Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[Myriad]

I'm asking you to please answer with clarity. Does a falling object (near earth's surface) apply a force equal to its weight, on whatever it falls onto? Can it apply less force than that? Can it apply more force than that? If possible, please answer yes or no to each of those three questions.

I thought I had explained it in laymen's terms. I'll try again!

I am not looking for explanations. Just yes or no answers to these three questions. I'll repeat them.

Does a falling object near earth's surface always apply a force equal to its weight on whatever it falls onto?

Can it apply less force than that?

Can it apply more force than that?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[X]

Fortunately, you have your units right. By the way, weight is also measured in Newtons, and is therefore a force, namely that of gravity on an object.

My weight is 824 Newtons. My shoe size is 9 1/2. My age is 37. If there's anything else I can clear up, feel free to ask.

It's easier than that.

Weight is defined as mg, where m is mass and g is acceleration due to gravity.

Everyone knows (or should by now) that force is defined as mass times acceleration.
Mass times gravity (an acceleration) therefore, is a force.

Hence, weight is a measurement of force. It's just a specific case (the force due to gravity).

 

[TheDaver]

I, personally, think it’s hilarious that our local Truther physicist doesn’t know things they teach you in the first day of class.

I hope I’m not alone.

 

[dudalb]

This thread is old news. Heiwa's Bathroom Scale Experiment is even more amusing.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Has anyone come up with a better model yet? Any model? Anything?

 

[Thunder]

Has anyone come up with a better model yet? Any model? Anything?

Drop a brick on a tissue box from 1/8th an inch high. the box may be able to hold the brick without collapsing.

Drop a brick from 10 feet above the tissue box. I guaruntee the brick will collapse the box.

Happy now?

 

[Zipster]

Actually, yes. Plenty of us have suggested more realistic models other than pizza boxes.

Like building the whole structure out of wood or even increasing the spacing between the pizza boxes.

Of course, Heiwa's ignored all of these because he's got all of us on ignore.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Drop a brick on a tissue box from 1/8th an inch high. the box may be able to hold the brick without collapsing.

Drop a brick from 10 feet above the tissue box. I guaruntee the brick will collapse the box.

Happy now?

How about a brick on a bigger brick?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Actually, yes. Plenty of us have suggested more realistic models other than pizza boxes.

Like building the whole structure out of wood or even increasing the spacing between the pizza boxes.

Of course, Heiwa's ignored all of these because he's got all of us on ignore.

I'm not asking you to suggest it. I'm asking you to show it.

 

[Thunder]

How about a brick on a bigger brick?

that is a false analogy. the total weight and force of the floors above the impact site crushed one floor after another...one at a time. not all of them at once.

 

[Whiplash]

I don't know what everyone's arguing about. I happen to think Heiwa's experiment is very realistice.

It can't be, there is no concrete core to the pizza boxes, nor any mention of 3" rebar on 4' centers.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

that is a false analogy. the total weight and force of the floors above the impact site crushed one floor after another...one at a time. not all of them at once.

lol

 

[Thunder]

or to put it better:

this amount

XXXXXX
X ......X
X ......X
X ......X
XXXXXX

did not crush

this amount

XXXXXXXX
X ..........X
X.......... X
X.......... X
X.......... X
X ..........X
X ..........X
X ..........X
X ..........X
XXXXXXXX

got it?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

or to put it better:

this amount

XXXXXX
X ......X
X ......X
X ......X
XXXXXX

did not crush

this amount

XXXXXXXX
X ..........X
X.......... X
X.......... X
X.......... X
X ..........X
X ..........X
X ..........X
X ..........X
XXXXXXXX

got it?

Better then what?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Better then what?

Than using pizza boxes and scales and whatever completely unusuable examples Heiwa will come up with next to give us a good giggle.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

lol

So a moronic abuse of English as well as a total lack of substance.

Ye gods, why must we make a scale model that's better than pizza boxes? If we can show (and it has been shown) that pizza boxes are about as much use as a chocolate teapot, doesn't that, you know....end the thread?

 

[Heiwa]

I am not looking for explanations. Just yes or no answers to these three questions. I'll repeat them.

Does a falling object near earth's surface always apply a force equal to its weight on whatever it falls onto?

Can it apply less force than that?

Can it apply more force than that?

Respectfully,
Myriad

I do not like Yes/No answers so explanations are necessary.

Yes - a falling object always apply a force F1 equal to its weight (mg) on whatever it falls onto and whatever it falls on applies a force -FI on the falling object. No more, no less. F1 is constant. Answer is Yes to question 1.

As this contact + what happens later is a dynamic event, whatever it falls onto also applies a damping force F2 (a new force function of many parameters independent of, e.g. m) on the falling object and the falling object evidently applies an equal force -F2 on the whatever it falls on. F2 is variable in time. F2 normally arrests, e.g. any destruction caused by the contact.

So it is not the falling object that applies F2 on whatever it falls on, but the contrary. The falling object can only apply F1 on whatever it falls on.

So answers to questions 2 and 3 are No, No.

According Bazant force F2 is not applied to the falling body by whatever it falls onto.

Bazant suggest on the other hand that the falling body applies F2 (or a shock wave) to whatever it falls on that in turn is destroyed, but it has nothing to do with real physics.

Happy?

 

[Heiwa]

Cont. You may ask what F2 is and why it is variable. When the WTC1 upper block contacts the lower structure there are plenty of contacts and the lower structure applies plenty of forces on the upper block; e.g.

1. The lower structure columns evidently contact the upper block lowest floor and, I can assure you, cause local failures that consumes energy.

2. The lower structure top floor evidently contacts the upper block columns contacting it and again, I can assure you, causes local failures that consumes energy.

What F2 is at these events is not really of interest; just calculate the energy consumed and you get an idea what happens. Collapse arrest has started.

No floors are really dropping at free fall. They are all connected to columns and just hinge down after local failures.

After the local failures in the first two floors, the same thing is repeated when the second set of floors are contacted.

Evidently damaged floors are now part of the action - collapse arrest - which will soon follow.

It is quite obvious, actually.

 

[beachnut]

Heiwa and his VAPORIZED JOINTS

Has anyone come up with a better model yet? Any model? Anything?

The fantasy world you live in will never produce a model to prove the failed ideas of 9/11 truth. The experts of 9/11 truth are less than 0.001 percent of all professionals. I have not seen one serious structural engineer in the lot. The easy way to debunk/refute your ideas and 9/11 truth on the WTC is to go to the source, the chief structural engineer of the WTC, and he thinks you guys are full of junk!

So kibitz here with Heiwa, the CT ship building with bouncing kids on beds and become a caricature of failed ideas on 9/11. A failed 9/11 truther, making smart remarks after 7 years of failing to understand 9/11. Can you make a better hack at understanding after 7 years?

Not a single piece of evidence or calculation to support hewia, just you think the pizza box is dandy. Like comparing ants and men, scale failure on a small scale. Go ahead list your 0.001 percent of all professionals in building, engineering, and such. That is a list of people with no evidence, no clue on 9/11, and no chance at making rational thoughts on 9/11. \

Things for HI to do if he could; list his evidence to support his failed 9/11 ideas. List the credible 9/11 truth experts, professionals and engineers who have evidence, and list their evidence. To not meet this simple task goals, is failure and failure of all HI ideas on 9/11.

To believe in Heiwa or 9/11 truth is well below the 7 year old standard set forth by Heiwa, as he failed to make a good insult.

HI, Heiwa errors are here, as he VAPORIZES structural joints! A truly insane idea as you fail to explain Heiwa's VAPORIZED JOINTS! Or is being literal? Too many trips to Amsterdam.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#10

In the writer's view the picture above looks as if a bomb has hit the tower with enormous energy, structural joints vaporize and mass murder is committed (but that is beside the topic of this article). And where did the upper block go? More ...

Looks like you are wrong too. No bombs. No thermite, try again! 7 years of failed ideas on 9/11. What next of you HI?

Who is Heiwa blaming for Mass murder, or does he mean mass, as in substance? Who did 9/11 in Heiwa's mind, and is he a terrorist apologist like the rest of 9/11 truth?

 

[Zipster]

I'm not asking you to suggest it. I'm asking you to show it.

As far as I've seen, Heiwa's only suggested his pizza box experiment. I haven't seen any pictures nor data gathered from the experiment.

How is it that it's acceptable for him to suggest we do this experiment through only a typed description of it, but the rest of us need to "show" our experiments?

It seems like you've already bought into his flawed physics hook, line and sinker.