| if a car is moving at a constant 60 mph (no acceleration) wouldn't it have a force were it to slam into me?
F=ma where But E=mc**2 where c is squared because you would c stars 2 if you got hit by a car. I hope this clears things up. |
Posted on 05/21/2005 2:42:12 AM PDT by infocats
Is there a more powerful modern Trinity? These reigning deities proclaim humanity's inability to thoroughly explain the world. They have been the touchstones of modernity, their presence an unwelcome burden at first, and later, in the name of postmodernism, welcome company.
Their rule has also been affirmed by their once-sworn enemy: science. Three major discoveries in the 20th century even took on their names. Albert Einstein's famous Theory (Relativity), Kurt Gödel's famous Theorem (Incompleteness) and Werner Heisenberg's famous Principle (Uncertainty) declared that, henceforth, even science would be postmodern.
(Excerpt) Read more at r-s-r.org ...
It discusses, tangentially, the impact of Godel's theorem on mathematics. I had been aware of him since back in the '70's or '80's when Godel, Escher, Bach came out but didn't appreciate how profoundly he changed everything
It discusses, tangentially, the impact of Godel's theorem on mathematics. I had been aware of him since back in the '70's or '80's when Godel, Escher, Bach came out but didn't appreciate how profoundly he changed everything.
Profound indeed! What Goedel demonstrated was that in any linear logical system (mathematics, law etc.), by using only the initial assumptions, laws, and understandings of that system, a point would be reached where the system would contrdict itself.
Only by resorting to a new law or understanding taken from outside the orignal rule set, could this contradiction (at least temporarily) be overcome.
orignal -> original
This is totally off topic, but this seems to be a thread where someone might know the answer. If F=ma then does this not state that there would be zero force if an object is not accelerating? But if a car is moving at a constant 60 mph (no acceleration) wouldn't it have a force were it to slam into me?
| if a car is moving at a constant 60 mph (no acceleration) wouldn't it have a force were it to slam into me?
F=ma where But E=mc**2 where c is squared because you would c stars 2 if you got hit by a car. I hope this clears things up. |
YOU BETCHA!
What your forgetting is that when this hypothetical car slams into that hypothetical you, it will accelerate (negatively) and all that energy that went into accelerating it up to 60 MPH will be transmitted into YOU, as you slow the vehicle from 60 to zero, in a VERY short time (high acceleration rate).
The force that the car will impose upon your body will be sufficient to cause the rigid structures of your body to fracture and the soft structures to burst.
The force of transmitted to you by the car will cause your body to accelerate. Of course the part that is in contact with the car will accelerate faster than the parts that are not. As a result of this your arms might be torn from their sockets, shoes ripped from your feet, and watched thrown from your wrists.
What I am describing is entirely the result of the car's deceleration and transmittal of force (and energy to you). I have to tell you that only a fraction of the car's speed need be lost to cause all sorts of havoc and mayhem to your hypothetical body, due to the huge difference in mass between you and a car, as well as the energy associate with speed.
Good luck with your experimentation!
Ah, thanks. Potential energy is just that - potential until an interation occurs. It's the interaction which creates the transfer of energy and force.
Nick, you're in danger of many things, but clarification is not one of them. ;0)
no way. conservation of momentum. you will be flung at a sizable fraction of that 60 mph for a hundred feet or so (until you hit the ground and the law of friction takes over) but the car will scarcely lose velocity.
Bump
Actually, it kind of leaves me lying in the road, bleeding :-)
Not exactly. You can still have a consistent (non contradictory) system. What Goedel showed was that any such system would contains "undecidable" statements. In OTW, there will always be some statement S, that cannot be proven neither True nor False.
That was obviously one of the senarios I had in mind, when I referred to a very small reduction in the velocity of the car.
The other scenario, where the cars velocity was reduced to zero in a very short time presupposed a solid brick wall immediately behind the experimenter. Now it is true that the brick wall would ultimately be responsible for the deceleration of the car (if it is possible to speak of a brick wall as "responsible") but the action-reaction of the car-wall combination wwould be mediated through and by the body of the experimenter.
Result: severe compression.
You will be flung at far greater than 60 mph, actually, but the poster is correct about conservation of momentum.
Don't forget: "Keep it up constantly" and that it's both a necessary and sufficient condition for eternal life!
(Which is why Protestants and evangelicals rightly view it as a spiritual activity that doesn't depend on a ceremony to make it happen)
Not exactly. You can still have a consistent (non contradictory) system. What Goedel showed was that any such system would contains "undecidable" statements. In OTW, there will always be some statement S, that cannot be proven neither True nor False.
Hmmm. I'll have to research your assertion. Unfortunately, I already packed both my copy of Goedel's Proof and The World of Mathematics in preparation for a move to Albany.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
You are confusing force with energy.