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

jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or, it must be spelled out, it's also possible the brick will not stop at all until it hit the large mass providing the gravity. In this case, the earth.

Otherwise, I suspect FalseFlag will attempt to use your argument to claim that you admitted even a brick will be slowed to a stop by thin sheets of paper - exactly as claimed by Cole in his poorly-designed experiment, and he will argue that scale doesn't matter.

Again!



jaydeehess said:
One could scale this to either stop, or not stop, the brick.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
What numbers? Please show me where Cole uses numbers, or that they are necessary in his experiments.
Click to expand...

FF, you put your finger on your problem without even knowing it. Your bigger problem is that you don't know why. :rolleyes:
 
jaydeehess said:
Moot point.
He could simply cite my last post
Click to expand...

Came up with my scenario independent of yours. I see you beat me to it. No intent to step on your post. Apologies.

I still think the graham crackers representing the floor will work as an even-better example. Either will get the point across.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Or, it must be spelled out, it's also possible the brick will not stop at all until it hit the large mass providing the gravity. In this case, the earth.

Otherwise, I suspect FalseFlag will attempt to use your argument to claim that you admitted even a brick will be slowed to a stop by thin sheets of paper - exactly as claimed by Cole in his poorly-designed experiment, and he will argue that scale doesn't matter.

Again!





Yes.
Click to expand...

I should have included the later sentence earlier in the post.
 
MikeG said:
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.
Click to expand...
What statement is wrong?
 
MikeG said:
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?
Click to expand...
If you ask a question, you need to provide the answer to it. Don't expect me to continue to play your games.
 
HSienzant said:
Exactly as I said... you'll decide, based on your understanding. So we're back to the circular reasoning loop (a logical fallacy) - that is, if your "basic science" understanding is wrong, and you're rejecting others' claims based on your "basic science" understanding, then you're rejecting perfectly good explanations based on your own misinformed view. The issue then becomes how do we calibrate your understanding of "basic science"?

You're demanding we take your word for it. Please establish it.





Define 'proof' - you've said words won't do, that only an experiment will. Will your proof be in the form of an experiment, or just words?





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
Click to expand...

If you want to claim I'm wrong, pick a statement and prove it's wrong. Otherwise your game is now one player, and that player is not me.
 
pgimeno said:
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):


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.

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/Cole-arrest.jpg[/qimg]

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:

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/Cole-conclusion.jpg[/qimg]

is WRONG !


ETA:

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).
Click to expand...

What is Cole trying to replicate? I have already answered this too many times to count. Your refusal to accept this and then twist his experiments to support your own views is meaningless. It proves nothing, other that you will grasp at anything you can to try to prove he is wrong.

Keep playing your games. You certainly have the right to do so. Don't expect me to keep playing along. It's not going to happen.
 
Myriad said:
Okay. But the magnitudes of forces are important, because:
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.
Click to expand...

Cole was trying to replicate the observed motions. He was not trying to do anything else. You have placed an artificial constraint or requirement on his experiments. This artificial restraint or requirements you have placed have nothing to do with an experiment that only intends to replicate observed motions.
 
jaydeehess said:
While there is a normal force in electromagnetics, it has reference in forces on a mass. Two different items.
"Normal" simply means " perpendicular. In this case perpendicular to the surface an object lies on. In this case since the angle between object, the tower, and surface, Manhattan, is π/2 and cos(π/2)=1, the "Normal force" is equal and opposite to the supplied force due to gravity.
Click to expand...

That highlighted part still seems to imply that they are the "equal and opposite" forces addressed in Newton's 3rd Law, which is FF's incorrect belief. The Earth pulls down on the building and the building pulls up on the Earth with equal force, so the 3rd Law is satisfied. Where they come in contact, the building pushes down on the Earth and the Earth pushes up on the building, equally, and again in perfect accordance with the 3rd Law. But these aren't just two different forces -- they're two different types of forces -- and if they don't happen to exactly balance each other, the building comes down. FalseFlag, the simple proof that the two are not necessarily "equal and opposite" is what happens when the maximum contact force that the ground can sustain is just slightly less than the gravitational force: The foundation slowly sinks because the slight difference between the two forces allows a slow downward acceleration.

The distinction becomes even more important in the case of a falling section of building impacting the intact section, because then the contact forces in collisions are due to both gravity and inertia, and they are limited by how much contact force the structure below can actually sustain. By missing the distinction between the forces, FalseFlag misses that the maximum upward force acting to slow the falling mass is just equal to whatever contact force the structure below can sustain -- by Newton's 3rd Law. If that sustainable contact force is greater than the combined force of gravity and inertia, the collapse halts. Otherwise, the collapse continues. Either of these two possible outcomes will be in perfect accordance with Newton's 1st and 2nd Laws, but if FF wants to predict which one will occur, he will need some actual values and, as tfk has repeatedly pointed out, he needs a lot more information then Newton's Laws provide, e.g. how to estimate the sustainable contact force.
 
pgimeno said:
Bump for FalseFlag who hasn't acknowledged his mistake:


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].
Click to expand...

No. I have spent a great deal of time proving your statement is wrong. Your refusal to understand this is not proof I am wrong. The proof your statement is wrong is in this thread. You can find it and learn why you are wrong, or you can ignore it. I don't care.

If you choose to ignore what I have posted, that is fine. Don't expect me to continue to play your games.
 
HSienzant said:
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?
Click to expand...

Cole explains what he is trying to replicate. If you want an answer to your question, consult the video.

I will no longer answer your questions. You refuse to accept my answer, and you refuse to show why you continually claim I am wrong. You, and the others, just say that I'm wrong or hurl insults. I will not continue to play your games.
 
Myriad said:
They are not necessarily equal because they are different forces, not constituting an action-reaction pair where Newton's third law would apply.
Click to expand...

This statement proves that you do not understand Newton's laws of motion. I can't do anything else to help you. I have clearly shown that different forces can have the same magnitude and be in opposite directions. The fact that you can stand on the ground without falling through it is proof. Gravity pulls you down, and the electromagnetic forces between atoms where you contact the earth keep you from falling through the ground. Gravity is a force. Electromagnetism is a force. They are different forces whose magnitudes are equal, and the vectors of the forces are in the opposite directions.

Now you want to bring up action-reaction pairs to further complicate the issue. Complicate it all you want. I have given you and the other members of this forum 100 percent correct explanations to the previous questions you have asked.

All you and the other members do is say I'm wrong, without making any attempt to cite a credible source that proves I'm wrong. I will not continue to do this.
 
FalseFlag said:
What is Cole trying to replicate?
Click to expand...
A pancake collapse FEMA-style. Why else would he conclude that the FEMA hypothesis of the collapse is wrong?


FalseFlag said:
I have already answered this too many times to count. Your refusal to accept this and then twist his experiments to support your own views is meaningless. It proves nothing, other that you will grasp at anything you can to try to prove he is wrong.

Keep playing your games. You certainly have the right to do so. Don't expect me to keep playing along. It's not going to happen.
Click to expand...
Is that what you do when someone meets your requests?

You asked for proof that Cole was wrong. I gave you that.

You asked for an experiment proving it. I posted it.

And you reject it as me playing games. Lurkers are not going to like that. Your evasion is pathetic.
 
FalseFlag said:
Are you playing a game, or do you really believe this? If you really believe I am wrong, then you provide what you think the correct answer is.
Click to expand...


No problem. Here is the correct answer:

Myriad said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Dave Rogers said:
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.
Click to expand...

OMG. You can't be serious. Your only way to try to claim I'm wrong is to throw massive complications into the issue. This is absurd. It's beyond absurd.

Your statement is correct, but your complications do not prove I'm wrong. They only prove that you are trying to complicate things and showboat a little. This is some hardcore BS. Do simple models to represent simple concepts add unnecessary complexity? No. If they don't do this then why are you doing this?

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.
Click to expand...

Word salad. This is nothing more than word salad, and it does not prove I'm wrong. If you want to prove I'm wrong, why don't you cite a credible source that proves I'm wrong? You claim you have a PhD in physics. You must understand the concept of proof. If you claim I'm wrong, prove I'm wrong. Your words are meaningless, and your lame attempt to attack me makes your PhD worthless.

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.
Click to expand...

Newton's third law of motion requires nothing. It only says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There are no requirements.

Please show how your statement substantively differs from mine. Please show how your statement proves that my statement is wrong. Simply adding unnecessary complexity is not proof I am wrong.

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
Click to expand...
Why not? Why won't you list examples? If you are so sure I'm wrong, post examples. Come on, you're the PhD. You are the supposed expert. For once, act like one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom