In a military. You can’t have soldiers object your commands. Soldiers rely on their commanders to see the over all situation and do what needs to be done. You seeing this from the over all commanders point of view, with hindsight. This is not the view of the soldiers of this fleet. All the fighters knew, was that they needed to protect that one ship and attack the enemy. The battleships probably only had seconds before they realize that all the fighters were leaving them. What could they have done than? As to ramming the planet. Even in the movie they didn’t even realize what Ender was planning to do. Til the last second. In the end you have to admit he did win the war and any future war.
Oh damn thats something alright. As expected of indian movies which are mostly ridiculous to a whole another level......
So from what google is telling me it's definitely impossible for a human (maybe for a machine). But that's with a normal gun and bullets. Maybe the guns and ammo were somehow modified in the movie and it was never mentioned?
Pretty sure mythbusters did a thing on it. With a machine the speed at which the army would have to move would be completely and utterly ridiculous it's not feasible or something.
Mythbusters gave up at roughly twice a human's arm speed. "Maybe a machine" means something a hell of a lot faster and/or more precise. I think it's possible to curve a regular bullet but would require highly specialized machinery, basically. And I'm not 100% on that. Anyway, my line of thought is on how modified arms and ammunition might affect things. A differently shaped barrel or bullet, for example, could make it possible for a human. Maybe?
Barrel shape wouldn't matter. You know I thought they went faster then that.... That is actually disappointing. *Watched it over 3 years ago* Really the only thing I could think of is the bullet having timed explosions or something!
I saw in a random quora post that there are bullets with guided aiming now, equipped with fins that control the bullet's flight path. Think extremely miniature rocket, I guess, that doesn't have its own propulsion. Quite a bit larger than a 9mm, though, and more for a large rifle than a handgun. I also think it's more about minute adjustments to correct your aim or respond to environmental conditions than something as crazy as totally curving the flight path. But it does show that fins on a bullet can adjust the flight path, so the shape of the bullet obviously matters. Perhaps an oddly shaped bullet can and will curve when fired?
I think the fins are there for extreme long distance sniper shots in these cases look up like the world's longest sniper shot and you will see why they might be necessary if it's for rifles and such.
Yeah, like I said - it's not for curving a bullet. It's for finely correcting a shot. .. and yes, over a long distance. Still, the fundamental concept here is that the fins can affect the bullet's flight path. The bullet's shape has a notable affect, then. So, what if we crank that up to 11 and fire bullets that have ridiculous, non-aerodynamic shapes? Another potential avenue is weakening the gun. A slower bullet would be more susceptible to the forces that could make it curve, aye?
No it's not that the fins affect the bullets flight path it's that the fins decrease the wind resistance so the bullet can travel further. They are similar but completely different in practice. The fins and everything allow the bullet only to travel further and possibly faster due to the lowered air resistance hence less drop occurs as more speed is retained so it's easier to disregard the wind and shit. If instead you were trying to make it turn you'd fail cause the bullet would instead become less reliable and slow down drastically so it'd hit the ground far earlier sadly. By the time the bullet is slowed down enough to realistically curve the effects of gravity are far stronger then the wind generally so it'd be redundant for the second version. Sadly curving would be near impossible in these circumstances unless you shoot it at the edge of a tornado!
Whoa, hold up. No. https://www.sandia.gov/research/robotics/high_consequence_automation/guided_bullet.html I was talking about a legitimate guided bullet. The fins are used to steer the flight, not just to stabilize it. Also, as posted earlier in this thread, it is entirely possible to curve arrows. It's also, obviously, possible to curve baseballs. It's completely illogical to say that a bullet could not be curved without slowing it so much that it essentially just falls out of the air. Yes, the effective range of a slower bullet is going to be significantly reduced... but that's fine? We were talking about bullets fired from handguns to begin with. Short range.
I believe both of you have very logical thought processes. Both seems feasible. @Westeller point of view is possible, especially if you add on a guided system. Combine with a shorter range. As to @TiggerBane you are definitely correct about the performance of a round. I would have said the same thing if I didn’t see that arrow curved. Or saw a curve ball actually curve. I don’t think it’s to outrageous to believe a technique or technology couldn’t recreate a close repeat. Never assume there are limits to understanding or you will be wrong every time.
Bullet do curve. Coriollis effect? I learn it from Call of Duty Modern Warfare on mission to kill Imran Zhakaev.
AHh no I know bullets can curve. It's just the ways he was suggesting and that I didn't actually look up what he was talking about probably. The reason a ball can curve is completely to do with spin though it's a completely different idea that is impossible for a bullet to do due to the bullets very nature. The arrow gets sent curving due to changes in the fletching which generally bullets don't have! The bullet that was supplied would totally be able to curve over a significant enough distance due to the whole counter weight and everything installed holy shit... But it would still probably not be able to curve enough for the current shot.
Thats how sci-fi is usually like. Everyone knew something was right. Only to be disproven. What will we see tomorrow.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." Everyone knew Sir Isaac Newton was right. When the theory of relativity appeared in the early 1900s, it upended centuries of science and gave physicists a new understanding of space and time. Isaac Newton saw space and time as fixed, but in the new picture provided by special relativity and general relativity they were fluid and malleable. Everyone knew Einstein was right. Since Einstein first proposed the Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, scientists have been operating under the restrictions imposed by a relativistic universe. One of these restrictions is the belief that the speed of light is unbreakable and hence, that there will never be such a thing as FTL space travel or exploration. Even though subsequent generations of scientists and engineers managed to break the sound barrier and defeat the pull of the Earth's gravity, the speed of light appeared to be one barrier that was destined to hold. But then, in 1994, a Mexican physicist by the name of Miguel Alcubierre came along with proposed method for stretching the fabric of space-time in a way which would, in theory, allow FTL travel to take place. Everyone knew, but in the end proven otherwise. Assuming that’s how the universe works and their is no other way is folly. When your in a box. Everything is set and secure. But if you open yourself to thinking outside that box. You realize that you are the one restricting yourself to the possibilities.
I’ve got some more insane, inane, stupid movie plots... CIA creates a fictional movie to smuggle some of the hostages outa Iran The US government hired psychics to spy on USSR missile silos. A meteor hits one of the Apollo missions, and they save the crew by making a round CO2 scrubber fit a square slot. stupid, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krummlauf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CornerShot
Bullets do curve, at long distance. Due to the Magnus Effect, bullets will slowly 'curve', as it loses momentum due to equal and opposite reaction as a result of its spin. The point here is that there is no way a human being can exert enough force to force the bullet to curve. If a human being can exert enough force to push a bullet to curve at short range, that human being has the wrist strength to punch his fist through a fighter jet. If a human being can exert that force before the bullet leaves the barrel, he has the speed to catch up to a fighter jet. Bullets can travel at twice the speed of sound, so if a person is faster than a bullet, he's faster than most fighter jets at cruising speed (cruising speed, not top speed). Coriolis effect is different in that it is the phenomenon of something free flying wanting to curve to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere if given time. There has been a rumour that you can see this effect when you flush the toilet.