Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Perkustin wrote:Finally @ Melissia you mention a Negative Outcome being impossible to prove, using this logic neither can a Positive be truelly proved.

I do believe TVTropes has something on this subject.

No, it's the positive that is the only thing able to be proved. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult up to and including impossible depending on the subject. Is it possible, for example, to prove the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist? No, because it could just be we haven't seen it yet. Is it possible to prove the Loch Ness Monster does exist? Yes, by actually providing a specimen of said monster.


As for practical experience, that's good and all, but until you actually obtain (through making it, or some other fashion) a true and real bolter shell and then fire it while measuring its trajectory, speed, etc, you can't really claim to have any with bolter shells...

Sweet I'll look into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
you can't poove a negative... not exactly prooving a negative but similiar:



you proove a negative by prooving it can't happen like a particle existing outside of an infinite square well. It can't because it... well it can't by the bound state conditions. or rather the schrodinger equation says "NO" to an infinite potential.

Basically this is also how you proove the lock ness monster does not exist by showing that there is not enough food in the lake to sustain a creature of that size without devastating the ecosystem.

What happens if the Loch Ness Monster is a reptile, then it could be argued that since the average temperature of the late is low, then the monsters metabolism is also low.

gendoikari87 wrote:Basically this is also how you proove the lock ness monster does not exist by showing that there is not enough food in the lake to sustain a creature of that size without devastating the ecosystem.

The scientific method is: State hypothesis, attempt to disprove hypothesis. We tried that in the other silly 40k threads. Pretty much any attempts to debunk a desired calculation result using the scientific method is rebuffed by: "super advanced technology has surpassed your suggested limitation" and failing that, the ultimate fallback position of: "40k ignores the laws of physics". With brilliant arguements like that, it is impossible to gain any traction. Using the same arguements vs your Loch Ness monster "proof", your arguement is clearly INVALID as we know nothing about the metabolism of the Loch Ness monster, nor do we know what it eats. For all we know, it may eat rocks for nutrition.

Catyrpelius wrote:What happens if the Loch Ness Monster is a reptile, then it could be argued that since the average temperature of the late is low, then the monsters metabolism is also low.

Judging by the descriptions it Is a reptile, but he scientists who did these calculations were including that in there. The problem isn't the amount of food the loch ness monster would eat but rather the amount of food available isn't that much to support a breeding population. This is much different from disproving Sasquatch however ... who can't really be proven to not exist based environmental conditions. Sasquatch takes more the form of the pink elephant out in the oort nebula ... granted the elephant can't be alive.

also you can't assume ALL reptiles are cold blooded. Brids are tought to have decended from dinosaurs, and birds are warm blooded. So it's thought that some dinosaurs were warm blooded.

gendoikari87 wrote:well there is no substitute for real world experience I just haven't had a chance to get any yet. That being said you can't just rely on experience all the time. Some times you do have to revert back to the equations to gain insight. A fundemental understanding of the principals might not beat experience, but if you understand what's going on, on a fundemental level it will make gaining experience easier. That goes for both physicists and engineers.

Oh I totally agree. Without fundamental knowledge in our fields we'd never become engineers in the first place There's definitely place for both scientists and practically based engineers in this world, we'd be pretty stuck if it was just one or the other.

gendoikari87 wrote:you can't prove a negative...

You can prove a negative in the same way you prove a positive. Positive and negative are relativistic terms based on a point of reference. Since you can freely define your point of reference you can freely define what is positive or negative.

These types of statements are logic traps based on forcefully false logic. It is like when someone argues "0" is not a number, because it doesn't represent a count, that it is an absences of number, that "nothing" can not be a mathematical object. Just like the above its a false assertion based on flawed logic.

To prove non-existence insists on non-action. Buddhists do it all the time. It is a matter of defining the universe in a way that allows one to cancel out the inconsequential. I do not think, therefore I am not.

Yeah, and that reasoning is stupid.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, is still there.

As an example, you may not believe I'm about to punch you in the face, but when that blow lands, you've still been punched in the face. Simply saying "I do not think/believe, therefor I do not exist" is, itself, a logical trap and very unsound.

Nope Melissia, no matter how much it bothers you, your just a figment of our collective imaginations.

Well yes, but I'm such a strong figment that I just don't ever go away no matter how much some people want me to.

Let's not get crazy now!

Bahhh why would we want you to go away? Your so much fun!

aka_mythos wrote: I do not think, therefore I am not.

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum?

Melissia wrote:Yeah, and that reasoning is stupid....

Allegory of the cave, etc.

keezus wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Basically this is also how you proove the lock ness monster does not exist by showing that there is not enough food in the lake to sustain a creature of that size without devastating the ecosystem.

The scientific method is: State hypothesis, attempt to disprove hypothesis. We tried that in the other silly 40k threads. Pretty much any attempts to debunk a desired calculation result using the scientific method is rebuffed by: "super advanced technology has surpassed your suggested limitation" and failing that, the ultimate fallback position of: "40k ignores the laws of physics". With brilliant arguements like that, it is impossible to gain any traction. Using the same arguements vs your Loch Ness monster "proof", your arguement is clearly INVALID as we know nothing about the metabolism of the Loch Ness monster, nor do we know what it eats. For all we know, it may eat rocks for nutrition.

You have a very VERY good point. Granted I like TRYING to analyze things in 40k (mostly because I see a machine my brain instantly starts unclothing it.... err I mean taking it apart to study it) with rational people without having to resort "it's Magic" but fanboyism will enevitably win out. Though i would like to think the Heavy stubber IS a MH2 just because I think it's going to be around till the end of time... When you get a design right the first time, you don't need to re do it. and correct me if I'm wrong but browning didn't even have a college education did he?

They didn't really try to disprove anything regarding the bolter, they just stated "it is so" and then said "science says it is so it is!" when anyone objected, and made assertions SUPPOSEDLY based on physics without any actual math or even really logic to back said assertions up.

Considering that the laws of thermodynamics can be circumvented in 40k (see: the warp and psykers), physics does occasionally take a back seat to cool. But even if you do consider it from a purely hard physics standpoint, consider this: it's cooler and smarter for bolt pistols to work at the close range they are designed to work at (they're pistols), so it is assumed that this is how their ammunition is designed to function-- which is to say it has more than enough force behind the initial firing of the bolt weapon to penetrate any target the bolt could likely penetrate after the rocket portion ignites. Unless fluff says otherwise, how can you disprove this? Bolters are highly successful weapons at any range, and are not known for being weak at close range, and the bolt pistol is a favored sidearm of many rich and important people-- for good reason, because it is brutally effective. Bolt pistols are close combat weapons for a reason just like laspistols/autopistols, because they are maneuverable and effective in close range combat. It's not like it's a gameplay mechanic that stops it, because hell there's already weapons out there that get stronger or weaker depending on range (see Conversion Beamer, Melta weapons).

Arguing that somehow bolt weapons are weaker at close rnage without any fluff, mathematic, or logical proof does not make for a convincing argument. Simply saying "physics!" does not make a convincing arguments, as physics does not say that a bolter shell cannot be launched with enough initial velocity that whatever, if any, speed increase after the rocket fuel ignites is statistically insignificant-- all that would be required is that the force of the charge in the shell casing be enough to send the bolt shell flying fast enough that it reaches terminal velocity either before or shortly after it activates its rocket. Given the MANY examples of bolt weapons used in close combat and very short range without any detrimental effect, there's no reason to think that this is not the case.

Dozens of people have insisted on this unproven assertion, and yet not a single one have I seen provide actual proof to back up their claims.

No the bolt would be less powerful at close range for the reasons shown and just saying all the childish comeback melllina when he has shown you scientific proof is imature.

It seems like you guys are arguing different things..
Obviously it will gain power as the bolt goes, but on the other hand it still is immensely powerful even when it's first shot.

royal house wrote:No the bolt would be less powerful at close range for the reasons shown and just saying all the childish comeback melllina when he has shown you scientific proof is imature.

Childish, says the guy who practices neither proper grammar nor proper spelling.

There was no "comeback", the fact remains that your supposed point has yet to be proven. You have provided no proof, no evidence, and barely even a logical argument-- one based off of an incomplete understanding of physics at best. The argument is based off of the unproven assumption that the bolter shell does not contain enough force to launch the shell out of the barrel at or very near to terminal velocity.

That does not make for an argument. There is no childish comeback here . I'm waiting for you guys to provide proof. Go on, do it.

Cantus wrote:Obviously it will gain power as the bolt goes

There's no "obviously" there, it's not absolutely true that this is so in any place save for the vacuum of space.

Dude a freaking bolter shell at close range would kill anything. An entire head exploded from a Bolt Pistol at arms length.
Yeah that is a weakness! *sarcasm*

Melissia wrote:It's not absolutely true that this is so in any place save for the vacuum of space.

Not trying to debate, I legitimately don't know and am just wondering if you could kindly explain, but do they not accelerate? Wouldn't it only make a difference if they're in a vacuum if they're firing at terminal velocity? Are they? Or am I missing something.

It's the concept of terminal velocity-- the velocity at which the drag (the friction of the air or whatever other substance you're moving through-- water for example) equals your acceleration.

In a pure vacuum, there is no such thing obviously, though even space isn't always a pure vacuum.

Right. But unless it started at that velocity, wouldn't it still work itself up to that point?

Yes, but there has not really been any proof presented which supports the claim that it doesn't start at or near that velocity.

They've just been working off of the assumption with no proof for it.

Gotcha. Whereas you believe it starts out at that velocity?

At or near it, yes.

Someone claimed they had a fluff source to support the low initial velocity claim, but they didn't actually provide a citation for it... aside from Lexicanum, which is fan-made material, and not official GW fluff.

Makes sense. There's a lot of fluff supporting that then? I know you had a list of pages at the beginning, but I haven't gotten around to reading any of the books (by the way, any suggestions of what to start?)

Will this forum help.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=121975&highlight=40k

Cantus wrote:Makes sense. There's a lot of fluff supporting that then? I know you had a list of pages at the beginning, but I haven't gotten around to reading any of the books (by the way, any suggestions of what to start?)

Namely, the roleplaying gmaes: Inquisitor, Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Ascension, and Deathwatch. All games, including the tabletop one (keep in mind that it is not unheard of to see weapon effectiveness increase or decrease as range increases in tabletop). Every single BL book I've read... etc...

it has more than enough force behind the initial firing of the bolt weapon to penetrate any target the bolt could likely penetrate after the rocket portion ignites.

So? Your point? just because it's still lethal at close range doesn't mean it's not more so at long range?

There's no "obviously" there, it's not absolutely true that this is so in any place save for the vacuum of space.

I just want to point out that if the rocket did not accelerate the projectile there would be no point in it, as you could just use that space to fill with more explosive set the bolt to blow on contact and have a real, micro grenade laucher, basically a fully auto matic XM25.... or AA12 with those tiny grenades...yes we have a fully auto hand held grenade laucher.... God bless america.

Also terminal velocity for a straight bullet (as in not a rocket) yall is 0 MPH in the horizontal direction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cantus wrote:Makes sense. There's a lot of fluff supporting that then? I know you had a list of pages at the beginning, but I haven't gotten around to reading any of the books (by the way, any suggestions of what to start?)

Her sources didn't end up disproving the idea either just didn't mention anything about it either way, which isn't enough proof on here part to debunk the most basic physics of the kinematic equations. I mean you don't hear ANYTHING about the the workings of other weapons. it's a game they just dont put it in. They're not going to write a book on the subject just the very basics of them.