Fault in NY definition of gravity knife?

Hawkins

Hawkins

Joined
Aug 5, 2001
Messages
571
"..."Gravity knife" means any knife has blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever, or other device..."

anyone with a familiarty of physics KNOWS that there is no such thing as centrifugal force, meaning, center-fearing force... the force is directed in a vector AWAY from the center of rotation.

the correct physics term is centripetal force, or center-seeking force.

since centrifugal force doesn't exist, then a claim that a knife is openable by application of, is invalid.

have i found a loophole, or would a court not care?

(i ask, because i have a Spyderco Native, and a spydercard, and both i've worked enough to be able to flick open. but even that isn't "centrifugal" force... its inertia- the tendancy of an object, once in motion, to resist changes to its motion.)
 
really? ironic how laws and what not are written in such precise legalese and so full of jargon that regular people can't understand them, solely to prevent loopholes, yet courts ignore a mistake in terminology that someone half-way through highschool level physics would know is false.

i mean, if centrifugal force doesn't exist, yet that stands in court, then why wouldn't a "tooth fairy did it" defense work? they're both equally ridiculous.

(i honestly don't understand. not trying to come across as a smartass- i'm a computer science guy, not a legal guy, and i really don't see why a false statement would be allowed to stand.)
 
I barely passed Physics in HS, and Chemistry for that matter...but I do remember a machine that we put test tubes into and it spun around at high speed, forcing the liquids outward towards the edge of the machine. The machine was called a Centrifuge. Was it not applying centrifugal force to the test tubes by spinning?
 
Centrifugal force is quite real in the reference frame of the knife :) it's a fictitious force to you, but it's pretty damn real to the blade. So yeah, I don't think this argument would work very well ... Gotta be careful with physics ;)

-Tim (Cornell Physics major :) )
 
Thanks for the links, Lt. Hawkins. I think I understand what you're talking about now.

You probably could argue that centrifugal force is not a real force, so the law isn't valid. How effective that would be in court though, I have no idea. It certainly wouldn't be prudent to depend on that argument to save your butt, but it's an interesting idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top