Physics proof for traffic ticket

  • Thread starter Thread starter 12markkram34
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics Proof
AI Thread Summary
A scientist developed a physics proof to contest a traffic ticket by analyzing the angular speed of his car near a stop sign, claiming it peaks at zero when obstructed from the officer's view. The discussion focuses on the complexities of the proof, particularly the calculations of obstruction times and the rationale behind adding and subtracting lengths in his equations. Concerns are raised about the clarity of the obstructing car's position and the assumptions made regarding acceleration and deceleration. The proof employs simplifying assumptions and approximations, which may not be suitable for those lacking a strong physics background. Overall, the validity of the proof is questioned due to its unrealistic premises and unclear definitions.
12markkram34
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
So I read about a scientist who wrote a physics proof to prove that he did not run a stop sign, basing his argument on the fact that angular speed of a car moving near a stop sign )as observed by a distant perpendicular observer) peaks shortly before and after the stop, where the observed angular speed is zero. During that brief moment that the speed is zero, another car was blocking the sight of the officer. It's probably easier to understand if you read the actual proof.

The proof is here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.0162v1.pdf

So I understand everything up to part IV, where he calculates the times that obstruction starts and ends. What I don't understand is why he added the two lengths together for one and subtracted them for the other. I think the problem is that he doesn't really specify where the obstructing car is at a particular time, though it could just be me because I'm not really good at mechanics.

Of course, his overall argument is pretty unrealistic since it contends that acceleration starts immediately after deceleration, but I still want to understand the basis of the "proof."

EDIT: I also see an issue with how he defines where his car is. From his part about speed, we can assume that he is defining x as the distance from his front bumper to the stop line. If that is the case, then it would not make sense to calculate when his front bumper is the sum of the lengths away from the line, since if partial obstruction began when he was at that point (that would make the front bumper of the obstructing car be l1 away from the line), his car would be exposed at the stop line (since the obstructing car does not reach that far). Could it be just that that part of his proof is totally bad?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Bumping since it's been two days without a response.
 
12markkram34 said:
What I don't understand is why he added the two lengths together for one and subtracted them for the other.
That makes sense for calculating total and partial obstruction. But I didn't go through his math.
 
12markkram34 said:
What I don't understand is why he added the two lengths together for one and subtracted them for the other.

His definition of the distance of partial obstruction spans when the front bumper is the same distance from the stop sign as the other car's rear bumper, to when his rear bumper is the same distance as the other car's front bumper.

Assuming the other car is stationary at the stop sign, this is a distance from when the front bumper is at x_1 = -l_2 (front bumper is even with the other car's rear bumper) to when the front bumper is at x_2 = +l_1 (rear bumper is even with the other car's front bumper). Using \Delta{x} = x_2 - x_1 gives x_p = (+l_1) - (-l_2) = l_1 + l_2.

His definition of full obstuction occurs when the rear bumper has passed the other car's rear bumper, yet his front bumper has not passed the other car's front bumper. So at the point when his rear bumper is even with the other car's rear bumper, his front bumper has a distance of l_2 - l_1 to travel before it goes past.

12markkram34 said:
I think the problem is that he doesn't really specify where the obstructing car is at a particular time, though it could just be me because I'm not really good at mechanics.

He is using small angle approximations. Actually, he uses a lot of simplifying assumptions, approximations, and worst case scenarios, probably for an audience which does not have a thorough background in physics.
 
Last edited:
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Scalar and vector potentials in Coulomb gauge Assume Coulomb gauge so that $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}=0.\tag{1}$$ The scalar potential ##\phi## is described by Poisson's equation $$\nabla^2 \phi = -\frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}\tag{2}$$ which has the instantaneous general solution given by $$\phi(\mathbf{r},t)=\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0}\int \frac{\rho(\mathbf{r}',t)}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^3r'.\tag{3}$$ In Coulomb gauge the vector potential ##\mathbf{A}## is given by...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...

Similar threads

Back
Top