Libya: Ballistics bullet derail

[Atheist-Lite]

Alright - I'll leave the personal attacks to you folks. Sorry I brought up the issue of the physics involved. Figures you guys can't just talk about stuff without making it a personal attack. You're right F does not equal MA. And, the acceleration due to gravity is not 9.8 m/s2, and you've all proved that.

Back on to the topic - Marines are off to Libya -- http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?secti ... id=8039326

I don't see any personal attacks, just your abuse of Newtonian physics.

And the Americans are officially at war on 3 fronts....and with a huge deficit.....and huge unemployment.....reminds me of Nazi Germany.

Just needs China to pull the fiscal rug and push them over the edge.

[Gawd]

Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.

You love Nazi Germany, they are on the same side as you concerning the "Jewish Question."

Oh, talk about irony and your personal attack. Physics to you is like a nuclear weapon to a hillbilly: You'd both like to use it but damn hell if you know how without making a fool of yourself.

[Coito ergo sum]

Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.

You love Nazi Germany, they are on the same side as you concerning the "Jewish Question."

Oh, talk about irony and your personal attack. Physics to you is like a nuclear weapon to a hillbilly: You'd both like to use it but damn hell if you know how.

What personal attack? You hate Jews, just like the Nazis.

[Gawd]

Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.

You love Nazi Germany, they are on the same side as you concerning the "Jewish Question."

Oh, talk about irony and your personal attack. Physics to you is like a nuclear weapon to a hillbilly: You'd both like to use it but damn hell if you know how.

What personal attack? You hate Jews, just like the Nazis.

I see your comprehension is as astute as your physic skills.

[Coito ergo sum]

My "physic" skills?

You're more of a joke every day, Gawd. Keep fightin' the good fight against dem dern Joos!

[Hermit]

Every time I see some rag tag Libyan "freedom fighters" being interviewed for TV news, they're inevitably whooping it up by firing bursts of automatic weapons fire into the air. What goes up inevitably comes down - how many have been killed by their own bullets?

Well, firing a bullet straight up is like dropping the bullet from the highest point it goes. It won't be coming down fast enough to kill anyone. It has to be fired at an angle sufficiently off the y axis (verticle) to have enough velocity to kill someone.

Coito, would you please, for once, stop arguing and concede that you were wrong about something? (and I am not referring to the spelling mistake)

[Coito ergo sum]

Every time I see some rag tag Libyan "freedom fighters" being interviewed for TV news, they're inevitably whooping it up by firing bursts of automatic weapons fire into the air. What goes up inevitably comes down - how many have been killed by their own bullets?

Well, firing a bullet straight up is like dropping the bullet from the highest point it goes. It won't be coming down fast enough to kill anyone. It has to be fired at an angle sufficiently off the y axis (verticle) to have enough velocity to kill someone.

Coito, would you please, for once in your life, stop arguing and concede that you were wrong about something? (and I am not referring to the spelling mistake)

I haven't been arguing, have I? But, since you want to bring it up....

Read what I wrote and comprehend the words. If the bullet goes straight up, it won't come down fast enough. That's the fucking truth. The problem occurs when the bullet is not fired exactly straight up and is "sufficiently off the y axis" -- which is exactly what I fucking wrote.

The Mythbusters agree with me, and they did controlled experiments:

"In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact."

However --

However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact.

How is this any different than what I wrote and you quoted? What the FUCK am I supposed to admit I was wrong about? FFS...you people...

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50

It's why the Mythbusters gave this myth both "busted" and "confirmed." Because while if fired precisely straight up in the air, the bullet will not come down fast enough, if you fire it off at an angle, it very well might.

So - tell me - please - what am I supposed to admit I'm wrong about? You quoted this as being "wrong" --- "Well, firing a bullet straight up is like dropping the bullet from the highest point it goes. It won't be coming down fast enough to kill anyone. It has to be fired at an angle sufficiently off the y axis (verticle) to have enough velocity to kill someone." This is EXACTLY what the Mythbusters found -- fire it straight up, it'll be too slow due to terminal velocity - but, move it off the y axis, and it can be lethal. Isn't that right?

[Hermit]

Every time I see some rag tag Libyan "freedom fighters" being interviewed for TV news, they're inevitably whooping it up by firing bursts of automatic weapons fire into the air. What goes up inevitably comes down - how many have been killed by their own bullets?

Well, firing a bullet straight up is like dropping the bullet from the highest point it goes. It won't be coming down fast enough to kill anyone. It has to be fired at an angle sufficiently off the y axis (verticle) to have enough velocity to kill someone.

Coito, would you please, for once in your life, stop arguing and concede that you were wrong about something? (and I am not referring to the spelling mistake)

I haven't been arguing, have I? But, since you want to bring it up....

Read what I wrote and comprehend the words. If the bullet goes straight up, it won't come down fast enough. That's the fucking truth. The problem occurs when the bullet is not fired exactly straight up and is "sufficiently off the y axis" -- which is exactly what I fucking wrote.

The Mythbusters agree with me, and they did controlled experiments:

"In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact."

However --

However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact.

How is this any different than what I wrote and you quoted? What the FUCK am I supposed to admit I was wrong about? FFS...you people...

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50

It's why the Mythbusters gave this myth both "busted" and "confirmed." Because while if fired precisely straight up in the air, the bullet will not come down fast enough, if you fire it off at an angle, it very well might.

So - tell me - please - what am I supposed to admit I'm wrong about? You quoted this as being "wrong" --- "Well, firing a bullet straight up is like dropping the bullet from the highest point it goes. It won't be coming down fast enough to kill anyone. It has to be fired at an angle sufficiently off the y axis (verticle) to have enough velocity to kill someone." This is EXACTLY what the Mythbusters found -- fire it straight up, it'll be too slow due to terminal velocity - but, move it off the y axis, and it can be lethal. Isn't that right?

Keep your shirt on, pal, and look at this: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 13#p802513

[sandinista]

Use terminal velocity, Coito. You can then calculate the kinetic energy of the bullet falling down. Divide that by the cross sectional area of the bullet to get force. Your lack of understanding of basic high school physics shocks me.

It shouldn't shock you, about the same as his lack of understanding of history.

[Coito ergo sum]

Every time I see some rag tag Libyan "freedom fighters" being interviewed for TV news, they're inevitably whooping it up by firing bursts of automatic weapons fire into the air. What goes up inevitably comes down - how many have been killed by their own bullets?

Well, firing a bullet straight up is like dropping the bullet from the highest point it goes. It won't be coming down fast enough to kill anyone. It has to be fired at an angle sufficiently off the y axis (verticle) to have enough velocity to kill someone.

Coito, would you please, for once in your life, stop arguing and concede that you were wrong about something? (and I am not referring to the spelling mistake)

I haven't been arguing, have I? But, since you want to bring it up....

Read what I wrote and comprehend the words. If the bullet goes straight up, it won't come down fast enough. That's the fucking truth. The problem occurs when the bullet is not fired exactly straight up and is "sufficiently off the y axis" -- which is exactly what I fucking wrote.

The Mythbusters agree with me, and they did controlled experiments:

"In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact."

However --

However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact.

How is this any different than what I wrote and you quoted? What the FUCK am I supposed to admit I was wrong about? FFS...you people...

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50

It's why the Mythbusters gave this myth both "busted" and "confirmed." Because while if fired precisely straight up in the air, the bullet will not come down fast enough, if you fire it off at an angle, it very well might.

So - tell me - please - what am I supposed to admit I'm wrong about? You quoted this as being "wrong" --- "Well, firing a bullet straight up is like dropping the bullet from the highest point it goes. It won't be coming down fast enough to kill anyone. It has to be fired at an angle sufficiently off the y axis (verticle) to have enough velocity to kill someone." This is EXACTLY what the Mythbusters found -- fire it straight up, it'll be too slow due to terminal velocity - but, move it off the y axis, and it can be lethal. Isn't that right?

Keep your shirt on, pal, and look at this: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 13#p802513

Dude - I dropped it immediately - you're the one who fucking brought it up. Don't bring the fucking topic up again, if you simply expect me to not say anything. Christ on a bicycle...

[JOZeldenrust]

Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.

It is Newtonian physics, and 9.8 ms-2 is the acceleration due to gravity, but it's not the relevant acceleration in a bullit impact. The relevant acceleration is the slowing down of the bullit once it hits a body, which is much greater then 9.8 ms-2.

[Coito ergo sum]

Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.

It is Newtonian physics, and 9.8 ms-2 is the acceleration due to gravity, but it's not the relevant acceleration in a bullit impact. The relevant acceleration is the slowing down of the bullit once it hits a body, which is much greater then 9.8 ms-2.

You're actually suggesting that acceleration (A) increases when a falling body hits another body beneath it? Or, do you want to rephrase that? I imagine you must not have meant what you typed.

And, of course it's the "relevant acceleration" -- that's how fast a body's speed increase while it's falling down, bullets included. So, if you drop a bullet from 10,000 feet, it will start at 0 meters per second, and then it will increase in speed at about 9.8 meters per second per second as it falls (until it reaches terminal velocity). The force it has when it hits the ground is equal to the mass of the bullet times the acceleration at that that time.

[Gawd]

Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.

It is Newtonian physics, and 9.8 ms-2 is the acceleration due to gravity, but it's not the relevant acceleration in a bullit impact. The relevant acceleration is the slowing down of the bullit once it hits a body, which is much greater then 9.8 ms-2.

You're actually suggesting that acceleration (A) increases when a falling body hits another body beneath it? Or, do you want to rephrase that? I imagine you must not have meant what you typed.

Coito, what did you major in? Because it sure as hell ain't science.

[Coito ergo sum]

Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.

It is Newtonian physics, and 9.8 ms-2 is the acceleration due to gravity, but it's not the relevant acceleration in a bullit impact. The relevant acceleration is the slowing down of the bullit once it hits a body, which is much greater then 9.8 ms-2.

You're actually suggesting that acceleration (A) increases when a falling body hits another body beneath it? Or, do you want to rephrase that? I imagine you must not have meant what you typed.

Coito, what did you major in? Because it sure as hell ain't science.

Funny that someone like you who knows so little can convince himself that he actually knows something.

I'm still waiting for you to post the correct formula to calculate the force of the bullet shot straight up in the air. Naturally, you're all hat and no cattle, as usual.

[Gawd]

Coito, you couldn't calculate your way out of a straight line. I see you've been talking to colubridae. And yet you are still wrong. Simply follow my steps and multiply by the length of the acceleration phase towards the ground. The quantity you get is the force of the bullet in flight subject to a non-elastic collision. I do hope to your high school teachers that you know what I just said.