post your sexy pics here

LadyValerie said:
The terminal velocity of an object falling towards the ground, in non-vacuum, is the speed at which the gravitational force pulling it downwards is equal and opposite to the atmospheric drag (also called air resistance) pushing it upwards. At this speed, the object ceases to accelerate downwards and falls at constant speed.

For example, the terminal velocity of a skydiver in a normal free-fall position with a closed parachute is about 195 km/h (120 Mph). This speed increases to about 320 km/h (200 Mph) if the skydiver pulls in his limbs—see also freeflying. This is also the terminal velocity of the Peregrine Falcon diving down on its prey, and of a typical bullet according to a 1920 U.S. Army Ordnance study [1].

The reason an object reaches a terminal velocity is because the drag force resisting motion is directly proportional to the square of its speed. At low speeds the drag is much less than the gravitational force and so the object accelerates. As it speeds up the drag increases, until eventually it equals the weight. Drag also depends on the cross-sectional area. This is why things with a large surface area such as parachutes and feathers have a lower terminal velocity than small objects like bricks and cannon balls.

Mathematically, terminal velocity is described by the equation
1b9a42b435227fbe11d9b3054b09fdc6.png

where

Vt is the terminal velocity,
m is the mass of the falling object,
g is gravitational acceleration,
Cd is the drag coefficient,
ρ is the density of the fluid the object is falling through, and
A is the object's cross-sectional area.

This equation is derived from the drag equation by setting drag equal to mg, the gravitational force on the object.

Note that the density increases with decreasing altitude, ca. 1% per 80 m (see barometric formula). Therefore, for every 160 m of falling, the "terminal" velocity decreases 1%. After reaching the local terminal velocity, while continuing the fall, speed decreases to change with the local terminal velocity.

Approximating terminal velocity is much more easily done than calculating the terminal velocity because of the difficulty in finding the value of Cd. One simple small scale method is to hang an object out a car window by a thin string. The terminal velocity of the object is the speed of the car when the object hangs at a 45° angle. This can be easily proven mathematically because it is when the atmospheric drag (in the horizontal direction) is equal to the force of gravity.

confusedblackdog2bs8gc.jpg
 
Final_Product said:
I've fired guns, and been hunting. But as an adult, i'd never consider owning one now. I have a nice bat, instead :)



My, you are a pretty man.
 
Final_Product said:
Thats the kinda mentality that ensures a high rate of gun related murder.



This isn't the greatest idea but, if more and more people have weapons of some kind (mostly guns) who will continue to have the same nerve to try and commit a crime? It's like giving every passanger on an airplane a machete, who would even try to hijack the plane? I know airplanes are so much smaller than.. neighborhoods, cities, but it's still something you should think about. A city or neighborhood that has mostly people with no weapons is more vunerable than a city with residents who are armed. It also brings the question of how would one know what city or area has more weapons.
 
The cold war was based on that premise. Surely its better to have none at all? Than their being a stalemate cause nobody knows how armed to the teeth anyone else is.
 
Final_Product said:
The cold war was based on that premise. Surely its better to have none at all? Than their being a stalemate cause nobody knows how armed to the teeth anyone else is.



No matter how hard anyone tries, you can't completely eleminate weapons of a certain kind, or weapons in general, from an area. There will always be ways to get them. Fully automatic assault rifles are illegal in California, and most of the United States, but hey, I have a Steyr AUG :) with 30 round magazines, nonetheless ;) (the limit in California is 10)
 
I've never said weapons should be totally eradicated. Only that the US has a gun culture that seems to be breeding hate and murder more and more each day and that the root of this trend must be at least partly related to the availability of weapons.
 
LadyValerie said:
This isn't the greatest idea but, if more and more people have weapons of some kind (mostly guns) who will continue to have the same nerve to try and commit a crime? It's like giving every passanger on an airplane a machete, who would even try to hijack the plane? I know airplanes are so much smaller than.. neighborhoods, cities, but it's still something you should think about. A city or neighborhood that has mostly people with no weapons is more vunerable than a city with residents who are armed. It also brings the question of how would one know what city or area has more weapons.
I ONCE READ THIS STUDY ABOUT HOW PEOPLE WHO ROB HOUSES INSTEAD OF BANKS TRY TO ROB THE PEOPLE THAT THEY KNOW OWN GUNS BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES MORE LIKELY TO HAVE STUFF THAT'S WORTH STEALING ACCORDING TO THIS STUDY IF A GUN IS FIRED INSIDE THE HOME OF THE OWNER OF THE GUN THEN, THE OWNER (OF THE GUN) IS THE MOST LIKELY PERSON TO GET SHOT BECAUSE THE ROBBER WILL BE QUIET ENOUGH TO BE HOLDING THE GUN BEFORE THE OWNER OF THE GUN IS ACTUALLY AWAKE:ill:
 
Final_Product said:
I've never said weapons should be totally eradicated. Only that the US has a gun culture that seems to be breeding hate and murder more and more each day and that the root of this trend must be at least partly related to the availability of weapons.



Well that's why I said "weapons of a certain kind, or weapons in general"
But I do understand what you're saying. I also blame Hip-hop culture in brainwashing a lot (note the non-use of "all") of kids and telling them that being in gangs is cool, murdering people is fun, you'll make lots of cash, etc. I especially hate their attitudes towards women. And I can not believe how the media glorifies it so.
 
Final_Product said:
I've never said weapons should be totally eradicated. Only that the US has a gun culture that seems to be breeding hate and murder more and more each day and that the root of this trend must be at least partly related to the availability of weapons.
I'VE ALREADY SAID THIS LIKE 5 OR 6 TIMES TODAY BUT MAYBE I NEED TO SAY IT AGAIN
AMREICANS ARE CRAZY
 
LadyValerie said:
Well that's why I said "weapons of a certain kind, or weapons in general"
But I do understand what you're saying. I also blame Hip-hop culture in brainwashing a lot (note the non-use of "all") of kids and telling them that being in gangs is cool, murdering people is fun, you'll make lots of cash, etc. I especially hate their attitudes towards women. And I can not believe how the media glorifies it so.

You can count me in on that one. What adds insult to injury is that everyone seems to preoccupied blaming heavy metal fans for everything, because satan has ahold of us. When, in all fairness, hip-hop culture glorifies this stuff more so than metal ever has, and gets away with it daily.
 
Final_Product said:
You can count me in on that one. What adds insult to injury is that everyone seems to preoccupied blaming heavy metal fans for everything, because satan has ahold of us. When, in all fairness, hip-hop culture glorifies this stuff more so than metal ever has, and gets away with it daily.
THAT IS REALLY SAD :erk: