Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Fighter jet pilot demonstrates centripetal force, a concept that Isaac Newton discovered between 1676 and 1677. However, the concept of centripetal force was not actually discovered in a single event or by a single individual but rather evolved over time through the works of multiple scientists and thinkers. Here...

11,803,690 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

The fascinating concept of Non-Newtonian fluids, which transition from a liquid state to a solid-like state when pressure is applied, has a rich history that spans several centuries. The study and understanding of these peculiar fluids have evolved over time, leading to a wide range of practical applications and scientific insights. One of the earliest references to Non-Newtonian behavior in fluids dates back to the 17th century when Sir Isaac Newton formulated the basic principles of fluid mechanics. Newton's laws of fluid motion primarily applied to Newtonian fluids, which exhibit constant viscosity and flow behavior regardless of the applied force or pressure. However, it soon became apparent that not all fluids behaved in this predictable manner. In the mid-19th century, a scientist named Thomas Andrews made significant contributions to the understanding of Non-Newtonian fluids. Andrews conducted groundbreaking experiments with carbon dioxide, revealing that under high pressure, this gas could transform into a liquid. This observation marked one of the earliest instances of pressure-induced phase changes in fluids. The term "Non-Newtonian" itself was coined in the 20th century to describe fluids that did not adhere to Newton's classical laws of fluid dynamics. These fluids exhibited a variety of behaviors, but one of the most intriguing was their ability to solidify or increase in viscosity when subjected to stress or pressure. One of the most famous examples of such behavior is cornstarch mixed with water, which forms a substance known as "oobleck" that becomes more solid when pressure is applied. In the modern era, Non-Newtonian fluids have found applications in various fields, including food science, engineering, and material science. They are used in products like quicksand, body armor, and even in the development of impact-resistant materials. One of the key insights that emerged from the study of Non-Newtonian fluids is the importance of understanding the relationship between stress and strain, as well as the influence of time-dependent properties on their behavior. This knowledge has led to advancements in rheology, the study of flow and deformation in materials, and has practical implications in areas such as industrial processing, medicine, and the design of everyday products.

Historic Vids

2,632,800 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Exactly. While this is true, it’s also irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Ross was at fault, period. Here’s why: First off, it’s against DHS policy & training for an officer to approach a vehicle from the front in this situation, and this “officer-induced jeopardy” negates the officers use of force claim and puts him at fault, period. There’s no debate on this as video evidence from multiple sources clearly show Ross stopping in front of her vehicle, and then taking the time to shift his phone from his right hand to his left so he can draw his weapon…BEFORE she even started moving. THIS is simply reality, and the conversation should end here. Second, it’s against DHS Use of Deadly Force policy (which is codified law) to fire at a moving vehicle that doesn’t pose imminent danger to officers, and even if they ARE in danger, it mandates deescalation before using deadly force, which EXPRESSLY states simply “moving out of the way” of a vehicle as a correct course of action before using deadly force (see attached doc below). Third, there is already well-established legal precedent governing these EXACT types of situations, and this officer would likely be found guilty by any jury in the U.S. For example: Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.” Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.” Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.” Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.” Fifth, the videos/pics below CLEARLY show the officer was NOT in immediate danger, and the woman was moving away from him when he fired his FIRST shot when he was already clear to the left of the vehicle, and he fired the second & third shots point-blank into her face from the SIDE of the vehicle as she passed. That alone is enough to send him to prison, even if his first shot was somehow inexplicably deemed to be justified.

Notorious PJB

18,329 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten