Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

Architect said:
Erm, no, you've got me there. Surely their speed relative to each other is 1.5 times the speed of light, but of course they're not going faster than light per se so it is possible?

Example: Two cars pass each other on opposite sides of the road, both doing 50mp. Surely their speed relative to each other is 100mph?

Or is this, like, a terminology thing?
Click to expand...

Nope, like he said, it's a relativity thing. It's been awhile since I did that sort of calculation, but I could probably dig it up somewhere if needed.

The two cars at 50mph would be going 100mph relative, within the accuracy of any measurement we could do, but you could apply relativistic equations to them as well. The difference between relativity and "classical physics" in that case will be so small as to make very little difference, but it is there. The difference grows as the speeds increase, so that when you get to a decent %c, it becomes more prominent.
 
Nope, like he said, it's a relativity thing. It's been awhile since I did that sort of calculation, but I could probably dig it up somewhere if needed.
Click to expand...


Well you live and learn....
 
Horatius said:
Nope, like he said, it's a relativity thing. It's been awhile since I did that sort of calculation, but I could probably dig it up somewhere if needed.

The two cars at 50mph would be going 100mph relative, within the accuracy of any measurement we could do, but you could apply relativistic equations to them as well. The difference between relativity and "classical physics" in that case will be so small as to make very little difference, but it is there. The difference grows as the speeds increase, so that when you get to a decent %c, it becomes more prominent.
Click to expand...

The way I always keep it straight is: With classical physics, time is treated as a constant. With relativity, it isn't.
 
Architect said:
Erm, no, you've got me there. Surely their speed relative to each other is 1.5 times the speed of light, but of course they're not going faster than light per se so it is possible?

Example: Two cars pass each other on opposite sides of the road, both doing 50mp. Surely their speed relative to each other is 100mph?

Or is this, like, a terminology thing?
Click to expand...

OK I don't properly understand it but the point of Einsteinian relativity is that you don't simply add velocities together to get the relative velocity (although, if I understand it correctly, it makes very little difference at anything but very high speeds). Here are some posts from a thread I started about faster than light travel.

gentlehorse said:
Yeppers.

Faster than light travel leads me to ask: Faster than light in relation to what? I can conceive of two spaceships moving away from each other at .51c. Relative to each other, each would be moving faster than the speed of light. If one ship fired a laser at the other, the laser beam would never reach it. If, however, one of the ships slowed down to .48c, a laser fired from one would pass (or hit) the other. Here's the neat part: If one ship fired a laser past the other, and the second ship measured the speed of the beam as it passed, it would be c, despite the fact that we would expect it to be either .49c or .52c (depending on which ship did the firing).

Regardless of your frame of reference, meaning no matter how fast or slow you're moving, the speed of light is c. Too wierd--

I wonder if I have any idea of what I'm talking about...
Click to expand...

Genesius said:
Wrong. C is a constant, so the speed of the ship firing the laser doesn't enter into it. The laser beam would be redshifted by the recession of the light source, but it would pass the other ship.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
No, you're not really getting the heart of relativity. When changing reference frames (going from the frame in which both ships move away at 0.51c to a frame in which one ship is motionless and the other is moving), you cannot simply add velocities. That is not intuitive (it's natural to assume you can - that's called Galilean relativity), but it's true. In the frame of either ship, the other ship will still move at less than c.
Click to expand...

ponderingturtle said:
Wrong, relitivistic velocities don't add that way but this way
w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2)

where w is the sum of the of the u and V velocities
Click to expand...

Huntsman said:
Actually, this is reminiscent of the "light clock" idea that Einstein used to develop relativity theory and it's effects on time and distance.

Yes, the laser would catch up. Even if your ship was moving .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c, the laser would catch up (eventually to an external observer "stationary" with respect to the velocities listed...almost immediately from the POV of those in the fast-moving ship).
Click to expand...


My example uses 0.75c as the speed of the two spaceships.

The equation is w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2)

so w = (0.75c + 0.75c)/(1 + (0.75c * 0.75c)/c^2)

= 1.5c / (1+0.5625c^2/c^2)

= 1.5c / 1.5625

= 0.96c

So the spaceships would be moving at 0.96 times the speed of light relative to each other.
 
Last edited:
maccy said:
My example uses 0.75c as the speed of the two spaceships.

The equation is w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2)

so w = (0.75c + 0.75c)/(1 + (0.75c * 0.75c)/c^2)

= 1.5c / (1+0.5625c^2/c^2)

= 1.5c / 1.5625

= 0.96c

So the spaceships would be moving at 0.96 times the speed of light relative to each other.
Click to expand...


Yep, that's the equation in my old University Physiscs text I just pulled out. The key is the (1 + uv/c^2) factor. For any values of u and v (the velocities of the two cars) that you'll get in real life, (uv/c^2) will be very close to zero, and that factor becomes (1 + 0), so that w = u + v, just as you would expect. Use higher u and v as above, and the (u + v) gets divided by a larger factor.

Note that if u = v = c (equivalent to two beams of light moving in exact opposite directions), you get (uv/c^2) = (cc/c^2) = 1, so the equation becomes w = (u + v)/2, or (c + c)/2, or (2c/2) == c, so you can never get a relative velocity greater than c.

There are similar equations for times and lengths in moving reference frames as well. It's all interrelated.
 
Non Believer said:
But it seems you all think that all that force of so much weight is obviously going to crush the hell out of what is below that should be easy to demonstrate with most materials.
Click to expand...
Have you considered that any floor that fails is then added to the mass of falling debris, making it that much more difficult for the next floor to resist the load? It's not like only those 12 stories crushed the other 100 into the ground...

Twelve floors "crushed" one floor, then 13 floors "crushed" another floor, then 14 floors "crushed" the next floor, and on and on...

Lets face it you have no evidence for anything at all. Only your word as an expert for what happened.
Click to expand...
lol... Once again, only in the world of the conspiracy theorist is expertise seen as a bad thing.

Of course you weren't really trained to examine the collapse of buildings were you?
Click to expand...
Personally, no. Architect? Not to speak for him, but... probably not extensively, although I imagine the very nature of his job requires that he learn from structural failures.

You claim that NIST has all the answers, but when we try to quote NIST , you need to fill in with your own suppositions. Not science! Not proof!
Click to expand...
Careful. Anger != truth.
 
Architect said:
Non Believer

This is quite simple, and I don't see why you have difficulty with it (barring the fact that you clearly have no experience whatsoever of structural design).

(Unholy destruction of idiocy)

So with the deepest respect, don't read a few general web sites and then come back and start chucking about structural theories or "common sense".
Click to expand...

Nominated.

That was really well written, and did an excellent job of summing the collapse up in simple-ish terms. I doubt it will push any hardcore CTist on iota towards anything, but it's still a great summary of how it happened in the real world.
 
The other questions have been addressed well enough (note that they assume nonaccelerating/nonrotating reference frames - "Special Relativity." General Relativity is much much harder).

maccy said:
3. Another version of the same idea: you're travelling in car at 100 miles an hour with the headlights off, you pass a stationary car of the same model and at exactly the moment when your bumpers are level you turn your lights on and the person in the stationary car turns their lights on.
An observer one mile down the road is looking in you direction and is positioned so that he is an equal distance from both sets of headlights. Assuming he is some kind of cyborg with an incredibly precise perception of time, which headlights will he see first*?
Click to expand...
maccy said:
3. The super-accurate cyborg will see both headlights at the same time, as the light from them is travelling at the same speed over the same distance.
Click to expand...

I'll just point out that the other way to consider this question is that no matter how weird special relativity seems to be to our everyday notions of "common-sense," it does not violate causality.

And for the record, I have a B.S. in Physics, with a double minor in Mathematics and Astrophysics, a M.S. in Physics and finished all the coursework for a Ph.D. in Particle Astrophysics.
 
Mr.D said:
And for the record, I have a B.S. in Physics, with a double minor in Mathematics and Astrophysics, a M.S. in Physics and finished all the coursework for a Ph.D. in Particle Astrophysics.
Click to expand...


So, soon you'll be Dr. D! :p
 
Bush probably saw the first plane hit the tower by way of a live Cable feed serviced by the NWO/Illuminati.

:rolleyes:

I'm a joke maker. So expect a little humor from me.
 
I know this is both off-topic and oft-repeated, but it never ceases to amaze me the difference in the kinds of people you see posting for and against the various CTist theories.

A lot of the anti-CT debaters have a lot of real world experience. They are mathematicians, architects, engineers, fire safety experts, ex-military personnel, and more. Many of them have actually read and understood the NIST reports on the collapse. They are educated, professional, and coherent.

On the other hand, all of the CTists that come here are rambling, incomprehensible, hit and run posters that come in, say some crap, and dash off without answering questions. They espouse all kinds of insane theories not born out of evidence, such as beam weapons and voice-morphing technology. They can't provide evidence for these claims because they is no evidence.

They can sit on their boards and foam about the JREF Forums all they want, but it won't change reality. Reality stacks the deck heavily against the CTists, and that isn't about to change.

Maybe we're all just "in on it." Yeah, that must be it.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
In other words, Non Believer...

Welcome to the big leagues.
Click to expand...

Seriously. The people here that say stuff here know what they're talking about. More importantly, they're aware of what they don't know. That's why you don't see me talking about freaking structural loadings like I know what I'm doing. I'm smart enough to leave that to the experts.

So, NB, are you going to step your game up a little bit... maybe provide us with some evidence?
 
Architect said:
So, soon you'll be Dr. D! :p
Click to expand...

Nope. Not me, got out of the academic track several years ago after realizing the neverending, always relocating, "whatcha mean non-tenureable position?" postdoc lifestyle was not for me. So I never did finish the thesis work.

BTW, as a physicist by education - if not degree, I can definitively say that Stephen Jones has pretty much been an embarrassment to the physics community ever since his behavior during the height of the Cold Fusion fiaso. The sloppy, handwaving, swiss-cheese logic way he champions CD theory is just more of the same.
 
Mr. D' s comments are typical of those I receive in this forum. He claims that I am misusing live loads, but he doesn't need to explain how I misuse them. None of you seem interested in a type of discussion that there is any common ground, do you guys really have any principles of finding truth. Could you mention them, you know kind of rules of evidence that apply universally.
While Mr. D is typical I got to give it to guys like Johnny Fly. He is clearly an opportunist of the highest order. He does not need to be involved in the discussion. He is the detached critic sitting up above it all, and his ability to be critique both sides (sort of) puts him on an even more lofty perch. You of course offer nothing specific other than I am not a professional. But it is not his job to know anything, but to instead to just criticize others. How noble.
Cl- Ya - Thanks for mentioning that I should calm down. I used to exclamations there within 4 words or so. Please except my apologies. your response to the model question is pathetic. You act like the WTC would be the only form of matter that would gain force from gravity as they collapse. Is there some problem with other types of material that collapse onto one another as they collapse to the ground. Your point is absolutely untenable, but that hasn't stopped others so don't let it get you down.

The fact that you guys won't even approach the model question is to be expected. I mean it is such a one sided trick for me to play, to give out an opened ended invitation like that. There are no special parameters other than it needs to resemble what happened. I thought you guys would jump all over this like good scientists should. I know you guys are not in the answering mood, but are you really saying we can't make any effective models? I know its a little pathological out there, but you guys need to check back into the world of science.
As for Architect, your position is quite outrageous. If you feel you have some special rights at this forum fine. But for you to tell me I do not get to be involved in this discussion as a matter of my rights and duty as a citizen of this country then BM. I certainly have my critical thinking abilities still intact, do you have any background in such topics. Do you have any background in philosophy, logic, political theory, etc. Because all of those backgrounds are necessary to approach an event such as 9-11. Do you really think you as a professional have the right to tell me you will control this debate. If this is the case you need to go back to school to find out what a democracy is. Does the old participatory Jeffersonian thing ring any bells for you. How about Rawls and social contract theory. Why don't you go read Derrida and Habermas on the relation public discourse towards a functioning democracy, and then maybe I'll talk to you?

Are you so blind to see that I (and everyone else) have a right to have this information discussed. Do you not think that the founders of our constitution were not concerned with a tyranny of information. And that is what you offer Arch, a tyranny of information. You have the answers but you don't need to share them. But if that is not bad enough, you tell us that we are the interloper, intruding on the dignity of your professional opinion. Do you not believe that someone with the highest forms of critical
thinking abilities play any role in all of this. I am not saying that I am such a person, but do you not think that the types of skills that lawyers and investigators have in terms of recognizing evidence and logic is important. That is something you don't necessarily have as an architect or engineer, I mean it is it not a regular part of your job description is it. Quit pretending you own the realm of truth, it shows great contempt for democracy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom