EPTwould guillotine work underwater ?
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 431
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
would guillotine work underwater ? | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9324 Posts
Don't give ISIS new ideas pls | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
On April 25 2016 02:06 JimmiC wrote: It would Have to be super heavy or mechanical because other wise the friction of the water would slow it down 2 much. What about a super heated blade so it cauterizes the wound as it chops off the head? or just spring loading the mecanism to give momentum to the blade | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22487 Posts
On April 25 2016 04:12 Jerubaal wrote: I feel like saying you are "giving momentum" to something is a strange expression. Energy cannot be created, only transferred so to give speed to an object something else has to 'give energy' (in the form of momentum) to the object. Hence the expression. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18393 Posts
Wow. Death by drowning or beheading, whichever happens first. Takes cruel and unusual to a whole new level. For extra income, broadcast on live tv, with bets possible on cause of death. Or for the more luguber, pay to delay the descent of the blade. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2065 Posts
I dunno where they live, but I wonder if its some stock photo that circulates all over. I remember when I went to vegas those mexicans clicking the cards for hookers were just random pics off of tumblr or porn sites etc. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On April 25 2016 04:20 Gorsameth wrote: Energy cannot be created, only transferred so to give speed to an object something else has to 'give energy' (in the form of momentum) to the object. Hence the expression. It's strange to me because "momentum" is not a thing, it's a property. Momentum seems like a tertiary property. You are giving it kinetic energy which is determining its velocity, which determines it's momentum. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10929 Posts
On April 26 2016 04:56 Jerubaal wrote: It's strange to me because "momentum" is not a thing, it's a property. Momentum seems like a tertiary property. You are giving it kinetic energy which is determining its velocity, which determines it's momentum. ... ... Do you have (m)any friends? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11941 Posts
The main difference between kinetic energy and momentum in practical terms is that kinetic energy is a scalar property (A number), while momentum is a vector (It has a direction and a number). But i see no reason to say that kinetic energy is more of "a thing" then momentum. Both are very real and important physical properties of objects. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On April 26 2016 04:56 Jerubaal wrote: It's strange to me because "momentum" is not a thing, it's a property. Momentum seems like a tertiary property. You are giving it kinetic energy which is determining its velocity, which determines it's momentum. this is just because velocity is more intuitive. in physics, momentum is far more important. think conservation of momentum. e: goddamnit simberto! | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10929 Posts
:D | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On April 26 2016 05:09 Simberto wrote: I can't really agree with that stance. Conservation of momentum is a pretty basic law of nature, right up there with conservation of energy. The main difference between kinetic energy and momentum in practical terms is that kinetic energy is a scalar property (A number), while momentum is a vector (It has a direction and a number). But i see no reason to say that kinetic energy is more of "a thing" then momentum. Both are very real and important physical properties of objects. In fact, this is a non-relativistic view. In relativity, there is not much of a difference between momentum and energy, because this depends on the coordinate system. What is really conserved is four-momentum; in each coordinate system though, it's true that it is conserved component-by-component. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On April 26 2016 05:09 Simberto wrote: I can't really agree with that stance. Conservation of momentum is a pretty basic law of nature, right up there with conservation of energy. The main difference between kinetic energy and momentum in practical terms is that kinetic energy is a scalar property (A number), while momentum is a vector (It has a direction and a number). But i see no reason to say that kinetic energy is more of "a thing" then momentum. Both are very real and important physical properties of objects. Do you not think of energy as being a thing? Saying "giving it momentum" seems a bit like saying "I'm giving it temperature". Are you my friend? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10929 Posts
 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11941 Posts
On April 26 2016 05:24 opisska wrote: In fact, this is a non-relativistic view. In relativity, there is not much of a difference between momentum and energy, because this depends on the coordinate system. What is really conserved is four-momentum; in each coordinate system though, it's true that it is conserved component-by-component. Yes. I have come to the conclusion that when talking to people who don't really know a lot about physics, it is best to stay at high school level stuff, and stuff that directly derives from that, especially if that is all that is necessary for your argument. It is useful not to overcomplicate matters by introducing new concepts that, while generally useful, are not specifically useful for the current situation and take a lot of explanation to understand. On April 26 2016 05:24 Jerubaal wrote: Do you not think of energy as being a thing? Saying "giving it momentum" seems a bit like saying "I'm giving it temperature". Of course energy is "a thing". But so is momentum. Momentum is in no way directly derived from energy. The main difference here is the direction information. Kinetic energy does not have a direction. Momentum does have a direction. If i tell you how much kinetic energy i transferred to something, you can not tell in which direction it is going afterwards, just how fast it is. The only reason people talk about properties like momentum and energy is because they are useful. Energy is a very useful property because the conservation of energy allows you to deduce how a system will behave in a lot of situations. Momentum is similar, it's law of conservation allows a lot of useful deduction, which is why people talk about it. This realisation is important and very often neglected. The only reason people talk about some specific properties that are unintuitive (Why should we talk about mass * velocity as opposed to only velocity, which is much easier to observe? The fuck are forces and why are we talking about those all the time, aren't they really derived from all sorts of other stuff?) is because these quantities are useful and have useful properties. Momentum and energy are conserved. Forces tend to follow physical laws, and are directly linked to acceleration, which is what you want to know about when you want to find out what is going to happen to a system. And systems are often in a force equilibrium, too. The confusion here is that a lot of people never learn to think about momentum as a vector quantity, because school education in physics often ends after central collisions, for which it is fine to talk about momentum as something similar to a scalar, because everything happens in one dimension anyways. It is really sad, i always found it a revelation how elegant and intuitive vectors describe situations that would require you to solve multiple different equations and think about what equation describes what, like the throwing of a ball. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Oq9M51i.jpg)
