of the empire state building wont kill anyone.
Weebel wrote:Ah, the classic aero vs mech debate. I heard this one has been plaguing the pilots' forums lately. While you're correct for the most part, I highly doubt you know why.
Just like I knew if you put a plane on a tread mill that it would take off just fine... although Im an aeronautics nerd.
Weebel wrote:Agreed. A tumbling bullet may as well have been launched from a slingshot into the air.
But com on, you have to at least admit that if a round is fired in the air even at a slight angle and gravity completely absorbs all its forward (upward) motion and starts pulling it basically streight down towards earth, other then the hight at wich it happens (although it doesnt take a whole lot of distance to a bullet to reach its TV) the fact it was fired from a gun doesnt even come into play anymore..
Weebel wrote:Broad (and rash) generalization, but for the most part, true (Once again, if you use the term "falling" to infer "tumbling near vertically"").
I am very skeptical when it comes to this, and even having a basic grasp of physics, and understanding the math involved should proove the lead from a .22lr shell isnt fatal falling from the sky.
TheSundownFire (JBO Chat) wrote:A) Weebel & Co: falling = tumbling
WE should change the title to "someone killed by a bullet on the return portion of its arc."
Or atleast determine a standard for "falling"
Weebel wrote:Uh, yeah, it has nothing to do with any of that. The notion that the plane is designed to provide sufficient list is naturally inferred, since it's not designed to be a "gotcha" question. It's meant to stimulate critical thinking.
And I actually know exactly why the plane would take off, I did a science report on how different air foils caused planes to fly differently when taking into consideration, drag, thrust, lift, and gravity, and the shape and locations of the airfoils when I was 8 years old, the damn science teachers had do get a book out to see if I was right or not LOL, wich I was, I even used actual flying scale models.
Weebel wrote:I'm going to let this go because I think you simply misconstrued my comment.
For some reason I've always been able to see and understand how really complicated things work in my mind, even with ought knowing much about the science, wich I probably why I graduated 2nd in my class (by one damn point) when I was in advanced training in the service (mechanics), I graduated with a 99.8% while the other guy graduated with a 99.9% accumulative test score, And neither of us where really trying, officials actually had to come in and make sure we wherent cheating because they havnt seen scores like that in 30 years, there was actually an investigation. We where actually afraid to give it 100% towards the end and stopped studying because we would have tied with perfect scores and they wouldnt have believed we wherent cheating.
For not taking classes on any of this crap, I have a pretty good grasp on it.
I might not know as many specifics as you do, well because I really dont have a background in the area, but if I wanted I could pick up a book and catch right up with you in probably a weekend or so if I really wanted to (154 IQ)..... so dont get to snraky mmmkay
Elitists or bad.
By all means give your input, but dont act like your smarter, maybee more knowledgeable in this particular subject, but not smarter.
Weebel wrote:Of course I'm going to eat that up. Would you punch a random stranger in the face if I argued that it could kill them? You sound like you could be a horrible human being.
Your gunna eat this up but im one of those people that would throw a penny off that damn tower just to prove a point.... why? because im that sure I am right.
Truth,,,from consequences wrote:
Who fcuking CARES?
And for the plane, I know theres more involved then the example I made... but trust me when I say I actually understand why. In my opinion it should be common sense...
Sure with the engine running at idle (prop plane) if the plane where sitting on a running treadmill big enough to actually hold the thing, the friction caused by the bearings in the wheels would cause the plane to move backwards, but as soon as the engine was throttled it would move forwards just fine, and since we arnt dealing with staic friction anymore (the wheels are turning) the the effect of the treadmill would be negligible.
Now if you added one hell of a head wind that might cause a problem, but technically, the plane could still lift off the ground but just not move forward in a 80mph headwind.
A plane gets its forward momentum from the propeller slicing through the air wich is not related to the ground at all. And the thrust created is much more then needed to over power the kinetic friction in the wheel bearings. The plane would take off, the tires would just be spinning faster then if the plane was on stationary ground.
Basically, the thrust is created my acting against the atmosphere not the surface of the earth, and the drag caused by the surface moving backwards under it is no where near enough to counteract the thrust acting against the atmosphere.
Truth,,,from consequences wrote:
OK. Sounds fair enough...the density of air near the earth's surface would cause significant enough drag to prevent the bullet from attaining a lethal speed, if shot straight up to the degree that gravity arrests its upward travel, and it then begins to fall downward.
That being said, I do agree with earlier posts which note that the real problem with potential injury is that most such bullets are fired at a trajectory that is less than straight up, to the extent that they do not lose all of their forward speed before they achieve apogee and then come back to earth in a downward path. These are the potentially lethal ones.