Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Heiwa said:
Who is interested in the terminal velocity of your compacted boxes collisions? Or the 10th collision. Let's start with the first 'collision' followed by 'compaction' of box 1. At what velocity does it take place?

I really like to see you dropping an assembled, IKEA book case at this velocity on some solid surface and how it compacts itself into a box! Let's put a mouse in the book case and see what happens to it, too!
Click to expand...

There you go...start with a poor analogy then point out how ridiculous reality is when viewed through the filter of said analogy.

Did I mention it's a very POOR analogy?

A better one would be: Drop the following objects in rapid succession:

1. a bunch of loose IKEA parts
2. a Mack truck.

Then it becomes pretty obvious how the loose material becomes compacted.
 
Heiwa and bill, poster boys for 9/11 denial; imagine a couple of intact beams in the building rubble talking to each other:
Scrap 1 'did something just happen?'
Scrap 2 'nope, we're still here, so the building couldn't have been destroyed.'
Scrap 1 'whew! For a minute there I thought we'd had it.'
Scrap 2 'nope, nothing happened. Nothing to see here folks!'

This poignant denial continues until both Scrap1 and 2 are melted down. Figuratively speaking, Heiwa and bill have now been reshaped into patio furniture or kitchen appliances long ago.

The denial mantra is all that's left.
 
just got back from lunch and saw this gem of a post...


bill smith said:
I see you style yourself Newton' like another poster here does. Given your extensive technical eduction and background would you like to have a look at ''Smith's Law' and tell me where you think it goes wrong ?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Newton is one of several names I use on internet forums....so what?

I wouldn't say my technical education and background is "extensive" although I do work with some people I would say that about.

I would say my technical education and background is "moderate".....

bill smith said:
Smith's Law.
'' Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which body is rendered non-viable by mutual erosion first.''
Click to expand...

As has already been pointed out to you.....the first part is a strange wording of Newtons' third law.

Strange because you state things like "identical construction" and "fixed in the ground"...very odd. If you want to state the third law....just state it. Don't state it and add some other weird and pointless wording...

The second part is also very strange...

What does "non-viable" mean?

What does "mutual erosion" mean?

Do you even know what "viable" means?

Do you even know what "erosion" is?
 
Newtons Bit said:
fk:

Your graphs of force shouldn't level out to zero, they should level out to m*g.

You're also leaving out the effects of damping and free-vibration. However you may not want to break everyone's head by introducing that.
Click to expand...

tfk said:
.
Hot dang. Who did THAT??!! :o

Gonna have to fire my proof-reader. Thanks...

Tom

PS. I wonder if Jones uses "pwoof-readers"...

PPS. Or maybe even "pwoof weaders": Elmer Fudd ???
Click to expand...

newton3376 said:
Nice catch newtons bit.....
Click to expand...
Looks to me more like he just plotted with a 1-g offset (1g=0, reference point). They start at zero, too
 
rwguinn said:
Looks to me more like he just plotted with a 1-g offset (1g=0, reference point). They start at zero, too
Click to expand...
rw,

:o

I'd LIKE to claim this was the case...

[Best Pee Wee Herman imitation: "Oh HO!! I MEANT to do that...!"]

But alas... Just focusing on other aspects of the problem. I'll have to buy Newton a beer for that at some point.

Tom
 
tfk said:
rw,

:o

I'd LIKE to claim this was the case...

[Best Pee Wee Herman imitation: "Oh HO!! I MEANT to do that...!"]

But alas... Just focusing on other aspects of the problem. I'll have to buy Newton a beer for that at some point.

Tom
Click to expand...
Damn, Son!
How you EVER Gonna make Manager if you keep admitting you made a mistook?
 
rwguinn said:
Damn, Son!
How you EVER Gonna make Manager if you keep admitting you made a mistook?
Click to expand...

He was on the right track when he blamed his proof reader....

Or you could just blame an intern...one of those is usually lying around somewhere...
 
Dave Rogers said:
... On the infinite monkeys / Hamlet scale, I would rate the second sentence at twenty-five monkeys and four hours.

Dave
Click to expand...

At risk of drifting off topic, I think we now have a new metric by which to measure ridiculous posts: The "Monkeys-Hamlet scale". We can even call it "Dave Rogers' Metric for Absurd Keyboarding" or something pseudoprofound like that. :D
 
Dave Rogers said:
Smith's Law is both original and correct. Unfortunately, the part that is correct is not original, and the part that is original is not correct.



This is not Smith's Law. It's simply a statement of Newton's Third Law, poorly stated, applied to a specific case. It's exceptionally poorly stated because the case to which Newton's Third law is applied is not fully specified. However, it is correct.



The idea of a physical law containing the words "it depends" is rather amusing. Apart from that, this statement is meaningless gibberish. For a start, it doesn't say what depends; next, it doesn't define the term "non-viable" in the context in which it is used, and frankly it's hard to imagine any valid meaning for the term in this context; and finally, it assumes without demonstration that "mutual erosion", also undefined, will (a) take place at all, and (b) render a body non-viable, whatever that means.

On the infinite monkeys / Hamlet scale, I would rate the second sentence at twenty-five monkeys and four hours.

Dave
Click to expand...

Re-reading your post here Dave I realise that there are soome very good tips in it. I will come back on it another time.
 
rwguinn said:
Damn, Son!
How you EVER Gonna make Manager if you keep admitting you made a mistook?
Click to expand...
.
A couple points:

1. Once I reached 50, and the testosterone started to abate (just a touch), it didn't bother me anymore.

2. People like you more if you apologize for making mistakes. I do this frequently these days to stay in the good graces of the POSSLQ.

3. I'm in upper management now. We are utterly blameless... Suuu-weet!!

:D:D:D

Tom
 
tfk said:
.
A couple points:

1. Once I reached 50, and the testosterone started to abate (just a touch), it didn't bother me anymore.

2. People like you more if you apologize for making mistakes. I do this frequently these days to stay in the good graces of the POSSLQ.

3. I'm in upper management now. We are utterly blameless... Suuu-weet!!

:D:D:D

Tom
Click to expand...
1. They make an ointment for that :D
2. By age 58, you don't care any more. Grey hair gives some privilege.
3. So cream also rises? And here I thought it was all just poo floating on top. :D
You got lucky, as well as good. It happens sometimes...
 
bill smith said:
So you didn't understand what was meant ?
Click to expand...

Consider yourself gaining a free education here Bill. It's becoming obvious how shallow your lack of knowledge is when you pretend to have knowledge.

Apparently Heiwa likes having you as a parrot, because he hasn't corrected you on your lack of knowledge.
 
MIKILLINI said:
Consider yourself gaining a free education here Bill. It's becoming obvious how shallow your lack of knowledge is when you pretend to have knowledge.

Apparently Heiwa likes having you as a parrot, because he hasn't corrected you on your lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Beats what Christopher7 was doing, he just creates new definitions to new engineering words he doesn't understand. Then gets upset at us when his definition doesn't match the real-world definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom