Aaron Proffitt 142 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 On 16/10/2012 at 09:46, walshie said: He slowed down when he entered the atmosphere as at the start of the jump, he was effectively in a vacuum and the earth's atmosphere is like treacle by comparison. Meteorites travel at 25,000 to 150,000 mph and are a bit bigger than a human so obviously would take a lot more slowing down, but they would also slow to terminal velocity if the atmosphere was deep enough. Aaron - Your calcs mean he would have hit the earth at 15 ft/lb? Would hardly need a parachute. That's what I came up with , too !! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 On 16/10/2012 at 10:30, Aaron Proffitt said: On 16/10/2012 at 09:46, walshie said: He slowed down when he entered the atmosphere as at the start of the jump, he was effectively in a vacuum and the earth's atmosphere is like treacle by comparison. Meteorites travel at 25,000 to 150,000 mph and are a bit bigger than a human so obviously would take a lot more slowing down, but they would also slow to terminal velocity if the atmosphere was deep enough. Aaron - Your calcs mean he would have hit the earth at 15 ft/lb? Would hardly need a parachute. That's what I came up with , too !! I don't make the laws of physics. I just enforce them! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaron Proffitt 142 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 Too right... so it's settled then. A 218 lb man going 176 feet per second only lands with 15 foot lbs of force which is very survivable . What now, Felix Baumgartner ? ! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 I dunno about very survivable, just look at the mess of a 12ft/lbs air rifle pellet when fired point blank at something hard! Lead is soft but the human body ain't much harder, think I'll leave the experiment to someone else! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 Aaah! Nearly got it right Aaron, except the weight has to be in grains, not pounds and there are 7000 grains to the pound so the energy of him hitting the deck would actually be 105000 ft/lbs. Not quite so survivable I reckon. Although he did have a crash helmet Sorry. Off work today with a bad back, so I have time to do these things. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaron Proffitt 142 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 On 16/10/2012 at 11:42, walshie said: Aaah! Nearly got it right Aaron, except the weight has to be in grains, not pounds and there are 7000 grains to the pound so the energy of him hitting the deck would actually be 105000 ft/lbs. Not quite so survivable I reckon. Although he did have a crash helmet Sorry. Off work today with a bad back, so I have time to do these things. That sounds way better...and I thought about the grains thing later when I was off on a walk . But by then , I had lost my ambition for physics. 105,000 ft/lbs ?! That'd leave a mark. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Keswick 119 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 How fast would a lump of material from a neutron star fall to earth if dropped from the same height as the fella jumped from? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 On 16/10/2012 at 12:47, John Keswick said: How fast would a lump of material from a neutron star fall to earth if dropped from the same height as the fella jumped from? Depends what size the lump is! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
longnancys 49 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 On 16/10/2012 at 08:27, ELLE said: was listening to my dad and bunch of his mates debating this last night , they reckon it was" a fake like the moon landing " they were saying that surely opening a chute at those speeds would cause massive internal injuries ,would break your neck ,back ,shoulders etc , that the ropes on the chute would snap .. dont know but maybe they have a point maybe severe whiplash even Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Millet 4,497 Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 On 16/10/2012 at 08:44, lab-tastic said: Maybe a better thing would have him to have no parachute and see how far he went underground when he hit the bottom......... :laugh: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.