380mph Lotus Esprit - Yes Ive done it!

[Evil_Dr_Fish 1]

Teigan you're totally wrong dude we live on Planet Earth and things like mass ARE factors becuase we DO have friction to deal with

[jimmybondi 3]

Don't they just jump onto the net then crawl to the edge and jump off of that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a good one!

[Bibs 11,101]

Horizontal movement also has no effect on downwards acceleration due to gravity. If you have a bullet in your hand and one in a gun then drop the bullet at the same time you fire the gun (horizontally) then they will both hit the ground at the same time (err, ignoring curvature of the earth etc etc)

That's a good one! 

I thought so

Surely a net isn't the best plan, they are easy to climb. I'd have thought a big upsidedown cone of glass (ok, or clear perspex for strength and the view) around the top of the tower covered in lard would make it harder to get over and out. The suicide jumpers would need to take a hacksaw or cordless jigsaw to drill a hole to get through it

Sounds like it'd be easier to stay alive

[WayneB 2]

This thread is bizzare

The nerds are arguing

Some are trying to figure how to kill themselves off the CN Tower

Doesnt Sir Isaac Newtons theory of relitivity figure into all this somewhere?

(universal law of gravitation)

Edited August 11, 2005 by WayneB

[lrg_machine 6]

Doesnt Sir Isaac Newtons theory of relitivity figure into all this somewhere?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

????????????????????

Newton !

Relativity ?

[WayneB 2]

Forgive me if im wrong! (failed O level science)

Was it that Albert Einstein geezer?

Edited August 11, 2005 by WayneB

[Guest teigan]

Teigan you're totally wrong dude we live on Planet Earth and things like mass ARE factors becuase we DO have friction to deal with

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what is this, open university? please note i receive no government funding to educate you.

as long as both objects are the same shape and fall in the same orientation; hence the spherical bowling balls, you could drop them on any planet and they will still hit the ground simultaneously.

[lrg_machine 6]

OK

I think everyone is getting confused, we were initially talking about terminal velocity

And to settle it

Here's a link to NASA that explains it all

Terminal velocity is reached when the force caused by drag is equal to the gravitational force on the object hence no more acceleration.

http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html

and to quote NASA

" If we have two objects with the same area and drag coefficient, like two identically sized spheres, the lighter object falls slower."

Can we stop now !

Edited August 11, 2005 by lrg_machine

[WayneB 2]

My brain hurts

Edited August 11, 2005 by WayneB

[Guest teigan]

OK

I think everyone is getting confused, we were initially talking about terminal velocity

And to settle it

Here's a link to NASA that explains it all

Terminal velocity is reached when the force caused by drag is equal to the gravitational force on the object hence no more acceleration.

http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html

and to quote NASA

" If we have two objects with the same area and drag coefficient, like two identically sized spheres, the lighter object falls slower."

Can we stop now !

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

we'll stop at impact. you're forgetting that air gets exponentially less dense as you go higher. and as you're talking terminal velocity, you must be dropping things from major elevations to reach it. the difference in time for all spheres to reach the ground would be no more than the error factor introduced by your hands not being able to let go at precisely the same moment. although if either sphere were made of encapsulated helium, then i'd have to concede in a high squeaky voice.

sincerely, professor gumby

Edited August 11, 2005 by teigan

[Paul C 15]

Mmm...

Further to earlier questions, If i'm driving my SE at the

speed of light, at night, and i turn my headlamps on...

..will i be able to see where i am going?

[lrg_machine 6]

Oh Don't you start !

This is where Einstein and His theory of relativity come in, so it depends on you point of view.

plus the fact that if you pop up your lights at that speed they'll probably fold back on themselves and you'll see yourself coming up behind you

[Guest teigan]

you'll be able to wave at yourself driving in the other direction. but don't talk to him, because he'll annoy you by mentioning again he has a chargecooler.

[Paul C 15]

you'll be able to wave at yourself driving in the other direction.  but don't talk to him, because he'll annoy you by mentioning again he has a chargecooler.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Has he?

We'd probably get on then, as i have one too don't you know!

[WayneB 2]

Almost another week went by without Paul mentioning his Ch*rgecool*r

[Bibs 11,101]

This is where Einstein and His theory of relativity come in, so it depends on you point of view.

Very good

[lrg_machine 6]

A man named Paul, clever and bright

Got his Esprit to go faster than light.

He departed one day in a relative way

And got home on the previous night.

(after fixing his Ch*rgecool*r of course )

Edited August 11, 2005 by lrg_machine

[Vicki 1]

A man named Paul, clever and bright

Got his Esprit to go faster than light.

He departed one day in a relative way

And got home on the previous night.

(after fixing his Ch*rgecool*r of course )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent.

[lrg_machine 6]

it's an old anonymous limerick that I modified to suit

[Guest teigan]

Very good

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

einstein was rubbish. he insisted time wasn't constant, which is why he could never unify the known forces. it's actually our time measuring devices that distort; not time itself. that's why the twin paradox wouldn't happen. someone should try it with mary kate and ashley olsen. at very least, we'd have respite from half the incubus.

[lrg_machine 6]

einstein was rubbish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey!

You ought to get in touch with NASA, you could've saved them about a gazillion dollars proving Einstein was pretty much on the mark.

[Guest teigan]

i agree. they really blew that money needlessly. all their proofs use atomic clocks because they need that level of resolution to measure the small amounts of time difference in their experiments. however, even in einstein's time, we knew that changes in gravity field strength correlates to changes in the radiation rate of an atomic clock. when moving at high speeds, the gravity field gets distorted which affects the isotopic halflife radiation, and hence the atomic clock measurement. there were scientists that pointed this out afterward, but they were hushed up at the threat of being labeled nazis. (true story by the way.)

you shouldn't trust nasa. they put skylab and the hubbel telescope up, and neither of them delivered on their projected lifespans. same went for a lot of gullible astronauts.

Edited August 11, 2005 by teigan

[Evil_Dr_Fish 1]

Yeah... He's related to Arthur Einstein and Mitchell Faraday

[gpz900r 0]

Two pages of science from me saying I had the fastest esprit! Well Ive one thing to say on the matter, Ive done anther test

Ive had him take the white one and the red esprit,

And the white one was faster and looked better.....

[Evil_Dr_Fish 1]

<sings>

"The red car and the white car had a race...."