Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Bullet weight??

LOL, you're incapable of admitting your're wrong. That's all you've shown here.

Congratulations!!

And BTW, check your statement about particles with mass traveling through air at the speed of light, Einstein.

And PS, are you saying it's impossible to drive a bullet too fast, and that a bullet's destructive capacity keeps increasing with increased velocity, without limit?

Me too.

When CH waxes so poetically about the grains of sand on a beach and includes ballistics tables with bullets traveling the speed of light in the same post, it's just very special.

Never mind that bullets (or particles with mass) can't travel the speed of light (speaking of ignoring the well-established laws of physics), it's just so very very special.

For some reason it reminds me of Christmas turkey.

In early grade school kids learn to read. Later they read to learn. Some are more successful at both than others. You, apparently, were not one of the more successful students.

Contrary to what you claim, I clearly stated that to achieve the theoretical maximum speed of light in a perfect vacuum a particle would have to be without mass.

In early grade school kids learn to read. Later they read to learn. Some are more successful at both than others. You, apparently, were not one of the more successful students.

Contrary to what you claim, I clearly stated that to achieve the theoretical maximum speed of light in a perfect vacuum a particle would have to be without mass.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...s/12235938/re-bullet-weight#Post12235938
"In a perfect vacuum (a massless and therefore gravityless environment) than exists even in outer space, the theoretical maximum speed of light is a bit higher than through earth's atmosphere but the particles must be without mass (and therefore without energy) to achieve it."


An omission on my part - that should have read "In a more perfect vacuum...", but you get the idea. Maybe. In any case, you can go back a reread it. As many times as necessary.

Scientific experiments have succeeded in accelerating massful particles to speeds very close to light-speed in a perfect vacuum and much faster than light travels in air, where it is about 90km/s slower, or water, where it is about 25% slower.

For example, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) has accelerated protons, which have mass, to 299,792,447 meters per second. That is 99.9999991% or just 11 meters per second shy of the speed of light in a perfect vacuum.

Those speeds were actually rather slow compared to those achieved by the LEP (Large Electron-Positron Collider). The LEP has accelerated electrons and positrons, both of which have mass, to 299,792,457.9964 meters per second. That is 99.9999999988% or just 0.0036 meters per second slower than the theoretical speed of light in a perfect vacuum.

Granted, 99.9999999988% is not the same as 100%, but frankly, I don't care. For our purposes here it is close enough and then some.

There is nothing preventing a projectile or bullet from travelling at these speeds in a perfect vacuum except for the very separate problem of accelerating the projectiles to those speeds. The acceleration problem is irrelevant to what energy a projectile would carry if accelerated to those speeds.

One other thing. An object's velocity is relative to a fixed position. As the universe expands, many galaxies going in different directions are separating at combined speeds greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. From our perspective on earth, and in a Newtonian sense, that means many galaxies are speeding away from us at speeds greater than light speed. And the last I knew, all galaxies had a great deal of mass.

Good move ignoring formidulosis... if you actually read what he said you might learn something... right now your axles are buried deep in stupid and you appear willing to stay there grinning and "winning."

...

And to refresh your apparently failing memory, I asked several pages back "which particles with mass travel at the speed of light "at the earth's surface." Not in a vacuum; not in a perfect vacuum; and not in a "more perfect vacuum" whatever that is.

And your answer was "millions!!" Which turns out to be bullsh**, and once you realized it was bullsh** you churned out a few more pages of bullsh** to cover up the fact that you were wrong. So it's just like I said, you're incapable of admitting you're wrong, even when it slaps you upside your pointy little head.

Why ‘admit’ I’m wrong when I’m correct?

My comments about particles through air are also correct. The speed of light travelling through earth’s atmosphere is less than the theoretical maximum in a perfect vacuum, which, by the way, does not exist in the known universe. In addition, light speed through the atmosphere is not a constant – it varies depending on the density of the atmosphere at different points. It is still correct to say that the particles are travelling through the atmosphere at the speed of light. We also talk about the speed of sound in air, but that is also not constant as it also depends on the density of the air.

And yes, the destructive capability (ability to do work) increases with a projectile’s energy, which increases with its velocity. Whether a particular target is capable of demonstrating that increase depends on the target. In the case of the hand-thrown vs. rifle launched bullet in my previous post, the paper target would be incapable of demonstrating that increase but the rifle launched bullet would demonstrate that capability downrange somewhere.

Taking variables to the extreme is a perfectly valid way of proving a truth, which is what I’ve been doing. Accelerate your frangible bullet to light-speed and its energy and ability to cause destruction are like a sandy beach compared to a single grain of sand when launched at rifle speeds. At more sedate speeds the continuum still holds true.

Every projectile of a given mass has a specific amount of KE depending on its velocity. The energy curve for a 40g projectile at various speeds looks like this:

fps ==> ft-lbs
1,000 ==> 89
2,000 ==> 355
3,000 ==> 799
4,000 ==> 1,421
5,000 ==> 2,221
5,572 ==> 7,555 (This is 5400mph which is about Mach 7 or rail gun speed)
10,000 ==> 8,883
100,000 ==> 888,332
2,732,093 ==> 899,016,663 (Speed of light in air)

Whether you choose a target that can demonstrate the differential is up to you. Failure to do so does not mean the differential does not exist. Denying that the differential exists is more than silly, it denies the well-established laws of physics. Do you believe the earth is flat, too?

You better check your math.....how do you get an increase of 5,334 ft lbs of energy with only a 572 fps increase in velocity?(5,000=2,221 vs 5,572=7,555)

That's why I don't post much on this site anymore. Too much "insight" on topics that are meaningless. Seems like when someone with true real world experience puts up a post/comment, there are those contradicting every word at the drop of a hat....it gets old.

5,572 fps is also 3,799 mph, not 5,400......

Truth is, I'm not really that good with numbers. I'd rather be hunting, shooting, and reloading..

That's why I don't post much on this site anymore. Too much "insight" on topics that are meaningless. Seems like when someone with true real world experience puts up a post/comment, there are those contradicting every word at the drop of a hat....it gets old.

5,572 fps is also 3,799 mph, not 5,400......

Truth is, I'm not really that good with numbers. I'd rather be hunting, shooting, and reloading..

That's why I don't post much on this site anymore. Too much "insight" on topics that are meaningless. Seems like when someone with true real world experience puts up a post/comment, there are those contradicting every word at the drop of a hat....it gets old.