this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
642 points (95.6% liked)
Science Memes
11287 readers
2610 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- !reptiles and [email protected]
Physical Sciences
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and [email protected]
- [email protected]
- !self [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ive seen this claim a dozen times. It’s a disc shape. How this thing isn’t going to start flipping and curving its trajectory, or just plain old running out of energy due to air resistance, and not making it out of earth’s atmosphere is beyond me.
It didn't stay solid upon initial blast impact. Probably didn't even stay liquid.
Yeah it vanished because it vaporized.
I think they were able to track it for at least 2 frames, thus calculate it's speed.
Nope, just one frame. Adds to the myth, when people don't know the exact speed.
tbf the calculated speed is actually roughly the minnimum based on its starting position and the frame it appeared in. it could have actually been going even faster.
Pretty sure that's not really true though.
One frame before the blast and one frame after, but semantics.
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.
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. 😆
It isn't speed.
lol what
Take a coin and trow it as hard as you can. The curving is not that much.
Throw it into water or gelatin. At thousands of metres per second the air is going to seem much more dense.
I don't have the arm strength to trow anything at the speed needed to make your analogy work.
Hit the gym, delete the lawyer, face the book.
If it’s like a frisbee, yeah, but it still curves. Now start it spinning like spinning a coin on edge. The curving will be much more dramatic.