Quake3World

:icon19:

DRuM, the girl in your video looks eight years old, but with breast implants. Sicko.

She doesn't look 8.

DRuM wrote:

Fender wrote:again, why do euros say "mathS" vs "math"???

Also because we invented proper english.

you guys sure can't speak it tho

xer0s wrote:Ok, lets say I have this thing that shoots stuff. Now, lets say this thing shoots an object 970 yards, and is shot at a 60 degree angle. Is it possible to figure how high the object went when it was shot? And if not, what other factors would need to be known to figure this out?

P.S. Props goes out to DooMer for hooking my account back up.

...sounds like you need an artillery expert...

Scarface wrote:

DRuM wrote:

Fender wrote:again, why do euros say "mathS" vs "math"???

Also because we invented proper english.

you guys sure can't speak it tho

so, 'they' invented it and can re-invent the bitch :P

xer0s wrote:
P.S. Props goes out to DooMer for hooking my account back up.

I wish someone would fix my account, since this place was put back I have never been able to access my old account.

Scarface wrote:

DRuM wrote:

Fender wrote:again, why do euros say "mathS" vs "math"???

Also because we invented proper english.

you guys sure can't speak it tho

It's though, not tho.

denzii wrote:

xer0s wrote:
P.S. Props goes out to DooMer for hooking my account back up.

I wish someone would fix my account, since this place was put back I have never been able to access my old account.

Does it really matter?

Nightshade can probably give us the definitive answer.

tnf wrote:Nightshade can probably give us the definitive answer.

I already solved the damn question

Sorry it took me so long to reply.

I'm not doutbing Julios answer. But it makes more sense to me that the object would have to go at least half as high as it goes long.

The object is a 14 pound bowling ball. And the velocity is unkown. BTW, this isn't for school.

I found this website. It might could help.

Is it saying that a 45 degree angle would get the longest range?

[xeno]Julios wrote:

tnf wrote:Nightshade can probably give us the definitive answer.

I already solved the damn question

Wait and see what the resident physics expert tells us....I see a flaw.

random name wrote:

denzii wrote:

xer0s wrote:
P.S. Props goes out to DooMer for hooking my account back up.

I wish someone would fix my account, since this place was put back I have never been able to access my old account.

Does it really matter?

Yeah , I want my 15,000 posts back

denzii wrote:
Yeah , I want my 15,000 posts back

Why? What are you going to do with them?

random name wrote:

denzii wrote:
Yeah , I want my 15,000 posts back

Why? What are you going to do with them?

I use them for sex.

Interesting. :icon32:

I'll do the math later tonight. Last night I had a few beers in me and didn't trust myself.

tnf wrote:

xer0s wrote:Ok, lets say I have this thing that shoots stuff. Now, lets say this thing shoots an object 970 yards, and is shot at a 60 degree angle. Is it possible to figure how high the object went when it was shot? And if not, what other factors would need to be known to figure this out?

P.S. Props goes out to DooMer for hooking my account back up.

Ignoring air resistance?

What are the whole math calculation good at, if we ignored what is the type of weapon, a pellet gun or a bazooka? Shooting a bird or a plane?

Pete

you're retarded.

You guys are making it way too hard.

Imagine the "rainbow" trajectory that this is going to make. It will by symmetrical. So take half the total travel distance and you've got the long leg of a right triangle. Use the pythagorean theorem to get the length of the short leg (the height) and you're good.

edit: nevermind, I'm a moron.
2nd edit: I figured out I'm a moron before Kracus did :P

l0g1c wrote:You guys are making it way too hard.

Imagine the "rainbow" trajectory that this is going to make. It will by symmetrical. So take half the total travel distance and you've got the long leg of a right triangle. Use the pythagorean theorem to get the length of the short leg (the height) and you're good.

That's not always true, depending on what angle you shot the object it could travel up 90m's and land 5 meters in front of you... How would your theory work then?

Btw, I'm still right, but I've only given how to do the last part, you still have to infer what one of the other distances is by noting the 60 degree angle.

l0g1c wrote:Btw, I'm still right, but I've only given how to do the last part, you still have to infer what one of the other distances is by noting the 60 degree angle.

Yeah that'd make sense.