concludes:

endquestionmark:

urdchama:

e1n:

ihaventeateninthreehours:

geniusbee:

nekoconsulting:

lilywinterwood:

digitalhoarder:

BECAUSE I HAVE NO LIFE AND THIS IS REALLY BOTHERING ME…

The prevailing theory on Tumblr on how Sherlock survived the fall was that he managed to land in a laundry truck.

Benedict Cumberbatch is 1.84 meters tall and by using his body you can measure how far from the building he would have had to jump to make it into the truck. Roughly 7.32 meters.

Sherlock is standing on the Pathological Department of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. Google Street View shows what appears to be Routemaster double-decker buses which are 4.38 meters tall. The building therefore is roughly 14.6 meters. 

You can use Pythagoras’ theorem to calculate the distance which is 16.33 meters. FYI: The World Record for men’s long jump is 8.95 meters and that was done with a running start. Sherlock flopped over the edge with no horizontal directional speed. I don’t think it’s possible for the laundry truck theory. 

EDIT: how much time he had to “steer” towards the truck while falling.

Time = √ 2(height)/gravity
Time = √ 2(14.6m)/9.8 m/s²
Time = √ 29.2m/9.8 m/s²
Time = √ 2.98 m/s²
Time = 1.73 seconds

Sherlock was falling for 1.73 seconds.

Question: Can you jump off a 14.6 meter building and land in a truck full of laundry 7.23 meters away in 1.73 seconds?

HOLY SHIT MATH AND PHYSICS

THIS IS LEGIT BECAUSE THEY USED MATHEMATICS

YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID

I am so bad at math but I appreciate it. This is QUALITY and jeez even visual aids YES THIS IS HOW I SHOULD HAVE LEARNED GEOMETRY 

Sorry to burst everyone’s bubble but this is not quite right.

People don’t fall in straight lines, they fall in parabolas. So Pythagoras has nothing to do with this. What we need is projectile motion physics.

The dark red is the path he would actually take.

So using these figures it still takes 1.73 seconds to fall vertically 14.6m with an acceleration of 9.8 ms-1. 

But travelling horizontally there is no acceleration or deceleration. To travel the 7.32m to the truck Sherlock would only have to take off from the roof at 4.23 ms-1. (Because of air resistance he may have fallen slower and taken a longer time therefore this number may be even lower). Average human walking speed is between 4 to 6 ms-1 (I couldn’t find an exact number) so for Sherlock to have reached the truck in that time he would only have to step off. By falling the way he did it looks like he didn’t push off but there is actually a lot more horizontal velocity than if he had just stepped so he could actually reach the truck.

Also this explains why Sherlock chose such a tall building. If the height wasn’t as large he couldn’t have made it that distance to the truck.

tl;dr: Sherlock could have made it to the truck without any particular effort. The truck theory is still viable.

I’m going to regret jumping on this, but the Parabola theory above is the correct one.  You don’t fall in a straight line like what the original theory said. 

That said, in order to make 7.32m of horizontal displacement, you need 4.23m/s of horizontal speed, which is NOT walking speed.  According to Wikipedia (on Walking), average human walking speed is 3.1mph, or 1.4m/s.  4.23m/s amounts to about 9.5mph, which is a running speed.  If you don’t believe me, get on a treadmill and set the “speed” to 9.5.  I guarantee you’ll be running like hell.

Taking into account air resistance and all that shit, I’d imagine he’d be pretty lucky to be able to land on the truck.  But even if he was that lucky, landing on the back of that truck will really break some shit.  There has to be a more elegant solution to this, although it was really really suspicious that the truck just drove by after a person jumped off the building and landed next to it.

I’m more intrigued by this:

The truck went missing in one scene. Then it reappeared and drove away, but in the following cut, the truck was back to where it was when it first started.

Maybe it was just badly edited.  But maybe…

Now THIS is some CSI shit I can actually follow and care about! XD ::makes popcorn::

holy god somewhere my physics and maths teachers are simultaneously crying and drowning their sorrows

Clearly the only thing we have to do now is test the hypothesis by sending it to Mythbusters.

And then afterwards they can blow the laundry truck up. FOR SCIENCE!

(via hardlyinventive)

So my boyfriend’s internet connection has gone to shit, despite my best google-searching efforts to repair it myself. I can’t watch youtube clips, my pages load at a snail’s pace, and I have spent more time than I care to admit trying to will it into submission with my puppy dog eyes. 

UGH THIS IS ANNOYING. 

Seriously though, I’d completely understand if I was stuck in the middle of nowhere or probably some third world country.

Thanks for ruining my Sunday mate.

(via all-thingspretty)

I need this bag.

(Source: beachboysbeauty, via aleaamin)

(via runawayontherunway)

unknownskywalker:

Siriusly twinkling

If you live nearly anywhere on Earth and look to the southeast shortly after sunset, you’ll see the figure of Orion. Follow the three belt stars to the east, and you’ll see a bright star: Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky. If it’s near the horizon, you may see it twinkling madly: flickering, dancing, perhaps even changing color.

This gave astronomer David Lynch an idea: take a time exposure of Sirius with a camera and telephoto, and purposely wiggle the mount. He tried it on January 4, 2012, and the result is the picture shown above.

As the vibrating camera caused the star to trail around, the changing colors got recorded along the track. The changing brightness of Sirius can be seen as well, as parts of the loop-de-loop fade and intensify.

The reason stars twinkle is because of our atmosphere: little blobs of air are constantly in motion. These air parcels act like lenses, and as light passes through them, the path of the ray gets bent a little bit. That’s what causes the dancing motion, the actual twinkling.

(Source: chanelbagsandcigarettedrags)