0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 20:50:09Explain why you think this simple piece of physics would alter any travelling faster? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities
Explain why you think this simple piece of physics would alter any travelling faster?
I can understand that, however I stated the relative speeds so I know from my stated speeds of 0.5c and 0.5c that is would be double the force.I did not state 0.5c and 0.75c did I?
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 20:58:49I can understand that, however I stated the relative speeds so I know from my stated speeds of 0.5c and 0.5c that is would be double the force.I did not state 0.5c and 0.75c did I? Even without taking relativity into consideration, you don't get double the force by colliding two objects travelling at the same speed. See what Mythbusters demonstrated about this://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W937NM11o8
OK, I have watched your video link, the test is flawed and they calculated incorrectly. At the end it is 1x + 1x = 2x, They need to only have one piece of clay in the final test on one arm only. They are not calculating F / 2
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 21:19:23OK, I have watched your video link, the test is flawed and they calculated incorrectly. At the end it is 1x + 1x = 2x, They need to only have one piece of clay in the final test on one arm only. They are not calculating F / 2 I'm not sure I understand the situation you are describing. You are talking about two particles moving at the same speed (relative to an outside observer) and then colliding head-on, right? If so, the two pendulum approach is exactly the same as that. The one pendulum method would be analogous to a single particle hitting a wall.
Because they used two pieces of clay at the end, the squash of the clays was shared between the two clays, both of the squashes added together would equal the 1 smash of more swing , they used a single clay for that ,
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 21:34:03Because they used two pieces of clay at the end, the squash of the clays was shared between the two clays, both of the squashes added together would equal the 1 smash of more swing , they used a single clay for that , I suppose then the question is, "what force are you measuring?" Are you talking about the force experienced by a hypothetical target right in the middle of the collision, or the force experienced by each particle? Another reason you can't add force up linearly like that is because doubling the speed of an object doesn't double its kinetic energy, it actually quadruples it. The kinetic energy equation is exponential, not linear.
I am measuring the force of impact by the observation. If the clay compresses example 1cm from 1x and 2cm from 2x against the metal block Then when both arms are dropped with the clay on each arm, from 1x, each clay is compressed 1cm , a total of 2cm
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 21:43:04I am measuring the force of impact by the observation. If the clay compresses example 1cm from 1x and 2cm from 2x against the metal block Then when both arms are dropped with the clay on each arm, from 1x, each clay is compressed 1cm , a total of 2cm I'm doubtful that the 2x speed pendulum compressed the clay exactly twice as much as the 1x speed pendulum, considering that the pendulum would have had four times as much kinetic energy when moving twice as fast. Clay doesn't compress linearly as force increases, so it's not a great way to get an exact measurement unless you know exactly how it behaves under compression.
For the sake of continued consideration, this is what happened when the Mythbusters tested it with actual cars://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4
Quote from: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 21:58:51For the sake of continued consideration, this is what happened when the Mythbusters tested it with actual cars://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4The results I expected to see. There is no contradiction , there is twice the damage. 100mph (F) / 2 = damageThe fans are wrong not right.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2018 22:09:30Quote from: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 21:58:51For the sake of continued consideration, this is what happened when the Mythbusters tested it with actual cars://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4The results I expected to see. There is no contradiction , there is twice the damage. 100mph (F) / 2 = damageThe fans are wrong not right. Which is still less than that of a crash into a wall at 100 mph, which would be four times the damage (since it's four times the kinetic energy, not two times).
Lol I dont think you understand, the car crashing into the wall's damage at 100 mph is the same as the two cars crashing at 50 mph added together.
I will do the math for you using 3 springsA) under 100 lb pressureB) under 50 lb pressurec) under 50 lb pressureb+c = a
You realize that you can't say, "it's twice as short now therefore it experienced twice the force", right?
That's true, but impact force is not linear. The car travelling at 100 miles per hour has four times the impact force as either of the cars travelling at 50 miles per hour. Here is how you do the actual math for a car crash: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/impact-force-d_1780.html
The correct answer is yes.And, in spite of what Colin2B says, there is not scientific theory which lets you get away from that, because it's aan empirically observed fact.
You need to caveat this statement with “in the N Field new theory an electron cannot exist outside the atom.The reason is that in current physics the electron has been observed outside the atom.
I didn’t say it was a scientific theory