Suppose I receive a particularly devastating text from my ex, and in a fit of rage I desire to destroy my phone.
Would it be better to throw my phone straight at the ground, or to use the same amount of energy and throw my phone straight up into the air, hoping that it will break when it crashes. Which is more destructive?
>>7721107
FUGGG
Retarded chemistry student here, this is probably wrong but here I go:
If there's no air resistance then they should be the same. If there's air resistance then throwing it into the air is worse.
>downs syndrome chemfag out
>>7721133
"Worse" as in less likely to break your phone, if breaking the phone was the goal
>>7721133
no. not at all. if you throw it up the only force acting on it is gravity at some height
if you throw it down you can impart a much larger force, plus that of gravity at a lower height.
just throw it hard at the ground OP
>>7721107
Throw it at ex
>>7721147
But that's wrong, you aren't imparting force to the object once it's out of your hand. The only thing that matters is velocity. Throwing it up in the air at some initial velocity will mean that it reaches the same velocity in the opposite direction once it drops back down to the height your threw it from (ignoring air resistance). So if you can throw up at the same speed you throw down, and ignore air resistance, it doesn't matter.
d = v0 t - 4.9 t^2
0 = v0 t - 4.9 t^2
t = v0 / 4.9
v = v0 - 9.8 t
v = v0 - 9.8 ( v0 / 4.9 )
v = v0 - 2 v0
v = -v0
>>7721147
>plus that of gravity at a lower height
But if I throw it up I still reap the benefits of the mgh my phone had at its original height.
Depends on how high you can throw it or, a better thought, whether or not you live on the first floor and would be throwing it from higher up than (how high your arms are off the ground). Throwing it down and throwing it up would be the same past a certain point because terminal velocity is a thing for objects too.
But, ground level, you should hold it so that the thinnest side is pointed at the ground and whip it as hard as possible at the ground.
>>7721107
if you throw it with the same initial velocity in either direction it will end up with the same energy in the instant before impact
>>7721133
This is correct.
Depends if you could throw it faster than the velocity it would reach falling downward from whatever height. It's unlikely it would reach its terminal velocity. A throw could also exceed the terminal velocity and wouldn't decelerate ully before hitting the ground.
I would say throw at the ground. Then you can also direct it at a hard and particularly damaging surface. Throwing it in the air can't be controlled easily for where it eventually lands.
Throwing it toward the ground is better. Throwing it up increases the time it falls, but once it gets back to the initial position, it's initial velocity is less than if you just chuck it at the ground. The formula I came up with from the kinematic equations is F = [math]\frac{m(v_i^{2}+a)}{v_i+v_f}[/math]
If you throw the phone into the air, your final velocity could be higher, but your initial velocity will be zero. This doesn't account for air resistance which would make throwing it up even less effective. It's best to throw it directly towards the ground.
>>7721107
You should throw your phone at the ground. The energy is conserved, but air resistance and angle (error) will cause a more acute angle of impact.
Just throw it as close to 90 degrees with as much strength as you can muster right at the ground. Then at the least, you know where it is, can pick it back up and throw it again.
threw mine in the river Thames !
>>7721107
Throw it in her face
>good advice
>>7721174
>implying people on /sci/ can pick up girls.
