WWLabRat

In mythbusters they used a pistol and what looks like either 9mm or 45 rounds. Not a relatively large round, especially when compared to the powder propelling it out of the chamber.

Sorry, I'm being a little dense here. I get that due to the bullet's shape and being aerodynamic means that it's not affected really affected by friction in the air. I understand the very basics of the bullet travelling through the air, that the air moves around it on all sides equally while the rifling from the barrel it was fired from helps to keep the round in a spiral motion to keep it stabilized while in flight. And I'd imagine with the speed at which the bullet is travelling that it would create small pockets of empty space in its wake, much the same way as a jet ski travelling through water. After the bullet leaves the barrel, it would immediately lose some of its speed and its velocity would start to change as gravity pulls it downwards. The dropped bullet, from the time it was dropped would tumble, end over end, until it hit the ground. The only real deciding factor in what happens to the bullet would be whether it was dropped pointed at the ground or at the same horizontal level as the fired bullet. For argument's sake, it'll be released at the same angle as the fired bullet. As an example, say the constants in the experiment were the caliber, the type of round used, the firearm used, and the level of the firearm. And, much in the same way as on Mythbusters, we remove wind, control the humidity, and keep everything at room temperature. We fire and drop the bullets at the same time (the bullet dropped being released as the bullet fired leaving the barrel) and everything goes as expected. There are two variables that could be presented at this time that would create another 3 experiments. The variables would be whether or not the experiment takes place in a vacuum and the height at which the bullet is dropped/fired. I mention the second variable because by firing from a higher perch, the dropped bullet has a chance to hit terminal velocity, where the air resistance matches that of the gravity acting on the bullet. With the increased height, there's also the a point where the lateral speed would slow to the point where it's not being carried forward and the entirety of the velocity would have since been shifted in the direction of the ground. By this point the rotation of the bullet should have also slowed to where it's not able to cancel out the friction of the air around it. Or at least that's my thought. However in a vacuum, even with the increased height, there would be no opposing force to act against the gravity and the bullets would hit the ground at the same time. I'm sorry, I don't know all the math behind it, so forgive me for not being able to provide mathematical proofs to back this up...

If the range on the average pistol is too short, would it be different if, just theoretically, a firearm were able to fire a bullet horizontally for a significant distance?

What keeps molecules, in the air, from affecting a bullet in such a way that their absence in a vacuum goes unnoticed?

I'm not an expert, nor claiming to be such, in any field, much less physics. My knowledge is very basic, not much higher than what you would learn at a typical high school. My question is actually inspired after watching an episode of Mythbusters (Episode #125 "Knock Your Socks Off") where they tested to see if a bullet fired would hit the ground at the same time as a bullet dropped from equal height. I don't find it surprising that their results were effectively correct. What I'm wondering though, is if the same thing would happen if they were able to test this in a vacuum. Granted they get about as close as possible to a vacuum by being indoors and reducing the presence of wind. However there is still air present, and thus friction. A dropped bullet would only be moving through two dimensions as it falls (due to one end weighing more than the other) whereas a fired bullet would be moving through three. Another variable would be the rifling from the barrel of the gun, though minimal, would still slightly reduce how much mass there is with the fired bullet when compared to the dropped bullet. This would also skew the findings of their experiment. After all was said and done, they found that in their experiment, there was a 39.6 millisecond difference between time the dropped bullet and the fired one. So, simply put, my question is: When in a vacuum, would a bullet fired and a bullet dropped hit the ground at the same time?

I'm not sure that using the imagery of two sheets contacting in the wind would be an accurate assumption. Assuming these two parallel dimensions follow the same known laws of physics, they would have to move towards each other with some measurable amount of force. At the point they make contact, the force would push them both away with an equal and opposite amount of force. Looking at it this way shows that at the very moment of the creation of the universe, it would then be unmade because the dimensions would then separate. The same could be said if even if you showed that the sheets were porous enough to allow one to pass through the other. They still wouldn't mesh for any period of time because only one particle would be able to occupy any point in space at any given time.

Sunnyfield, please don't feel negatively about posting your questions here. I can say with absolute certainty that you aren't the only one here that is looking for an outlet to ask these questions. I, myself, have just started my formal education to help put on paper the things I've learned over the years. When it comes to genetics, my understanding is minimal, at best. Because of this, seeing others post about things I've pondered is always refreshing. The important part is that you take away from the questions you ask their respective answers and use it to look at things a bit more in depth. And hopefully from there ask deeper questions. This is, after all, what science is all about.

Wikipedia.org, though I have used it before as a reference in other threads, is not a reliable source for research. It may be good for general reference when looking for broad definitions or a basic understanding of various topics, but it's not much more use than that. This is because wikipedia.org is able to be edited by anyone with login info. Are there other, more reliable sources you could cite for us? Also, using individual religions and such ignores the potentially insightful views of other, less well known spiritual beliefs.

Sorry, I should have gone into a bit more length on my post. The way that OP's describing it, such a conversion wouldn't be possible. They're not wanting to use any enzymes or bacteria, and they only want to use heat or light to make changes at the genetic level.

More like meditation is thinking, however thinking doesn't have to be meditation.

The problem is that your post directly contradicts your other post, the OP, which is the whole basis for this thread.

Both of these threads are on the same topic. Would you care to provide some evidence of this theory? Being as how fats are not, and cannot become, proteins. On a side note, for ease of reading, please run spell check before posting.

nyouremyperfect10, on 28 Aug 2013 - 06:00 AM, said: Wait. What? ^This is what we've been waiting for.

I'm fairly certain they did have thoughts, which is what meditation is. The very definition of meditation proves it for me. Directly from Merriam-Webster, here's the definition of the noun "meditation". I'll go ahead and bold the areas you need to focus on. Also, just for good measure, I'll include a link directly to this so that you can verify the source with as little effort as possible--> THE LINK <-- <-- Another arrow in case you missed it. As for getting the "bulk of psychologists" to back me on this isn't needed until you get the bulk of them to back your theory that they are aiming to undermine Western society. And in regards to mental illness vs normalcy: People can assign labels to whatever they feel like assigning them. Just because something carries a label, doesn't make it so. I could say that you are a three legged pig, but that doesn't make it so. Or at least as far as we know, this being the internet and all. As I stated in a previous post, mental illness is a blanket term for a wide variety of ailments. So unless you are referring to a specific one, don't dismiss the entirety as completely subjective. EDIT: Added link.

OP has refuted their own argument. Troll discussion over?

Are you using "sapient" as a noun or an adjective. Because as an adjective it means "to appear to be wise". As a noun, it simply means "to be homo sapiens". Some clarity would be useful. And since when do bees not have a social structure? There is the one queen bee, drones (male) and workers (female). The sole purpose of the drones is to mate with the queen to produce eggs and therefore more bees. And the workers will do the hive "maintenance", taking care of everything going on. They also have communication in the way that they walk. This also indicates a level of intelligence.

Due to imatfaal's note, I'll skip anything about needing evidence, which still has yet to be provided. As has already been stated, meditation, and therefore thinking to yourself, is not an exclusively Eastern idea. People have been thinking since man first came down out of the trees and learned to make fire. Saying that meditation is an Eastern practice is like saying that because Indians are known for using copious amounts of spices in their food that someone who is against India shouldn't put crushed red pepper on their pizza. In what way will people meditating after visiting their psychologist undermine Western society? Please elaborate. On another note, you are still attaching a spiritual/religious label to meditation when there is no call for it to be such. It is perfectly plausible and acceptable for an athiest to participate in meditation without believing in an almighty figure in the sky. So please, stop referring to it as such. In response to you quoting my post, you neglected to fully comprehend what I said. The blanket term "mental illness" is a generalization. Without specifying which illness you are referring to, it has to remain subjective. The same thing can be said when discussing the severity of each illness. It's in this broad umbrella that a subjective view of psychiatry "holds no purpose". But as you get more specific with individual illnesses, you start to see that treatments (be it medication or counseling) can and are generally effective when continued. Again, Geology is a broad term, and moreover doesn't deal in the abstract, like psychiatry does. Since it deals with the physical world and the physical world is measurable, geology is objective. Anthropology is subjective because we don't know everything that happened to individual civilizations before records were kept in a modern language, same thing with archaeology. I don't think I ever said anywhere that a sect of Christianity was a mainstream practice. And with your following statement, you sum up everything that is against your argument: "this doesn't mean everybody is nor that reflects our basic value system." The exact same thing could be said of all the psychologists you have repeatedly stated undermine Western society with their meditation ways.

I apologize, but I feel I'm missing something... When did this become a discussion about parts of speech? Second thing is, are you insinuating that I have lost grasp of the difference between the two? Last I heard, atoms are still considered matter. Matter is physical, as in not abstract. So what I said in the previous post is not an abstraction, it's an explanation of the interaction of particles with the world.

It may not seem it at first, but that's a fairly loaded question... The simplest answer would be yes. Yes, I think that would be a fair supposition. To elaborate a bit, I am of the opinion that nothing is entirely unable to be observed. Everything is constantly interacting with everything else all the time. Granted it may not be apparent, at least on the macro. However on the atomic scale, you can see that atoms are in constant motion. Suppose you have a box, sitting in an empty room, no windows to look through, no scent emanating from the box, no one in the room with it either. No cameras, etc. Molecules in the air are still bouncing off the box and scattering about the room. And each of those atoms are hitting off of other atoms, and so on. At some point, this chain of collisions will make it under the door and then hit a person. The box has now indirectly interacted with an observer without them even knowing. I know this is probably taking it a bit overboard, but it's similar to a butterfly effect (no, not the movie) where a butterfly flapping its wings in America will cause a tsunami in Japan. My point with all this being that since that box is still interacting with atoms in the air and on the floor, it still physically exists.

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted things to also be shown in context... So... In order: Um, no... The diet of hyenas include anything from bugs, birds, and reptiles to impalas, horses, and wildebeests, depending on which species you're talking about. And if someone were to break into your house, would you not defend your possessions and family? That is essentially what the Alpha of any familial species does when threatened. Hi, I'm Aaron. Welcome to modern society where we have been battling for millenia over territory, religion, and race. Again, it's present in familial species. Anything that's family based, ie mammals especially, protects its own. Doing otherwise is illogical in the sense of evolution. If a species doesn't protect itself from further outside destruction, it risks being wiped out entirely. The only difference with humans is that we eventually created due process to prevent those wrongfully accused from being able to be executed. Being that we haven't developed true two way communication between these species, I'd say my point is made. Where in the world do you see murder, in the first degree, within animals (humans excluded)? You don't see it. You only see when they are fighting for survival (defense), challenging the alpha (coup d'etat), or eating their stillborn young (preventing potential predators from tracking the scent). So based on that, this point is moot. It's what allows us to function as social animals. To be able to feel what another feels is what helps us to be able to make rational decisions for the betterment of the whole as opposed to the self. Helping the whole then is advantageous because you are more likely to have others help you in your time of need. With this one line, you completely tear apart your entire argument. A social code of do's and do not's IS morality. What keeps you following your morals? At its basis it boils down to fear. Fear of repurcussions taking negative action... The same can be said of self control. Who hasn't come into a confrontation and wanted to be the stuffing out of the opponent but refrained because they could probably tear you limb from limb or in some way jeopardize your survivability? There is a very distinct difference between the survival of the toughest and survival of the fittest. I don't care how much you can bench press, you won't survive for very long in the frozen tundra without a coat of some kind. Thus animals living in colder climates evolved to handle the cold. And as I said above, the ones who go against the social code (ie morals) are subject to the consequences of such. On the contrary, we weed out those people who destroy society in some way or another. Someone kills someone, they will be put to death or spend life behind bars. They aren't fit for society, so we take them out of it and place them in a cell. And with them out of the gene pool, unfortunately sometimes too late, it's less likely that they will be able to pass on their beliefs and genetics and the following generations will benefit from it, whether it's immediately understood or not. Read my post. I debated about even replying to this part... You might want to duck and cover, or just leave completely. Your home is about to be redecorated.

StringJunky's right. OP, Perception and reality, by their very definitions are separate. By these definitions, both provided by Merriam-Webster, "Perception" is that which is observed, whereas "Reality" is that which is in a state of being real. Someone who hears disembodied voices perceives them, observes them, but that doesn't make them real. How do we know what's real? As someone whose maternal grandmother was schizophrenic, I have been asking this same question my entire life. After many years, I settled on the basis that what's real is what is scientific, and thus what is real is what is physical and measurable, not that which is abstract and unable to be tested.

In what specific ways do you propose does religion increase ones understanding of science? The only way that I could see this being true is if you make the assumption that if it weren't for religion, or the belief in a "higher power" then our ancestors may never have asked "How did we get here?" But after that point, there's no more need for one to exist for the other to thrive

THis is assuming a deterministic view of reality as we know it. That is to say that the world probably wouldn't be the same as we see it now because those figures would not have been around in their respective times to, in effect, create their religions. If these three were never around we could potentially be currently living in a world where polytheism still reigned supreme. There's a lot that can happen over the 2000 years since then and that allows for drastic variations that are, presumably, inconceivable. Think about every decision that every person makes every second of their lives. Now imagine that each of them made the exact opposite choice. The resulting world could be completely different in another 2000 years.

One must love aggressive ignorance...

Hi all! My name's Aaron. Married but separated. Also the father of one very beautiful girl. Currently work on third shift if the lab of a wastewater treatment plant. Going to community college right now to get some formal education. Working towards my Associate's degree first, then will be transferring to a university to pursue my Bachelor's, then Master's degree in biochemistry.