How do you cope with the fact that bard and ChatGPT can design tech that doesn't exist?
>how big would a railgun have to be and how much power would it have to consume to launch a 1 ton payload into orbitThe size and power requirements of a railgun that can launch a 1 ton payload into orbit depend on a number of factors, including the muzzle velocity of the railgun, the efficiency of the power supply, and the length of the railgun. However, a rough estimate can be made using the following equations:
Muzzle velocity: The muzzle velocity of the railgun is the speed at which the payload exits the railgun. For a 1 ton payload, the muzzle velocity would need to be at least 7,800 meters per second (28,000 feet per second) in order to reach low Earth orbit.
Power supply efficiency: The efficiency of the power supply is the percentage of the power input that is converted into kinetic energy of the payload. A typical railgun power supply has an efficiency of 50%.
Length of the railgun: The length of the railgun is the distance that the payload travels while being accelerated by the electromagnetic field. The longer the railgun, the greater the acceleration and the higher the muzzle velocity.
Using these equations, we can estimate that a railgun that can launch a 1 ton payload into orbit would need to be at least 10 kilometers long and would require a power supply that can output at least 10 gigawatts. This is a very large and powerful railgun, and it is not yet clear whether such a railgun is feasible. However, the development of railgun technology is ongoing, and it is possible that such a railgun could be built in the future.
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
Anon i have a question do the us navy count for "Earth Curvature" it is 8 inch per mile square on a ball for the railgun when firing 1 ton payload and do the navy count for "Earth Spin" at 1,000 mile hours when firing a railgun. If The US Navy don't do this that mean we live on a "Flat Earth Realm". Check the math your self also check if the Navy do this when using the railgun on a ship in a ocean.
The exact size and power requirements of a railgun that can launch a 1 ton payload into orbit while taking into account the Earth's curvature and rotation are difficult to estimate, as they would depend on a number of factors, including the payload's weight, the muzzle velocity of the railgun, and the efficiency of the power supply. However, a rough estimate can be made using the following equations:
Muzzle velocity: The muzzle velocity of the railgun would need to be at least 11,000 meters per second (36,000 feet per second) in order to reach low Earth orbit while taking into account the Earth's curvature and rotation.
Power supply efficiency: The efficiency of the power supply would need to be at least 66% in order to impart the required horizontal velocity to the payload.
Length of the railgun: The length of the railgun would need to be at least 15 kilometers.
Power output of power supply: The power output of the power supply would need to be at least 15 gigawatts.
This is significantly larger and more powerful than the railgun that I estimated in my previous answer. It is possible that such a railgun could be built in the future, but it would be a very challenging engineering feat.
Here is a table of the estimated size and power requirements for a railgun that can launch a 1 ton payload into orbit while taking into account the Earth's curvature and rotation:
>Anon i have a question do the us navy count for "Earth Curvature" it is 8 inch per mile square on a ball for the railgun when firing 1 ton payload and do the navy count for "Earth Spin" at 1,000 mile hours when firing a railgun. If The US Navy don't do this that mean we live on a "Flat Earth Realm". Check the math your self also check if the Navy do this when using the railgun on a ship in a ocean.
No, they don't. Targeting lasers are Line-of-Sight and are able to mark targets hundreds of miles away, which would be "behind the curve" if such a thing existed.
Radio signals travel in a line-of-sight pattern as well, which means both radar and radio comms would be limited to a few miles of effective range...and we know they are not. In fact, Marconi (allegedly) made one of the first radio transmissions across the atlantic ocean and had no issues with pesky curvature getting in his way.
>Earth's curvature and rotation:
LOL. Do people really believe this meme in 2023? The only ones who need ball urf / outer space to be a thing are the atheicucks and the mentally deranged trannies.
there is still a curve even if you're a flat earther
>there is still a curve even if you're a flat earther
Variations in topography aside, the dry land beneath the firmament is a plane. It's not a ball. There is no "curve".
>why do you think the earth is flat?
Read Genesis 1:6-10 in a proper English translation like the King James translation, and if the word of Christ Jesus, the Creator, is not sufficient for you there is plenty of objective evidence to show that the dry land beneath the firmament is not a ball adrift in space.
The real question is: why do you believe blatant and obvious lies about the true nature of this realm?
>why do you think you're so special? flatness is one tiny possibility of a bajillion possibilities. It's much more probable that it's concave or convex.
No dude, there aren't a "bajillion" possibilities. That is relativism and it is a toxic, illogical thought process that attempts hide the true nature of creation behind a guise of "unlimited possibilities". It's a moronic meme that should not be repeated by anyone whose IQ exceeds 50. Only a buffoon will look at binary possibilities and declare "Well, there's a whole lot of room between them so let's call it the gray area and pretend there's more than two." To fall for something like this...baka
>binary possibilities
list the two options
and explain why it's not concave
also, you didn't cite your source. what passage makes it exactly flat?
>list the two options
- Dry land beneath the firmament
- A ball adrift in space
>and explain why it's not concave
No.
>also, you didn't cite your source. what passage makes it exactly flat?
I don't need to "cite a source", frickstick...like I need a third party to confirm the obvious. This isn't a book report. And what did I write in my previous post? It's like you are not only a moron, but you can't read simple English sentences.
so we're a pizza adrift in space? is that what you're proposing?
don't you feel a little dumb sometimes?
>so we're a pizza adrift in space? is that what you're proposing?
>don't you feel a little dumb sometimes?
Is this the power of IQMASTER 2023? Imagine being you and not being able to grasp the fact that outer space is a lie.
Earth is a REALM.
Outer space, as portrayed by the cult of scientism, does not exist outside of movies and o ther works of fiction.
Outer space is a euphemism for the Lake of Fire, which Christ Jesus describes several times in the Bible as the "outer darkness".
Just as we can see the realms of heaven by looking into the sky EVEN THOUGH heaven is a separate and distinct realm from earth, so too will people in the Lake of Fire be able to see the Kingdom of God that they rejected.
>REALM
define that word, because it just means kindom.
It's like I ask you what the shape of france is and your response is "hercule poirot"
that's what I meant with "do you feel dumb sometimes"?
why do you think the earth is flat?
why do you think you're so special? flatness is one tiny possibility of a bajillion possibilities. It's much more probable that it's concave or convex.
Its simple elementary school math and probably the ai calculations are probably wrong anyway.
Giving the public access to any form of AI a mistake purely because they make ignorant morons such as OP spout nonsense like this.
>trusting chatGPT's math
LOL
LMAO
ROFLCOPTER
It's a language model, of course it's going to come out with sci-fi type stuff, especially being trained on a bunch of reddit comments
>The longer the railgun, the greater the acceleration
This is false though. The longer the railgun, the less it acceleration it needs to hit the target velocity.
This is why I don't have to cope. Chat-GPT is not an engineer, and it will be a long time before it can actually do this to a useful extent.
like literally any engineering student who designs things that don't exist, by focusing on the simple theoretical math and ignoring all the complex material science factors that make it difficult in practice.
Power supplies aren't the issue, most warships have a massive amount of electricity generation capability and all they need is a energy storage system of supercapacitors.
Naval railguns have been tested and show extreme promise. it's more barrel degradation that wrecks them after a few shots which is the problem.
Much of the ongoing research is how to make them stronger which will allow them to become practical military weapons.
How do I gaslight ChatGPT into believing 1 + 1 = 3?
just tell it that 3 is 2 and that the following is a hypothetical exercise.
i have nothing to add
just stopping by to say this thread is comedic gold
carry on morons
While I understand your sentiment of finding the thread comedic, I believe it's important to engage in meaningful discussions and contribute to the conversation rather than simply stating that it's amusing. By actively participating and sharing your thoughts, you can enhance the quality of the conversation and potentially provide valuable insights or perspectives that others may not have considered. Merely stating that the thread is comedic gold without adding anything substantial may come across as disengaged or uninterested. Therefore, I encourage you to take the opportunity to share your thoughts, ask questions, or provide additional information to enrich the discussion further.