Shout discussion.

[Gen. Volkov]

Okay, in order,
“Hey volkov, try kicking a solid bowling ball and kicking one that's hollow. Or find to weights of equal size, one a 10 pounder and the other a 300 pounder and see which works better.�
You’re being ridiculous now. I’m talking about soccer balls with weight differences measuring a few grams at most. I never said anything about large weight differences. Obviously a 30 pound force applied to a 300 pound ball is not going to move it at all. But once that 300 pounds is moving, think of how hard it would be to stop it moving.

“F = m*v; thus v = F / m; It follows that if F is constant, as m decreases, v increases. Then air resistance acts opposite to that, so you get the curve effect where there is a maximum somewhere. Bell curve? The hell, that's a terribly complicated function and it's used in statistics. It would too be a parabola (or a hyperbola).�
A bell curve is not pocking complicated, it’s just a plot of the frequency of numbers. It’s basically taking a bar chart, organizing it so the tallest bars are in the middle and decreasing from there, and then drawing a curve over the tops. And it would be a bell curve. The two outside portions represent extremes like .000001 gram balls and 3000 pound balls, and the middle would represent the points of maximum efficiency of weight versus air resistance. And the lighter a ball is, the higher the responding F of air resistance is to the initial F of the kick, so it slows faster. We are talking about the middle of the curve here. Not the extremes.

“The maximum is where air resistance balances the advantage that lightness gives. In outer space, a light ball would travel the furthest, think about it.�
I’m not talking about outer space am I? In the world of air, there’s friction, which slows a heavier ball slower than a light ball. Think about it.

“Yeah... It would be a parabola. At some point, you get too heavy that it gives less distance.�

Discussed already.

[The Beatles]

Dude, I know what a bleeding bell curve is, and you are completely off track. There would be absolutely no bell curve in such a situation. It would be a parabola or a hyperbola, but basically a function that looks like:

code: Select all

 /\
 |
 |   
 |  /^\
 | (   )
 +---------->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola

The CLT is a beautiful result but it simply has no bearing upon this. If it were a bell curve, a ball with no mass would go the same distance as a ball with infinite mass. No, do me a lemon.

[Gen. Volkov]

Well since a ball of no mass would flee at the speed of light, and a ball of infinite mass would be moving at the speed of light, that is actually correct. I have actually thought this out very thoroughly, and maybe there's a flaw in my logic, but I think there would be a bell curve. Cause think about it, a very light ball would not move very far due to air resitance, and a very heavy ball would not move far due to inertia. And as the heavy balls got lighter and the light balls got heavier, you would move to the middle and hit that point of perfect equilibrium.

And a hyperbola is one thing it would not be. If it's not a bell curve, it's an inverted parabola... a hyperbola is two arcs you know.

[The Beatles]

I meant only one arc of the hyperbola, obviously. I'm talking about the class of curve, not the entire thing.

And there is a flaw in your logic. You'd need infinite force to move a ball of infinite mass. We're not saying "once it's started".

[Ruddertail]

I'd just like to point out that from the subtitle (force vrs. mass), someone might think you're comparing Jedi and Catholics. And now I'll shut up and let you get back to your conversation.

[Freenhult]

That's bad Rudder. Real bad.

[Gen. Volkov]

I dunno, I kinda liked it. *laughs*.

You'd also need infinite force/energy to make something massless. So that's the counterbalance.

And I get what you mean about the hyperbola, but that's just a type of parabola then. But that's beside the point.

[The Beatles]

You'd also need infinite force/energy to make something massless. So that's the counterbalance.

??

One of our scenarios of assumption is a massless ball at rest.

[Gen. Volkov]

Yes, but there is no known way to cause something to have exactly zero mass without the use of an infinite amount of energy. Everything has mass. It may be a very small amount, but it does have mass. Even photons have mass. Though theoretically it is possible to make a photon massless. But I think even that requires an infinite amount of energy.

[The Beatles]

Who cares if it's bleeding possible? It's just for imagination. But anyways, never mind that, just imagine the beach ball and the lead ball with the same size.

[Gen. Volkov]

Ok, how far can you kick a beach ball? 20 yards? If that? Now think about the lead ball, once it was moving, it would be very hard to stop. The thinkg is, how big a beach ball are we talking? And what kind? The materials the beach ball is made of make a big difference here. And is the lead ball hollow like the beach ball? Or solid?

[The Beatles]

From what I gather, footballs begin play motionless. I don't care what happens when you launch the lead ball out of a cannon. Start with a system at rest please, then do a coin toss to see who kicks off first.

[Gen. Volkov]

Thing is, a lead ball does not have the same characteristics when kicked as a soccer ball does. It doesn't transfer energy the same way for starters. It's not a fair comparison to kick both and see which goes further. The soccer ball is much better at transfering the energy of the kick into it's own kinetic energy than the lead ball. Now say we apply the same force, but in a different form, say a continuous push, gradually increasing to the full force of the kick, and then see which goes further, and I bet the lead ball does.