89 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziegrif]

Never knew this due to never playing Asari that much. o3o

[ComradeShepard7]

Koenig888 wrote...

Shampoohorn wrote...

Koenig888 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

All objects in motion possess force.

Ummm ..... not really.  All objects in motion possess momentum.  They only possess force if there is acceleration.

Not really. Force is applied to an object to generate accelleration. An object in motion can transfer its momentum to a static object... as force. Asari dodge does that, but also generates some additional force biotically. You know, space magic.

There is force when the static object is accelerated to whatever velocity it acquires through the transfer of momentum.  After it reaches a certain velocity, it will continue at that velocity.  There is no further acceleration and hence no further force.  Or if you prefer, force = mass X acceleration.  Acceleration zero, force zero.  Or space magic.

Objects do not posses force. Forces are the means by which particels/objects/systems interact with one another. When momentum transfer occurs, momentum is the thing that is trasfered, not force. Force is the means by which the momentum transfer occurs. No object in any of this is required to be static.

Also, "the net force on a particle/object/system equals its mass times its linear acceleration" is a special case of Newton's second law for linear motion where mass is constant. The actual statement is "the net force on a particle/object/system is equal to the time rate of change of its linear momentum" and this does not include the Lorentz factor that is needed if relativistic speeds are involved (the factor is nearly unity for anything we deal with day to day).

Now, if the acceleration (for a constant mass) or more generally the time rate of change of momentum is zero, this means the NET force is zero, not that there is no force. A simple example of this is an aircraft traveling at constant velocity (drag, thrust, lift and gravitational forces are all present).

[dumdum2]

I bet you meant to write "effect" right?

Also, it might be common knowledge on BSN but I had no freaking idea about this, so thanx Cain, you have just increased my head knowledge!

[NuclearTech76]

ComradeShepard7 wrote...

Koenig888 wrote...

Shampoohorn wrote...

Koenig888 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

All objects in motion possess force.

Ummm ..... not really.  All objects in motion possess momentum.  They only possess force if there is acceleration.

Not really. Force is applied to an object to generate accelleration. An object in motion can transfer its momentum to a static object... as force. Asari dodge does that, but also generates some additional force biotically. You know, space magic.

There is force when the static object is accelerated to whatever velocity it acquires through the transfer of momentum.  After it reaches a certain velocity, it will continue at that velocity.  There is no further acceleration and hence no further force.  Or if you prefer, force = mass X acceleration.  Acceleration zero, force zero.  Or space magic.

Objects do not posses force. Forces are the means by which particels/objects/systems interact with one another. When momentum transfer occurs, momentum is the thing that is trasfered, not force. Force is the means by which the momentum transfer occurs. No object in any of this is required to be static.

Also, "the net force on a particle/object/system equals its mass times its linear acceleration" is a special case of Newton's second law for linear motion where mass is constant. The actual statement is "the net force on a particle/object/system is equal to the time rate of change of its linear momentum" and this does not include the Lorentz factor that is needed if relativistic speeds are involved (the factor is nearly unity for anything we deal with day to day).

Now, if the acceleration (for a constant mass) or more generally the time rate of change of momentum is zero, this means the NET force is zero, not that there is no force. A simple example of this is an aircraft traveling at constant velocity (drag, thrust, lift and gravitational forces are all present).

No just hell no. We will not have a physics discussion on this forum. 

[OniGanon]

I don't know where you guys learned this nonsense.

Force is generated by organic lifeforms, surrounding and permeating everything in the galaxy, binding it together.

[LuckyBullet95]

DisturbedPsic0 wrote...

b00g13man wrote...

Could've sworn this was common knowledge...

Unless you're trolling, I hate to see what you consider not to be common knowledge. There are plenty of people who don't know piercing doesn't work on some guns, the weight glitch, what the power absorption bubble is and how it's triggered, etc.  The large majority of the players dont' come to the forums, and even those don't read all the posts that explain these tiny nuaces.  I've played this game since launch, and have been pretty active on the forums for at least a year and this is new to me.

He's right though. To BSN this is common knowledge... As is everything else you mentioned. There is no way Cain could be telling this to the public players so it is common knowledge to everyone Cain is trying to inform.

[Jaded4Chaos]

ComradeShepard7 wrote...

Koenig888 wrote...

Shampoohorn wrote...

Koenig888 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

All objects in motion possess force.

Ummm ..... not really.  All objects in motion possess momentum.  They only possess force if there is acceleration.

Not really. Force is applied to an object to generate accelleration. An object in motion can transfer its momentum to a static object... as force. Asari dodge does that, but also generates some additional force biotically. You know, space magic.

There is force when the static object is accelerated to whatever velocity it acquires through the transfer of momentum.  After it reaches a certain velocity, it will continue at that velocity.  There is no further acceleration and hence no further force.  Or if you prefer, force = mass X acceleration.  Acceleration zero, force zero.  Or space magic.

Objects do not posses force. Forces are the means by which particels/objects/systems interact with one another. When momentum transfer occurs, momentum is the thing that is trasfered, not force. Force is the means by which the momentum transfer occurs. No object in any of this is required to be static.

Also, "the net force on a particle/object/system equals its mass times its linear acceleration" is a special case of Newton's second law for linear motion where mass is constant. The actual statement is "the net force on a particle/object/system is equal to the time rate of change of its linear momentum" and this does not include the Lorentz factor that is needed if relativistic speeds are involved (the factor is nearly unity for anything we deal with day to day).

Now, if the acceleration (for a constant mass) or more generally the time rate of change of momentum is zero, this means the NET force is zero, not that there is no force. A simple example of this is an aircraft traveling at constant velocity (drag, thrust, lift and gravitational forces are all present).

Best part of the thread right here (thanks Token)

Also, I didn't know this (but am not here very often so there's lots I do not know).

[Shampoohorn]

OniGanon wrote...

I don't know where you guys learned this nonsense.

Force is generated by organic lifeforms, surrounding and permeating everything in the galaxy, binding it together.

[DisturbedPsic0]

LuckyBullet95 wrote...

DisturbedPsic0 wrote...

b00g13man wrote...

Could've sworn this was common knowledge...

Unless you're trolling, I hate to see what you consider not to be common knowledge. There are plenty of people who don't know piercing doesn't work on some guns, the weight glitch, what the power absorption bubble is and how it's triggered, etc.  The large majority of the players dont' come to the forums, and even those don't read all the posts that explain these tiny nuaces.  I've played this game since launch, and have been pretty active on the forums for at least a year and this is new to me.

He's right though. To BSN this is common knowledge... As is everything else you mentioned. There is no way Cain could be telling this to the public players so it is common knowledge to everyone Cain is trying to inform.

"Common" is only meaningful when you specify in relation to what. Saying common knowledge on the BSN is very different from saying common knoweldge, which wasn't specified. And like I mentioned in my post, I've been active on these forums for over a year, and this is the first topic I've seen on the issue.  So I'm not even sure saying it's common knowledge on the BSN is completely accurate.  I see the same hanful of very competent and knowledgable players posting on here, and I'm sure to them, this is something they've known for a long time. But a set of dedicated people knowing something is very different from common knowledge. My two cents anyway.

[Tokenusername]

Now explain gravity, you nerds.

[NuclearTech76]

Tokenusername wrote...

Now explain gravity, you nerds.

LOL. I would be interested to see if anyone can actually do this. 

[Shampoohorn]

Tokenusername wrote...

Now explain gravity, you nerds.

No, you will have to weight.

[billpickles]

I'm really digging the convergence of physics and Star Wars jokes in this thread. Keep up the good work, fellas!

[Jaded4Chaos]

Shampoohorn wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Now explain gravity, you nerds.

No, you will have to weight.

+1

[dumdum2]

Tokenusername wrote...

Now explain gravity, you nerds.

If you need that explained then I guess you don't really know much about physics right?

[Cyonan]

Tokenusername wrote...

Now explain gravity, you nerds.

A hamster running on a wheel at the core of the Earth powers a giant special magnet that attracts all things, which pulls everything towards the ground.

[NuclearTech76]

dumdum2 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Now explain gravity, you nerds.

If you need that explained then I guess you don't really know much about physics right?

Yep. Elaborate for us. 

[dumdum2]

NuclearTech76 wrote...

dumdum2 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Now explain gravity, you nerds.

If you need that explained then I guess you don't really know much about physics right?

Yep. Elaborate for us. 

It would have to be in Swedish because I can't write physics in English, lol 

[dumdum2]

Cyonan wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Now explain gravity, you nerds.

A hamster running on a wheel at the core of the Earth powers a giant special magnet that attracts all things, which pulls everything towards the ground.

Seems I don't have to try to explain gravity since Cyonan already nailed it 

[NuclearTech76]

dumdum2 wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

dumdum2 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Now explain gravity, you nerds.

If you need that explained then I guess you don't really know much about physics right?

Yep. Elaborate for us. 

It would have to be in Swedish because I can't write physics in English, lol 

Classical "Newtonian" physics is generally wrong yet is accurate enough to describe gravity on a large scale. 

[Caineghis2500]

b00g13man wrote...

caineghis2500 wrote...

blackproject18 wrote...

Didn't realize it produced such a consistant stagger.

Apparently it's common knowledge around here according to a certain person. Most people know of it's stagger sure but a "consistent" stagger is a different case..

Lol. You still don't understand what it means, huh? It was in bold dude. Seriously.

Then why don't you explain to everyone here what you are trying to say. I think that's the best thing right now..

[Dr. Tim Whatley]

caineghis2500 wrote...

b00g13man wrote...

caineghis2500 wrote...

blackproject18 wrote...

Didn't realize it produced such a consistant stagger.

Apparently it's common knowledge around here according to a certain person. Most people know of it's stagger sure but a "consistent" stagger is a different case..

Lol. You still don't understand what it means, huh? It was in bold dude. Seriously.

Then why don't you explain to everyone here what you are trying to say. I think that's the best thing right now..

Can't believe I have to spell this out...

Just because something is common knowledge doesn't automatically imply that everybody knows it. It's in the definition you posted (wherever you got that from). Using an example of someone who didn't know the fact doesn't prove that it wasn't common kmowledge.

Moreover, my initial post doesn't translate as "This is common knowledge", it's more akin to "I thought this was common knowledge".

Please don't make me have to explain the difference between the two.

[millahnna]

I can't believe I didn't know this. I play the Huntress so much I'm practically a one trick pony and part of my strategy with her involves using her dodge for placement to nail my three targets of choice with my melee. And somehow I'd never noticed.