The Heiwa Challenge

[Dave Rogers]

Can we assume that you have now withdrawn the requirement that part C must be undamaged by the impact and pure crush-down must be observed using a high-speed camera, or do you plan to re-introduce that condition retrospectively if anyone meets the first ten?

Dave

 

[nicepants]

The Heiwa Challenge is still on as per post #1. Below some clarifications:


Have a try! I look forward to your structures!

Heiwa

PS - If you want to change the conditions I will consider that.

I believe Myriad already proposed some changes. I look forward to your either agreeing to them or suggesting alternatives to those changes with which you do not agree.

 

[Heiwa]

I believe Myriad already proposed some changes. I look forward to your either agreeing to them or suggesting alternatives to those changes with which you do not agree.

All considered! He can drop C from 3.7 m!

 

[dtugg]

All considered! He can drop C from 3.7 m!

What about his other conditions that you are conveniently totally ignoring, you complete fraud?

 

[Heiwa]

What about his other conditions that you are conveniently totally ignoring, you complete fraud?

??? See posts #1 and #239. 10 conditions - no fraud. Just DO it! If you CAN!

 

[dtugg]

??? See posts #1 and #239. 10 conditions - no fraud. Just DO it! If you CAN!

Why would anybody go to the time and expense of attempting to meet your challenge when you absolutely refuse to prove that you even have the money to pay up and draw up a contract saying you will in the event of a successful demonstration? Do you think that people are just going to take your word on it?

You are a fraud.

 

[Heiwa]

Why would anybody go to the time and expense of attempting to meet your challenge when you absolutely refuse to prove that you even have the money to pay up and draw up a contract saying you will in the event of a successful demonstration? Do you think that people are just going to take your word on it?

You are a fraud.

Money? Contract? Pls read conditions again! It is a Challenge. Prove me wrong! Foul language doesn't impress anybody. Tips how to assemble a structure is found at http://the911forum.freeforums.org/crush-down-models-t145-135.html .

Actually, Benson of BLGB fame and a Bazant partner is actually trying! I hope NIST and NASA will catch on. Imagine a structure that can one-way crush down, if you drop a piece of it on it! What amazing possibilities such a structure will have. It can be used for many things! You will earn $$$$ if you can patent it!

But inventors have tried in vain for centuries to find such a structure. But it is never too late!

 

[dtugg]

What are now trying to lie and say that you weren't offering a million dollars to somebody that could fulfill your fraudulent challenge?

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!

You lies aren't fooling anybody, Anders. You are a fraud.

 

[Heiwa]

What are now trying to lie and say that you weren't offering a million dollars to somebody that could fulfill your fraudulent challenge?



You lies aren't fooling anybody, Anders. You are a fraud.

Gomen kudasai, it was a personal offer to some Japanese clown at JREF that I haven't heard from since. Pls, read conditions and do not lose face!

 

[dtugg]

Gomen kudasai, it was a personal offer to some Japanese clown at JREF that I haven't heard from since. Pls, read conditions and do not lose face!

What about this, liar?:

I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely. Maybe JREF will sponsor this program like the other paranormal study? Similar rules will apply.

 

[Heiwa]

What about this, liar?:

Well, it is from another thread and JREF was not willing to sponsor the idea. But it is a good idea. $1M! However, Heiwa Challenge conditions are a little different. You lose face, when you can't keep things apart.

But ... $1M, if I get the patent's rights. I'll think about it. Now back to your structural designs, boys and girls.

 

[dtugg]

Well, it is from another thread and JREF was not willing to sponsor the idea. But it is a good idea. $1M! However, Heiwa Challenge conditions are a little different. You lose face, when you can't keep things apart.

But ... $1M, if I get the patent's rights. I'll think about it. Now back to your structural designs, boys and girls.

So basically you were lying when you said, "I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely."

Got it.


ETA: Oh and this quote is taken from this thread, liar:

The reason why I offer $1M to anybody that can disprove my axiom, &c, is as follows:

 

[Heiwa]

So basically you were lying when you said, "I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely."

Got it.


ETA: Oh and this quote is taken from this thread, liar:

You are mixing up A as in Axiom and C as in Challenge. No money in the Heiwa Challenge as clearly indicated in the conditions.

Can't you read?

Re Axiom - see other link. 2000 posts and nobody managed to disprove it! What does THAT prove?

 

[bill smith]

Well, it is from another thread and JREF was not willing to sponsor the idea. But it is a good idea. $1M! However, Heiwa Challenge conditions are a little different. You lose face, when you can't keep things apart.

But ... $1M, if I get the patent's rights. I'll think about it. Now back to your structural designs, boys and girls.

Heiwa this is Steven Jones's lecture in Boston in december 2007. He talks about the dynamics of the collapse for the first two thirds and and intriduces his red chip discovery for the first time in the last section.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&ei Boston ecture

 

[dtugg]

You are mixing up A as in Axiom and C as in Challenge. No money in the Heiwa Challenge as clearly indicated in the conditions.

Can't you read?

Re Axiom - see other link. 2000 posts and nobody managed to disprove it! What does THAT prove?

Wow, Anders, you are getting even more dishonest by the moment. Is it OK to lie for The Truth ^TM? Is that how you justify it?

Here is what you said in full:

The reason why I offer $1M to anybody that can disprove my axiom, &c, is as follows:

It is very simple to model a One-way Crush down process. Take an object A and put in on the ground and then another object C. You drop C on A and A is crushed.

Why is that?

If C can apply suffient energy PE at impact C with A and following downward displacement and total strain energy SE that can be absorbed by A+C is less than PE and that C can absorb more strain energy than A and only deform elastically in the process, then A is crushed and C is not.

It is not really 'one-way' as C is always affected - elastic deformation - but it is pretty near.

I would conclude that 'one-way' crush down is only possible, if C can absorb more strain energy only as elastic deformation than A can absorb totally (elastic & plastic deformation, failures, &c).

If C is then only 1/10th of A volume/mass wise - as per Challenge conditions - and can only absorb 1/10th of A strain energy (A and C have same internal structure), then I would conclude C can never crush A in any model, size or scale.

It is just a question of strain energies! C has too little!

The Challenge is to prove me wrong!

If someone beat your stupid challenge they would also have disproved your stupid axiom. Thus they would be owed one million dollars as you yourself said.

Your lies are fooling nobody.

 

[nicepants]

I believe Myriad already proposed some changes. I look forward to your either agreeing to them or suggesting alternatives to those changes with which you do not agree.

All considered! He can drop C from 3.7 m!

So other than the 3.7m you agree with his other terms (in post #142)?

Who will be holding your $100,000 in escrow?

When will you be contacting Myriad with the contact information for your legal representative so that the contract may be drafted?

Edit: Apparently I (wrongly) assumed that this Heiwa challenge was the same as the other Heiwa challenge in which $1M was offered.

No money in the Heiwa Challenge as clearly indicated in the conditions.

Apparently Heiwa isn't confident enough in his claims to put his money where his mouth is. At least he's willing to admit that.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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!

Hmm. An offer to pay $1M from this very thread. Now where did people get the idea that he'd offer to pay $1M?

 

[Minadin]

Clearly, $1M is One Monopoly Dollar, very different from $1,000,000 USD. The money being offered is as worthless as anything else coming from Heiwa.

 

[Heiwa]

So other than the 3.7m you agree with his other terms (in post #142)?

Who will be holding your $100,000 in escrow?

When will you be contacting Myriad with the contact information for your legal representative so that the contract may be drafted?

Edit: Apparently I (wrongly) assumed that this Heiwa challenge was the same as the other Heiwa challenge in which $1M was offered.



Apparently Heiwa isn't confident enough in his claims to put his money where his mouth is. At least he's willing to admit that.

Heiwa Challenge (as per conditions in this thread) is evidently to produce a physical, real structure that one-way crushes down - C crushing A, etc. Something for NASA or Pentagon?

If you (or NASA or Pentagon) can do that you are on a good way to the next invitation to disprove the Axiom (that is discussed in another thread), which can (not?) be done, e.g. mathematically - no structure really required - but actually more difficult. Something for MIT?

Re legal aspects, e.g. where any disputes will be heard, if necessary, Heiwa selects location. It will not be the JREF forum.

 

[Heiwa]

Clearly, $1M is One Monopoly Dollar, very different from $1,000,000 USD.

Pls, start another thread about this interesting conspiracy.