To Become a Physicist and Avoid Traffic Tickets With Science!

Krioukov's argument is based upon the premise that three coincidences happened at the same time to make the police officer believe that he had seen the physicist run a red light, when, in fact, he hadn't.

Basically he showed that the policeman did not see him not stop.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

I thought it showed either why judges studied law, not engineering or science; or possibly the gullibility of the press when it comes to words like "space-time."

If you can go from 22.36 to 0 to 22.36 mph in 2.62 seconds in a Yaris, that's pretty impressive; even on April 1, 2012.

But for his example to be true on that or any other day, the Yaris needs to be able to go 0-30 in 1.3 seconds. He assumes a constant deceleration and a mirror image constant acceleration.

Then:

Translation: "Well judge, because I sneezed, my Yaris suddenly got the best braking in the world so I was able to come to a complete stop via panic braking. Then I floored it, and re-accelerated to the same speed prior to the sneeze, all while partially obscured from view by a Subaru Outback sized vehicle that was braking, stopping and accelerating at lower rates, say 3 m/s^2. I was able to accelerate to 22.36 mph in 1.3 seconds, even though the 0-60 time in my car is 8 or 9 seconds (it's torquey!) I had no recovery time needed from my sneeze, nor did I need to take any time to evaluate the speed or potential conflict of the police officer approximately 100 feet away, possibly approaching the intersection from my right. In fact, if the officer couldn't see me due to the obscuration of the larger, longer Outback, then I couldn't have seen him either, so I guess I just proved that didn't ensure the intersection was clear before I rocketed across with Ferrari-like performance. All theoretically speaking, in space-time, of course, with graphs, and the metric system, and no actual values of recognizable speed or distance."

Why, for example, would a UCSD researcher submit a paper to Cornell on 1 April?

I wonder if he can write me a paper to get out of a 150mph in as 65 zone ticket?

__________________
2016 Corvette Stingray 2LT
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

All BS aside, the police officer did not have a clear vision of the car at the stop line, hence he can not say he saw it fail to stop.

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

Yep. And let's say the time the officer's vision was obscured were some kind of black box, he would observe the car exiting the black box at a later time than expected indicating that something happened in the box, like maybe the car slowed down or stopped.

But nope. No anomalies in space time.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

"I'm more of a theorist"

Sheldon At the DMV

I used much the same argument many, many years ago to avoid being issued the ticket in the first place. When you tell the cop you didn't see him from where you were stopped, and inquire how he possibly could have seen you stopped, it rocks them back on their heels a bit.

Of course you have to use tact (as opposed to physics) in order for this to work.

You do realize this is most likely a complete hoax, right? No ticket, no obstructed vision, no cop. Just physicists funning around on April Fools Day.

April Fools for Physicists | MetaFilter

The physics guys called it on 3 April. It's taken a few weeks to get media attention. It's the second link, under non-detection of the Tooth Fairy at optical wavelengths.