"Frozen" physics problems (SPOILERS)
RichA
it.
2. Exposed skin in cold freezes. Tuck cold face into sweater or
shirt. Or put inner hat over face. Breath will heat it. Lose your
glove? Put the hand under the jacket.
3. Sitting with legs suspended. Kills circulation, could have been
remedied, once there were only two people on the lift.
4. People can move with only arms and broken legs, just more slowly
than with legs that work. Painful, but perhaps better than being
ripped to shreds by wolves.
5. How often have you ever seen someone climb a horizontal rope or
cable with just their arms, instead of using arms and legs? A 25 year
old guy can't just once swing his legs up over the cable?
6. The cable was "sharp?" WTF? The cable is composed of multiple
strands, but they would be round, not razor ribbon.
trotsky
> 1. 32ft/s/s. The speed of falling.
You idiot--"speed" refers to velocity; 32 ft/sec^2 refers to the
*acceleration* due to gravity. You're an idiot.
moviePig
a. Actually, everyone is quite "familiar" with 32ft/sec/
sec ...*intuitively* anyway, which is all that matters here.
b. Anyone in that situation would do *many* things differently after
going through it once... or after watching a movie about it...
c. Yes, people with broken legs can move... but can't *outrun* tree
moss...
d. Apparently, ski-lift cables *are* sharp ...as the movie's stuntman
repeatedly proved, it turns out...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
calvin
You idiot -- 32 ft/sec/sec is not the same as 32 ft/sec^2.
trotsky
Are you drunk from too many watchings of James Franco movies, calvin?
Or is this your idea of a "joke"?
calvin
It's math and physics, idiot. As you correctly pointed out,
32 ft/sec/sec is acceleration. But 32 ft/sec^2 ain't the same,
and all the insinuations you want to make about my movie
watching won't change that. 32 ft/sec^2 is actually
*deceleration*. Plug in values of sec = 1,2,3,4, ... and you
will see what I mean.
Rich
news:e8WdnSAZrfC19DXR...@mchsi.com:
Thanks, dummy, I know that. s/s not s.
Rich
03335c...@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
I'd honest like to see an explaination of the cable's configuration. The
cable is round. Is the implication the cable car hook "sits on top" of
the cable, where the cable's "sharpness"grips it and there is no
migration at all of the car along the cable? Or in reality, is the car
hook locked in-place on the cable? Are the individual strands they are
using square instead of round, to provide a sharp edge? If the cable was
actually sharp, how would the guy have been able to climb using it at
all, supporting his whole body weight as he went hand over hand along it?
His hands wouldn't be cut, they'd be shredded.
One review:
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/coroners-report-frozen-blu-
ray.php
Oh and don’t worry about being all cut up. Sure, steel braided ropes can
cut and be sharp, but really only when frayed. When they’re in good
repair and tightly wound, they’re not going to tear through your gloves,
much less your hands.
moviePig
At best, you're arguing about notation convention. E.g.:
http://tinyurl.com/2956vws -- Excerpt: "Gravity accelerates
objects toward the center of the Earth at 32.2 ft per second per
second (which can also be written as 32 ft/s2)."
calvin
That's incorrect, literally. But literally incorrect notation
sometimes is used. Literally, if an object falls at the
rate of 32.2 ft per 'square of the time in seconds', then
it decelerates to a near stand-still if it falls from high enough,
which isn't very high.
In your zeal to defend trotsky, you have obscurred the truth
which I am trying to convey.
But of course I accept your refinement of 32 to 32.2.
moviePig
> moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote in news:e3aa1804-6dd7-43d8-89d2-
> 03335cd08...@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
Well, if we're citing movie-reviewers as experts:
( http://www.horrorreview.com/2010/frozen2010.html )
"During Green’s research while writing the film, [he discovered
that] the cables are kept sharp to grip the lift chairs. According to
Green they are so sharp they can cut though a steel chain."
Before I dismiss that out-of-hand, I'd need to hear something more
authoritative than what you or I might speculate as 'obvious'.
calvin
One more point, which will be ignored because the
'real' point is to defend trotsky:
High school students should be offered clarity in
math and physics, and this awful notation (32.2 ft/sec^2)
confuses in one stroke both the math and the physics
of the acceleration of a near-earth-surface falling object
in a vacuum.
moviePig
"The", not "your" (refinement). I merely cut-and-pasted.
Meanwhile:
An object that accelerates for 4 seconds does so for 16 seconds-
squared. If its rate of acceleration is 32 feet per second-squared
(i.e., 32 feet for each of those 16 seconds-squared), then its final
velocity is 32x16. This is consistent with both conventional science
and, afaics, common English. That it happens also to support Trotsky
is, I fear, a personal cross you'll have to bear...
calvin
Gobbledygook noted, but the situation is this, according to
trotsky's notation (32.2 ft/sec^2):
As time (in seconds) increases, the object falls at the
rate of 32.2 feet per square of that time. Since the square
of that time increases (exponentially) the velocity slows
accordingly.
That this nonsense comes from trotsky is, I fear, your
personal embarrassment.
moviePig
Is "gobbledygook noted" your piss-ant way of saying that you couldn't
follow my example and that you thus could scarcely be bothered with
it?
Okay. Then, here's *your* verbatim reasoning, transposed to a simpler
level:
--------
"Trotsky's notation" [and yours, I bet] for his car's velocity is
'60 miles/hr.'
As time (in hours) increases, his car moves at the rate of 60 miles
per unit (hour) of that time. Since that time increases (linearly),
the distance he travels decreases accordingly.
--------
Now, nobody, least of all I, can force you to see what's wrong with
this picture. But I trust you'll unwedge your head long enough to
notice that *something* is.
Meanwhile, particularly as you attempt to renovate high-school
Science, best of luck with that "personal embarrassment" thing...
calvin
I stand corrected on all points.
trotsky
I can't believe you're serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravity
You're shown levels of cluelessness that were hard to fathom before,
calvin, but this takes the cake.
trotsky
What does "s/s" mean, your reference Herman Goering?
trotsky
Exactly--two ways of writing the same thing, both referring to
acceleration, not "speed" as Rich incorrectly put it.
calvin
> You're shown levels of cluelessness that were hard to fathom before,
> calvin, but this takes the cake.
Yes, it does. This is my worst humiliation on Usenet, ever.
Here I flunked high school math and physics over the simplest of
problems, which I understood well when actually in high school.
At age 70 I'm becoming senile, which is a hard fact to face.
moviePig
You're becoming senile if you're mistaking headlong, headstrong
arrogance for senility. I imagine that most anyone decades removed
from high-school physics would need a moment to fully reconstruct the
etymology of acceleration notation ...which neither you nor Rich (by
far your junior) bothered to take.
calvin
The mistake that I made, and then stuck with in headlong,
headstrong arrogance, was in thinking that
a/b/c, ie (a/b)/c is not the same as a/bc; but of course it is.
trotsky
Why would you have thought that in the first place?
calvin
There's no reason. It just didn't look right. It is true
that a/(b/c) is not the same as a/bc, but that's no excuse
because I knew we were talking about (a/b)/c.
Heynonny
> I stand corrected on all points.
Classy.
You could have just walked away silently.
Of course now you're pounded a few extra times just for the fun of it,
but you did good.
moviePig
'Pounded'? By whom?...
Goro
This is a very strange statement. I'm not sure why you are confusing
this. 9.8 m/s^2 (~32 ft/s^2) is acceleration due to earth's gravity.
It is not "deceleration." If it were meant to indicate that the
object were to slow down, it would be "-32 ft/s^2" You would use the
negative acceleration value in a problem of throwing a ball into the
air and determining when it reached its apex (or by using a negative
initial velocity value).
Note that in mathematical notation,
32 ft/s/s ==> 32 (ft/ s*s) ==> 32 ft/s^2. These are mathematically
equivalent expressions.
HTH
-goro-
