|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 1, 2013 19:36:45 GMT
If they wanted to do their own testing then a birds skeleton in a ballistic gel body would do. Don't forget feathers then. A bird's feathers can create not only a pretty thick layer but also a certain amount of elasticity. That could make a difference in energy transfer from the stone to the feathers to the body, as the force from the stone may get spread out over a wider area. Also, concidering the idiom, who says the stone has to hit both birds? Or even that the stone itself has to be the direct cause of death? I'm thinking that hitting one bird that then hits the other hard enough to make them both tumble to the ground and die from the impact could be just as valid. The thought process here is that the stone caused them to fall to their death, so the stone caused their death. I know, it's a matter of semantics. But just as with the old "Exploding Pants" story where Kari reasoned that there wasn't far to go from seeing pants violently burst into flames to calling it an explosion, I can imagine people seeing a single thrown stone causing two birds to fall to their death and then later recounting it as "two birds being killed by one stone". Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 9, 2013 8:08:38 GMT
Thoughts are that you throw one stone, two birds are affected.
That is the base of the saying, and the literal meaning of the saying...
If I make one vehicle journey and get two items delivered at the same time.........
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 9, 2013 20:31:22 GMT
It just occured to me that we never successfully determined the size of "one stone".
I've looked up the definition of the word "stone" and the general consensus seems to be that "stone" is usually used to refer to something that has been processed in some way. If it's still in its original place where nature created it, it's rock. If it's been moved for some useful purpose, it's stone.
So "a stone" can be many things. From something small enough to hold in your hand to something the size of a boulder.
Drop a 6 foot stone slab that's intended for use as a kitchen table top onto a cage with two birds in it: Idiom confirmed
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 10, 2013 14:28:18 GMT
I think that for the 'original' meaning of the myth the stone should be something suitable for throwing by hand, or from a sling or slingshot. After all this presumably comes from hunting, and unless your prey is the size of a Blue Whale you don't usually need heavy artillery.
That said, it would be fun if they super-sized the myth by using a catapult (or similar) to hurl a large rock into the middle of a number of fake birds. That would work well regardless of what their earlier testing shows.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Aug 10, 2013 16:20:20 GMT
I think that for the 'original' meaning of the myth the stone should be something suitable for throwing by hand, or from a sling or slingshot. After all this presumably comes from hunting, and unless your prey is the size of a Blue Whale you don't usually need heavy artillery. Unless your trying to take out something like a Moa  an Argentavis magnificens  or the Elephant Bird  I think using heavy artillery would be a bit of an over kill. (No puns intended) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 10, 2013 20:13:30 GMT
I think that for the 'original' meaning of the myth the stone should be something suitable for throwing by hand, or from a sling or slingshot. After all this presumably comes from hunting, and unless your prey is the size of a Blue Whale you don't usually need heavy artillery. That said, it would be fun if they super-sized the myth by using a catapult (or similar) to hurl a large rock into the middle of a number of fake birds. That would work well regardless of what their earlier testing shows. kinda like the net gun they couldn't catch anything with? |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Aug 11, 2013 7:05:03 GMT
I have no idea how relevant this is to this discussion, but while researching this subject I came across this.
In a freak accident on March 24, 2001, during the 7th inning of a spring training game against the San Francisco Giants, Randy Johnson threw a fastball that struck and killed a dove. The bird swooped across the infield just as Johnson was releasing the ball. After being struck by the pitch, the bird landed dead amid a "sea of feathers." The official call was "no pitch."
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 11, 2013 10:53:36 GMT
That... Was... AWESOME!!!  That made me laugh in a way that reminded me of just about every great MB moment ever! |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Aug 11, 2013 11:57:42 GMT
That... Was... AWESOME!!! That made me laugh in a way that reminded me of just about every great MB moment ever! *Taking a bow* Thank you, thank you. But really it’s the dove that deserves the credit – talk about taking one for the team.  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 11, 2013 14:19:37 GMT
That... Was... AWESOME!!! That made me laugh in a way that reminded me of just about every great MB moment ever! *Taking a bow* Thank you, thank you. But really it’s the dove that deserves the credit – talk about taking one for the team. now go back to the first page and you will see that it has already been used as an illustration of how much kinetic energy is left after the ball (stone) has struck the first bird. |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Aug 12, 2013 1:58:03 GMT
*Taking a bow* Thank you, thank you. But really it’s the dove that deserves the credit – talk about taking one for the team. now go back to the first page and you will see that it has already been used as an illustration of how much kinetic energy is left after the ball (stone) has struck the first bird. Yes I knew that & that's why I said in my post that I didn't know how relevant it (the footage) would be to the discussion. Showing the event after it had already been talked through previously I though some might see it as a bit pointless & irrelevant to the debate. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 12, 2013 2:02:39 GMT
now go back to the first page and you will see that it has already been used as an illustration of how much kinetic energy is left after the ball (stone) has struck the first bird. Yes I knew that & that's why I said in my post that I didn't know how relevant it (the footage) would be to the discussion. Showing the event after it had already been talked through previously I though some might see it as a bit pointless & irrelevant to the debate. ah, I see. I thought you had missed it on the first page. I think it is quite relevant as it is clear that the bird (we'll call him bird #1) absorbed nearly ALL of the kinetic energy from the baseball. meaning that you would have to strike a very fine line between a solid enough hit to deliver all the kinetic energy to knocking bird #1 out of his clothing; and a glancing enough blow not to harm bird #1. |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Aug 12, 2013 2:26:42 GMT
Yes I knew that & that's why I said in my post that I didn't know how relevant it (the footage) would be to the discussion. Showing the event after it had already been talked through previously I though some might see it as a bit pointless & irrelevant to the debate. ah, I see. I thought you had missed it on the first page. Missed the first page? I started this thread how could I miss the first page?  I think it is quite relevant as it is clear that the bird (we'll call him bird #1) absorbed nearly ALL of the kinetic energy from the baseball. meaning that you would have to strike a very fine line between a solid enough hit to deliver all the kinetic energy to knocking bird #1 out of his clothing; and a glancing enough blow not to harm bird #1. This is why I though including the footage might help some people, to more accurately visualise the flow of kinetic energy from the thrown object, be it a stone or a baseball to the target aka the bird. & help to answer some of the energy transference questions. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 12, 2013 2:32:00 GMT
ah, I see. I thought you had missed it on the first page. Missed the first page? I started this thread how could I miss the first page? I think it is quite relevant as it is clear that the bird (we'll call him bird #1) absorbed nearly ALL of the kinetic energy from the baseball. meaning that you would have to strike a very fine line between a solid enough hit to deliver all the kinetic energy to knocking bird #1 out of his clothing; and a glancing enough blow not to harm bird #1. This is why I though including the footage might help some people, to more accurately visualise the flow of kinetic energy from the thrown object, be it a stone or a baseball to the target aka the bird. & help to answer some of the energy transference questions. ah. I rechecked, and mine just had the link instead of the embed. |
|
