On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:57:32 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Designing it so the car doesn't survive the crash but the people
>>> inside do would be even more miraculous...
>>
>> You've never seen a car crash (or the results of one), have you?  Most
>> of them are *designed* to crumple in order to protect the passengers.
> 
> Yes, I know what a crumple zone is. But at 100MPH, there are going to be
> fatalities, no matter which way you design a car.

Um, can you guarantee fatalities?  Because I'm sure that it's happened.  
100 MPH is two cars in a head-on collision doing only 50 MPH, remember.

Richard Hammond is still alive, for that matter - he was going 288 MPH 
when the "car" (it was a dragster with a jet assist, as I recall) he was 
in crashed.  He didn't walk away from it, but he didn't die, either (as 
evidenced by the fact that he's still presenting on Top Gear).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:15:53 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 17/04/2011 17:07, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/17/2011 2:57, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Yes, I know what a crumple zone is. But at 100MPH, there are going to
>>> be fatalities, no matter which way you design a car.
>>
>> I take it the UK doesn't have any Formula-1 races?
> 
> Yeah, they do. But I'm pretty sure people driving road cars don't wear
> full-body flame-retardant suits, high-end crash helmets, custom-moulded
> seats, custom-calibrated seatbelts and heat restraints. I'm also fairly
> sure no known road car weighs as little as an F1 car, nor is quite as
> low to the ground. Also, walking around the Silverstone race circuit,
> there is a rather conspicuous absence of solid objects to collide with.

Stock Car Racing.

And "the wall" and "other cars" count as solid objects to collide with, 
and those happen to be on the track at the time of the race.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/18/2011 1:15, Invisible wrote:
> If you crash a road car,

You didn't say "road car" before. You said "you couldn't design a car...." 
Clearly you can.

You can design a road car the same way. It'll just cost the same $100K that 
a F-1 car costs.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/18/2011 9:13, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 100 MPH is two cars in a head-on collision doing only 50 MPH, remember.

No it isn't.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:22:05 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/18/2011 9:13, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 100 MPH is two cars in a head-on collision doing only 50 MPH, remember.
> 
> No it isn't.

50 MPH each, that is.  Yes, the rate of closure is 100 MPH.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/18/2011 10:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:22:05 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/2011 9:13, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 100 MPH is two cars in a head-on collision doing only 50 MPH, remember.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> 50 MPH each, that is.  Yes, the rate of closure is 100 MPH.

But the collision of each car is the same as running into a wall at 50MPH. 
So making it safe for a 50MPH crash means making it safe for two cars, each 
going 50MPH, to run head on into each other.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:39:14 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/18/2011 10:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:22:05 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/18/2011 9:13, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> 100 MPH is two cars in a head-on collision doing only 50 MPH,
>>>> remember.
>>>
>>> No it isn't.
>>
>> 50 MPH each, that is.  Yes, the rate of closure is 100 MPH.
> 
> But the collision of each car is the same as running into a wall at
> 50MPH. So making it safe for a 50MPH crash means making it safe for two
> cars, each going 50MPH, to run head on into each other.

Oh, I see what you're saying - yes, the damage to each car isn't the same 
as the damage to one car hitting a wall at 100 MPH.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/17/2011 2:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/17/2011 14:10, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> No, all too many of them are arguing worse.
>
> Yes, but I don't think that's serious debate over the reality. That's
> just lying.
>
Hard to tell sometimes. Some people really are just that nuts.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/17/2011 2:40 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/17/2011 14:16, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The problem isn't that people
>> "shipping" to California would match those standards, its that people 10
>> feet across a damn state line don't have to. :p
>
> My point is that it's hard to buy a car outside of California that
> doesn't match California standards, because it's too expensive to retool
> for two different versions of the cars any more. If you buy a Toyota
> while you live in Texas or New York, you're going to get one that meets
> CA emission standards. And you won't have to pay to bring it into CA.
>
> Maybe that's not the case with Detroit cars, but I would be surprised.
>
Well, I get your point. The problem, unfortunately, is old, used cars, 
in states that don't require those standards be "maintained". Net result 
= unless its a brand new car...

Post a reply to this message

On 18-4-2011 10:21, Invisible wrote:
>>> You've got to admit, when you read about stuff like people believing
>>> that ID is real science, it does make you wonder what kind of people
>>> live there.
>>
>> If you take ID to be the idea that some protein(complexe)s can not have
>> been evolved from earlier proteins, then that is a testable hypothesis.
>> Stating and researching that idea was real science.
>
> So there's a theory, the theory has been repeatedly proven wrong,

no it hasn't. All *cases* that have been put forward that should have 
shown support have in fact turned out to be in support of evolution. 
That does not prove there are none. For that to prove you need to 
examine all proteins that exist anywhere in nature.

> there's no particular reason to believe that it might be right in some
> unknown case,

You only say that because you 'believe' the theory and not the hypothesis.

> and yet people continue to assert the truth of this theory
> as *fact*? Doesn't sound very rational to me...

That is entirely a different matter. These people need not be the same 
as the ones that do the real research.

>> BTW would dissecting the cases brought forward by Behe at al. count as
>> spending time on ID? Because that would be an ideal way to teach
>> students how real science works.
>
> I commend the idea.
>
> Right along side showing how String Theory, despite looking far more
> professional than ID, is also not [yet] science.

I also disagree on that. String theory is pure maths. I tend to think 
that maths is a science.
I would agree that string theory is not physics yet.

> (And examining why it
> has the potential to /become/ science in a way that ID does not.)

Remember that in the unlikely case they do find an example of something 
that cannot have been evolved in an autonomous way, ID becomes science. 
We might think that it is just as unlikely as someone handing over the 
telephone number of God, but it might just happen.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message