Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world

[Myriad]

You have to ask for evidence of a deceleration caused by the resistance that would naturally be provided by matter impeding other matter trying to move through it, as described by Newton's First and Third laws?

Why? You doubt Newton's laws of motion?

This is why these arguments get so dumb, when you have to go back over and over arguing first principles of science as if they've never been heard of before.

There is no first principle that says a resisting force must cause a deceleration. (If there were such a principle, then air friction and tire friction would prevent a car from ever accelerating.)

It depends on which direction the net force is acting.

Having to argue over such basic principles is indeed annoying, but at least it presents the opportunity to get them right.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[uke2se]

There is no first principle that says a resisting force must cause a deceleration. (If there were such a principle, then air friction and tire friction would prevent a car from ever accelerating.)

It depends on which direction the net force is acting.

Having to argue over such basic principles is indeed annoying, but at least it presents the opportunity to get them right.

Respectfully,
Myriad

This is why I asked ergo to demonstrate his understanding of these physical laws. It would appear he's just another twoofer full of hot air and completely incapable when it comes to science.

 

[ergo]

Like the scientists who make up NIST.

Emphasis on the words "make up"

Like the scientists who have written peer-reviewed scientific papers that support the findings of NIST (as opposed to the zero peer-reviewed scientific papers that support the twoofers).

You mean like Bazant and Zhou, or Bazant and Verdure, or Bazant and Bazant, or Bazant and Bazant on Bazant? I think you missed Krusty the Klown.

Like the hundreds of thousands of scientists who doesn't write papers criticizing the NIST findings or singing up with Gage and his lying posse.

Oh yes, all the people who don't speak up. They're on your side by default, right? Until they sign a petition, that is.

 

[cooperman]

There is no first principle that says a resisting force must cause a deceleration. (If there were such a principle, then air friction and tire friction would prevent a car from ever accelerating.)

It depends on which direction the net force is acting.

Having to argue over such basic principles is indeed annoying, but at least it presents the opportunity to get them right.

Respectfully,
Myriad

We aren't talking about tyres and friction. Can't you stay on topic?

If a portion of a building drops onto the rest then it will decelerate when it hits. Do you dispute that? Really?

 

[ergo]

Math is the language of physics. If an eight year old can understand the argument you are pushing, demonstrate it with math. Bet you can't.

I don't understand this penchant of bee dunkers who themselves couldn't do the math if their life depended on it, nevertheless demanding "the math" from other posters.

The math has already been provided numerous times, by real physicists and engineers, as you well know.

 

[tsig]

Eight-year-olds understand it, uke. Bee dunkers apparently won't.

Eight-year-olds use terms like Bee dunkers.

 

[cooperman]

Eight-year-olds use terms like Bee dunkers.

And terms like toofers?

 

[uke2se]

I don't understand this penchant of bee dunkers who themselves couldn't do the math if their life depended on it, nevertheless demanding "the math" from other posters.

The math has already been provided numerous times, by real physicists and engineers, as you well know.

Then present the math here and explain how it supports your argument.

Please note, Tony isn't a real physicist.

 

[ergo]

There is no first principle that says a resisting force must cause a deceleration.

What do resisting forces do then, Myriad?

It depends on which direction the net force is acting.

Please show how the net force from block C exceeds the resistive force of Block A without referring to Bazant. Thanks.

 

[ergo]

Please note, Tony isn't a real physicist.

No, he's an engineer. What are you?

 

[uke2se]

Emphasis on the words "make up"

At least you think you're clever.

You mean like Bazant and Zhou, or Bazant and Verdure, or Bazant and Bazant, or Bazant and Bazant on Bazant? I think you missed Krusty the Klown.

There's a list somewhere around these forums of peer-reviewed papers supporting NIST's findings. I'm too lazy to find it, but I'm sure one of my fellow bee dunkers can help me with that. Until then, I'll challenge you to present a single peer-reviewed paper from a respectable journal supporting the twoofers' argument.

Oh yes, all the people who don't speak up. They're on your side by default, right? Until they sign a petition, that is.

Science is done by challenging claims until they are considered settled. Nobody within the scientific community is challenging NIST's findings, so they are considered settled. If you have evidence that challenges NIST's findings, write them up in paper form, submit them to a respectable scientific journal and see if it gets published.

When science is done by petition, you can tell me "I told you so".

 

[uke2se]

No, he's an engineer. What are you?

I'm someone who thinks Tony is a poor engineer if he believes what he posts here.

I'm also someone who thinks Tony should submit his "hypothesis" to a respectable journal if he truly believes what he posts.

Please note, everyone, how ergo continues to dodge from my challenge to present his argument using math. It becomes increasingly obvious that he doesn't have the courage of his convictions, nor the ability to complete the challenge.

 

[ergo]

Eight-year-olds use terms like Bee dunkers.

I just get sick of typing in the irony quotes around the word "debunker". And we obviously can't use the term without the quotes, as that would imply that they actually debunk stuff. So far, I haven't seen a single debunked fact.

 

[Myriad]

We aren't talking about tyres and friction. Can't you stay on topic?

I am addressing ergo's claim regarding Newton's laws of motion and first principles of physics. My example relates to Newton's laws of motion and first principles of physics, so rest assured that it is on topic. Thank you for your concern though.

Tire friction is a force resisting forward movement of a car. A car accelerates despite that resisting force, if a larger force (provided by the motor) is pushing it forward. Now fill in the blank: matter in the lower portion of a structure resists the downward movement of a collapsing building. A collapsing building can accelerate despite that resisting force, if ___________.

The answer is, "...a larger force (provided by gravity) is pushing it downward."

If a portion of a building drops onto the rest then it will decelerate when it hits. Do you dispute that? Really?

I have no dispute with it, other than that as stated, as a universal claim, it is utterly wrong.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ergo]

There's a list somewhere around these forums of peer-reviewed papers supporting NIST's findings. I'm too lazy to find it, but I'm sure one of my fellow bee dunkers can help me with that. Until then, I'll challenge you to present a single peer-reviewed paper from a respectable journal supporting the twoofers' argument.

Right. We saw that. The spammed list of random articles that may or may not have anything to do with Bazant's crush-down theory, with most of them not discussing it at all.

 

[cooperman]

I am addressing ergo's claim regarding Newton's laws of motion and first principles of physics. My example relates to Newton's laws of motion and first principles of physics, so rest assured that it is on topic. Thank you for your concern though.

Tire friction is a force resisting forward movement of a car. A car accelerates despite that resisting force, if a larger force (provided by the motor) is pushing it forward. Now fill in the blank: matter in the lower portion of a structure resists the downward movement of a collapsing building. A collapsing building can accelerate despite that resisting force, if ___________.

The answer is, "...a larger force (provided by gravity) is pushing it downward."




I have no dispute with it, other than that as stated, as a universal claim, it is utterly wrong.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You seem to think newton only had one law. At the instant the upper portion hits the lower portion the forces will be equal and opposite and cause a deceleration.

ergo was referring specifically to impacts, so the tyre thing was irrelevant, as you well know.

Just like most of your analogies, like the NFL one. It is pure sophistry and off topic sophistry at that.

 

[uke2se]

Right. We saw that. The spammed list of random articles that may or may not have anything to do with Bazant's crush-down theory, with most of them not discussing it at all.

But I wasn't saying they supported Bazant's crush up-down theory. I said they supported NIST's findings. If you don't believe they do, feel free to point out how they don't.

Also, please demonstrate your case with math.

 

[Myriad]

What do resisting forces do then, Myriad? Please show how the net force from block C exceeds the resistive force of Block A without referring to Bazant. Thanks.

Oh, so it's not a universal physical principle following from Newton's Laws of Motion after all, that the resisting force must cause a deceleration? Do you now admit that that causing a deceleration depends on which force is greater -- that is, in this case, that the force acting on Block C in the downward direction must be less than the resistive force of Block A, for Block C to decelerate? And do you now recognize that if the downward force on Block C is greater, it will not decelerate?

If so, we've made some progress. Please indicate your agreement with the above, and I will answer your question.

 

[ergo]

But I wasn't saying they supported Bazant's crush up-down theory. I said they supported NIST's findings. If you don't believe they do, feel free to point out how they don't.

We already went through this in another thread. I did a random check of the sources listed, and found 3 or 4 of them supporting the Baznat/NIST findings. The others seemed unrelated, some of them presenting their own analyses. There was at least one listed in that spammed list that was a paper used, cited and rejected by NIST in producing the report. So how can you call that a paper in "support" of the official theory?

Whoever provided the list last time did not seem to understand the difference between scientific support versus the use of references.

 

[Myriad]

You seem to think newton only had one law. At the instant the upper portion hits the lower portion the forces will be equal and opposite and cause a deceleration.

Which forces, precisely, will be equal and opposite? When you answer that question correctly, you will see that it does not follow that it must cause a deceleration.

However, I doubt that you can answer it correctly, or would if you could. Care to surprise me?

ergo was referring specifically to impacts, so the tyre thing was irrelevant, as you well know.

Nope. You (and anyone) can read the posts, so there's no use lying about that. Ergo referred to Newton's laws of motion and basic principles of science. Newton's laws of motion or basic principles of science apply to tires, don't they?

I won't respond to the other part of your post which is itself off topic.

Respectfully,
Myriad