Stupid and Pointless Thread - Printable Version

Stupid and Pointless Thread - Printable Version

+- InsaneTrain Forums (https://insanetrain.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://insanetrain.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: General Forum (https://insanetrain.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Stupid and Pointless Thread (/showthread.php?tid=11148)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Stupid and Pointless Thread - leucetios - 09-20-2004

Quote:Originally posted by army1@Sep 18 2004, 05:17 PM

Now, if you could get them out of the hole and you had this hole that now pierced the earth, could you jump into that hole and fall and fall, gaining speed until you got to the center of the earth, and then slowing down until you got just below the ground on the other side of the earth and then begin to fall back the other way, continuing this until you gradually stopped at the center of the earth?

This is quite epiphaniftic to me.  Sorry Snarg, but it is.

[snapback]75129[/snapback]

I shouldn't get into this. Especially with this question since I tanked physics, and on this question. Who needs to know calculus anyway :rant:

Ok. So, the problem with what you wrote above is that you're making a couple of assumptions. Gravity is affected by mass. To be exact, it is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Now, if the mass of the earth were concentrated at its center, then yes, you might fall and slow down as you approach the center. But the mass of the earth is not concentrated at its center, it is spread out.

1.) IF you didn't stop, you wouldn't be catipulated into space since the chances of your body reaching escape velocity are slim to none (I don't want to try to calculate this again, so don't make me).

2.) If you did oscillate, and then stop at some point in this tunnel you have dug through the earth, it would seem like where you dug this hole would dictate where you stopped. Think about it, gravity is the product of the mass of the objects and inversly proportional to the distance between them. This means what? The closed together, the more the gavity. Drilling a hole through the earth splits it into two objects. Assuming you passed through the center of the earth, there is still one more thing to consider. The mass of the two sides of the earth might not be equal. If you split it down the equator I will make a guess and say the northern part would be heavier (more mountains, a good chunk of africa). This means this side will likely dictacte where you stop more than the other, lighter side. And, assuming the mass of this side is not evenly distributed, then the spot on this side which has more mass would also play a large part in dictating where you stopped

3.) If you managed to dig this hole, and jump into it, you would die (or not be able to jump into it at all). You're turned the earth into two
seperate objects. The gravitational pull of the two sides of the earth so close to each other would pull them right back together. If you had jumped in, you'd be squished.

4.) I'm tired.

Stupid and Pointless Thread - snarg - 09-20-2004

Quote:Originally posted by leucetios@Sep 19 2004, 11:38 PM
I shouldn't get into this. Especially with this question since I tanked physics, and on this question.  Who needs to know calculus anyway :rant:

Ok.  So, the problem with what you wrote above is that you're making a couple of assumptions.  Gravity is affected by mass.  To be exact, it is directly proportional to the [b]product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Now, if the mass of the earth were concentrated at its center, then yes, you might fall and slow down as you approach the center.  But the mass of the earth is not concentrated at its center, it is spread out. 

1.) IF you didn't stop, you wouldn't be catipulated into space since the chances of your body reaching escape velocity are slim to none (I don't want to try to calculate this again, so don't make me).

2.) If you did oscillate, and then stop at some point in this tunnel you have dug through the earth, it would seem like where you dug this hole would dictate where you stopped.  Think about it, gravity is the product of the mass of the objects and inversly proportional to the distance between them.  This means what? The closed together, the more the gavity.  Drilling a hole through the earth splits it into two objects.  Assuming you passed through the center of the earth, there is still one more thing to consider.  The mass of the two sides of the earth might not be equal.  If you split it down the equator I will make a guess and say the northern part would be heavier (more mountains, a good chunk of africa).  This means this side will likely dictacte where you stop more than the other, lighter side.  And, assuming the mass of this side is not evenly distributed, then the spot on this side which has more mass would also play a large part in dictating where you stopped

3.) If you managed to dig this hole, and jump into it, you would die (or not be able to jump into it at all).  You're turned the earth into two
seperate objects.  The gravitational pull of the two sides of the earth so close to each other would pull them right back together.  If you had jumped in, you'd be squished.

4.) I'm tired.

[snapback]75195[/snapback]
[/b]

oh my god, i don't know where to begin

did you find a nice boat??

Confused

narg:

Stupid and Pointless Thread - leucetios - 09-20-2004

Boat?

Stupid and Pointless Thread - leucetios - 09-20-2004

Quote:Originally posted by army1@Sep 18 2004, 07:44 PM
Now, consider this.  If you were standing on a flatbed train car, and that train was heading north at 100 mph.  If you threw a baseball northward at 100 mph, would it leave your hand at 200 mph (assuming you clocked it from the ground with a radar) or would it leave your hand and be suspended in midair since it was traveling at the same speed as your train?

[snapback]75136[/snapback]

This one is easy. Let's leave wind resistance out of it for the time being.

If you stand at the front of the train moving at 100mph, and throw a ball at 100 mph forward, it would be moving relative to you at 100 mph, and relative to someone standing stationary on the ground at 200 mph. This is the same thing for walking on a train.

If you are on a train moving at 100mph and you walk forward at 3mph you're only walking at 3mph. However, relative to someone on the ground you're moving 103mph.

More interesting than throwing the ball forward, is throwing it backwards. If you stand at the back of this same train travelling at 100mph and throw a ball off the back of the train at 100mph (again let's ignore wind) the ball will fall to the ground without having moved. Think about it, the train is moving this was <-- at 100mph you threw something this way --> at 100mph. Net velocity is 0mph. The object lands on the ground without moving. That is, if you threw it at the exact instant you passed a person on the ground, it would land in front of that person.

This is not the same as dropping the ball. If you dropped the ball at the same instant you passed this person the ball would land (lets say you're 10 feet off the ground when you're on the train) then the ball will hit the ground in approximately 1 second. In one second, at 100mph the ball will have travelled .026 of a mile in the same direction as the train and hence will not land in front of the person on the ground.

DAMN YOU ALL AND YOUR PHYSICS QUESTIONS Cry

Stupid and Pointless Thread - asshat - 09-20-2004

Quote:Originally posted by leucetios@Sep 20 2004, 04:38 AM
I shouldn't get into this. Especially with this question since I tanked physics, and on this question.  Who needs to know calculus anyway :rant:

Ok.  So, the problem with what you wrote above is that you're making a couple of assumptions.  Gravity is affected by mass.  To be exact, it is directly proportional to the [b]product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Now, if the mass of the earth were concentrated at its center, then yes, you might fall and slow down as you approach the center.  But the mass of the earth is not concentrated at its center, it is spread out. 

1.) IF you didn't stop, you wouldn't be catipulated into space since the chances of your body reaching escape velocity are slim to none (I don't want to try to calculate this again, so don't make me).

2.) If you did oscillate, and then stop at some point in this tunnel you have dug through the earth, it would seem like where you dug this hole would dictate where you stopped.  Think about it, gravity is the product of the mass of the objects and inversly proportional to the distance between them.  This means what? The closed together, the more the gavity.  Drilling a hole through the earth splits it into two objects.  Assuming you passed through the center of the earth, there is still one more thing to consider.  The mass of the two sides of the earth might not be equal.  If you split it down the equator I will make a guess and say the northern part would be heavier (more mountains, a good chunk of africa).  This means this side will likely dictacte where you stop more than the other, lighter side.  And, assuming the mass of this side is not evenly distributed, then the spot on this side which has more mass would also play a large part in dictating where you stopped

3.) If you managed to dig this hole, and jump into it, you would die (or not be able to jump into it at all).  You're turned the earth into two
seperate objects.  The gravitational pull of the two sides of the earth so close to each other would pull them right back together.  If you had jumped in, you'd be squished.

4.) I'm tired.

[snapback]75195[/snapback]
[/b]

Very interesting. I agree, first of all, that the "center" would be a function of mass and might not be the measured center by distance. But the point being that you would eventually end up oscillating to the center (of mass). Assuming you jumped in a pressurized suit, heat was not a problem, and the walls of the hole would hold and you would not hit them.

Thanks for playing. Do you have any epiphaniftric thoughts?

Stupid and Pointless Thread - asshat - 09-20-2004

Quote:Originally posted by leucetios@Sep 20 2004, 04:55 AM
This one is easy.  Let's leave wind resistance out of it for the time being.

If you stand at the front of the train moving at 100mph, and throw a ball at 100 mph forward, it would be moving relative to you at 100 mph, and relative to someone standing stationary on the ground at 200 mph.  This is the same thing for walking on a train. 

If you are on a train moving at 100mph and you walk forward at 3mph you're only walking at 3mph.  However, relative to someone on the ground you're moving 103mph.

More interesting than throwing the ball forward, is throwing it backwards.  If you stand at the back of this same train  travelling at 100mph and throw a ball off the back of the train at 100mph (again let's ignore wind) the ball will fall to the ground without having moved. Think about it, the train is moving this was <-- at 100mph you threw something this way --> at 100mph.  Net velocity is 0mph.  The object lands on the ground without moving.  That is, if you threw it at the exact instant you passed a person on the ground, it would land in front of that person.

This is not the same as dropping the ball.  If you dropped the ball at the same instant you passed this person the ball would land (lets say you're 10 feet off the ground when you're on the train) then the ball will hit the ground in approximately 1 second.  In one second, at 100mph the ball will have travelled .026 of a mile in the same direction as the train and hence will not land in front of the person on the ground.

DAMN YOU ALL AND YOUR PHYSICS QUESTIONS

[snapback]75198[/snapback]

Excellent answer. I am liking this more and more. This is Epuphoria to me.

Stupid and Pointless Thread - asshat - 09-20-2004

Have you ever considered the business of farming landscape trees?

If you had one acre of land and you grew your trees 5 feet apart, you could farm approximately 1742 trees. You can purchase trees of almost any variety from the State Tree Service for about $0.50 per sapling (most all oak, pine, etc. varieties).

I do not know what it would cost to purchase the 35 gallon plastic buckets, the soil/peat mixture to grow them in, or the watering costs; but at the age of 3 years old these trees would be worth about $150 to $200 on the wholesale market. They are worth about $300 to $350 retail.

That's not a bad return in 3 years. Do the math.

Stupid and Pointless Thread - leucetios - 09-20-2004

Quote:Originally posted by army1@Sep 19 2004, 08:00 PM
Thanks for playing.Â Do you have any epiphaniftric thoughts?

[snapback]75199[/snapback]

I have a lot of thoughts about E.piphany, especially since I am at work at 9:20 on a Sunday pulling an all nighter :rant: , but you don't really want to hear those thoughts

Stupid and Pointless Thread - leucetios - 09-20-2004

Quote:Originally posted by asshat@Sep 18 2004, 08:45 PM
So how is it that the earth revolves around the sun, and the sun floats through space and the stars are all floating through space outside of our galaxy, and yet the big dipper is always in the same place it is supposed to be and the stars that make it up stay relative to one another?

[snapback]75144[/snapback]

I'm going to get this one wrong.

Gravity is the simple answer. We'red held in orbit around the sun by the sun's gravitataional pull (of course, there is really a balance between the sun, mercury, and venus's collective pull on us and the other 6 (or 7 depending on who you believe) planets pull in the opposite direction. I think the sun is big enough that the planet's behind us have a negligible pull on the earth from a gravitation point of view.

Now the other shit. The stars in the big dipper, and in any constellation, stay where they are relative to one another because of gravity. As for why they stay where they do in our sky, they don't always. You can watch certain constellations (In fact I think it applies to all except the North Star) move across the night sky. They are always in ABOUT the same place if you wanted to look for them, but they move as we rotate on our axis, and they move (sometimes moving out of visibility) as we move around the sun.

I hope that made some amount of sense

Stupid and Pointless Thread - leucetios - 09-20-2004

fuckers stop posting when I do? Fine
two thoughts

1. Dark Side of the Moon. This is a misnomer, there is no dark side of the moon. The moon rotates and eventually all of it is exposed to sunlight. However, the moon rotates on its axis once every 29 days (approximately). This is the same time it takes the moon to complete one orbit around earth. This means, that at any given spot on the planet you will only ever see one side of the moon.

2. Centripetal force. The earth spins around the sun, centripetal force means everything on the planet experiences a force which is effectively trying to push it off of the planet (towards the outer side of its orbit). This force is negligible, but it does mean that you technically weigh more on one side of the planet than on the other. More than likely not a noticeable difference, but it is true.

Stupid and Pointless Thread - asshat - 09-21-2004

Quote:Originally posted by leucetios+Sep 20 2004, 09:06 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(leucetios @ Sep 20 2004, 09:06 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>fuckers stop posting when I do? Fine
two thoughts

1. Dark Side of the Moon. This is a misnomer, there is no dark side of the moon.  The moon rotates and eventually all of it is exposed to sunlight.  However, the moon rotates on its axis once every 29 days (approximately).  This is the same time it takes the moon to complete one orbit around earth.  This means, that at any given spot on the planet you will only ever see one side of the moon. [/b]

Funny how it rotates and revolves at the same rate so that it appears stationary to us here. I wonder if that is just coincidence or based on some physics reason.

<!--QuoteBegin-leucetios@Sep 20 2004, 09:06 PM

2.  Centripetal force.  The earth spins around the sun, centripetal force means everything on the planet experiences a force which is effectively trying to push it off of the planet (towards the outer side of its orbit).  This force is negligible, but it does mean that you technically weigh more on one side of the planet than on the other.  More than likely not a noticeable difference, but it is true.

[snapback]75493[/snapback]

[/quote]

That explains why I weight less in the mornings than at night. I thought the nighttime weight gain might be because of the Coors Light and the morning weight loss a product of the massive amounts of fucking I did the night before.

Stupid and Pointless Thread - leucetios - 09-21-2004

Quote:Originally posted by asshat@Sep 20 2004, 01:12 PM

That explains why I weight less in the mornings than at night.  I thought the nighttime weight gain might be because of the Coors Light and the morning weight loss a product of the massive amounts of fucking I did the night before.

[snapback]75589[/snapback]

I think you got it backwards. In the morning we're facing the sun, so the centripetal force would be pushign us into the earth. At night, when were on the outside side of the earth (relative to its orbit) then centripetal force would be pushing you away from the earth

Stupid and Pointless Thread - asshat - 09-21-2004

Quote:Originally posted by leucetios@Sep 20 2004, 10:18 PM
I think you got it backwards.  In the morning we're facing the sun, so the centripetal force would be pushign us into the earth. At night, when were on the outside side of the earth (relative to its orbit) then centripetal force would be pushing you away from the earth

[snapback]75605[/snapback]

Damn, then that makes my original theory that much worse.

Stupid and Pointless Thread - TomFoolery - 09-21-2004

pepsi should share her theories here. She's really smart.

Stupid and Pointless Thread - VitaminE - 09-21-2004

Thanks for all of the 5 paragraph posts. Sorry I didn't read any of them.

Stupid and Pointless Thread - leucetios - 09-21-2004

Quote:Originally posted by VitaminE@Sep 20 2004, 01:39 PM
Thanks for all of the 5 paragraph posts.  Sorry I didn't read any of them.

[snapback]75641[/snapback]

Anytime. I was actually counting on you not reading them.. really they are just an elaborate attempt on my part to pad my count

Stupid and Pointless Thread - asshat - 09-21-2004

Quote:Originally posted by VitaminE@Sep 20 2004, 10:39 PM
Thanks for all of the 5 paragraph posts.  Sorry I didn't read any of them.

[snapback]75641[/snapback]

Anytime.

Stupid and Pointless Thread - VitaminE - 09-21-2004

RACK the huge pads! (insert sick joke here)

Stupid and Pointless Thread - asshat - 09-21-2004

Quote:Originally posted by VitaminE@Sep 20 2004, 10:39 PM
Thanks for all of the 5 paragraph posts.  Sorry I didn't read any of them.

[snapback]75641[/snapback]

Did you skip the "World's Only Ass Kicking Machine" and the "Landscape Tree Farm" investment idea?

Stupid and Pointless Thread - VitaminE - 09-21-2004

Fukker,

I'll read it. Back in 5!