this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
655 points (95.5% liked)

Science Memes

11440 readers
263 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
655
YEET (mander.xyz)
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
136 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It didn't stay solid upon initial blast impact. Probably didn't even stay liquid.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah it vanished because it vaporized.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I think they were able to track it for at least 2 frames, thus calculate it's speed.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Nope, just one frame. Adds to the myth, when people don't know the exact speed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

tbf the calculated speed is actually roughly the minnimum based on its starting position and the frame it appeared in. it could have actually been going even faster.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago

Pretty sure that's not really true though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

One frame before the blast and one frame after, but semantics.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't count having no visual indication of the object as "tracking" it, if we're talking semantics. One frame could equal an even faster speed than what it would minimally take to cross the entire width of the image at some trajectory vector. For other vectors, it could be (much) less (like not passing straight through the image from on side to the opposite side, e.g.).

It's important to not hang too hard on this as the escape speed is dependent on air resistance, or rather lack thereof. Those escape speed numbers are defined along with the assumption of zero air resistance or other forces acting on the object.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You can use the frame from before to calculate the MINIMUM speed. It could have been going even faster.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Or slower, depending on trajectory across the image.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No, not really. The object was placed directly above the payload beneath a 150M straight borehole. If there was some sort of angle to the hole them I'm sure the researchers would have accounted for it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Right. Then the angle is such that you could calculate it. But it still depends on the trajectory, so that's not wrong, for whoever down voted...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Lmao you're so confused

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

About what am I confused? How about you present an argument instead of just down voting? Please elaborate, thank you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Idk what you think trajectory means but they know the angle the steel cap shot off at and they know the angle and distance from which the high speed camera viewed it. There is no room for ambiguity, they calculated the minimum speed. There are no outside forces that could have curved the shot, either. An 900kg object going any number of kilometers per second won't be effected by windspeed for example.

You're just making an ass of yourself, speaking nonsense.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Trajectory means what it means. Look it up and we'll have the same understanding of it.

You're saying the trajectory is known, and I'm saying that in that case what you've been saying should be correct. Maybe if you fuckin relax and don't attack someone just because you don't understand what they're saying you'd not come off as such an asshole. Jesus Christ, Mr. Hothead.

An 900kg object going any number of kilometers per second won't be effected by windspeed for example.

Uh. Excuse me? How much do you think an aeroplane might weigh? 😆 Probably more than 900 kg. And the wind speed is probably not the issue. It would be the drag. 👌

So anyway. Let's relax in the next comment, shall we? Let's have a nice discussion from now on, no attacking. That would be cool, and adult.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What a clown

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago

Very eloquent rebuttal. 👌 Big L. 😆

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It isn't speed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

lol what