Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

[dxmnkd316]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FUHkTs-Ipfg

I was thrilled to have gotten this right but without having known the answer or that it was a trick. I thought it was just one of those "kids are dumb" but didn't know the answer wasn't even listed initially. !

[Kepler]

Salt glaciers on Mercury.

[Kepler]

This is fascinating.

[MichVandal]

This is fascinating.

The other offshoot of that is the massive advancement in explosion, and directional ones, specifically. Which meant that you could penetrate a tank with less stuff as well as use small amounts of explosives to take down a building.

While the Manhattan project did result in the atomic bomb, the side offshoots were quite beneficial, too.

[Kepler]

The other offshoot of that is the massive advancement in explosion, and directional ones, specifically. Which meant that you could penetrate a tank with less stuff as well as use small amounts of explosives to take down a building.

Are all those "shaped charges"?

[MichVandal]

Are all those "shaped charges"?

Yes.

[joecct]

They're playin' God with mutant mosquitoes, don'tcha know. It ain't natural.

USDA scientists down in Texas about 60 years ago eradicated screwworms by releasing irradiated (sterilized) male flies. We then moved the project to Mexico and eventually to Central America.

Bye bye screwworms.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_F._Knipling

[Kepler]

As is obvious from my posts, I often come here to test stupid so I can be less so in prod.

Think of the "always has been" meme. Will the astronaut be killed? Let's assume the cartridge is airtight. The hammer causes the explosion and the bullet exits the barrel. The bullet will actually travel faster and farther with less gravity and no air resistance, right? So it should have even greater velocity, thus greater momentum, thus greater stopping power?

[dxmnkd316]

Interesting. You don't even need oxygen. Bullets have their own oxidizer.

If you are in the complete absence of gravity for the entire flight path, it would travel forever.

I would change the convention though, the bullet has only realized its maximum chemical-to-kinetic energy conversion, or rather, it hasn't had to pay the energy toll to resistance and gravity.

that said, you would also lose some because of the kick. On the ground, we can act as a hard backstop for the gas to push against. In space there isn't a backstop. So your energy would be split at some ratio between moving the shooter backwards and the bullet forwards. I'm curious if that's just a simple ratio of masses but I'm guessing the momentum would be the same. So you might have less velocity? That can't be right, right?

[LynahFan]

As is obvious from my posts, I often come here to test stupid so I can be less so in prod.

Think of the "always has been" meme. Will the astronaut be killed? Let's assume the cartridge is airtight. The hammer causes the explosion and the bullet exits the barrel. The bullet will actually travel faster and farther with less gravity and no air resistance, right? So it should have even greater velocity, thus greater momentum, thus greater stopping power?

Probably indistinguishable from what happens on earth. The explosion->presssure increase behind bullet->bullet accelerates rapidly due to pressure chain of events happens so fast that air resistance would be negligible. The bullet would therefor exit the gun at the same velocity as on earth. Then, while there would be no wind resistance (drag), over such a short distance the drag is practically negligible anyway, so the bullet will strike the shootee at almost exactly the same velocity as on earth.

As for the shooter, he is not floating in space, he’s standing on the moon. So I would assume that he can brace himself adequately and would not go hurtling backwards.

[dxmnkd316]

Forgot about the moon

so what would happen in a gravity-less environment?

[Kepler]

TIL there are Indian dialects in which we-including-you and we-excluding-you are different persons. It is called clusivity.

It never even occurred to me as a concept until I read that; now I can't not see it.

[dxmnkd316]

Isn't that true of Spanish as well? Or am I misunderstanding?

[Kepler]

Isn't that true of Spanish as well? Or am I misunderstanding?

No hablo espanol.

It appears adding "otros" to nos and vos achieves clusivity. I don't know if that's only a feature of formal speech.

[Kepler]

Here's another fun grammatical-person: obviative.

Bob's wife shot him (Bob) vs Bob's wife shot him (some other guy we've been talking about, not Bob).