Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[aggle-rithm]

It's interesting that engineering woos have a similar modus operandi as do philosophy woos. When backed into a corner, they retreat to a position of increasingly abstract and hazy ideas, watering their argument down to the point that it is meaningless.

Of course, this doesn't prevent them from continuing to hammer away at it as if any of it really meant anything.

 

[aggle-rithm]

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

One, but the light bulb has to really want to change.

...

Oh, was that a rhetorical question?

 

[Typicallucas]

You are Off Topic! Topic is why a one-way Crush down is not possible, i.e. part C of a composite or isotropic structure A, where C<1/10A, cannot one-way crush down A from top down by gravity. Reason is that part A always destroys or arrests part C unless C just bounces off part A. A bounce is the simplest arrest.

To destroy part A you have to use other methods, e.g. some sort of controlled demolition. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is an established fact.

But if you can prove the opposite, that part C really can one-way crush down part A, you are welcome to do it. It has nothing to do with whether a government would conspire to kill thousands in an act of false flag terrorism, etc. On the contrary, it would be a nice contribution to structural safety; nobody likes a structure that self-destructs if a little part of it is dropped on and destroys it.

Did you guys hear something?

 

[FineWine]

You are Off Topic! Topic is why a one-way Crush down is not possible, i.e. part C of a composite or isotropic structure A, where C<1/10A, cannot one-way crush down A from top down by gravity. Reason is that part A always destroys or arrests part C unless C just bounces off part A. A bounce is the simplest arrest.

To destroy part A you have to use other methods, e.g. some sort of controlled demolition. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is an established fact.

But if you can prove the opposite, that part C really can one-way crush down part A, you are welcome to do it. It has nothing to do with whether a government would conspire to kill thousands in an act of false flag terrorism, etc. On the contrary, it would be a nice contribution to structural safety; nobody likes a structure that self-destructs if a little part of it is dropped on and destroys it.

You really can't grasp the idea that as the part of the building starting from the impact floors collapses, it ADDS to its falling mass each floor it smashes through. Do you seriously think the fractions 1/10 and 9/10 are set in stone? Don't you see--who doesn't see this?--that near the end of the collapse, 9/10 of the building is crushing the remaining 1/10?? The engineers keep showing you why the energy available was tremendous and why the collapse could not possibly be arrested. You can't understand a word they write.

 

[GlennB]

You really can't grasp the idea that as the part of the building starting from the impact floors collapses, it ADDS to its falling mass each floor it smashes through. Do you seriously think the fractions 1/10 and 9/10 are set in stone? ....

You're quite correct, of course, but Heiwa can only think in terms of ships hitting other ships in the horizontal plane. Where things work very differently. Where fragmented parts simply sink away from the action, for example, through gravity.
etc ...... etc ...... etc.....

 

[FineWine]

You're quite correct, of course, but Heiwa can only think in terms of ships hitting other ships in the horizontal plane. Where things work very differently. Where fragmented parts simply sink away from the action, for example, through gravity.
etc ...... etc ...... etc.....

But that goes back to my amazement that he is actually an engineer. Who could possibly compare two ships colliding with a building collapsing? Certainly not an engineer!

 

[alienentity]

You really can't grasp the idea that as the part of the building starting from the impact floors collapses, it ADDS to its falling mass each floor it smashes through. Do you seriously think the fractions 1/10 and 9/10 are set in stone? Don't you see--who doesn't see this?--that near the end of the collapse, 9/10 of the building is crushing the remaining 1/10?? The engineers keep showing you why the energy available was tremendous and why the collapse could not possibly be arrested. You can't understand a word they write.

Why bother engaging him at all? He's just been repeating the same robotic mantra for months.
He's here to waste your time and frustrate you, not to engage in serious discussion.

He also has apparently lied repeatedly about his one million dollar challenge, which demonstrates a basic lack of honesty and integrity.

He should be ignored, not humored IMHO.

 

[alienentity]

But that goes back to my amazement that he is actually an engineer. Who could possibly compare two ships colliding with a building collapsing? Certainly not an engineer!

Further to my last post, either he figures you guys are dumb enough not to remember that he's already been exposed as an intellectual fraud and worse, or he's dumb enough to forget that he's already been exposed as an intellectual fraud and worse, or both.

It really doesn't matter. The result is he's just wasting your time and getting attention. It's win/win for him every time.

He's been exposed, it's time to move on.

 

[Heiwa]

You really can't grasp the idea that as the part of the building starting from the impact floors collapses, it ADDS to its falling mass each floor it smashes through. Do you seriously think the fractions 1/10 and 9/10 are set in stone? Don't you see--who doesn't see this?--that near the end of the collapse, 9/10 of the building is crushing the remaining 1/10?? The engineers keep showing you why the energy available was tremendous and why the collapse could not possibly be arrested. You can't understand a word they write.

In The Heiwa Challenge part C = 1/10 part A is the condition.

And as psik points out, energy is used to compress/break supports and connections, etc, and it slows down the action. Then there is the effect that loose masses do not really work together - one may be in contact and compressing structure, while another is still dropping or bouncing, and so on. At every contact the lower part applies force and energy to the upper part and when the upper part start to consist of many loose elements, they also interact; plenty of forces in action up in part C.

Myriad is apparently planning a structure with some very heavy horizontal elements (trays) held together/separated with some very weak vertical supports/connections and that structure may maybe collapse like a house of cards (pancake style), but the weaker support elements will only be broken in one place by gravity and will still be connected to the heavier elements ... so the structure does not crush down completely ... as per definition of crush down.

Myriad also believe that supports will fail uniformly and that impacts will be uniform but that's unlikely. The supports will not break uniformly. Gravity forces will take the easiest path. So his structure will topple over due to reaction forces applied by lower part during test probably leaving most of the lower part intact.

There are plenty of CDs gone wrong due to these effects. Gravity alone (no local destruction/failures by other means!) will make the task ... impossible.

 

[beachnut]

...
There are plenty of CDs gone wrong due to these effects. Gravity alone (no local destruction/failures by other means!) will make the task ... impossible.

What is the primary energy source for CD?


Was you paper accepted?

 

[six7s]

One, but the light bulb has to really want to change.

...

Oh, was that a rhetorical question?

Sorta... but it doesn't hurt to be reminded of the punch line

 

[Furcifer]

If you had half a brain you would know that ships are not buildings and propellers are not gravity.

This is rhetorical right?

 

[Macgyver1968]

.... Gravity forces will take the easiest path.

Your thinking of electricity. The force of gravity only pulls downward. If it were to take the easiest path, that would mean things would have to move laterally to find the easiest path. How does gravity do that?

Your own everyday life experience should tell you this. If you drop a bowling ball on the top of a table, the path of least resistance would be around the table, not through it...but is this what the bowling ball does? No. It falls directly on the table, which is not the path of least resistance, but the direct path downward.

 

[Furcifer]

Oh, was that a rhetorical question?

lol, I read this after my last post. I think it's apparent that any question around here is pretty much rhetorical.

Seriously, is there any question you can ask in this forum that isn't? (yes, that was itself rhetorical)

 

[BigAl]

There are plenty of CDs gone wrong due to these effects. Gravity alone (no local destruction/failures by other means!) will make the task ... impossible.

Fire+gravity will do it for an all-steel building in the absence of water and firefighting.

 

[leftysergeant]

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible, and nobody seems to be able to disprove it.

Pay attention. Balzac-Vitry is a one-way-crush-down at the outset. You lose.

Religious fundamentalists of various sects however seem to believe that one-way Crush downs are normal and frequent.

Well, if you want to call a belief in impirical evidence a religious cult...

Nobody is saying that they are frequent. They are, however, the normal result of dropping a part of a building onto the rest of it.

Asking for any evidence to support their beliefs have failed, I am happy to conclude.

Do pay attention to what the entities living outside your cochlea are saying. We have given you evidence. It is in the video of the Balzac-Vitry demolition.

 

[leftysergeant]

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

Faith-based science is getting ridiculous.

Garbage in, garbage out. Your premise is entirely absurd and irrelevant.

The top part did nbot "gain" mass in the strictest sense, nor did it need to, but parts of the mass from the parts of the building it destroyed on the way down joined it in its rampage through the succeding floors. If you drop 5X onto 1X and break 1X loose, you now have 6X moving along the same course. If the next floor can only withstand 2X, where is the arresting mechanism?

 

[alienentity]

Pay attention. Balzac-Vitry is a one-way-crush-down at the outset. You lose.



Well, if you want to call a belief in impirical evidence a religious cult...

Nobody is saying that they are frequent. They are, however, the normal result of dropping a part of a building onto the rest of it.



Do pay attention to what the entities living outside your cochlea are saying. We have given you evidence. It is in the video of the Balzac-Vitry demolition.

Lefty, since you already know he isn't going to modify his position, and will not respond honestly to you, why bother? I don't get it.
It just encourages him that his ideas have meaning and value (which they don't). It makes him feel important, which he isn't.

Why feed this illness?

 

[leftysergeant]

Why feed this illness?

There is just the of chance that someone will stumble across his nattering and take it for sound science, unless someone points out the woo oozing out around the edges.

 

[alienentity]

There is just the of chance that someone will stumble across his nattering and take it for sound science, unless someone points out the woo oozing out around the edges.

Yes, that's true. But his ideas have already been thoroughly refuted. He just repeats them ad nauseum.

Why prolong the agony? The patient is dead, no need to resuscitate.