Re: if I built a giant cannon


"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bea41460-470d-4176-adfb-b1d526d1a3af@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| On Mar 26, 12:50 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| >
| >
news:cdb61dfe-5948-4f64-b0e6-86e2ba2b32e3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | On Mar 25, 10:50 pm, "fruitbat" <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > | > (a) Assume a very big cannon could reliably fire a shot from New
York to
| > San
| > | > Francisco.
| > |
| > | These cannon are called "missile silos". The shots are called
| > | "ballistic missiles".
| >
| > Almost correct, but he means the propellant remains with the silo (or
just
| > above it)
| > and the missile takes the propellant with it, only becoming ballistic
after
| > reaching
| > a desired altitude. The desired altitude for the propellant shut off is
| > usually much
| > lower for the cannon case than the missile case.
| > |
| >
| > | > The shots are accurate and easily reproduced.
| > | > Now we take the cannon to San Francisco and fire back at New York.
| > | > Would the shot end up as exactly in New York?
| > |
| > | No. The earth rotates.
| >
| > Dear San Francisco:
| > We are sending you an ICBM by airmail. Enjoy.
| > Love, New York.
| >
| > Dear New York:
| > We are returning your kind gift.
| > Love, San Francisco.
| >
| > One would hope the SF cannon-silo engineers had allowed for that in the
| > NY->SF case and could reliably return fire.
|
| One would hope so. However, OP explicitly stated that
| we don't make any such corrections in his questions.

Not in the portion I'm reading above he didn't, Poe, and it is you I'm
responding to,
you lying ***.



|
| Is this that inability-to-read-your-own-language thing
| again?

If there was some language to read I might have read it, fuckhead,
but you failed to produce it.


|
| > | It's on an inclined, probably eccentric orbit with an inclination
| > | of about 41 degrees and an eastward component of velocity. The
| > | next point of intersection with earth might be at -41 degrees
| > | latitude.
| >
| > You are frame hopping, Poe.
| > The shot does not have an eastward component of velocity relative
| > to New York, but it will fall further than it climbed.
|
| The earth rotates.

Not in its own frame of reference it doesn't.
You are frame hopping, shithead.


| The shot does not have an eastward component of velocity relative
| to New York, but it will fall further than it climbed. New York has a
| vertical component of velocity and will not continue on inertially
| as the shot will.
| The correct answer is just east of New York, in the ocean.
| It will not land back on the ground. An exact answer would entail
| knowing where the Moon is.

Correction: I omitted the 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth.
New York has a North/South component of velocity and so
the shot landing could be North of East or South of East depending on
time of day and year.












.

Quantcast