The conservation of momentum

Luntoc

Scholar
L
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
85
I' m currently studying the conservation of momentum (Barely started about an three hours ago). I have no idea what is. Googling it explains it to me and I somehwat understand it. Can anyone give me any articles or reports on the law and why it wasn't violated so I can understand it better. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Luntoc said:
I' m currently studying the conservation of momentum (Barely started about an three hours ago). I have no idea what is. Googling it explains it to me and I somehwat understand it. Can anyone give me any articles or reports on the law and why it wasn't violated so I can understand it better. Thanks.
Click to expand...


It wasn't violated because you can't violate a natural law. For example you can't violate the law of gravity.
 
Luntoc, mate, this is part of the compulsory science curriculum for 14 year olds in Scotland and, I suspect, the rest of the UK. I remember hours of experiements with trolleys and weights and ticker tape machines (it was the early 80s). Surely you did it at school, or college, or whatever it's called in your country?
 
Luntoc said:
I' m currently studying the conservation of momentum (Barely started about an three hours ago). I have no idea what is. Googling it explains it to me and I somehwat understand it. Can anyone give me any articles or reports on the law and why it wasn't violated so I can understand it better. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Go to physics class!

If you are talking about Jones saying the com was broken on 911, he is insane and has thermite delusions. I suspect Jones means there has to be explosives or extra energy to account for the gravity collapse on 911 but Jones has some mental problem, he comes on very personable but babbles thermite which started Gage to spread the word making money by taking donations to spread lies and delusions.

Go to a physics teacher and ask them in person about this.

You promised you were doing a book where can I get a copy? You said it would be finished in November.

The chief structural engineer for the WTC called Jones' ideas nonsense. 911 truth is 8 years of failed delusions. The key to the broke the law of conservation of momentum is having the 911 truth liar who said it to prove it! They failed.


Jones uses this ruse to fool people who don't know physics. Spew big words and sounds so personable and knowing. Jones says "how do the upper floors fall so quickly, ... and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?", and Jones says it is "resolved by the explosives demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material" but Jones never presents real engineering or physics to support his lie! Not sure why Jones went insane 4 years after 911, I think he hates Bush and war; ... to lie about physics to make your political point is as bad as war to me; the fact Jones uses his position as a professor to make up lies and fool the people who lack knowledge is pathetic.

The "broke the law of conservation of momentum delusoin" is a trap to catch morons and have them help push the lies.
 
Last edited:
Conservation of Momentum basically stats that if two objects collide with no other forces present, then M1+M2 = M3+M4 where M1 is the Momentum of Object 1 before the collision, M2 is the Momentum of Object 2 before the collision, M3 is the Momentum of Object 1 after the collision, and M4 is the Momentum of Object 2 after the collision.

The entire thing is rendered pointless in the Tower collapses however since Gravity adds a force to the entire thing meaning that there is no ability to conserve momentum .
 
here ya go
Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
 
Architect said:
Luntoc, mate, this is part of the compulsory science curriculum for 14 year olds in Scotland and, I suspect, the rest of the UK. I remember hours of experiements with trolleys and weights and ticker tape machines (it was the early 80s). Surely you did it at school, or college, or whatever it's called in your country?
Click to expand...

He's just a troll trying to flood this subforum. 33 threads in 82 posts (1 thread every 2.5 posts, beats parky's rate by far) -- my best guess is he's a sock/truther posing as a concerned debunker.
 
Last edited:
Luntoc said:
I' m currently studying the conservation of momentum (Barely started about an three hours ago). I have no idea what is. Googling it explains it to me and I somehwat understand it. Can anyone give me any articles or reports on the law and why it wasn't violated so I can understand it better. Thanks.
Click to expand...
In the context of 911, it is a claim that basically says that a structure cannot collapse if there is some resistance to the downward movement of the elements involved.

The claim is obviously absurd.


Hans
 
PhantomWolf said:
Conservation of Momentum basically stats that if two objects collide with no other forces present, then M1+M2 = M3+M4 where M1 is the Momentum of Object 1 before the collision, M2 is the Momentum of Object 2 before the collision, M3 is the Momentum of Object 1 after the collision, and M4 is the Momentum of Object 2 after the collision.

The entire thing is rendered pointless in the Tower collapses however since Gravity adds a force to the entire thing meaning that there is no ability to conserve momentum .
Click to expand...

MRC_Hans said:
In the context of 911, it is a claim that basically says that a structure cannot collapse if there is some resistance to the downward movement of the elements involved.

The claim is obviously absurd.


Hans
Click to expand...

This is very much worth highlighting. Some truthers keep making issue of straight mass comparisons (I think I remember some even going so far as to compare the collapses to a car hitting a semi truck and destroying the truck). What they need to remember is that the falling mass does not need to generate enough force to overcome the inertia of the floor it strikes. It only needs to overcome the strength of that floor's connections to the vertical columns. Gravity does the rest as far as overcoming the floor's momentum.

Truthers like to claim that the "Official Story" (as they put it) cannot be true since it violates conservation of momentum, but as has been pointed out twenty ways from Sunday, that claim is based on a massive misunderstanding of
  1. The construction of the towers,
  2. (Related) The actual series of failures within the towers, and
  3. The energies involved and how they apply, as well how physical concepts apply to the collapses
But, I've found that all truther conspiratorial propositions are based on massive misunderstandings and misapplications of concepts. This is merely one example.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
He's just a troll trying to flood this subforum. 33 threads in 82 posts (1 thread every 2.5 posts, beats parky's rate by far) -- my best guess is he's a sock/truther posing as a concerned debunker.
Click to expand...

^^This.

Obvious troll is obvious. People should really stop feeding him it.
 
Of course it's a troll. However, since the question is easy to answer, threads like this are easily defused, and for instance this thread now reads as one question, with a row of consistent answers.

Not exactly supporting the troll's agenda. ;)

Hans
 
I'm starting to think he's not what he claims to be as well.

Luntoc, every question you have ever posted here would have been answered by entering the text into this link. Please try this the next time you feel compelled to post here.

ETA - after typing "conservation of momentum" into my link, here was the very first result.

nist faq said:
2. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analysis of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?

Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.

In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).

After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Luntoc said:
I' m currently studying the conservation of momentum (Barely started about an three hours ago). I have no idea what is. Googling it explains it to me and I somehwat understand it. Can anyone give me any articles or reports on the law and why it wasn't violated so I can understand it better. Thanks.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_momentum#Conservation_of_linear_momentum

You won't find any recent work on conservation of momentum since it's been fully understood since about the sixteenth century, but the Wikipedia article should tell you all you need to know.

A good analysis of momentum in the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 can be found at:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

It's a little difficult to explain why the law wasn't violated in the collapse of the Twin Towers, because the simple answer is that the collapses took place in a universe governed by the laws of physics, and that rather misses the point the truth movement is trying to make. The actual question is whether the collapses could have happened the way they did without any other cause than impact damage, fire damage and gravity. The answer is, quite simply, yes; it is well-established that no other cause need be invoked to reconcile the collapses with the laws of physics. Truthers frequently refuse to accept this conclusion because it offers no evidence for a conspiracy concerning 9/11. Sadly, reality is uninterested in their refusal.

Dave
 
Luntoc,

Is this true?

beachnut said:
He is writing a book about 911, it was suppose to be out months ago. Where is the book?
Click to expand...


Are you "writing a book" about "how the laws of physics were violated on 9/11".

And yet, you just started learning about them "about 3 hours ago"?

Tell me it ain't so...

Tom
 
So, from the hit & run tactic, I am led to that Luntoc is a troll...

Do others know this guy?

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom