I doesn’t seem like catching up to me because catching up implies speed was increased to intercept, not distances were different followed by intercept.
If I fire a gun nearly perfectly straight up, run forward 10 feet and catch the bullet in my shoulder it wouldn’t feel right to say that I fired, ran fast enough to catch up to my bullet and shot myself.
You fire a bullet and it accelerates downward at 9.8m/s2 until it gets to some terminal velocity. It moves forward at some velocity with a braking acceleration that’s non-linear and gross. Result is a downward motion in a basically parabolic arc.
The plane, however, is accelerating downward faster than the bullet because of thrust, and also accelerating forward.
By the time drag has essentially stopped the bullet the plane is underneath it.
When phrased as “caught up” it makes it sound like the plane went as fast as the bullet, when the plane had a top speed of mach 1 and the bullet ~mach 3. They just took different paths.
Your entire line of logic is broken with how this happened, and how bullets work. Also, bullets start getting slower the moment they leave the barrel. A bullets terminal velocity is MUCH, MUCH, slower than when it leaves the barrel.
The plane shot bullets as it was arching down, so the plane was traveling under the bullets previously fired trajectory, and those bullets dropped down to where the plane wound up at because the bullets slowed enough to get there at the same time.
The f-11s weren’t crazy fast or anything. It was doing around 800mph when it happened.
There’s literally no other scenario to shoot yourself with a bullet shot towards the horizon (not straight up). A bullet has to be going much faster than a plane when it exits the barrel. A bullet has to start slowing down from drag the moment it leaves the barrel, so there’s no scenario that can exist where a plane can shoot itself in a way that isn’t catching up to a bullet that was getting slower.
I not sure how my logic is wrong when you then described exactly what I said.
We both understand how objects move. It’s a semantics question, not kinematics.
“Caught up” implies moving fast enough to close the distance in a persuit like fashion, to me at least.
It’s not catching up with someone if you take a shortcut and wait for them to arrive.
I doesn’t seem like catching up to me because catching up implies speed was increased to intercept, not distances were different followed by intercept.
If I fire a gun nearly perfectly straight up, run forward 10 feet and catch the bullet in my shoulder it wouldn’t feel right to say that I fired, ran fast enough to catch up to my bullet and shot myself.
You fire a bullet and it accelerates downward at 9.8m/s2 until it gets to some terminal velocity. It moves forward at some velocity with a braking acceleration that’s non-linear and gross. Result is a downward motion in a basically parabolic arc.
The plane, however, is accelerating downward faster than the bullet because of thrust, and also accelerating forward.
By the time drag has essentially stopped the bullet the plane is underneath it.
When phrased as “caught up” it makes it sound like the plane went as fast as the bullet, when the plane had a top speed of mach 1 and the bullet ~mach 3. They just took different paths.
Your entire line of logic is broken with how this happened, and how bullets work. Also, bullets start getting slower the moment they leave the barrel. A bullets terminal velocity is MUCH, MUCH, slower than when it leaves the barrel.
The plane shot bullets as it was arching down, so the plane was traveling under the bullets previously fired trajectory, and those bullets dropped down to where the plane wound up at because the bullets slowed enough to get there at the same time.
The f-11s weren’t crazy fast or anything. It was doing around 800mph when it happened.
There’s literally no other scenario to shoot yourself with a bullet shot towards the horizon (not straight up). A bullet has to be going much faster than a plane when it exits the barrel. A bullet has to start slowing down from drag the moment it leaves the barrel, so there’s no scenario that can exist where a plane can shoot itself in a way that isn’t catching up to a bullet that was getting slower.
I not sure how my logic is wrong when you then described exactly what I said.
We both understand how objects move. It’s a semantics question, not kinematics.
“Caught up” implies moving fast enough to close the distance in a persuit like fashion, to me at least.
It’s not catching up with someone if you take a shortcut and wait for them to arrive.
Well he did pursue them and catch up, sooo…