Environment & Energy

Salviati

(6,037 posts)

37. This part of the argument is where chatgpt is completely botching the physics.

Wed Dec 6, 2023, 05:39 AM

Dec 2023

"In both scenarios, there is energy loss. However, with the curved barrel, more energy is lost due to the complex interaction of forces and the structural stress on the barrel. This means that the "pull" you feel from the bullet pressing against the curved barrel is less effective in propelling you forward compared to a direct momentum transfer like catching the bullets."

This statement in particular is completely wrong. The only thing that matters to momentum conservation is the initial and final velocities of the objects involved in the interaction, If you want to turn the bullet around, then you're going to have to turn the ship around. If kinetic energy is not conserved, then the final velocities will both be scaled down by the coefficient of restitution, e, but they'll both be scaled down by the same amount to keep the total momentum of the bullet + ship system balanced at zero.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

84 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is emission-less propulsion possible? I believe it is... [View all] mikelewis Dec 2023 OP

Isn't this forum supposed to be at least partially science-based? NCIndie Dec 2023 #1

How lovely... and your proof that it's wrong is? mikelewis Dec 2023 #2

I really hope this is all tongue-in-cheek. If so, that's one for you! Just in case... NCIndie Dec 2023 #5

Ok... please read a little farther down the post please... There is no plan for a shotgun based propulsion design... mikelewis Dec 2023 #7

I read it before I posted. NCIndie Dec 2023 #9

I'm not an AI robot and your challenge was based on scientific inquiry. I responded in kind... mikelewis Dec 2023 #11

The recoil JackSabbath Dec 2023 #28

The recoil pulls the gun away from you? Indeed... but not completely.... mikelewis Dec 2023 #29

Interesting topic.... Think. Again. Dec 2023 #3

I think you're missing the point... none of those are useful for extended space travel... or can reach similar speeds mikelewis Dec 2023 #4

My apologies... Think. Again. Dec 2023 #15

All of those have a terrible carbon footprint. mikelewis Dec 2023 #21

It's an interesting concept... Think. Again. Dec 2023 #35

This message was self-deleted by its author Duppers Dec 2023 #25

That is one way to win an arguement... mikelewis Dec 2023 #26

This message was self-deleted by its author Duppers Dec 2023 #27

My apologies. Duppers Dec 2023 #34

Interesting. You mean no CO2 emissions during the operation of the vehicle. NCIndie Dec 2023 #6

This isn't about the energy required to run it.. that's still a problem... for a bit... we first have to see.... mikelewis Dec 2023 #8

Innovation starts with skeptics being skeptical. I'll take that role. NCIndie Dec 2023 #10

I built this idea fighting A for the past year... lol... so thank you I do appreciate skepticism. It built this idea. mikelewis Dec 2023 #12

Be combative! NCIndie Dec 2023 #13

That is precisely why I am here... I have had my ass handed to me so many times on this forum.... LOL mikelewis Dec 2023 #14

He gets more than combative Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #57

Not if construction is done... Think. Again. Dec 2023 #16

Ok. Namely....? NCIndie Dec 2023 #17

Namely what?... Think. Again. Dec 2023 #18

You're going to build a car with zero carbon footprint because of renewables+nuclear? NCIndie Dec 2023 #19

Yeah.... Think. Again. Dec 2023 #20

What about the force the projectile is exerting against the curved barrel? sl8 Dec 2023 #22

Correct! However... it's much less than you think... I was shocked too mikelewis Dec 2023 #23

I hate ads 😏 mikelewis Dec 2023 #24

And to prove that... here's all the math... mikelewis Dec 2023 #30

Here, I think, is the fundamental error - whether ChatGPT's or yours, I can't tell from the formatting muriel_volestrangler Dec 2023 #73

Well... if you say it... it must be so... mikelewis Dec 2023 #74

If you really want to understand, please take just one physics class caraher Dec 2023 #75

Holy monkey shit batman... you cracked it... fuck me mikelewis Dec 2023 #76

Subtext... mikelewis Dec 2023 #77

I did make one mistake caraher Dec 2023 #80

Post removed Post removed Dec 2023 #82

OK, some numbers for position (Python? Why Python? This is a physics problem, not a numerical procedure) muriel_volestrangler Dec 2023 #81

After firing the total momentum is 0... mikelewis Dec 2023 #83

Can you try to write better, please? Your questions, or messages, are obscured by your style. muriel_volestrangler Dec 2023 #84

And now specifically to your point... mikelewis Dec 2023 #31

Why this is actually inline with physics... mikelewis Dec 2023 #32

The apparent paradox arises from a simplified view of the situation and is resolved when considering the full complexity mikelewis Dec 2023 #33

This part of the argument is where chatgpt is completely botching the physics. Salviati Dec 2023 #37

I said that outloud and a goat appeared in my living room... mikelewis Dec 2023 #38

Chat GPT is not a content expert. Salviati Dec 2023 #36

You are most certainly correct... mikelewis Dec 2023 #39

I don't understand, what does the letter 'O' have to do with it!? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #40

You are most certainly correct... mikelewis Dec 2023 #61

I wouldn't trust ChatGPT to count my toes accurately. It wasn't written to do that. OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #41

This is one of those things... Salviati Dec 2023 #43

Indeed! "What if!?..." OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #45

Breaking the tyranny of the rocket equation would be a hell of a thing! Salviati Dec 2023 #46

Interesting... mikelewis Dec 2023 #44

It's an EmDrive. Better tests eliminate it. Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #54

There's still some dispute OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #58

The IVO has test in orbit, past the minimum 1 month pre-test orbit Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #60

Frankly, I don't expect it to succeed either OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #63

Here's an experiment I am eager to see the results of OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #42

Very cool... mikelewis Dec 2023 #47

Here's the fix... mikelewis Dec 2023 #48

The problem is you have to carry those anvils. Salviati Dec 2023 #52

You only need two anvils... mikelewis Dec 2023 #53

"They're trying to move mass with electrons... they need to move mass with mass" Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #55

Call me "Mikey Poopie Pants!" mikelewis Dec 2023 #56

He did refute them, and you acknowledged as much OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #59

I lied... mikelewis Dec 2023 #67

ok Ptah Dec 2023 #68

Why would I pretend such a thing exists? mikelewis Dec 2023 #69

This might help: Ptah Dec 2023 #70

Not logic. "view count" is not equal to "copy-paste" nor equal to "don't understand the math" Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #62

Why on earth do you think I would be trying to use logic against you? mikelewis Dec 2023 #64

If you want to be taken seriously, and you clearly do, then don't be childish. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #65

I'm rubber and you're glue... mikelewis Dec 2023 #66

Please read: An Alternative Theory of Inertia will Get Tested in Space OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #49

Yeah... mikelewis Dec 2023 #50

scrolling hack mikelewis Dec 2023 #51

Mag lev trains use electricity Progressive dog Dec 2023 #71

You are of course correct... mikelewis Dec 2023 #72

I like ColinC Dec 2023 #78

Thank you... this is fun as hell 😃 mikelewis Dec 2023 #79