Happy Face 29 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 If you have two snakes of equal size who are eating each others tails, what happens when they eat the whole of the other snake? 133301[/snapback] Do they end up kissing one another? 133326[/snapback] I think they'll form a stylish cock ring, at least until they start digesting one another when blood flow will cease to be stemmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 If you have two snakes of equal size who are eating each others tails, what happens when they eat the whole of the other snake? 133301[/snapback] Do they end up kissing one another? 133326[/snapback] No, they're facing the wrong way (I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17821 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Python eating alligator - gross: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 No, they're facing the wrong way (I think). 133328[/snapback] Correct; I've drawn a picture, now my head hurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikko 20 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 This is a basic way of describing it: step one: plane's engines throttle up, increasing the force against the AIR behind the engines. no force is applied to the wheels step two: increased force against the air pushes plane forwards step three: conveyor belt starts turning the opposite way to the directon of the plane, meaning the wheels spin twice as fast as the plane is moving through the air step four: the plane continues to accelerate, as does the conveyor belt, until the plane's AIRSPEED reaches, say, 160kts. At this point the wheels are spinning at the equivalent of 320kts step five: plane takes off, because an airspeed of 160kts is more than enough to produce required lift on the wings step six: wheel bearings probably melt, plane has trouble landing 133306[/snapback] I can see what you are saying. The engines suck the air over the wings. However this would create "hotspots" and not a uniform lift as the majority of the wing would not have any lift. Also its very dependent on the location of the engines. The ideal location being exactly in the middle of the wing, which is never the case as they are almost always located beneath them. This means the only air flow is under the wing and none above. Now in order to determine the pressure underneath depends on the speed of the air. Now you have to look into the compressable flow equations. Now assuming mach 0.999 airspeed through the engine this give a pressure of about 0.55atm below the wing compared to 1atm above. And hence no lift and the plane is infact forced to the ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14060 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 If you have two snakes of equal size who are eating each others tails, what happens when they eat the whole of the other snake? 133301[/snapback] Do they end up kissing one another? 133326[/snapback] I think they'll form a stylish cock ring, at least until they start digesting one another when blood flow will cease to be stemmed. 133327[/snapback] Market it for £50 a pop and alert the fashionistas at Attitude magazine, they'll do a double-page spread on it and you're quids in. As business plans go, surely it's a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34593 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 No, they're facing the wrong way (I think). 133328[/snapback] Correct; I've drawn a picture, now my head hurts. 133332[/snapback] Scan it and get it posted, you gimp. I was joking about them kissing one another btw, you eejits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Not a chance, I'd get a better reception from fucking art critics than you lot! Looking at this sensibly the answer might be quite straight forward - in reality they can't physically go any further than a point shortly before they reach the backs of each others heads, and in theory they reach a point where their heads are facing both towards and away from each other at the same time...then one of them has to eat the other one's face...and both cease to exists...so by the time the feathers arrive, they have no heads to land on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34593 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Is that how they make the fetching snakeskin loafers that I wear to the match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14060 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Is that how they make the fetching snakeskin loafers that I wear to the match? 133343[/snapback] No, but it's how they make the fetching snakeskin cockring etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17821 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Another thing that's always confused me. Nothing can travel faster than the spped of light we are told. So how aren't two objects travelling at say 60% the speed of light in opposite directions not exceeding this relative to each other? Some physicist mates have tried to explain how, but I'm afraid I'm too thick to understand. On the other hand, maybe I have exposed the cover up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14060 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 They'd probably find a neat way of claiming that "opposite directions" don't actually exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Another thing that's always confused me. Nothing can travel faster than the spped of light we are told. So how aren't two objects travelling at say 60% the speed of light in opposite directions not exceeding this relative to each other? Some physicist mates have tried to explain how, but I'm afraid I'm too thick to understand. On the other hand, maybe I have exposed the cover up? 133349[/snapback] It's because light is the only absolute and everthing else is relative to it. But that's just words, I haven't really got a clue how it works, would love someone (Rikko?) to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34593 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Another thing that's always confused me. Nothing can travel faster than the spped of light we are told. So how aren't two objects travelling at say 60% the speed of light in opposite directions not exceeding this relative to each other? Some physicist mates have tried to explain how, but I'm afraid I'm too thick to understand. On the other hand, maybe I have exposed the cover up? 133349[/snapback] They still aren't travelling faster than the speed of light though, regardless of their speeds relative to one another. If we cross on the motorway and are each doing 70mph, we're still only doing 70mph when we cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikko 20 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Another thing that's always confused me. Nothing can travel faster than the spped of light we are told. So how aren't two objects travelling at say 60% the speed of light in opposite directions not exceeding this relative to each other? Some physicist mates have tried to explain how, but I'm afraid I'm too thick to understand. On the other hand, maybe I have exposed the cover up? 133349[/snapback] The speed of sound in an incompressable object is infinite, which would be fasted then the speed of light. However no completely incompressable object exists so thats by the by. Light works in very weird ways, its like the light emitted from both those objects travelling at 60% the speed of light is only travelling at the speed of light, not at 160% speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 If you were travelling away from a beam of light at the speed of light (theoretically) the beam of light would still go past you at what appeared to by the speed of light (i.e. double what you would expect the speed of light to be). Hence the speed of light is always relative. I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17821 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Another thing that's always confused me. Nothing can travel faster than the spped of light we are told. So how aren't two objects travelling at say 60% the speed of light in opposite directions not exceeding this relative to each other? Some physicist mates have tried to explain how, but I'm afraid I'm too thick to understand. On the other hand, maybe I have exposed the cover up? 133349[/snapback] They still aren't travelling faster than the speed of light though, regardless of their speeds relative to one another. If we cross on the motorway and are each doing 70mph, we're still only doing 70mph when we cross. 133353[/snapback] If I hit you head on and we were both doing 70 mph, it would be equivalent to crashing into you whilst stationary at 140 mph, would it not? Jesus wept, and I'm supposed to be a scientist. I'll either have to take the word of all these physicists based on faith, or accept that you are infact all alien androids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34593 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Another thing that's always confused me. Nothing can travel faster than the spped of light we are told. So how aren't two objects travelling at say 60% the speed of light in opposite directions not exceeding this relative to each other? Some physicist mates have tried to explain how, but I'm afraid I'm too thick to understand. On the other hand, maybe I have exposed the cover up? 133349[/snapback] They still aren't travelling faster than the speed of light though, regardless of their speeds relative to one another. If we cross on the motorway and are each doing 70mph, we're still only doing 70mph when we cross. 133353[/snapback] If I hit you head on and we were both doing 70 mph, it would be equivalent to crashing into you whilst stationary at 140 mph, would it not? Jesus wept, and I'm supposed to be a scientist. I'll either have to take the word of all these physicists based on faith, or accept that you are infact all alien androids. 133357[/snapback] That's more to do with force than speed though surely. We're still only doing 70mph. Besides, I'd walk away unscathed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17821 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Another thing that's always confused me. Nothing can travel faster than the spped of light we are told. So how aren't two objects travelling at say 60% the speed of light in opposite directions not exceeding this relative to each other? Some physicist mates have tried to explain how, but I'm afraid I'm too thick to understand. On the other hand, maybe I have exposed the cover up? 133349[/snapback] They still aren't travelling faster than the speed of light though, regardless of their speeds relative to one another. If we cross on the motorway and are each doing 70mph, we're still only doing 70mph when we cross. 133353[/snapback] If I hit you head on and we were both doing 70 mph, it would be equivalent to crashing into you whilst stationary at 140 mph, would it not? Jesus wept, and I'm supposed to be a scientist. I'll either have to take the word of all these physicists based on faith, or accept that you are infact all alien androids. 133357[/snapback] That's more to do with force than speed though surely. We're still only doing 70mph. Besides, I'd walk away unscathed. 133358[/snapback] Your Mazda would disintegrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 (edited) That's more to do with force than speed though surely. We're still only doing 70mph. Besides, I'd walk away unscathed. 133358[/snapback] No, relative to a standing position you're both doing 70, relative to a passenger in the car, the other car is doing 140, assuming you're both travelling exactly towards or away from each other. I think. Edited May 8, 2006 by DotBum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17821 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Another thing that's always confused me. Nothing can travel faster than the spped of light we are told. So how aren't two objects travelling at say 60% the speed of light in opposite directions not exceeding this relative to each other? Some physicist mates have tried to explain how, but I'm afraid I'm too thick to understand. On the other hand, maybe I have exposed the cover up? 133349[/snapback] The speed of sound in an incompressable object is infinite, which would be fasted then the speed of light. However no completely incompressable object exists so thats by the by. Light works in very weird ways, its like the light emitted from both those objects travelling at 60% the speed of light is only travelling at the speed of light, not at 160% speed of light. 133354[/snapback] You see, this is what I mean. I may as well believe in Adam and Eve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34593 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Another thing that's always confused me. Nothing can travel faster than the spped of light we are told. So how aren't two objects travelling at say 60% the speed of light in opposite directions not exceeding this relative to each other? Some physicist mates have tried to explain how, but I'm afraid I'm too thick to understand. On the other hand, maybe I have exposed the cover up? 133349[/snapback] They still aren't travelling faster than the speed of light though, regardless of their speeds relative to one another. If we cross on the motorway and are each doing 70mph, we're still only doing 70mph when we cross. 133353[/snapback] If I hit you head on and we were both doing 70 mph, it would be equivalent to crashing into you whilst stationary at 140 mph, would it not? Jesus wept, and I'm supposed to be a scientist. I'll either have to take the word of all these physicists based on faith, or accept that you are infact all alien androids. 133357[/snapback] That's more to do with force than speed though surely. We're still only doing 70mph. Besides, I'd walk away unscathed. 133358[/snapback] Your Mazda would disintegrate. 133359[/snapback] I'd tip your Smart car over Geoff Capes style when I got out btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17821 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 That's more to do with force than speed though surely. We're still only doing 70mph. Besides, I'd walk away unscathed. 133358[/snapback] No, relative to a standing position you're both doing 70, relative to a passenger in the car, the other car is doing 140, assuming you're both travelling exactly towards or away from each other. I think. 133360[/snapback] I wouldn't bother Gemmill about such matters. His complete failure to comprehend what an autonym is reveals his true level of intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34593 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 That's more to do with force than speed though surely. We're still only doing 70mph. Besides, I'd walk away unscathed. 133358[/snapback] No, relative to a standing position you're both doing 70, relative to a passenger in the car, the other car is doing 140, assuming you're both travelling exactly towards or away from each other. I think. 133360[/snapback] Relative yes, but our actual speed is only 70mph. Have you drawn a picture this time, or are you using matchbox cars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now