MT,
may I pick one of your questions to show the methodological problems I have with you?
...
6) Or how about this from BL:
"Blocks C and A can, of course, deform. Yet, contrary to
the discusser’s claim, they may be treated in calculations as
rigid because their elastic deformations are about 1,000 times
smaller than the deformations at the crushing front."
This is how Dr Bazant justifies the survival of the upper block until reaching earth in BL
Do you honestly believe this claim? (Do you hallucinate upper blocks, too)?
...
Why are you asking for a belief? How would an answer further our quest to find the best answers to the ultimate questions at hand?
BL contains the assumptions, the formulas and the math to show that the upper block would indeed stand a very good chance of staying largely assembled until crush-down is done.
I know way too little about structural engineering to fully assess B&L's assumptions, formulas and math.
I do understand however that the discussion that Bazant replied to was done very incompetently by an amateur.
It doesn't matter if tfk, WDC, I or you
believe Bazant or not. What it takes is for you to show that
- the assumptions aren't well conceived,
- the formulas are wrong or n/a,
- or the math is faulty
To answer the question "Do you honestly believe this claim?" my tentative answer is:
Yes, I do believe BL's claims. Why? Because I have seen no competent argument against it, and I am too much of an amateur to argue with experts on the matter.
If you say you don't believe them, I won't follow you, because I do not know that you are an eminent expert. In fact I already know that you suck at math and geometry and are very stubborn when it comes to correcting your own mistakes.
Maybe B&L also suck at math and are stubborn - I don't know. So from everything I know, I have reason to distrust you, and no reason to distrust them.
Yes, this is an argument from authority, but not from
false authority.
sooo...
