Are you serious? Wow, that is really messed up....
I tolerate religion. I also judge people who take it too literally....
You have the right to believe whatever you want and think whatever you want. Respect everyone's right to believe what they want...Keep your religion to yourself, and get a date !!
by the way, you post only shows your lack of knowledge about the world from sources besides the Quran.
I am sure you are right, .. but, I did not mistake rage for frustration, and I am very calm about your comments. it does not affect me at all.
I have lived most of my life outside my country, and mostly in English speaking countries, including yours. I have been managing and dealing with more erudite intellect, and never had any problem to make myself understood. . but there is always a first time.. Yes I do agree I don’t like to write, and I am “short” in wording, sometimes. It seems too obvious what I am pretending to say/communicate. I don’t like to waste time. My fault!
By the way, I never valuate “speaking another language as an achievement” as it is subjective. To some extent, is "shallow." … and condescending…
well, let me try answer you, in "advanced English" ... as possible.
just a couple of thoughts, after reading your comments, and I am not asking any forgiveness:
1. you have a lot of resentment right now. Too much rage. You should probably consider talking to someone about that.
2. you also have a lot of arrogance. In my knowledge, arrogance and resentment can lead to very bad things... again, you should consider talking to someone about your rage issues.
3. arrogance and resentment are usually pretty easy to spot boiling beneath the surface, and you don't seem to make any effort to hide them. why a comment like the one I made bothers you so much, that you are trying to enter into “insult ”?
4. your post is complaining about my english and categorizing me as "fake" without knowing me, and your post is filled with presumptions and assumptions about someone you don't know. Hypocrisy is not attractive any more than arrogance or anger.
5, I'm curious about something. If you don’t understand me in my “fake English", why did you answer my comment? (not directed to you); someone you obviously have so little regard for?
6. its ironic that you imply that I am “fake”, while you made several comments about my english/intellect, and about my answer to the post in the evening. Rather than coming across as the accomplished intellectual you imagine yourself to be, you are coming across as a pretentious butt hurt misogynistic narcissist...but and I'm reasonably confident that wasn't your intention. . .but, hey, nobody's perfect…
I hope my English was perfect for your understanding!!
No, I am rude to anyone here or in the real world, and I have no reason to be rude to you. But i am no blind, nor i do accept some "true". In fact, physics is an area i did study, so i am comfortable with the subject.
If you are suggesting that I am rude because I question you and your post regarding the velocity and a formula to justify some theory , well.. my mistake...
but as you say, not everyone "understands what I try to communicate"..
thanks God you don't understand my comments!!.. they are not googled !!
but i will try again "depending on the velocity, you might have to brake in madrid, to reduce the force and the "kinetic energy"... meaning velocity had to do with the crash !!...
if you would travel at speed of the sound, you might start to brake in madrid... do the math.
1. If the ERTMS controlled part of the track you would not have the accident. OR the driver overrides the system. So I dont understand why you are using the formula "momentum = mass x velocity - I'm acutely aware of how much momentum a freight train has travelling at 5mph, or less, as I can feel and hear them stopping opposite my house"
2. to achieve that velocity and the strength of the crash, Maddog post is on the right track, just need to add "missing kinetic"; you can try to brake, but if you are speeding it takes longer to stop, and the force originated is greater and total kinetic energy is not the same as before the collision..
3. “crash” happen when things are bend or/and they change their shape....the modification of the shape of an object requires energy and this is where the “missing” kinetic energy goes...
depending on the velocity, you might have to brake in madrid, to reduce the force and the "kinetic energy"...
"momentum = mass x velocity I'm acutely aware of how much momentum a freight train has travelling at 5mph, or less, as I can feel and hear them stopping opposite my house A breaking system at the bend would not have been able to slow the train down enough if it was travelling more than twice the speed it should have been - the momentum and trajectory for derailment would have already been in place
If a very large object is tavelling at a high velocity it has a lot of momentum. At the point of the bend, the driver had no control over the momentum and it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference if he'd slammed the brakes on at that point, the carriages would have followed the trajectory of their momentum.
Its the velocity of the train as it hit the bend which is relevant, ergo, the braking distance required on the ERTMS section to slow it down from 190kmh to 80kms which is. "
I am saying that your approach for the crash using for tht the formula, is not correct one. what else you don't understand ?
So, either you are using the wrong formula, and you accept that, or you don't like to be criticized/questioning ...
I'm okay with it, with "not make myself clear". we are all "snowflakes" once you include yourself also.
By the way, I am not "criticizing" you. yopu can choose whatever you want to answer any post - google it, do an essay, or any other format - it is your choice.
I am and I was questioning your formula in a crash, as it was wrong.
“momentum” is conserved, but the total dynamic (kinetic) energy of the train is not conserved, when you have a crash. independent of the brakes, distance... and that is for me, regarding this subject...as we are talking in circles. nonsense!!
My post was to question your formula and the concept of "momentum" in a crash... other considerations I am refusing to comment, as they are "speculation"..
but when you have a collision like that, is not the momentum but the total momentum is conserved, and the energy resulting from that, is transformed into other type of energy... what we call everyday "crash"
it has nothing to do with "momentum = mass x velocity", but with "total momentum and total kinetic energy" as energy is not the same as before the collision - .. not google, but physics..(two cars colliding, etc, etc)
I am sure you know what it means...Now, if you want to translate that in Km.... google it and see the results...
first the system is Spain is called Alta Velocidad Española (AVE) "Alvia is a high speed train in Spain used by RENFE for long distance service. The trains have the ability to use both Iberian gauge and standard gauge, which allows them to utilize the recently constructed high-speed lines for part of the journey before switching to the "classic" Iberian gauge network to complete it. Trains that run exclusively on high-speed tracks are branded AVE or Avant."
second, "The high-speed track has ERTMS-compliant signalling, but the bend is an upgraded conventional track shared with low-speed trains, and only has the older ASFA signalling system.
third; "The data recorder carried on the train confirmed that the train was travelling in excess of 190 kilometres per hour (118 mph) at the time of the accident."
Bogart_1960 Forum Posts (10,012)
RE: Happily ever after
Clapping so loud it can be heard all over the world !!