The nose tilted for landing, so that the pilots could see the ground. It isn't usually tilted at other times.

Concorde was one of the most amazing jets ever. Who would have thought that when Concorde was put in to service in 1976 as a supersonic airliner that in 2011 there would be no supersonic airliners in use?

>> ^Chimeling:

That plane has the ugliest nose I have ever seen.

i love how during the long range shots you can hear the supersonic snap of the bullet just before the rifle report.

I am not a Truth'er by any means, but I find the explanation of supersonic pancaking unlikely. And that only explains how the floors collapsed...not the center support columns. Unless part of the explanation is that the floors also pulled the center over...which would take away from the energy needed to have objects in near free fall. This really was a case of complete building failure. We owe it to ourselves for future building construction to prevent a building failure of this magnitude. I mean, hell, they can rebuild a plane and reconstruct nearly the exact conditions of its demise...but you have a report here that even doubts its own validity, seems halfassed.

wow.. nuclear weapons nowadays are pretty lame. I remember when a bomb of that type would create a devastating wall of pressure moving at supersonic speeds.

It seems now they slowly destroy a residential building giving people the time to go into the basement.


edit: yeah... I still kinda want to see the rest.

>> ^ButterflyKisses:

It's plasma energy resulting in what tadd just said. It's a very intense buildup of electromagnetic energy onto the surface area of the bottom of the projectile. In the last clip on this video, the projectile lost structural integrity from the g-forces.
>> ^mtadd:
>> ^VoodooV:
ok...so I'm dumb, if it's electromagnetically propelled, what's with the explosion?

My guess would be its a result of the shockwave from the ballistic reaching supersonic velocity.


actually you are wrong. what you see is projectile's casing falling off. see http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_EM_Rail_Gun_7MJ_Shot_lg.jpg and http://www.dstl.gov.uk/news_events/images/railgun.jpg

It's plasma energy resulting in what tadd just said. It's a very intense buildup of electromagnetic energy onto the surface area of the bottom of the projectile. In the last clip on this video, the projectile lost structural integrity from the g-forces.

>> ^mtadd:

>> ^VoodooV:
ok...so I'm dumb, if it's electromagnetically propelled, what's with the explosion?

My guess would be its a result of the shockwave from the ballistic reaching supersonic velocity.

>> ^VoodooV:

ok...so I'm dumb, if it's electromagnetically propelled, what's with the explosion?


My guess would be its a result of the shockwave from the ballistic reaching supersonic velocity.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Some of you people seem to really have it out for the guy on the left when you don't even understand the question to begin with. He seems to be the only person on the panel who understands the crux of the question... ultimately it comes down to "What definition of sound do you go by?"
If you define sound as vibrations in the air, then you'd say yes, the tree makes a sound.
If you define sound as the sensory experience of those vibrations, you'd say no, it makes no sound unless someone hears it.
They are both valid definitions of sound. See definitions 1 and 2 here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound
It doesn't mean the tree doesn't fall if nobody witnesses it.
By the way, light is invisible. You can't see it, only its effect on objects it strikes.
Also, that idiotic tool's name is John Lloyd. He's the creator of the show.


Like Stephen Fry said, given the second definition the point is moot since you can say a mechanical recorder can experience the vibration. If you admit that - and there is no reason you shouldn't except bad faith - then you can take it to the quantum level and say that every object around the falling tree is an observer and thus "hears" (is affected) by the vibrations. In fact, given the first definition, sound cannot exist without affecting something (the molecules in the air) thus by default there must always be at least one observer in order to even conceive of the possibility of the existence and transmission of a sound in the first place. Thus, whether there is a macroscopic observer is moot since there is always a quantum level one in the first place to produce anything (like the tree falling). Its a regression problem and in the end it comes to quantum probabilities: there is a small chance that no sound will be produced, but it is highly unlikely. You'd need an Infinite Improbability Drive to make sure you're there when the sound doesn't happen and be smug.

By the way, light is visible since what is visible is what you can see with your eyes. In fact, technically speaking the only thing you can see with your eyes is light. What you think you "see" (objects) are your interpretations of the light patterns on your retina. What light you can't see are those particles of light that are not converging on your retina, just as you can't see objects that are not in your field of vision or can't hear sounds that don't enter your eardrum. Doesn't mean you can't see anything or hear sounds now does it? Also, you can't ear supersonic vibrations, but your dog can. Thus you can't hear sounds? No, you can't hear supersonic vibrations. The same way you can't see ultraviolet light, but you can still see light. See? It doesn't matter what definitions you take, only that they all be on the same level of abstraction. Now do that with the second definition of sound and you see that you get solipsism. Thus the second definition of sound is not good for any kind of knowledge about the world. Why? Because it cannot explain the exteriority of the sound's provenance. The second meaning can only be a special usage reserved to neurology as a substitute for a more appropriate but cumbersome technical word, just as we still use "heat" to refer to the state of excitation in molecules.

"In the unlikely event of terrorists taking over your flight, you will find a Walther PPK strapped under your seat. Point the pistol at the terrorists and pull the trigger, keeping in mind that an airplane is a large pressure vessel moving at near supersonic speeds and the slightest puncture will cause the entire plane to explosively decompress, raining down debris down upon innocent men, women, children -- and potentially kittens -- on the ground."

>> ^Farhad2000:

Americans will invent it?
Hahahahah!


Why is that funny?
Some good ones, in chronological order:
Suspension Bridge,Refrigeration,Morse code
Steam Shovel, Vulcanized Rubber, Motorcycle,
Phonograph, Cash Register, Solar Cell,
Photographic Film, Skyscrapers, Radio,
Zipper, Tractor, FINALLY coming to the 20th century...
Air conditioning, Airplane, AC plugs and sockets,
Supermarket, Liquid Fuel Rocket, Frozen Food,
Particle Accelerators, FM, Digital Computer
, Microwave Oven, Transistor,
Mobile Phone, Supersonic Aircraft, Video Games,
Cable TV, CPR, HDD,
Industrial Robots, Videotape, LASER,
Carbon Fiber, Weather Satellites, GPS,
Heart Transplant, Cordless Phones, CDs,
Airbags, Lunar Module, WAN, PCs,
Microprocessors, Floppy Disks, Email,
Digital Cameras, Ethernet, MRI,
BBS, Internet (not WWW), Space Telescope,
DVRs, Composite Aircraft...whew that was fun. Thanks for egging me on, troll, and if you use any of the above, thank an American!

>> ^Asmo:
The problem with belief or lack of belief in the 'theory' of evolution is moot, by using the term theory science already admits that it has not been proven beyond doubt...
Hypothesis
Theory
Law


I'm not sure if this is correct asmo, at least as far as i understand it. You state those 3 like they're the stages of a scientific fact, but that's actually not true.

Firstly, when referring to scientific theory and law, there's no definitive proof for anything which might constitute a fact in the context i used.

Secondly, this ties into the first, the best we have for anything is a law - which describes observations that we have witnessed, or a theory - which is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses which can be tested and shown to be true and tries to explain why something is as we witnessed. The law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the theory tries to explain why.

We can't send stuff to a panel of administrators who put a stamp on a piece of paper and say "Yep, this is now a law, we will not permit the universe to disprove our quantification and understanding of this observation." It's not like some AD&D universe where we can check the back of the book for strict values and procedures. All we can do is spot patterns in nature and try to explain them to the best of our abilities.

I typed a bit more but realised i'm almost quoting this website which i didn't intend to do:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law :-

"A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.
Simplified: a law states what we observe, it doesn't try to explain it. It often is found lacking and as such we state boundaries for the law, as below:

Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc."

Funny. I never noticed the jetpack-equipped airline employee locking the door to my supersonic jets

Holy smokes. WikiAnswers says:

"take off speed can vary from about 32 knots (about 37mph) with a piper cub to nearly 180 knots (about 205 mph) with some supersonic jets whose tiny wings dont produce much lift at slow speeds "

The truth - no, wait- Supersonic will set you free.

Your video, Supersonic joystick will make you rap like a white man!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.