• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11 Physics from Non-Experts

Horatius said:
Any bets on what he says now? I bet he complains that the egg was on its side, rather than it's end, since it's stronger in that direction.
Click to expand...

We'll have to wait for the next equinox to try that one. :D

See here if you have no idea what I'm on about.
 
qarnos said:
Seriously, a much easier experiment would be to make a cylinder out of paper, place it end-on on the ground and gently place a heavy brick on it. By Net Force Boy's reasoning, the paper cylinder should be able to resist the brick.
Click to expand...



Actually, paper cylinders are a lot stronger than most people expect, just like the popcans.


qarnos said:
We'll have to wait for the next equinox to try that one. :D

See here if you have no idea what I'm on about.
Click to expand...



I was thinking of making the same remark, but I figured egg-boy wouldn't get it :)
 
Horatius said:
Actually, paper cylinders are a lot stronger than most people expect, just like the popcans.
Click to expand...

I actually tried it before I posted, and it collapsed. Maybe Australian paper is inferior? :eek:
 
qarnos said:
I actually tried it before I posted, and it collapsed. Maybe Australian paper is inferior? :eek:
Click to expand...



It depends heavily on how you fold/roll it, and the type of paper. I'm pretty sure I could make one that would hold up a brick.
 
Wow. He just doesn't know when to stop does he?

How does he not understand that the "Net Force = 0" argument only applies to the object sitting on the ground, not the thing falling on it? What an idiot.

-Gumboot
 
Horatius said:
It depends heavily on how you fold/roll it, and the type of paper. I'm pretty sure I could make one that would hold up a brick.
Click to expand...

True, you probably could. But the mere fact that I can make one that can't invalidates Net Force Boy's theory... as if it needed any more invalidation.
 
qarnos said:
True, you probably could. But the mere fact that I can make one that can't invalidates Net Force Boy's theory... as if it needed any more invalidation.
Click to expand...



Yes, there is that. I guess we're coming at this from different directions. I'd also like to show them that trying to model the WTC with common household items is a fool's game, as the strengths of such materials simply don't scale well.

But it's all good.
 
I found this borwsing the internet on lightandmatter.com, it think it describes the situation perfectly:
"Force is not energy.
There are two main approaches to understanding the motion of objects, one based on force and one on a different concept, called energy. The SI unit of energy is the Joule, but you are probably more familiar with the calorie, used for measuring food's energy, and the kilowatt-hour, the unit the electric company uses for billing you. Physics students' previous familiarity with calories and kilowatt-hours is matched by their universal unfamiliarity with measuring forces in units of Newtons, but the precise operational definitions of the energy concepts are more complex than those of the force concepts, and textbooks, including this one, almost universally place the force description of physics before the energy description. During the long period after the introduction of force and before the careful definition of energy, students are therefore vulnerable to situations in which, without realizing it, they are imputing the properties of energy to phenomena of force.
Click to expand...
:)
 
Horatius said:
On another note, most people don't realize exactly how strong those cans are in compression. If there are no dents or flaws in the sides of the can, they can hold up a heck of a lot of weight. Back in high school, just a few years after they were introduced into our area, I used to impress people by balancing a person on one of these.
Click to expand...
I have just balanced on a 15-gram Coke can, so I know it can support 7,257 times its own weight in dead load. Therefore the towers should have been able to support at least a 7.26 trillion pound (3.3 trillion kg) dead load, about as much as 605 Great Pyramids of Khufu (Cheops) at Giza. You can't argue against such obvious physical truths.
 
lol...does that mean it would take the moon crashing atop the WTCs to make them come down...

TAM;)
 
Gravy said:
I have just balanced on a 15-gram Coke can, so I know it can support 7,257 times its own weight in dead load. Therefore the towers should have been able to support at least a 7.26 trillion pound (3.3 trillion kg) dead load, about as much as 605 Great Pyramids of Khufu (Cheops) at Giza. You can't argue against such obvious physical truths.
Click to expand...



Did you video it? If not, it doesn't count!

But yes, that's exactly the ratio I was going to show them. Thanks for ruining it!

:)


ETA: While I'm thinking about it, if the towers could hold 7,257 times their own mass, what percentage of the buildings in NYC would that be? Any ideas on the number of large buildings in the city?

ETA2: for concrete that's 2200 kg/m3, that's a solid block 1000m on a side, and about 1435 m high.
 
Last edited:
Anyone want some quiche. It has some minerals in it.

Anyone know how to get egg yoke out of a camera lens?
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
I have just balanced on a 15-gram Coke can, so I know it can support 7,257 times its own weight in dead load. Therefore the towers should have been able to support at least a 7.26 trillion pound (3.3 trillion kg) dead load, about as much as 605 Great Pyramids of Khufu (Cheops) at Giza. You can't argue against such obvious physical truths.
Click to expand...


Alternatively it's about the same mass as the entire world's oil produced in 2001, and ten times the mass of the entire human race.

I know that office high rise occupancy rates have been increasing, but that's ridiculous.

-Gumboot
 
I thought it might be amusing to mark up your egg-and-brick photographs with callouts showing "pods" on the bricks, asking "what's this mysterious shadow"? and pointing out all the "squibs."

Then I thought, it might be nearly as amusing, and much less work, to just write about doing this.

I'm probably wrong.

Except the part about it being much less work. I'm right about that.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
I thought it might be amusing to mark up your egg-and-brick photographs with callouts showing "pods" on the bricks, asking "what's this mysterious shadow"? and pointing out all the "squibs."

Then I thought, it might be nearly as amusing, and much less work, to just write about doing this.

I'm probably wrong.

Except the part about it being much less work. I'm right about that.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...
Egg was ejected much further than a gravity collapse could do. In fact never in the history of eggs has a red brick crushed an egg and ejected the yoke. It was a squib that pushed out the yoke with an explosive force. Some planted thermite/thermate/RDX explosives in my sand pile. I hate to tell you want the cats did to the sand pile, it is starting to smell like LCFC here in the sunny foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
 
Gravy said:
I have just balanced on a 15-gram Coke can, so I know it can support 7,257 times its own weight in dead load. Therefore the towers should have been able to support at least a 7.26 trillion pound (3.3 trillion kg) dead load, about as much as 605 Great Pyramids of Khufu (Cheops) at Giza. You can't argue against such obvious physical truths.
Click to expand...

So, from this, we can deduce that Gravy weighs 108.85 kg. He's a big fella all right.
 
I've got a question...

Net Force apparently (and mysteriously) always equals zero. As we know, normal force (the thing that stops you sinking into the ground) isn't just "the ground pushing up", it's actually any surface "pushing back". When he place your hand on a wall, for example, normal force prevents your hand going straight through it.

How would this idiot's "net force equals zero" assertion play out in a lateral collision, in which the moving object was no longer under the influence of any force moving it forward?

For example, let's take a bullet. When it impacts something, that impacted surface exerts a normal force on the bullet, just as the ground exerts a normal force on the WTC, and just as the lower section of the WTC exerts a normal force on the upper section.

Now, assuming his theory that in all collision net force always equals zero... how would that play out with a bullet hitting
A) An easily penetrated surface
B) A difficult to penetrate surface
C) An impenetrable (bullet proof) surface
Meanwhile, perhaps physics boy can explain what's happening in the last example on the video below (starting about the 6:17 mark)



-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom