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.
Let's get this out of the way first: If you're going to be insulting, I'm going to report you.
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.
Lateral movement is caused by contact with other pieces.
Does this change the downward momentum?
Changing downward momentum requires and upward component force. You are not going to see a net change in downward momentum unless something external exerts a force upwards. In this case, the lower section.
So you still have force acting on the lower section of the tower. You have not avoided that issue.
Care to address the other points, which are still valid despite my misunderstanding of acceleration?
*sigh*
Many of your other points are irrelevant side-tracks.
You claimed that rubble does not act the same as a solid object of the same mass.
This is wrong, as I have shown.
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.
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.
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.
That depends on what area they impact over.
The force of impact will be the same, but with pieces, it might be more dispersed.
In the Twin Towers, the falling mass had roughly the same footprint as the floors it hit.
I re-iterate: this is irrelevant to your claim that a system of particles does not have the same momentum as a solid object of equal mass and equal net velocity.
ergo said:
X said:
If you truly believe that the mass changes with form, you are beyond anyones help.
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.
How has mass been lost?
If you mean the material that fell over the sides, then provide an estimate for how much of the total falling mass it represented.
And then prove that the remaining mass was reduced to a point that posed no threat to the structure below.
Again, this is a side-track. If you choose to do the physics homework involved, hooray for you.
If all you are going to do is try to divert onto this side-track, I am going to keep dragging back your claim that a system of particles does not have the same momentum as a solid object of equal mass and equal net velocity, and showing it to be wrong.
So please try and stay on-track. After you get that issue settled, you can start on the next.
But I'm not going to go hopscotching around dozens of issues just so you can avoid being stuck to any one topic.
