Is it possible to eliminate travel time from projectiles? It

>>32139221
you mean like teleporting lasers or some shit?
what the actual fuck are you on about

T. Just did 1g of IV methamphetamine

>>32139245
no

like in this as soon as the shell was fired it would travel the trajectory it would normally travel, but do it instantly so it would instantly hit the dialed in target

>>32139221
>Is teleportation an active subject of research in the military?
I don't think so, but then again, they did research ESP, so who knows.

>>32139221
Do you even physics?

>>32139262
You're literally describing instantaneous travel, aka, teleportation.

>>32139221
For the artillery: you need time in order for the acceleration of gravity to act on artillery shells, so that you get a parabolic projectile path.

For the soldier: possibly with a portable railgun or high-powered laser. That's as fast as it gets.

File: 1456352123695.gif (2MB, 206x223px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 206x223px

>>32139262
Orbital bombardment?
Rods from God?

>>32139280
no im not

the shell would still travel the trajectory it normally travels so its not just teleporting from a to b, it still travels an arc

it just has to do it instantly

Wouldn't lasers travel at the speed of light? No scientist or anything so one of you actual scientists correct me if I'm wrong. We've been weaponizing lasers for years, only a matter of time before we've got star wars like guns and shit.

>>32139315
So, infinite velocity?
Yeah, good luck with that.

>>32139332
yeah but lasers shoot in straight lines so you can't have laser artillery to hit something behind a mountain

unless there's a way to make a laser follow a ballistic arc? could you bend light so it shoots in an arc?

>>32139315

so youre asking if anyone has been working to achieve faster than light travel but only on stuff that travels in an arc are you fucking retarded or what??

>>32139315
Thank you for clarifying your question.

The answer to your question is no. It is not possible to instantly move an object like that. Relativity rather sternly forbids infinite velocity, because you would need infinite energy to accelerate an object infinitely.

>>32139346
What if you put super strong lasers on satellites to shoot targets from space?

>>32139350
kek

>"Let's have this artillery shell travel faster than light"
>"Sounds cool"
>"Ok, but the shell HAS to travel the exact same trajectory that it would have under normal ballistics"
>"I will not question your infinite wisdom!"

>>32139346
Yea, put it in a shell and fire it from a cannon.

>>32139373
See>>32139294

>>32139382
how do you put light into an artillery shell

>>32139404
>open shell
>pour a healthy dose of light using your preferred light source
>close shell
>the light will be contained in the shell

Are you retarded?

>>32139221

Why do stupid fucking threads like this get more than 2 replies that should both say "fuck off"?

>>32139404
Convert the energy into PETN then release it at the other end with an impact trigger or similar.

>>32139262
They research impossible shit sometimes just cause it might pay off in real world unforseen ways. Like zombie war games paying off for preparing for a massive disease outbreak.

>>32139315
>a soldier would be able to just line up shots and not have to worry about bullet drop or anything.
>the shell would still travel the trajectory it normally travels so its not just teleporting from a to b, it still travels an arc

You're either 12 or severely retarded.

this has got to be bait

saged

Bait.

'Eliminate travel time.'

yeah, sure, make your projectiles instantly achieve light speed. There will be no arc, and as a bonus they can blow up the planet by pointing the muzzle to the ground (or firing into a mountain, etc.) Or you can blow up the moon by shooting at it.

Or if you invent teleportation, you can just teleport shells into the enemy pos. Fuck,you can teleport a nuke into Putin's rectum.

Sky's the limit, bro. Sky's the limit.

>>32139221
I am also high as fuck anon.

>>32139221
Unless you create a Einstein-Rosen bridge AKA a wormhole then no.

File: time to target.png (16KB, 770x994px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 770x994px

Here's a quick diagram why is doesn't work. The projectile has a fixed velocity at the muzzle. The way to adjust the point of impact is to adjust the angle. With artillery increasing the velocity also increases the height of the arc, so the time to target longer. With rifles the arc is at a very low angle, almost straight, so increasing the velocity does decrease the time to target.

>>32139315
So it would travel some amount of distance but do so in 0 amount of time? Can you think of anything else that works this way?

File: time to target.png (16KB, 670x882px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 670x882px

>>32141051
OK now let's go balls to the wall theoretical here. Eschew all practicality. How could we get to the enemy the fastest? With line-of-sight weapons like rifles, use lasers or high velocity projectiles. The straight trajectory is good.

With artillery you need to get over obstacles like building, they are not line of sight weapons. One way is to change trajectory mid-flight. We could use steerable projectiles like missiles, or two-stage projectiles. Decrease the angles and max the velocity so that the least amount of energy is used fighting gravity and most of the energy is spent getting to the target.

THE fastest possible way to hit the enemy would be a railgun-launched laser.

>>32141147
>THE fastest possible way to hit the enemy would be a railgun-launched laser.
A railgun-launched railgun would be very close, though.

File: IMG_2030.jpg (2MB, 1600x1206px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1206px

>>32141192
I second this

>>32141147
>>32141192
how much time is allowed to prepare?
if you deorbit rods of god they'll come crashing down several times faster than even what a railgun can manage

File: cornershot laser.png (3KB, 512x256px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 512x256px

>>32141147
hol' up, I thought of a faster one. A railgun launched reflector for a laser. A simple reflector will be lighter and small than an entire laser so it can be accelerated to high speeds than the railgun-launched laser.

>>32139373
this would probably be fastest but the atmosphere distorts light which makes high power lasers difficult.

>>32141147
>a railgun-launched laser
What the fuck?

File: ▄█▀ █▬█ █ █ █ █ █ █ ▀█▀.jpg (64KB, 791x700px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 791x700px

ITT:

>weed
>artillery
>FTL travel
>autism
>retardation

ITT: a /k/ommando smokes weed for the first time.

>>32141223
I think OP wants the fastest time-to-kill. Press button and then it happens instantly.

I'm not sure what drug you're on op, but no. the best you could probably hope for is laser projectiles that travel at the speed of light.

not COMPLETELY instantaneous, but unless you're shooting across planets then it would be pretty instant. IF a laser artillery was a thing it would land picoseconds after being fired.

>>32141245
the laser can't see the target so you launch it so that it can

>>32139315
Boi

>>32141279
Fund it

>>32139221
do you just mean that it solves the trajectory automatically with trigonometry for a given set of coordinates? because yes, look at laser guided missiles

>>32141284
No, he means infinite velocity.

Which basically means he's high speed retarded.

>>32139221
So COD?

>>32139294
What the fuck is your gif?

>>32141452
no, I think he's trying to be an instantaneous retard

>>32139221
>be a massive object
>have inertia n shit
>need to get from point a to be
>instantaneously teleport behind b
>heh, nothing personal kid

>>32139221
speed of light is the best you'll probably get, and light it's self is likely your best bet in this regard.

or waves of some kind, RF, microwave, etc.

>>32139404
Magnets

>>32141699
Kek

Move over gliderman, Gavinman need not apply. We at /k/ are proud to present our newest meme. Teleportationman, please come on down and enjoy your 15 miutes of fame!

>>32141844
At least teleportationman asked. Gliderman was a fgt

>>32139315
what?
if it was at the point of impact the moment you pulled the trigger there would literally be no time for it to be anywhere in between

>>32139221
You do understand that in order for a shell to fall on it's target it has to lose speed, right? What you're saying would require the laws of physics to be broken.

>>32139404
Put lazers on the warhead. You fire a really expensive shell or missile that pewpewpews as it falls.

>>32139221
Sage

>>32142399
countersage

>>32139221
>>32139262
i think you mean fater travelling shells? if so it's a good idea but also bad

cos to make it fly fast it would mean you need more fuel and more fuel would mean less explosives


the indians have a missile which can fly mach 3 it's the only missle in the world currently but the thing is it's explosive yeld is very small

>>32143223
He means nothing because he's a fucking retard.

>>32139315
Kek, quantum entanglement between shell and target.

Theoretically, you actually must first visit the target, measure it's spin and then walk back to the gun and adjust the spin of the shell. But remember, you must absolutely not aim at the target (you must not aim at all), only then you have a change to hit it.

I can't believe I just wrote that.

File: x1.jpg (102KB, 1539x1024px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1539x1024px

>>32143349
How close do we have to be to measure spin? Can I send a micro UAV to measure the spin of the enemy's butthole before I entangle a shell up it?

File: IMG_0499.jpg (21KB, 228x210px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 228x210px

>>32139315

File: Screenshot_20161128-113450.jpg (743KB, 1145x1409px) Image search: [Google]

743KB, 1145x1409px

>>32141236
Its the other way around buddy

>>32141689
Ha ha, oh Summer! First race war?

>>32139221
are you high

>>32143365
>How close do we have to be to measure spin? Can I send a micro UAV to measure the spin of the enemy's butthole before I entangle a shell up it?
That's not how any of this works.

File: bg-3rd-p-edit.jpg (1MB, 2208x1072px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2208x1072px

>>32139221
You dirty whore this is what you want isn't it?
Not instantaneous, but this was about the closest thing as far as no bullet drop.
>a fucking rail gun

>>32139221
The next breakthrough is going to be laser based AA weapons. Prove me wrong.

>>32142322
So then CURVE it into a target! Thrusters on the projectiles nose, or wings that drive it in a semicircular curve right down into the target!

>>32144576
The US has been making steady progress on that for awhile now, shoots down missiles too. Between that a railguns, the PRC is gonna freak.

>>32141225
just put the laser on a drone m8

>>32139221
If you eliminate friction and mass maybe.

>>32139315
Please define a couple of parameters so that I can fully understand your question and thus provide a more precise answer.

What is the approximate distance you intend to cover?
Please define "instantly" as you see it.

You fucking imbecile!

File: what the fuck is happening.gif (431KB, 1278x908px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1278x908px

this entire thread

>>32143223
M8 trident can do mach 24

>>32139221
GOTTA be a troll post.

>>32141689
Besiege

It was a meme game from like last year.

Marijuana legalization was a fucking mistake

>>32139221
Holy shit OP, you are retarded as fuck. Space rockets cannot even go at that speed, and you think bullet will be able to achieve it anytime soon?
Maybe in a future we can ahve very fast rail guns or lasers, but we won't have teletransportation or FTL velocities in a couple of millennia. Also read a fucking basis physics book.

>>32139315
Are you fucking retarded m8 or just autistic?

File: 1477326488211134.jpg (67KB, 311x448px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 311x448px

>>32139315
I like the idea of using wormholes to transport explosives to/in the target, but then you went full retard

>travel the trajectory it normally travels
>it just has to do it instantly

>>32146408
yeah but then that's the air force, this is for ground forces

>>32139221

Better Solution
Laser Guided Munitions

Be they artillery shells, mortars, or rockets.

Now you can hit a moving target even if it changes direction, because the laser designator only has to keep lasing them.

Would be an absolute boon (and at least 15 years overdue) for mortar platoons because then their mortars become like explosive sniper rifles that can indirect fire.

And if you think thats nasty

Try on for size a MK-19 or another kind of automatic grenade launcher with laser designating munitions. Now you dont even miss really.

I think I got high just reading OP's post.

What you need is an array of black holes to direct and focus a Gamma Ray Burst onto those who are rude.

F=MA, force=mass x acceleration. We're looking at bullets undergoing infinite acceleration. That means the force of the gunpowder on the bullet would need to be infinite as well. Not only is what you're describing impossible by all current laws of physics, it would end the fucking universe. So in short, no. In long, no and fuck off.

saged

>>32139315
Crossposting this to /sci/ asap LMAO

>>32141147
You know... You're not wrong and I COULD do the math to show you you're not wrong but cutting off the last fraction of the travel time really isn't economical.

/k/ what he's saying is essentially the same thing as staging a rocket. Launch a system above the enemy that then stages and shoots them with a laser... I ask you, not how but WHY you intend to accomplish this.

>>32139221
>is it possible to eliminate travel time

Literally no, even if we moved that shit at light speed it would still take time. Just not much.

>>32143223
If you get it traveling fast enough it doesn't matter how much explosive it has. Look up relativistic kill vehicles.

>>32139315
>>32139262
>newfags getting baited by tommy thyroid
It's the same time every week and still nobody notices..

File: 1424311663118.png (117KB, 238x351px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 238x351px

>>32139315

>>32144263
Are you saying that the earths atmosphere acts like a lense for lasers?
It doesn't.
Air diffracts light faster than a vacuum (no shit) meaning for every distance x you move in air you will lose y amount of energy density plus 1/d^2 due to the inverse square law, opposed to JUST energy lost on target due to the inverse square law.

File: main-qimg-0bd698920ab07a916789558edef62d60.gif (34KB, 572x224px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 572x224px

>>32148660
This

>>32147613
What if you only put the mirror on the drone? Then it's still surface-surface.

>>32148128
>highschool physics
>teach says to make up an acronym to fit the formula to remember what it is
>F=MA Fuck My Asshole
>V=D/T Veronicas Dirty Titties
>D=S/T Dick Sucking Today
>to this day i still remember this because i brainwashed myself

>>32146408
Drones are easy to shoot down.

>>32139221
For soldiers with small arms it would need to be energy based.

I know the military already has high powered lasers on ships to shoot down missiles but so far they haven't been able to compact it into a small arm. They also have dishes that emit focused energy for crowd control that cause extreme burning on the skin for ranges of miles but I heard it was banned due to being inhumane. Your best bet would be something like a high energy laser that could singe clothes and cause enough damage to tissue in a short amount of time to be an effective weapon for soldiers.

>>32139221
High speed, low intelligence.