Certainly not. Yes, the initial model is simply the limiting case energetics based 1D model....
True.
An issue is what that initial model has been subsequently applied to in subsequent papers.
True - that was the OP question of the original pre-merger thread.
...I'm not inclined to highlight every point within the subsequent papers that overreach and step outside those original bounds, but there are plenty of direct allegories made to the actual behaviour of the actual buildings...all of which are basically taking it too far imo....
There are many of them in past history. Difficult to dig them up and re-awaken the specific debate WHILST avoiding looking like an attack on the credibility of the person who made the historical error. Hence my advice to M_T some weeks back to avoid archaeological excursions into past history.
...Am sure MT will have many additional references highlighting usage of the model beyond it's appropriate scope should you want to go into it...
The frustrating thing reading recent posts is the various 'circular' misinterpretations of "simplification" of modelling. It is one of the factors which has been used throughout this discussion to maintain the foggy thinking.
Yes it is true that models employ 'simplification'. That simplification is valid if it allows conclusions to be reached which are valid conclusions. Simplification can lead to wrong conclusions when application is taken outside the limits set by the simplification. But the core issue of both OPs in this merged thread is the validity of the simplifications used.
In simple analogy the OP was 'explain the difference between apples and pears' - the simplification arguments are equivalent to saying 'they are both fruit'. And there are several different ways that false simplification has been attempted in recent posts.
We cannot allow 'they are both fruit' as an answer if we are trying to define the differences between apples and pears.
Attempts have been made here to gloss over the difference between the real world collapse of WTC towers and the theoretical application of BV to their assumed 'generic building'. The 'generic building' assumed by BV and how it would collapse is very different to the actual collapse of WTC buildings.
The original topic was targeted at drawing the line between 'real world WTC' and 'theory world of the BV generic building'. All the discussion which attempts attempts to treat both WTC real and generic building theory as being the same thing under the cover of the umbrella of 'simplification' is simply erecting a barrier to that original OP.
...Nowt initially. The model has suffered (and I mean suffered) from gradual scope creep by being passed from pillar to post, with even the authors forgetting its roots...and therefore resulting in a whole bunch of folk out here who take their written word as gospel without also realising it's humble beginnings, and inherent limitations....
Spot on!
...So, yeah, okay with it proving that given the initial defined initiating conditions and state that there was enough energy available for propogation to ground. Limiting case energetics model....
That is where I suggested to M_T that you could regard Bazant's work as either one or two distinct models. The 'limit case' application of BZ generally accepted. BUT as we progress to the BV style application it is of fundamental importance to be clear whether we are applying to WTC real world OR to some theoretical 'generic model' with a conventional column grid arrangement. Because I continue to hold that BV does not apply to Twin Towers global collapse phase. And I will hold that view until someone persuades me that BV's mechanism of crushing columns somehow allows for the column crushing being near zero energy - what really happened - and not the largest part of the energy - what would happen with the generic model but did not happen with WTC on 9/11.
The 'limit case' of BZ assumed a model which did not actually happen at WTC on 9/11. That model was (and is?) a valid limit case because it encompasses what really happened. Interpretation of BZ as a valid 'limit case' is within the limits of the assumptions.
But BV extends into territory which goes beyond those assumptions. Hence my "one or two models" point. If we pretend that it applies to WTC then the 'crush down' 'crush up' stuff is wrong - look to the video evidence and don't even try to pretend that the difference is covered by 'simplification'. And if we say it does not apply to WTC - because it is a different model - then BV are wrong to use in in reference to WTC.
...More than that ? Hm. Very thin line. Very grey.
Arguing about model behaviours that didn't happen in the real world ? Pft.
Correct. And trying to cover two distinctly different mechanisms by stretching foggy understanding of model 'simplifications' is not the way to clarify the issue.
