9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

uke2se said:
This is shaping up to a nice Stundie factory. :D

Ergo, imagine two scenarios:

1. I drop a cement block on a flat surface. The cement block is 1m3, and to simplify, let's say it has a mass of 1 ton.

2. I empty a box of sand on the same surface. The total mass of the sand is 1 ton.

In which scenario do I impart the largest amount of force on the surface?
Click to expand...

Scenario 1.
 
ergo said:
They impacted the intact components of the building, yes. As I stated before. These components are not crushed; they deflect the rubble pieces, which then have to move in another direction. This is what resistance is. This is what we mean when we say "unless acted on by another object". Energy gets dispersed into different directions.
Click to expand...
So the lower part of the building still has to resist the actual mass of the top plus the total of the gravitational potential (after the initial fall). Yes?


Can you show it can do this?
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
The energy gets dispersed? What caused the energy to disperse, ergo? Was some kind of force necessary for this to happen, or did it happen spontaneously?
Click to expand...

What part of the explanation I just provided don't you understand? Or are you "debunkers" merely trying to wear me out?

They impacted the intact components of the building, yes. As I stated before. These components are not crushed; they deflect the rubble pieces, which then have to move in another direction. This is what resistance is. This is what we mean when we say "unless acted on by another object". Energy gets dispersed into different directions.
Click to expand...
 
By truther logic, a shotgun shell can't do any damage unless it's a deer slug, because shot is a loose collection of small particles. I have firsthand experience that this is not the case...
 
ergo said:
What part of the explanation I just provided don't you understand? Or are you "debunkers" merely trying to wear me out?
Click to expand...

So, the "components" deflecting the rubble pieces don't get crushed, but they still deflect the falling rubble? What kind of force is required for a rubble piece to change direction, and where does the energy go?
 
I think what we have here is a case of "common sense" fail. This is the same type of thinking that leads people to believe that an asteroid impacting the earth is less dangerous if we just blow it up into many smaller asteroids. That the same amount of force is deposited into the earth doesn't seem to dawn on some people.
 
DGM said:
So the lower part of the building still has to resist the actual mass of the top plus the total of the gravitational potential. Yes?
Click to expand...

Are you back to talking about an intact upper block? And what do you mean "plus" the gravitational potential?. There's only one force here. Gravity. And yes, the lower part of the building resists the gravitational pull downward of the upper block because that force is deferred through a much larger, intact structure.
 
ergo said:
Are you back to talking about an intact upper block? And what do you mean "plus" the gravitational potential?. There's only one force here. Gravity. And yes, the lower part of the building resists the gravitational pull downward of the upper block because that force is deferred through a much larger, intact structure.
Click to expand...

I'm going to start requesting you to show your math from now on. Not only are you laughably wrong about how a falling objects act, you are not showing anything to back up your many ludicrous claims.
 
ergo said:
Are we discussing particle physics or laws of motion? If we're discussing particles, why not discuss your intact upper block as a system of particles?
Click to expand...

Fine as long as you get the math, physics and initial conditions right.
 
uke2se said:
So, the "components" deflecting the rubble pieces don't get crushed, but they still deflect the falling rubble? What kind of force is required for a rubble piece to change direction, and where does the energy go?
Click to expand...

Why don't you apply this question to a croquet mallet hitting a ball? Do either of them break? Contrary to NIST physics, not everything in our physical universe "breaks" and "collapses" through collision.
 
uke2se said:
I think what we have here is a case of "common sense" fail. This is the same type of thinking that leads people to believe that an asteroid impacting the earth is less dangerous if we just blow it up into many smaller asteroids. That the same amount of force is deposited into the earth doesn't seem to dawn on some people.
Click to expand...


Apparently. But we're also seeing calculated unwillingness to honestly consider related scenarios in which common sense gives the correct answer, such as that it takes just as much braking force (most of which is translated into force applied on the load by the truck) to slow down a truckload of loose granules as it does to slow down a truck carrying one large solid object of equal weight.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
No, what we have here is a pile-on.

In all these posts not a single one of you has shown how rubble can crush through a building through gravity alone. Your ridiculous notion does not stand up to scrutiny. In your parlance, that's a "Fail".
 
Myriad said:
such as that it takes just as much braking force (most of which is translated into force applied on the load by the truck) to slow down a truckload of loose granules as it does to slow down a truck carrying one large solid object of equal weight.
Click to expand...

This is not an analogy. You don't appear to understand what an analogy is.
 
ergo said:
Why don't you apply this question to a croquet mallet hitting a ball? Do either of them break? Contrary to NIST physics, not everything in our physical universe "breaks" and "collapses" through collision.
Click to expand...

Please explain how your analogy applies to the situation with a collapsing building.

Let me try to explain why you're wrong:

What we're discussing is impact force. Let us say that the top block falling down has a mass of 1000 kg (just for ease of calculating it). We'll use this nifty online calculator. Again, for ease of calculating, let's imagine the height being 10 meters. Total impact force with these parameters is 1,400,000 N.

Now, let's say the top block is split up into 1000 1 kg pieces. Other parameters remain the same. The pieces fall on the bottom block, each impacting with 1400 N. This happens a thousand times, giving us 1000*1400 = 1,400,000 N, the same force as if we dropped a solid block.

Now, explain how this energy is deflected.
 
ergo said:
Are you back to talking about an intact upper block? And what do you mean "plus" the gravitational potential?. There's only one force here. Gravity. And yes, the lower part of the building resists the gravitational pull downward of the upper block because that force is deferred through a much larger, intact structure.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid my patience for you has run out.


You claim to understand physics yet you keep wanting to change the laws to fit your view. It doesn't matter if the top is intact or if the bottom is "stronger". Unless you can show that the bottom can resist the "gravitational potential" after one stories of drop (that takes math that I know you don't know how to do) this whole conversation is pointless'

You want us to change your mind although your mind is not based on fact. This can't be done and I no longer care.


Good night, (can't say I didn't try)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom