Speeding facts vs fiction

[awa355]

Speed has never killed any body. It's the sudden stop that does the damage.

[unstuck]

Speed has never killed any body. It's the sudden stop that does the damage.

Overamping, google it. Speed does kill.

[TheDemonLord]

and explain to me the key difference between centrifugal and centripetal force and why one is considered an incorrect observation.

Since moving in a circle requires constant acceleration (towards the centre point of the circle) Centrifugal force is felt - however this is just the Newtonian reaction to centripetal force which we experiance.



Can't be arsed trying to describe moments of inertia

[Ocean1]

Can't be arsed trying to describe moments of inertia

Is when you've finished your morning coffee and toast and can't be fucked making a start on the weekend chores.

[macka77]

Big Dog;1130729983]If we are not going to raise the speed limit we need to shift the focus from dead straight and put enough bends back in to keep drivers in point. If you don't need to change something every 2 minutes you cannot stay focused.
And I mean change. Not subconscious automatic corrections.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.[/QUOTE
What a incompetent statement this proves
Surely to make the roads a safer place a driver should pass IQ test to obtain a license

[TheDemonLord]

Is when you've finished your morning coffee and toast and can't be fucked making a start on the weekend chores.

Don't drink Coffee and don't have any weekend chores





(but don't tell my wife I don't )

[Big Dog]

Big Dog;1130729983]If we are not going to raise the speed limit we need to shift the focus from dead straight and put enough bends back in to keep drivers in point. If you don't need to change something every 2 minutes you cannot stay focused.
And I mean change. Not subconscious automatic corrections.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.[/QUOTE
What a incompetent statement this proves
Surely to make the roads a safer place a driver should pass IQ test to obtain a license

Clearly you don't understand what you quoted.




Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[swbarnett]

(at-least at the speeds humans are capable of at current)

ANY constant speed is harmless. You could, in theory, be travelling near the speed of light and be perfectly safe.

[oneofsix]

ANY constant speed is harmless. You could, in theory, be travelling near the speed of light and be perfectly safe.

love threads like this.

Constant speed is only harmless if there isn't a slower object in the path. You could only theoretically travel safely near the speed of light providing you are encased in a protected environment so a stray dust particle or bee can't end it for you.

[swbarnett]

love threads like this.

Constant speed is only harmless if there isn't a slower object in the path. You could only theoretically travel safely near the speed of light providing you are encased in a protected environment so a stray dust particle or bee can't end it for you.

Very true. However, the speed itself wouldn't cause you any harm.

Speed is safe. Acceleration is the killer (both negative and positive).

[haydes55]

Very true. However, the speed itself wouldn't cause you any harm.



Speed is safe. Acceleration is the killer (both negative and positive).

How badass would a gravestone look, engraved with "Accelerated to death".

[Dave-]

Very true. However, the speed itself wouldn't cause you any harm.

Speed is safe. Acceleration is the killer (both negative and positive).

Haha

Bro do you even theory of relativity?

[swbarnett]

Haha

Bro do you even theory of relativity?

Not sure I quite understand the question (I think there's something missing between "even" and "theory").

I do, however, know a little about Einstein's theorys of relativity. For instance, if you were to travel near the speed of light your mass would be so astronomical that you wouldn't even notice hitting a speck of dust, let alone a bee.

[Ocean1]

For instance, if you were to travel near the speed of light your mass would be so astronomical that you wouldn't even notice hitting a speck of dust, let alone a bee.

Well you're right in that you'd never notice it.

Want to take a shot at the energy likely to be liberated by, say a bee and a similar quantity of biology briefly employing the same coordinates at differential velocities of relativistic magnitude?

Did you suppose "bang" might almost cover it?

[swbarnett]

Well you're right in that you'd never notice it.

Want to take a shot at the energy likely to be liberated by, say a bee and a similar quantity of biology briefly employing the same coordinates at differential velocities of relativistic magnitude?

Did you suppose "bang" might almost cover it?

You're right. Given that both bodies are travelling at velocities of relativistic magnitude the collision would be seriously destructive.

I was assuming that the speck of dust or bee would be at rest (or at least at a velocity of non-relativistic magnitude).