9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

TruthersLie said:
I'm sure he thinks that if he drive two cars together at 50mph each, they will equal the total force of one car driving into a wall at 100mph...
Click to expand...

We need to be clear in order for our "physics" to be correct. Are these cars convertibles and are the tops up or down?

:D
 
Is there some way of discovering if this really is Stundie if he's masking his IP? It seems likely ergo is a sock of some kind. Otherwise his ego is as large as his knowledge of physics is small.
 
WTF?? :confused: How does shattering an object - any object -change the collective mass of the remaining fragments? Mass is not lost merely because an object is broken up into pieces; it merely means you have a collective group that adds up to the same mass the singular object previously had.

It's as if truthers don't understand shotguns. For the love of God, the fragmentation of an object has no effect on it's mass. When 1 kg of something hits a surface, it's 1kg impacting it whether that 1kg is a single monolithic object or a collection of masses that add up to a kilogram. The f=ma equation does not change. The only difference is impulse, and X already covered that in his earlier post. I only took one year of high school AP physics, as well as the minimum required basic physics in college, and I still understand this. How in God's name can anyone else not? It's not that hard to understand!
 
ElMondoHummus said:
WTF?? :confused: How does shattering an object - any object -change the collective mass of the remaining fragments? Mass is not lost merely because an object is broken up into pieces; it merely means you have a collective group that adds up to the same mass the singular object previously had.

It's as if truthers don't understand shotguns. For the love of God, the fragmentation of an object has no effect on it's mass. When 1 kg of something hits a surface, it's 1kg impacting it whether that 1kg is a single monolithic object or a collection of masses that add up to a kilogram. The f=ma equation does not change. The only difference is impulse, and X already covered that in his earlier post. I only took one year of high school AP physics, as well as the minimum required basic physics in college, and I still understand this. How in God's name can anyone else not? It's not that hard to understand!
Click to expand...
But.......it's a different KIND of mass!!!!!!!


SHEEPIE!



:D
 
DGM said:
But.......it's a different KIND of mass!!!!!!!


SHEEPIE!



:D
Click to expand...

smiley_thinking.gif
Hrmmmm... you may be onto something...
sherlock.gif
 
X said:
Velocity is a vector.
It is described by a magnitude and a direction.

Change in velocity therefore can be a change in magnitude (speed) or change in direction or both.

Changing the direction of the rubble is an acceleration, and therefore requires a force. Which means force is exerted on the lower section, not diverted. You haven't avoided that issue. You haven't made a point.
Click to expand...

Okay, I was technically incorrect on that point. I was using everyday notions of acceleration and deceleration. I'm a little astonished that at least one other poster caught this error before you did, because, frankly, most of you present as complete idiots. Do some of you actually understand some physical principles? You don't appear to.

The point I was trying to make was that pieces of rubble in a rubble system move laterally to fill whatever space they are occupying, as does any mass of granular material. This lateral movement is caused by contact with the other pieces. The deflection laterally may be an "acceleration" in scientific terms, but it is a loss of energy to the original downward momentum, because energy is lost in the impact and constant friction with other particles.

Granular material is a conglomeration of discrete, solid, macroscopic particles characterized by a loss of energy whenever the particles interact (the most common example would be friction when grains collide)...

... When the granular matter is driven and energy is fed into the system (such as by shaking) such that the grains are not in constant contact with each other, the granular material is said to fluidize and enter a liquid-like state. When freely flowing, granular materials have flow characteristics that roughly resemble those of ordinary Newtonian fluids. However, granular materials dissipate energy quickly, so techniques of statistical mechanics that assume conservation of energy are of limited use.
Click to expand...

Care to address the other points, which are still valid despite my misunderstanding of acceleration?

ergo said:
They show nothing of the kind. All they show is that you've ascribed the same mass to one as to the other, and nothing about their respective abilities to do the same work. Which is what I asked for. Your calculations don't show this. They simply try to assert that both forms of matter can do the same work based on an assumed comparable mass. A comparability, moreover, that is not supported by the visual evidence. So you've missed the base on two counts.
Click to expand...


ergo said:
X said:
You still have mass hitting you, whether it is one solid lump or many smaller pieces hitting over a very short time frame.
Click to expand...

Yes, you still have "mass" hitting you. Again, which would you rather be hit by? A bowling ball, or pieces of a bowling ball? Please answer the question. It is not just a "summation thing." Different kinds of matter behave differently. Obviously.
Click to expand...


ergo said:
X said:
If you truly believe that the mass changes with form, you are beyond anyones help.
Click to expand...

If we are talking about elastic materials or closed systems, then no, it doesn't change. But we are talking about brittle materials and an open system in which mass has been lost, and we are talking about the kind of force that different forms of brittle material can impart. If you don't understand that, you are the one who is beyond help.
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
Okay, I was technically incorrect on that point. I was using everyday notions of acceleration and deceleration. I'm a little astonished that at least one other poster caught this error before you did, because, frankly, most of you present as complete idiots. Do some of you actually understand some physical principles? You don't appear to.

The point I was trying to make was that pieces of rubble in a rubble system move laterally to fill whatever space they are occupying, as does any mass of granular material. This lateral movement is caused by contact with the other pieces. The deflection laterally may be an "acceleration" in scientific terms, but it is a loss of energy to the original downward momentum, because energy is lost in the impact and constant friction with other particles.



Care to address the other points, which are still valid despite my misunderstanding of acceleration?
Click to expand...

sure thing. Just as soon as you demonstrate the ability to use a stopwatch... any video of the collapse... you time it... and I'll time it and we can compare stundie... what do you say?

Remember on DBS when I called you out after 5 posts? Tell Pdoh he owes me $100 like the bet that you were a truther....
 
TruthersLie said:
sure thing. Just as soon as you demonstrate the ability to use a stopwatch... any video of the collapse... you time it... and I'll time it and we can compare stundie... what do you say?
Click to expand...

I don't dispute this point. Ten to 13 seconds is the generally accepted time frame. If you have issues with this, you can take it up with NIST and Bazant.

Even if it was 15 seconds, it's still an impossible collapse, at least by the explanation given.
 
And, much as I enjoy watching you puzzle as to which sockpuppet I am, I can honestly tell you, I have never posted here before. In fact, I never really read this forum before, although I was aware of its existence.

I'm sure you won't believe this, though :)
 
ergo said:
I'm a little astonished that at least one other poster caught this error before you did, because, frankly, most of you present as complete idiots. Do some of you actually understand some physical principles? You don't appear to.
Click to expand...

This coming from you is hilarious! You make (one of many we've caught) mistakes and your surprised we caught it.


Keep posting, We need the laughs.

;)
 
ergo said:
The point I was trying to make was that pieces of rubble in a rubble system move laterally to fill whatever space they are occupying, as does any mass of granular material. This lateral movement is caused by contact with the other pieces. The deflection laterally may be an "acceleration" in scientific terms, but it is a loss of energy to the original downward momentum, because energy is lost in the impact and constant friction with other particles.
Click to expand...

You did it again! How does it affect the system?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
The point I was trying to make was that pieces of rubble in a rubble system move laterally to fill whatever space they are occupying, as does any mass of granular material. ... it is a loss of energy to the original downward momentum, because energy is lost in the impact and constant friction with other particles.



Care to address the other points, which are still valid despite my misunderstanding of acceleration?
Click to expand...

You mean that are still invalid, despite your repeating them?:D

Let's just be clear - is a landslide a 'rubble system'?
Because you seem to be arguing that an increasing mass of rubble cannot accelerate and cannot destroy anything significant below it.

Again, you would be arguing that a landslide is not capable of impacting and destroying things in its path.

Is a landslide a rubble system or not? Just answer that one simple question with a yes or no.
 
Another conceptual black hole for ergo is found in this very simple theoretical example:

Suppose we were to park a typical car or SUV behind a dumptruck filled with a couple of tons of loose rock or gravel.
Then imagine we tip the load and dump it on the vehicle - will it crush the vehicle or not?

I believe ergo earlier claimed that a mass of rubble, even equal to the mass of the moon, could not crush down a skyscraper. This statement was of course so utterly stupid that it wasn't worth serious consideration - for adults, that is. I suppose if we were discussing this with a 5 year old it might be appropriate -
 
ergo said:
And, much as I enjoy watching you puzzle as to which sockpuppet I am, I can honestly tell you, I have never posted here before. In fact, I never really read this forum before, although I was aware of its existence.

I'm sure you won't believe this, though :)
Click to expand...

Well, it is true that many twoofers are terminally stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom