YEET
YEET
You're viewing part of a thread.
Show Context
135 comments
-
I don't count having no visual indication of the object as "tracking" it, if we're talking semantics. One frame could equal an even faster speed than what it would minimally take to cross the entire width of the image at some trajectory vector. For other vectors, it could be (much) less (like not passing straight through the image from on side to the opposite side, e.g.).
It's important to not hang too hard on this as the escape speed is dependent on air resistance, or rather lack thereof. Those escape speed numbers are defined along with the assumption of zero air resistance or other forces acting on the object.
-
You can use the frame from before to calculate the MINIMUM speed. It could have been going even faster.
-
Or slower, depending on trajectory across the image.
-
No, not really. The object was placed directly above the payload beneath a 150M straight borehole. If there was some sort of angle to the hole them I'm sure the researchers would have accounted for it.
-
Right. Then the angle is such that you could calculate it. But it still depends on the trajectory, so that's not wrong, for whoever down voted...
-
Lmao you're so confused
-
About what am I confused? How about you present an argument instead of just down voting? Please elaborate, thank you.
-
Idk what you think trajectory means but they know the angle the steel cap shot off at and they know the angle and distance from which the high speed camera viewed it. There is no room for ambiguity, they calculated the minimum speed. There are no outside forces that could have curved the shot, either. An 900kg object going any number of kilometers per second won't be effected by windspeed for example.
You're just making an ass of yourself, speaking nonsense.
-
Trajectory means what it means. Look it up and we'll have the same understanding of it.
You're saying the trajectory is known, and I'm saying that in that case what you've been saying should be correct. Maybe if you fuckin relax and don't attack someone just because you don't understand what they're saying you'd not come off as such an asshole. Jesus Christ, Mr. Hothead.
An 900kg object going any number of kilometers per second won't be effected by windspeed for example.
Uh. Excuse me? How much do you think an aeroplane might weigh? 😆 Probably more than 900 kg. And the wind speed is probably not the issue. It would be the drag. 👌
So anyway. Let's relax in the next comment, shall we? Let's have a nice discussion from now on, no attacking. That would be cool, and adult.
-
What a clown
-
Very eloquent rebuttal. 👌 Big L. 😆
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
135 comments