- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Physics Question re Good/ICE Incident
Posted on 1/14/26 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 1/14/26 at 3:55 pm
It has been 40 years since the last of my two Physics courses, so I admit to being rusty. I am asking a sincere question here ... not trying to set up some gotcha or anything.
We will assume for this discussion that the vehicle did indeed hit the agent, so let's not waste time or effort arguing that point.
Regarding the vehicle hitting the agent, a number of posters have emphasized the fact that the vehicle was accelerating, such that the impact upon the agent would be measured as mass (of the vehicle) multiplied by its acceleration. By comparison, if the vehicle had been traveling at a steady velocity, the impact upon the agent would be measured as mass multiplied by velocity.
But why is "acceleration" the issue, rather than "velocity?"
If the vehicle weighed 2000 pounds, was accelerating and had reached a velocity of 2mph at the time of impact, how or why would that be "worse" for the agent than if the same vehicle had been traveling at a steady velocity of 2mp and NOT accelerating?
Either way, the agent is hit by 2000 pounds traveling at 2mph, right?
We will assume for this discussion that the vehicle did indeed hit the agent, so let's not waste time or effort arguing that point.
Regarding the vehicle hitting the agent, a number of posters have emphasized the fact that the vehicle was accelerating, such that the impact upon the agent would be measured as mass (of the vehicle) multiplied by its acceleration. By comparison, if the vehicle had been traveling at a steady velocity, the impact upon the agent would be measured as mass multiplied by velocity.
But why is "acceleration" the issue, rather than "velocity?"
If the vehicle weighed 2000 pounds, was accelerating and had reached a velocity of 2mph at the time of impact, how or why would that be "worse" for the agent than if the same vehicle had been traveling at a steady velocity of 2mp and NOT accelerating?
Either way, the agent is hit by 2000 pounds traveling at 2mph, right?
This post was edited on 1/14/26 at 3:59 pm
53
Posted on 1/14/26 at 3:57 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
First downvote. Didn’t even read.
This post was edited on 1/14/26 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 1/14/26 at 3:58 pm to Chancellor
quote:Many thanks for your invaluable contribution to the thread.
Didn’t even read.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 3:58 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
There's also the fact that, assuming the agent was hit at all, it was not a direct blow, but was a glancing contact. So the movement is not full forward movement because no one claims he was hit by the front of the car. That changes the velocity in relation to any impact.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:00 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
You might be upset that a woman got in her car to disrupt an LEO event. Or you may not be.
She should have put her Honda in PARK if there was a man in front of the driver side headlight.
Additionally they told her to stop. She sped off anyway.
What are you trying to accomplish by acting confused about physics?
She should have put her Honda in PARK if there was a man in front of the driver side headlight.
Additionally they told her to stop. She sped off anyway.
What are you trying to accomplish by acting confused about physics?
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:00 pm to TBoy
quote:Fair enough, but let's not cloud the issue.
There's also the fact that, assuming the agent was hit at all, it was not a direct blow, but was a glancing contact. So the movement is not full forward movement because no one claims he was hit by the front of the car. That changes the velocity in relation to any impact.
I am genuinely interested as to why a fair number of posters are focused upon "acceleration" rather than "velocity."
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:01 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
This is all pretty much bullshite because she shouldn't have hit him at all. She should have put it in park, got out and she would still be alive today. She chose to be stupid and died because of it.
Oh no. Anyway
Oh no. Anyway
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:02 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Because her tires spun relentless alter.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:03 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:DV
RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:03 pm to Jbird
quote:100% aggiehank
Because her tires spun relentless alter.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:04 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Force = mass x ACCELERATION
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:05 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
AI Response:
quote:
Force is directly related to acceleration (change in velocity), not velocity itself, as described by Newton's Second Law (\(F=ma\)); a force causes an object to accelerate (change its speed or direction), while velocity is just the object's current speed and direction, meaning you need to know how fast velocity changes (acceleration) to find the force, not just the velocity itself.
Velocity vs. Acceleration
Velocity: How fast an object is moving and in what direction (e.g., 60 mph North).
Acceleration: The rate at which velocity changes (speeding up, slowing down, or changing direction).
Force and the Relationship
Force Causes Acceleration: An unbalanced force makes an object accelerate.
F=ma: The formula \(F=ma\) (Force = mass × acceleration) shows force depends on how much the velocity changes over time, not the velocity's value.
Example: A car moving at 100 mph causes less damage in a crash than a car hitting you at 100 mph and stopping suddenly, because the sudden stop (high acceleration/deceleration) involves a rapid change in velocity, generating significant force.
Key Takeaway
You can have high velocity with zero acceleration (like a car at constant speed) or zero velocity with high acceleration (like a dropped ball just before it hits the ground). Force is about the change, so acceleration is the key factor in calculating it, not just the velocity.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:05 pm to CAD703X
So far, we have nothing but posters who don't know the answer to the question, any more than I do. But who felt the need to post nonetheless.
Hopefully someone will have the answer at some point.
Hopefully someone will have the answer at some point.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:05 pm to CAD703X
Amazing same dick dance and chase irrelevant questions to suggest the real facts are in question.
It's why you start a hypothetical and try to slowly work it into a fact.
It's why you start a hypothetical and try to slowly work it into a fact.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:05 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
I was told there would be no math in here.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:06 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Acceleration before impact is irrelevant except for setting the impact velocity.
The force of the hit comes from how quickly the car’s momentum changes during the collision, not from how it accelerated beforehand. Two cars that reach the same speed will hit with similar force if they stop over the same time or distance, regardless of how hard they accelerated to get there. Impact force depends on change in velocity over collision time, not pre-impact acceleration.
The force of the hit comes from how quickly the car’s momentum changes during the collision, not from how it accelerated beforehand. Two cars that reach the same speed will hit with similar force if they stop over the same time or distance, regardless of how hard they accelerated to get there. Impact force depends on change in velocity over collision time, not pre-impact acceleration.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:07 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Everyone knows you're a Hank alter. No one takes you seriously. No one cares about your hypothetical question.
The woman should have put the car in park. End of line.
The woman should have put the car in park. End of line.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:07 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Why is anything asked in your post relevant to anything?
First. We don't need to assume the officer was hit. We have all seen the video of him being hit.
The question that is relevant is was the shooing justified.
That question is in no way impacted positively or negatively on
A: what she intended to do.
B. if his life was in danger or not.
A. doesn't matter because if she thought he needed to get hit be a car to save his life, he still had the right to shoot her because it was a danger to either his life or to him receiving serious bodily harm.
B. Doesn't matter because serious bodily harm to yourself is enough of a reason to defend yourself with deadly force.
He got hit. He was NOT killed. He was NOT seriously injured. But it was reasonable to believe a derange liberal woman with the petal to the metal and you in its line of fire is justification for using lethal force.
First. We don't need to assume the officer was hit. We have all seen the video of him being hit.
The question that is relevant is was the shooing justified.
That question is in no way impacted positively or negatively on
A: what she intended to do.
B. if his life was in danger or not.
A. doesn't matter because if she thought he needed to get hit be a car to save his life, he still had the right to shoot her because it was a danger to either his life or to him receiving serious bodily harm.
B. Doesn't matter because serious bodily harm to yourself is enough of a reason to defend yourself with deadly force.
He got hit. He was NOT killed. He was NOT seriously injured. But it was reasonable to believe a derange liberal woman with the petal to the metal and you in its line of fire is justification for using lethal force.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:07 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:You need to greatly improve the QUALITY of your analyses.
RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:07 pm to tigeraddict
TA, thanks, but I understand the formulas. My question is why all of that MATTERS to the agent.
Does he receive lesser injuries from a fixed mass at a steady velocity than from an accelerating mass, if that fixed mass is traveling at the same velocity at the instant of impact?
Does he receive lesser injuries from a fixed mass at a steady velocity than from an accelerating mass, if that fixed mass is traveling at the same velocity at the instant of impact?
Page 1 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News