Editing Talk:2935: Ocean Loop
![]() |
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:We're still calling 4760 x 4295 "massive" in a time when many tvs and monitors are 4k? I mean I guess it's technically massive compared to the website's default, a downright ''embarrassing'' 635 x 573 -[[Special:Contributions/172.71.255.7|172.71.255.7]] 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | :We're still calling 4760 x 4295 "massive" in a time when many tvs and monitors are 4k? I mean I guess it's technically massive compared to the website's default, a downright ''embarrassing'' 635 x 573 -[[Special:Contributions/172.71.255.7|172.71.255.7]] 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
::[[1475: Technically]] 20 million pixels are technically massless, not massive. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.46|172.71.98.46]] 19:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | ::[[1475: Technically]] 20 million pixels are technically massless, not massive. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.46|172.71.98.46]] 19:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
:Bad bot EDIT: Oops, wording threw me off, it did the RIGHT thing this time! Bravo! "Standard size" made me think it had generated/found a regular sized image and saved THAT again! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC) | :Bad bot EDIT: Oops, wording threw me off, it did the RIGHT thing this time! Bravo! "Standard size" made me think it had generated/found a regular sized image and saved THAT again! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
Line 41: | Line 40: | ||
:Not how I think you envisage it. The ship is (by definition) no more massive than the water it displaces, so centripetal forces won't send it 'outwards' to hit the track-bottom. If it was a floating ball, it would remain on the curving surface, and never sink through thee stream. Cyclonic selarators merely exagerate the differences in density, and the simplified buoyancy equations do not give the ship any reason to 'sink' if it starts off floating. (This may channge if significant induced bubbles/cavitation in the water-jet itself reduced the density of the water, like a gas discharge beneath a ship can cause it to sink on otherwise calm seas.) | :Not how I think you envisage it. The ship is (by definition) no more massive than the water it displaces, so centripetal forces won't send it 'outwards' to hit the track-bottom. If it was a floating ball, it would remain on the curving surface, and never sink through thee stream. Cyclonic selarators merely exagerate the differences in density, and the simplified buoyancy equations do not give the ship any reason to 'sink' if it starts off floating. (This may channge if significant induced bubbles/cavitation in the water-jet itself reduced the density of the water, like a gas discharge beneath a ship can cause it to sink on otherwise calm seas.) | ||
:But, depending upon various rotational momentum issues, the rapid change of water-engle might not be matched by the 'localised relevelling' of the ship that makes it effectively nose-dive into the water (like the depictions of the Titanic, but faster) and then have the bow strike the chute-structure (although the flow of water might still be enough to directly counteract the angle and force it back). Whether this is survivable is another issue. And, if it doesn't happen, you've got a water piling up on(/over?) the stern so long as the relative waterspeed and shipspeed have it effectively steaming backwards at high velocity (and with a geometrically 'dipped' stern). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.164|141.101.98.164]] 12:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) | :But, depending upon various rotational momentum issues, the rapid change of water-engle might not be matched by the 'localised relevelling' of the ship that makes it effectively nose-dive into the water (like the depictions of the Titanic, but faster) and then have the bow strike the chute-structure (although the flow of water might still be enough to directly counteract the angle and force it back). Whether this is survivable is another issue. And, if it doesn't happen, you've got a water piling up on(/over?) the stern so long as the relative waterspeed and shipspeed have it effectively steaming backwards at high velocity (and with a geometrically 'dipped' stern). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.164|141.101.98.164]] 12:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |