🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 00:58:17 GMT, in@the.sig (E. Faubion) wrote:

>>A ratio involves two entities --
>
>The ratio of the actual recorded rate (as in a test)

The rate of what?  
Your claim that a c.o.f. in some way equates to acceleration (the "1g" comment)
is still bogus.

>versus gravity which is 32.2 fps squared. 

No, "gravity" isn't 32.2f/(s**2), this is the *acceleration* due to the force
of gravity.

>Sorry, I forgot wasn't dealing with
>someone who is familiar with this stuff.

No, but you're dealing with someone with a solid grounding in basic (and even
some quantum) physics, and I recognize that this is something you're missing.
Pretty odd considering your claim to "expertise" in this area.

>>>The acceleration of
>>>gravity is measured in (metric) units of meters/(second**2).
>
>>Or feet per second.... and it is expressed as a ratio as mentioned
>>above.

No, acceleration *is not* expressed in feet/sec.  These are units of velocity,
not acceleration.  Where are you getting this stuff - just consult a library
for a basic physics text, will ya?

>Okay, I'll write it out again, the whole thing this time so you don't
>misunderstand:
>
>The acceleration of gravity is measured in (imperial) units of
>feet/(second**2). 

>Is that better?   All I did was substitute the meters/second with
>feet/second.  The squared remains untouched as indicated by the little
>periods following my statement. 

Whew, finally!  Little periods are not a very clear way of conveying a concept.
You should strive for more precision when notating mathematical concepts.

>Until I find it elsewhere I will remain skeptical of anything put forth by the NMA.  One need only browse their site to see the kind of
>clientele they court.   

I've visited their excellent site.  I'd vastly prefer to be driving with the
clientele of their site than the clientele of yours.  From what I've seen their
data is from external sources and any interpretations are no more biased than
those on your site.

>>Wisconsin: secondary enforcement
>>4-15 yrs. in front seat, 4-15 yrs. in rear seat with shoulder belt
>>$10 fine
>
>Ours used to be that puny.  Now it's a primary violation although the
>fine is still very low.  Compliance has increased as a result and the
>death rate immediatly started dropping.  No mystery there.

You'll not find me arguing that seatbelts are a bad thing or that it doesn't
make sense that death rates would go down from wearing them.  But they'll have
no impact whatsoever on accident rates, and I think that's what we need to
focus on in the speed debate.  Nobody here is arguing that going faster will
not result in more damage in the event of an accident, or that seatbelts will
not prevent some injuries.  We're arguing whether or not speed in and of itself
is primarily *responsible* for a significant number of accidents (as opposed to
fatalities).

>It's common sense unless you think seatbelt usage kills.

Oh, great, the old "proof by common sense."  Hear that readers, it's open
season!   Next up, proof by "it stands to reason."

>>>What this whole thing is about is you want to drive as fast as you want without
>>>risk of getting a ticket. 
>
>>No, I want to drive at a fast, safe, and reasonable speed (which is entirely
>>possible) without being unreasonably penalized for doing so.
>
>Same thing.

Not at all.  Perhaps you're not a man for grasping sublteties (or even
not-so-subtleties), but I assure you these are two different concepts.

Cheers,
Eric