Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[Heiwa]

The mass disappeared out of view so I could not continue to apply force F on it.
To Nicepants - as soon as I do not apply a force on the mass, it stops accelerating and continues at constant speed on the frictionless surface. It is like a rocket - apply force and it accelerates. Apply no force - it stops accelerating.

Another example is two masses m (total 2 m) adjacent to one another on a frictionless surface. If force F is applied to the first mass, it applies F on the second mass and both masses accelerate at a =F/(2m) . The second mass evidently applies force -F on the first mass in this joint acceleration (as per Newton's third law). When force F is removed the two masses glide away at constant speed with no forces acting on them.

Now a static problem - the Pizza Tower. It is standing on ground and the top drops down on it. WOSH. And then there is an impact. BANG. Nothing really happens and particularly no global collapse ensues. The static Pizza Tower remains standing. The top rests on top.

What happened at BANG kan be treated as a static problem. Energy/forces are applied during a certain (short) time - they were not there before BANG so we freeze the time and look what happens just after BANG and what happens. OK, there might be some deformations to the Pizza Tower and the top that dropped (a dynamic event) but we only look at the end result of the BANG. Maybe one part failed so there will be another BANG when something drops, but we can study it too, statically.

Then we have this problem with the 1 kg mass that a force F = 1 N acts on so that it accelerates with a = 1 m/s² in a positive direction. So after 1 second it is moving at speed v = 1 m/s in the positive direction. At this time another force F2 = 11 N is applied to it in the opposite direction. As F - F2 = 10 N a total force F3 = 10 N is now applied to the mass and it accelerates with a = 10 m/s² in the other F2 direction - the negative direction. The speed 1 m/s in the F positive direction is then quickly slowed down and the mass accelerates in the F2 negative direction. A simple, dynamic problem.

Luckily the Pizza Tower remains standing and the 3 pizzas dropping on it does not accelerate through it ... at any time.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Heiwa, you still dont get it huh?

 

[X]

Then we have this problem with the 1 kg mass that a force F = 1 N acts on so that it accelerates with a = 1 m/s² in a positive direction. So after 1 second it is moving at speed v = 1 m/s in the positive direction. At this time another force F2 = 11 N is applied to it in the opposite direction. As F - F2 = 10 N a total force F3 = 10 N is now applied to the mass and it accelerates with a = 10 m/s² in the other F2 direction - the negative direction. The speed 1 m/s in the F positive direction is then quickly slowed down and the mass accelerates in the F2 negative direction. A simple, dynamic problem.

Whoops. My bad, I made a typo.

That experiment should read as below:

Here is the next experiment:

As before, you have a 1 kilogram mass resting on a frictionless surface (you are not on the frictionless surface).
You apply a continuous 1 Newton force to the mass.
You have already agreed that the mass will accelerate at 1 meter per second per second under the influence of this force.

However, after one second, a friend appears and applies a force of 1 Newton to the block, in the opposite direction to the 1 Newton force you are applying. You don't stop applying your force, neither does your friend. Instead, you both continue applying forces of 1 Newton in opposite directions to the mass.

What is the motion (velocity, acceleration and direction) of the mass?
Assume the direction you initially pushed the mass is positive.​

The opposing force should be 1 Newton, not 12. I mis-typed.

 

[Mr.D]

What happened at BANG kan be treated as a static problem. Energy/forces are applied during a certain (short) time - they were not there before BANG so we freeze the time and look what happens just after BANG and what happens.

Take a vacation for a few days (camping - see avatar) and BANG, The hole Heiwa was digging for himself got deeper.

But how can that be?

Digging is a dynamic mechanism. But it can be studied statically using Heiwa-Physics. So let's freeze time at some point during the digging and notice that at the very instant time is frozen, no dirt is moving out of the hole. And since this must be true at all possible instants during the digging we can conclude that no dirt is ever removed! Digging is impossible.

And yet the hole is deeper than it was before - how very strange.

Too bad I'm on his ignore list, otherwise I'd ask Heiwa how it is that reality gets it wrong and the construction site I passed on my way to work gets deeper and wider holes every day, while Heiwa-Physics demonstrates that it cannot possibly be so.

 

[Hokulele]

Will someone please introduce Heiwa to Zeno? Thank you.

 

[Zipster]

Who's Zeno? I'm guessing either a mod or an uber-engineer?

 

[HyJinX]

I think Heiwa is truly just pulling our leg...and there's 12 pages to prove it. Why bother going round and round with such an irrational person? I mean really...467+ post about a pizza box experiment. Really? Is this worth your time and energy. Can you image a thread with almost 500 posts about how horse farts caused WTC7 to collapse? The two theories rival each other closely.

 

[nicepants]

I think Heiwa is truly just pulling our leg...and there's 12 pages to prove it. Why bother going round and round with such an irrational person? I mean really...467+ post about a pizza box experiment. Really? Is this worth your time and energy.

That's one way to look at it...however...

I believe this thread illustrates quite strikingly the extreme disconnect from reality suffered by members of the so-called "truth movement". They won't let logic, reason, or God-forbid science get in the way of what they believe.

It's clear from the posts in this thread (and in other similar threads) that the "scientific method" followed by Heiwa (and other truthers) goes something like this:

1 - Form a conclusion (X)
2 - Determine desired result based on conclusion
3 - Create an experiment that will achieve desired result
4 - Perform experiment
5 - When desired result is achieved, claim that it proves X, regardless of the variables changed to achieve desired result.

 

[Hokulele]

Who's Zeno? I'm guessing either a mod or an uber-engineer?

Sorry, I was referring to one of Zeno's paradoxes, particularly Achilles and the tortoise, where Zeno "proves" that motion is impossible. This may have worked for the ancient Greeks, but once calculus, limits, and infinity became standard mathematical concepts, the paradox was proven wrong. Rather like Heiwa's premise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

 

[rwguinn]

Sorry, I was referring to one of Zeno's paradoxes, particularly Achilles and the tortoise, where Zeno "proves" that motion is impossible. This may have worked for the ancient Greeks, but once calculus, limits, and infinity became standard mathematical concepts, the paradox was proven wrong. Rather like Heiwa's premise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

Ever have a "Duh!" moment?
I knew that! And is it ever appropriate!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Will someone please introduce Heiwa to Zeno? Thank you.

I don't think he needs any introduction. He's practically Zeno's reincarnation.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I think Heiwa is truly just pulling our leg...and there's 12 pages to prove it. Why bother going round and round with such an irrational person? I mean really...467+ post about a pizza box experiment. Really? Is this worth your time and energy. Can you image a thread with almost 500 posts about how horse farts caused WTC7 to collapse? The two theories rival each other closely.

HyJinX has got a point here. Heiwa's arguments are so fundamentallly ridiculous that I can't see him not knowing that they're wrong. Even I, a complete non-engineer, understand the way [X], Dave Rodgers, Funk de Fino, etc. here (and in previous threads, folks like Architect and all the other engineers who posted) explained things. I simply can't see how a professional engineer cannot at least similarly if not better understand the flaws in his own argument. He's got to be intentionally pulling people's legs just to create argument. I think he less believes what he's saying and more believes that people not criticizing the US establishment via the 9/11 "Official Story" need poking.

Then again, weirder beliefs have been more sincerely held. I may be rationalizing incorrectly here.

 

[HyJinX]

Exactly ElMondo. He knows he wrong, yet knows enough to keep the charade alive and his personal beliefs in the limelight. It's either that...OR...he truly enjoys playing those who keep posting in rebuttal. Either way...it's a fruitless effort for all involved. I say we take Mark's suggestions at heart and let this one just go. It's potentially more embarrassing for those who appose him than it is for him.

 

[Zipster]

Ever have a "Duh!" moment?
I knew that! And is it ever appropriate!

Hey, long day of work. I don't know how I completely missed that one...

 

[Heiwa]

HyJinX has got a point here. Heiwa's arguments are so fundamentallly ridiculous that I can't see him not knowing that they're wrong. Even I, a complete non-engineer, understand the way [X], Dave Rodgers, Funk de Fino, etc. here (and in previous threads, folks like Architect and all the other engineers who posted) explained things. I simply can't see how a professional engineer cannot at least similarly if not better understand the flaws in his own argument. He's got to be intentionally pulling people's legs just to create argument. I think he less believes what he's saying and more believes that people not criticizing the US establishment via the 9/11 "Official Story" need poking.

Then again, weirder beliefs have been more sincerely held. I may be rationalizing incorrectly here.

I am not pulling anybody's legs. Structural damage anaysis is done exactly as I describe it; step by step identifying each local structural failure (statically) until destruction is arrested. Easy to do with computers. NIST does not do it. Bazant does not do it. They just invent ... anything ... that has nothing to do with reality. But I know! US is at war. It is treason to question the info by the authorities. Better to just shut up to avoid trouble. Just opportunists like [X], Dave Rodgers, Funk de Fino, etc. stand up and support false engineering analysises. They have no real arguments, though.

 

[Heiwa]

HyJinX has got a point here. Heiwa's arguments are so fundamentallly ridiculous that I can't see him not knowing that they're wrong. Even I, a complete non-engineer, understand the way [X], Dave Rodgers, Funk de Fino, etc. here (and in previous threads, folks like Architect and all the other engineers who posted) explained things. I simply can't see how a professional engineer cannot at least similarly if not better understand the flaws in his own argument. He's got to be intentionally pulling people's legs just to create argument. I think he less believes what he's saying and more believes that people not criticizing the US establishment via the 9/11 "Official Story" need poking.

Then again, weirder beliefs have been more sincerely held. I may be rationalizing incorrectly here.

I am not pulling anybody's legs. Structural damage anaysis is done exactly as I describe it; step by step identifying each local structural failure (statically) until destruction is arrested. Easy to do with computers. NIST does not do it. Bazant does not do it. They just invent ... anything ... that has nothing to do with reality. But I know! US is at war. It is treason to question the info by the authorities. Better to just shut up to avoid trouble. Just opportunists like [X], Dave Rodgers, Funk de Fino, etc. stand up and support false engineering analysises. They have no real arguments, though.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Whooo! Anyone know where Heiwa gets his "tobacco"?

Hokulele, love the Zeno reference. -- MK

 

[funk de fino]

I am not pulling anybody's legs. Structural damage anaysis is done exactly as I describe it; step by step identifying each local structural failure (statically) until destruction is arrested. Easy to do with computers. NIST does not do it. Bazant does not do it. They just invent ... anything ... that has nothing to do with reality. But I know! US is at war. It is treason to question the info by the authorities. Better to just shut up to avoid trouble. Just opportunists like [X], Dave Rodgers, Funk de Fino, etc. stand up and support false engineering analysises. They have no real arguments, though.

You are a proven incompetant and liar. I do not need engineering analysis to show this. Your posting history and joke paper does that very well.

You once said you had been offshore to an oil rig right?

 

[Heiwa]

You are a proven incompetant and liar. I do not need engineering analysis to show this. Your posting history and joke paper does that very well.

You once said you had been offshore to an oil rig right?

It's your opinion. Sorry that you cannot understand the engineering analysis in my papers. What age do you have? 5?

No, I never said that I had been offshore to an oil rig. But I have been offshore many times and inspected various offshore structures (not rigs, though), found defects and have specified and excuted repairs, etc. I am a highly appreciated professional in that field.
Part of the job is to analyse the cause of the defect/local failure - actually the most important part. Do not repair anything unless you know the real cause. Luckily all structural failures I have detected were arrested after a while although sometimes some parts were really hanging loose. Very risky.

In conclusion and to end this thread. Nobody has debunked anything I have said and NIST and Bazant has produced incorrect engineering analysis results.

See you at another thread.

 

[Heiwa]

Whoops. My bad, I made a typo.

That experiment should read as below:






The opposing force should be 1 Newton, not 12. I mis-typed.

In that case, if an opposing force F1 = 1 N is applied to the mass 1 kg after one second, when it has velocity 1 m/s due to force F = 1 N (mass started at zero velocity), the two forces added together becomes 0 = no force is acting on the mass, which continues at 1 m/s. Quite basic.

Bye, bye. See you on another thread.