aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Congratulations, you have just become the poster child for the folly of trying to make bold statements on subjects outside your area of expertise.
Why a one-way Crush down is not possible
- Thread starter Heiwa
- Start date
- Status
Congratulations, you have just become the poster child for the folly of trying to make bold statements on subjects outside your area of expertise.
Evidently C will always retain its mass but, in contact with A, at any velocity, A will start to shred this mass C into small pieces and decelarate and stop/arrest them. This happens at any collision small C against big A.
And it is evidently not unimportant. It is the simpe reason why C cannot progressively destroy big A.
Please, do not believe that little C becomes more massive while gaining velocity! This is just preached by religious fundamentalists and their associated engineers and physicians and politicians supporting OTC.
Do you suggest that Titanic and its engine (providing the force! - like gravity and properly aligned), part C, would just slice through the ice berg A?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Wow. You'd better get a handle on that analogy before it rages out of control.
Heiwa never welded in the z-plane.
A new approach to science, the "delusional method of ignoring gravity" - Heiwa Axiom.
Proved wrong twice on 911 our ship welder makes delusional axioms to support his theory of no planes, no gravity, no buildings can collapse even if you drop the upper section from 2 miles.
What do you call these failed statements? He never showed a momentum model to back up his stupid axiom. If he could do physics he would not be making up insane claims.
Did anyone tell him a single floor in the WTC can only hold 25,000,000 pounds? He doesn't use pounds? Lack of knowledge of the structure may be his major problem along with his lack of understanding of gravity.
With over 60,000,000 pounds of stuff above the lower section and more than 11 floors, all we need to have failure of the lower floor is 11 floors gently placed with zero impact on the lower floor and we have the lower floor instantly failing going to the next floor. This means there is nothing holding the shell to the core for the space of two floors and we still have part C coming down with over 60 million pounds of weight zipping apart the building and the floors can't even hold the weight as the building is destroyed. The strength of the WTC depends on the floors being attached to the shell and core and on 911 this was compromised by impacts and fires.
Heiwa axiom is clearly see by anyone who understand physics as an insane hand-waving rant based on biased junk Heiwa can't express, just anti-intellectual tripe he can't model or understand due to his 2-D water world experience welding boats.
When will you show us your rejection letter for your paper? When will you contact Robertson with your work for his comment?
Typicallucas
I AM AN F... B... I... AGENT!!
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 623
Heiwa,
Last time I checked gravity didn't accelerating ships at sea toward each other. Also, the last 100 or so ships I've seen haven't been anchored to a concrete foundation.
When we start use ships at sea for our office buildings, we'll come ask you for your opinion on collisions.
Last time I checked gravity didn't accelerating ships at sea toward each other. Also, the last 100 or so ships I've seen haven't been anchored to a concrete foundation.
When we start use ships at sea for our office buildings, we'll come ask you for your opinion on collisions.
Just replace gravity by an engine/propeller you'll understand. A part C dropping/colliding vertically with a big part A is driven/accelerated by gravity; a ship C (Titanic?) colliding horizontally (with an ice berg A?) is driven/accelerated by an engine/propeller. No big difference actually. All explained at my excellent web page http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .
In neither case little C one-way crushes down part A.
What fundamentalist sect do you belong to?
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
This reminds me of the Irresistible Force Paradox:
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
In this scenario, we have the Unrelenting Delusion Dilemma:What happens when structurally weak arguments of an unrelenting delusion collides with the cold hard facts and universal constants of reality?
The answer: EPIC FAIL
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
It is rather silly for one in the very tiny minority to ask that question to one in the majority opinion. You appear to be the cult member here, not us.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Huge difference actually. The propeller is only pushing on one part of the ship, and parts that break free are no longer being pushed. Gravity is pulling on all parts of both sections of the building, in the same direction (down). When a part breaks free, it's still being pulled downward and still applying load to the top of part A.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Heiwa, how can a sabot round weighing less than 11 pounds destroy a tank weighing over 40 tons?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Typicallucas
I AM AN F... B... I... AGENT!!
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 623
No big difference? Your willful ignorance is laughable.
Your theory is absolutely ridiculous and without the slightest merit. I would describe your web page as the rantings of a misinformed armchair structural engineer using hand-waving physics. Ignoring challenging questions, accusing me of being part of a fundamentalist sect, and your inability to explain your position clearly shows that you are unable to defend your assertion.
If you had half a brain you would know that ships are not buildings and propellers are not gravity. You would also know that intuition, assumptions, and conspiracy thinking do not constitute scholarship.
Well, the ship in port has velocity 0 and at sea velocity X! So to change velocity from 0 to X you have to accelerate the ship and often a propeller is used for that. Ship also meets resistance so at all times equilibrium is maintained by the forces.
Same applies for airplanes with props or jet engines or rockets of all kinds. To get to the moon you have to accelerate > g. Quite basic actually.
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
Sincere question:
Heiwa, have you ever paddled a boat, kayak, or similar by hand?
I ask because it seems to me that what you think/believe is so inconsistent with reality that you don't even begin to grasp let alone understand any of the fundamental forces
If you were John the Baptist, it wouldn't be that your unworthy to wash some socks by night (or whatever it was he did), you wouldn't be able to fill a bucket with water
Would you agree that when C impacts A after a fall of some distance, that parts of both A and C would be damaged to the point where they no longer can carry loads or are totally dislodged from the building? Any loose components of C would lose some kinetic energy due to momentum transfer but would continue to fall due to gravity. Any part of A that is dislodged from the undamaged section of the building would also fall due to gravity wither adding to the mass of C or being ejected over the side. As falling C only needs to damage the load bearing capacity of the structure at the A-C interface, it really isn’t a battle of small C vs. large A but a battle of small C versus a large number of very small structural connections.
Heiwa,
Could you do me a favor and pretend that I’ve convinced you that the WTC could actually collapse from fire and impact damage. It would go a long way towards raising my status here on the forum and would be a nice change from all the back and forth. If you’d like to back slide in a page or two, that would be fine.
G
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
This describes perfectly your understanding of the natural world. It is why you fail.
G, 12 posts since 11/06 and you worry about your status at JREF!? LOL.
YES, I agree that weak elements in both parts C and A will fail unless both just deform elastically and C bounces. So what happens then? With the strong elements!
Well, the strong elements will continue to damage weak elements as long as they can do it. What does it mean?
The strong elements are evidently the columns - they carry the weak elements - the floors. But the strong elements can only carry out their jobs as long as the are connected to ... weak elements.
And as A>10C soon the strong elemenets of C are not strong any longer, i.e. when A strong elements (columns) have destroyed the weak elements of C.
At that time the destruction is arrested ... if not before. Quite basic, actually. I have described it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . And nobody seems to be able to debunk it.
Bazant, NIST, FEMA, &c, suggest that one weak element in C - its lowest floor - can one-way crush down everything below, i.e. part A, while C remains intact above. Utter nonsense, absurd religious, fundamentalist beliefs, sectarian bla, bla.
Yes, I have paddled a boat by hand using a paddle. Next question, pls! Keep on topic, though.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I think the fact that you missed the point of the question, or pretended to miss the point, is very telling.
I think that a better analogue to gravity would be an industrial press rather than a propeller or a paddle. Gravity doesn't just push or pull an object at a single contact point, it acts on the entire mass of the object. The press doesn't really do this either, but it comes far closer than a propeller does.
Before you come back with some absurd response such as, "An industrial press couldn't crush an iceberg!", keep in mind that it also doesn't accelerate continuously and gain more mass/force as it crushes things.
Also keep in mind that a building is far more fragile than either an iceberg or an ocean liner, since it is neither a solid block of matter nor is it designed to move from place to place.
Perhaps it would be better if we dropped these inappropriate analogues altogether and tried to learn more about physics.
How can you possibly pretend that anyone is suggesting that only the lowest floor and not the entire collapsing mass is crushing the floors below? You think that anybody maintains that C remains intact? You must be kidding. You grossly distort what actual scientists and engineers are saying and then you rave about "fundamentalist" beliefs?? What is your problem?
- Status