Chris,
Another example of your not knowing what you are talking about is when you compare a steel column to a wood stick. You note how the wood stick breaks and imply that steel columns would break in a similar manner, proving that you do not know the difference between the physical properties of wood and steel.
Chris, seriously. Before you are digging the next hole, you should first acknowledge you realized you reached rock bottom on the previous one.
In other words, don't dodge this:
Hogwash -- yet again.
Correct (so far...but) WRONG. what other force??? When you have dug yourself into a hole the best advice is stop digging.
totally wrong. Yet again. however you have advanced one step - you have identified the system. note also that we are discussing accelerations NOT rate of descent. And IIRC ChrisMohr did not get velocity and acceleration confused.
Now please read this example from my earlier post - It allows you to consider the principles free of the WTC complications and emotive pre-commitments.
So the ball, the hand holding it and the arm it is attached to are "inside the system". You can throw the ball. (You can press on the outer walls) Both presuming that the state of your underwear and your nervous system will allow those actions. More to the point of this WTC discussion this example is an accurate analog of the explantion ChrisMohr gave in Video #18 when he corrected Chandler's error. Chandler is wrong on basic premises in most of his claims.
And your claim, C7, "everything within the system is falling at free fall acceleration and cannot cause any other part of the system to alter its rate of decent" is clearly wrong. ChrisMohr's explantions are correct (in the first order and suited to the intended lay person audience - and those disclaimers don't change the basic facts.)
Ozeco is right, and you are in fact totally wrong on just about everything, Chris.
You'd totally flunk physics 101. You'd not make it through high school without a big fat F on your grade report if you can't learn this bit of simple relativistic mechanics:
Consider a cube that's rotating as it is suspended in air (imagine you can shields it from gravity for the moment): You observe two point P and Q on it on opposite sides. Presently, P is on the side of the cube that noves down, while Q is on the other side moving up.
A second later, P has reached its lowest point and Q its highest. Another second later, P moves up, Q moves down, etc.
What's the
velocity of P relative to the direction of gravitry (vertical)? Well at first it had a positive value (positive velocity being defined as moving down), then dropped to zero, then, as it moved up, it had negative velocity.
During that half-turn, what was the acceleration? Since velocity decreased, acceleration was negative. During the next half-turn, acceleration is positive: Velocity reaches zero again coming from a negative value, and then increases to a positive value as P starts moving down again from its top position.
The opposite happens to Q: As velocity for P is positive, velocity of Q is negative, and vice versa. As acceleration of P is negative, acceleration of Q is positive, and vice versa.
Now switch on gravity and let the cube fall at freefall - with no outside forces acting on it.
Questions:
- What acceleration does he cube experience relative to the center of planet earth? (Answer: g)
- Is the cube's downward acceleration constant? (Answer: Yes)
- What acceleration does point P experience relative to the center of planet earth? (Answer: g + a, with a oscillating between a negative and a positive value)
- Is point P's acceleration constant? (Answer: no)
Now lets move away from that ideal cube, and look at a building. As it falls down, you observe a point X on its north wall near the roof, and measure its downward acceleration.
Question:
- If you observe that point X accelerates at a constant rate of approx. g for a short while, does that imply that the entire building falls at g? (Answer: No. There could be some rotation of the building, and other movements within the system)
- If you observe that point X moves at a variable acceleration, does that mean the building is also falling at a variable acceleration? (Answer: No. There could be some rotation of the building, and other movements within the system)
Chris7, do you understand any of that?
Serious question. If you don't understand why you totally flunked on the cannonballs and the rotating objects, then you prove to the world that you are totally unqualified to debate the dynamics of collapse and stay out of this debate!
