This question already has an answer here:
I just thought of something I have no good way of ruling out in my mind. Say someone is in free-fall, and is meant to, unfortunately, splat on the ground. Due to it accelerating, its speed will be increasing constantly with time. However, by considering two different definitions of Newton's Second Law, $\vec F = m \vec a$, and $\vec F = \dot p$, I seem to find a contradiction with my knowledge. According to the first definition, the force on the person in free-fall is constant (which I would agree with). However, when the person hits the ground, the force that which it imparts on the ground will have to do with its final velocity, I would think. One would say if the person is falling with a force of $50 \ N$ it will apply $50 \ N$ to the ground on impact, but this seems to be the case without considering how long the person was experiencing $50 \ N$ before hitting the ground I've found, or, at least when I've done exercises about these sorts of things. The final speed of the object, its mass, and the time in which the mass comes to a stop should determine the force felt by the ground, not just the force on the person falling. Is my confusion getting through? I feel like when I've considered the force a falling object applies on impact, it's merely the force experienced on the falling object applied to the ground, but I feel like this is misleading - whether the object falls for $1$ second or $10$, the force on it is the same, but its momentum would not. Perhaps this is just an oversimplification of my high school. Am I correct in thinking that the things I've listed are actually the important factors and not just the theoretical force experienced by the free-falling object?