On May 9, 2015 at 12:14, highfigh said...
Since no two connected events can happen simultaneously, using 'after' is actually correct. The total of the information couldn't have been learned at the beginning, middle or only at the end, so it all would have come together afterward.
And yet he listed very individual facts that were learned DURING the training. He did not describe some confabulation of concepts assembled after the training.
The man may die during the 200MPH crash, but in order for the rear of the car to pass the impact point without resistance, ~.3 seconds must pass. It's entirely possible to live past the crash event. Same for the arrow.
Some things just take time.
But the news announcer is not acting as a physicist, being careful to point out that things are sequential. He's speaking generally to a general audience and he is mischaracterizing what he means by using the word AFTER.
