Interesting PBN thread on the HammerHead

[Miscue]

Looks like a lot of references to Tom Kaye...

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=340915&perpage=21&pagenumber=1

Man, these people are dumb.

[Sir_Brass]

too bad the one sensible guy there got trashed for speaking truth.

[rdb123]

Here's another good one... Manike and I (agent009) pretty much quashed his argument.

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=326157

[Miscue]

Yup. You know, what I would like to see is: Somebody making a $25,000 bet with Hammerhead that their barrel is not any better. And then have a 3rd party do the test.

Easy money.

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by Sir_Brass
too bad the one sensible guy there got trashed for speaking truth.

actually, please DO show the calculus . I'd LOVE to see it .

heh heh, after all, I WOULD understand it after taking a year of calc in high school, then taking calc I - Calc III in college and now taking diff Eq. I live and breathe calc. besides, I want to see exactly HOW air resistance will affect the ball, mathmatically .

[laxkid]

what idiots

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by Miscue


And yeah, it's not regular calc... it's diff eq. I mean, it's totally pointless to show those kinds of figures - might as well do a song and dance. Nobody knows what the heck it means, and those who do would not need to look at it because they already understand that it is besides the point.

I want to see it anyway. Now, admittedly, having spent a grand total of 2 hours studying diff eq in lecture now (not counting homework and study time), I don't know THAT much. Still, I want to see it. I'm curious. If I don't understand it, then I'll just print it out, take it to my diff eq professor (who is, IMO, one of the best professors to grace this Earth. this man knows his math and loves to teach it) and have him explain it to me after lecture on monday. I know he'll love to do so, b/c he's a guy who thinks solving problems is fun .

Like I said, I'm curious, and I'm an engineering major. I'll understand it, even if it requires some professorial help to do so .

[Miscue]

I find the comment that "Einstein disproved Newtonian physics" completely hilarious. I guess Planck's Constant is no good too.

[Sir_Brass]

Yeah, I know. I love it as well. If it was disproven, then it must be some nazi conspiracy that they're still called LAWS, LOL.

ANd if he DID disprove them, then I should be famous, b/c I've easilly REPROVED newtons laws in a college physics lab.

[Brophog]

Disproved is the wrong word. Newtonian physics is only valid for relatively slow speeds, generally considered less than 1/10 the speed of light.

[Sir_Brass]

obviously. we're making fun of the idjit of that thread.

Einstein basically showed that newtonian physics was not applicable to speeds nearing C, I believe. COrrect me if I'm wrong on that one.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Sir_Brass



I want to see it anyway. Now, admittedly, having spent a grand total of 2 hours studying diff eq in lecture now (not counting homework and study time), I don't know THAT much. Still, I want to see it. I'm curious. If I don't understand it, then I'll just print it out, take it to my diff eq professor (who is, IMO, one of the best professors to grace this Earth. this man knows his math and loves to teach it) and have him explain it to me after lecture on monday. I know he'll love to do so, b/c he's a guy who thinks solving problems is fun .

Like I said, I'm curious, and I'm an engineering major. I'll understand it, even if it requires some professorial help to do so .

Well, even going into this is insufficient. It takes into account how drag changes depending upon velocity, and what not. But you need to take into account Magnus forces, vortex shedding, etc... basically everything that the ball will face... if you want mathmatical figures and such that really can describe what the ball is doing.

This is a waste of time, a superficial understanding of what is happening is good enough. Statistics is as far into it as we need to go. Shoot a bunch of balls, record results... do it all in a scientific manner... there ya go.

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by Miscue


Well, even going into this is insufficient. It takes into account how drag changes depending upon velocity, and what not. But you need to take into account Magnus forces, vortex shedding, etc... basically everything that the ball will face... if you want mathmatical figures and such that really can describe what the ball is doing.

This is a waste of time, a superficial understanding of what is happening is good enough. Statistics is as far into it as we need to go. Shoot a bunch of balls, record results... do it all in a scientific manner... there ya go.

I understand that, but still . .. I want to see the math. I'm simply curious as to the numbers behind it all . Why? I don't know. Just like asking me why I'm an engineering major and loving it. I have no answer. I just want to see the math. Feel free to PM me with it or email it or whatever, but still, I want to see the math.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Sir_Brass
obviously. we're making fun of the idjit of that thread.

Einstein basically showed that newtonian physics was not applicable to speeds nearing C, I believe. COrrect me if I'm wrong on that one.

Planck's Constant addresses the boundary between when quantum mechanics and classical physics can be used.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Sir_Brass


I understand that, but still . .. I want to see the math. I'm simply curious as to the numbers behind it all . Why? I don't know. Just like asking me why I'm an engineering major and loving it. I have no answer. I just want to see the math. Feel free to PM me with it or email it or whatever, but still, I want to see the math.

I don't have time for that man! You're in diff eq... go for it!