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

Mark F said:
Yes, and Cole fails to succeed in accomplishing that for reasons already outlined in detail.

The experiment is fundamentally flawed, possibly deliberately so or possibly from mere incompetence. Either way, the experiment fails in what it purports to set out to do but does succeed in fooling its target audience - those unfamiliar with the physics and mechanics of the event.
Click to expand...

How does Cole's experiment fail? Where is your proof to support your claim?
 
pgimeno said:
the reaction force of a floor when another floor falls on it is not necessarily equal to the force the other floor exerts on it.
Click to expand...

No.

Your statement is proof that you don't understand Newton's third law of motion. You are a victim of the tricks that the "experts" have done. They have intentionally over-complicated things so that it is easier to get concepts confused.

Remember, Newton's third law of motion says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The fact that the objects don't stop because of the action and reaction means nothing.

A bug and a truck can collide. The bug will exert a force on the truck. The truck will exert a force on the bug. The forces will be equal in the opposite direction. This is a fact. The bug will go splat, and the truck will not stop.

According to Newton's third law of motion, the forces involved are always equal and in the opposite direction. Neither object needs to stop moving in order for Newton's third law to be true.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Stop breaking my irony meter.
Click to expand...
Your point is semi-valid, but the issue you are claiming is "ironic" is one involving a "common misunderstanding". In fact, almost every time I found a source regarding the issue, it was labeled "common misunderstanding".

I am also going to address my "common misunderstanding" after I give you all a chance to gloat about your victory.
 
MikeG said:
No, it absolutely hasn't. It is absolutely relevant.
Click to expand...

Your statement, without any supporting proof, is nothing more than denial.

I'm sorry, it just is. I keep asking you to prove your statements and you keep refusing to do so.
 
Mark F said:
OK, lets say scale doesn't matter (Mark said, barely holding back laughter) and Cole's experiment is wholly accurate and correct.

That must mean the Twin Towers are still standing.

Or,...
Click to expand...

This argument is nonsense. We know the towers are not standing. We know they did not collapse. You can claim whatever you want when it comes to the reason they collapsed. The reason the towers collapsed it not relevant to experiments involving the motions observed during the collapse.

Here's a challenge. Please provide a link to an experiment, anywhere, that duplicates the motions observed during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.
 
FalseFlag said:
I agree that your model is more correct, when Newton's third law is being discussed.

You are right that I had a misconception about all of the forces involved when discussing Newton's third law of motion.

The most simple way to explain it is, if the forces are acting on one object, they are not action-reaction pairs.

Once again, you were right, and I did misunderstand this one concept.



Should we ignore air resistance? I think your example requires me to.

The equal and opposite force is the force the skydiver exerts on the earth. The earth's gravity pulls the skydiver down, and the skydiver pulls the earth towards himself or herself. Since the forces are equal (but opposite), and the mass of the earth is so much greater than that of the skydiver, the acceleration of the earth towards the skydiver is negligible. It's there, but unnoticeable.

One last time, you were right about action-reaction pairs.
I emphasized that last statement as much as I could so you could gloat as much as possible. You skeptics aren't right too often, so you really should enjoy this one as much as you can.
Click to expand...

No you shouldn't ignore air resistance, it was a significantly important part of what slowed the
Towers collapses, and slowed the fall so much.
 
MikeG said:
It was FF's contention that equal and opposite meant that whatever the floor above brought to bear on the floor below the lower one could withstand it.
Click to expand...

I have never made a claim that even remotely states this. If you want to say that I made this statement, please provide a link to the entire post where you say I make this claim.

Don't take words out of context, copy and paste the entire post.
 
FalseFlag said:
Your statement, without any supporting proof, is nothing more than denial.

I'm sorry, it just is. I keep asking you to prove your statements and you keep refusing to do so.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

Care to "prove" the hilited statement you made below?
FalseFlag said:
You are a victim of the tricks that the "experts" have done. They have intentionally over-complicated things so that it is easier to get concepts confused.
Click to expand...
 
pgimeno said:
Because magnitudes depend on scale, and as it has been established, magnitudes matter.
Click to expand...

How do they matter in any experiment involving similar accelerations, similar directions of net forces and similar sequences of net forces? Please provide a link to a credible source that supports you claim.
 
FalseFlag said:
How does Cole's experiment fail? Where is your proof to support your claim?
Click to expand...

In Cole's experiments, the energy values must match exactly to recreate the effects seen in the collapses. That is your miss conception that energy values do not matter, in motion effects Newton's Cannon ball experiment shows that energy and motion in a gravitational field are directly linked.

That is also why you admitted earlier Cole is a fraud, he is not trying to exactly duplicate the GP to K - R ratio between the upper mass, and the lower structure in the towers.
What makes him a fraud is engineers are taught Gravity does not Scale, do to the inverse square law.
He is using proportion in place of correct mass loading.
 
Last edited:
Gamolon said:
Hmmm...

Care to "prove" the hilited statement you made below?
Click to expand...


Here is one.

PhantomWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is not necessary to explain Newton's third law of motion with such complexity. Newton's third law of motion is simple. You don't need such complex examples to get someone to understand the concept.
 
FalseFlag said:
I agree that your model is more correct.......

Once again, you were right, and I did misunderstand this one concept.......

One last time, you were right about action-reaction pairs.
Click to expand...

Nominated.
 
Mark F said:
I am curious, if scale does not matter, does that mean if Cole's experiment was repeated, but scaled to more accurately depict the actual event, would the result be the same?

FF, got a thought on that?
Click to expand...

Yes. Scale does not matter if you are only trying to replicate the motions observed during the collapses. Scale absolutely does matter if you are trying to duplicate structural behavior. Direction of acceleration, direction of net forces, and similar sequences of the direction of net forces are NOT structural behavior.

Do not take my statement out of context by only copying and pasting a few words in order to promote your own incorrect argument.
 
FalseFlag said:
I have never made a claim that even remotely states this. If you want to say that I made this statement, please provide a link to the entire post where you say I make this claim.

Don't take words out of context, copy and paste the entire post.
Click to expand...

Correct that is Chandler's claim that you linked, to.
 
NoahFence said:
And you have made no attempts to contradict reality. What is your alternative?
Click to expand...

You say I have made no attempts to contradict reality. Thanks for noticing, because you are right. My claims do not contradict reality. If my claims don't contradict reality, why would I consider any alternative?

If I have made no attempt to contradict reality, and skeptics are constantly trying to contradict me, then the only logical conclusion is that skeptics are constantly contradicting reality. Wow, you got that one exactly right. Good job.

Thanks, bro. I knew you would eventually support me.
 
FalseFlag said:
Your point is semi-valid, but the issue you are claiming is "ironic" is one involving a "common misunderstanding". In fact, almost every time I found a source regarding the issue, it was labeled "common misunderstanding".

I am also going to address my "common misunderstanding" after I give you all a chance to gloat about your victory.
Click to expand...

Oh, no. It's YOUR misunderstanding. It isn't as common as you might think.

You are a victim of the tricks that the "experts" have done.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. Anti-intellectualism. The hallmark of a true thinker! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom