Using your common sense to solve a physics problem.

Well I was insulted first.
I have a right to defend myself.

Don't confuse my attitude with your bad one towards me.

I am not accusing you of anything. I meant that the comment about common sense was a defensive statement from what NEd told me, about I astound people on how little I know.I have no prblem with you, or anyone else really, except myabe rhain (lol). Yes, I agree completely. Ned pointed out that my thought was really not a theory. But it wasn't just a thought based on nothing. I based it on what I see around me when it rains. Through my comoon sense, I would think that what I'm saying might actually be right. Through science, we will prove it.Common sense can be wrong, just like science.

What if the water on the other side of the dam was as high as the dam?
where would it go?Your trying to prove me wrong by figuring out for one small spot of the earth. In a global flood, things would be much different, and the water may not have anywhere to go.I am well aware of how fast any lake could drain out. Thats common sense.So tell me, I live on a mountain where the slope is about 30degrees. How long would it take water to run off? The hieght is about 500ft above everything else around it. The base of it takes up about 400 acres. It would seem impossible that it would ever flood right?
Well it does.

Proven? I think not.Rhain felt the need to explain to me that rock is not a sponge.
Well he is wrong about that.I suppose he thinks a loose pile of bricks isn't soft either.

No we are not, we are talking about a world wide flood, stay on topic then. Yes it is possible, this is my first hand observation. I believe I explained it several times already. Bcause it is an isolated event, and has nothing to do with how fast it would drain out in a world wide flood, so it proves nothing. The top of the mountain I am not really sure, I wouldn't expect much.
But here near the bottom, the water literaly sparys out of the cracks in the rocks. Everywhere, and the whole thing turns into a waterfall. So it may not be deep, but it is covered in water.
What I think is happening is, once the mountain can no longer retain water, the water has no-where to go. The hydro-static pressure builds up in the ground water, and then forces it back out the mouintain, where it would collect with the rain water and have a doubling effect.
This whole prcess gets less, and less the closer you get to the top.But it was this process that made me think to myself, just how bad would this get if it rained extremely hard for 40 days. Just how much would it back up, from the oceans to here. this is where my hypothesis ends, and real science has to take over. I would guess, but at that level, it wouldn't be a guess that I would bet on. But I am curious to find out what the actual numbers would be.

Because they are just telling me, not proving it.
Common sense can prevail in a lot of situations vs. education. But I this happen mostly in the medical field. I guess thats where my real fustrations lie, not so much against scientists or physics. I was wrong for singling them out.

IT stop rhaining.

Please point me to the thread where I say I am smarter than anyone in here.

Congratulations, Rhain!
Your IQ score is 129This number is based on a scientific formula that compares how many questions you answered correctly on the Classic IQ Test relative to others.Your Intellectual Type is Word Warrior. This means you have exceptional verbal skills. You can easily make sense of complex issues and take an unusually creative approach to solving problems. Your strengths also make you a visionary. Even without trying you're able to come up with lots of new and creative ideas. And that's just a small part of what we know about you from your test results.WEll, I am definatly not a word warrior, so much for IQ tests.

I fully agree with this, but that does not stop me from thinking outside the box. Through my mistakes, I might come up with something, because I am not hindered by a certain knowledge. I would however make more mistakes due to lack of knowledge.

Listen, you need to go no further than your own family and experiences with the "doctors"
I'm sure you have a story.Mine is that I had a lump in my throat, and although I kept telling the doctor that it wasn't a swollen lymph node like he was saying, and pumping me full of antibiodics, he would not listen. After the 4th visit to him, in 1.5 months, his words to me, after I suggest he send me to a specialist was " I am never wrong".
So I went to a specialist on my own (common sense) After delayed testing and speculation about what I was claiming to be something very abnormal in my throat, they finally found out it was a tumor.
So 7 months after I first felt it, it was finally removed with half my paradid gland. It was the size of a walnut.I don't need any stupid surveys, anyway surveys can lie, you didn't know that?

Yes, at least you get it. Ok, now we are getting somewhere. You said, as long as there is a path right?
What if the path was filled with more water?
We can't just look at one lake, and one path. We need to see how all of it would react together.
Lake mean would have 4" of rain per hour behind it, and in front of it. But that is one mountain, in an insignificant rainfall even.
I said this from the begining, that the tops of the mountains being covered with 20 feet of water is not part of my hypothesis.But if the water was rushing in this fashion, Noah would have never seen the top of any mountain, he would have been washed out to sea.
The mountain would have gotten smaller and smaller as he got washed further and further away. So it would appear to be covered up with water.
Understand?
I mean just the fact that the bible says the tops of the mountains were covered with 20 feet of water is ridiculus, and just an exageration of what happened, or a mis-interpretation. Noah never went out with a ruler and measure to the top of any mountain. How would he even know he was over one?This does not mean that a flood did not occur. Ok near the bottom means 50 ft above the lake that I am next to. The lake is 700 ft above sea level, and the top of the mountain is about 1200 ft. I also see it pouring out of the rocks 150 ft up from the lake as well. Simply an amazing site. The name of the road is waterstone rd. This is why. Ok. sure. Well I wouldn't say none. Like I said from the begining, if it is covered in 1/4" of water, it is covered. Yes, I stated that already. I also stated that because of that, in a computer run-off model, you would have to calculate the ground as being concrete. With no-drag.
My common sense figured that one out Its in a previous post.I also understand what you are saying about water falling faster the bigger the wall. But what I'm thinking is that the water on the plains would back up, because it doesn't have the slope to run-off so fast. I wonder just how far it would back-up.Remeber also the topgraphy of a mountain range. The are many slopes, up and down, and it need to be looked at as an average slope. The peaks would be "dryer" but most of the mountain range could be submerged. Then where the mountains meet the plains, the plains could be backed up so far that it affects the water runnig off the mountain to a degree.I think everone here seems to think that once the water reaches the ocean WHAM! all the water in the ocean will be at the same level. But if you look at a bay, or the ocean around here in NYC, the oceans rise with heavy rainfall. Why is that, because it takes a period of time for the oceans to level out.So even though the oceans would have to drop an average depth of 7 feet, the middle of the oceans could be further down than the edges near the shore. Add some polar ice cap melting, and the whole thing comes up to cover even more land.I'm sure that whatever would cause the oceans to evaporate at that rate and then condense over land, it would melt the polar caps as well.Hey can you tell I am a refrigeration mechanic yet? All this condesing and evaporating.

Yes I was, and I was unecesarily taking out on everyone. But I did not take it out on science itself, or physics itself. Only the jerks who interpret it. Which is not everyone. I believe I have the rightto do so.I do not rely on my common sense for everything, I never stated that. That would be foolish. I have said this before, I know nothing.

Ok, I haven't had anytime to devote to learning physics, but let me explain where I am at with this problem.First off, I fully understand the implimications of the problems without knowing pyhsics. I would also be able to solve it in the real world.
I will try to describe what I see as going on.You have the force of the car moving, plus the force of the slope, minus the friction of the skid. Its pretty simple.I also understand that the length you skid increases to the square relative to the speed you are traveling.Of course real world measurements would involve a few more things, but IF I had to figure out if this guy was speeding or not using my common sense, I would take a car of the same, using the same tires, and do some skid tests at the seen of the accident. After a couple of slides, I would be able to clearly see if the person was speeding or not.Even if the skid mark came out to be 24 mph, he still hit the other car, and you would then need to figure out the force of the collsion, and add that to his speed, to get the total speed the car was moving.I just haven't figured out really how to apply the coefficient of friction to the formula to calculate the speed. So my question is, if I currently do not understand the numbers, does this mean I cannot see what is going on using my common sense?I still plan on understanding this.
Also another question Lam, did the length of the skid increase by 13.875 percent because of the slope?