- 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 5:09 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:09 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Either way, the agent is hit by 2000 pounds traveling at 2mph, right?
That Honda Pilot actually weighs 4000 pounds. Input that into your equation Einstein.
1
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:11 pm to ruzil
It's why these idiots ignore her tires spun on the ice
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:12 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
seems like 2mph is 2 mph regardless if the car was moving 2mph for a mile or moved from a stop 1 foott, 2 feet, 4 feet, 7 feet whatever. The liberal crowd looks at it as if this car had been rolling 2 mph for 100 yards and the agent stood there watched the whole time, didn't move, then shot. instead he likely didn't anticipate the car was gonna start moving forward at the same time he was walking around it and in front b/c they didn't act like the type dumb enough or reckless enough to do that all the sudden.
Your physics question is real stupid BTW.
Your physics question is real stupid BTW.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:12 pm to onmymedicalgrind
F=ma where the relevant acceleration is the change in velocity of the object during the course of the collision, not leading up to the collision.
Take a step back and think about it without equations. Your post a while ago noted that if an object had no acceleration (but a velocity of 60mph), the force vector would be 0.
Does it make sense to say that an object traveling at 60mph would have no force on another object in a collision?
Take a step back and think about it without equations. Your post a while ago noted that if an object had no acceleration (but a velocity of 60mph), the force vector would be 0.
Does it make sense to say that an object traveling at 60mph would have no force on another object in a collision?
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:16 pm to AllbyMyRelf
Looking at it without equations, I suppose I CAN see acceleration mattering to some extent, because the force/momentum (or whatever) applied by an accelerating vehicle to a smaller object (such as the agent) would continue to increase with continued acceleration after impact, versus remaining static with a vehicle at constant velocity, right?
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:17 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Ice spinning tires.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:23 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
So the takeaway here is that if an officer is approaching your driver side door ordering you to exit the vehicle, it's ok to drive off? And if a second officer is in front of your car, it's ok to hit him as long as you are traveling at low rate of speed? Noted
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:24 pm to RobNation
quote:No, most of us are trying to discuss the physics of the impact.
So the takeaway here is that if an officer is approaching your driver side door ordering you to exit the vehicle, it's ok to drive off? And if a second officer is in front of your car, it's ok to hit him as long as you are traveling at low rate of speed? Noted
If you want to argue about the legalities of the matter, that thread is two doors down, on the right.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:25 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
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?
Another example^^^^ of RelentlessStupidity.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:29 pm to TBoy
That thing driving that SUV had serious intentions to hurt that officer, period!
She was paid to be an a-hole, and she lost!
She was paid to be an a-hole, and she lost!
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:29 pm to onmymedicalgrind
I think there is some confusion in velocity and acceleration going on here.
Velocity is the object’s speed with direction. Example, the speed of my fist in the direction of someone’s face at 100mph.
Acceleration is the rate of change in that velocity, like going from 100 mph to 120 mph or 100mph to 80mph.
Zero acceleration occurs when velocity is constant..
in terms of the incident in question, if her speed was a constant 3 mph, and the impact did not reduce or increase her speed, acceleration is zero.
Velocity is the object’s speed with direction. Example, the speed of my fist in the direction of someone’s face at 100mph.
Acceleration is the rate of change in that velocity, like going from 100 mph to 120 mph or 100mph to 80mph.
Zero acceleration occurs when velocity is constant..
in terms of the incident in question, if her speed was a constant 3 mph, and the impact did not reduce or increase her speed, acceleration is zero.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:45 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
I think there is some confusion in velocity and acceleration going on here. Velocity is the object’s speed with direction. Example, the speed of my fist in the direction of someone’s face at 100mph. Acceleration is the rate of change in that velocity, like going from 100 mph to 120 mph or 100mph to 80mph. Zero acceleration occurs when velocity is constant.. in terms of the incident in question, if her speed was a constant 3 mph, and the impact did not reduce or increase her speed, acceleration is zero.
No all that is well understood.
What I did have clarified for me is the acceleration during time of collision is what matters, not prior to. Which makes sense.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:48 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
F=ma where the relevant acceleration is the change in velocity of the object during the course of the collision, not leading up to the collision.
This does make sense
quote:
Does it make sense to say that an object traveling at 60mph would have no force on another object in a collision?
I mean, physics is weird. Maybe?
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:50 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Nobody has time to do equations when a vehicle is coming at them. Don't drive at officers ordering you out of the vehicle and you won't get shot.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:52 pm to Smeg
quote:No one is suggesting that.
Nobody has time to do equations when a vehicle is coming at them.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:58 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I am asking a sincere question here ... not trying to set up some gotcha or anything.
Your sincerity seems a bit insincere.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:00 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:Short answer. It isn't.
Physics Question re Good/ICE Incident
why is "acceleration" the issue, rather than "velocity?"
An acceleration variable only assumes physical importance if the force is continued over a prolonged impact. That is not applicable here.
However, on a road with dicey footing, hearing an SUV spinning its tires as it accelerates toward you probably is a significant issue.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:17 pm to TBoy
quote:
There's also the fact that, assuming the agent was hit at all
Saying he wasn’t hit just makes you a cult member.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:25 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
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.
That's because nobody gives a crap about your question. None of that matters any more than your swollen sensitive labia do. GFY
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:27 pm to Fanatics
quote:
3197.83 N or 707 ibf is what I got, more than enough to cause serious bodily harm or death.
Did you account for the surface area of the vehicle distributing the force?
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News