• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Open Letter to Dave Thomas

Lunch is too complicated Horatius. I mean what did he have for lunch and so on.
Why not convert it to the guy climbs to the top of the free-falling elevator and jumps to the floor causing it to exceed g ?



The sad part is, you're actually coming close to some classic physics questions used to stump undergrads, but you haven't the education or skills to appreciate the complexities of the questions, or their solutions.
 
Why not convert it to the guy climbs to the top of the free-falling elevator and jumps to the floor causing it to exceed g ?

Now you have to put on your thinking cap. Did he push against the top of the elevator? If he didn't his "jump" would be worthless.

" The secret to non-powered human flight is to throw yourself at the ground and miss"


:D
 
The sad part is, you're actually coming close to some classic physics questions used to stump undergrads, but you haven't the education or skills to appreciate the complexities of the questions, or their solutions.

What about your skills then ? Did you know that our fly can stop a freight train ?
If you don't believe it then consider this:-

A freight train is travelling North at 100 mph on a track. It is met head-on by our fly flying due South at 2 mph on the same track.

Obviously the train will reverse the fly's direction right ? But in the transition from forwards to backwards there must be a point at which our fly is stationary. It's self-evident that you can't go from forwards to backwards without a stop in the middle.

But if the fly is stopped, then so is the train.


Explanations on a postcard..
 
Now you have to put on your thinking cap. Did he push against the top of the elevator? If he didn't his "jump" would be worthless.

" The secret to non-powered human flight is to throw yourself at the ground and miss"


:D
If he kicks off the roof he provides resistance to the free fall of the elevator.
 
PS. Or maybe the fly flying at two miles an hour in the car racing along at 90 mph flies into the windscreen presumably pushing the car along just that little bit faster than 90 mph ?
Yes it would in that brief moment of time - but No in the overall 1 or 2 seconds of the manoeuvre - there is no net gain.

The acceleration of the fly towards the windscreen - ma - exerted a force - F - on the air body inside the car which slowed the car. If no losses that slow down would equal the forward impetus imparted by the strike on the windscreen. But there would be losses. In hitting the windscreen some of the loss would become heat tending to cook the fly....

How does a child in a swing increase the arc of swing without contact with the ground or fixed parts of the swing support?
 
Yes it would in that brief moment of time - but No in the overall 1 or 2 seconds of the manoeuvre - there is no net gain.

The acceleration of the fly towards the windscreen - ma - exerted a force - F - on the air body inside the car which slowed the car. If no losses that slow down would equal the forward impetus imparted by the strike on the windscreen. But there would be losses. In hitting the windscreen some of the loss would become heat tending to cook the fly....

How does a child in a swing increase the arc of swing without contact with the ground or fixed parts of the swing support?

To increase the arc the child on the swing seat alternately throws it's weight forward and back against the ropes of the swing which are attached directly to the swing supports. If the ropes were not fixed the arc could not be increased,
 
Last edited:
And there we all were waiting for your superior intellect and education to explain this physics problem. Didn't you say that you have a physics degree ?



It would be trivial to explain why you're wrong in this case, but it would be absolutely freaking HI-larious to see you try to explain why you're right.
 
To increase the arc the child on the swing seat alternately throws it's weight forward and back against the ropes of the swing which are attached directly to the swing supports. If the ropes were not fixed the arc could not be increased,
All truisms Bill but "forward and back against the ropes" is not what does it. ;)
 
This ones easy.

Cats are not originally from this world so they don't have to obey the laws of physics. Have you seen one jump a fence? Gravity? Who cares? In fact a cat does whatever it freaking pleases.





:p
Now is the time for kitten pictures....

TAM:D
 
If it fell faster than g for a period of time presumably some item that was itself travelling faster than g impelled the rest downwards faster than g. What was that item and what caused it it to exceed g in the first place ?


Please don't assume that I am unaware of the fact that you aren't the slightest bit interested in an answer. You've had items as simple as 1+1=2 explained to you repeatedly, only to have you intentionally ignore the information.

This will be no different, I'm sure.

You (& cmatrix) do not grasp the difference between velocity & acceleration. Oh, I know that you think you understand the difference, but then you both make dumb statements like this comment of yours above (and your brain-dead "train vs. fly" comment) which prove that you don't.

Whenever you see the expression "faster than g", you (well, an intelligent person) immediately should know that the person is taking about an acceleration, not a velocity. Because one can only numerically compare an acceleration with another acceleration. Or compare a velocity with another velocity.

One object falling at g acceleration can overtake & crash into another object falling at g if the first object simply started falling earlier. By falling earlier (i.e., falling longer), the first object has built up greater velocity. And it will have a greater velocity at all times than the object that started falling later. (ignoring drag & terminal velocity).

Therefore an object that started falling sooner can easily overtake another object that started faling later, even tho both objects are falling at the same acceleration.

Guess what? The interior of WTC7 started falling sooner than the exterior north wall.
 
Last edited:
Parts that we've all been trying to get you to admit emboldened. The point, of course, is that "within a fraction of a second" is not "simultaneous", and allows the column failures to be related by a chain of causality rather than a single external cause. And that's the strawman argument you've been presenting: that the 2.25 second drop cannot be explained by a sequential failure of columns, when in fact it can, and has been. And, once the failure is seen to be sequential, it's obvious that it could be caused by progressive failure, and didn't have to be demolition.

Dave

All 58 perimeter columns had to be cut precisely so that the building would fall straight down. Some of the columns in the middle could be cut a fraction of a second from the others but the rest had to be cut so close together that the time difference couldn't even be measured. It is impossible for fire to be so meticulously precise. A "chain of causality" requires gravitational potential energy which you don't have in free fall. Your theory is extraordinarily ridiculous and therefore requires extraordinary proof. A true skeptic would know that. You have absolutely no proof to support your theory whatsoever. All you have is faith. Faith-based theories are crackpot pseudo-science. This is something you all need to come to terms with.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom