13891522:ManesPhoney said:
Well, if I actually have to explain this I'm gonna have to geek out a little:
The relevant property is the momentum here.
head has momentum/ angular momentum -> momentum is transfered in inelastic collision/ displacement of slush --> magnitude of negative acceleration is inversely proportional to the distance at which momentum is transfered
Having a higher surface area (or higher Volume), wearing a helmet implies that you have to displace more slush when your head diggs into the ground (remember: you need a large distance for a soft impact) --> displacement of more slush means more momentum per distance is being transfered --> magnitude of negative acceleration increases.
**This post was edited on Feb 13th 2018 at 7:27:38pm
**This post was edited on Feb 13th 2018 at 7:29:04pm
**This post was edited on Feb 13th 2018 at 7:30:13pm
Dude what are you smoking? It's not even a debate that helmets are safer than no helmets in ALL circumstances. You are 100% not any sort of scientist or scientific if you believe otherwise. Did you ever think about the fact that helmets have a hard foam that compresses in significant impacts to extend the deceleration phase? Which would decrease injury. Also padding and MIPS will also assist in distributing the force from deceleration over a longer time, thus reducing the risk of injury.
Surface area is not volume in any mathematical world....EVER.
Also you might want to rethink your surface area argument because the more surface area you have, the more area the impact force will have to distribute over, causing less of an impact. Your argument where you say "magnitude of negative acceleration increases" is very flawed because eventually the slush will be gone and the head will hit a very hard impenetrable wall of snow, ice, rock, or dirt. Not to mention the increased surface area will distribute the force over a larger surface, therefore not only decreasing the impact to small areas of the skull, but rather spreading it out. This is where the helmet wins. Think of a guy diving vs belly flop into a pool that's 3 feet deep.
I will also take a helmet over the soft tissue that covers my skull any day. Would you rather hit your bare head on a rock or rail or get stabbed with a stick? How bout no.
One more lesson, the damage from head injuries, assuming it's a closed injury and your brains aren't everywhere, is from your brain jostling around inside the fluid filled space it's suspended in (aka your skull). The features of a helmet, padding, foam, MIPS will all serve to limit the rate of deceleration that your brain has to deal with- hopefully not allowing it to smash violently against your skull. There's plenty of low impact hits where no helmet would either cause a concussion or skull fracture, but you could be walking away with little to no injury with a helmet.
Last note: helmets are designed to protect fully to 12mph impacts. Even though they're not great past that, they are still better than no helmet.
Why don't you do this: You try smacking your head as hard as you can on hard snow with and without a helmet. Report back with what hurts worst, Mr I just took a physics class but still have no clue wtf I'm talking about. You get an F on this exam question.
Or you get an A for being a very elaborate troll.
