Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kepler
    replied
    Oh man, grammatical number is a rabbit hole. Just read the link, it pays offs. Fun teaser: you know how English has forms for singular, plural, and also dual (both, neither)? Well there are Aboriginal languages that distinguish between 1, 2 (including me but not you), 2 (with you but not me), 2 (us both), 2 (neither of us), 3, 4, and 5.

    You can do advanced set theory just using pronouns.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by state of hockey View Post
    It seem like a lot of languages can achieve it somewhat, but only some truly have it. I don’t think Spanish has it.

    Edit: Read further into the wiki article:

    “It is, of course, possible in any language to express the idea of clusivity semantically, and many languages provide common forms that clarify the ambiguity of their first person pronoun (English "the rest of us", Italian noialtri). A language with a true clusivity distinction, however, does not provide a first-person plural with indefinite clusivity in which the clusivity of the pronoun is ambiguous; rather, speakers are forced to specify by the choice of pronoun or inflection, whether they are including the addressee or not. That rules out most European languages, for example.”
    That makes sense. It's like languages where you have to indicate the timing of an action. You can't say "I got the mail." You have to say "I the mail got-just now" or "I the mail got-this morning" or "I the mail got-last Wednesday," because got without a time stamp doesn't have any meaning.

    Leave a comment:


  • state of hockey
    replied
    It seem like a lot of languages can achieve it somewhat, but only some truly have it. I don’t think Spanish has it.

    Edit: Read further into the wiki article:

    “It is, of course, possible in any language to express the idea of clusivity semantically, and many languages provide common forms that clarify the ambiguity of their first person pronoun (English "the rest of us", Italian noialtri). A language with a true clusivity distinction, however, does not provide a first-person plural with indefinite clusivity in which the clusivity of the pronoun is ambiguous; rather, speakers are forced to specify by the choice of pronoun or inflection, whether they are including the addressee or not. That rules out most European languages, for example.”

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    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.


    Last edited by Kepler; 02-18-2024, 11:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Isn't that true of Spanish as well? Or am I misunderstanding?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    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.



    Last edited by Kepler; 02-18-2024, 11:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Forgot about the moon

    so what would happen in a gravity-less environment?

    Leave a comment:


  • LynahFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • joecct
    replied
    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    Are all those "shaped charges"?
    Yes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    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"?

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X