/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3781370
>>3781385
These aren't even science jokes you niggers.

>>3781320
>>3781320
>mfw you actually have to explain that to someone

This is why we have religion.

>>3781310
>>3781310
The recoil force of the GAU-8/A[14] is 10,000 pounds-force (45 kN),[3] which is slightly more than the output of one of the A-10's two TF34 engines (9,065 lbf / 40.3 kN each).[15] While this recoil force is significant, in practice cannon fire only slows the aircraft a few miles per hour.[13]

Still pretty cool that the recoil rivals a modern jet engine in thrust.

This was also pretty awesome

The A-10 engines were initially susceptible to flameout when subjected to gases generated in the firing of the gun. When the GAU-8 is being fired, the smoke from the gun can make the engines stop, and this did occur during initial flight testing.[2] Gun exhaust is essentially oxygen-free, and is certainly capable of causing flame-outs of gas turbines. The A-10 engines now have a self sustaining combustion section. When the gun is fired the igniters come on to reduce the possibility of a flame-out.[13]

>>3781300
>>3781300
Do you even bother skimming other posts in a thread before you post?

>>3781288
>>3781288
A pretty girl can style her hair and make herself look ugly.

An ugly girl can put on makeup and look pretty.

A person who is generally right can occasionally be wrong.

>>3781281
That's actually the plane and gun I had in mind. Got the gun confused.

>>3781200
>>3781200
Rational people are capable of making irrational decisions.

>>3781250
>>3781250
If you look up the Vulcan Cannon, I do believe that pilots report feeling the plane slow while the cannon is fired.

>depleted uranium shells at 6600 rounds per minute

>>3781132
>>3781132
Actually you would both spin around and move backwards, but I imagine your spin would be negligible because of the body's rotational intertia. The torque would probably be minimal. But I don't feel like going through an approximate calculation.

>>3781195
>>3781085
>>3781085
If you're curious as to why that's wrong, that process neglects that the bullets carry away energy.

>>3781195
>>3781195
Sure. If you had a big enough gun you could "fly"

That's essentially what jets do. Except instead of explosions shooting bullets, they fire gasses out of the exhaust. In the end you just need to transfer momentum in one direction, and the recoil (Newton's third law) will propel you in the opposite direction.

>>3781053
Faggot conspiracy powered antithread?

y/n

>>3781178
5/10, Didn't realize it was a troll until 100% oxygen.

>>3781134
>Knowledge is hidden.
By the blindfold of racism?

>>3781136
More like extremely slow nuclear burns.

>>3781097
Let's clarify how this energy is transmitted. The nuclear blast would release energy in two forms: light, and momentum of whatever particles are related to the blast.

Light probably won't be enough to destroy a planet (although it could heat it excessively), but if a large enough mass of particles conceivably could destroy something.

Supernovas are technically massive nuclear explosions.

>>3781081
Intuition is a shortcut which only works reliably after experience.

If you are making "intuitive" decisions regarding subjects you have no actual experience with, you're an idiot.

The same applies to whether or not a man exists in the sky. In fact, intuition should suggest otherwise for rational people, because other things we once believed in turned out to be false (santa, easter bunny, tooth fairy).

I don't think these people think more intuitively, they just do not understand when it is appropriate to trust intuition. In other words, they're idiots.

>>3781020
As far as detection goes

The particles may only exist for a fraction of a second, but because of their high velocity they travel far enough to collide with material in the detectors.

Pic related. Except that picture has likely been cleaned up. When large numbers of particles are collided (such as gold ions at Brookhaven Lab) there are thousands of tracks. By analyzing the trajectory of the tracks (which are affected by electromagnetic fields) charge, mass, and spin can be inferred and particles can be identified.

The particles are collimated in a beam via magnets. It starts off with a large radius beam, and the magnets gradually accelerate and narrow the beam width.

>>3780901
Cartridges do not fire because of reactions with air. Gunpowder contains it's own oxidizer. It would react even in a vacuum. I don't believe any material can burn rapidly enough by reacting just with atmospheric oxygen to create an explosion, short of vapors which first must mix with the atmosphere at an appropriate ratio.

Cool /sci/ related apps?

I'm worried this list might not get too long, but I found a pretty nifty app for android

Wildspectra mobile: view real time spectrogram of your environment. Gets old after about 5 minutes, but it is pretty cool to see things like formant patterns in your voice. Also interesting to note is how "dirty" practically all real sounds are, even when they appear to generate clear tones to our ears.

>>3778256
>>3778256
Lungs are not muscles. There is a single muscle underneath the lungs which expands when you exhale. The diaphragm. And yes, it can be exercised.

>>3778226
>>3778226
It may be plausible, but I don't believe there's any research around to support it right now.

>>3778158
>>3778158
>>3778158
>>3778158
>>3778158
>>3778158
>>3778158
>>3778158
LOL I was right. Read the abstract

The review paper is a staple of medical literature and, when well executed by an expert in the field, can provide a summary of literature that generates useful recommendations and new conceptualizations of a topic. However, if research results are selectively chosen, a review has the potential to create a convincing argument for a faulty hypothesis. Improper correlation or extrapolation of data can result in dangerously flawed conclusions. The following paper seeks to illustrate this point, using existing research to argue the hypothesis that cigarette smoking enhances endurance performance and should be incorporated into high-level training programs.

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21149532

>>3778084
First I wondered how the hell that got published

Then I realized
>Canadian Medical Association Journal
>Canadian

and suddenly everything became clear.

>>3778084
>>3778084
>Results from other studies show that the same benefits can be derived from cigarette smoking as part of a syndrome known as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).14,15 These changes are not universal in smoking, however. Even with lifetime smoking, there is only a 50% chance of developing COPD.

I'm not sure the author was serious about advocating smoking. It seems he may have been exemplifying how existing literature can be used to argue any point.