Common Sense

[Pardalis]

Now, that's a fine looking badge... I might just have to debunk meself... so that I can wear one.

You already did, multiple times.

 

[babazaroni]

Oh friend... don't worry I've got a Perry Mason moment coming for you... so roughly, how many feet does an object fall per second at freefall? And, by roughly I mean... as close as you can get it.

Well for one thing it starts out at 0 and accelerates, so at what point do you want a velocity?

I'm all atwitter at the thought of a 28K Perry Mason moment. Hurry up 28K, I'm missing dinner for this.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey....remind me. You're not a structural engineer, but what's your discipline/profession again?

Rocket scientist. I work for NASA on artificial intelligence. Lots of physics modeling and time-series analysis of sensor data. I trained in Math, Physics, and Aeronautics at university. So, no, I'm not a structural engineer, though I have studied solid mechanics and FEA. Just with a different spin on things.

 

[Horatius]

Oh friend... don't worry I've got a Perry Mason moment coming for you... so roughly, how many feet does an object fall per second at freefall? And, by roughly I mean... as close as you can get it.

And once again he shows his ignorance, as the number of feet it falls per second, changes over time! That's what acceleration means!

 

[pvt1863]

28th

In the real word, we use metric.

Careful there. You may use metric in your real world, but my colleagues and I don't use metric in mine.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.

“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.” Parker, Dave.

"WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualization," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

 

[Horatius]

Rocket scientist. I work for NASA on artificial intelligence. Lots of physics modeling and time-series analysis of sensor data. I trained in Math, Physics, and Aeronautics at university. So, no, I'm not a structural engineer, though I have studied solid mechanics and FEA. Just with a different spin on things.

Just so you don't feel like your efforts are a complete waste, thanks to you I figured out the codes to include properly formated equations:


d = ¹/₂ a t²
Not much, I know, but better than nothing!

 

[The Almond]

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity. In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force: their own weight.

And this, among all other things, I will repost as proof of your ignorance. Read this statement as many times as it takes you to understand it:
Force is a vector
Weight is a scalar.

Weight is not a force. Despite inlining your quotes and referencing your sources, you have missed the entirety of the point.

You've officially been DEBUNKED!

Indeed you have.

 

[Skibum]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.

Perhaps they are "inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible" only for people of your obvious "genius" status.

 

[LashL]

kiss any remaining faith you had goodbye
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2184810&#post2184810

Un
Be
Rule 8 ing
Lievable

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.

Doesn't make them wrong.

"Cannot be applied to the physical world," huh. Hilarious. Why is that? Edict from you? Let's hear it.

Or shut up.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

And this, among all other things, I will repost as proof of your ignorance. Read this statement as many times as it takes you to understand it:
Force is a vector
Weight is a scalar.

Weight is not a force. Despite inlining your quotes and referencing your sources, you have missed the entirety of the point.


Indeed you have.

what if the weight were expressed newtons? isnt that a representation of force? or am i remembering HS physics wrong? lol

 

[Architect]

Careful there. You may use metric in your real world, but my colleagues and I don't use metric in mine.

It's growing, even in America........

 

[Pardalis]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.

I can't take anymore of this.

28th, welcome to ignore, turd.

 

[28th Kingdom]

And this, among all other things, I will repost as proof of your ignorance. Read this statement as many times as it takes you to understand it:
Force is a vector
Weight is a scalar.

Weight is not a force. Despite inlining your quotes and referencing your sources, you have missed the entirety of the point.


Indeed you have.

I'm tired of letting you people get away with posts like this... it's like a hit and run... of nonsense.

Address... what I'm saying... and make some sense... and prove my theories/points to be scientifically inaccurate.

 

[Horatius]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.

“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.” Parker, Dave.

"WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualization," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

I don't suppose someone not on ignore could ask for a link to this article, that shows it on the NCE website: http://www.nceplus.co.uk/home/?ChannelID=3 ? They don't seem to have such an article, and the only places I can find it are (surprise surprise!) twoofer sites.

I smell fiction, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[28th Kingdom]

"floors...magically spouting out debris like a steel-boned whale doing a handstand" - 28thKingdom

God... that makes me laugh every time I read it. Hahahaha - I'm so entertaining.

 

[The Almond]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms...

Can you conceive of terms and information that you cannot understand? Can you conceive of information that is known only by people who have spent years studying it? Can you conceive of a term that you can't investigoogle and understand in under 5 minutes?

Is that what's so abstract for you?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm tired of letting you people get away with posts like this... it's like a hit and run... of nonsense.

Address... what I'm saying... and make some sense... and prove my theories/points to be scientifically inaccurate.

you asked how many feet an object in free falls will move per second, if you understood gravity youd know you cant answer this question without more information (most importantly, how long the object has been falling)

 

[The Almond]

Address... what I'm saying... and make some sense... and prove my theories/points to be scientifically inaccurate.

Gladly:

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity. In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force: their own weight.

This statement is scientifically inaccurate.