Bullet Ceiling

[Tsunami]

If you shoot a bullet into the air will bullets explode/disapear/fragment or act as real bullets and fall back down with in game gravity?????!?!?!?!?!?

Same applies with all weapons...

[PhoenixDog]

Would be interesting to shoot a bullet and watch it soar up, then come back down...

[Sikee Atric]

Shooting into the air (over an 80 degree angle) and killing an enemy as the bullet returns to earth would surely merit an achie!

[Minigun]

Unfortunately I do not believe the game ceiling is high enough, as i'm aware its currently 1000 i doubt the server registers anything above that. Bullets must go much higher than that before they decided to come back down.

[Skepsiis]

You know something really interesting with bullets and gravity -

If you had a bullet in a gun in one hand, and just held a bullet in the other both at exactly the same height, you aim the gun perfectly horizontal and shoot it at precisely the same time as you drop the bullet being held in your other hand....... they will both hit the ground at the same time (assuming the ground is completely flat and disregarding the curvature of the earth).

I do wonder what kind of range we will be able to get with some of the weapons though, like tank shells. And how far away we might be able to shoot rounds. But straight up and down again? Nah, thats crazy talk.

[Cosmical]

[QUOTE=Skepsiis;802917]You know something really interesting with bullets and gravity -

If you had a bullet in a gun in one hand, and just held a bullet in the other both at exactly the same height, you aim the gun perfectly horizontal and shoot it at precisely the same time as you drop the bullet being held in your other hand....... they will both hit the ground at the same time (assuming the ground is completely flat and disregarding the curvature of the earth).

[QUOTE]

If that is remotely true then you are the king of the world, and i am going to tell all my friends that fact. AND I WILL BE POPULAR!

[Mr Underbeard]

[QUOTE=Skepsiis;802917]You know something really interesting with bullets and gravity -

If you had a bullet in a gun in one hand, and just held a bullet in the other both at exactly the same height, you aim the gun perfectly horizontal and shoot it at precisely the same time as you drop the bullet being held in your other hand....... they will both hit the ground at the same time (assuming the ground is completely flat and disregarding the curvature of the earth).

[QUOTE]

If that is remotely true then you are the king of the world, and i am going to tell all my friends that fact. AND I WILL BE POPULAR!

His physics are 100% correct. Theoretically at least. It is almost impossible to test. However the Mythbusters did pull of a successful experiment. lol

[Masterr]

[QUOTE=Skepsiis;802917]You know something really interesting with bullets and gravity -

If you had a bullet in a gun in one hand, and just held a bullet in the other both at exactly the same height, you aim the gun perfectly horizontal and shoot it at precisely the same time as you drop the bullet being held in your other hand....... they will both hit the ground at the same time (assuming the ground is completely flat and disregarding the curvature of the earth).

[QUOTE]

If that is remotely true then you are the king of the world, and i am going to tell all my friends that fact. AND I WILL BE POPULAR!

He is correct, x (horizontal) and y (vertical) are their own entities. If your on a people mover (treadmill thing at themeparks), so your moving at a constant speed, and throw a ball STRAIGHT up in the air, it will land right in your hand from when you tossed it up. You and the ball are already moving with a horizontal speed. if you jump straight up off the people mover when you reach the end, you will be "jumping forward" and not just jumping in place.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Masterr

Except that is a small enough example that drag is not an issue. If you fired the bullet straight up into the air, it would fall behind you for the following reason:

You are on the treadmill moving forward at a steady, non-changing speed, while the bullet is initially moving forward slightly as well, it is subject to drag, as it does not have something like the treadmill applying steady forward velocity to it. End result : it would fall behind you.


Likewise, with the "drop a bullet" and "fire a bullet horizontal" I seriously doubt they would hit at the same time, regardless of what TV said, for the following reason:

The bullet fired horizontally actually generates a small amount of lift while moving forward through the atmosphere. Gravity must overcome this, and the forward velocity of the round, before it begins accelerating toward the ground. The bullet that is dropped simply begins accelerating toward the ground as quickly as gravity can pull it. Also, it will be affected slightly by whether or not it is dropped point down (least resistance) or horizontally (generating additional drag). The fired bullet would hit sometime after the dropped one.

Conclusion:
TV lied.



As for firing a bullet up into the air, I do not believe the gravity alone on such a small object would produce sufficient energy to cause serious harm. If it hit someone in the head, they might go "ouch!", but it would not kill them. (note: by in the air, I mean straight up and the bullet falling back down on them) Firing at an angle you could hurt someone out at a fair distance depending on the angle and range as the round would retain more energy.

As for what the game does, I'm sure when the fired round passes the "edge" of the game world, it simply ceases to exist.

That is all. RO out.

[Masterr]

im sure it hits the ceiling and explodes/disappears. actually calculating the ballistics of those projectiles would be a nightmare for the dev team / servers. they also will not add any real game purpose. Of course I'm speaking of all projectiles except for mortar types, which are designed for that purpose of arcing the projectile.

[drennam]

@Masterr




Likewise, with the "drop a bullet" and "fire a bullet horizontal" I seriously doubt they would hit at the same time, regardless of what TV said, for the following reason:

The bullet fired horizontally actually generates a small amount of lift while moving forward through the atmosphere. Gravity must overcome this, and the forward velocity of the round, before it begins accelerating toward the ground. The bullet that is dropped simply begins accelerating toward the ground as quickly as gravity can pull it. Also, it will be affected slightly by whether or not it is dropped point down (least resistance) or horizontally (generating additional drag). The fired bullet would hit sometime after the dropped one.

Conclusion:
TV lied.





That is all. RO out.

nah it actually sounds about right, i've spent years going over bullet drop charts for almost every type of ammunition for required material, and bullets hit the ground a lot faster than most people think in their little imaginations.

[morf]

The bullet fired horizontally actually generates a small amount of lift while moving forward through the atmosphere.


Actually this is a feature of the rifle barrel being angled slightly upwards - reason being is to compensate for gravity because the site is on top of the barrel, otherwise when we sight in we would always be aiming too low. No lift is generated.

If you fire the bullet with the actual barrel parallel to the ground, it will indeed hit the ground at the same time as an identical dropped bullet - assuming that the earth is flat.

[WVoneseven]

@Masterr

Except that is a small enough example that drag is not an issue. If you fired the bullet straight up into the air, it would fall behind you for the following reason:

You are on the treadmill moving forward at a steady, non-changing speed, while the bullet is initially moving forward slightly as well, it is subject to drag, as it does not have something like the treadmill applying steady forward velocity to it. End result : it would fall behind you.


Likewise, with the "drop a bullet" and "fire a bullet horizontal" I seriously doubt they would hit at the same time, regardless of what TV said, for the following reason:

The bullet fired horizontally actually generates a small amount of lift while moving forward through the atmosphere. Gravity must overcome this, and the forward velocity of the round, before it begins accelerating toward the ground. The bullet that is dropped simply begins accelerating toward the ground as quickly as gravity can pull it. Also, it will be affected slightly by whether or not it is dropped point down (least resistance) or horizontally (generating additional drag). The fired bullet would hit sometime after the dropped one.

Conclusion:
TV lied.



As for firing a bullet up into the air, I do not believe the gravity alone on such a small object would produce sufficient energy to cause serious harm. If it hit someone in the head, they might go "ouch!", but it would not kill them. (note: by in the air, I mean straight up and the bullet falling back down on them) Firing at an angle you could hurt someone out at a fair distance depending on the angle and range as the round would retain more energy.

As for what the game does, I'm sure when the fired round passes the "edge" of the game world, it simply ceases to exist.

That is all. RO out.

hmmmm you seem to be sprouting a lot of opinion

A) The bullet will create a small amount of lift as it travels due to its spin. This is true but I don't believe to the extent at which you imagine. The lift might result in a fractional difference in impact time but nothing at all conceivable to human observation
B) Same goes for the angle of the projectile as the difference made is so imperceptible that it is negligible.

As to the bullet fired in the air it will hit the ground at the projectiles initial velocity or at least terminal velocity for sure which will definitely kill. In fact there have been recorded examples of stray rounds fired in the air killing people.

Oh and about your conclusion... everyone arguing the opposite point is arguing with scientific understanding NOT learnt from TV. I myself have studied Physics and could tell you that most of the stuff you've typed is total guff. While everyone discussing the fact that acceleration towards earth due to gravity is a constant 9.8ms^2 as well as the fact that theoretically an object tossed upwards will return at the velocity at which it left.
For example a ball thrown at a magnitude 40ms at an angle of 45 degrees from Ypos will his the ground at 40ms and 135 degrees from Ypos.

Basically stop being a prick.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

No..

-edit


Also "miniscule to human perception" would still count as "hitting after". So, by your own admittance... I win.

[GhettoPrince]

:( I hope beta starts before this forum goes completely insane.


Yeah, who am I kidding, it's already way too late.

[The Kush]

:( I hope beta starts before this forum goes completely insane.


Yeah, who am I kidding, it's already way too late.

For real now were getting physics lessons

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@ The Kush

You really should have used proper punctuation when you typed that :)


What the hell else are we supposed to do?

[Gugabalog]

Imagine innovative tactics, like border conflict instigation, corner flashlight spoofing, infiltrator squad spawns, max+sunder unload rushes, etc.

[Vanath]

I love how quickly this went off track into a physics discussion.

[Bruttal]

So if someone fires a 50cal straight up and dropped (am assuming they have to be the same cal) one from the other hand they would hit the ground at the same time?. that seems a bit crazy wait how far can a 50cal go? think it averages 2000yards vs 4feet?.

pretty cool.

[Ivam Akorahil]

You know something really interesting with bullets and gravity -

If you had a bullet in a gun in one hand, and just held a bullet in the other both at exactly the same height, you aim the gun perfectly horizontal and shoot it at precisely the same time as you drop the bullet being held in your other hand....... they will both hit the ground at the same time (assuming the ground is completely flat and disregarding the curvature of the earth).

I do wonder what kind of range we will be able to get with some of the weapons though, like tank shells. And how far away we might be able to shoot rounds. But straight up and down again? Nah, thats crazy talk.

tbh its nothing interesting about bullets and gravity, its plain and simple gravity and sorry if i sound condescending - stuff you get taught in primary school. :| ofc the bullets arrive on the floor at the same time because they are affected by the same gravity pulling them down. Same as any other object if you take out air resistance.

on the second, id like to not have tank shells disappear after a certain range, it could be interesting to use them as artillery replacement :V

So if someone fires a 50cal straight up and dropped (am assuming they have to be the same cal) one from the other hand they would hit the ground at the same time?. that seems a bit crazy wait how far can a 50cal go? think it averages 2000yards vs 4feet?.

pretty cool.

no he said if you shoot it straight and let it fall in your other hand they impact floor at the same time. which is basic physics

[Noxey]

mind=blown

[Ivam Akorahil]

I love how quickly this went off track into a physics discussion.

sadly, physics that everyone would consider common sense, i dont even get why this discussion came up in the first place. its kindergarden.

[Vanath]

So if someone fires a 50cal straight up and dropped (am assuming they have to be the same cal) one from the other hand they would hit the ground at the same time?. that seems a bit crazy wait how far can a 50cal go? think it averages 2000yards vs 4feet?.

pretty cool.

No. Theoretically, if you fired a bullet with the gun perfectly parallel with the ground and dropped a bullet at the same time from the same height, then they would hit the ground at the same time. The downward force affecting each is the same.

[Skepsiis]

sadly, physics that everyone would consider common sense, i dont even get why this discussion came up in the first place. its kindergarden.

Arrogent much?

I still think its interesting. At first thought it seems impossible but once you break out the vertical components and disregard the horizontal it becomes obvious (i dont know what school you went to, but thats not something i was taught really young)

[Attackmack]

sadly, physics that everyone would consider common sense, i dont even get why this discussion came up in the first place. its kindergarden.

Your right, its very basic physics, but most physics is in fact very basic and VERY logical. And most people, without education at all, could or even do understand most physics concepts and theories, even though they might not think so themselves.

One of the hardest things in physics is describing complex theories and concepts in simple and everyday ways. The example above, on the note of gravity, is pretty good!

[Tatwi]

He is correct, x (horizontal) and y (vertical) are their own entities. If your on a people mover (treadmill thing at themeparks), so your moving at a constant speed, and throw a ball STRAIGHT up in the air, it will land right in your hand from when you tossed it up. You and the ball are already moving with a horizontal speed. if you jump straight up off the people mover when you reach the end, you will be "jumping forward" and not just jumping in place.

The best way to picture this is... When you jump into the air, the Earth does not fly out from underneath you. Similarly, if you take a rocket up into space the Earth doesn't zoom away from you. You and the Earth are traveling at the same speed through the cosmos.

[SirDart]

A) The bullet will create a small amount of lift as it travels due to its spin. This is true but I don't believe to the extent at which you imagine. The lift might result in a fractional difference in impact time but nothing at all conceivable to human observation



Actually, if you wish to get technical, the 'lift' you claim is generated due to spin on a symmetrical orientation has a zero lift force, due to lift being applied downwards as much as upwards. :cool:

Lift is due to a generation of faster moving air above than below lowering the pressure above the object (wing) forcing the air below to push the object up to fill the 'void'. This does not apply to a bullet, which is symmetrical upon the horizontal spinning axis, equally pushing air below as well as above, so it has a cumulative effect of zero. :huh:

[Tatwi]

Actually, if you wish to get technical, the 'lift' you claim is generated due to spin on a symmetrical orientation has a zero lift force, due to lift being applied downwards as much as upwards. :cool:

Lift is due to a generation of faster moving air above than below lowering the pressure above the object (wing) forcing the air below to push the object up to fill the 'void'. This does not apply to a bullet, which is symmetrical upon the horizontal spinning axis, equally pushing air below as well as above, so it has a cumulative effect of zero. :huh:

Don't forget that traditional theories of lift break dow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamics#Faster_than_sound_.E2.80.93_later_20t h_century)n when an object travels through the air beyond the speed of sound. One would have factor that, as well as the rifling on the bullet as well as any other surface deformity when calculating the forces acting upon the bullet. Due to the irregularities, it could well general positive aerodynamic lift in a particular direction momentarily, especially when factoring wind, changes in air density, and humidity.

[drennam]

anything that weighs around 125 grns will climb about 2-3 inches by the time it travels 150-175 yards
than drop about 2 feet around 375 yards, this is with a velocity of ~2300 fps, it took the bullet about half a second to reach 375 yards, before it reaches 700 yards, or close to a full second of travel, it would have dropped at nearly triple the rate

for this grain and load, a neutral sighted scope will be zeroed in around 200 yards, everything past that, you have to start confiscating for bullet drop at a very alarming rate

[maradine]

Actually this is a feature of the rifle barrel being angled slightly upwards - reason being is to compensate for gravity because the site is on top of the barrel, otherwise when we sight in we would always be aiming too low. No lift is generated..

That. The initial loft of a rifle round is generated by an initial y-vector. On a sufficiently granular tangent sight (say, a '66 Yugo SKS), you will find an additional detent beyond the inner range increment to make the gun shoot "flat" - generally for use inside 100 yards.

edit: Also, best I can tell, PS2 just uses a projectile TTL. Calculating terminal ballistics for rounds that miss is a waste of CPU cycles.

[SirDart]

Don't forget that traditional theories of lift break dow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamics#Faster_than_sound_.E2.80.93_later_20t h_century)n when an object travels through the air beyond the speed of sound. One would have factor that, as well as the rifling on the bullet as well as any other surface deformity when calculating the forces acting upon the bullet. Due to the irregularities, it could well general positive aerodynamic lift in a particular direction momentarily, especially when factoring wind, changes in air density, and humidity.


Fair enough that typical aerodynamics may not apply, but there is still no lift applied because of the bullet 'spin', it could be due to several other factors you mentioned as well as rotation of the earth, slight deviation of gravity depending on pole vs. equator (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_ballistics), etc...

My point is this... You drop a bullet and fire a bullet horizontally, they both hit the ground at the same time, as all of the factors affect distance traveled and right/left deviation, not downward affect of gravity in respect to the bullet dropped.

[ArmedZealot]

The fffuuu....?


Why are we debating physics 101 bs? Are there people in middle school here?

Lets get back to what matters.


NC SUCK MY DICK.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Everybody still arguing about bullet physics

I retract my statement about lift, even if it did, as the one fellow above here stated, it would be in all directions equally (and thus null). Bullets hit at the same time, all things being equal. O7

lol @ Shooting .50cal straight up and dropping bullet. :)

[berzerkerking]

[QUOTE=Skepsiis;802917]You know something really interesting with bullets and gravity -

If you had a bullet in a gun in one hand, and just held a bullet in the other both at exactly the same height, you aim the gun perfectly horizontal and shoot it at precisely the same time as you drop the bullet being held in your other hand....... they will both hit the ground at the same time (assuming the ground is completely flat and disregarding the curvature of the earth).

[QUOTE]

If that is remotely true then you are the king of the world, and i am going to tell all my friends that fact. AND I WILL BE POPULAR!

mythbusters confirmed

[ArmedZealot]

mythbusters confirmed

relevant clip

relevant clip.

[MrKWalmsley]

You know something really interesting with bullets and gravity -

If you had a bullet in a gun in one hand, and just held a bullet in the other both at exactly the same height, you aim the gun perfectly horizontal and shoot it at precisely the same time as you drop the bullet being held in your other hand....... they will both hit the ground at the same time (assuming the ground is completely flat and disregarding the curvature of the earth).

I do wonder what kind of range we will be able to get with some of the weapons though, like tank shells. And how far away we might be able to shoot rounds. But straight up and down again? Nah, thats crazy talk.

Do you watch QI?

[Gonefshn]

When did this become about bullet physics in real life??

Honestly there is no way the bullets will return to the ground in this game if shot straight up. That's some intense calculation and could possibly be abused.

[MrKWalmsley]

When did this become about bullet physics in real life??

Honestly there is no way the bullets will return to the ground in this game if shot straight up. That's some intense calculation and could possibly be abused.

Unfortunately true :( would have loved to drive some vanguards onto a steep slant and calculating their rounds to land like arty :(

[Attackmack]

Unfortunately true :( would have loved to drive some vanguards onto a steep slant and calculating their rounds to land like arty :(



You mean Fortunatly!
If bullets DID drop back, there would be 10 dualcycler maxes standing in every base/tower/bunker firing into the air, dropping a hailstorm of bullets on adjacent (or further) enemy bases.

[Absentis]

relevant clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9wQVIEdKh8)

relevant clip.

The only thing to consider with that is that they still has the initial delay since no experiment is perfect, so it is still theoretically correct.

As for the physics of firing straight up and killing, that won't happen with one fired perfectly straight up. Mythbusters also tested this and found the terminal velocity of the bullet (don't remember what kind of rifle bullet it was or the type of rifle) is not enough to be lethal due to the tumble of the round when it reaches its maximum height, it only moves because the wind carries it when at a 90 degree angle to the ground. If it were angled to a certain point below/past 90 degrees (depending on which direction you want it to go, it can keep lethality due to the lack of tumbling. Gotta love physics. :D

I doubt anything super crazy like this is in due to a likely ceiling, CoF, and damage degradation. You will probably be able to pull off something like shooting over a hill at an angle where bullet drop comes before the round hits the ceiling and scoring a hit with some luck through CoF.

Edit: Also, game developers do hire people with physics degrees for these types of situations.

[Flacracker]

In what games do bullets that are shot in the air come back down to the ground? None.

[GhettoPrince]

don't even try man, this thread is crazy, just let them keep teaching their 9th grade physics class.

[Lantis]

I'm surprised this, admittedly basic, Physics discussion has gone on so long without the obligatory 'spherical chickens in a vacuum' joke.

Oh, and as an aside, I can't stand it when people use Mythbusters to try to prove their point. They leave so many variables unaccounted for that anyone with any sort of scientific background should be shouting at their TVs for failing at basic rigor. Calling them scientific is like saying Edison was a really nice guy.

More on topic, I also doubt the ceiling would allow for potential falling bullet kills. Besides, if it did, I'm sure people would complain endlessly about it when it inevitably happens.

[Rockstone]

@Masterr

Except that is a small enough example that drag is not an issue. If you fired the bullet straight up into the air, it would fall behind you for the following reason:

You are on the treadmill moving forward at a steady, non-changing speed, while the bullet is initially moving forward slightly as well, it is subject to drag, as it does not have something like the treadmill applying steady forward velocity to it. End result : it would fall behind you.


Likewise, with the "drop a bullet" and "fire a bullet horizontal" I seriously doubt they would hit at the same time, regardless of what TV said, for the following reason:

The bullet fired horizontally actually generates a small amount of lift while moving forward through the atmosphere. Gravity must overcome this, and the forward velocity of the round, before it begins accelerating toward the ground. The bullet that is dropped simply begins accelerating toward the ground as quickly as gravity can pull it. Also, it will be affected slightly by whether or not it is dropped point down (least resistance) or horizontally (generating additional drag). The fired bullet would hit sometime after the dropped one.

Conclusion:
TV lied.



As for firing a bullet up into the air, I do not believe the gravity alone on such a small object would produce sufficient energy to cause serious harm. If it hit someone in the head, they might go "ouch!", but it would not kill them. (note: by in the air, I mean straight up and the bullet falling back down on them) Firing at an angle you could hurt someone out at a fair distance depending on the angle and range as the round would retain more energy.

As for what the game does, I'm sure when the fired round passes the "edge" of the game world, it simply ceases to exist.

That is all. RO out.

When I stop getting lazy, I will try to figure out the speed of a bullet returning to the earth at different angles. I did similar stuff in Physics, but after getting a 1 on the AP Physics exam, I've retreated from it.

[Cynge]

When I stop getting lazy, I will try to figure out the speed of a bullet returning to the earth at different angles. I did similar stuff in Physics, but after getting a 1 on the AP Physics exam, I've retreated from it.

The aforementioned MythBuster's episode covered alot of what's being discussed here (including the velocity of an arrow fired straight up).

IIRC they concluded that a bullet fired straight out (parallel to the ground) and a bullet dropped, for all intents and purposes hit the ground at the same time (though there was minor variances).

As for the velocity of a bullet on it's way back down after being fired straight up...it wouldn't kill, it would just hurt. The average bullet doesn't have enough mass to do lethal damage from just the force of gravity, and if it's fired *straight* up the velocity of the bullet as fired from the gun is not factored into it's falling velocity. In this case, the gun just determines the height before gravity overcomes it...and then the bullet loses all aerodynamics as it falls back to the ground tumbling end over end or in some random fashion.

The problem they ran into is that firing a shot perfectly straight up is nearly impossible...and as long as there is a certain amount of angle on the shot (I can't recall how much) then the bullet maintains it's spin and aerodynamics and would have lethal velocity on it's way back down....which is why you have reports of deaths from guns being fired "straight up".

[Rockstone]

I was just going to go into the mathematics. Although, what I would be observing would ignore aerodynamics and just test projectile physics, so my conclusion would likely be wrong. (Now, a spherical object in a vacuum with otherwise the same conditions as earth and the same mass as a bullet could easily be expressed :P )

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Lantis

I agree on all points. Mythbusters (which I've seen a number of times) are rarely all that reliable, although sometimes it's informative.

As for falling bullet kills.... How would you know if that's how you died? You wouldn't exactly see where it came from, unless they're bright tracers. OH OH! You know the funny part! THE VANU WOULD BE THE ONES BITCHING BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE BULLET DROP!!!!!!! :D :D That just occurred to me! So funny :P

Also, tell me more of this spherical chicken.

[Lantis]

To me Mythbusters is more or less just...a group of well-funded laymen attempting to make things entertaining. Generally with the application of large explosions, but at the expense of accurate results. Fun to watch, but calling it accurate/scientific or using it to support an argument is the scientific equivalent of citing Wikipedia. It just isn't sound.

As for the old spherical chicken joke, I'll just copy and paste it from somewhere. I'd probably butcher it otherwise.

"There is this farmer who is having problems with his chickens. All of the sudden, they are all getting very sick and he doesn't know what is wrong with them. After trying all conventional means, he calls a biologist, a chemist, and a physicist to see if they can figure out what is wrong. So the biologist looks at the chickens, examines them a bit, and says he has no clue what could be wrong with them. Then the chemist takes some tests and makes some measurements, but he can't come to any conclusions either. So the physicist tries. He stands there and looks at the chickens for a long time without touching them or anything. Then all of the sudden he starts scribbling away in a notebook. Finally, after several gruesome calculations, he exclaims, 'I've got it! But it only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum.'"

[Eyeklops]

[quote=Cosmical;802924][QUOTE=Skepsiis;802917]If your on a people mover (treadmill thing at themeparks), so your moving at a constant speed, and throw a ball STRAIGHT up in the air, it will land right in your hand from when you tossed it up. You and the ball are already moving with a horizontal speed. if you jump straight up off the people mover when you reach the end, you will be "jumping forward" and not just jumping in place.

So if the light coming out of my flashlight is moving at "c". When I am on a people mover does the light go "c" + people mover speed?

[EnderGraff]

Just to clear the air here, Once a bullet or any other projectile is fired/launched/flung from rest, it immediately begins to descend UNLESS the projectile has some sort of angled wings to provide lift.

Imagine an arrow fired from a bow. It obviously starts to drop as soon as you fire it, which is why you must compensate for gravity by aiming above targets. Bullets, albeit much much faster with less mass, are absolutely no different. Once you shoot it, yes, it begins to combat gravity.

Therefor, the aformentioned example of a bullet dropped and a bullet fired will hit the ground at the same time is quite true... IN A VACUUM. In a vacuum there is no air resistance, no cross breezes, no other variables. But according to the laws of physics, yes, gravity effects every single object the exact same way.

And lastly, there is no way in hell that this will be in the game :lol:

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Lantis

Thanks for the joke! I also think debating the air speed velocity of an unladen sparrow would be appropriate for this thread :)

Talking about reliability of TV "reality" shows, have you ever seen Deadliest Warrior? No, I'm not comparing MB to DW. DW is just total random bullshit, hands down. But it's a funny example :)

Knight Vs Pirate
Pirate shoots knight. Well... What the hell else did you expect?

Spartan Vs Ninja
This is just a terrible matchup, although not as stupid as "guy with gun vs guy with sword"

Spetznatz Vs Green Beret
Essentially the same.

And so...

[maradine]

So if the light coming out of my flashlight is moving at "c". When I am on a people mover does the light go "c" + people mover speed?

No, it travels c, and you and the guy you're lighting up disagree on the time.

[Lantis]

So if the light coming out of my flashlight is moving at "c". When I am on a people mover does the light go "c" + people mover speed?

Ah, relativity. Fun times. Essentially, the simplest way I can think of to explain it is that the speed of light is absolute, in all reference frames. To you on the people mover, it's merely moving the speed of light, however, to an outside observer, it would still be traveling at the speed of light, but the wavelength of the light will change depending on whether it's coming or going. Red shifted if moving away, blue shifted if moving towards you. Of course, this would only be readily noticeable if the people mover were moving at substantial speeds.

Long story short, common sense goes out the window at relativistic speeds.