Fun fact, if you heard me saying woo hoo or someone saying wahoo that was me you just met another RU-vidr 0:14 one other quick fact, I was on the other side side
@@Roboticdoughbull3k As long as corporations value the upfront bottom dollar, there's no way they'd go back to the higher maintenance costs and slower turnaround of steam.
Truck mounted couplers are called talgo trucks & I hate 'em too. I always cut them off and body mount Kadee couplers. I always change out the plastic wheelsets for Walthers Proto metal wheelsets with metal axles. I'm presently working on 6 Central of Georgia passenger cars (unknown manufacturer) changing the talgo truck couplers to body mounted Kadee's. The couplers were put on the metal piece that stuck out from the trucks and I had to use a Dremel with a cut-off wheel to make a slice in the metal, then I just wiggled them back 'n forth until they broke. Then I filed them down. I ended up breaking a set of trucks and had to order some Walthers passenger car trucks. I also weigh everything and add appropriate Harbor Freight wheel weights to bring the weights to NMRA standards. A Kadee tap & drill set for 2-56 screws is a must and have several sizes of 2-56 screws on hand. Happy railroading. Cheers from eastern TN
Very Nice I Saw It In Roseville On Saturday With My Brother And My Dad And I Got To Meet Ed Dickens And Saw A Union Pacific Grain Train As While As UP 4014
@@jonbowlerbowler7366 Yeah, I went down on Friday to see it. I ended up leaving about half an hour in because I was already boiling and still had an hour and a half drive back to Reno.
@@SchindlerElevators350 Why? What other year would it have been? Clearly wasn't 1923 or 2123, so why does it matter? I label all of my videos with a two-digit year.
Enjoy that over 60+year-old time-honored internationally recognized livery while you can. Have you ever gotten into a black car on a sunny day? Despite being repeatedly warned about the excess heat trump's new paint job would cause, and the extra equipment needed to compensate for it, not to mention the added heat to the avionics, trump refused to admit he was wrong and went with it anyway. one of the issues with the new Air Force Ones was he wanted them painted like his failed airlines out of vanity. The additional costs to deal with that heat in a much greater scale wasn't revealed until he made the deal for them. Look it up, he bought two rejected Russian 747s stored in the desert that were civilian rather than military versions of the jet. The cost to convert them was also not revealed when he bragged about how much he saved us... or didn't. Changing the paint job on these jets is like changing the time-honored U.S. Flag.
Even if President Trump wins this fall (and that is looking to be a fairly substantial "if"), if he couldn't get Air Force One repainted the first time, it's highly unlikely he'll get it repainted in a second term. I think we're okay for now.
@@fafnir242 Wrong, 👉Former👈 president trump ordered it done and the only reason it's not being painted his way was that President Biden reversed the order after he took office. Something Trump could reverse should he be reelected. As it is we have to foot the cost of converting two civilian 747s that can't be air-refueled to the military version, something former president trump didn't mention when he claimed they'd be cheaper when he bought two jets out of desert storage from bankrupt Russian airline Transaero. (Look it up)
It's the first time I've ever actually filmed anything in The Trench itself. I've usually been on either end. I don't really get downtown all that often.
I'm upgrading some Walthers Mainline passenger cars right now. I've noticed that after replacing the trucks and installing the 910-200 Car Exterior Detail kit the couplers do clash with the lower part of the diaphragms, and also the head of the coupler is a bit lower than it should be. I'm thinking on using longer shank #156 Kadee couplers. And I'm thinking on adding weigth to the cars too. I still didn't have time to test the cars after the modifications (due to couplers issue, mainly) but prior to the modifications they tended to derail due to the cars being too light.
My answers are as follows: 10) as a member of the Ape family our natural predators are those of the other Great Apes. We simply developed technology to counter their advantages over us due to our pathetic natural weapons. 9) Our natural habitat was the plains of Africa. We likely developed the ability to walk upright due to a need to see over the grass. Our ancestors came from Africa and we now either develop technology to allow us to live anywhere we want to or modify our environment to suit our needs. 8) So we can live anywhere, see answer to question 9. Also to support our growing numbers. 7) Depends of what scientific theory you subscribe to. Ultimately that answer is beyond the reach and understanding of our grasp on physics. The only thing we can say is that we don't know for certain and may never know. 6) The most plausible answer that I've heard is that all the charge in the matter throughout the universe most likely adds up to 0. since there like are enough electrons and protons to zero out the charge that means that the matter in the universe can all have come from something with no charge. Therefore there was no need for any matter to ever have been created since all matter is made from matter with a charge that cancels its self out. What was in the singularity? That's beyond our ability to see. 5) What causes the amino acids to work as they do? I don't know. I'm not a biologist. I never took a biology class. Are you an scholar of the ancient Middle East? 4) There is only one way for amino acids to fit together. This was solved by professors with construction paper cut outs. 3) I am a Christian but I can answer this. There is an innate desire in most people to have a force larger than themselves. It's not a delusion, to claim that it is is putting words in my mouth. Historically that power was god(s). Now for a large number of Americans it's Trump. After joining one of the religions you raise your children to believe and some even persecute their kids if they don't believe as the parents want. Looking at you JW. 2) The full quote is energy (like electrons, protons, and neutrons) and matter cannot be destroyed. It can only change form. This question assumes that the soul contains a measurable energy. It doesn't. The energy and matter in our bodies never ceases to exist. It simply breaks down into soil. 1) Yes. To reproduce and be fruitful. Do you mean, "Why are we here?" Then there is no overarching purpose. We will do what we do and deal with the consequences when they arrive.
Real question here is why is every atheist expected to have a degree in astrophysics, philosophy, anthropology, and evolutionary biology? Can we hold Christians to that same standard? Answer x amount of bible trivia or you don't get to call yourself a Christian. No afterlife for you. Also the silliness of this guy using the title of the video as an excuse to just attack a thing he doesn't understand. Atheist requires the answer to only one question; 'Do you believe in a god?' or if you're definition of atheist is 'hard' atheism; 'Do you believe that god doesn't exist?' I think there are easier answers to some of these than you came up with. Also a link to the thing you're responding to in the description would be lovely.
7:00 That's not how it works. At all. You can't "add up to 200% of the speed of light" because of general relativity - the faster you move, the slower the time flows for you. If what you've said was correct we would be able to observe speeds greater than the speed of light. The reason why there we cannot go beyond observable universe is because space itself expands and this expansion accelerates. So if you go towards something that is beyond your observable universe bubble, space between you and your destination will keep expanding faster than you can reach it.
That's more or less what I was trying to say in certain terms. I may have gotten the wording wrong, but my point was still that things on the edge of the universe are moving away from us faster than the speed of light due to universal expansion. I may have gotten the wording wrong, but the point still stands.
The additive speed would be almost 200%. However, to an outside observer they would each be at 99.9999% Neither one would accelerate beyond that in the example since they are going in different directions. It's like two cars driving at 60mph. They would be traveling apart at 120mph but would each be at 60mph. In the given example physics doesn't care how quickly they move apart. Only their individual velocity.
@@metgath Yeah, I was purely doing the math and discarding relativistic effects just for the simplicity of the example. It's definitely way more than that.
Sorry but no. A predator is by definition an animal that naturally preys on others. Microbes and viruses aren't animals. We had natural predators and then we developed technology to defeat them. You or me without any tools or weapons in Africa would be near the bottom of the food chain.
Yeah, I'm slowly finding that out. I just got this microphone for Christmas. My old mic did have a foam cover on it, but it doesn't fit the new one, so I was already planning on buying one. These are actually the same mics we use in our editing bays at my job, and they do have a separate pop filter, so I'm gonna see what those filters are and find them myself.
The stupid part about "big bang means the universe had to come from nothing" is that this isn't really talking about the big bang anymore, because the singularity at the start of the big bang isn't "nothing", so saying that the big bang is at the origin of all that we observe doesn't mean that anything came from nothing. Instead, you would be talking about what came *before* the big bang, in which case 1. Why would there be time before the big bang? If you believe in the assumptions of the Kalam Cosmological argument, time doesn't go back infinitely, so there doesn't have to be a time before the big bang, and 2. If there was a time before the big bang, why would there have been nothing during that time? Also about the last argument, I understood that argument as "if life has no purpose, then life has no purpose, because purpose would need to come from God. Checkmate, atheists". If clearing up the word jumble makes your argument look this stupid, it probably wasn't a good argument.
@@randysrockandrollrailroad8207 Purpose doesn't need to come from God, I just didn't contest that claim because of how braindead the whole argument is even if you grant that part. But I can still give a (less jumbled than the original) explanation for why someone would think purpose has to come from God: "purpose" can be defined by the relation that a person has to their tool. For example, the purpose of a scissor is to cut things, because that's what the scissors' creator/user had in mind. If you apply that relationship to find out what the purpose of life is, you get that life's purpose is to fulfill the plan of the creator. And so, life having a purpose is predicated on life having a conscious creator, which was the claim that was to be shown. The logic of this is pretty airtight, until you recognize that this sense of purpose is defining people as pure tools to be used by God. When you feel that your life has purpose, this feeling rarely has anything to do with what the person responsible for your existence had in mind, but instead, your "life's purpose" can just as well be the plan that you had for your own life. What comes to mind is existentialism, where the human is born without inherent purpose, but chooses for themselves which kind of person they plan to be, and therefore creates an essence for themselves.
