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

[FalseFlag]

You'll get to my prove soon enough I am sure, but it doesn't need a link, it needs you to actually understand what you read.

Post a link to a credible source that proves the two credible sources I linked are wrong.

You take this to mean that the force created by the weight pushing down is exactly the same force as that created by gravity pulling the man down.

It isn't. It is a force that is between the object and the surface. It is caused by gravitational force, but it is not gravitational force.

This force has its own pairing and only when the surface is perpendicular to Gravitational force will the Normal Force's magnitude equal the gravitational force's magnitude. As soon as we tilt the surface, they are no longer equal, and they are no longer in line with each other.

Please provide a link to any credible source that supports your statements.

 

[FalseFlag]

No, it's the same mistake you keep making, you keep on conflicting which Force pairs are to be used.

You have a gross misunderstanding of the forces involved. You have added four unnecessary forces, which complicates things.

Let me make this as simple as possible.

Forget F+ and F-. Seriously, why do you even include them?

In your model the magnitude of G+ is equal and opposite to G-, right? Then, the magnitude of N+ is equal and opposite to N-. Right?

I'm going to continue, but please make sure I understand your model thus far. Please confirm that last sentence is correct.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You just proved Cole right. You CAN replicate the motion of a car wheel with a windmill sail.

Similar accelerations, similar directions of net force, and similar sequences of the net forces are not dependent on scale.

Will you stop arguing with me now? You just proved Cole is right.

No, because Cole and you both try to then conflate the results from the Windmill sail to the Car wheel.

All a windmill sail does it tell you about the mechanics of windmill sails.

Would you try and claim that because a windmill sail rotates and a car wheel rotates, that cars therefore work by the wind blowing through their wheels and causing them to turn?

 

[FalseFlag]

No, because Cole and you both try to then conflate the results from the Windmill sail to the Car wheel.

Don't weasel out of your statement now that I have shown you the implications of it. Your statement is correct. You can use a car wheel to replicate the motions of a windmill sail. If Cole was only trying to replicate motion, then scale is a non issue.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You have a gross misunderstanding of the forces involved. You have added four unnecessary forces, which complicates things.

Wrong. The forces exist, you need to include them to understand what is occurring.

Let me make this as simple as possible.

When you make things "simple" you get them wrong because you start removing important things. You fail to understand this.

Forget F+ and F-. Seriously, why do you even include them?

Because they are important to understand why N and G are not opposite forces.

N + F <= G

You are only considering the case where F = 0 and do failing to understand that it is there. This is why rotating the expoeriment by 10 degrees ruins your argument. Show how only two forces can be used when you tilt the experiment by 10 degrees. I'll wait. You can't just remove things because you don't understand what is going on.

In your model the magnitude of G+ is equal and opposite to G-, right? Then, the magnitude of N+ is equal and opposite to N-. Right?

I thought that was pretty clear.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Don't weasel out of your statement now that I have shown you the implications of it. Your statement is correct. You can use a car wheel to replicate the motions of a windmill sail. If Cole was only trying to replicate motion, then scale is a non issue.

If he is only trying to replicate the motion, then what is this doing in a 9/11 Thread?

 

[FalseFlag]

This is incorrect.

You can't even read the words I write and accept them, no matter what. Every single thing I write is wrong, even if it's correct.

This is absurd.

My statement is correct. Every link you post, every picture you draw, proves I'm right. You are grasping so hard it's beyond the point of absurdity.

My statement is correct. Deal with it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

1. The discussion about Newton's laws was to prove I understood them. That was a mistake because no one will ever admit I am correct.

2. After more than 2000 posts I realized that I would need to be as specific as possible when talking about Cole's video. It hasn't done any good because skeptics are still refusing to listen.

You also continue to misunderstand what Cole is trying to do. The very last statement in your post proves that. Cole is not trying to replicate the (structural) behavior of the towers. Cole is attempting to replicate the observed motions during the collapse. You are trying to get me to play the semantics game, and I will not play. Cole is demonstrating similar accelerations, similar directions of net force and similar sequences of net forces. If you are actually have a PhD in physics you would see this, and you would not continue to deny it.

Thank you for admitting Johnathan Cole is a fraud.

Cole cannot replicate the motion without an accurate duplication of the forces and structure,
As you have stated he does not attempt to do that, that is the very reason his experiments fail. The motions can only be duplicated when the model duplicates the exact Structural strength, to Gravitational Potential ratio. To do that Cole needs to start with a mathematically
Correct model.
Cole is wrong and you even admit he is wrong.

 

[FalseFlag]

Again, you are simply Wrong. This time, about deceleration.

PhD. physics teacher Richard Cardenas (15 years) says the following:


Note that this agrees exactly with what Redwood was saying, and which you could not understand, dismissing it as "a whole lot of meaningless stuff ":


Once again, FF, you are wrong. At least you are consistent.

What causes deceleration? Deceleration is caused by acceleration in the opposite direction. Do you want to disagree with that? Start there. Prove that statement is wrong before I continue.

Once again you are taking your arguments to absurd levels to prove I have no idea what I am talking about.

I know how you are defining deceleration, and your definition is not wrong. You are simply taking my words, and then doing whatever you possibly can to try to prove I misunderstand a concept. Your tactics are beyond absurd.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If he is only trying to replicate the motion, then what is this doing in a 9/11 Thread?

False Flag has admitted Cole is wrong, what is the point in continued conversation on this topic, no reason to comment further, he admits. Cole can not accurately perform experiments, because he is not duplicating the Ratio of gravitational potential to structural resistance.
No reason to argue over experiments that are intellectually dishonest.
Fraudulent.

 

[FalseFlag]

Thank you for admitting Johnathan Cole is a fraud.

I have never said Cole is wrong, nor have I said he is a fraud. If you want people to believe your claim, post the exact words I used to support your claim.

 

[FalseFlag]

If he is only trying to replicate the motion, then what is this doing in a 9/11 Thread?

He was trying to replicate the motions observed during the collapses of the twin towers. I can't believe I actually had to repeat that.

 

[FalseFlag]

You are only considering the case where F = 0 and do failing to understand that it is there. This is why rotating the expoeriment by 10 degrees ruins your argument. Show how only two forces can be used when you tilt the experiment by 10 degrees. I'll wait. You can't just remove things because you don't understand what is going on.

I do understand what is going on, and I'm about to destroy your model and your gross misunderstanding of physics.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You have to be kidding. Yes, Newton's laws do explain why a chair might break when a larger man sits on it.

Newton's second law says F=ma. The larger man exerts a larger force on the chair, because the larger man has a larger mass. If a chair breaks, it can't support the force being exerted by the object it is trying to support.

Bingo! at last he has it!

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

What causes deceleration? Deceleration is caused by acceleration in the opposite direction. Do you want to disagree with that? Start there. Prove that statement is wrong before I continue.

Once again you are taking your arguments to absurd levels to prove I have no idea what I am talking about.

I know how you are defining deceleration, and your definition is not wrong. You are simply taking my words, and then doing whatever you possibly can to try to prove I misunderstand a concept. Your tactics are beyond absurd.

You have admitted Cole is a fraud, he is not attempting to duplicate the structural resistance to Gravitational potential ratio so he can not possibly duplicate the motion induced by the forces involved.

The Ratio of resistance to Gravitational Potential I'd the key component of the motion failure to model structure makes Cole's experiments intellectual dishonest from the start.

GP converted to K -R =Collapse speed.

If Cole's experiments are not an attempt to model the energy ratios they are intellectual dishonest no further discussions are needed to show him wrong.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Bingo! at last he has it!

Doubt it will do any good he already admitted Cole is doing intellectually dishonest experiments, he just does not understand he admitted it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I have never said Cole is wrong, nor have I said he is a fraud. If you want people to believe your claim, post the exact words I used to support your claim.

You stated Cole is not attempting to model the structure and the way it reacts to the energy applied to it, that makes Cole's experiments intellectually dishonest, fraudulent.

The motion can not be duplicated unless the energy values exactly match the conditions between the upper mass, and the structural resistance. You said Cole is not attempting to do that thus Cole has to be a fraud.

 

[FalseFlag]

No, it's the same mistake you keep making, you keep on conflicting which Force pairs are to be used. The Normal Force is NOT the opposite force of Gravity, and the force applied by the floors in the collapse are not the opposite force to gravity either. When you finally understand this, you might start to understand where you are going wrong.

I'm going to use some pictures to show you were you are going wrong.

When an object sits on a surface we are actually dealing with THREE forces and THREE reactive forces. In the Illustrations below I have labeled the pairs so that (+) is the force, and (-) is the counter force.

This is our object sitting on a surface on level ground. Our Three Forces are G for Gravity, N for normal, and F for Parallel Force and Friction. The three counter forces are also shown.

G⁺ is the force of gravity pulling the object downwards to the Centre of Mass (CoM) of the Earth. G^- is the Building pulling the Earth upwards to its CoM. These are matched pairs.

The Normal Force is created as N with N⁺ the weight of the building pushing the surface downwards towards the Earth's CoM. N^- is the surface pushing the building back upwards. These are a matched pair.

Finally we have Sideways Forces. This is any force, or force component, that is parallel to the surface. It will have a matching force opposing it, this is what we call friction.

We can Illustrate these three forces below.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1203&pictureid=10663[/qimg]

Now, yes, in this scenario the Force N⁺ is of the same magnitude as G⁺ and the reactive forces G^- and N^- are likewise the same magnitude. But N and G are not pairs. Rather N⁺ + F⁺ = G⁺ and N^- + F^- = G^-
The Magnitude of G only equals the magnitude of N because the magnitude of F = 0.

We can illustrate this by tilting the entire experiment by 10 degrees

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1203&pictureid=10664[/qimg]

Now we can clearly see that the Normal Force does not equal the Gravitational Force in either direction or magnitude. We still have our three pairs, but now because N only cancels out a part of G, F now has both a magnitude and a direction as well.

Now obviously if we continue to rotate the surface, at a certain point, F- is going to reach a maximum value that it can apply as a reactive force. At that point, our object will slide because N + F < G and as a result we will get acceleration. This again proves that the Normal Force is not the equal and opposite reaction to Gravity.

Here is your model

F+ and F- are unnecessary.

Your claim is,

G⁺ is the force of gravity pulling the object downwards to the Centre of Mass (CoM) of the Earth. G^- is the Building pulling the Earth upwards to its CoM. These are matched pairs.

The Normal Force is created as N with N⁺ the weight of the building pushing the surface downwards towards the Earth's CoM. N^- is the surface pushing the building back upwards. These are a matched pair.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

What you should have said is that G⁺ = N^-. If you wanted to take it to an unnecessary level, you could add the absolutely negligible magnitudes of the forces of G^- and N⁺. Those forces are so minute, they are irrelevant when discussing macro physics and the collapse of 110 story buildings.

Your claim is that the earth exerts a gravitational force on the building pulling it downwards. That part is correct. You then claim that the building exerts a gravitational force on the earth, with the exact same magnitude but the opposite direction. That last part is absolutely wrong. It is massive error in understanding what is actually happening.

Do any of these credible sources have any diagrams that support your model? No, they don't. I know you won't listen to me, but you should listen to them.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science...ontact-force/v/normal-force-and-contact-force

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_iatWOe4V0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSYJtRfaDfY

http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/dynamics/newtonapplications/section1.rhtml

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-2/Types-of-Forces

Not one of those credible sources has a model that confirms your model is correct. Not one. What is the only logical conclusion? The only logical conclusion is that the credible sources prove that your model, and your understanding of physics, is wrong.

 

[AZCat]

(deleted)

Whoops, should be paying more attention. Sorry, it's the wee hours of the morning here.

 

[FalseFlag]

You have admitted Cole is a fraud

Provide a link to the text where you claim this admission occurred.