Split Thread Was global collapse of WTC inevitable?

[ergo]

You're lecturing us on the properties of solids and particulates and you don't even know how to calculate their potential energy, even though I've already told you how in this thread?

Must have missed it. There's been a lot of derailment--a fact which I've reported but nothing's been done about it. I guess there's a double standard here.

Where did you show me? Thanks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But I'm shocked that you don't already know. You've been telling us all these things about the energy available from solids and from particulates, and now you're saying that you haven't the faintest idea how to calculate either unless I tell you. How could this possibly be, assuming you're not a bare-faced liar?

Dave

 

[ergo]

But I'm shocked that you don't already know. You've been telling us all these things about the energy available from solids and from particulates, and now you're saying that you haven't the faintest idea how to calculate either unless I tell you. How could this possibly be, assuming you're not a bare-faced liar?

It doesn't take a calculation to determine whether a 1kg solid object will be able to do more damage or have more impact than 1kg of loose particulate matter dropped from the same height. This is common-sense, idiot-level physics.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It doesn't take a calculation to determine whether a 1kg solid object will be able to do more damage or have more impact than 1kg of loose particulate matter dropped from the same height. This is common-sense, idiot-level physics.

Let's get this straight: you don't know how to work out a potential energy, but you can lecture us all on your superior knowledge of physics, even though you have to ask me about the basics? How does that work, exactly?

Dave

 

[beachnut]

It doesn't take a calculation to determine whether a 1kg solid object will be able to do more damage or have more impact than 1kg of loose particulate matter dropped from the same height. This is common-sense, idiot-level physics.

You don't do physics, how would you know; it is a fact you and physics never had a relationship of understanding. You proved this fact here at JREF.
Stand by for shotgun physics, in, 5, 4, 3, ...

You have no clue what physics is, give up and go back to school to get a clue.

 

[ergo]

Let's get this straight: you don't know how to work out a potential energy, but you can lecture us all on your superior knowledge of physics, even though you have to ask me about the basics? How does that work, exactly?

I'm not lecturing you, nor will I keep repeating myself for your benefit. I am simply pointing out what can be easily and obviously tested in the comfort of your own home. I do not know the equation for determining potential gravitational energy of loose particulate matter. Nor have you provided it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It doesn't take a calculation to determine whether a 1kg solid object will be able to do more damage or have more impact than 1kg of loose particulate matter dropped from the same height. This is common-sense, idiot-level physics.

Let's get this straight: you don't know how to work out a potential energy, but you can lecture us all on your superior knowledge of physics, even though you have to ask me about the basics? How does that work, exactly?

As I understand ergo's argument, he isn't claiming superior knowledge of physics at the level of a research scientist or a PhD student or an undergraduate or a high-school student. He's claiming expertise in common-sense, home-schooled, autodidactic, idiot-level physics:

I'm not lecturing you, nor will I keep repeating myself for your benefit. I am simply pointing out what can be easily and obviously tested in the comfort of your own home. I do not know the equation for determining potential gravitational energy of loose particulate matter. Nor have you provided it.

By the way: Dave Rogers has already provided you with the high-school/college/PhD/research-level equation for determining the gravitational potential energy of loose particulate matter.

Neither he nor I have formal academic training in idiot-level physics, so we wouldn't know the corresponding equation for that level. I'd guess, however, that idiot-level physics doesn't have much to do with equations.

 

[tsig]

I'm not lecturing you, nor will I keep repeating myself for your benefit. I am simply pointing out what can be easily and obviously tested in the comfort of your own home. I do not know the equation for determining potential gravitational energy of loose particulate matter. Nor have you provided it.

http://www.vias.org/physics/bk2_03_03b.html

 

[ergo]

Well, since the bee dunkers here know how to calculate the gravitational potential energy of loose particulate matter and compare it to that of a solid object, please go ahead and do so. Show us that there is no difference between the two.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Well, since the bee dunkers here know how to calculate the gravitational potential energy of loose particulate matter and compare it to that of a solid object, please go ahead and do so. Show us that there is no difference between the two.

I'll just go along with your thoughts and assume the first time I go skiing in the midwest sometime in the future and encounter an avalanche I can feel safe knowing it's not a solid mass of ice block and is therefore absolutely harmless. It obviously lacks the gravitational potential energy to kill me.

Those snow loads we always design buildings for in the north... what a waste of money!!! Snow isn't a solid object!!

 

[ergo]

There's skiing in the midwest?

 

[Furcifer]

Idiot level physics, Graduate level denial.

You've made up your own physics based on "common sense".

Tell us again how "particulates" don't have the same kinetic or potential energy of a solid. I need to start rewriting the text books.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Be careful, ergo is changing terms. This statement is incorrect:

They apparently see no difference in an object's ability to do work whether it's intact or fragmented.

This statement is correct:

It doesn't take a calculation to determine whether a 1kg solid object will be able to do more damage or have more impact than 1kg of loose particulate matter dropped from the same height.

Which is, of course, one of the problems with arguing with ergo. He'll change which terms he's using. I'm honestly not sure whether it's out of ignorance of their definitions and assuming they're the same and outright deceit. We've seen evidence of both so far.

 

[GlennB]

Well, since the bee dunkers here know how to calculate the gravitational potential energy of loose particulate matter and compare it to that of a solid object, please go ahead and do so. Show us that there is no difference between the two.

are you serious?

 

[1337m4n]

Well, since the bee dunkers here know how to calculate the gravitational potential energy of loose particulate matter and compare it to that of a solid object, please go ahead and do so. Show us that there is no difference between the two.

Alright, I will.

GPE of a 10 kg block of solid iron at 10 meters = 10 x 9.8 x 10 = 980 J

GPE of 10 kg of loose sand (divided into 1000 grains of .01 kg each) at 10 meters = 1000 x .01 x 9.8 x 10 = 980 J

HOLY CRAP THEY'RE THE SAME!!! WHAT WIZARDRY IS THIS???

 

[ergo]

Be careful, ergo is changing terms. This statement is incorrect:

This statement is correct:

So, the ability to do work is different from the ability to do damage? I suppose you could say that's true, but not really important to what we're discussing.

But I'll let you explain: what is the distinction you're making, and how is it relevant?

 

[1337m4n]

Hey ergo, which weighs more: a pound of wet sand, or a pound of dry sand?

 

[1337m4n]

I do not know the equation for determining potential gravitational energy of loose particulate matter. Nor have you provided it.

GPE = Mass x Gravitational Pull x Height

That's the equation for determining potential gravitational energy of loose particulate matter.

Want to know the equation for determining potential gravitational energy of a single solid mass?

GPE = Mass x Gravitational Pull x Height

I'll give you $100 if you can spot the difference between those two equations.

 

[ergo]

Fair enough. Now, what happens when you drop both masses?

 

[Furcifer]

But I'll let you explain: what is the distinction you're making, and how is it relevant?

Translation- "I don't know, I just know it's wrong becuase of commonsense. My commonsense is way better than a Ph.D or years of experience"

This is entertaining.