It is Newtonian physics, and 9.8 ms-2 is the acceleration due to gravity, but it's not the relevant acceleration in a bullit impact. The relevant acceleration is the slowing down of the bullit once it hits a body, which is much greater then 9.8 ms-2.Coito ergo sum wrote:Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.
Libya: Ballistics bullet derail
- JOZeldenrust
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:49 am
- Contact:
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
You're actually suggesting that acceleration (A) increases when a falling body hits another body beneath it? Or, do you want to rephrase that? I imagine you must not have meant what you typed.JOZeldenrust wrote:It is Newtonian physics, and 9.8 ms-2 is the acceleration due to gravity, but it's not the relevant acceleration in a bullit impact. The relevant acceleration is the slowing down of the bullit once it hits a body, which is much greater then 9.8 ms-2.Coito ergo sum wrote:Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.
And, of course it's the "relevant acceleration" -- that's how fast a body's speed increase while it's falling down, bullets included. So, if you drop a bullet from 10,000 feet, it will start at 0 meters per second, and then it will increase in speed at about 9.8 meters per second per second as it falls (until it reaches terminal velocity). The force it has when it hits the ground is equal to the mass of the bullet times the acceleration at that that time.
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
Coito, what did you major in? Because it sure as hell ain't science.Coito ergo sum wrote:You're actually suggesting that acceleration (A) increases when a falling body hits another body beneath it? Or, do you want to rephrase that? I imagine you must not have meant what you typed.JOZeldenrust wrote:It is Newtonian physics, and 9.8 ms-2 is the acceleration due to gravity, but it's not the relevant acceleration in a bullit impact. The relevant acceleration is the slowing down of the bullit once it hits a body, which is much greater then 9.8 ms-2.Coito ergo sum wrote:Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
Funny that someone like you who knows so little can convince himself that he actually knows something.Gawd wrote:Coito, what did you major in? Because it sure as hell ain't science.Coito ergo sum wrote:You're actually suggesting that acceleration (A) increases when a falling body hits another body beneath it? Or, do you want to rephrase that? I imagine you must not have meant what you typed.JOZeldenrust wrote:It is Newtonian physics, and 9.8 ms-2 is the acceleration due to gravity, but it's not the relevant acceleration in a bullit impact. The relevant acceleration is the slowing down of the bullit once it hits a body, which is much greater then 9.8 ms-2.Coito ergo sum wrote:Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.
I'm still waiting for you to post the correct formula to calculate the force of the bullet shot straight up in the air. Naturally, you're all hat and no cattle, as usual.
Last edited by Coito ergo sum on Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
Coito, you couldn't calculate your way out of a straight line. I see you've been talking to colubridae. And yet you are still wrong. Simply follow my steps and multiply by the length of the acceleration phase towards the ground. The quantity you get is the force of the bullet in flight subject to a non-elastic collision. I do hope to your high school teachers that you know what I just said.
- JOZeldenrust
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:49 am
- Contact:
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
This is so wrong. You don't use terminal velocity, because the bullits generally aren't in free fall, but rather in a ballistic trajectory. Also, kinetic energy divided by the area of the cross section doesn't give you a measure of the force: dimensions don't check out: kinetic energy is kgm2s-2. Area is m2. That would mean the division you want to use would yield kgs-2, but force is kgms-2.Gawd wrote:Use terminal velocity, Coito. You can then calculate the kinetic energy of the bullet falling down. Divide that by the cross sectional area of the bullet to get force. Your lack of understanding of basic high school physics shocks me.
Here's how you do calculate the force of impact:
You take the velocity of the bullit at the point of impact, v0, let's say half the muzzle velocity of the bullit, so for an AK-47 that would be 355 ms-1.
You take the end velocity of the bullit, vend, which is often 0 ms-1, as quite often the bullit stays inside the body. That gives a change in velocity dv of 355 ms-1.
You take the distance traveled by the bullit during impact, ds, about 0.2 m, as that's about as far as a bullit in the centre body mass can travel before exiting on the other side of the body.
Assuming that the acceleration of the bullit inside the body is linear, the average speed vav of the bullit is 1/2 v0, so 177.5 ms-1.
With that average speed, you can calculate the duration of the impact, dt, as ds/vav = 0.2 m / 177.5 -1 = 0.0011 s.
So the bullit accelerates from 355 ms-1 to 0 ms-1 in 0.0011 s. That's an acceleration a of dv/dt = 355 ms-1 / 0.0011 s = 322727 ms-2.
Now you use "force equals mass times acceleration" or f = ma. The mass of a bullit from an AK-47 is 7.8 grams, so 0.0078 kg, so the force is 0.0078 kg x 322727 ms-2 = 2517 N, or 566 lbs.
You could divide this figure by the surface area of the impact, giving the pressure applied by the bullit. Let's say the area of impact is about 1 cm2, or 0.0001 m2. That would give a pressure of about 25170000 Nm-2, or roughly 250 times atmospheric pressure. That's enough to penetrate a body.
Seriously, this is all basic high school physics. Didn't you guys pay attention in class?
- colubridae
- Custom Rank: Rank
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
- About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
- Location: Birmingham art gallery
- Contact:
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
Gawd wrote:Coito, you couldn't calculate your way out of a straight line. I see you've been talking to colubridae. And yet you are still wrong. Simply follow my steps and multiply by the length of the acceleration phase towards the ground. The quantity you get is the force of the bullet in flight subject to a non-elastic collision. I do hope to your high school teachers that you know what I just said.
This is a blatant lie. Coito has not had any contact with me.
I explained to you why your physics was wrong and even offered you the opportunity to be a man and admit your mistake.
Predictably you failed to do the honourable thing and then post a conspicuous lie. You bring shame and dishonour on yourself.
How much of all your other posting is shameful lies?
allah will not look favourably upon you.

I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders
- JOZeldenrust
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:49 am
- Contact:
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
The bullit accelerates in a direction opposite to the direction it's moving in. That's what deceleration is. For the purpose of calculating the force of impact, the direction of acceleration is irrelevant.Coito ergo sum wrote:You're actually suggesting that acceleration (A) increases when a falling body hits another body beneath it? Or, do you want to rephrase that? I imagine you must not have meant what you typed.JOZeldenrust wrote:It is Newtonian physics, and 9.8 ms-2 is the acceleration due to gravity, but it's not the relevant acceleration in a bullit impact. The relevant acceleration is the slowing down of the bullit once it hits a body, which is much greater then 9.8 ms-2.Coito ergo sum wrote:Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.
No, that's the force the earths gravitational pull is exerting on the bullit, or more precisely the net force of the earths gravitational pull and the air resistence. At terminal velocity, that net force is 0 N.And, of course it's the "relevant acceleration" -- that's how fast a body's speed increase while it's falling down, bullets included. So, if you drop a bullet from 10,000 feet, it will start at 0 meters per second, and then it will increase in speed at about 9.8 meters per second per second as it falls (until it reaches terminal velocity). The force it has when it hits the ground is equal to the mass of the bullet times the acceleration at that that time.
The bullit doesn't "have force", it has velocity. That velocity changes because the body and the bullit exert force on one another. That force os the force of impact, causing the bulliit to decelerate. In my previous post I've explained how to calculate the force of impact.
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
Coito ergo sum wrote:Funny that someone like you who knows so little can convince himself that he actually knows something.Gawd wrote:Coito, what did you major in? Because it sure as hell ain't science.Coito ergo sum wrote:You're actually suggesting that acceleration (A) increases when a falling body hits another body beneath it? Or, do you want to rephrase that? I imagine you must not have meant what you typed.JOZeldenrust wrote:It is Newtonian physics, and 9.8 ms-2 is the acceleration due to gravity, but it's not the relevant acceleration in a bullit impact. The relevant acceleration is the slowing down of the bullit once it hits a body, which is much greater then 9.8 ms-2.Coito ergo sum wrote:Because F=MA is not Newtonian physics and the 9.8 m/s2 is not the acceleration due to gravity. I already told you you were right.


Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
I'll let you present the formulas, if you can.Gawd wrote:Coito, you couldn't calculate your way out of a straight line. I see you've been talking to colubridae. And yet you are still wrong. Simply follow my steps and multiply by the length of the acceleration phase towards the ground. The quantity you get is the force of the bullet in flight subject to a non-elastic collision. I do hope to your high school teachers that you know what I just said.
Since I actually took college level physics, I'm aware of inelastic (not "non"-elastic) vs. elastic collisions. The force of the falling bullet (which was fired straight up) is measured by multiplying its mass times its acceleration due to gravity. Are you suggesting that is wrong? Really?
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
You honestly think Gawd knows what he's talking about here?sandinista wrote:
Now That it funny!
Last edited by Coito ergo sum on Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
Soooooo.........we aren't talking about Libya anymore? 

But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
- JOZeldenrust
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:49 am
- Contact:
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
Nope, we're talking about Newtonian mechanics. How about a split to Science and Technology?Gallstones wrote:Soooooo.........we aren't talking about Libya anymore?
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
Yeah, you "took college level physics". Doesn't mean you understood any of it.....Coito ergo sum wrote:I'll let you present the formulas, if you can.Gawd wrote:Coito, you couldn't calculate your way out of a straight line. I see you've been talking to colubridae. And yet you are still wrong. Simply follow my steps and multiply by the length of the acceleration phase towards the ground. The quantity you get is the force of the bullet in flight subject to a non-elastic collision. I do hope to your high school teachers that you know what I just said.
Since I actually took college level physics, I'm aware of inelastic (not "non"-elastic) vs. elastic collisions. The force of the falling bullet (which was fired straight up) is measured by multiplying its mass times its acceleration due to gravity. Are you suggesting that is wrong? Really?
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Libya: should anything be done?
Yawn - still waiting. The Joos must've stolen your physics.Gawd wrote:Yeah, you "took college level physics". Doesn't mean you understood any of it.....Coito ergo sum wrote:I'll let you present the formulas, if you can.Gawd wrote:Coito, you couldn't calculate your way out of a straight line. I see you've been talking to colubridae. And yet you are still wrong. Simply follow my steps and multiply by the length of the acceleration phase towards the ground. The quantity you get is the force of the bullet in flight subject to a non-elastic collision. I do hope to your high school teachers that you know what I just said.
Since I actually took college level physics, I'm aware of inelastic (not "non"-elastic) vs. elastic collisions. The force of the falling bullet (which was fired straight up) is measured by multiplying its mass times its acceleration due to gravity. Are you suggesting that is wrong? Really?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests