If I'm driving at a constant speed into a wall, why exactly

>>8679075
deceleration takes place because the wall exerts a constant force on you to stop you. That is why you die.

>>8679081
But if the acceleration was negative then I would be reversing into the wall?

>>8679085
Do you not understand that your net force is changing in the direction opposite of the cars motion? You bave momentum so when that happens you end up hitting the cars frame at whatever speed which leads to your deatb as your body has a low tolerance for pressure and loads caused by impulse

>>8679075
Hmmm, what a mystery. Maybe you should try hitting a wall at 60 mph and record the results.

>>8679085
no because the acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. Your velocity is changing from v to 0 due to the wall exerting the amount of force required to stop you. Your body will be deformed by this sudden deceleration and you'll die

>>8679096
You need to read up on something called relativity my friend. If, as you claim, there's deceleration happening in the crash, the acceleration is negative. So, from my relativistic reference point I am moving backwards. FORWARDS would give me acceleration and F=ma would work, but since the speed is constant there is NO energy and I wouldn't die, right?

>>8679102
>no because the acceleration is the rate of change of velocity
And theres none, read the OP

>>8679104
>deceleration is negative
This meme needs to die. Deceleration is positive acceleration in the "negative" direction.

>>8679106
It's just the definition

>>8679104
The force is zero but since you have mass and velocity, energy is NOT ZERO. That's why you will die because you're moving backwards in a short amount of time thereby dying

>>8679114
Not him but there is still a force

The fact you go from a Velocity to zero Velocity is literally a force

>>8679120
yeah it's a force exerted by the wall on the car.

>>8679132
Right but at no time is anything moving backwards, vector wise or reletivistically

>>8679132
Then that means the force is not zero like you said before

>>8679137
From the reference point of the wall the car is reversing

Why isn't mechanics taught with vectors?
Then people wouldn't be this retarded.

godDAMMIT you fucking 15 year old IDIOTS are pissing me off recently with your stupid troll questions


YOU MOVE at the same momentum as the car. The wall is a body at rest.


ACCELERATION MEASURES CHANGE IN FUCKING VELOCITY YOU FUCKFACE. Going in reverse doesn't mean you're negative accelerating you fucking MORON. YOU ARE STILL ACCELERATING
Hey OP, when you take a turn and you slow down but you are turning, YOURE FUCKING ACCELERATING. You may not be touching the accelerator, but your vehicle is accelerating because you are changing your velocity


FUCK


It is VELOCITY, not acceleration, that is measured based on movement from your starting point. If you took a step forward and a step backward, your velocity is 0.


YOUR VELOCITY IS NOT 0 WHEN YOU MAKE IMPACT WITH THE WALL. WHICH MEANS NEITHER IS YOUR ACCELERATION.

You EVENTUALLY come to a rest, but this is after the force is ALREADY FUCKING APPLIED TO YOU


DO you think you come to an immediate rest when you hit the wall you goddamned FUCKING IDIOT!

NO

HOW IS THIS A HARD CONCEPT FOR YOU

>>8679173
It is, unless, the instructor / course is retarded.

YOU HAD THE FUCKING BALLS TO SAY "if ALLEGEDLY F=ma"

GODDAMNIT op. This is worse than the stupid "uh relativity isn't real LMAO!" thread from yesterday


is school out currently or something? where the fuck are all these IDIOT FUCKING shitposters coming from?

>>8679181
I mean in high school

Conservation of moment and weak ass shear modulus of your organs

>>8679173
>>8679181
You mean those arrow things? I thought they were there for slow people who can't visualize things

>>8679191
no, they're for idiots like you who cannot understand abstract ideas like force and velocity and acceleration

The change is momentum is what fucks ya

[eqn]\int{t1}^{t2}\vecF dt[/eqn]

>>8679180
>>8679184
Yeah f=ma only works every now and then. The planet earth is moving around the sun at near supersonic speeds but were not flying around here because that speed is just constant and there is no force.

>>8679075
Execute yourself

OP is eitherr a very dedicated shotposter or a literal highschooler

>>8679196
Go draw your gay ass little arrows while I comtemplate the true reasons behind motion and relativity. An astronaut can fly infinitely long in space even if he has no rocket pack, his velocity is force. How closeminded is to look at everything with accelration, which is a dubios thing at best.

>>8679197
kill me lol
[eqn]\int_{t_{1}^t_{2} \vec{F} dt} = mv_{f}-mv_{i}[/eqn]

>>8679199

oh my GOD you're a fucking IDIOT

>reads the OP
>sees his pic
>still thinks he's not trolling/shitposting
C'mon, guys. I thought you were smarter.

>>8679207
Hey thats a nice argument buddy, go read a physics book and tell me how im wrong. These are things only a select few of us will understand, and clearly you are destined to be scientificaly illiterat.

>>8679212
OP provided proofs though, his way of thinking about is very novel. It's like a combination of relativity and mechanics so it works without acceleration.

>>8679148
No its not,

>>8679213

You fucking idiot, galelio proved you wrong 500 years ago, that's how stupid you are.
Let's say I had enough of your moronic shitposting and put you on a boat. You're at the bottom deck, unable to observe your actual surroundings because I locked you down there to punish your ineptitude. You can't tell whether the ship is in motion or not, there is no test you could do to prove this. However, I'm driving the ship straight into a wall because I hate you and you should die. The ship has a force applied to it from the 20 other shitposters I've enslaved to row you into the wall, but you don't move RELATIVE to the ship due to this force. However, you are moving RELATIVE to the goddamn wall made of fire (I set it on fire now, i'm THAT FUCKING MAD AT YOU). You can throw a baseball to another shitposter. On the ship, you two morons do not observe the force OUTSIDE the ship applied to the ball, BECAUSE YOU'RE INSIDE THE FUCKING SHIP AND IT'S RELATIVE. However, TO ME, standing on a platform gladly watching this scene unfold, the ball would appear move in a different manner to me, because I'm NOT on the ship.


DOES THIS MEAN THERE'S NO FORCE ON THE SHIP, OR DOES IT MEAN YOU'RE A GODDAMN RETARD.
Now, replace "ship" with "Earth" and "water" with "spacetime" and congratulations, go kill yourself.


>>8679148

HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU THIS STUPID. The car is REVERSING?! NO IT ISN'T. It is still moving at the wall until point of impact, where it will eventually come to a rest. It doesn't REVERSE because that's STUPID AS FUCK.

>>8679225
Man being angry doesn't make you any more right, people will just see your wrong! I'm studying to become a engineer and you have to knoe extensive physics to even get in. Galileo wasn't even born when Newton developed his archaic acceleratiom theorems. We're living in 2017, and i will engineer the future and everyone will reap the benefits from my new way of thinking.

>>8679237

you will never learn anything and you'll die electrocuted because you're so fucking stupid


in reality you're at a no-name lib-arts college studying anthropology or some queer shit
2/10 troll thread, gave u 2 since u got me mad

>>8679225
>>8679237
I told you he's just fucking with you. Don't even bother. I think some pipe of /b/ may have broken and leaked into here.

>>8679254
Yeah when you cant prove someone wrong just call them a troll, clasic

>>8679075
Sudden change in momentum
d(p)/dt= F
So technically force is being applied on you by the wall.

>>8679180
I have another question then: if light has no mass then why does it have momentum and why is it affected by gravity?

>>8679390

at least this one is semi-decent, unlike your blatant trolling earlier


light moves along the bend of spacetime that is under the influence of gravity. it is moving in a straight line. Since spacetime is warped or bent, light will also move along this warp.


I won't yell in all caps this time because I actually like explaining this question. I'll use the same method Einstein used to help this along:

Imagine you're a beetle walking on a curved leaf. To the beetle, you walk in a straight line. You believe that, on a 2D plane, your motion is very simple to map: straight. However, a human standing next to you understands the leaf is curved, and while you may be walking straight, you are actually moving along a curve in 3D space, not in a direct straight line.


Light is the beetle, spacetime is the leaf that is curved under gravity

>>8679341
>Galileo wasn't even born when Newton developed his archaic acceleratiom theorems.

>>8679413

I'm impressed that he managed to pack a sentence full of so many wrong statements while remaining grammatically correct.

>>8679085
Troll

>>8679418
>>8679399
Upboated!!

>>8679075
SHUT UP BRAINLET. IM SORRY TAKING YOUR BAIT IN THIS THREAD

>>8679399
Oh I am a different moron not OP, I knew it would be confusing the way I asked my question.

Thanks for the explanation.

>>8679075
>this whole thread
Literally high school tier Newtonian mechanics

Kys my man

>>8679237
You started off trolling well but now it's obvious

>>8679579
I wasn't expecting so many (you)s

>>8679630
rot in hell idiot

File: TACC1157_Graham_Face-1.jpg (850KB, 1790x1159px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 1790x1159px

>>8679075

>>8679634
Why so mad?

>>8679634
You are triggered over 9000 dude. Calm your tits.

>>8679506


Well that should go to prove how bad of a troll OPie is and that your question was decent. Einstein asked the same question you had and it wasn't even proven until a few years after he postulated what I stated above.

this fucking thread has 56 replies

>>8679506
The important part to understand there is geodesics.

>>8679075
The wall is in a state of rest, so its velocity is 0. The difference between the velocities of your car and the wall is the acceleration. So the acceleration is equal to your cars velocity.

>>8681024
bumped for visibility

9/10 OP.

You sure riled up some autists.

You lose a point for origionality though.

>>8679075
Are you assuming the wall is moving with you? Because then you wouldn't die. You'd be a car + wall moving at the same rate, touching, and never breaking each other.

>>8682743
>people keep responding to this thread
fucking brainlet

>>8679075
>build wall out of tissue paper
>drive car into wall at 60mph
>go straight through wall at 60mph
>a=0
>don't die
>disprove physics

>>8679075
nobody has answered the question yet though

the car is not applying a force because its direction or speed isnt changing neither is the wall's direction or speed so it isn't applying a force either

>absolute troll op
>unhinged physics undergrad [autistic screeching]
>no one's answered the question in a satisfactory way
good thread /sci/

>>8682784
>the speed of the car isn't changing
>the car is moving at 60mph
>after the crash it stopped
>but the speed didn't change!

retard

>>8682803
but it hits the wall which has F = 0 so where is the force coming from how is the wall stopping the car without a force

>>8682825
let me make it clearer then
>car is going at 60mph at t=0
>car crashes and is going at 0mph at t=0.001
>how much average acceleration (and thus, how much average force) was exerted on the car throughout this time?

>>8682829
so the fact that the wall has 0 force throughout this whole thing doesnt matter

>>8682856
how could it have 0 force? the sum of forces is always 0, there's an opposite force

crash your car into a wall and tell me it doesn't move or dent

>>8682856

>the wall has 0 force

my fucking sides

seriously, have you considered suicide?

>>8682746
Or maybe, I know that the OP is having a bit of fun and I want to have fun too and post a reply anyway.

I'm not entirely sure if you are joking or not, but I will answer anyways. It is not the amount of force that kills you, but the kinetic energy. (1/2mv^2)
If the kinetic energy exceeds 100 joules, whether it be an object coming toward you or you going toward an object, this is generally lethal.

>>8679075
This is the kind of physics question that can only be answered experimentally. Drive into a wall in your car and see what happens.

>>8682905
so the car hits the wall which causes an acceleration therefore a force on the wall and obv the wall provides a normal force back or something and u die?

sum1 just said it was kinetic energy tho

>>8679075
Perfect

kek
thank you anon