Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
"TOOFLESS"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JimmyD" data-source="post: 168731" data-attributes="member: 9832"><p>When you analyze using only average speeds and primary points of reference, unless you break it down to a high degree of accuracy and apply common sense and realistic conditions, it doesn't make near as much sense. It is a sort of mathematical loop that has to fit, has to close. The problem with those particular circumstances is that it allots a variable window, a window in time whereby the most accurate calculations can only produce a range of possibility. But it is enough to be able to determine a more reasonable conclusion when put into a realistic context and factoring in various conditions.</p><p></p><p>Start with the basic timing of the lights and start positions and point of impact. First consider the victim's trek and that the maximum reasonable variable is about .5 seconds since it is a short trek from start point to point of impact.</p><p></p><p>The other driver's trek should be approached from the point of impact backward in regard to time/speed/distance while factoring in start point and acceleration as to determine when/where. There is a cusp whereby if below, it suggests a 'late start' and lingering, which is anomalous in and of itself given the allotted response time and visibility factors, etc. It's a little slow at the posted speed limit. If above said cusp, it starts to suggest continued upward acceleration after the light turned yellow, a steady increased acceleration to impact. At/near the cusp basically says an acceleration to 3-5 mph over the limit at about the time the light turned yellow, and then leveling off speed until impact, disregarding the light.</p><p></p><p>The maximum acceleration for that vehicle is impossible under those conditions. Under those conditions, it could not be physically possible to maintain control of the vehicle unless it was slowed down to about 4 to 4.5 seconds. Normal typical gentle acceleration to those speeds under those conditions is about 5 -6 seconds or more. This is what everything else and witness accounts suggests. It is also what places the driver near the aforementioned cusp position in order to reach point of impact. Any slower average speed to impact and they would likely produce a different outcome. It says that, as a matter of relative certainty, as a minimum standard, the driver accelerated to above the limit, reaching it at about the time the light turned yellow , leveled speed and continued cruising through the light.</p><p></p><p>A minimum standard of possibility doesn't make sense given the conditions. People don't do that and it is unnatural.</p><p></p><p>I've been through there countless times and have, on a few occasions, sat there watching traffic with a stopwatch. You can watch people approaching and respond and take notice of the conditions at about the same point in the road and respond in similar manner as is dictated by basic human psychology/problem solving skills; they notice here and brake here at these speeds, etc. I have even watched a few people screw up and/or run the light, and it is usually because of a delayed response time. They weren't paying attention at the necessary window of calculation/response time to properly negotiate, but because it is a relatively low speed, were still able to negotiate safe passage or late stop.</p><p></p><p>Pulling onto the road from a block away is a different problem with a different order of reason and factors to negotiate. Your first order of business is to focus on a break in traffic in order to get onto the road. Secondary to that is to negotiate the intersection relative to your position because it is so close. By all natural order of reason, you negotiate the intersection before you accelerate. You are paying attention to the light as soon as or soon after you pull onto the road, within the first few seconds. You basically have to in order to perform the maneuver while negotiating traffic. If it changes color while you are accelerating, you notice. At those speeds and that distance, you have adequate or at least nominal allotment of a safe response.</p><p></p><p>When you consider other circumstantial or environmental factors and how it all fits together, it appears a bit anomalous. The whole thing is just so weird.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JimmyD, post: 168731, member: 9832"] When you analyze using only average speeds and primary points of reference, unless you break it down to a high degree of accuracy and apply common sense and realistic conditions, it doesn't make near as much sense. It is a sort of mathematical loop that has to fit, has to close. The problem with those particular circumstances is that it allots a variable window, a window in time whereby the most accurate calculations can only produce a range of possibility. But it is enough to be able to determine a more reasonable conclusion when put into a realistic context and factoring in various conditions. Start with the basic timing of the lights and start positions and point of impact. First consider the victim's trek and that the maximum reasonable variable is about .5 seconds since it is a short trek from start point to point of impact. The other driver's trek should be approached from the point of impact backward in regard to time/speed/distance while factoring in start point and acceleration as to determine when/where. There is a cusp whereby if below, it suggests a 'late start' and lingering, which is anomalous in and of itself given the allotted response time and visibility factors, etc. It's a little slow at the posted speed limit. If above said cusp, it starts to suggest continued upward acceleration after the light turned yellow, a steady increased acceleration to impact. At/near the cusp basically says an acceleration to 3-5 mph over the limit at about the time the light turned yellow, and then leveling off speed until impact, disregarding the light. The maximum acceleration for that vehicle is impossible under those conditions. Under those conditions, it could not be physically possible to maintain control of the vehicle unless it was slowed down to about 4 to 4.5 seconds. Normal typical gentle acceleration to those speeds under those conditions is about 5 -6 seconds or more. This is what everything else and witness accounts suggests. It is also what places the driver near the aforementioned cusp position in order to reach point of impact. Any slower average speed to impact and they would likely produce a different outcome. It says that, as a matter of relative certainty, as a minimum standard, the driver accelerated to above the limit, reaching it at about the time the light turned yellow , leveled speed and continued cruising through the light. A minimum standard of possibility doesn't make sense given the conditions. People don't do that and it is unnatural. I've been through there countless times and have, on a few occasions, sat there watching traffic with a stopwatch. You can watch people approaching and respond and take notice of the conditions at about the same point in the road and respond in similar manner as is dictated by basic human psychology/problem solving skills; they notice here and brake here at these speeds, etc. I have even watched a few people screw up and/or run the light, and it is usually because of a delayed response time. They weren't paying attention at the necessary window of calculation/response time to properly negotiate, but because it is a relatively low speed, were still able to negotiate safe passage or late stop. Pulling onto the road from a block away is a different problem with a different order of reason and factors to negotiate. Your first order of business is to focus on a break in traffic in order to get onto the road. Secondary to that is to negotiate the intersection relative to your position because it is so close. By all natural order of reason, you negotiate the intersection before you accelerate. You are paying attention to the light as soon as or soon after you pull onto the road, within the first few seconds. You basically have to in order to perform the maneuver while negotiating traffic. If it changes color while you are accelerating, you notice. At those speeds and that distance, you have adequate or at least nominal allotment of a safe response. When you consider other circumstantial or environmental factors and how it all fits together, it appears a bit anomalous. The whole thing is just so weird. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
"TOOFLESS"
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top