webm thread

>freezing light waves
>not freezing the air around it

Ok

>>8302780
NOOOO, what movie is this?

I must watch it.

>>8302787
The Flash TV series.

>>8302912
My sister watches this. They really don't bother even with highschool science it's all just about drama and girls and the guy's dad being wrongly imprisoned and more drama.

This thread reminds me of the old lightsaber laser arguments. So I'm going to use the same refute. It isn't a laser, but a plasma they are freezing.

>>8303098
>pompei.webm

>>8303098
What is this?

File: 320px-Laminar_shear.svg.png (18KB, 320x229px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 320x229px

>>8303068

quite simple actually

>>8303162
Fluid dynamics/mudslides/pyroclastic flow maybe?

>>8303162
hydraulic flow of liquids with different densities combined with diffusion and mixed laminar/turbulent flow

>>8303172
lel thanks for posting, apparently all my memories of fluid mech are long gone

>>8303072
Wow, why?

>>8303349
that's really freaky
how does it work?

>>8303068
>>8303072
>>8303098
Magic

>>8303390
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_racket_theorem

>>8303707

I want to do this so bad now

My life is unfulfilled because of you fagot

>>8303734
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_racket_theorem
>Therefore, even a small disturbance along other axes causes the object to 'flip'.
So can this effect be considered a "butterfly effect" where the initial conditions are so hard to control that the axis appears unstable? If theoretically we could apply a "perfect" torque, would the secondary axis still be unstable? I've been trying to read up on this effect on youtube comments and wikipedia but all I've found are dead links and pleb explanations. It seems from everyones explanations that the secondary axis is inherently unstable and it has nothing to do with initial conditions, but the wikipedia article implies it does.

I'll be taking classical mechanics this semester so I guess I'll figure it out soon enough. I've just always wondered about this since I first watched that webm years ago. Usually ISS videos come with a nice scientific explanation but unfortunately I could not find one of those for this. Maybe NASA doesn't fully understand it themselves? The lack of explanations on /sci and everywhere else I look shows this is much more complicated than it looks.

File: EntirePlutoFlyby.webm (97KB, 462x340px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 462x340px

>>8303401
computer virus.

File: because science.gif (1MB, 200x191px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x191px

>>8302770

File: Untitled.png (539KB, 572x1851px) Image search: [Google]

539KB, 572x1851px

>>8305329
>If theoretically we could apply a "perfect" torque, would the secondary axis still be unstable?
Yes, provided the three principle moments of inertia are distinct i.e. it's not a sphere of cylinder.

As for explanations, the wikipedia article was essentially how it was taught to me in my astrodynamics class. Attached is a snippet from Greenwood's Principle of Dynamics. The text is somewhat notorious for being a hard read as it was written in the 60s.

It boils down to a second order ODE of which the stability depends on the sign of the coefficient on the zeroth order term. If the coefficient is positive you get a nicely bounded solution courtesy of simple harmonic motion. If the coefficient is negative then you get an exponential solution which blows up in time.

>>8305854
I thought it was a dick

>>8305817
this real?