Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
aggle-rithm said:
Gravity doesn't just push or pull an object at a single contact point, it acts on the entire mass of the object.
Click to expand...

Well, the propulsive force provided by the propeller acts on the whole ship mass. That's why the ship mass accelerates. And sometimes collides! Not easy to stop a moving ship with a propller.

Funnily enough, the propeller also acts on the water! It is accelerated in the opposite direction by the propeller.

Read my papers and you'll learn something about physics.
 
FineWine said:
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?
Click to expand...

??? But this is what experts like Bazant and Seffen suggest. And NIST!

They do not realise that upper part C - the entire mass - has uniform density <0.2 which is that of a bale of wool! So they have to invent something very solid that can one-way crush down part A below ... and they suggest the lowest floor of part C. Very thin concrete with air above ... but you know these religious, fundamentalist freaks. They make up anything.

Then they suggest that the thin floor compresses the lower part A to rubble with uniform density about 1 - like water! And that this rubble destroys the rest of part A.

Read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and you'll learn more.
 
aggle-rithm said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

So you suggest that when a fragile top part of a building drops and impacts the building below, the top part accelerates continuosly and gain more mass/force at it crushes things?

This is the TOPIC of this thread and it is impossible. Fragile top parts just destroy themselves. Cannot crush anything! Cannot gain mass!

Gain mass? Only fatties do it by eating too much.

Sorry, read the thread from start and do not produce this type of nonsense.
 
Heiwa said:
??? But this is what experts like Bazant and Seffen suggest. And NIST!

They do not realise that upper part C - the entire mass - has uniform density <0.2 which is that of a bale of wool!
Click to expand...

But the "average density" for the purposes of modeling collapse progression is irrelevant and a distraction by to common sense and what I learned in Theoretical Mechanics 101, 40 years ago. Call it finite element analysis with a slide rule.

I never used my MechE course in my chosen profession but I can read papers and some make sense and some don't. What you write doesn't.
 
Heiwa said:
So you suggest that when a fragile top part of a building drops and impacts the building below, the top part accelerates continuosly
Click to expand...

Yes, it's called GRAVITY!

and gain more mass/force at it crushes things?
Click to expand...

Yes, every piece of A that breaks off is also accelerated by gravity!
 
Heiwa said:
Well, the propulsive force provided by the propeller acts on the whole ship mass.
Click to expand...

No, it only puts force on the driveshaft. The only thing affecting the entire ship equally is gravity.
 
Heiwa said:
So you suggest that when a fragile top part of a building drops and impacts the building below, the top part accelerates continuosly and gain more mass/force at it crushes things?
Click to expand...

Yes, the top part gains mass as it breaks up the bottom part, the rubble of which adds to the total moving mass.

It's easy to see from a video that this is what is happening....but then, why am I telling you? You already know this.

This is the TOPIC of this thread and it is impossible. Fragile top parts just destroy themselves. Cannot crush anything! Cannot gain mass!

Gain mass? Only fatties do it by eating too much.

Sorry, read the thread from start and do not produce this type of nonsense.
Click to expand...

You are pretending not to understand in order to protect a cherished, if twisted, belief. I find that highly irritating. And quite sad.

Goodbye.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Yes, the top part gains mass as it breaks up the bottom part, the rubble of which adds to the total moving mass.

...

Goodbye.
Click to expand...

Top part gains mass???? As it breaks up the bottom part? Rubble adds to the total moving mass!!!

Halleluja! You really are a religious fundamentalist of sort!
 
Heiwa said:
Top part gains mass???? As it breaks up the bottom part? Rubble adds to the total moving mass!!!

Halleluja! You really are a religious fundamentalist of sort!
Click to expand...


And you really can't be an engineer! Write less and read more.
 
Heiwa said:
Yes, I have paddled a boat by hand using a paddle. Next question, pls! Keep on topic, though.
Click to expand...
I have no more questions for you as it is obvious that you have both the experience AND the capacity to formulate ideas based on reality, yet you persist in posting nonsense

This suggests that you are NOT here to think and share ideas
 
Your willful ignorance is laughable. Your lack of understanding is immense. Your refusal to think is saddening.

Your theory is absolutely ridiculous and without the slightest merit. You ignore challenging questions, accuse your opposition of being part of a fundamentalist sect, and your inability to explain your position suggests that you are unable to defend your assertion.

I would describe your web page as the rantings of a misinformed armchair-structural-engineer using hand-waving physics. Your theory is poorly formulated and your writing is incomprehensible. When challenged you result to name-calling and there seems to be no limit to the insane gibberish you will spew to defend your prized conspiracy theory.

Debunking your web page would require your web page to be 1) based on reality and 2) make correct use of physics. Since neither of those conditions are met, we might as well spend our time "debunking" a science fiction novel.

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.
 
Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...


And your silly fiziks is WRONG too.

You don't need ANY acceleration to get to the moon. All you need is a little velocity.

Quite basic, actually.

Shame that an alleged engineer can't comprehend.
__

Your ship:building :: propeller:gravity analogy is garbage.

Unless, of course, you can show me a building in which the vertical gravity load stays constant throughout its height. And a building with a weight vector component acting, not downward, but sideways.

As proven by the fact that the bow bulkheads are not 1/2" thick while the stern bulkheads are 6" thick.

Or is this one of your ship designs that the UN won't accept...??

Evasive and willfully incompetent, Heiwa. These are not admirable qualities.
 
I haven't checked this thread in a while, I see Heiwa still doesn't know what he's talking about.
I also see too many people sucked into engaging him. Wouldn't it make perfect sense to simply ignore him and not play into his attention seeking delusions?
 
Yeah, you're right. :o

It's tough to ignore. One doesn't expect technical people being so perversely irrational.

Ah well. A bit more discipline on my part is called for.

Thanks for the reminder.

tom
 
Heiwa is absolutely correct. The top part cannot gain mass. Period.

Faith-based science is getting ridiculous.
 
KreeL said:
Heiwa is absolutely correct. The top part cannot gain mass. Period.

Faith-based science is getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Heiwa is completely, absolutely and demonstrably wrong. The top part can gain mass. Full stop, end of paragraph, end of story.

Ignorance-based delusions are and always will be stupid.

In contrast, it is highly probable that errors made in a rigorously scientific investigation will - by definition - be identified, acknowledged and corrected
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom