- 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
re: Physics Question re Good/ICE Incident
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:09 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:09 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Violated Newton’s fourth law of relativity, frick around and find out.
2
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:11 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:That was my thought as well, but several posters really seemed to see "acceleration" as the key factor. I was just wondering whether there was any substance to the distinction.
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.
Apparently not. Thanks
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:12 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
At the moment of impact only the vehicle’s speed and how quickly its forward motion is stopped matters not whether the vehicle was accelerating beforehand.
In any event, if she would have been peacefully protesting and not impeding officers' work, none of this happens.
In any event, if she would have been peacefully protesting and not impeding officers' work, none of this happens.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:12 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
I did the math earlier but the vehicle actually weighs about 4700 pounds. Velocity at impact at approximately 3 mph and a travel distance of about 2 feet. Anyway, I think the force of impact comes out to be in the neighborhood of around 400 lbf.
Obviously someone double check my math. I’m probably wrong but that’s what I came up with
Obviously someone double check my math. I’m probably wrong but that’s what I came up with
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:12 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
In a collision, the relevant acceleration (F=ma) is the deceleration during impact, as the object’s velocity changes from its impact speed to (roughly) zero over a very short time. That acceleration is what produces the force.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:12 pm to Chancellor
quote:don’t get on Hank’s bad side.
First downvote. Didn’t even read.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:13 pm to LSUtoBOOT
quote:
Violated Newton’s fourth law of relativity, frick around and find out.
Could not say it better
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:15 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I am genuinely interested as to why a fair number of posters are focused upon "acceleration" rather than "velocity."
Probably because she accelerated the vehicle. I have never heard "he velocitized the vehicle" i dont think that is even a word
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:17 pm to TBoy
quote:
assuming the agent was hit at all
You are a loon.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:18 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
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.
My friend, if you are trying to have a physics discussion you have to start by using the proper terminology.
“Impact” is not a physics term. “Impulse” is the closest phonetically, but otherwise it looks like you are confusing force with momentum.
F=ma
p=mv
quote:
But why is "acceleration" the issue, rather than "velocity?"
Simply put, a body with 0 acceleration has 0 force. So a body moving with constant velocity by definition has no force vector. That’s why acceleration matters.
quote:
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?
Incorrect. Do you think a. body that has decelerated just prior to contact exerts the same force as a body that accelerated to that same velocity? The answer is mathematically “no.”
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:18 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Oops
This post was edited on 1/14/26 at 4:20 pm
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:18 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
No more illegals to help cross the border so you've resorted to this Hank?
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:22 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
That was my thought as well, but several posters really seemed to see "acceleration" as the key factor. I was just wondering whether there was any substance to the distinction. Apparently not. Thanks
At 60 mph if a car hit you it won’t really matter much if it let off the gas just prior to running you over.
But a car that is just beginning to accelerate I think the difference would be marked. Accelerate into a wall at 5mph vs hit a wall while decelerating from 5mph. The damage to the wall would be considerably more due to the force of the engine used to push a 4000lb car forward.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:28 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
None of that matters, it’s a matter of whether a reasonable officer/agent would have, in the moment, perceived an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury to self or others, given the totality of the circumstances, without the use of hindsight.
That’s the general legal standard as to whether the officer/agent was justified in his or her use of force in the particular situation. It’s not that hard. I wouldn’t think you have to be a criminal law attorney to grasp this, but I’m starting to question my prior beliefs in that regard. There are some very terse yet critical key terms/phrases/concepts therein. “In the moment”; “totality of the circumstances”; and “without the use of hindsight” are the ones that, if pressed, I personally would pick out as the “most” consequential, but that’s JMO. The entire passage and each of its elements are rather weighty.
That’s the general legal standard as to whether the officer/agent was justified in his or her use of force in the particular situation. It’s not that hard. I wouldn’t think you have to be a criminal law attorney to grasp this, but I’m starting to question my prior beliefs in that regard. There are some very terse yet critical key terms/phrases/concepts therein. “In the moment”; “totality of the circumstances”; and “without the use of hindsight” are the ones that, if pressed, I personally would pick out as the “most” consequential, but that’s JMO. The entire passage and each of its elements are rather weighty.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:28 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
I can't speak for other posters, to me the issue is that she hit him at all (she has no right to flee arrest, after all).
Contrary to LowT's wishcasting post, she did hit him.
The only reason I could see an argument over acceleration versus velocity is if some moonbat decided to make the argument that her vehicle was just slowly idling toward him. At that point, "acceleration" would go toward the argument that she was speeding up because she consciously put her foot heavily on the gas in an attempt to flee.
It's nothing more than a "angels on the head of a pin" debate.
Contrary to LowT's wishcasting post, she did hit him.
The only reason I could see an argument over acceleration versus velocity is if some moonbat decided to make the argument that her vehicle was just slowly idling toward him. At that point, "acceleration" would go toward the argument that she was speeding up because she consciously put her foot heavily on the gas in an attempt to flee.
It's nothing more than a "angels on the head of a pin" debate.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:30 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
3197.83 N or 707 ibf is what I got, more than enough to cause serious bodily harm or death.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:31 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I am genuinely interested as to why a fair number of posters are focused upon "acceleration" rather than "velocity."
Because mass x acceleration gives you force, which is easier for us to have a sense of its magnitude because we can easily quantify it and experience it through things like lifting weights.
When people bring up velocity they are referring to kinetic energy which is also a valid way to look at it but it gives you different units and less of a real world sense of value.
WITH THAT SAID, talking about the car mass and resulting force is irrelevant as that is not the force applied to the officer, and would only be valid if he was pinned and his body was so rigid that it allows no deflection causing the car to come to a stop from equal forces (ie not possible, and the car would crush him before his body experienced that full force).
The reality is, the max force he could have experienced was the cars acceleration x his mass. He’d experience a similar force if he was the one in the drivers seat accelerating. It’s just instead of that force being applied by a cushioned chair, it’s applied by the more rigid front end.
-You can trust me I’m an engineer
This post was edited on 1/14/26 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:32 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I am asking a sincere question here ... not trying to set up some gotcha or anything.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:32 pm to TBoy
quote:
There's also the fact that, assuming the agent was hit at all,
There is no need to guess or assume. A clearer video has been posted here that shows that he was hit by the car. If you care enough to comment on it and post about it, then you should care enough to gather all of the information and be educated on what happened. Don't ignore data just because you know it makes your stance harder to defend.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:32 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Physics Question
Wrong board. Downvoted
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News