<h2><em>So there is two truths given. After an amount of time Ttotal (lets call it ‘t’):
</em></h2><h2><em>
</em></h2><h2><em>The car’s speed is 25m/s
</em></h2><h2><em>The distance travelled is 75m
</em></h2><h2><em>Then we have the formulas for speed and distance:
</em></h2><h2><em>
</em></h2><h2><em>v = a x t -> 25 = a x t
</em></h2><h2><em>s = 0.5 x a x t^2 -> 75 = 0.5 x a x t^2
</em></h2><h2><em>Now, we know that both acceleration and time equal for both truths. So we can say:
</em></h2><h2><em>
</em></h2><h2><em>t = 25 / a
</em></h2><h2><em>t^2 = 75 / (0.5 x a) = 150 / a
</em></h2><h2><em>Since we don’t want to use square root at 2) we go squared for 1):
</em></h2><h2><em>
</em></h2><h2><em>t^2 = (25 / a) ^2 = 625 / a^2
</em></h2><h2><em>t^2 = 150 / a
</em></h2><h2><em>Since t has the same value for both truths we can say:
</em></h2><h2><em>
</em></h2><h2><em>625 / a^2 = 150 / a
</em></h2><h2><em>
</em></h2><h2><em>Thus multiply both sides with a^2:
</em></h2><h2><em>
</em></h2><h2><em>625 = 150 x a, so a = 625 / 150 = 4.17
</em></h2><h2><em>
</em></h2><h2><em>We can now calculate t as well t = 25 * 150 / 625 = 6</em></h2>
U have to *modify it to increase its ground clearance*
I was about to say: because people generally get comfortable with
what they think they know, and don't like the discomfort of being told
that they have to change something they're comfortable with.
But then I thought about it a little bit more, and I have a different answer.
"Society" might initially reject a new scientific theory, because 'society'
is totally unequipped to render judgement of any kind regarding any
development in Science.
First of all, 'Society' is a thing that's made of a bunch of people, so it's
inherently unequipped to deal with scientific news. Anything that 'Society'
decides has a lot of the mob psychology in it, and a public opinion poll or
a popularity contest are terrible ways to evaluate a scientific discovery.
Second, let's face it. The main ingredient that comprises 'Society' ... people ...
are generally uneducated, unknowledgeable, unqualified, and clueless in the
substance, the history, and the methods of scientific inquiry and reporting.
There may be very good reasons that some particular a new scientific theory
should be rejected, or at least seriously questioned. But believe me, 'Society'
doesn't have them.
That's pretty much why.
If you are designing a roller coaster that goes upside down, you may consider of course seat belts or something that goes around you to keep yourself safe.
