• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heiwa article accepted at AsCE

bill smith said:
I wish RM would get on with his deconstruction of Heiwa's new work.
Click to expand...

I don't. I hope he let's it stand for readers of AsCE to refute. I think we should all keep silent and wait for it to be published just so the scientific community sees how stark raving mad Anders is. Why should we get all the fun?
 
3bodyproblem said:
I don't. I hope he let's it stand for readers of AsCE to refute. I think we should all keep silent and wait for it to be published just so the scientific community sees how stark raving mad Anders is. Why should we get all the fun?
Click to expand...

Yes I suppose that would probably be the best thing for you guys to do [wink].
 
bill smith said:
Yes I suppose that would probably be the best thing for you guys to do [wink].
Click to expand...

Not just us "guys", there's women, small children, that monkey that knows sign language, cats, most breeds of dog, birds, dolphins, lab rats, turtles and a pair of fuzzy slippers I got last Christmas.
 
Don't worry,it's just bill talking though her ******** again just to provoke a reaction.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Good grief. I knew he was fairly stupid, but this surpasses everything. He thinks energy is conserved in an inelastic collision, and calls himself an expert. I simply don't have any words to describe how stupid and arrogant that is. If somebody hasn't Stundied this yet, I'm nominating it myself.

Dave

ETA: It's just sunk in that the thread this comes from is one on what claims to be a serious scientific forum, discussing whether and why momentum is conserved in an inelastic collision. Were the participants asleep in high school physics lessons?
Click to expand...

Energy is conserved Dave. Just not kinetic energy. That's the mistake that Ross made. ;)
 
Dave Rogers said:
Good grief. I knew he was fairly stupid, but this surpasses everything. He thinks energy is conserved in an inelastic collision, and calls himself an expert. I simply don't have any words to describe how stupid and arrogant that is. If somebody hasn't Stundied this yet, I'm nominating it myself.
Click to expand...
Yep. He thinks kinetic energy is preserved by an inelastic collision, but momentum is not.
Dave Rogers said:
ETA: It's just sunk in that the thread this comes from is one on what claims to be a serious scientific forum, discussing whether and why momentum is conserved in an inelastic collision. Were the participants asleep in high school physics lessons?
Click to expand...
Two respondents took him to task within 40 minutes of the post tfk quoted. Just over an hour after his original post, Heiwa shattered any remaining doubts about his cluelessness by writing:
Evidently my glue collisions are not elastic collisions and that's why the law of momentum conservation does not apply.
Click to expand...
A few hours later, Heiwa declared (emphasis in the original):
Anyway - CoM is only applicable to elastic collisions between two masses C and A and the final result can never be that C and A have same velocity/direction afterwards. They always separate = velocities differ and kinetic energy and momentum are constant.
In an inelastic collision, whatever that can be (the objects are being destroyed or glued together?) CoM is not applicable and kinetic energy applied may be 'lost' as heat, etc.
Click to expand...
He was still at it four days later:
Evidently C-O-M doesn't apply in inelastic collisions when both objects are arrested.
Click to expand...
After reading all that, I had becomed sufficiently amused to skim through his "discussion" of the paper by Bazant et al, where I learned of his aversion to differential equations. From http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm :
There is no need to describe the destruction of WTC1 using differential equations....
....Differential equations are not really required!....
You do not need differential equations to calculate this. Simple math suffices!
Click to expand...
If JEM is publishing this, it's for the comic relief.

Will
 
Slayhamlet said:
Do you actually get those?
Click to expand...



As an office we do. Personally, I mostly see people still trying to produce Cold Fusion, which is slightly less bonkers, but still pretty bonkers.

We also see a lot of "free energy" devices that try to get energy out of permanent magnets, which is a disguised form of perpetual motion.
 
Horatius said:
As an office we do. Personally, I mostly see people still trying to produce Cold Fusion, which is slightly less bonkers, but still pretty bonkers.

We also see a lot of "free energy" devices that try to get energy out of permanent magnets, which is a disguised form of perpetual motion.
Click to expand...

Out of all the patent applications you get, what percentage of them do you consider to be totally bonkers? As in there being no chance of a real world application of the device?
 
Slayhamlet said:
Out of all the patent applications you get, what percentage of them do you consider to be totally bonkers? As in there being no chance of a real world application of the device?
Click to expand...

Are self-lubricating vibrators considered to have no real world applications?
 
Slayhamlet said:
Out of all the patent applications you get, what percentage of them do you consider to be totally bonkers? As in there being no chance of a real world application of the device?
Click to expand...


Actually, it's a very small percentage. But they're the ones that stand out!

There are also many ideas that would work, but which no one would ever let you do.


Yes, that's one I examined, when it showed up in Canada.


Sword_Of_Truth said:
Are self-lubricating vibrators considered to have no real world applications?
Click to expand...


It would depend on the jurisdiction. Canada used to have a prohibition on patents to inventions that were of an "immoral" character, but that was eliminated with the New Act we operate under currently. Other countries might still have such* limits.




*Originally typoed as "suck". Make of that what you will! ;)
 
Strangely the topic you've strayed to is equally relevant to the WTC collapses as anything Heiwa's written. The dust was probably created by excessive vibration, after all..
 
bill smith said:
If these discusssion papers are not reviewed for scientific validity orior to publication then on what grounds are they published ? I think you are telling porkie pies here Ryan.
Click to expand...

If Bill had any idea about publishing technical papers she wouldnt make such statements.

Yet Bill is now the main proponent of Trutherian Logic on this whole forum.
 
tfk said:
.............
And, yup, take ANY bunch of statistically random events, and examine only the outliers, and you'll convince yourself that we live in a magical world with really weird properties.

Tom
Click to expand...

I was a tech on a weather station in the Arctic and one day the radio operator reported he had lost the use of a piece of equipment. A audio frequency signal went along a buried line to the transmitter building a few hundred feet away. I found that the static discharge block on that line, in the radio room, was burned out. We get a lot of static in the dry air there. I replaced it and it still did not work so I went out to the transmitter building and again there, the static discharge block on the signal line was also blown.

How can this occur? Statistically its nigh on impossible since once one of those blocks burned out the current should stop (the current certainly did not originate in the middle of the buried line) and the line should not be a sufficiently large capacitor to store enough charge to blow out the block at the other end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom