The official "Ron Artest joins the THUG gang with Danny Fortson"

scotsman13

Registered User
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Posts
1,418
Reaction score
0
Location
salt lake city
lets face facts here ron ron came off worst in his run in with LB. force = speed x mass. and while barbs may not weigh in at 200 dripping wet he is very very fast.
 

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,342
Reaction score
12,011
Until Artest does something like Fortson does to another Suns player, he will never be a Danny Fortson. Player that I have despised the most in all of my NBA watching.
 

scoutmasterdave

Board Certified Suns Fan
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Posts
933
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesa, AZ
scotsman13 said:
lets face facts here ron ron came off worst in his run in with LB. force = speed x mass. and while barbs may not weigh in at 200 dripping wet he is very very fast.
Not to split hairs, but force = mass * acceleration. Momentum = mass * velocity. :)
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,600
Reaction score
9,920
Location
L.A. area
Not to split hairs, but force = mass * acceleration. Momentum = mass * velocity.

Thank you. And in fact, the most relevant measure is kinetic energy, which is 1/2 * mass * velocity^2.
 

DeAnna

Just A Face in The Crowd
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Posts
7,285
Reaction score
771
Location
Goodyear, AZ
scotsman13 said:
lets face facts here ron ron came off worst in his run in with LB. force = speed x mass. and while barbs may not weigh in at 200 dripping wet he is very very fast.

Not only is he fast, but he is deceptively physical. Notice that he went in with his elbow since he know Artest was gonna body slam him. :thumbup:
 

Errntknght

Registered User
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
6,342
Reaction score
319
Location
Phoenix
And in fact, the most relevant measure is kinetic energy, which is 1/2 * mass * velocity^2.

In collisions both momentum and kinetic energy are relavant - the more elastic the colliding bodies are the more important momentum is. In a perfectly elastic collision momentum is the whole story. Even well toned human bodies are not perfectly elastic but they are fairly so in collisions with each other - in a collision with a bullet they would be quite inelastic as is the bullet and the damage done is proportional to the kinetic energy of the bullet. But in auto interior safety design momentum is more important than energy because the crucial thing is to limit the forces applied to human bodies and force X time equals change in momentum.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,600
Reaction score
9,920
Location
L.A. area
Even well toned human bodies are not perfectly elastic but they are fairly so in collisions with each other

But it's not the change in momentum that is responsible for the danger to the player. To the extent that the collision is elastic, it's fairly harmless -- someone picks up a bit of lateral speed, big deal. It's the inelastic component -- the change in energy asborbed at impact and propogated throughout the system -- that causes problems.

I know you're a mathematician, but you won't get far lecturing me in freshman physics. Just trust me on this one.
 

Errntknght

Registered User
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
6,342
Reaction score
319
Location
Phoenix
"I know you're a mathematician, but you won't get far lecturing me in freshman physics. Just trust me on this one."

I know ahead of time I won't get far with you regardless what I say but what on earth has ever passed between us that would lead me to trust you on this one? You said what you said and trusting you is not going to change that, supposing I could manage to do it.

I was somewhat surprised a few years ago when I read some articles on the subject of human bodies colliding with the interiors of cars to find that the momentum equation that dominated the calculations. It was force, not energy, that created damage and the momentum equation allows you to calculate how much time you have to spread the momentum change over to limit the force in an impact. Energy dissipation was important, too, but it did no good if the body transferred it too fast because the forces got too high.


"But it's not the change in momentum that is responsible for the danger to the player."

Right, but it precisely the rate of change of momentum that is responsible - which is what I said in the first post and again above. The rate of change of momentum is, of course, force.

Even in a very inelastic collision like that of a body and a bullet the forces that damage the body are precisely equal to the rates of change of momentum - momentum is not somehow gathered up in an elastic component and harmlessly carried away, as you seem to be arguing.

You may lecture me on basic physics all you want to give an actual argument why kinetic energy is the most relavant quantity in a collision. Heck, use equations if you want.
 

Mike Olbinski

Formerly Chandler Mike
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
16,396
Reaction score
13
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I have nothing to add to this thread except that Artest is a yack and it was a nice hit by LB...

Also, you guys who quote other people with italics and no names....really frustrate me :)

Mike
 

boisesuns

Standing Tall And Traded
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Posts
4,088
Reaction score
352
Location
Boise, ID
I have nothing to add to this thread except that Artest is a yack and it was a nice hit by LB...

Also, you guys who quote other people with italics and no names....really frustrate me :)

Mike


What?


:)
 

Mirth

Rookie
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Posts
53
Reaction score
0
True but...

There is no doubt that Artest is a thug. However, I did hear Leander say that Artest asked Barbosa if he was ok after the collison while he was at the free-throw line.

Now, I don't think he has turned a new leaf or wears a halo, but at least he "seems" to be civil.

I still loved LB's elbow to the chin though....
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,600
Reaction score
9,920
Location
L.A. area
I know ahead of time I won't get far with you regardless what I say but what on earth has ever passed between us that would lead me to trust you on this one?

It's an expression. You've apparently reached the conclusion that I rarely know what I'm talking about, and that assumption does not serve you well.

I was somewhat surprised a few years ago when I read some articles on the subject of human bodies colliding with the interiors of cars to find that the momentum equation that dominated the calculations.

I'm somewhat surprised at your insistence that car collisions are an appropriate model. In a car collision where the victim hits the interior, the change in momentum he suffers is severe -- he decelerates to zero very rapidly. In a collision of two bodies on the court, the change in momentum of the victim will result in him being pushed back a few feet. They really aren't closely related. You could compose a situation in which the victim hits a third player or a basket support and come closer to something car-like, but the thread implies that we are talking about a generic, one-on-one situation. (The player may collide with the floor in a "car-like" fashion, but his change in vertical momentum will never be very substantial, short of an airborne player falling on him from above.)

You have great faith in your own convictions, and it has been observed that I have the same characteristic. On the other hand, my ultimate pursuit is accuracy, which means that once in a while I am obliged to recognize that I have been mistaken. Your ultimate pursuit, by contrast, is to claim that you are correct, valiantly stepping up the hostility of your language as your foundation of misinformation crumbles beneath your feet. When facts overwhelm your position, you change the subject or drop the matter altogether.

For this reason I don't expect you to get much out of the following articles, but I'll offer them for anyone else who might be interested:

http://www.schwebel.com/RunScript.a...10&NWS=NWS&ap=NewsDetail.asp&p=ASP/~Pg421.asp

This discusses "low-speed" vehicle collisions. Much of it is not terribly relevant (oh -- it could occur to you to check the spelling of that word, since surely you have noticed that we have different "opinions" on the matter), but it does include one point that I thought could be applied to our discussion, at least conceptually:

Although most experts should agree that even in low speed impacts there will be a difference in the acceleration of the torso, and the acceleration of the head, the defense and its experts claim that the change in velocity (or delta v) is so low that, even if the torso goes forward and the head follows, there is no hyperextension or hyperflexion.

(The article, written by injury lawyers, then goes on to concede this point but talk about other ways that injury may be demonstrated.)

Needless to say, Danny Fortson running into another player would qualify as a "low-speed" collision by the standards of automobile crashes, unless the players were running head-first into one another, which again is a specialized scenario outside the scope of this discussion. Although basketball players must fear many other kinds of injury besides whiplash, which is the focus of the artice, low-speed automobile collisions tend not to result in those other kinds of injury in healthy, physically fit adults -- and since you made the decision to invoke car collisions as appropriate to this case, we have to take what it gives us.

http://rabi.phys.virginia.edu/HTW/journal/Article1.1.pdf

This article discusses the physics of a karate blow, which is closer to the basketball situation. It describes momentum-based and energy-based analyses as "equally accurate," but unfortunately stops short of quantifying its discussion in detail. Nonetheless, in the momentum-based analysis, the critical issue is the acceleration of one part of the target with respect to the other. In most respects, the human body is more fluid than a wooden board, so the ability of one section or area of it to experience a severe acceleration with respect to another section or area, given the same change of momentum experienced at a particular source, is less than in the case of the board.

The energy-based discussion focuses on energy transfer and deformation damage. A formula is provided; I won't quote it here, since you suggested that you won't take it seriously, and also it would be hard to represent with lines of text. But it takes the elasticity of the collision into account, with a factor of (1 - e^2). Consistent with what I indicated before, it is the energy absorbed in the collision through inelastic means that is responsible for this deformation damage.

I couldn't find a resource analyzing the collisions of basketball players, so I am forced into an assumption, which that a collision of human beings is likely to hit closer to home, so to speak, than one between a human and an automobile.

momentum is not somehow gathered up in an elastic component and harmlessly carried away, as you seem to be arguing.

No, what I meant was that to the extent that the collision results in an elastic exchange of momentum, the hazard to the player in minimal. The change in momentum, as in the low-speed car crash, isn't enough to do any damage in most cases.
 
Last edited:

Djaughe

___________________
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Posts
27,756
Reaction score
9
lol...
 

Attachments

  • farside.jpg
    farside.jpg
    31.5 KB · Views: 75

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,516
Reaction score
17,076
Location
Round Rock, TX
elindholm said:
It's an expression. You've apparently reached the conclusion that I rarely know what I'm talking about, and that assumption does not serve you well.

Works for me, though.



:D
 

Mike Olbinski

Formerly Chandler Mike
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
16,396
Reaction score
13
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Chaplin said:
Works for me, though.



:D

Thanks Chaplin, I knew who you were referring to, with everything outlined in a nice quote box...

Appreciated :)

Mike
 

Errntknght

Registered User
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
6,342
Reaction score
319
Location
Phoenix
Eric, "You've apparently reached the conclusion that I rarely know what I'm talking about, and that assumption does not serve you well."

Not really, you often seem to know what you're talking about, as far as I can tell.


"I'm somewhat surprised at your insistence that car collisions are an appropriate model."

I didn't say, much less insist, that car collisions are an appropriate model. It just happened that it was an article on that subject where I read about the use of the use of the momentum equation I mentioned to analyze collision injuries. The fact that the rate of change of momentum is equal to force applied is one of Newton's laws of motion, I believe. Its safe to say the principles involved are universally applicable.

Eric, >>http://www.schwebel.com/RunScript.as...ASP/~Pg421.asp

This discusses "low-speed" vehicle collisions... but it does include one point that I thought could be applied to our discussion, at least conceptually:

(Eric quoting article) "Although most experts should agree that even in low speed impacts there will be a difference in the acceleration of the torso, and the acceleration of the head, the defense and its experts claim that the change in velocity (or delta v) is so low that, even if the torso goes forward and the head follows, there is no hyperextension or hyperflexion."<<

I certainly agree as it is an analysis that entirely leaves out any energy considerations. For those who might not know it, acceleration is the rate of change of momentum per unit of mass, so it is about momentum. In the whole article the only use of energy was in discussing the automobile bodies colliding and the significance of it was that the good energy absorbtion in the bodies extended the time during which the collision took place, which is to say, spread momentum changes over a longer time, thus reducing forces.


>>http://rabi.phys.virginia.edu/HTW/jo...Article1.1.pdf

This article discusses the physics of a karate blow, which is closer to the basketball situation. It describes momentum-based and energy-based analyses as "equally accurate,"<<

I have eyestrain from reading the fine print of the previous article so I'll trust you on this one. I guess I don't mind conceding that there are some collisions where energy considerations and momentum considerations are 'equally accurate' methods of analysis - since it doesn't bolster your claim that energy considerations are the most relevant (but look on the bright side, you win the spelling contest.)


Eric, "Your ultimate pursuit, by contrast, is to claim that you are correct, valiantly stepping up the hostility of your language..."

As I've asked before (without getting a response), point out one of example of my hostile language in any post.
 

justAndy

Jolly Nihilist
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Posts
7,722
Reaction score
172
Location
Old Town Scottsdale
E = m(c*c)
In everyday terms = 1 pound of water (about a pint) contains energy equal to igniting 350 MILLION gallons of gasoline in one instant.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
558,209
Posts
5,453,264
Members
6,336
Latest member
FKUCZK15
Top