Reply With Quote
No you got powned...repeatedly.I've been trolled. Well done sir.
it would decelerate as it entered the atmosphere, sure. but after entry as it plummets toward the earth, by the time it reaches the surface it would accelerate at nearly 9.8m/s2, minus some for wind resistance. an asteroid will probably behave like a rock rather than a balloon or parachute
No you got powned...repeatedly.I've been trolled. Well done sir.
spellcheck alert
Occam's razor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the aerial theatre company, see Ockham's Razor Theatre Company.
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
The application of the principle can be used to shift the burden of proof in a discussion. However, Alan Baker, who suggests this in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is careful to point out that his suggestion should not be taken generally, but only as it applies in a particular context, that is: philosophers who argue in opposition to metaphysical theories that involve allegedly “superfluous ontological apparatus”.[a] Baker then notices that principles, including Occam’s Razor, are often expressed in a way that is not clear regarding which facet of “simplicity” — parsimony or elegance — is being referred to, and that in a hypothetical formulation the facets of simplicity may work in different directions: a simpler description may refer to a more complex hypothesis, and a more complex description may refer to a simpler hypothesis.[b]
Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's Razor:[2][3][4][5][6][7] shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.
In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are better testable and falsifiable.[1][10][11]
No actually the faster you go, the higher the resistance by about F air = bv^2. Where b is some constant related to mass, surface area, and changing air density. Notice v is squared so you air speed is very important. This kind of stuff is sorta rocket science as the mass and SA of the asteroid change as well. Rocket science in reverse. The asteroid could be at terminal velocity or even slowing down, so that's zero acceleration or even acceleration AWAY from the Earth.
Acceleration is not as easy a concept as some people think.
Son, does your theory of unification used closed or open strings?
yeah, i just took basic kinetics as far as all this. intro level kinetics, e and m, and optics
U forget the viscosity term
Thats good stuff.
But then you add on variables. Friction being a pain. Especially friction that is velocity, mass, and air density dependent.
A 60 ft asteroid could destroy a city, kill millions.
Too bad it couldn't hit Baghdad.
Incredible lecture here on air drag and other resistive forces. Freshman level too, so no hard math. At least nothing you would consider hard math since you had to take at least 31A to graduate.
well the b is a mess. I mean it is approximately v^2 so the so called constant is not really. It's just a model that works pretty well. But then I know you are pretty good at this if I remember correctly.
You ever read Taylor's Classical Mechanics book? Chapter 2 of his book has a great discussion of this topic. Actually, the whole book is awesome; way more readable than Goldstein, though I kind of like Goldstein because it's more rigorous mathematically. Nothing compared to Arnold though.
I am a biochemistry guy. I just find physics beautiful. But I defer to any engineer as I work with them and Biochem types to help them understand each other for a common goal. So I don't know the books. Serway, Giancolli... Very basic. That's about it. But Wallter Lewin is great to listen to.
Well good for you.
If you're ever looking for a physics book to ing knock your socks off, read Kleppner and Kolenkow (it's the textbook for MIT's honors version of 8.01). It's the material of Serway and Giancoli but taught from more a physics than an engineering view. Very challenging problems and really illuminating explanations. The way it introduces Newton's laws is ing amazing.
http://www.amazon.com/An-Introductio.../dp/0521198216
And if you want an E&M book, Purcell is beautiful. I like the second edition
http://www.amazon.com/Electricity-Ma.../dp/1107013607
But the third edition uses standard SI units like Coulomb, Ampere, Volt, etc instead of Gaussian units like electrostatic unit, statvolt, etc., and it has a bunch of solved problems.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1107014026/
Last edited by baseline bum; 09-05-2014 at 08:03 PM.
Yeah I took 31A, 31B and 32A my freshman year. 31A was a joke because I had taken AP calc. To place out of it I needed a 5 on calc AB or a 4 on BC instead I got a 4 on AB so I had to take the same class I had literally just taken in high school
This reminds me of what happened in 2013 when NASA warned of an asteroid passing near Earth only for one they never saw of a larger size to explode over Russia.
well if an asteroid hits least pretentious threads like this will cease.
So let's get back to the who you would stuff. Sometimes you find a few folks you have something in common with.
But overall, you deserve a touché.
don't worry, I won't survive the asteroid. Your ego will live on though.
Ouch kabob!
Damn.
I already gave you a touché. You can stop with the viscous puncturing.
sorry. some of that electrical and math stuff is interesting tbh, just mainly taking a in this thread. carry on.
Its all good.
I might have got some more stuff to read out of it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions