• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
But ceteris paribus the end result is the same.
Click to expand...
Correct. It doesn't matter what circumstances led to the collision. You can imagine that the distracted driver suddenly braked from 15 m/s to 10 m/s, but the kinetic energy at the moment of collision is still proportional to 50 m, where m is the mass of the car. You can imagine that the car with the failed brakes was driving through vacuum or a sea of molasses. But I told you that the velocity of the car was 10 m/s at the point of collision. That means its kinetic energy is exactly the same as that of the other car. Kinetic energy is the determinative factor in collision mechanics.

Now imagine that I suspend a car from its rear axle a certain distance above the ground and drop it onto a concrete slab such that it hits the ground at 10 m/s. Would that result in comparable initial collision mechanics? Why or why not?

For extra credit, tell me how high the front bumper of the car would have to be off the ground in order for it to land with a velocity of 10 m/s, assuming there's no fluid resistance. This is a first-year physics question, or you can probably cheat and ask an AI.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
A poster asked where I first heard of Myers-Briggs and was it part of my psychology course and I politely told him.
Click to expand...
Is there a reason you don't bother to check facts before posting yet another fantasy?
The actual exchange went like this:

Mojo said:
Vixen's psychology degree course was most likely in the 1970s, would it have been thought valid then?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Incorrect. A psychologist in the late-80's sent around a Myers-Briggs questionnaire to British Mensa members as part of some project she was doing. Whether or not you think Myers-Briggs is bunkum, simply dismissing it out of hand without even finding out its scope doesn't show scepticism, it shows closed-mindedness.
Click to expand...

Typically, your reply failed to actually address what was being (indirectly) asked of you, which was, did your degree refer to Myers-Briggs, and was it discredited already by then?

Instead, you answered "Incorrect", which doesn't clearly respond to anything in the post, except perhaps, as Mojo inquired later, to whether your degree was during the 1970s. You then waffled inconsequentially about Mensa.
 
From Google AI (one of Vixen's trusted sources)

Prompt: Is "kemosabe" cockney slang?
"No, "kemosabe" is not Cockney slang; it is an Americanism popularized by the radio and TV show The Lone Ranger, originating from an Ojibwe or Potawatomi word. The term, used by the character Tonto for the Lone Ranger, is often translated as "trusted friend" or "trusty scout". "

Vixen is going to be unable to provide any valid references or citations whatsoever for kemosabe being Cockney slang meaning "understand?" and which is a play on words of some sort. The best she can do is some allegerd anonymous guy she knew who was supposedly an expert on cockney slang.

Vixen, this is utterly pathetic.
 
Vixen said:
This guy was an expert on slang. Bit like the guy who does Ogden Nut's Gone Flake for the Small Faces.
Click to expand...
Stanley Unwin? Not so much an expert on slang, but the inventor of his own language, Unwinese, which featured on the album. Also not a Cockney, either.

(I've had the pleasure of meeting both Unwin's son and his grandson, who have both recited Stanley's words with the tribute band the Small Fakers when they've performed the whole album live.)


(Edited to fix name.)
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
You are completely incapable of answering a straight question.

Since we're talking about a ship hitting a rock at the bottom of the sea, buoyancy is clearly no longer a factor. The momentum of the object is, however, which depends on mass.
Click to expand...
Well this is what is being calculated at the moment. Whilst the vessel may well hit the bottom it doesn't follow that is the cause of a hull breach which may have caused it to sink in the first place. .

1763508076551.png
 
Vixen said:
Whilst the vessel may well hit the bottom it doesn't follow that is the cause of a hull breach which may have caused it to sink in the first place. .
Click to expand...
Red herring. We know what damage to the ship caused it to sink. The additional exercise is to explain how the hole in the side got there. The best answer for that is the obvious rock on the seabed.
 
JayUtah said:
Correct. It doesn't matter what circumstances led to the collision. You can imagine that the distracted driver suddenly braked from 15 m/s to 10 m/s, but the kinetic energy at the moment of collision is still proportional to 50 m, where m is the mass of the car. You can imagine that the car with the failed brakes was driving through vacuum or a sea of molasses. But I told you that the velocity of the car was 10 m/s at the point of collision. That means its kinetic energy is exactly the same as that of the other car. Kinetic energy is the determinative factor in collision mechanics.

Now imagine that I suspend a car from its rear axle a certain distance above the ground and drop it onto a concrete slab such that it hits the ground at 10 m/s. Would that result in comparable initial collision mechanics? Why or why not?

For extra credit, tell me how high the front bumper of the car would have to be off the ground in order for it to land with a velocity of 10 m/s, assuming there's no fluid resistance. This is a first-year physics question, or you can probably cheat and ask an AI.
Click to expand...
Well, you'd have gravity at play there to factor in..
 
Vixen said:
Well this is what is being calculated at the moment. Whilst the vessel may well hit the bottom it doesn't follow that is the cause of a hull breach which may have caused it to sink in the first place. .

View attachment 66151
Click to expand...
The hull breach that caused it to sink was the bow falling off.

If you think the hole in the hull above the water line was the cause, you need to find some plausible explanation for how it got there.
 
zooterkin said:
Stanly Unwin? Not so much an expert on slang, but the inventor of his own language, Unwinese, which featured on the album. Also not a Cockney, either.

(I've had the pleasure of meeting both Unwin's son and his grandson, who have both recited Stanley's words with the tribute band the Small Fakers when they've performed the whole album live.)
Click to expand...
The guy I knew was more from the Dartford area (Kent) but I've met North Londoners who loved using slang as well.
 
JesseCuster said:
From Google AI (one of Vixen's trusted sources)

Prompt: Is "kemosabe" cockney slang?
"No, "kemosabe" is not Cockney slang; it is an Americanism popularized by the radio and TV show The Lone Ranger, originating from an Ojibwe or Potawatomi word. The term, used by the character Tonto for the Lone Ranger, is often translated as "trusted friend" or "trusty scout". "

Vixen is going to be unable to provide any valid references or citations whatsoever for kemosabe being Cockney slang meaning "understand?" and which is a play on words of some sort. The best she can do is some allegerd anonymous guy she knew who was supposedly an expert on cockney slang.

Vixen, this is utterly pathetic.
Click to expand...
The whole reason East End villains developed slang was so they could communicate below the radar. The idea that if it's not on Merriam-Webster it never existed is pathetic.
 
Vixen said:
The whole reason East End villains developed slang was so they could communicate below the radar.
Click to expand...
Yes.

At no point did any of them use "kemo sabi" for understand.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Vixen said:
The idea that if it's not on Merriam-Webster it never existed is pathetic.
Click to expand...
Quote anyone saying that, or admit you're attempting to cram words into the mouths of everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom