Tony harasses Bazant

[Oystein]

Tony will no doubt, if he's even reading my posts, claim that this is pointless quibbling that has no relevance to the point he's trying to support with an appeal to his own authority. If he does so, he will in effect be claiming that his complete lack of understanding of basic physics is irrelevant to his level of understanding of basic physics, another piece of nonsense which, in addition, will be tantamount to plagiarizing FalseFlag.

Dave

Alternatively, or in addition, I Tony might well resort to the usual insults, such as...

I see you are still speaking from a fact-free bloviation zone Ozeco. ...
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloviation

Do you need to work hard to go there or does it come naturally to you?

...or...

Your comment assumes that those on this forum who accept the present nonsensical story we have been given by NIST and others are sane to begin with.

It is very likely they at least suffer from a low level of cognizance and may in fact be less than sane. If they are sane, it is likely to be their job to disagree with anyone questioning the present nonsensical story, no matter how strong the argument, and they suffer from moral turpitude.

It's not like he doesn't get insulted rather often by some here, but it appears to me that he prefers to insult those who do not in turn insult him and instead present well-structured - and true - arguments and analyses.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Actually it is physicly impossible for the columns to fail on a single one story, level, that shows that both Tony and Banzant got it wrong, but Banzant never intended to get it right and said so in the limited case declaration.

Tony is arguing pure fantasy, banzant's limited case was solely a look at energy potentials in a hypothetical event.

Tony's letter to Banzant is just nuts.

A valid point which either gets ignored outright or handwaved away with sly ad hominems. I've repeatedly stated in the past that his unwillingness to acknowledge the problem is why people like myself have no mercy in the scathing critique of his points of argument. He's had many chances to correct it, and has chosen not to address it, therefore my sympathy levels dropped to the floor. He only hurts his own credibility, but if that's what he wants he's free to do it. I'll just occasionally remind people that forcing a discussion on his base line errors is the way to force it.

 

[jaydeehess]

Impulse is not rate of change of momentum with time, it's absolute change of momentum. There's no time value to divide by. A given impulse can be imparted by causing a large acceleration for a short time, or a small acceleration for a long time. Expressing an impulse in units of acceleration, therefore, is nonsense.

Not trying to be difficult but if a change in momentum takes place over a time (be it long or short) you just described a division operation.

In fact in first year physics we were instructed that impulse was the change in momentum divided by the time it took to have the momentum change and was expressed as a quantity of Force (having the same units as Force), multiply it by the change in position and you obtain the energy involved.

Looking at the wiki page for Impulse(physics) I now see what you are getting at.

I also see that I seem to have conflated a few things since 1976 as the following from that page suggests:

The term "impulse" is also used to refer to a fast-acting force or impact. This type of impulse is often idealized so that the change in momentum produced by the force happens with no change in time. This sort of change is a step change, and is not physically possible. However, this is a useful model for computing the effects of ideal collisions (such as in game physics engines).

 

[ozeco41]

Alternatively, or in addition, I Tony might well resort to the usual insults, such as...

I see you are still speaking from a fact-free bloviation zone Ozeco.....
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloviation

Do you need to work hard to go there or does it come naturally to you?

...or...

Your comment assumes that those on this forum who accept the present nonsensical story we have been given by NIST and others are sane to begin with.

It is very likely they at least suffer from a low level of cognizance and may in fact be less than sane. If they are sane, it is likely to be their job to disagree with anyone questioning the present nonsensical story, no matter how strong the argument, and they suffer from moral turpitude.

It's not like he doesn't get insulted rather often by some here, but it appears to me that he prefers to insult those who do not in turn insult him and instead present well-structured - and true - arguments and analyses.

Thanks Oystein.

I've long used the level and complexity of Tony's insults as a measure of my success. He must be comprehending my arguments because he identifies them as threats to his fantasy - he cannot respond therefore he resorts to insults.

Note that his strongest recent insults are directed at Chainsaw and myself. And we (plus Grizzly - maybe others) have been the most explicitly focused on identifying his foundation error. The "Missing Jolt" scenario NEVER happend (Never could happen - you couldn't set it up deliberately even if you tried - some thought in that for this current discussion.)

Now most recent discussion has been of no direct risk to Tony's false foundation premises. The discussion of definitional matters - impulses, jolts, accelerations - all basic physics which applies equally to the real and the fantasy scenario. And it suits Tony's purpose that debunkers don't distinguish the two.

Those factors are of zero relevance to the reality that Tony's base premise is wrong. There is little point in discussing jolts that never happend in a scenario that never could happen OR comparing - as Tony does - measurements of a real event with that fantasy alternative.

So no insults from Tony for most of these recent discussions - they do not threaten his foundation premise for Missing Jolt.

For myself I'll start to be concerned when Tony STOPS responding with insults when I rebut him with reasoned valid argument.

 

[jaydeehess]

For myself I'll start to be concerned when Tony STOPS responding with insults when I rebut him with reasoned valid argument.

Concerned that he's finally 'getting it"?

 

[ozeco41]

Concerned that he's finally 'getting it"?

Almost "touché" -

Actually my concern would be that I was losing my clarity of reasoning. ozeco41

...I suspect that outcome - me changing - is more likely than Tony abandoning his obsession.

 

[rwguinn]

No. Impulse is an absolute change in momentum, which at constant mass can be used to derive an absolute change in velocity. If a car is travelling at 30 metres per second at one instant and 40 metres per second at another, later instant, what acceleration has it experienced? The answer is, you have insufficient data to know. And jolt is a rate of change of acceleration; if a car experiences a rate of change in acceleration of 1m/s^3, what is its acceleration afterwards? Again, insufficient data. Tony is claiming a first and a third differential are the same quantity and expressing them in units of a second differential. It's scientifically illiterate.

Dave

Once he gets all that figured out ("the 12th of Never"?), I'll introduce g²/Hz and introduce -1^.5...

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Thanks Oystein.


For myself I'll start to be concerned when Tony STOPS responding with insults when I rebut him with reasoned valid argument.

The problem is much of the time you aren't doing this and just say you are.

 

[jaydeehess]

Almost "touché" -

Actually my concern would be that I was losing my clarity of reasoning. ozeco41

...I suspect that outcome - me changing - is more likely than Tony abandoning his obsession.

Ahh, I see. I understand, as I would only add 15 to that number.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Once he gets all that figured out ("the 12th of Never"?), I'll introduce g²/Hz and introduce -1^.5...

Random vibration units (g²/Hz) aren't new to me.

For others here who are getting their pants in a knot about the terminology of the loading during an impact they really should calm down. Everybody understands the connotation. It was Zdenek Bazant who called it a jolt, not me. Personally, I would not have used that term and just called it a shock load due to impact (which is usually referred to as velocity shock) and shown the deceleration as I did, with the units in g's.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Did TSz actually send this letter TO Z. Bazant, or just publish the "Open letter"?

It was e-mailed to him and those shown as copied on 6/19/16.

 

[beachnut]

... Second, the 6g impulse (jolt) required to cause buckling would produce a velocity loss of 17.38 ft./second, which would require about 844 milliseconds to recover at the .64g acceleration it was falling at. This would be about 25 frames. Measuring every 5th frame would give 5 measurements which would show reduced velocity. None is ever measured. ...

Wow, do you make this up as your go, or did you get this from Judy DEW wizard of woo? Can you list your failed assumption? lol, it is so simple, and the error/lie you posted is proof you have no practical knowledge of physics and engineering.

Talk about errors and BS, and you can't list the errors in Bazant's work, and have no clue how to evaluate models vs reality.\

Bazant is most likely laughing about your backing in CD with BS, and silent explosives. Which ones here are being paid to expose your CD fantasy?

 

[rwguinn]

Not trying to be difficult but if a change in momentum takes place over a time (be it long or short) you just described a division operation.

In fact in first year physics we were instructed that impulse was the change in momentum divided by the time it took to have the momentum change and was expressed as a quantity of Force (having the same units as Force), multiply it by the change in position and you obtain the energy involved.

Looking at the wiki page for Impulse(physics) I now see what you are getting at.

I also see that I seem to have conflated a few things since 1976 as the following from that page suggests:

The term "impulse" is also used to refer to a fast-acting force or impact. This type of impulse is often idealized so that the change in momentum produced by the force happens with no change in time. This sort of change is a step change, and is not physically possible. However, this is a useful model for computing the effects of ideal collisions (such as in game physics engines).

Now that's confusing as hell.
Impulse is dimensionally (Force)*(time), eg, N*s, lb_f*sec, etc. An impulse of 10 N*sec may be the result of 100 N acting over 1/10 second, or 1/(10⁶)N acting over 10⁷sec, or any combination that works out to 10
You have to multiply a very large number by 0 to get 10...

 

[jaydeehess]

It was e-mailed to him and those shown as copied on 6/19/16.

Any response as yet?
Do you expect one? If so, by what venue?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Any response as yet?
Do you expect one? If so, by what venue?

Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[rwguinn]

Random vibration units (g²/Hz) aren't new to me.

For others here who are getting their pants in a knot about the terminology of the loading during an impact they really should calm down. Everybody understands the connotation. It was Zdenek Bazant who called it a jolt, not me. Personally, I would have just called it a shock load and shown the deceleration as I did with the units of g's.

Jolt=m/sec³F=kg*m/sec²g=9.8 m/sec²If you can't keep your units straight, ain't nobody going to listen to you (Prof. Milan Cobble, NMSU, ME102 class)

 

[jaydeehess]

Now that's confusing as hell.
Impulse is dimensionally (Force)*(time), eg, N*s, lb_f*sec, etc. An impulse of 10 N*sec may be the result of 100 N acting over 1/10 second, or 1/(10⁶)N acting over 10⁷sec, or any combination that works out to 10
You have to multiply a very large number by 0 to get 10...

Hence the "idealized" nature of the term. "Step" changes are by definition not possible no matter how short the time period its always going to be a ramp of slope less than infinity, in the real world.

 

[jaydeehess]

Your guess is as good as mine.

Ok, I should have known that spinning your wheels was not to be unexpected as AE911T has been doing it for 1.5+ decades

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Jolt=m/sec³F=kg*m/sec²g=9.8 m/sec²If you can't keep your units straight, ain't nobody going to listen to you (Prof. Milan Cobble, NMSU, ME102 class)

My units are straight. I determined the force required to buckle the columns and then determined deceleration (g's) required from the impact (or shock load) using the impacting mass.

The term jolt was misapplied by Z. Bazant. Take it up with him. He has several more pressing errors to fix, so this little nit should really be let go. I understand it is all many have here as they are being shown that there are problems with the present official explanation, so in a vain attempt to save face they are willing to pick on an insignificant nit.

 

[beachnut]

My units are straight. I used the force required to buckle the columns and then determined deceleration required using the impacting mass.

The term jolt was misapplied by Z. Bazant. Take it up with him. He has several more pressing errors to fix, so this little nit should really be let go. I understand it is all many have here as they are being shown that there are problems with the present official explanation, so in a vain attempt to save face they are willing to pick on an insignificant nit.

In what context did Bazant say "jolt". How many times did he say jolt, and please publish the context, the surrounding idea.

You are full of CD fantasy, and failed to produce evidence of more than failed physics, and maximum BS. Show your work for the impulse/jolt lost velocity and explain how falling at G can be falling at .64g... lol

Oh? List the errors for Bazant to fix, as you fail again to do practical/model physics.