If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

[FalseFlag]

Try this for size, FF.

I don't know exactly what the storey height was in the WTC buildings, but it doesn't much matter. Let's say it was 3.5 metres. When the first floor to collapse had travelled 3.4 metres downwards, what was the maths governing its force? Let's keep it simple. It was F= MA, and A was positive and non-zero. OK, with me?

The floor below it, at the same time, had a force of what? Given that its mass was the same as the one that was just about to crash into it, we don't have to know what it was and can just leave it as M. So, what force is relevant to that floor? The answer is again F=MA, where M is the same as the floor above. So the difference is the value of A. Please tell me you understand that as a static object, it has 0 acceleration, so A = zero.

So, we have one floor (the moving one) with a positive non-zero value of F, and another floor (the static one), with a force F=MA of zero (because M x 0 is zero). Why would you argue that the lower floor suddenly changes at the instant of contact to have an equal and opposite force to something that lands on it? Where does that vertical (upward) acceleration come from that would be necessary for your theory to work? 'cause you can stuff about with F=MA to your heart's content, but you can't make the two forces equal.

Post 2319 in the other thread has the answers you are looking for.

 

[FalseFlag]

The second and third laws specify equalities. The experiment cannot confirm them because no quantities were measured, so there is no way to determine whether or not they were equal in this case.

Cole stated his experiment was about similar accelerations, similar directions of net forces, and similar sequences that the net forces were applied. He never said he was trying to show they were equal.

Of course, as you just said, you can just assume that they were, because as far as we know every such experiment must conform to those laws. But then you're falsely claiming that the experiment is demonstrating something (the accuracy and applicability of Newton's laws) when actually you've just assumed it.

I have only said Cole's experiments were trying to replicate the motions observed during the collapse of the twin towers. I have not said they were intended to do anything else.

A concrete block a meter on a side dropped from 1000 feet up feet landing on a teacup, and pencil dropped from two feet up landing on a carpet, are "similar accelerations, similar directions of net force, and similar sequences of net forces." Would you expect the results to be the same?

I would expect the accelerations to be similar. I would expect the direction of net force to be similar. I would expect the sequences of the net forces to be similar. I would not, under any circumstance, expect the magnitude of forces generated as a result of the impacts to be similar.

 

[MikeG]

Post 2319 in the other thread has the answers you are looking for.

I'm not looking for answers, FF, I am looking for some semblance of understanding. Some glimmer of hope that you aren't beyond help. Some tiny little thing which suggests you have some cognitive powers capable of seeing how wrong you have been to date. Your post 2319 is just full of wrongness, on an epic and embarrassing scale.

 

[MikeG]

..........
I would expect the accelerations to be similar. I would expect the direction of net force to be similar. I would expect the sequences of the net forces to be similar. I would not, under any circumstance, expect the magnitude of forces generated as a result of the impacts to be similar.

There's hope!

So why doesn't your famous equal and opposite reaction apply to the teacup under the ton of concrete falling from a thousand feet, but yet does apply to a floor some 15 feet away?

 

[HSienzant]

And how will you know if they reject basic science?

So all you're really saying is you'll accept the opinions of those who agree with you, and reject everything else.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag
No, I'm not saying this. Read what I just wrote.

You just said YOU get to be the arbiter of who's right and who's wrong... here's your exact words: "I will tell you whether or not it conforms to or rejects basic science..."

You'll decide who's right and who's wrong, based on your understanding of the world.

Of course you will rule in your favor (won't you?) and decide anyone with a conflicting opinion is wrong (won't you?)

That's exactly what I said: "So all you're really saying is you'll accept the opinions of those who agree with you, and reject everything else."

Hank

 

[pgimeno]

Bump for FalseFlag since he asked for a proof that Cole's experiments are wrong (includes the experiment that he requested in the other thread):

The fact that you continue to have any issue with scale in regards to an experiment involving direction of net force is undeniable proof you do not understand Cole's experiment.

I've just started to watch Cole's second video.

He chooses an arbitrary and very short separation between planks. It can be shown that separation between floors is a determinant factor in whether the collapse will arrest or not. Larger distances mean the falling block will have a better chance to recover speed thanks to the acceleration of gravity, and end up impacting the next plank with more, rather than less, speed.

He didn't lay his planks at a distance of 12 feet from each other, and his choice of distance causes arrest. He doesn't justify that weird choice with maths derived from the scaling of the WTC towers.

He just disregards scale issues when he chooses the separation between planks.

Furthermore, the very fact that the mass of one plank is not enough to cause the collapse of the rest, is indication that his model is not representative of the collapses. Take a look at the Metabunk thread that JayDeeHess has posted at least a couple of times, to see an experiment that proves Cole's one wrong.

Here's a video from that thread:



That video shows an instance of an experiment (still ongoing as far as I can tell) that proves that Cole's conclusion:

is WRONG !


ETA:

How? Please provide proof that "his experiments don't apply to his claims."

Done.

The Metabunk thread: https://www.metabunk.org/towards-a-...ive-collapse-of-the-wtc-towers-on-9-11.t7396/

(It's behind a CloudFlare barrier so I can only read it by using some special means).

 

[Myriad]

I would expect the accelerations to be similar. I would expect the direction of net force to be similar. I would expect the sequences of the net forces to be similar. I would not, under any circumstance, expect the magnitude of forces generated as a result of the impacts to be similar.

Okay. But the magnitudes of forces are important, because:

If a structure comes apart and collapses, what causes it? Forces. Forces cause the collapse. Don't you think you need to understand the nature of forces if you want to understand why and how a structure can collapse?

The magnitudes of the forces generated in Cole's experiment were not comparable to the magnitudes of the forces in the tower collapses on 9/11. Cole didn't even attempt to measure them. Therefore one should not expect the results to be similar.

 

[pgimeno]

Bump for FalseFlag who hasn't acknowledged his mistake:

Where you go wrong is when you assume that if floor 2 starts to accelerate downwards, the forces during impact were not equal. We know they had to be equal and in the opposite direction of each other.

Newton's first law proves that your understanding of Newton's third law is wrong.

Had the forces been equal, the movement would stop there [ETA: on first contact, to be precise].

 

[HSienzant]

Originally posted by FalseFlag http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11214249#post11214249

You could easily have a scenario where floor 3 is stopped when it impacts floor 2, and you could have another scenario where floor 3 disintegrates when it impacts floor 2. The variables are too numerous to discuss, but one thing is for certain, at the instant floor 3 impacts floor 2, the force floor 2 exerts on floor 3 will be equal and opposite to the force floor 3 exerts on floor 2.

You left out one scenario I'd be most interested in hearing your views on... what happens if floor 2 and 3 break into large free-falling chunks at the moment of impact? What happens to floor 1 in that case?

Care to discuss?

Hank

PS: Extra Credit: Which scenario did Cole's experiment test?

 

[Myriad]

My conclusion is ridiculous? Wow. If an object is accelerating downwards and it impacts another object, Newton's third law tells us what will happen. The accelerating object will exert a force on the object it strikes. The object it strikes will exert an equal and opposite force on the accelerating object. If the accelerating object encounters a force in the opposite direction, what must happen? It will decelerate at the instant of impact. Are you really going to try to tell me that I am wrong, or that this is not true?

You are wrong and your conclusion is ridiculous on this page too, and will continue to be ridiculous each time you repeat it, because you are still making the same mistake of applying Newton's third law to opposing forces that are not reaction forces.

In this particular instance, the reaction force of the struck stationary object upon the falling object is NOT necessarily equal to the gravitational force that's accelerating the falling object downward in the first place. They are not necessarily equal because they are different forces, not constituting an action-reaction pair where Newton's third law would apply.

If the reaction force happens to be greater, the falling object will indeed decelerate; if the reaction force happens to be less, the falling object will not decelerate; if they happen to be equal, the falling object will neither accelerate nor decelerate, but temporarily maintain a constant velocity for the duration of the crushing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not going to play FF's game and respond directly to his idiotic comments, but as one of the physics PhD's on this forum I'd like to point out exactly where he is wrong in his understanding of Newton's Laws as they relate to a stationary object resting on the surface of the Earth.

Firstly, where he claims there are two forces - the gravitational force acting downwards on the object, and the normal force acting upwards on the object - there are in fact four; he has not identified that there is also the gravitational force acting upwards on the Earth, and the normal force acting downwards on the Earth.

Secondly, he claims that Newton's Third Law requires that the gravitational force on the object is equal and opposite to the normal force on the object. This is incorrect. It is in fact Newton's Second Law that requires this. The acceleration of the object is zero, therefore the vector sum of the forces on it must be the product of the mass of the object and the acceleration; that is to say, zero. As there are only two forces acting on the object, they can only sum to zero if they are equal and opposite.

Thirdly, he fails to understand that Newton's Third Law requires two things: firstly, that the force of gravity exerted on the object is equal and opposite to the force of gravity exerted on the Earth; secondly, that the normal force exerted on the object is equal and opposite to the normal force exerted on the Earth.

I'm not going to list examples of these misunderstandings; just scroll up. But I think it's important that someone who genuinely does understand the forces involved should point out what they actually are.

Dave

 

[Seymour Butz]

What numbers? Please show me where Cole uses numbers,

Well, that's the problem. He doesn't.

or that they are necessary in his experiments.

Wouldn't they be if you're doing an honest investigation?

Numbers that describe, for starters:

1- material strengths of the towers and how they are represented in the model..... TO SCALE

2- acceleration of the tower's falling mass due to gravity between floors - which depends on the distance/time fallen and how his close placed floors are TO SCALE and allow the falling weight to gain momentum


The list is vast, but you get the point......


Who am I kidding? Trolls already know the point, and argue against them and logic in an effort to elicit responses.

Right?

 

[Seymour Butz]

If Cole "adequately displays Newton's laws", according to your own statement, and one of the ways to "adequately display Newton's laws" was to remove the support columns with firecrackers, how on earth can you make the statement that this is not evidence of CD?

Obviously cuz there's no evidence of explosives.

None.

The only way Cole replicated the observed motion during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was to remove the support columns with firecrackers.

Which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his experiment is invalid.

Every sane person sees and admits this.

 

[Seymour Butz]

If the force exerted by the brick is great enough, the paper might not stop the brick. The acceleration will still change at the instant of the impact.

Exactly.


Now, a competent person could form an experiment around this predicting how many sheets of paper, or how thick that paper must be in order to stop the brick. Or how many sheets of paper, suspended 5 ft apart will slow the brick significantly enough so that the brick falls at an average of say, 1/4 g acceleration.

This is of course similar to making a prediction about the falling tower. How strong should the structure below/floors and their connections be in order to stop/slow to 1/4 g.

Guess what?

It takes math to make those predictions.

Cole doesn't do that now, does he?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Cole's experiments are about similar accelerations,

No they are not.

Velocity as a result from acceleration from gravity depends on time and distance that the object in question falls and they aren't replicated nor scaled in his experiment.


Higher velocity imparts more ke.

More ke results in more energy/force to break apart the structure.

Maths again....

 

[HSienzant]

My conclusion is ridiculous? Wow. If an object is accelerating downwards and it impacts another object, Newton's third law tells us what will happen. The accelerating object will exert a force on the object it strikes. The object it strikes will exert an equal and opposite force on the accelerating object. If the accelerating object encounters a force in the opposite direction, what must happen? It will decelerate at the instant of impact. Are you really going to try to tell me that I am wrong, or that this is not true?

But it will not necessarily decelerate to zero, right?

Imagine Cole used something other than wood to represent the floors (and this is where scale comes in).

Suppose he used graham crackers.

Or tissue paper.

And then he dropped the weight.

What would happen?

(a) The weight would stop sooner.
(b) The weight would stop at exactly the same floor.
(c) The weight would descend further.

Choose one.

What do Newton's laws say about that?

What happens if we modify the experiment slightly?

Hank

 

[jaydeehess]

At the instant of impact the brick will experience a change in acceleration. Newton's third law says this will happen, and we know Newton's third law is true based on numerous observations and experiments.

So the answer to my "Right?" , is "Yes".

Your claim that the acceleration after impact will never be zero is not correct. There are scenarios where the paper could stop the brick. It depends on what type of paper is used, and the force exerted by the brick on the paper.

I did not say that. In the context of one sheet of paper in which the brick does tear through the paper, I said the acceleration will not drop to zero.

If instead of one sheet of rice paper it was a full ream of rice paper, essentially the separation between sheets being zero, then the brick will not tear through. Acceleration and velocity both drop to zero.

Let's now separate the papers by the same height by which that first brick was dropped onto the single sheet.

It does not matter how many sheets of paper you use, the brick will go through all of them.

So, obviously by changing the scale of this experiment( in this case the only thing that has been scaled differently is separation of the papers) one can have the brick either be stopped by a series of papers, or be stopped at FIRST impact. In fact there is an infinite number of choices of separation and simply adjusting this one parameter could have the brick stop at any number of passages through the papers.

You changed your example to rice paper.

yes, I did. So?

If the force exerted by the brick is great enough, the paper might not stop the brick.

No "might" about it. One could scale this to either stop, or not stop, the brick.

The acceleration will still change at the instant of the impact.

I never said it couldn't.

 

[sts60]

First things first. FalseFlag, just because you don’t agree with the technical consensus, you don’t get to redefine it out of existence:

Non sequitir. The consensus exists,

Silence is not consensus, consensus being defined as "general agreement".

Nope. I specified the basis for that "general agreement" - based on statements by engineering societies, and the preponderance of scholarly papers by domain experts. That is not an argument from silence. As I stated before, if you have evidence that official statements from engineering societies do not represent the consensus of their membership, or that the preponderance of technical papers do not represent the top-level agreement (non-CD, non-nukes, non-energy rays, etc.) of the preponderance of domain experts, feel free to present it.

Otherwise, you're simply pointing at the available data and saying it says the opposite of what it says. You say you don’t have time to provide data for your contention that no consensus exists; that’s fine, it’s your time, but in that case no one is obliged to pay any attention to it.

(When AE911 did try to formally bring their claims up in front of AIA, they were overwhelmingly rejected, so that is not a promising start.)

Agreed, but Gage has learned from his mistakes. Let's see what happens this year.

How many years has he been peddling his story without changing the consensus? But let's accept your McGuffin as an indicator of the validity of his claims. If AIA votes to support some variant of a controlled demolition scenario, then I would agree that would lend some credibility to his (and, by extension, your) position. What will you say if they reject him again?

But according to you, anyone with "common sense" and "basic physics" can figure out what really happened. So why the appeal to the McGuffin of AE911's "evidence", which somehow hasn't been presented in the right way or to enough people or whatever? You're not being very consistent.

No. Can you provide any documentation which shows that everyone who voted on the AIA resolution was presented with all of the evidence?

If you're saying that there is new observational evidence - validated material samples, previously-unseen visual imagery, etc. - then AE911 is certainly welcome to present it, and we'll see what happens (see above). In this case, since you are evidently endorsing their position, then a non-expert (you) can come to the right conclusion by simply examining this new evidence. But your own position is that a non-expert is not credible, so why should anyone accept your endorsement?

If, on the other hand, you're saying that AE911 has new derived evidence - i.e., new models, new analytical approximations, new interpretations of any sort - then, since they represent themselves as authorities based on their collective expertise, clearly expertise is required. In which case, how does a non-expert (you) come to the conclusion that they are right and the consensus is wrong? Because you have set things up so that you are always right, as is demonstrated below.

I do agree with the (modified) statement where everyone with common sense and a knowledge of basic physics can figure out what the most likely hypothesis is. The most likely hypothesis was not investigated by NIST.

So we’re back to expertise not being required, according to you. As I have asked several times before, how can you be sure? Does your knowledge of "basic physics" inform you about topics such as eutectic melting, or very high strain rate fracture mechanics?

And, if expertise is not required, why do you say that you will not give “any credibility to [his] conclusions” when talking to another layman? You’re contradicting yourself.

But you're telling me that you validate Cole because his claims are in line with your "basic" understanding.

Is this wrong? No, it's not. I believe that you are trying to make a claim that only experts have the authority and credibility to understand what really happened.

Not really, at least not at the higher levels, but the laymen have to understand the limits of their knowledge. I've seen plenty of laymen grasp how various aspects of the Apollo program worked, for example. But they didn't start out from a position that their "basic" knowledge and "common sense" was all they needed to evaluate the data.

This is partially true. I certainly don't have the authority and credibility to tell you exactly what happened during the three collapses. What I can do is apply very basic laws of physics to tell you with 100 percent certainly that what we have been told happened is a lie.

I have heard from plenty of people who applied very basic laws of physics to tell me with 100 percent certainty that manned space flight was impossible. They were not one whit less astute than you in stating that F=ma. Like you, they did nothing to validate their understanding of how things actually work when you move beyond very simple systems.

You don't need to listen to me, I can point you to experts who will say the same thing.

Because you, the layman, are 100% confident that you can judge that "your" experts are correct, and all the other experts are wrong. That is a necessary aspect of your statement, according to your own arguments. See above remarks on validation, lack thereof.

Worse, your evaluation is incapable of coming to any other conclusion:

If someone is a layman who does not agree with you, they’re wrong:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You are certainly entitled to make your own conclusions. The issue is that your conclusions are those of an average person, not a person who is a scientist, architect, or engineer. Because of this, I do not give any credibility to your conclusions.

If someone is an expert who does not agree with you, they’re wrong:

Simple. Provide a sample statement by one of the so-called "experts", and I will tell you whether or not it conforms to or rejects basic science. If it does neither, or is clearly on a topic that I am not qualified to make a credible statement on, I will say so. I will also provide you with proof to support my claim, which is more than anyone else here seems to be willing to do.

No, I am not oversimplifying this, because according to you:

(1) The expert’s position “rejects basic science” if it doesn’t agree with Cole, AE911, or other CD-type claims.
(2) You know this because you know “basic physics”.
(3) “Basic physics” applies because it is correctly represented by Cole (and, presumably AE911, etc.)
(4) Cole (and presumably AE911, etc.) are correct because they are in line with “what [you] already know about science”.

You cannot agree with anyone who disputes you, according to your own rules. There can be no exception to the rule, because you have “validated” your knowledge by an entirely circular argument.

This is a fundamental problem, and unless you address it, you simply can’t progress.

 

[HSienzant]

At the instant of impact the brick will experience a change in acceleration. Newton's third law says this will happen, and we know Newton's third law is true based on numerous observations and experiments.

Your claim that the acceleration after impact will never be zero is not correct. There are scenarios where the paper could stop the brick. It depends on what type of paper is used, and the force exerted by the brick on the paper.

You changed your example to rice paper. If the force exerted by the brick is great enough, the paper might not stop the brick. The acceleration will still change at the instant of the impact.

Now image a brick dropped upon one hundred sheets of tissue paper, each sheet twelve feet below the previous one. Describe the most likely result.

Hank

Extra Credit: Describe how the experiment you cited could be altered to make it more faithful to the actual construction of the WTC.

 

[jaydeehess]

Now image a brick dropped upon one hundred sheets of tissue paper, each sheet twelve feet below the previous one. Describe the most likely result.

Hank

Extra Credit: Describe how the experiment you cited could be altered to make it more faithful to the actual construction of the WTC.

Moot point.
He could simply cite my last post