Reply With Quote
If there wasn't anything in front of the bullet, it would take some time for it to hit the ground. A bullet off a table would take less than a second.
BTW, I've got around 20 hours in sail planes and thy only rise in a rising column or wave of air because of the surface area and dynamics of the wing. Without rising air you are constantly losing al ude. Even in rising air you are dropping relative to the column of air you are in, you are just rising relative to the ground if the updraft is strong enough.
If there wasn't anything in front of the bullet, it would take some time for it to hit the ground. A bullet off a table would take less than a second.
They drop at exactly the same rate. In a bullet you have a horizontal component (muzzle velocity) and a vertical component (gravity) operating at the same time. The vertical component (gravity) is the same whether there is a horizontal component or not. On a perfectly level surface a bullet fired horizontally from a gun and a bullet dropped from the end of the barrel at exactly the same time would hit the ground at exactly the same time.
bull . Picture an open space with no obstacles in front of the gun. Fire the gun at the same time the bullet is pushed over the edge of the table. The one fired out of the gun is going to probably take a second or two to land. the one of the table, less than a second.
this is too funny.
What the has happened to the educational system?
don't make me do an Avante zoooooooom at you.
this is too funny.
What the has happened to the educational system?
The same physics would apply to anything.
Throwing a baseball flat and dropping one at the same time. The dropped one hits first every time. The fired bullet would take even longer than the thrown baseball.
Which is heavier....a ton of lead or a ton of feathers?
they drop at exactly the same rate. This is basic high school physics.
yes, the drop at the same rate. But in this case, one (the one fired) is going to be traveling at a higher rate and will have more...hang time (for lack of a scientific word).
they drop at exactly the same rate. This is basic high school physics.
nope. The horizontal force is independent from the vertical force. Vertical force is the same on both bullets and they drop at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time.
you're right about the physics but wrong about them hitting the ground at the same time. you're misapplying the theory.
you never answered which was heavier, a ton of lead or a ton of feathers?
The physics is the physics...
and neither is heavier, dumbass.
wrong. it's a trick question. a TON of lead weighs the same as a TON of feathers. or a TON of bricks.The physics is the physics...
and neither is heavier, dumbass.
A ton is a ton no matter what you're weighing.
Just like physics is physics and that a bullet fired off into the air is going to take MORE ing time than a bullet thrown to the ground off a table.
Jesus. You not only suck at basic physics, you suck at simple reading comprehension. I said neither is heavier (as in they both weigh the same).
You cant be serious.
Move the goalpost much?
that doesn't even make sense.
yes...I prove my point about the falling bullets and now all of a sudden, you want to argue about my trick question.
that doesn't even make sense.
Trolls will be trolls.
serious question though...
If one did roll a bullet off a table, would the speed of the roll have any effect on how quickly it dropped? Would the top spin cause the rate of the drop to be faster (even slightly) than gravity alone?
math please
Because you don't know the physics definition of a projectile."Gliders are projectiles by definition and they rise."
holy ing , gliders aren't axially symmetrical, don't rotate, AND have aerodynamic force of the wings providing lift. How can a spinning bullet rise?
As long as it is not self propelled like a rocket or missile it can be a projectile.
For example, if I tore your small head off and threw it, after in left my hand, its a projectile.
A bullet that was in the shape of a sphere with underspin could rise Ya big wad. Stick to democratic politics as you know nothing about the different manners in which lift can be produced. Again, fluids can create pressure differences on objects that spin in them. Read.
Last edited by pgardn; 01-26-2015 at 05:37 PM.
And thats why why you are incorrect.
You are making it basic physics by pretending there is no air.
And I am arguing the point because I happen to know this stuff.
However, in an effort not to upset you, I would really like to ask you some questions about dampening recoil, under the basic idea in physics of conservation of momentum. I assume you have shot some guns that propel some fairly large projectiles at high velocities. I would like to know some of the engineering tricks to reduce the force of the kickback.
If you don't mind...
I do not get to shoot guns so I don't have the practical knowledge. But I do know how complicated air makes basic physics.
Newton's Law of the Conservation of Momentum
Math here:
http://www.school-for-champions.com/...ays_motion.htm
Includes the same thing discussed here: dropping a bullet vs firing.
Just rolling, it would be so tiny...
I seriously can't believe people who like sports have not become acquainted with why tennis players often use topsin to keep the ball from flying long. Topspin is of course useless without air. Has anyone dealt with baseball and sinkers? Or why knuckle balls are so unpredictable. And why basketball players try not to shoot knuckle balls. Why would one think bullets are totally immune to the effects of air?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
