/sci/ - Science & Math

I posted this question before (three times) but screwed up the phrasing (all three times) and rightfully got called a retard. Here's a scenario:

A zero-dimensional target is located a small distance away from a person with a gun. The person fires the gun in a certain direction and hits the target. There is no wind resistance and no external force other than gravity present. There is nothing to cause the bullet to ricochet.

Based on my intuition, I would say there are exactly two directions the gun could be fired in to hit the target. Either it can be aimed almost directly at the target, or it can be pointed upwards to allow the bullet to fall on the target. This is ignoring the possibility the bullet has enough energy to circle the planet.

I talked to three friends with STEM degrees - one in physics, one in applied math, and one in aerospace engineering - and all of them agreed that there should be only two possible paths. I also talked to a computer science major and he said there should be more than two paths. The math major said it might be explained by a quadratic equation, and the physics major said it had something to do with the periodicity of sin, but that was as far as anyone got.

So now I’m asking /sci/: Are there really only two paths to hit the target? If there are, what is the physical explanation, and how can it be proved mathematically? What would that equation look like?

I posted this question before (twice) but screwed up the phrasing (both times) and rightfully got called a retard. Here's a scenario:

A zero-dimensional target is located at a small distance away from a person with a gun. The person fires the gun in a certain direction and hits the target.

Based on my intuition, I would say there are exactly two directions the gun could be fired in to hit the target. Either it can be aimed almost directly at the target, or it can be pointed upwards to allow the bullet to fall on the target. This is ignoring the possibility the bullet has enough energy to circle the planet.

I talked to three friends with STEM degrees - one in physics, one in applied math, and one in aerospace engineering - and all of them agreed that there should be only two possible paths. I also talked to a computer science major and he said there should be more than two paths. The math major said it might be explained by a quadratic equation, and the physics major said it had something to do with the periodicity of sin, but that was as far as anyone got.

So now I’m asking /sci/: Are there really only two paths to hit the target? If there are, what is the physical explanation, and how can it be proved mathematically? What would that equation look like?

I posted this question before but screwed up the phrasing and rightfully got called a retard. Here's a scenario:

A one-dimensional target is located at a small distance away from a person with a gun. The person fires the gun in a certain direction and hits the target.

Based on my intuition, I would say there are exactly two directions the gun could be fired in to hit the target. Either it can be aimed almost directly at the target, or it can be pointed upwards to allow the bullet to fall on the target. This is ignoring the possibility the bullet has enough energy to circle the planet.

I talked to three friends with STEM degrees - one in physics, one in applied math, and one in aerospace engineering - and all of them agreed that there should be only two possible paths. I also talked to a computer science major and he said there should be more than two paths. The math major said it might be explained by a quadratic equation, and the physics major said it had something to do with the periodicity of sin, but that was as far as anyone got.

So now I’m asking /sci/: Are there really only two paths to hit the target? If there are, what is the physical explanation, and how can it be proved mathematically?

Recently I realized that there are exactly two possible paths for a thrown object (on Earth) to hit a target in a vacuum. You have the option to either throw the object directly forward, or throw it upwards and let gravity carry it to the target. There is always, to my understanding, only a single possible path for each option.

Is there a way to prove this mathematically? Is there even a good reason to, or is my idea just fucking retarded?

>>15402123
Physical laws can be broken with the right discoveries. Mathematical laws, however, are laws because we know for a fact they are true.

>>11719925
Not him but I have a question.
Do you know if JPL at Caltech offers PhD positions? I can't seem to find any sort of page listing them.
Also do your undergrad grades mean anything when applying for a PhD. I have a perfect GPA on my grad so far but my undergrad GPA was bad

>Covering your head with a tinfoil hat is actually the endgame solution

Did they try to warn us?