- #1
mordechai9
- 205
- 0
Let's say it's raining outside and you're traveling by foot from point A to point B. If you run, will you get more wet or less wet, or will it be the same?
pixel01 said:I tested it in excel, the faster you run, the less wet you get.
(But consider your limit where Vo=0. Or in general, transform to the frame where this is so.)pixel01 said:W2 is calculated as follow:W2 = A2*J *sin(actan(V/Vo))*S/V
cesiumfrog said:I think W2=A2*J*S. Particularly, consider the limit where Vo=0.
cesiumfrog said:(But consider your limit where Vo=0. Or in general, transform to the frame where this is so.)
The amount of water soaking a surface parallel to the constant rain fall is a constant of the path taken, and the amount of water soaking a perpendicular surface is proportional to the time spent, so running is always optimal.
We now have proof that light can't get wet.pixel01 said:And if you move at speed of light, you are dry.
Mk said:We now have proof that light can't get wet.
Mk said:We now have proof that light can't get wet.
I thought it would have been already evident to you that this is also wrong. If you ran at infinite speed, you would "run into" the drops that had already fallen to face-height, and so your front would still get wet to some non-zero extent. Now that we agree your model is flawed, if you wish to vainly insist that it is still applicable in some range of lower speeds then you will need to provide a clearly argued explanation of your derivation.pixel01 said:Oh no, you should run at an infinite speed to be dry.
cesiumfrog said:I thought it would have been already evident to you that this is also wrong. If you ran at infinite speed, you would "run into" the drops that had already fallen to face-height, and so your front would still get wet to some non-zero extent. Now that we agree your model is flawed, if you wish to vainly insist that it is still applicable in some range of lower speeds then you will need to provide a clearly argued explanation of your derivation.
pixel01 said:I think I have explained the expression for W2 quite clearly already. And after reanalyze the formulae, I haven't find a flaw in it. Imagine, if you could go at infinite speed, you also exposed to the rain at no time at all (t=S/v), so you were not under the rain. If you lash a rod very fast out in the rain, the rod may still be dry.
Particle man, particle man ...Mk said:We now have proof that light can't get wet.
pixel01 said:I think I have explained the expression for W2 quite clearly already. And after reanalyze the formulae, I haven't find a flaw in it. Imagine, if you could go at infinite speed, you also exposed to the rain at no time at all (t=S/v), so you were not under the rain.
If you lash a rod very fast out in the rain, the rod may still be dry.
Shooting star said:Why did the spherical chicken cross the road in the rain?
stewartcs said:To see if he would get wet or not.
cesiumfrog said:pixel, care to explain how you obtained the formula? For example, what physical reasoning led to your sin of arctan term?
By the way, with your new formula, if the rain stops falling (Vo=0) then the wetness will still depend on the speed of travel. Doesn't that seem wrong to you?