physics question

  • 37 Replies
  • 2466 Views
*

Pezevenk

  • 14350
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: physics question
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2017, 12:42:29 PM »
Please read the replies already given.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18146
  • Or should I?
Re: physics question
« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2017, 02:51:34 PM »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: physics question
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2017, 06:23:34 PM »
Please read the replies already given.
Yeah, I missed it.  Sorry.
Since it costs 1.82˘ to produce a penny, putting in your 2˘ if really worth 3.64˘.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6539
Re: physics question
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2017, 11:16:55 PM »
I kinda think nothing will happen.

If you assume perfectly rigid walls of the container such that they don’t flex as pressure changes inside the box when firing the cannon you won’t even know the canon was fired.  All the energy of the canon is exerted against the interior surface area of the box.  The energy remains within the box and no work is performed outside the box.   

If it really would move the box, spacecraft in space could simply use compressed gas (air?) and nozzles inside a closed system attached to the craft and thrust the craft where they want it to go.  Then they could use compressors to recompress the expended gas and never have to worry about how much fuel they need to carry.

Conservation of energy?  In order to do work box energy has to leave the box.  Otherwise you have a perpetual motion machine with infinite potential energy.

Mike

I didn't go back and reread the thread but from what I remember, this is what could happen. If the cannon was fastened to the floor the recoil might drive the box back but as soon as the cannon ball hit the wall the box would reverse direction and end up right where it started. Realistically it wouldn't move much, but imagine if the bottom of the box was greased.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

Re: physics question
« Reply #34 on: July 07, 2017, 03:26:18 AM »
I kinda think nothing will happen.

If you assume perfectly rigid walls of the container such that they don’t flex as pressure changes inside the box when firing the cannon you won’t even know the canon was fired.  All the energy of the canon is exerted against the interior surface area of the box.  The energy remains within the box and no work is performed outside the box.   

If it really would move the box, spacecraft in space could simply use compressed gas (air?) and nozzles inside a closed system attached to the craft and thrust the craft where they want it to go.  Then they could use compressors to recompress the expended gas and never have to worry about how much fuel they need to carry.

Conservation of energy?  In order to do work box energy has to leave the box.  Otherwise you have a perpetual motion machine with infinite potential energy.

Mike

I didn't go back and reread the thread but from what I remember, this is what could happen. If the cannon was fastened to the floor the recoil might drive the box back but as soon as the cannon ball hit the wall the box would reverse direction and end up right where it started. Realistically it wouldn't move much, but imagine if the bottom of the box was greased.
I think it's already been discussed but wouldn't that violate conservation of momentum?
Since it costs 1.82˘ to produce a penny, putting in your 2˘ if really worth 3.64˘.

*

Pezevenk

  • 14350
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: physics question
« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2017, 06:42:28 AM »
No it wouldn't, please go back and read the thread. It's all explained.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

Re: physics question
« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2017, 08:27:05 AM »
No it wouldn't, please go back and read the thread. It's all explained.
I see where I screwed up.  I was wrong.  Sorry about that, I didn't think it through.
Since it costs 1.82˘ to produce a penny, putting in your 2˘ if really worth 3.64˘.

*

Pezevenk

  • 14350
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: physics question
« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2017, 12:16:13 AM »
It's ok!
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)