• 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.

The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Disbelief said:
So, the challenge has now been accepted. If Heiwa can't prove that he has the money to cover the challenge, say in 20 days, that means that Heiwa has been successfully debunked and can stop touting his "theory."
Click to expand...

Bill, your hero is down to 19 days. Will he prove he has the money and accept the challenge?
 
Well, another day has passed without any word from Heiwa or his attorney regarding my acceptance of his challenge.

Perhaps he's prudently having some building engineers look at the terms. I sure hope that's not the case, because if so they will be advising him that yes, such a model as I'm contemplating (whose basic characteristics I have hinted at sufficiently for a rough evaluation) can indeed progressively collapse, as the wtc towers did, and he'd lose his money. I'd prefer he continue to rely on his own guesses, comparisons with tiny models made of lightweight materials, such as pizza boxes, and gut feelings based on the behavior of colliding boats. I can only win his money if he's willing to stand by his convictions.

I'll point out that real engineers stake other people's lives, and vast amounts of liability, on their conclusions about such things as what conditions will and will not permit a building to progressively collapse. A mere US$100,000 is a negligible amount by comparison.

But, of course, I cannot make him honor his own challenge. He's free to ignore my offer -- and the rest of us are free to draw the obvious conclusions from that.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Well, another day has passed without any word from Heiwa or his attorney regarding my acceptance of his challenge.

Perhaps he's prudently having some building engineers look at the terms. I sure hope that's not the case, because if so they will be advising him that yes, such a model as I'm contemplating (whose basic characteristics I have hinted at sufficiently for a rough evaluation) can indeed progressively collapse, as the wtc towers did, and he'd lose his money. I'd prefer he continue to rely on his own guesses, comparisons with tiny models made of lightweight materials, such as pizza boxes, and gut feelings based on the behavior of colliding boats. I can only win his money if he's willing to stand by his convictions.

I'll point out that real engineers stake other people's lives, and vast amounts of liability, on their conclusions about such things as what conditions will and will not permit a building to progressively collapse. A mere US$100,000 is a negligible amount by comparison.

But, of course, I cannot make him honor his own challenge. He's free to ignore my offer -- and the rest of us are free to draw the obvious conclusions from that.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

The standard deductible for our liability insurance is about $100,000. ;)
 
Myriad said:
Well, another day has passed without any word from Heiwa or his attorney regarding my acceptance of his challenge.

Perhaps he's prudently having some building engineers look at the terms. I sure hope that's not the case, because if so they will be advising him that yes, such a model as I'm contemplating (whose basic characteristics I have hinted at sufficiently for a rough evaluation) can indeed progressively collapse, as the wtc towers did, and he'd lose his money. I'd prefer he continue to rely on his own guesses, comparisons with tiny models made of lightweight materials, such as pizza boxes, and gut feelings based on the behavior of colliding boats. I can only win his money if he's willing to stand by his convictions.

I'll point out that real engineers stake other people's lives, and vast amounts of liability, on their conclusions about such things as what conditions will and will not permit a building to progressively collapse. A mere US$100,000 is a negligible amount by comparison.

But, of course, I cannot make him honor his own challenge. He's free to ignore my offer -- and the rest of us are free to draw the obvious conclusions from that.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

You have a one-way crush structure A? Good! Make a similar one C and drop C on A (C = 1/10A) and just demonstrate the one-way crushing phenomenon! What are you waiting for?
 
Heiwa said:
You have a one-way crush structure A? Good! Make a similar one C and drop C on A (C = 1/10A) and just demonstrate the one-way crushing phenomenon! What are you waiting for?
Click to expand...

He's waiting for you to prove that you have the money. You do have the money, right? I would be shocked to learn that you are a complete fraud. :rolleyes:
 
Heiwa said:
You have a one-way crush structure A? Good! Make a similar one C and drop C on A (C = 1/10A) and just demonstrate the one-way crushing phenomenon! What are you waiting for?
Click to expand...

So after running away from accepting you are now modifying the original challenge?

Do you accept Myriads terms?
 
Heiwa said:
You have a one-way crush structure A? Good! Make a similar one C and drop C on A (C = 1/10A) and just demonstrate the one-way crushing phenomenon! What are you waiting for?
Click to expand...


I am waiting for you to agree to the conditions I requested in post 142. Or for you, if you disagree with any of them, to state your objections. If they are satisfactory in broad outline, then we can begin writing the contract. I will have the advice of an attorney in the process, and having considered the matter I realized that ethics require me to insist that you do also.

The work of creating the demonstration will begin in earnest once a binding contract exists, as described in my condition 1.

The reason I require such a procedure is that the demonstration will likely incur several tens of thousands of dollars of expenses, and I believe that without a legal contract and the money in escrow in advance, the chance of my recouping those expenses from you in the event of a successful demonstration would be infinitesimally slim.

So that there's no misrepresentation, I'll also point out that the model I'm planning is a "one-way crush structure" only when standing upright within a "one-way" gravitational field. No "one way" properties are inherent in the structure itself. So if for instance the same structure were tested laying on its side floating in water, or free-falling in outer space, "one-way" crushing would not occur.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
I am waiting for you to agree to the conditions I requested in post 142. Or for you, if you disagree with any of them, to state your objections. If they are satisfactory in broad outline, then we can begin writing the contract. I will have the advice of an attorney in the process, and having considered the matter I realized that ethics require me to insist that you do also.

The work of creating the demonstration will begin in earnest once a binding contract exists, as described in my condition 1.

The reason I require such a procedure is that the demonstration will likely incur several tens of thousands of dollars of expenses, and I believe that without a legal contract and the money in escrow in advance, the chance of my recouping those expenses from you in the event of a successful demonstration would be infinitesimally slim.

So that there's no misrepresentation, I'll also point out that the model I'm planning is a "one-way crush structure" only when standing upright within a "one-way" gravitational field. No "one way" properties are inherent in the structure itself. So if for instance the same structure were tested laying on its side floating in water, or free-falling in outer space, "one-way" crushing would not occur.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Conditions are as per post #1. Evidently you must finance the structure yourself, e.g. buy elements from local building material shop, &c. Cannot be too expensive. It should be clear from post #1 that the structure A, to be one-way crushed, is resting on ground (not floating on water, &c) and that you drop part C on it using gravity available at your place free of charge. Good luck! I understand that you have given up using an isotropic structure, thus you aim for a composite structure.
Somebody has proposed a structure where all joints between elements are hinges and that the structure folds, when certain energy is applied to it from above but not from the side, &c. Sounds intriguing. Remember, also C must be similar. Even a door has hinges but it doesn't collapse if you open it :)
Good luck!
 
So Heiwa, do you have severe reading comprehension problems? Or is there some other reason that you totally ignored the part where Myriad gave his conditions. Like say, for example, you have no intention of paying the money you don't have in the event of a successful demonstration? That wouldn't be it, would it?
 
Heiwa said:
Conditions are as per post #1. Evidently you must finance the structure yourself, e.g. buy elements from local building material shop, &c.
Click to expand...

So, as to the typical truther MO, when it comes to actually putting his money where his mouth is, Heiwa refuses.

Heiwa, If you're sure enough about your theory to offer up $1M to anyone who can defeat it, why do you refuse to make said offer legally binding? Or is this just a 'circuit breaker' of sorts so that when someone does prove you wrong you can refuse to pay, and the winner will thus have no legal recourse to collect the money promised?
 
Of course. He's setup the challenge so that if someone does win, they actually lose because they spent their own money and will get no prize.
 
I'm less concerned about the money (hey, any businessperson can have liquidity issues; that's why I asked for only $100K to be put up in advance, since anyone with a million in assets should be able to raise 1/10th that amount in cash with little difficulty no matter what the assets are tied up in) than I am about term 9.

Term 9 essentially limits the velocity of the upper mass after the initial drop to less than that in the Bazant progressive collapse hypothesis we're testing, unless the model is more than 30 meters tall. That's like trying to conduct car crash safety tests not only using scale model cars (which already presents complex scaling issues), but also crashing them at slower speeds. (If you did that, even a Model T with no seat belts could get a "five star" safety rating! In other words, the results would be utterly meaningless for the real world.)

Since the recent additional stipulations in post 209 rule out a 30 meter tall model (a ten story freestanding structure, even if just a framework, cannot be "not too expensive" by anyone's standards except perhaps Bill Gates'), Heiwa's conditions rule out a valid scale model test.

Hence, my proposed alternative and additional terms in post 142, which Heiwa has continued to ignore, neither agreeing to them nor stating his objections to them.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
I'm less concerned about the money (hey, any businessperson can have liquidity issues; that's why I asked for only $100K to be put up in advance, since anyone with a million in assets should be able to raise 1/10th that amount in cash with little difficulty no matter what the assets are tied up in) than I am about term 9.

Term 9 essentially limits the velocity of the upper mass after the initial drop to less than that in the Bazant progressive collapse hypothesis we're testing, unless the model is more than 30 meters tall. That's like trying to conduct car crash safety tests not only using scale model cars (which already presents complex scaling issues), but also crashing them at slower speeds. (If you did that, even a Model T with no seat belts could get a "five star" safety rating! In other words, the results would be utterly meaningless for the real world.)

Since the recent additional stipulations in post 209 rule out a 30 meter tall model (a ten story freestanding structure, even if just a framework, cannot be "not too expensive" by anyone's standards except perhaps Bill Gates'), Heiwa's conditions rule out a valid scale model test.

Hence, my proposed alternative and additional terms in post 142, which Heiwa has continued to ignore, neither agreeing to them nor stating his objections to them.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Money makes the world go around and it seems to cause one-way crush downs here and there at different velocities. I am sad you are not concerned about that. I have an old house nobody wants to buy. To me it is worth $1M! You'll get it for $100 000:- . Anyway!

If impact velocity is a concern for you or that gravity needs a certain time to speed up part C to a suitable velocity that will one-way crush your part A structure, then I am prepared to simplify my Challenge.

You can drop part C from any height you like (2 miles? - 10 miles!) to get your required impact velocity or energy.

As contact and what happens after (one-way crush?) then goes very fast, it is recommended that you set up a high speed camera to confirm that your part A structure is one-way crushed down by gravity (+ initial impact energy input of course), while part C remains intact.

What kind of structures are you thinking of? Uranium? Is part C going to crush the inside of atoms of part A? By gravity? :)
 
Heiwa said:
As contact and what happens after (one-way crush?) then goes very fast, it is recommended that you set up a high speed camera to confirm that your part A structure is one-way crushed down by gravity (+ initial impact energy input of course), while part C remains intact.
Click to expand...

Just to point out, for those expecting consistency from Heiwa, that this condition was not present in post #1, and is not clearly defined enough to be assessed. Nor is it representative of the collapse of the WTC towers, in which there was clearly damage to the falling blocks before the completion of crush-down of the lower. Nor, indeed, is it a result of Bazant and Verdure, which predicts a small amount of crush-up until the intermediate layer B has reached dynamic equilibrium. Heiwa is therefore offering a challenge the terms of which are significantly different to (a) the collapses, (b) models of the collapses and (c) his original challenge. Myriad, although the probability of him coming up with the $1M is vanishingly small, I suspect that the probability of him paying it out is zero, as he'll come up with some improbable interpretation of the original wording by which even a completely successful and convincing demonstration will be judged to have failed.

Dave
 
Heiwa said:
See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!
Click to expand...

Really ?
Heiwa said:
Money makes the world go around and it seems to cause one-way crush downs here and there at different velocities. I am sad you are not concerned about that. I have an old house nobody wants to buy. To me it is worth $1M! You'll get it for $100 000:- . Anyway!
:)
Click to expand...

So you lied about paying $1M ? You don't have and have never had $1M?

Your $1M challenge is one big fat lie, right?

Your house ? Are you now offering this as payment ?
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
Really ?


So you lied about paying $1M ? You don't have and have never had $1M?

Your $1M challenge is one big fat lie, right?

Your house ? Are you now offering this as payment ?
Click to expand...

No, he's offering to sell a house that's not worth anything for 100,000. Because it's worth a million bucks to him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom