Sorry you don't understand math.
When the factors are the same, they're the same, so cancel out. Tested under the same conditions, those things are the same, or better under the roll over situation because it doesn't put as much energy into the stationary object. I'm being generous and calling it a wash.

50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. Get it? What you're talking about is infinitesimal compared to the forces involved. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs.

By what factor of risk? That statement is meaningless. It doesn't mean you get hurt more, it means they don't test every factor in rollovers in this test, so can't say you won't also break a nail. It absolutely doesn't mean you get hurt worse every time, or even on average. Doing the math, it's about an 8' movement over about 2+- seconds to roll, so under 1/2 g. That's what you say makes it worse than a 50g forward hit....1/2 g. Really?! I'm pretty sure you're just playing with me pretending you don't understand.

Now leave me be....please. I've been frustrated for a while with this discussion.

Nope. Watched them closely.
Hitting a car flat at 60 km or mph is going to stop you in <1/10 of a second. I counted >4 seconds to stop with a flop in the video. Same kinetic energy absorbed. Δv = 30mph (around 50'/sec) Δt= .1 vs 4. Do the math. 500ft/sec/sec vs 12.5'/sec/sec...that's 50g vs 1.2g. Case closed.

Fine. God forbid you listen to someone with extraordinary personal experience in this matter and a grasp of physics.
You go for the dead stop next time you're in a wreck, I'll turn my wheel.

There are variables in car wrecks. You want to compare best case scenario sudden stops with absolute worst case rolls. Feel free to think that way. It's not reasonable. I'm done.

Then look at the dummy data if immutable physics laws aren't enough for you, but no citation is needed to conclude that exponentially higher G forces cause higher level injuries, even if the angle isn't the worst possible for a specific spinal injury.

I've given you my personal vast experience, physics, and common sense. You give me apple to oranges, and exaggerate the juiciness of the apples while only mentioning dehydrated oranges. I'm done. Believe what you want, but I hope you don't have to test your theory.

Kinda lost me when he claimed wind creates 11g CO² per kwh with no reference, calculations, or explanation.
Wind energy production is zero emission.
Are they including every gram produced by every step of construction and estimating a short lifespan, but not doing the same for nuclear, which takes exponentially more resources to build, run, fuel, store waste, and dismantle?
I also have a problem with him saying more expensive, higher profit natural gas plants have better prices because they're much HIGHER than nuclear prices per kwh.
He seems to ignore the spent fuel disposal/storage costs, which are significant in both cases, but while the natural gas plants don't pay for their waste (massive amounts of CO² and methane), nuclear has no choice.
Diablo canyon refurbishing was canned after Fukashima, because it's got all the same dangerous issues of being in an active earthquake/tsunami zone right on the coast with no way to shield itself from tsunamis. Before Fukashima, they totally planned to revamp and continue operations.
His levelized cost of electricity slide conveniently ignores the cost of environmental damage caused by fuel production/use.
Include all costs, coal is worst, followed by natural gas, then nuke, hydro, wind, and solar cheapest. Geothermal is great, but only in areas where it can be easily tapped, which are few and far between.

In short, his vast oversimplification and inconsistencies in what's included in his cost basis make his conclusions relatively meaningless, imo.

Funny, I watched, and each one proves my point. At those speeds, had the energy been completely absorbed by a dead stop, the damage and injuries would be far worse. Notice the lack of damage to the parked car that almost became a vehicular centipede.

I'm thinking you just want to argue.

Citation? Physics. acceleration = Δv/Δt. Larger injuries come from higher g forces.

I explained how there's lower maximum energy involved when some crash energy is absorbed rolling the car.
Now you argue you might roll into another direct impact...true in either case but in one you've already had one, in another you had a glancing blow and flop.
Nowhere did I say it's safe, only safer than hitting a wall and stopping cold.
All other things being equal, a partial roll like shown here is safer than the trucks hard stop...according to the IIHS recorded data (see @blackoreb 's post above)

Why bring it up? Because the flop was far less violent than the other crashes. The energy it took to flip the jeep used up kinetic energy the other trucks put into stopping hard and fast. Having experience with rolling, I know they aren't as scary or violent as people expect.
My speed at the start of a couple of my rolls was up to 80mph, not controlled and slow. They were faster than this test. Like this test, the act of rolling slowed the vehicle considerably. My seat was not much deeper than many seats I see in cars, but slightly. My interior, however, was bare metal everywhere, not padded pleather. Because there are zero crumple zones, the impact was absorbed by the frame, so transferred throughout the seat to me.
As for whiplash, I think the heavy helmet I was wearing would multiply that, not protect from it. I had no hans device, no helmet straps.

Edit: rollovers like this are less likely to cause whiplash or spinal injury than coming to a dead stop like the trucks did.

Is it exactly the same? No. Is it significantly similar? Yes. Do I have a decent idea of what a violent rollover is like. Yes. Better than around 99.999% of people.

True.

No we don't...some, like the president, never punish themselves, that requires empathy and a conscience. Not everyone has those traits.

We had a video of elderly on a seesaw recently that proves wisdom doesn't automatically come with age. ;-)

I'm ahead of the game then...I broke decades ago.

Mmmmmmm....hammock.

Yes, anger can be an excellent motivator. Focusing that motivation for good, that's the hard part.

Ok, sure, but the voices in my head aren't usually good company.

True, but you have that right. Really, I just like the line, I don't think of it as life instructions, just something funny.

If only we could transform it into electricity, we would be in an energy glut overnight!

If you wait for them to fall, 1/2 are lost to the dark side. It's totally prudent to give them a shove in the right direction while they're still moveable, imo.

Only you can do whatever you are going to do.

Justice shumushtice. We all punish ourselves in one way or another.

With age comes wisdom.

We are all created to break.

Passion can cancel lazy if lazy is a problem. Sometimes you need to be lazy in order to operate a Pawleys Island hammock.

It takes practice and confidence to harness and transform the raw energy that anger brings. Anger in the right hands can be a gift. Anger does have a purpose. Everything has a purpose. If you don't know what the purpose is then you can create a purpose for it.

You don't need to be social. You can be part of a crowd all by yourself. You're right about the marches. I'm with you on that one.

Saying you've got a right to hate is misleading. Hate will slowly destroy you and others if you mishandle it.

You can't get rid of hate. You can only transform it if you choose to.

EDIT:

Don't be looking for those that are on the fence. Those that fall (break) will be looking for you.

Your video, Why Are You Alive – Life, Energy & ATP, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Many aspects of quantum mechanics are observational evidence (not proof) of somewhere outside our observable "universe". I gave an example. Matter springing out of nothing, and returning to nowhere are indicators of "somewhere" else....conservation of mass demands it.

Yes, that's one definition of the word, (edit: The Universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. There may be more than spacetime, or something that's not matter or energy, or something outside the limits of our expanding but finite "universe" .) ...that doesn't make the concept correct anymore than saying "God is omniscient" makes it true or proves God's existence.

If there is a universe, it contains all. That statement doesn't prove there is one, neither does our inability to prove it one way or the other....yet. "Universe" might turn out to be a narcissistic concept born of ignorance...we just don't know. Your opinion/best guess/assumption stated as unassailable fact shows me you aren't (being) particularly scientifically minded. You may be correct, but there's no way to know with our current understanding of physics.

Lemme watch that again. Ok so "our part of space", "cosmological realms" and two simplified versions of what the phrase "before the big bang" might even be considered to mean. Some tame speculation about dark energy and gravity. No universes. Are you sure you watched the video?

Yes, California could export more solar and wind power, but would be forced to stop removing fossil fuel plants, stop creating new renewable energy generation, and would have to buy dirty electricity from it's neighbors. We also would, as mentioned, lose all control over our energy production to the federal government, which is owned by the oil industries.
If it was as simple as selling our excess electricity, it would be great, but it's simply not. Joining an RTO would mean California would not be able to go 100% renewable ever, because our neighbors don't and the Fed doesn't want to.
If our neighbors want to make an agreement outside of the Fed to share our cleaner power, we would likely jump at it, especially if we could insist they agree to strive for 100% clean renewable energy production. If the Fed is involved, it's a non starter. We've spent billions on making our state cleaner, fighting the federal government tooth and nail the whole way. There's no way in hell California is going to toss that investment and the freedom to regulate our own energy production in the toilet just to sell our excess to our dirty neighbors. We would rather secede.

*promote

*promote Europes attempt to go all renewable, and actually putting up the money to help make it happen. Fingers crossed.

FYI (from youtube comment) "California is already part of a massive regional grid called the Western Interconnection. We buy and sell power with other states all the time. What California has resisted is the idea of joining a Regional Transmission Organization, which as mentioned would be overseen by the federal government, and thus California would lose the ability to regulate some things like the required percent of renewable energy."

Damn it Denmark, you're making the rest of us look bad....again. You take pollution and make clean energy, we use dirty energy to make more pollution.
*doublepromote *quality architectural engineering.

I just want to know where this originated?

I really want them to explain the process of how their butt holes are converting the sun's energy at a more efficient rate than the rest of their skin.

What is the secret of the butt hole energy efficiency? =)