Recent content by dibbsy

OK, so then why not conclude that the greater force of the faster car comes from the greater kinetic energy? The transfer comes from the impact. The impact involves a force. The greater the kinetic energy, the greater the force that is transferred. No mention of acceleration.

You still haven't shown how what I said is wrong.

I say it's all about the kinetic energy. Nothing to do with acceleration or the Third Law. How is this incorrect as far as physics goes??

See my other post. The walls can be made of candy floss, the cars made of titanium. No acceleration, no deceleration. The larger kinetic energy of the faster car will do more damage to the wall than the lower kinetic energy of the slower car. What's incorrect about that?

See my post below. I don't think the Third Law does the trick.

Sorry I still don't get it. I have assumed no acceleration by the car. Make it even clearer: the two cars are perfectly rigid and uncollapsible. The walls are made of cheese. The faster car will do more damage to the cheese wall than the slower car, with no acceleration or deceleration...

I did not say the principles of physics are absurd. I'm asking what the principle is that explains why the faster car does the greater damage. Well, the wall is not accelerating into the car, so I don't quite get that. But anyhow, I'm not asking why the car crumples and slows. I'm asking why...

LOL I appreciate all your efforts, but tbh you're not all saying the same thing and I don't think you have a collective explanation of 'why you are right' and I have not seen an actual explanation from any one of you! I'm about to tap out too, but I appreciate the responses anyhow :smile:

No, change in velocity can be acceleration or deceleration. Direction actually matters. I still do not see how, if A decelerates into W with greater magnitude than B decelerates into W, that explains why A does greater damage to W than B does. It has to be about kinetic energy, not deceleration.

Sorry, but don't you see how absurd that sounds? If the car is going faster, the deceleration is larger. Call it 'negative acceleration' if you like, but it no more explains the larger force than my going backwards faster than you explains any damage to what is in front of me. Absurd!

OK, but nothing you have said explains why the faster car causes the greater damage! How could deceleration possibly explain this?

The equation you gave does not explain what I'm wanting explained. As I said, there is no acceleration, so the greater force of the faster car cannot be explained by acceleration. Simple as that.

Sure, but this has nothing to do with acceleration! The Delta V here is the difference between the V of the slower car and the V of the faster car, both of which are travelling inertially. Given that, then what you say is fine and completely consistent with what I'm saying: in the inertial case...

OK, but how does that explain why the faster car does the greater damage? No closer to a solution as far as I can see, unless we leave change of velocity right out of it and focus on force varying with kinetic energy. Surely this has been understood since Newton? What am I missing here?

Sorry, after you hit the ground the damage has already begun! Nothing funny about that idea, if you don't mind my saying ;-)