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

PhantomWolf said:
We're getting back to the Windmill Sail and the Car Wheel. The rotation of the Sail might replicate the rotation of the car wheel, but you can't apply the mechanics of the Sail to claim car wheels spin by the air blowing them.
Click to expand...

Cole's experiments replicate motions. Once again, your own statement proves his experiments are valid, and they don't depend on scale.
 
FalseFlag said:
WilliamSeger said:
Congratulations. Let's extend the thought experiments: I predict that if I gently place a brick on a piece of tissue paper and it can't hold the brick's weight, then if I drop the brick on the tissue paper, it will not cause the brick to decelerate; it will only cause a brief decrease in the acceleration due to gravity.
Click to expand...
Your prediction is not right. There will be an instantaneous deceleration at the instant of impact. There has to be.

I just explained this in post #317.
Click to expand...

I specifically asked that you explain your answer using Newtonian physics. Post #317 demonstrates that you don't understand the definition of deceleration (specifically, what "slows down" means :eek:), you don't understand how to combine forces with vector math to get the net force, and you don't even understand the cause-and-effect relationship between acceleration and velocity.
 
FalseFlag said:
I will gladly do this once you prove that the sites I have linked to are wrong. Also, please explain why a site that gives a "general explanation of physical concepts is unacceptable".
Click to expand...

Once again, it's not the sites that are at issue, it's your ability to understand them.

Long story short.

Your currently problem is that you are having trouble with understanding the difference between reduced and negative acceleration.

Remember our skydiver....

Air resistance during free fall (FAR<Fg).... Reduced Acceleration
Air Resistance on chute open (FAR>Fg)..... Negative Acceleration
 
Last edited:
Phantomwolf, FF seems to have missed your post this time around. So I am bumping this query you posed to him.
PhantomWolf said:
A force in the opposite direction of travel will reduce the velocity of the falling object
Click to expand...
Here is where you go wrong. Remember that a falling object is accelerating at 9.8 m/s2. Lets go back to our Skydiver. On jumping out of the plane the Skydiver will immediately begin experiencing Air Resistance, thus a force in the opposite direction of travel.

Will the Skydiver accelerate, or decelerate?

If you say Accelerate, then explain how this is true if the hilited part above is correct, and if you say decelerate, then explain how come when they jump out of the plane they don't just float in the air and their downward velocity decreases due to deceleration.
.
Click to expand...


False Flag?
Does the sky diver accelerate, or decellerate? Does his vertical, downward velocity become less or more as he jumps out of the aircraft?
 
FalseFlag said:
Cole's experiments replicate motions. Once again, your own statement proves his experiments are valid, and they don't depend on scale.
Click to expand...

They are only valid in replicating the motion. Nothing else. Since there is nothing else that they are valid for, and the mechanism of that motion can't be applied beyond the model that it occurred in, why are they in a 9/11 CT Thread?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Hard to tell. He seems to confuse reduction in acceleration with deceleration, and doesn't seem to realize that multiple forces produce a resultant force that can be determined by vector addition, which makes it seem like he believes gravity stops acting for the instant that a falling object hits something else because objects can only be acted on by one force at a time, so the forces all have to queue up and take turns. But "seem" may be the only relevant word here.

Dave
Click to expand...

I see what you're doing here, and it's in your best interest to stop while you think you are ahead.

I'm going to destroy the claim that you have a PhD in physics, or, at the very least, I'm going to prove that you are intentionally misleading people.

You underestimate me. I have only said that I am not an expert. I have never discussed my background, and that is because I don't want to make it an issue. I have given you numerous chances to use your "expertise" to clearly prove that I am wrong. You continuously refuse to do so. Sure, you make statements that claim I'm wrong, but you never take the extra step to cite a credible source confirming your statements.

Your game is easy to see. I know why you try so hard to obfuscate the deceleration discussion. Don't think I don't know the reason.

You should stop while you're ahead, or at least you think you're ahead.
 
FalseFlag said:
I see what you're doing here, and it's in your best interest to stop while you think you are ahead.

I'm going to destroy the claim that you have a PhD in physics, or, at the very least, I'm going to prove that you are intentionally misleading people.

You underestimate me. I have only said that I am not an expert. I have never discussed my background, and that is because I don't want to make it an issue. I have given you numerous chances to use your "expertise" to clearly prove that I am wrong. You continuously refuse to do so. Sure, you make statements that claim I'm wrong, but you never take the extra step to cite a credible source confirming your statements.

Your game is easy to see. I know why you try so hard to obfuscate the deceleration discussion. Don't think I don't know the reason.

You should stop while you're ahead, or at least you think you're ahead.
Click to expand...

This is just more evasion. Please post credible links that confirm the specific claims you have made in post #317, or retract them.

Dave
 
FalseFlag said:
I see what you're doing here, and it's in your best interest to stop while you think you are ahead.

I'm going to destroy the claim that you have a PhD in physics, or, at the very least, I'm going to prove that you are intentionally misleading people.

You underestimate me. I have only said that I am not an expert. I have never discussed my background, and that is because I don't want to make it an issue. I have given you numerous chances to use your "expertise" to clearly prove that I am wrong. You continuously refuse to do so. Sure, you make statements that claim I'm wrong, but you never take the extra step to cite a credible source confirming your statements.

Your game is easy to see. I know why you try so hard to obfuscate the deceleration discussion. Don't think I don't know the reason.

You should stop while you're ahead, or at least you think you're ahead.
Click to expand...
:dl:
 
Dave Rogers said:
Hard to tell. He seems to confuse reduction in acceleration with deceleration, and doesn't seem to realize that multiple forces produce a resultant force that can be determined by vector addition, which makes it seem like he believes gravity stops acting for the instant that a falling object hits something else because objects can only be acted on by one force at a time, so the forces all have to queue up and take turns. But "seem" may be the only relevant word here.

Dave
Click to expand...
He is correct in one respect: at impact, there will be a reduction in velocity. Without it there is no force acting against g.
F=m (dv/dt)
Where he has a major problem is understanding that the force is LIMITED in value by the geometry and material of that which is impacted.
 
PhantomWolf said:
They are only valid in replicating the motion. Nothing else. Since there is nothing else that they are valid for, and the mechanism of that motion can't be applied beyond the model that it occurred in, why are they in a 9/11 CT Thread?
Click to expand...

LOL.

This is yet another post that needs to be a sticky.

They are only valid in replicating the motion.
Click to expand...
You are right. They are only valid in replicating the motion observed during the collapse.

Nothing else.
Click to expand...
We agree 100 percent.

Since there is nothing else that they are valid for, and the mechanism of that motion can't be applied beyond the model that it occurred in, why are they in a 9/11 CT Thread?
Click to expand...
What do you mean "the mechanism" of the motion? You are just trying to use unnecessary words to make it look like Cole is still wrong. He is not, and you admitted it.

Now, let's answer the last part of your question. Why is Cole's experiment in a 9/11 CT thread? What did Cole call his experiment that most closely replicated the observed motions during the collapse? Do you remember? What did he call it?

You claim that Cole's experiment was only valid in replicating motion. You are right. The experiment that most closely matched the observed motion was called the "Controlled Demolition Theory". Now, if the "Controlled Demolition Theory" was the name of the experiment that most closely matched the observed motions, don't you think his experiments belong in this forum?

I do.
 
rwguinn said:
He is correct in one respect: at impact, there will be a reduction in velocity. Without it there is no force acting against g.
F=m (dv/dt)
Where he has a major problem is understanding that the force is LIMITED in value by the geometry and material of that which is impacted.
Click to expand...
Bwahahahaha. You skeptics can't even agree with each other.
 
Argumemnon said:
He also seems to think that all forces in the universe are equal, since, you know, all of them are connected and his understanding of action-reaction is simplistic to the point of parody.
Click to expand...

Where have I said that all forces in the universe are equal?
 
rwguinn said:
He is correct in one respect: at impact, there will be a reduction in velocity. Without it there is no force acting against g.
Click to expand...

No, he's not, for a falling object. If the force is less than mg then there will be no net deceleration, because the resultant force is still downwards.

rwguinn said:
F=m (dv/dt)
Click to expand...

Let the forces be F1 due to gravity and F2 due to the collision. F1=mg (defining positive as downwards). If F2 is negative and |F2|<mg, then the resultant force F1+F2 is positive and less than mg, so the resultant force is still downwards. There will be a reduction in acceleration, but not in velocity.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
This is just more evasion. Please post credible links that confirm the specific claims you have made in post #317, or retract them.

Dave
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly asked you to pick out one statement you want me to verify. You have had numerous attempts to do so, yet you refuse. Since you refuse to identify even one statement, then all of them must be true. If all of my statements are true, I will not retract any of them.
 
FalseFlag said:
I have repeatedly asked you to pick out one statement you want me to verify. You have had numerous attempts to do so, yet you refuse. Since you refuse to identify even one statement, then all of them must be true. If all of my statements are true, I will not retract any of them.
Click to expand...

And yet more evasion. I have made it perfectly clear that I am demanding that you post links to a credible site that confirms the specific claims you have made in post #317. There is only one interpretation to be drawn from your continued refusal to do so.

Dave
 
rwguinn said:
He is correct in one respect: at impact, there will be a reduction in velocity. Without it there is no force acting against g.
F=m (dv/dt)
Where he has a major problem is understanding that the force is LIMITED in value by the geometry and material of that which is impacted.
Click to expand...

No, this is wrong. Impact will create a reduction in Acceleration not velocity, unless the Impact force if greater than mg. If the Acceleration the object is undergoing via gravity is greater then that the Impact Force created in the opposite direction, the over all acceleration is still down and thus the object continues to increase in velocity despite the impact, just as a lower rate than it would have had the impact not occurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom