Laser weapons and recoil

[wizzszz]

I am so confused. Anyway, if you agree that light mills don't work because of light pressure then I am happy!

I do - it was Nichols radiometer that works because of light pressure

About what pushes solar sails, EM radiation or charged particles:

"Solar wind, the flux of charged particles blown out from the sun, exerts a nominal dynamic pressure of about 3 to 4 nPa, three orders of magnitude less than solar radiation pressure on a reflective sail."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail#Solar_radiation_pressure

You came up with the solar sails... did you just kill your own point? At least partially ("three orders of magnitude"-partially)?

Meanwhile back in the EU reality, I am not convinced those laser rifles are actually shooting photons at all.

Good point - it says "laser" in the used profession though - maybe they mean "frog spew"... And "Ranged Frog Spew (Dmg)" just didn't sound half as cool??!!?!

How can one slow down photons to that degree?

C[sub]water[/sub] is roughly 3/4th of C[sub]vacuum[/sub]
But that slow... no idea...

Perhaps they are actually tightly focussed plasma?

Or... frog spew!!!

Weapon recoil would make a lot more sense in that context. Would also be consistant with the observed transfer of momentum to the target.

The effect on the target could be explained by i.e. evaporation of body fluids, too...

 

[KijkkiJikki]

Frog Spew sounds more like an area effect but other than that I am on board with the concept. Would be very happy to skill up frog spew sniper.

 

[Audrey Cheerful]

You came up with the solar sails... did you just kill your own point? At least partially ("three orders of magnitude"-partially)?

No, I strengthend my point that solar sails work by radiation pressure and not by impacting charged particles. Their effect is "three orders of magnitude" smaller than the radiation pressure. It was a reply to Doer:

I had mentioned the solar wind, but as was pointed out in a PM, the momentum imparted by the solar wind could be due to energetic particles rather than EM (and the two must be distinguished in the absence of "photons" and hence wave-particle duality).

 

[wizzszz]

No, I strengthend my point that solar sails work by radiation pressure and not by impacting charged particles. Their effect is "three orders of magnitude" smaller than the radiation pressure. It was a reply to Doer:

I read something along the lines of

The effect of... radiation pressure... is "three orders of magnitude" smaller...

'Tis late here, 5:20 am - solar wind is the particle stream...

Three orders of magnitude = *10³ = 1000 - yes, i think that solar wind argument is out of the window.
(greetings to whoever chose to not participate in public... )



It seems you are quite quick with that english wiki stuff though:

Any idea what happens to the reflected light under the aspect of "conservation of momentum"?

That the absorbed photons transfer their momentum to the solar sail (and subsequently to the ship) is clear.


Surprisingly, reflected photons are even more effective (pretty exactly 2 times more), but they have to undergo a redshift (lose energy), to not violate the law of conservation of energy...?

Or in other words: The momentum of the photons must decrease, because the momentum of the sail (ship) increases - the conservation of momentum demands that.
A decrease of momentum in the photons equals a loss of freqency (higher wave length / loss of energy), also known as a shift in the "red" direction (lower energy end of the spectrum).

 

[Audrey Cheerful]

I read something along the lines of


'Tis late here, 5:20 am - solar wind is the particle stream...

It's okay.

Any idea what happens to the reflected light under the aspect of "conservation of momentum"?

Yes, exactly what you wrote:

That the absorbed photons transfer their momentum to the solar sail (and subsequently to the ship) is clear.


Surprisingly, reflected photons are even more effective (pretty exactly 2 times more), but they have to undergo a redshift (lose energy), to not violate the law of conservation of energy...?

Or in other words: The momentum of the photons must decrease, because the momentum of the sail (ship) increases - the conservation of momentum demands that.
A decrease of momentum in the photons equals a loss of freqency (higher wave length / loss of energy), also known as a shift in the "red" direction (lower energy end of the spectrum).

About the fact the reflected photons give two times the momentum of the absorbed ones, you can imagine it like this: If a photon is absorbed it transfers its full momentum to the sail. So far so good. Now let's say after a while the energy (!) of that photon is emmited by the sail again in form of another photon traveling into the opposite direction. (For this thought experiment let the original photon have pushed an electron of an atom of the sail into a higher orbit and after a while the electron falls back into its original orbit emmiting a photon in that direction.) Now this new photon has a momentum and by the law of the conservation of momentum the sail inherits the opposite momentum. The momentum of the first photon traveling towards the sail plus the negative momentum of the second photon traveling away from the sail makes two time the momentum of the incoming photon. That should be basically it. Somewhere the red-shift needs to be worked into it, tho.

 

[wizzszz]

About the fact the reflected photons give two times the momentum of the absorbed ones, you can imagine it like this: If a photon is absorbed it transfers its full momentum to the sail. So far so good. Now let's say after a while the energy (!) of that photon is emmited by the sail again in form of another photon traveling into the opposite direction. (For this thought experiment let the original photon have pushed an electron of an atom of the sail into a higher orbit and after a while the electron falls back into its original orbit emmiting a photon in that direction.) Now this new photon has a momentum and by the law of the conservation of momentum the sail inherits the opposite momentum. The momentum of the first photon traveling towards the sail plus the negative momentum of the second photon traveling away from the sail makes two time the momentum of the incoming photon.

Ok, but what you describe is not really reflection - and you appear to forget that momentum is a vector.

A vector has a direction.
(except zero vector)

By "pumping" an atom in the sail, and later being re-emitted from that atom (when the electron falls back to it's "normal" energy level), the direction is clearly lost, because the direction of the new vector is (if not stimulated like in a laser) random.

But this is not how it works, the light reflected from i.e a mirror follows a clear set of rules.



Sorry, but i think this time you are wrong (about time )


/Edit:
And, there is no "negative momentum" - i think what you wanted to say is that the direction is inversed (inverse vector).

But that, too, is not reflection (nor does that happen when a photon is absorbed and re-emitted).

If the angle of entry is not 90 degree, the light is not going straight back to it's source!
(Again, mirrors do not work like that! And the momentum transferred at an angle is very likely less, my guess: sin(angle), but that's just a side note)

 

[Sirhc]

I always figured it was something mechanical in the weapon that caused the recoil to some extent. Then there is just plain ole artistic license its a science fiction virtual world where sometimes things are just done for a cool factor.

I've just learned to accept the quirkiness of EU and try not to split hairs.

 

[ChairmanEdgewise]

Audrey Cheerful, wizzszz



It seems you two are forgetting we are playing an online game

A place where we go to avoid real life

A place where real life rules does not apply (read: it's a fantasty world)



Jeez you two have a lot to talk about it seems... Do you two happen to be married IRL?


While talking about it...

How can my avatar, without armor survive in space before "suffocating" ?

If that happened IRL, I would have my inside turned outside

and lots, lots more things in game that doesn't work the way it does IRL

let's see if you can find them all and discuss them!


Imo, it would have had been boring if the guns didn't have any recoil... Just a flat, solid, not moving gun making a sounds.. Would look like shit lol


as Nighthawk said earlier, perhaps it is cooling parts moving around in there causing recoil? I would like to think so


now you two enjoy your private time in this thread together, I won't bother the turtledoves <3

(j/k, speak all you want! It looks cute )

 

[Audrey Cheerful]

Ok, but what you describe is not really reflection - and you appear to forget that momentum is a vector.

A vector has a direction.
(except zero vector)

Oh boy, where to start?

By "pumping" an atom in the sail, and later being re-emitted from that atom (when the electron falls back to it's "normal" energy level), the direction is clearly lost, because the direction of the new vector is (if not stimulated like in a laser) random.

But this is not how it works, the light reflected from i.e a mirror follows a clear set of rules.

This was just an example. I thought if I did not present a storage mechanism to you you would ride my butt again. Yes, a reflective surface works differently. You can view it as photons bouncing off a surface or electromagnetic waves inducing currents and these currents creating new electromagnetic waves. And so on. It depends on which modell suits your needs. I chose one that suited my need to explain the two-times-the-momentum-phenomenon.

Sorry, but i think this time you are wrong (about time )

If you only look at a single incoming photon and the re-emmitted photon happens to go out in the exaxt opposite direction I am right. I think.

/Edit:
And, there is no "negative momentum" - i think what you wanted to say is that the direction is inversed (inverse vector).

Sure there is negative momentum if you view it as a vector. I am free to turn a vector around and apply a negative sign to it.

But that, too, is not reflection (nor does that happen when a photon is absorbed and re-emitted).

If the angle of entry is not 90 degree, the light is not going straight back to it's source!
(Again, mirrors do not work like that! And the momentum transferred at an angle is very likely less, my guess: sin(angle), but that's just a side note)

See above. And yes, momentum transfered should be cosine of the angle between the vector of the incoming photon and the vector normal to the surface. Maybe you have to turn the sign around, it doesn't matter.

 

[Audrey Cheerful]

Audrey Cheerful, wizzszz

...

Jeez you two have a lot to talk about it seems... Do you two happen to be married IRL?

...

now you two enjoy your private time in this thread together, I won't bother the turtledoves <3

(j/k, speak all you want! It looks cute )

Awww, you don't have to be jealous!

Come here!

 

[Audrey Cheerful]

...

It seems you two are forgetting we are playing an online game

A place where we go to avoid real life

A place where real life rules does not apply (read: it's a fantasty world)

...

While talking about it...

How can my avatar, without armor survive in space before "suffocating" ?

If that happened IRL, I would have my inside turned outside

and lots, lots more things in game that doesn't work the way it does IRL

let's see if you can find them all and discuss them!


Imo, it would have had been boring if the guns didn't have any recoil... Just a flat, solid, not moving gun making a sounds.. Would look like shit lol


as Nighthawk said earlier, perhaps it is cooling parts moving around in there causing recoil? I would like to think so

I always figured it was something mechanical in the weapon that caused the recoil to some extent. Then there is just plain ole artistic license its a science fiction virtual world where sometimes things are just done for a cool factor.

I've just learned to accept the quirkiness of EU and try not to split hairs.

Boys, this isn't about EU anymore. Have a look in which subforum we are!

Now about splitting hairs: If a photon travels through the space inhabitted by a hair you might think it would be blocked by it. In reality however, that photon would cast an interference pattern on a screen behind the hair because in that particular case the wave properties of light apply and not the particle properties. On the edges of the hair two new wave fronts would emerge creating the interference pattern.

 

[RickEngland]

I was a reading a good article this morning regarding the force of gravity, it went on to explain how gravity is extremely “weak” compared to other “strong” forces such as magnetism.

The article explained the weakness of gravity by reminding the reader that a small magnet a few centimetres away from a steel nail can overcome the enormous pull of the entire planet to lift that nail from a table. Now that the Higgs particle has been found by the LHC, they’re now looking to understand why gravity is weak.

I guess the point I’m trying to get at, is the weapons manufacturers on Planet Calypso have a far superior scientific knowledge than any of the most intelligent humans currently on on Earth. There is a reason an LR53 sounds like it does, maybe the (size) mass of the carbine is a factor.

Also those guns are sealed units you can’t dismantle them, and even if you could, I very much doubt we would understand the technology inside. I heard this is why the guns can not burn all the way to zero TT value, as you need to maintain some structure integrity within the core of the weapon. Who knows the power stored in just one of those weapons could potentially destroy the entire planet.

I suspect that the recoil was added to laser carbines on the basis it looks and sounds good. They were probably added features to keep us mere ex-earthlings amused and content. You could say the manufacturer was having a laugh at our expense, by giving us a gun that felt and sounded more real, even though it had no bearing on weapon performance.

Although we attempt to understand the technology it really is comparing fusion propulsion with cardboard boxes no matter how clever we think we are.

Noth said.

Rick.


ps; Audrey sounds like shes a really cool scientist.

 

[Audrey Cheerful]

I was a reading a good article this morning regarding the force of gravity, it went on to explain how gravity is extremely “weak” compared to other “strong” forces such as magnetism.

Was it this "article"?

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1522

ps; Audrey sounds like shes a really cool scientist.

Just an engineer with a love for natural sciences.

 

[mastermesh]

Ah the old laser recoil issue... been a rpg issue for many years... even before mmorpgs existed and things were pen and paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifts_(role-playing_game)

It should be noted that Rifts is one of the few universes that recognizes that laser weapons do not produce visible flying projectiles of colored light, and do not have recoil in real life, and the beams travel at the speed of light. Consequently lasers are often more accurate than other types of energy weapons of a similar size and weight. However, in-universe, it also mentions that people tend to dislike the relatively quiet snapping sounds that powerful lasers generate. Thus, weapon manufacturers such as "Wilk's" and "Northern Gun" actually install devices into their weapons that provide appropriate sound effects when the trigger is pulled for an "intimidation effect."

 

[mastermesh]

this thread got me thinking about an intesting idea... weapons already have attachments... why not add a new attachment to that system which will let you use same weapon but change the sound it makes? you could put any of the pre-recorded sounds MA lets you put in there or create your own with participant content uploaded as wav files that the server converts in to mp3 or whatever it needs to be, etc... Guns that sound like mobs that get hit... guns that sound like cannons... guns that sound like shrieking... guns that have a sound that is an evil laugh, all sorts of potential.

 

[wizzszz]

This was just an example. I thought if I did not present a storage mechanism to you you would ride my butt again. Yes, a reflective surface works differently. You can view it as photons bouncing off a surface or electromagnetic waves inducing currents and these currents creating new electromagnetic waves. And so on. It depends on which modell suits your needs. I chose one that suited my need to explain the two-times-the-momentum-phenomenon.

Which model?

You make it sound like this was a valid model of a reflection...

If you only look at a single incoming photon and the re-emmitted photon happens to go out in the exaxt opposite direction I am right. I think.

Yes, under these very unlikely circumstances you'd have the same result.
Still no reflection though.

Sure there is negative momentum if you view it as a vector. I am free to turn a vector around and apply a negative sign to it.

Momentum is always a vector - doesn't depend on ones view...
You can inverse a vector, but not momentum - you only change direction.

Or, if you insist on that, please define negative speed (because that is the component of momentum that carries the vector) - and no "opposite direction" won't count - "opposite" to what?

See above. And yes, momentum transfered should be cosine of the angle between the vector of the incoming photon and the vector normal to the surface. Maybe you have to turn the sign around, it doesn't matter.

It's sine, my dear, not cosine (angle between incoming vector and surface) - the maximum (1, or 100%) is at 90 degree (or pi/2).

The sign is not needed, if you have an angle <0 or >180, you (the light source) will be on the other side of the sail.
(where the sign is 100% appropriate, because the reflection goes into the other direction)

 

[Audrey Cheerful]

You make it sound like this was a valid model of a reflection...

It is a valid model to explain why an object inherits two times the momentum of an incoming photon that leaves the object in the opposite direction.

Yes, under these very unlikely circumstances you'd have the same result.
Still no reflection though.

I was not striving to model every aspect of reflections. In fact, I was only going for the aspect relevant to our discussion. I choose a model suited to adequately explain the momentum transfer and the amount of transfered momentum.

Momentum is always a vector - doesn't depend on ones view...
You can inverse a vector, but not momentum - you only change direction.

You can view momentum as a vector or as an amount. The amount would be the length of the vector. You can also destinguish between absolute and relative amounts.

Or, if you insist on that, please define negative speed (because that is the component of momentum that carries the vector) - and no "opposite direction" won't count - "opposite" to what?

Again, you are mixing up a couple of things: Vectors, abolute amounts and relative amounts. I do not get any joy from your hair splitting that even contains false hairs. It's more like setting a toupée on fire.

It's sine, my dear, not cosine (angle between incoming vector and surface) - the maximum (1, or 100%) is at 90 degree (or pi/2).

Read what I wrote. I am talking about the normal vector of the surface at the point of impact. "My dear". It's cosine. For normal vectors see here:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalVector.html

The sign is not needed, if you have an angle <0 or >180, you (the light source) will be on the other side of the sail.
(where the sign is 100% appropriate, because the reflection goes into the other direction)

If you model the incoming photon as a vector and calculate the angle between this vector and the normal vector of the surface you might have to take care of the sign. In a head-on collision the vectors would point in opposite directions. I don't care enough to check the math for the sign.

 

[wizzszz]

It is a valid model to explain why an object inherits two times the momentum of an incoming photon that leaves the object in the opposite direction.

I was not striving to modell every aspect of reflections. In fact, I was only going for the aspect relevant to our discussion. I choose a modell suited to adequately explain the momentum transfer and the amount of transfered momentum.

But that's my point - it is not a valid (alternative) model to discribe that.

Absorbing/re-emitting of a photon is entirely different to reflection, even if it sounds like a valid description, it is not the way it works, nor a valid way to explain it.

You can view momentum as a vector or as an amount. The amount would be the length of the vector. You can also destinguish between absolute and relative amounts.

Yes, that's right - there is just no such thing as a "negative amount".

Again, you are mixing up a couple of things: Vectors, abolute amounts and relative amounts. I do not get any joy from your hair splitting that even contains false hairs. It's more like setting a toupée on fire.

Well, you started with the hairsplitting (no NOTICEABLE recoil), so i guess i'm entitled to split some hairs, too.

This isn't about relative or absolute amounts (movement is always relative anyway, there is no such thing as absolute movement anyway) - if you inverse the direction, that's fine (inverse vector), but you cannot inverse the entire momentum (which is a derived unit from mass and speed)

Read what I wrote. I am talking about the normal vector of the surface at the point of impact. "My dear". It's cosine. For normal vectors see here:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalVector.html

Vector "normal to" - didn't sound like "normal vector"... yes, if you take that angle it's cosine.
(But i made it clear that i am talking about angle between incoming vector and surface, not "normal to surface" a.k.a. "normal vector" - english is your first language, i take it? Bit unfair, isn't it? )

If you modell the incoming photon as a vector and calculate the angle between this vector and the normal vector of the surface you might have to take care of the sign. In a head-on collision the vectors would point in opposite directions. I don't care enough to check the math for the sign.

Take care of the sign?
Cosine becomes negative for angles < or > 90 degree.
If the incoming ray has an angle of > or < 90 degree to the normal vector, you are on the other side of the plane.

So you either don't have to care for the sign at all (normal case), or take it as indicator that you are already on the other side of the surface.
It doesn't inverse the incoming/reflected vector though, but the normal vector (inverse normal vector = normal vector on the opposite site of the plane)



However, we digress.

Th reflected photons lose momentum (lose energy), which means that the image we see in (through) a mirror is a tiny bit "miscoloured" - but can it really work that way?

If we trap a single photon in between two mirrors, it would eventually cease to exist, because it loses energy on every "bounce"... it's just, scientist have trapped single photons (in between reflective surfaces), and kept them in the trap for quite a while, so the loss of energy is either very minimal (or percentual), or there is something we didn't pay attention to.

 

[Audrey Cheerful]

But that's my point - it is not a valid (alternative) model to discribe that.

Absorbing/re-emitting of a photon is entirely different to reflection, even if it sounds like a valid description, it is not the way it works, nor a valid way to explain it.

It does not matter! I was just giving you an example how you could divide the reflection process into two destinct distinct processes and think about the momentum. What matters is the before/after scenario. Before a photons moves towards the surface, after that it moves away. How the photon interacts with the surface does not matter one bit for the discussion of the momentum. To think about the intricacies of reflection the particle model is piss poor anyways. You would use the wave model and Maxwell's equations for that. But that, in turn, would not model the momentum. Not at all! So you would NOT use the wave model and Maxwell's equations for that. Do I make myself clear, soldier?

Yes, that's right - there is just no such thing as a "negative amount".

Yes there are. There are negative relative amounts. And even for things like absolute energy science is not sure if there aren't negative amounts. After all, look at virtual particles. Their energy is "borrowed" from who-knows-where and has to be given back to who-knows-where. That's why black wholes lose mass through Hawking radiation btw. They have to pay for the virtual particles that became real ones and escaped. Reminds me of Pinocchio but I digress.

Well, you started with the hairsplitting (no NOTICEABLE recoil), so i guess i'm entitled to split some hairs, too.

Fair enough.

Vector "normal to" - didn't sound like "normal vector"... yes, if you take that angle it's cosine.
(But i made it clear that i am talking about angle between incoming vector and surface, not "normal to surface" a.k.a. "normal vector" - english is your first language, i take it? Bit unfair, isn't it? )

We both share the same first language wizz and "normal vector" and "Normalenvektor" are pretty close.

If we trap a single photon in between two mirrors, it would eventually cease to exist, because it loses energy on every "bounce"... it's just, scientist have trapped single photons (in between reflective surfaces), and kept them in the trap for quite a while, so the loss of energy is either very minimal (or percentual), or there is something we didn't pay attention to.

The bouncing photon would only lose energy if it manages to push the mirrors apart. Lets say they are floating in space and are connected to each other. After the first bounce the whole assembly would float in the original direction of the photon that is now a wee bit red shifted. That also means that the mirror that will bounce the photon a second time will now move towards the photon blue shifting it on impact. After the second impact the photon would have it's original frequency back and the assembly would be stationary again towards our imaginary origin. Rinse and repeat.

 

[FallenAngel]

I was a reading a good article this morning regarding the force of gravity, it went on to explain how gravity is extremely “weak” compared to other “strong” forces such as magnetism.

The article explained the weakness of gravity by reminding the reader that a small magnet a few centimetres away from a steel nail can overcome the enormous pull of the entire planet to lift that nail from a table. Now that the Higgs particle has been found by the LHC, they’re now looking to understand why gravity is weak.

i always thought gravity was a bit of nonsense, i have never trusted constants and used to argue with teachers about them as a child in maths class, i didnt much like 0 either.
now they have come up with all this dark matter and energy to explain away the cosmic sized holes in their theories it only reinforces my beliefs

 

[wizzszz]

It does not matter! I was just giving you an example how you could divide the reflection process into two destinct distinct processes and think about the momentum. What matters is the before/after scenario. Before a photons moves towards the surface, after that it moves away. How the photon interacts with the surface does not matter one bit for the discussion of the momentum. To think about the intricacies of reflection the particle model is piss poor anyways. You would use the wave model and Maxwell's equations for that. But that, in turn, would not model the momentum. Not at all! So you would NOT use the wave model and Maxwell's equations for that. Do I make myself clear, soldier?

It does not matter that an absorbed and re-emitted photon will point anywhere but not where it is supposed to?

I think that matters a lot.

It is clear that the photons lose momentum to the sail, but the way you described it is totally off.

Yes there are. There are negative relative amounts. And even for things like absolute energy science is not sure if there aren't negative amounts. After all, look at virtual particles. Their energy is "borrowed" from who-knows-where and has to be given back to who-knows-where. That's why black wholes lose mass through Hawking radiation btw. They have to pay for the virtual particles that became real ones and escaped. Reminds me of Pinocchio but I digress.

Negative numbers are an invention of man.

If you ever find minus three tomatoes, please send me one.

And it is very well defined where the energy for virtual particles comes from, it is by no means "borrowed", not at all.
They are temporary particles, on their way to more stable end products.

There is no such thing as negative amounts.

Even relative amounts are amounts and not "not-amounts" or "minus-amounts".

We both share the same first language wizz and "normal vector" and "Normalenvektor" are pretty close.

Do we? Didn't know you are one of those arrogant germans... :O

However, "normal vector" has never been a problem, i know that term - but you used "vector normal to" which is more than just a slightly bit different.

The bouncing photon would only lose energy if it manages to push the mirrors apart. Lets say they are floating in space and are connected to each other. After the first bounce the whole assembly would float in the original direction of the photon that is now a wee bit red shifted. That also means that the mirror that will bounce the photon a second time will now move towards the photon blue shifting it on impact. After the second impact the photon would have it's original frequency back and the assembly would be stationary again towards our imaginary origin. Rinse and repeat.

Pushes apart?

Lost energy from the photon can go anywhere, i.e. deformation of the mirrors, the momentum is only conserved in a 100% perfect environment.

And that the second (now moving) mirror gives the momentum back?
That is hardly happening, let alone in reality, and requires that the energy was 100% conserved in momentum.

For that to happen, the momentum transferred to the photon must exceed the momentum transferred in the reflection from the photon to the mirror.

No, that cannot be correct.


You come up with explanations pretty quickly, but it sure looks like you make them up while you type...
You appear to skip the part where you think all the consequence through.

 

[Audrey Cheerful]

It's simple physics, wizz. Since I take no joy in being insulted I will leave this discussion. I'm out.

 

[wizzszz]

It's simple physics, wizz. Since I take no joy in being insulted I will leave this discussion. I'm out.

Yes, it's simple physics - and not what you describe.
And, i have insulted you? Where?


<removed>

 

[Audrey Cheerful]

And, i have insulted you? Where?

<removed>

I am done explaining things to you. Go ask somebody who teaches physics at an university level in person. <removed>

 

[wizzszz]

<removed>
I am done explaining things to you. Go ask somebody who teaches physics at an university level in person. <removed>

Pardon?

Your explanations were not only wrong, they didn't even address the questions.

And condescending? Please....
YOU act as if you HAVE the answers, and then you show that you have a lot of misconceptions, but no answers either.

I didn't ask for explanations from you - i knew beforehand that you don't have the final answers - i merely hoped you'd enjoy the puzzle as much as i do and try your best to contribute to an answer...

Unfortunately, you turned this into something personal, telling me that i don't understand to distract from the simple fact that your explanations are insufficient - i understood very well, that's why i know that your explanations are false.


Again: Where did i insult you?


<removed>

 

[Audrey Cheerful]

I know when to give up on somebody.

 

[wizzszz]

I know when to give up on somebody.

Yes, keep telling that to yourself.

It's not what you did here - you simply wimped out.

Your "explanations" are so full of misconceptions... i'm sorry, but what other reaction did you expect from me? Accept your false explanations to make you feel better?

After you acted like you have all the answers and the others are just dumb kids?
No, that won't work...



Sad.

 

[silentkill234]

Loool!

Wizz thinking hes tough yet again!

Man wizz, I wish I had a notification for every post you made. Just look at his profile picture. It explains everything about him.

 

[Ludvig|MindArk]

...

Yes yes, we understand... You are always right and everyone else is always wrong... and if someone does not agree with you or stop arguing with you its because they "wuzzed out" or realized they were wrong and do not want to admit it... every single time, no matter the topic or who you are talking to sure.

 

[wizzszz]

Loool!

Wizz thinking hes tough yet again!

Man wizz, I wish I had a notification for every post you made. Just look at his profile picture. It explains everything about him.

Just like your (non-existant) profile picture says everything about you?

You're on ignore, gratz.

Yes yes, we understand... You are always right and everyone else is always wrong... and if someone does not agree with you or stop arguing with you its because they "wuzzed out" or realized they were wrong and do not want to admit it... every single time, no matter the topic or who you are talking to sure.

You finally made it to my ignore list - will feel good not to read all your attacks on people who criticize MA anymore.



And you both made just SUCH fools out of yourself - Audreys explanations are faulty, everyone with a bit knowledge on how physics works can see that (obviously you two can't)

I think even Audrey will agree (once cooled down) that the explanations were not good.
Losing your favourite game hurts, but well, "The truth will set you free - but it will piss you off first".



Why you think this is about me, no idea, however, attacking me for that just displays your character.
(or well, the lack thereof)

"Being right" means nothing to me... apparently a lot to you both though.


Posts reported for personal attacks.