The Title it the Title

[1337Elite]

This depends on the material. And no, that's not a theory.

 

[Cryo]

then its a fact?

 

[Whitesock]

I didn't see anyone answer this correctly yet from the posts I've read.

Frist theory: Ice,once it hits the right temp, can turn black , this "dark" ice is very dangerous, the ice will probally not be water, but more of a gas.

Water has no carbon in it, and therefore cannot burn into a charred form of "black" water.

This weeks topic is......."A sword or some other item of your choice block a bullet form a gun of your choice and or some other projectile"

It can indeed split a bullet; however, you would need to be incredibly lucky, have insane forearm strength to hold the sword while it is happening, and an incredibly sharp blade in order to split it.

Mostly it will probably just smash into the blade and push it back into you because your edge isn't sharp enough.

 

[Seb!]

Or you could get a lightsaber!

 

[Ninva]

Calm down because no one really knows.

 

[sjakie]

If you get one bloody hell of a grip, strong arm muscles, and a strong sword I think it should be possible (though it also depends on the gun eh?)

But hey, even in a life/death situation, noone can react faster than a bullet. It would all be luck if you managed to block one.

 

[1337Elite]

It can indeed split a bullet; however, you would need to be incredibly lucky, have insane forearm strength to hold the sword while it is happening, and an incredibly sharp blade in order to split it.

Mostly it will probably just smash into the blade and push it back into you because your edge isn't sharp enough.

He didn't actually say "split", he meant blocking, based on my interpretation of his posts. The blade, as you say, must be incredibly strong. There are different ways of holding the blade, however, so well built muscles are most likely not needed when you hold the blade in a certain way.

 

[stubs101]

Do you have this as a theory or are you just asking?

 

[Cryo]

Well u can use the side of the blade, like most people say depending the the material, Cutting is pretty extreme though :shades:.

P.S. What about other objects like knifes and old guns like in the renaissance age guns?:nuts:

 

[UnknowVector]

Blocking isn't exactly a complex topic, you put a stationary object in front of a moving object, and the stationary object absorbs the momentum of the moving object, resulting in two stationary objects, with respect to each other.

The simplest possible demonstration is a moving object that is not connected to any other objects (like a bullet), and a stationary object connected to the Earth. Anything moving at the speed of the Earth will be considered to have 0 momentum.

One of four things will result
1. The joint between the stationary object and the Earth will break, resulting in two moving objects both moving at a slower velocity than the original moving object.
2. The momentum of the moving object will be absorbed by the stationary object and the Earth, and all objects will have 0 momentum.
3. The moving object will break through the stationary object.
4. The moving object will rebound off the stationary object.

So yes, if you take a sword made of a harder metal than the bullet, and of sufficient thickness, and lodge it deeply in the ground, then somehow shoot it with a bullet, the sword will block the bullet, and you will probably lose an eye to a ricochet.

Also, since you haven't tested these hypothesis yet, they are NOT theories.

 

[Seb!]

Blocking isn't exactly a complex topic, you put a stationary object in front of a moving object, and the stationary object absorbs the momentum of the moving object, resulting in two stationary objects, with respect to each other.

The simplest possible demonstration is a moving object that is not connected to any other objects (like a bullet), and a stationary object connected to the Earth. Anything moving at the speed of the Earth will be considered to have 0 momentum.

One of four things will result
1. The joint between the stationary object and the Earth will break, resulting in two moving objects both moving at a slower velocity than the original moving object.
2. The momentum of the moving object will be absorbed by the stationary object and the Earth, and all objects will have 0 momentum.
3. The moving object will break through the stationary object.
4. The moving object will rebound off the stationary object.

So yes, if you take a sword made of a harder metal than the bullet, and of sufficient thickness, and lodge it deeply in the ground, then somehow shoot it with a bullet, the sword will block the bullet, and you will probably lose an eye to a ricochet.

Also, since you haven't tested these hypothesis yet, they are NOT theories.

Yeah, you are right. But if an object acts a net force on another object, that object will accelerate in the direction of the force. The stationary object, in order to not accelerate, must be strong enough to absorb the momentum of a speeding bullet.

 

[Cryo]

Ok, fine you got me there form now on i will called them hypothesis, and is there any way to make the object go faster?

 

[EatShrooms]

On your first post 0 Kelvin, the absolute zero is −459.67 °F. Certain materials may react to that extreme of temperature, and I wouldn't doubt something would turn black cause of it.

 

[Seb!]

That's what I said.. But I was denied.

 

[Cryo]

Sorry for the late post, I forgot about it yesterday, any way the new "Hypothesis" is about the “time machine”. So far no one has built one yet although there are several attempts in the 90’s. According to Einstein it is impossible to travel “back” in time, but did he ever say u couldn’t go forward in fact we are going forward in time right now, but can a machine actually make u go in time forward at a faster rate. Rather then 1 sec per sec why not 2 or 5 or even a whole min.

P.S. there is no ps

 

[Cidzero]

It is a plausible theory of time travel, to go forward faster would mean to slow down yourself so much that time around you seems to move faster when really you're just really slow.

Also another fact is you cannot change the past under no circumstances because if you did "change" the past, then how come the present day is the way it is? The presence of time travel is ultimately useless due to no matter what you do, we're stuck in the same time.

EDIT: Watch Bender's Big Score (the new Futurama), Time Travel is a paradox ^_^

 

[Cryo]

Sure u can change time, if go to the year 2000 and plant a bullet in the wall and go back to your own time u will the find same bullet if the same wall, it is a very bad idea to change time thoguth due to the fact that u don't know how much u will change.

P.S. please do not think about time changeing too much or you will go insane.

 

[Cidzero]

I've been insane since I was born.

And trust me, that bullet was there before you went back in time. Thats how it works, present day doesn't change, history cannot change, its a fact of time.

Otherwise, the universe as we know it, wouldn't exist. It would implode upon itself.

 

[Pineapple]

Going forward in time already happened.

Astonaughts going up in a shuttle go forward in time by a few seconds. How?

The closer you are to the speed of light the slower time effects you. If I went at the speed of light and age fire years, you would be in your 40s or 50s.

 

[Cryo]

This weeks topic is not a theory, but more of a question.

Is infinate energy possible? Can there a source or can something create energy out of nothing?