Subject	your wrong...look above "219ft"
Posted by	rvin on June 17, 2006 at 9:34 PM
	This message has been viewed 36 times.
In Reply To	440 feet, if it is constant acceleration posted by Joe(NoVA) on June 17, 2006 at 09:26 PM
Message	1/2 a t^2 You forgot 1/2
Follow Ups	JUST WONDERIN'. Alright math and physics buffs out there, - 240Z FeO2 21:12:36 06/17/06 Re: JUST WONDERIN'. Alright math and physics buffs out there, - rvin 21:26:45 06/17/06 Acceleration = 60mph/5sec = 17.6 ft/sec^2 (n/m) - Joe(NoVA) 21:28:05 06/17/06 I tried to delete this but you responded ;) (n/m) - rvin 21:28:51 06/17/06 Exactly why i responded ;-) (n/m) - Joe(NoVA) 21:29:25 06/17/06 your wrong too, i responded...no deleting now..luckily this - rvin 21:35:17 06/17/06 219ft - rvin 21:32:01 06/17/06 hmm... i was using the calculator on my computer - Joe(NoVA) 21:38:31 06/17/06 same calculator..gotta love all those decimals it throws out (n/m) - rvin 21:43:48 06/17/06 correct! (n/m) - IJUMPMAN 02:24:20 06/18/06 440 feet, if it is constant acceleration - Joe(NoVA) 21:26:50 06/17/06 your wrong...look above "219ft" - rvin 21:34:07 06/17/06 "you're ;-) - Joe(NoVA) 21:39:48 06/17/06 Yes, because acceleraion is not constant for our cars. (n/m) - Technomancer 07:03:39 06/18/06 Or anything for that matter. - Kenny 12:53:59 06/18/06 Yes! Newton and Laplace give us the impression that we can - Technomancer 09:23:34 06/19/06 f that...i have a hard time with 3+3 = 6 - genic 22:01:12 06/17/06 Lol - Spddracer 22:03:32 06/17/06 6?!?!?!?!? i thought it was 5! (n/m) - itsmyz (SoCal-San Diego) 00:27:13 06/18/06 totally agree (n/m) - Patrick(Austin) 08:05:46 06/18/06 Great to see some thinkin' goin' on. I looked into this a - 240Z FeO2 22:20:05 06/17/06 nice - nemo1080 03:40:44 06/18/06 Absolutely right. Plus there are almost no linear functions - 240Z FeO2 14:17:58 06/18/06
Post a Followup	You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.