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

Dave Rogers said:
Originally Posted by FalseFlag

Is Richard Feynman wrong?
Click to expand...

No.
Click to expand...

We agree.

What is wrong is the assertion that the motions of the WTC don't agree with Cole's experiment.
Click to expand...

We also agree. It's really hard to suppress the truth when you know it. Oops.

I think what you meant to say is that the motions observed match Cole's first two demonstrations, but they don't match the third. The problem is that your statement is not true.

Your claim - You state that Cole's first two experiments match the motions observed during the collapse of the twin towers.

My claim - Your claim is false.

Proof. Cole's video. I'm not going to waste time explaining it again. The video stands on its own, and the explanations are in the video. The experiments are also in the video.

To agree or disagree with each other, two accounts must have sufficient commonality to be worth comparing.
Click to expand...

I agree with your statement.

The commonality is motion and what forces are necessary to replicate the observed motion during the collapses of the twin towers.

If I say that I can't eat a whole elephant in one sitting, and someone else pointed out that yesterday he saw me eat a whole egg in one sitting, these two statements do not disagree with each other.
Click to expand...

Does your example have anything to do with motion or physics?

If I point out that my Airfix kit of a Boeing 747 doesn't fly when I throw it across a room, this doesn't disagree with the observation that a real Boeing 747 can in fact fly.
Click to expand...

True. When you throw your model across the room, does it move in the direction you throw it? Yes. The reasons it might not fly are numerous, but when you throw it across the room it moves.

A 747 can fly because it is designed to. What force is the equivalent to throwing a model plane across the room? That force is thrust.

When you apply sufficient thrust to a 747 it will move. When you throw a model plane across the room, you are the one providing the thrust. Thrust is a force that causes motion. The motions are sufficiently similar. Scale is not relevant.

If you apply sufficient thrust to a plane it will move. If you apply sufficient thrust to a toy plane it will move. If the direction of thrust is the same, the movement will be in the same direction.

The model plane and the 747 will exhibit similar accelerations, similar directions of net force, and the sequences of the net forces will be similar.

The difference, in both cases, is that the scales and the materials involved are so different that it's not reasonable to expect the two cases behave the same.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I have submitted proof that you are wrong. Deny it all you want, but I have provided it.

Only an idiot would think otherwise in either of these cases
Click to expand...

Don't be so hard on yourself. Everyone makes mistakes.

what does that say about people who think Cole's "experiment" is somehow exempt from scaling?
Click to expand...

It says they are right, and those that refuse to accept this are delusional.

Do you really want to keep claiming you have a PhD in physics? Your post is proof you don't. There is not one competent physicist on this planet who would have ever made the ridiculous claims you just made in your post. I am not an expert, but I just shredded whatever credibility you had left.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
If scaling and materials are irrelevant, we would expect the Airfix kit, which is subject to the same laws of physics as a real Boeing 747, to exhibit the same motions. FalseFlag, can you explain why it doesn't?
Click to expand...

I have already done so. What you are doing is adding unnecessary forces to try to complicate the issue. I see what you're doing and it's lame.
 
GlennB said:
You made both the claims I mentioned, with no evidence offered.

Then you demanded that those who disagreed with you provide evidence to support their claims (I, among others did, and offered more if it was required).

All I'm asking is that you live by the same rules that you demand others follow.
Click to expand...

I do live by them, and I explained why your claims are meaningless. In a post I just made, I have clearly shown that I live by the rules I ask others to follow.
 
Dave Rogers said:
And now it appears aerodynamic forces are unnecessary to explain the motion of an airplane in flight. Classic.

Dave
Click to expand...

You keep intentionally adding unnecessary forces. Cole's experiments are about the direction of motions. You know this, and so you had to dig as deep as possible in your bag of tricks to try to complicate the issue.

Your bag of tricks didn't go deep enough, because I tore your trick apart.
 
Dave Rogers said:
And now it appears aerodynamic forces are unnecessary to explain the motion of an airplane in flight. Classic.

Dave
Click to expand...

Aerodynamic forces are necessary to explain flight. Cole is discussing downward motion. Those are two different concepts.
 
waypastvne said:
Yes you do know. We've talked about this before. Think hard. Try to remember.


_ _ % ?

Fill in the blanks. Come on, you can do it.
Click to expand...

Don't weasel out of this.

You tell me. I don't want there to be any way you can weasel out of it. I want it to be your number.

Also, please give me the exact definition of "once it started to collapse."

Also, you are using the term "average acceleration". Please give your definition, and please tell me what the time interval is. For example, the beginning is "once it started to collapse". What is the ending time for your value of "average acceleration"?

Then, finally, please make it perfectly clear what the direction the average acceleration is in.

Let me make this perfectly clear.

Please give your definition of average acceleration. I will accept anything reasonable. I am not trying to debate you, I just want your definition.

Please give the time interval that you want "average acceleration" to apply to.

Then, please give the value of your "average acceleration" and the direction.

I am not looking to debate you on any of the numbers you give me. That is why I want your numbers. Once you provide them I will continue.
 
I am Way Past VNE. The question was directed at you by tfk. I was only trying to encourage you to get 1 question right so you don't look like such a failure. The answer has been given to you more than once, you should remember it.

Hint: Near 1/2 free fall acc.
 
Last edited:
waypastvne said:
I am Way Past VNE. The question was directed at you by tfk. I was only trying to encourage you to get 1 question right so you don't look like such a failure. The answer has been given to you more than once, you should remember it.

Hint: Near 1/2 free fall acc.
Click to expand...

This discussion won't continue on my end until someone provides the numbers and definitions requested.
 
Myriad said:
It sure would be a shame if no one provides a number, then.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be a shame. It's unfortunate that so many skeptics claim they know everything, but they can't fulfill a simple request for simple definitions and data.
 
FalseFlag said:
Yes, it would be a shame. It's unfortunate that so many skeptics claim they know everything, but they can't fulfill a simple request for simple definitions and data.
Click to expand...

They should read The Emperor's New Clothes because that is the story they keep telling.
 
waypastvne said:
Prove that we haven't already supplied you with this data.
Click to expand...
That is not the point. If I use this data you will just argue against it. I want someone to post the data they want me to use. Pick any definitions you want and any numbers you want.

I don't see what the issue is, because this is pretty much what skeptics do most of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom