/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15210734
Ha. Seriously. Dont fuck with me.

>>15210734
What do you mean jackass. Just draw it on a fucking cartesian and tell me how does this equation works holy shit you are not retarded

How to visualize this projection? It seems sensible but i could use some more explanation

>>6742175
>In regard to the purpose of this thread, a bow and a crossbow function in a such a similar manner that they can be considered one of the same.

sorry mate but I have to side with >>6742157

they are completely different weapons, and they have completely different behaviours in a vacuum if being fired by a human being.

>>6742153
I can not believe that you actually think that that's a contradiction.
There are two subjects. Mechanics, Weapons.
Weapons preside within mechanical figures
Understand the mechanics, you understand weapons.
Understand weapons, you do not understand mechanics
They might be analogues, but one takes precedent over the other.

But I guess this thread really is about shooting people in space, instead of understanding physics. That's cool, lets post more popsci theoretical bullshit instead of understanding physics.

>>6742155

/sci/

do you really think missile operation and energy weapons are some cheat anyone can suggest as superior modes of weaponry?

what if I told you understanding the mechanics of the bow and arrow in space are actually vital in establishing the effectiveness of other physical projectiles like missiles?

and then there are energy weapons... hmm, make one.

>>6742123
/g/ can't mechanical analogy

what if I rub their adrenal glands on my skin

do I become an alchemist?

>>6742116
read the thread

we're not determining the fact that forces do operate
we're assessing the difference in accuracy and orientation of the bolt in space vs our atmosphere

if you read the thread, you'll learn that the bow and arrow hardly works in space without a great deal of extra tuning. you could shoot at something for an hour and never penetrate it even if you hit it because the bolt might spin post-release.

>>6742112
>Any realistic scenario will have directed-energy weapons or missiles. Everything else is too slow and too weak.

Why exactly do people jump into the topic of vacuum weaponry actualisation just because somebody posts a theoretical question wherein the mechanics of a weapon are the subject. That doesn't mean the mechanics of Weapons are the subject, the mechanics of force distribution and its study are the focus.

OP is not planning a deer hunt in space, we're just trying to decipher causal affects between different atmospheric conditions.

go draw space missiles and 'hyperbeams' your own time

consider the following scenario:

you launch your arrow accidentally before having time to prime it's direction
what happens? a failed shot. the stick ungracefully flies sideways and lands a few metres infront of you on the ground.

Now do this in space? the arrow won't plumet, there's nothing there to stop its motion, what does it do? it spins off to your right IF you can move the bow out of its path as soon as you launch it.

In an extreme scenario, you could fire an arrow so deficiently that it does not travel forward at all, it simply spins very very quickly on its own vertical horizontal axis.

I'm lying, of course it would move forward. Slowly. but can anyone tell me why?

>>6742063
consider using electromagnets as a scope instead of material mechanics?

it would self-fix directional issue by placing all of the disorienting forces into the arrow itself

for example, instead of a spinning arrow going non-straight, you'd have a vibrating arrow going perfectly straight, assuming you have energy at your disposal.

>>6742051
guns over long distances would have ill accuracy given the explosive orientation of gasses leaving the barrel.

a tuned railgun maybe, no gass involved.
it would have to be tuned against the rails with the factors of it's own mass and the friction coefficient to deliver a visibly 'straight' shot.

>>6742035
yes but the system is still not perfect, string attenuation is less of an issue but it is still an issue, especially when it's compounded with resistant variables in the slide.

it might 'bounce' like a rock on water over and over before finding where it wants to go.

>>6742032
actually yes
only because the spin of a rock is not relevant in the purpose of the mechanic, to propel a rock forward is simple, and trajectory goes unaltered because there is no elongated mass that requires a balance of force between its tip and its base during release.
it moves perfectly away from the direction you pull the sling when released.

I guess the best way to put it is that attenuation in the string alter the arrows course until it resonates with the system to give it an appeared specific direction.
Factoring attenuation in the string is likely hard but not impossible.

a crossbow, on the other hand, might work much better if it is tuned proportionally and the guides are resistance neutral (since resistance free is impossible)

>>6741970
>any mention of metaphysical aspects are illegitimate due to lack of communicable data between neurology and mechanics, disregard all practical theory.

Keep up the good work, Tim!
At this rate, we'll figure out how the mind works as soon as we accidentally create one that tells us about it all.

>>6742012
>>6742015
they would still track
but the direction they choose would be hard to affix to the direction on the pull back

The arrow would travel perfectly straight, but the likelihood of you firing it straightly would be very very hard to recreate without more complex mechanical ques.

Also, the arrow will travel in a straight path, but it will not be straight to its path because it lacks resistence to keep it straight
in other words, it could spin in all dimensional axis possibly, horizontal and lateral rotation.

you'd be shooting spinning sticks in near-random direction given a set scope of likely direction.

>>6741886
>They can see me if they have amazing corner eye vision. Only way they can legit see me if they turn to my direction, their right, and stare hard to see where I am laying on my balcony in the distance. Anyways its amazing how alert peoples organs and not conscious part of their brains are.

Have you considered the possibility that head tilt is a dead give away for sight?
Head tilt defines mental orientation, this means that the way your head sits on your shoulders determines what you are focussing on. If a person can not determine that you are focussing on anything, they will assume you are using peripheral vision.
Doing this in public, like I said, is strange and scary to the average human. it causes paranoia on a level that can't be expressed quickly enough in words, it is a physiological response to an environment containing other humans.

Hundreds of thousands of years, looking directly into the eyes of another person is - fucking scary ass shit-, try to imagine why eye contact between cats and animals is actually very hard and frustrating.

Have you ever actually made eye contact with a predator species that was upset with you? eye contact = go time.

I DON'T KNOW BUT I'VE BEEN TOLD
ESKIMO PUSSY IS MIGHTY COLD
MMM, GOOD
FEELS GOOD
IS GOOD
REAL GOOD
TASTES GOOD
MIGHTY GOOD
GOOD FOR YOU
GOOD FOR ME

I can feel it,
I can feel it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8N72t7aScY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHuhG2vx1is

>>6741794
>How is it people can sense that another person or thing is looking at them
we can't
> I tried sitting on my porch as a expirement and intensely staring at people that walk by on the sidewalk from a distance
nothing wrong with that

>Despite me making no movement and hard to see by me laying down on my porch they all look directly where I am.
people scour their environment with their eyes. It's theoretically possible that they may not 'recognize' you in a literal, conscious context, but the eyes notice that something in the vicinity is obscured and requires observation.

In other words, your eyes, and your mind, might see something, but it will take a while before that information is assigned any 'conscious' context. This might sound complex and hyperrealistic, and yes it is the basis of hypnotism, but when the concept is applied to the animal kingdom where dialogue is short between stimulation and synapses, no conscious state is formed, yet they react to their surroundings based purely on association.
Pre-verbal associations are the pre-sapient fundamentals of mental evolution.

You were scaring people.

nerds

memory is material data

so how would you apply an operation like this without actually transplanting the brain itself?

if your question is, does putting your brain in someone elses body make them you and you them?

no, it's not that simple because memory and physiology, especially of the spine and nodes have more to offer each other.

you might be you, or your brain might not believe you're you, and you would either feel like a new person, or go into some sort of shock.

The way to really examine this is through the lense of sexual preference; a mans developed brain in a female's body would take a long time to re-associate new stimulation with new memories to form congruency, until that congruency is met, the brain would likely not know how to do with all the new inputs, neurochemistry.

In other words, your brain might be aroused by women, but it wouldn't know how to communicate that to your new plumbing

and if your plumbing was physically stimulated, it might not propagate pleasurable 'memories' to coincide with it, leading to a mismatch.

it would be like this, for -all- activities. I'm just not sure if consciousness can survive the initial connection before drastically altering who you think you are in your new body.

>>6740754
>>6740756
>It's funny how when someone stupid is confronted by something they don't understand,
>But that's what YOU'RE doing you fucking fool.
>Buffoon.
>Fuck off, dumbass.

I rarely called you anything aside from an imbecile, I'm laughing at you, I am expressing in text how comical I find your interpretation.

So if we factored lashing out by insult volume, you've done a great job at being both the shovel and the dirt. what wisdom.
I would take this time to call you a dumbass BACK, but I'm confident you're used to feeling like one already, I see no point in giving your anguish any more dialogue.

>I can't criticize what doesn't exist.
nor can you contemplate anything you haven't read apparently.

>What the fuck is "uniform theory"? You mean unified theory?
another key characteristic of the inept book worm, obsession with phraseology. 'Uniform theory' is not a phrase, it's a simple conjunction of words to imply the harmony between theories.

The fact that you use non-sequitur isn't because my topics aren't relevant, in fact utterly pertinent, it's because you are not adept at connecting the dots without being spoonfed concepts through a textbook.
I've said multiple times that math is not adequate. What formidable examples does one person hope to produce does not actually imply a lack of theory. I observe the big bang as incongruent with its own physical terms and so I seek an alternative.

You will die one day knowing that you were part of the stupified crowd who thought space explodes because someone wrote a ton of shit on a chalkboard and said TADA. I don't even need to argue this point, it is an eventuality that you, and the rest of this blind community will learn that the carrot you're chasing isn't even there, it's poor mathematical conjecture.
I believe you have too little evidence to formulate a truth, you believe there is no need to disagree with the truth it's flaws are somehow counterbalanced with it's own probability? Dogma.

>>6740716
do you actually believe in subatomic 'shapes' and 'sizes'
is that why you didn't get the joke?

>>6740728
yes, and it would feel very funny to run one way and then the other in such a device. you would know what way the craft is spinning, lets say, if you were inside of it without knowing what it was by observing the differences in 'push and land' walking

Against spin
each step would be easy to take, landing would be slightly harder
with spin vice versa, hard take off but your land actually has less impact.
if the object was not spinning, landing and pushing forces would have no ratio, they would be 1:1
When spinning, the ratio alters depending on a dozen factors
>how tall are you
>leg span
>size and speed of craft
it is, ironically, exactly like a conventional hamster wheel, except its rotational motion is not dependant on you.

last scenario to imagine

imagine you were in one of these, but it's really Really fucking fast. If by some miracle you sustained yourself long enough to jump off of this internal surface, you would be witnessing yourself actually pushing your body into a super fast anti-climactic twirl, the ground would be rushing beneath your feet, and as soon as you land, you are dead meat tumbling in some gross man mortor as your body slowly spins into a centrifugal goo with your dense fluids sticking to the walls and all.

At this point, don't confuse yourself with the direction of walking. if you can't walk as fast as this thing is spinning, it dictates your centre of mass and therefore which way you are 'actually moving' according to a third party viewer.

>>6740718

>That's because it wasn't an explosion IN space, it was an explosion OF space

I really really don't know how to break this to you, but you are fucking retarded.
I want to know what literature you're getting this from so I can avoid it, it's authors, it's publishers and it's goddamn investors too, you realize comparing conventional chemical explosions to fucking cosmology is inane, right? do you have any idea how novel and ill-informed your interpretation is?
>DDRHR EXPLOSION OF SPACE

neat. really neat kid.
We don't even understand intergalactic gravitation let alone background radiation.

Do you actually think about theories you read before you start stammering into some dippy mechanical explanation?

You can't even criticize my criticality because nobody has ventured this far into uniform theory, are you really about to imply truth for a lack of data?
have you EVER considered the possibility, that much like a religious man, you are a total imbecile, except you have subscribed to science instead, but still don't understand a fucking thing?

>EXPLOSION OF SPACE
I can't even.. you're fucking hilarious.

>>6740729
practical applications in the future for sophisticated math?
Aside from software development and information securities, not really.

though it is highly accurate when applied.
Until the next breakthrough in mechanical computation where mathematics will lay out the groundwork for its logic. Math fails to subjugate the physical world adequately, or atleast the way we apply modern algebra.

The question is, is the evolution of mathematics and physics not mutual? I mean, what does math mean when it is not applied to something in the real world anyway, extra fun puzzles for autistic adults?