Thanks.
Read the FAQ and realize that my questions are basically non-questions.
I watched a BBC program last night about 'REALITY'.
They went on to explain about the particle/wave nature of light and the classical physics experiment about the dual slits.
The way they were explaining it was...
The basis of the well known experiment is to fire one photon at a double slit 'wall' and measure the wave pattern produced on a screen behind it.
Now as is evident, one particle is seen to act like a wave, which is a fundamental contradiction.
I have couple of fundamental questions...
The police and the media seem to do it all the time.
This was one of the reasons I asked this question. Just to put my mind straight on the reasoning side of things.
Road safety is a big issue in the UK (and rightly so), but there is a constant pushing of big numbers relating to speed.
In...
But we've already established that there is a difference.
A person in a car decelerating from 50mph to 0 is very much different than a person in a car decelerating from 100mph to 0 (in a crash situation).
The energy from hitting a stationary wall at 100mph is totally taken up by the car...
True :)
Although part of my line of work is to do with road accident data, (just the database side of things).
But it would surprise you the number of high speed accidents with modern cars that people walk away from without as much as a scratch.
I had a strong suspicion I was on the right line of thinking (even though my description of such may not have been the best ;) ).
So to summarise (on a basic level):
Sitting in a car traveling at 100mph crashing into an immovable wall is much worse than sitting in a car crashing into another...
Would this be a similar analogy though?
Is the car going from 50mph to zero in both cases? Or in the moving wall situation - would the car be going from 50mph to -50mph?Or to add some 'spice' to these cases : an HGV traveling at 50mph hits head-on a car traveling at 50mph.
The car would most...
Totally agree.
But if I look at it this way:
I am in car Va traveling at 50mph and Vb hit us at 50mph.
The car I am in comes to a stop from 50mph to 0mph within a fraction of a second and within a larger* crumple zone.
*compared to hitting a stationary wall.
Is this the same as me...
tim - a shorter crumple zone assumes less impact speed no? Therefore acceleration (or experienced 'g-force') would be less?
Approaching at 100mph yes.
I think this is why I mentioned at the end of my post that 'impact speed' probably needs interpretation.
But the main point of my question is...
Its probably been done previously but a search didn't return any results for me.
But anyway,
Vehicle 'a' (Va) travels head-on into Vechicle 'b' (Vb). Both are traveling at 50mph. Both vehicles are identical in weight, tyre grip, transmission, general design, road surface etc.
Is the...
Could I ask a follow up question to this?
If you were on the ground and an airplane flew over you at 2000ft at Mach1, would the shock wave sound the same as you would hear from an airplane flying over you at 2000ft traveling at Mach2 or Mach3, Mach5 even?
My guess is that it would.
My...
Case in example:
If a motorbike is being riden down a steep hill and out of gear with no brakes applied; would this be more unstable than if the bike were in-gear using engine braking?
(Above condition being at the same speeds).
LBrandt -- So what exactly is 'space' if there is no mass to occupy it, or to define its boundary?
And next question; is this saying that a universe can be defined as a small vacuum?
I've had many discussion with religious types before and its like talking to a wall. (Religious types = No offence meant - its just for use of a better phrase).
The basis of science is that it welcomes any theory to be disproved by repeatable verified experiments, that will...