Originally Posted by Ghost
A car going around a corner (or going anywhere else) has at any instant an instantaneous velocity which includes a speed and direction. The car's mass times the car's velocity is equal to its linear momentum. You can treat the car as a rigid body or integrate the equation over the volume of the car if you prefer.
A car going around a corner has an angular velocity about any fixed point. It's angular momentum is equal to it's angular velocity times it's moment of inertia.
Some problems are easier to solve using Cartesian coordinates and the linear momentum equation; some problems are easier to solve using polar coordinates and angular momentum.
You are mistaken; it is beyond your college level understanding. I suggest you get your tuition refunded.
Nevertheless, I'm not going to turn this thread into a rotational physics tutorial.
In that wedge christie thread, you guys said that the angular momentum is negligible compared to the linear momentum, so we don’t need to consider angular momentum effects. I pointed out that an object moving around a circle technically doesn’t have linear momentum, so trying to make any estimates of its total instantaneous linear momentum really doesn’t say anything about how much angular momentum there isn't. Every part of the car has a different velocity, so trying to determine the overall momentum requires integrating across the entire car, which is rotational physics. All I did was point this out, and you flipped out, attacking my education, saying I knew nothing, when really you didn’t have the right understanding of it. Now, your description is better, so I’m glad I taught you something, or had you relearn something. Rehashing this argument is not my point though. The point is that you and Jamt use physics to try to win arguments, right or wrong, not get to the truth. For example, BTS was completely ignorant about physics. Anyone that can’t see that knows very little, but yet you guys never challenged him or corrected him. Whenever he would argue against someone else, you would quickly challenge his opponent on physics no matter how trite. So, by selectively suppressing people’s point of view that isn’t part of your social group, you’re using your knowledge and background as an argumentative tool to maintain social hierarchy. That bugs me, because I believe we should be looking towards the truth independent of the speaker.
Here’s the reason you guys are wrong. Some of you have said that floating through transition is the best move almost all the time, despite good coaches that say the opposite. Are you and Jamt supporting that position or not? The way Jamt was making fun of CTkook showing a gaper picture saying it was CTkook heavy in transition sure suggests he’s supporting that position, but then when you dig down he has a different tune. Not all turns are the same. Whatever physics Jamt is trying to muster to win the argument, is only applicable sometimes, that’s all I’ve ever tried to show. That’s all anyone has ever claimed, and that’s the truth.
Edited by The Engineer - 1/6/16 at 9:07am