If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

Seymour Butz

Muse
S
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
884
FalseFlag said:
What does any of what you have written apply to similar acceleration, similar direction of net force and similar sequences of the net forces. That is what Cole was demonstrating.
Click to expand...


"Similar sequence of net forces...."

This is where the problem lies.

They are not similar and.... wait for it.... not to scale with the towers.

Therefore, while he adequately displays Newton's Laws, it is inadequate to use as any evidence of CD in the towers.

Basically, the numbers are wrong.

Maths raising its ugly head again.....

This is a continuation thread. Part I can be found here.
Posted By: kmortis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Myriad said:
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
The force of gravity between the Earth and the building are equal and opposite to each other.
Click to expand...
This statement is wrong. The force of gravity is only one of the forces involved. The normal force is the other one. If you truly understood physics, you would never have made that statement using those words. Let me explain.
Click to expand...
WilliamSeger's statement is correct.

A normal force (which is electromagnetic in origin, as with all familiar contact forces between solids) also exists and is involved in the basic scenario of a mass at rest upon the earth's surface, but that does not contradict WilliamSeger's statement that the gravitational forces between the building and the earth are equal and opposite to each other.

Your ability to provide false explanations for false claims ceases to matter at that point.
Click to expand...

That FalseFlag can claim with a straight face that "The force of gravity between the Earth and the building are NOT equal and opposite to each other" proves, beyond a shadow of any doubt, that FF is not competent to discuss physics at any level.

Thus, this ends the thread.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Tell me, FF, which of Newton’s Laws tells you the ultimate strength of steel or aluminum?
Which of Newton’s Laws tells you the toughness of a material or a structure?
Which of Newton’s Laws tells you the deformation of a structure as it is loaded?

The correct answer is: Newton’s laws tell you NONE of that.

And yet, ultimate strength, toughness & deformation are all absolutely CRITICAL to the construction of a valid model.
Click to expand...

Yes, FF's confusion over basic physics is only part of the problem. A more serious problem is that he apparently has no idea what determines whether or not a structure will fail under a given scenario. That's the thing that makes it impossible for him to understand why scale matters and why Cole's models are meaningless in the context of WTC buildings.

But let's test that: False Flag, in all of Cole's experiments, at least the first floor breaks free. Do you think I could build a model that's similar to Cole's but the first floor would arrest the falling weight without breaking free? Do you think I could build a model that's similar to Cole's but more floors would break free than they did in his experiment? I'm going to make a leap of faith that your answer is "yes" to both, and ask: What's going on here? What specifically is different in the three cases?

If you can answer that correctly, then we can talk about scale (although, if you understand the answer, we shouldn't need to).
 
From post #2354 in the other thread


Originally Posted by FalseFlag
Show me the experiment that shows connection failure brought down the buildings in exactly the same way as what we can see in the videos of the collapse.
Click to expand...

Response
It was done years ago for Benson and Greening, all you have to do is break connections, and calculate the energy values, Engineers have done thousands of experiments on connection failures, all you have to do is Google them.

There are Litterally thousands of engineering papers that show Cole is a fraud.www.citg.tudelft.nl › Afdelingen › doc

Some even written before Cole was even hatched-born, from the egg of stupidity.
Experiments, documented going back all the way to Maxwell and Newton.
Click to expand...

First, I am referring to this paper http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf It was obviously written by Bazant.

You are referring to this paper http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.pdf which apparently addresses the issues in the first paper. I have not read the second paper, so I can not comment on it.

You still have failed to perform an experiment, or show an experiment that proves Cole is wrong.
 
FalseFlag said:
You still have failed to perform an experiment, or show an experiment that proves Cole is wrong.
Click to expand...

And what have you done ?

You haven't proved Cole is right and you haven't he is wrong, all in all you have done nothing except try and tell people what to do and that they are wrong.........

Why?
 
From post #2382 in the original thread -

Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Excuse me
I want to know more about the "Normal Force". What the heck are you talking about?
It cannot be significant, compared to g, since I have (a) never heard of it, and (b) never see a calcuation using it
Click to expand...

I was using FF's term for the contact force between the building and the ground it was resting on. Because in the case under discussion the contact force is a normal force (as the building was vertical and the ground was horizontal) I didn't think the imprecision of terminology would do much harm.
Click to expand...

How is this imprecise? Please explain how my example uses incorrect terminology. It doesn't. My example keeps things simple enough for anyone to understand, so they can see what is really happening. You are trying to take things to an unnecessary level in order to confuse the issue. There is no need for this.

I said that if a building rests on the surface of the earth it will exert a force on the earth. This force is from the gravitational pull of the earth, and the most common convention is to call this the force due to gravity. At the point of contact, the earth will exert an equal and opposite force on the building. This force is called the normal force, and this terminology is absolutely the most commonly used convention. If the building is not moving downwards or accelerating downwards, the force due to gravity and the normal force are equal and opposite to each other. Do I need to specifically state that the building is resting on a flat portion of the earth? If so, why are you trying to complicate things? There is nothing wrong with my statement. Nothing.

Edited after the entire text was posted - Oh, I get it, do I need to change my statement to the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite to each other? Is that what you want me to do? If so, how does it make my original statement wrong? It doesn't. Just because you have a gravitational force and an electromagnetic force, my original statement is not wrong. You are nitpicking for no valid reason, and your nitpicking unnecessarily complicates things.

When the building is stationary with respect to the ground, the (upward) contact force of the ground upon the building balances the (downward) gravitational force of the earth upon the building.
Click to expand...

We agree. The force due to gravity is equal and opposite to the normal force, based on a macro model and the most commonly used terminology.

But that does not make those two different forces
Click to expand...

Why are you doing this? To keep things simple, we are looking at things on a macro level. That is all that is necessary to understand Newton's laws of motion.

Instead, you want to unnecessarily complicate things in a futile attempt to prove that I am wrong. This tactic, in the simplest terms possible, is lame.

You accuse me of being wrong because I don't take into account the microscopic nature of the forces involved. This does not make me wrong. It means I am trying to make the example easy to understand.

What you are doing is saying that the normal force, a contact force, is not gravitational. Your conclusion is that because the normal force is not gravitational, at a microscopic scale, the forces are therefore not equal and opposite. This is utter nonsense, and you are making things much more difficult than they need to be.

Watch this video.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science...ontact-force/v/normal-force-and-contact-force

The video clearly explains the force due to gravity and the normal force. He could have stopped there and been correct. Then, solely for the purpose of explaining things fully, he discusses things at a microscopic level and talks about electromagnetic forces, which are causing the atoms to repel each other.

His model is correct at the macro level. When he discusses things at a microscopic level, his macro model is still correct. He simply takes things to a level he doesn't need to.

How does unnecessarily taking things to a microscopic level prove I'm wrong? It doesn't.

How does your statement, "The contact forces are not gravitational forces, as they are electromagnetic in nature and act in the opposite direction to gravitation, holding the objects apart instead of drawing them together" prove I'm wrong?

Gravity is drawing the atoms towards each other. The electromagnetic repulsion of the electrons in the atoms is causing them to stay apart. I think you are assuming that these forces can not be equal and opposite because they are not the same type. If so, this assumption is wrong.

Gravity is a force. Electromagnetism is a force. The magnitude of and direction of the forces due to gravity and due to electromagnetism can be equal and opposite to each other.
Watch this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt6MiLxeDv0

Once again, I have proven that I am not wrong. You have proven that you are unnecessarily trying to complicate things, and because I won't do this, you claim I am wrong. Why do you do this?

Everything I posted is correct. There are no statements that are wrong. Will you finally admit this?
 
Last edited:
DaveThomasNMSR said:
"The force of gravity between the Earth and the building are NOT equal and opposite to each other"
Thus, this ends the thread.
Click to expand...

No, it does not prove I am incompetent. It actually proves you are.

Let's dissect his sentence.

"The force of gravity"

How many forces are mentioned? One.

"The force of gravity between the earth and the building"

Is there a force between two objects, or does one object exert a force on another? What is the most correct way to state this? If a person actually knew what they were talking about, wouldn't they state a claim using proper terminology?

"are"

This is plural. How many forces have been mentioned. One.

"equal and opposite to each other"

Only one force was mentioned. What force is gravity equal and opposite to?

Now, do you want to keep claiming I am wrong, or are you going to stop your nonsense and admit that I am right? You are the ones hurting your credibility, not me.
 
Seymour Butz said:
"Similar sequence of net forces...."

This is where the problem lies.

They are not similar and.... wait for it.... not to scale with the towers.
Click to expand...

How? Please explain how the direction of net forces and similar sequences of net forces are dependent on scale. Please provide a link to a credible source that supports your opinion.

Therefore, while he adequately displays Newton's Laws, it is inadequate to use as any evidence of CD in the towers.
Click to expand...

Really? You finally admit he "adequately displays Newton's laws". It only took 2000+ posts for a skeptic to finally confirm this.

If Cole "adequately displays Newton's laws", according to your own statement, and one of the ways to "adequately display Newton's laws" was to remove the support columns with firecrackers, how on earth can you make the statement that this is not evidence of CD?

The only way Cole replicated the observed motion during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was to remove the support columns with firecrackers. No other experiment replicated the observed motion. How can anyone possibly claim that this does not support the theory of CD?
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
How? Please explain how the direction of net forces and similar sequences of net forces are dependent on scale. Please provide a link to a credible source that supports your opinion.



Really? You finally admit he "adequately displays Newton's laws". It only took 2000+ posts for a skeptic to finally confirm this.

If Cole "adequately displays Newton's laws", according to your own statement, and one of the ways to "adequately display Newton's laws" was to remove the support columns with firecrackers, how on earth can you make the statement that this is not evidence of CD?

The only way Cole replicated the observed motion during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was to remove the support columns with firecrackers. No other experiment replicated the observed motion. How can anyone possibly claim that this does not support the theory of CD?
Click to expand...
They are Newton's Laws of Motion [\b] and are not applicable to the static case, for starters. (Definition: Static- not moving relative to other bodies in the immediate vicinity or in contact )
 
rwguinn said:
They are Newton's Laws of Motion [\b] and are not applicable to the static case, for starters. (Definition: Static- not moving relative to other bodies in the immediate vicinity or in contact )
Click to expand...

You're kidding me right? What is Newton's first law of motion? Here, let me help you. It starts with, "an object at rest will stay at rest."

A definition of "static" is "lacking in movement, action, or change". An object at rest is static.

Now, how do Newton's laws not apply to the "static case"?
 
Last edited:
Also, Cole's experiment does not demonstrate or confirm Newton's second or third laws in any way. It behaves (as does everything we observe in ordinary manipulation of objects) in a way that at a casual glance appears consistent with Newton's laws, but that does nothing to confirm them. The action and reaction forces occurring during the experiment are not measured, so how can the experiment confirm that they are equal or opposite? The forces, masses, and accelerations are not measured, so how can the experiment confirm that the observed accelerations are proportional to the acting forces and inversely proportional to the masses they're acting on?
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
No, it does not prove I am incompetent. It actually proves you are.

Let's dissect his sentence.

"The force of gravity"

How many forces are mentioned? One.

"The force of gravity between the earth and the building"

Is there a force between two objects, or does one object exert a force on another? What is the most correct way to state this? If a person actually knew what they were talking about, wouldn't they state a claim using proper terminology?

"are"

This is plural. How many forces have been mentioned. One.

"equal and opposite to each other"

Only one force was mentioned. What force is gravity equal and opposite to?

Now, do you want to keep claiming I am wrong, or are you going to stop your nonsense and admit that I am right? You are the ones hurting your credibility, not me.
Click to expand...

Your comprehension being limited, allow me to spell it out for you.

The gravitational force exerted by the earth upon the building is equal to the gravitational force exerted by the building upon the earth.
That you cannot grasp this simple concept proves you are incompetent at physics.

Apparently, your pride that won't allow you to admit that obvious fact.
 
FalseFlag said:
Everything I posted is correct. There are no statements that are wrong. Will you finally admit this?
Click to expand...


The post I was responding to was wrong, because it called another poster's statement incorrect when it was actually correct.

When you "simplify" things to the point where you're declaring two different forces, one gravitational and one electromagnetic, to be reaction forces of one another and therefore necessarily equal and opposite under Newton's third law, you've become wrong. You've done that consistently and as a result you've been wrong every time.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Your comprehension being limited, allow me to spell it out for you.

The gravitational force exerted by the earth upon the building is equal to the gravitational force exerted by the building upon the earth.
That you cannot grasp this simple concept proves you are incompetent at physics.

Apparently, your pride that won't allow you to admit that obvious fact.
Click to expand...

No. I have made this statement many times previously. I have made it too many times to count.

I pointed out what I had an issue with, and you ignored it.

You are the one who lacks competence if you can't see this.
 
FalseFlag said:
You're kidding me right? What is Newton's first law of motion? Here, let me help you. It starts with, "an object at rest will stay at rest."

A definition of "static" is "lacking in movement, action, or change". An object at rest is static.

Now, how do Newton's laws not apply to the "static case"?
Click to expand...
And you left out the rest of the law
.
"unless acted upon by an outside force". Cherry-picked quotes again. What outside force.did you have in mind..
 
Myriad said:
The post I was responding to was wrong, because it called another poster's statement incorrect when it was actually correct.
Click to expand...
What?

When you "simplify" things to the point where you're declaring two different forces, one gravitational and one electromagnetic, to be reaction forces of one another and therefore necessarily equal and opposite under Newton's third law, you've become wrong. You've done that consistently and as a result you've been wrong every time.
Click to expand...

How are these sites wrong when they discuss the force due to gravity and the normal force?

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-2/Types-of-Forces

https://www.khanacademy.org/science...ontact-force/v/normal-force-and-contact-force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_force

http://regentsprep.org/regents/physics/phys01/friction/normal.htm

http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-normal-force-definition-and-examples.html

http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/dynamics/newtonapplications/section1.rhtml

http://physics.info/newton-first/

In order for your statement to be true, each and every one of these credible sources must be wrong.

What is the most likely scenario? Are you wrong, or is every credible source wrong? I know the answer to this, do you?

If I have used the exact same terminology to describe the exact things the credible sources are describing, how am I wrong? The fact that you want me to be wrong is not a valid reason.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
And you left out the rest of the law
.
"unless acted upon by an outside force". Cherry-picked quotes again. What outside force.did you have in mind..
Click to expand...

There is a difference between relevant and cherry-picking. If you obviously don't understand the first part of Newton's post, what on earth would make anyone think you could understand the rest?
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Your comprehension being limited, allow me to spell it out for you.

The gravitational force exerted by the earth upon the building is equal to the gravitational force exerted by the building upon the earth.
That you cannot grasp this simple concept proves you are incompetent at physics.

Apparently, your pride that won't allow you to admit that obvious fact.
Click to expand...

If forces are not balanced in both directions then sumthin gots ta be movin'

The WTC towers stayed at the exact same location on this planet's surface for quite some time. Pretty sure it wasn't significantly sinking into the Earth or rising above it. Therefore, QED, forces were balanced, therefore downward force of gravity equalled the force from the foundation , and that kept the structure from moving in the vertical.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
No. I have made this statement many times previously. I have made it too many times to count.

I pointed out what I had an issue with, and you ignored it.

You are the one who lacks competence if you can't see this.
Click to expand...
We're in deep ****, guys. Weve been found out, and now every bridge and construct is coming to fall down immediately, if not sooner, because we've been doing it wrong for eons!
Every airplane, satellite, and planet will crash, and the wheels are really going to fall off.
 
rwguinn said:
We're in deep ****, guys. Weve been found out, and now every bridge and construct is coming to fall down immediately, if not sooner, because we've been doing it wrong for eons!
Every airplane, satellite, and planet will crash, and the wheels are really going to fall off.
Click to expand...

You post this and expect people to take you seriously?
 
FalseFlag said:
............In order for your statement to be true, each and every one of these credible sources must be wrong..............
Click to expand...


No, no, no, no. FFS NO.

The sources are right. Myriad is right. It is your interpretation and understanding which is at fault, as it has been from your very first post.
 
FalseFlag said:
What?
Click to expand...


I said, "The post I was responding to was wrong, because it called another poster's statement incorrect when it was actually correct."

How are these sites wrong when they discuss the force due to gravity and the normal force?

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-2/Types-of-Forces

https://www.khanacademy.org/science...ontact-force/v/normal-force-and-contact-force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_force

http://regentsprep.org/regents/physics/phys01/friction/normal.htm

http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-normal-force-definition-and-examples.html

http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/dynamics/newtonapplications/section1.rhtml

http://physics.info/newton-first/

In order for your statement to be true, each and every one of these credible sources must be wrong.

What is the most likely scenario? Are you wrong, or is every credible source wrong? I know the answer to this, do you?

If I have used the exact same terminology to describe the exact things the credible sources are describing, how am I wrong? The fact that you want me to be wrong is not a valid reason.
Click to expand...


They are right. You are wrong. You are wrong because you confuse different forces that are balanced in some particular scenario (such as the force of gravity acting on an object at rest upon a surface, and the contact force with the surface also acting upon the same object to hold it up) with the reaction forces addressed by Newton's Third Law.

This error has repeatedly led you to ridiculous conclusions, such as that Newton's Laws require a falling object to necessarily decelerate if it strikes and crushes a stationary object along the way.
 
While there is a normal force in electromagnetics, it has reference in forces on a mass. Two different items.
"Normal" simply means " perpendicular. In this case perpendicular to the surface an object lies on. In this case since the angle between object, the tower, and surface, Manhattan, is π/2 and cos(π/2)=1, the "Normal force" is equal and opposite to the supplied force due to gravity.

This has absolutely #### to do with whether or not a structure can or cannot come apart and collapse.
 
Myriad said:
Also, Cole's experiment does not demonstrate or confirm Newton's second or third laws in any way.
Click to expand...

Your statement can't be true. The laws of physics are always being applied no matter what we do. Any experiment whatsoever is going to conform to the laws of physics. It is impossible to do any experiment that does not conform to these laws.

Cole's experiments are about similar accelerations, similar directions of net force and similar sequences of net forces. The laws of physics are seen no matter what he is demonstrating. The fact that he is not specifically mentioning Newton's second or third laws is irrelevant.

It behaves (as does everything we observe in ordinary manipulation of objects) in a way that at a casual glance appears consistent with Newton's laws, but that does nothing to confirm them.
Click to expand...
What? It is impossible for objects to behave contrary to the laws of physics. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

The action and reaction forces occurring during the experiment are not measured, so how can the experiment confirm that they are equal or opposite? The forces, masses, and accelerations are not measured, so how can the experiment confirm that the observed accelerations are proportional to the acting forces and inversely proportional to the masses they're acting on?
Click to expand...

Your questions are irrelevant to Cole's experiments. I have already stated what he was trying to replicate.
 
Myriad said:
They are right. You are wrong. You are wrong because you confuse different forces that are balanced in some particular scenario (such as the force of gravity acting on an object at rest upon a surface, and the contact force with the surface also acting upon the same object to hold it up) with the reaction forces addressed by Newton's Third Law.
Click to expand...

How am I wrong. Please pick any one of my statements regarding the normal force discussion and prove I'm wrong. Please make sure you provide a link to a credible source that shows my statement is wrong.

This error has repeatedly led you to ridiculous conclusions, such as that Newton's Laws require a falling object to necessarily decelerate if it strikes and crushes a stationary object along the way.
Click to expand...

My conclusion is ridiculous? Wow. If an object is accelerating downwards and it impacts another object, Newton's third law tells us what will happen. The accelerating object will exert a force on the object it strikes. The object it strikes will exert an equal and opposite force on the accelerating object. If the accelerating object encounters a force in the opposite direction, what must happen? It will decelerate at the instant of impact. Are you really going to try to tell me that I am wrong, or that this is not true?
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Stupid comment. Stupid, ignorant comment.
Click to expand...
I can say the same thing about thousands of comments made by skeptics. Please show me how my statement is stupid or ignorant by providing a link to a credible source that proves your claim is correct.
 
FalseFlag said:
Your statement can't be true. The laws of physics are always being applied no matter what we do. Any experiment whatsoever is going to conform to the laws of physics. It is impossible to do any experiment that does not conform to these laws.
Click to expand...
Good thing Myriad didn't say that then.

Cole's experiments.......babble
Click to expand...

Drop a brick on a sheet of rice paper being held perpendicular to the direction of travel. Brick passes through paper.
Brick will experience a slight lessening of its acceleration BUT acceleration will never be zero.

Right?
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Drop a brick on a sheet of paper being held perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Brick will experience a slight lessening of its acceleration BUT acceleration will never be zero.

Right?
Click to expand...

At the instant of impact the brick will experience a change in acceleration. Newton's third law says this will happen, and we know Newton's third law is true based on numerous observations and experiments.

Your claim that the acceleration after impact will never be zero is not correct. There are scenarios where the paper could stop the brick. It depends on what type of paper is used, and the force exerted by the brick on the paper.

You changed your example to rice paper. If the force exerted by the brick is great enough, the paper might not stop the brick. The acceleration will still change at the instant of the impact.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
No, no, no, no. FFS NO.

The sources are right. Myriad is right. It is your interpretation and understanding which is at fault, as it has been from your very first post.
Click to expand...

LOL. Your frustration due to constantly being bombarded by truth is beginning to show. Good. Let the truth keep getting under your skin.
 
Try this for size, FF.

I don't know exactly what the storey height was in the WTC buildings, but it doesn't much matter. Let's say it was 3.5 metres. When the first floor to collapse had travelled 3.4 metres downwards, what was the maths governing its force? Let's keep it simple. It was F= MA, and A was positive and non-zero. OK, with me?

The floor below it, at the same time, had a force of what? Given that its mass was the same as the one that was just about to crash into it, we don't have to know what it was and can just leave it as M. So, what force is relevant to that floor? The answer is again F=MA, where M is the same as the floor above. So the difference is the value of A. Please tell me you understand that as a static object, it has 0 acceleration, so A = zero.

So, we have one floor (the moving one) with a positive non-zero value of F, and another floor (the static one), with a force F=MA of zero (because M x 0 is zero). Why would you argue that the lower floor suddenly changes at the instant of contact to have an equal and opposite force to something that lands on it? Where does that vertical (upward) acceleration come from that would be necessary for your theory to work? 'cause you can stuff about with F=MA to your heart's content, but you can't make the two forces equal.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
This has absolutely #### to do with whether or not a structure can or cannot come apart and collapse.
Click to expand...
Really?

If a structure comes apart and collapses, what causes it? Forces. Forces cause the collapse. Don't you think you need to understand the nature of forces if you want to understand why and how a structure can collapse?
 
FalseFlag said:
Your statement can't be true. The laws of physics are always being applied no matter what we do. Any experiment whatsoever is going to conform to the laws of physics. It is impossible to do any experiment that does not conform to these laws.
Click to expand...


The second and third laws specify equalities. The experiment cannot confirm them because no quantities were measured, so there is no way to determine whether or not they were equal in this case.

Of course, as you just said, you can just assume that they were, because as far as we know every such experiment must conform to those laws. But then you're falsely claiming that the experiment is demonstrating something (the accuracy and applicability of Newton's laws) when actually you've just assumed it.

Cole's experiments are about similar accelerations, similar directions of net force and similar sequences of net forces.
Click to expand...


Similar to what?

How about the magnitudes of the various forces; are those similar too? Because according to Newton's Second Law, the magnitudes of forces matter.

A concrete block a meter on a side dropped from 1000 feet up feet landing on a teacup, and pencil dropped from two feet up landing on a carpet, are "similar accelerations, similar directions of net force, and similar sequences of net forces." Would you expect the results to be the same?
 
FalseFlag said:
LOL. Your frustration due to constantly being bombarded by truth is beginning to show. Good. Let the truth keep getting under your skin.
Click to expand...

If by truth you mean idiocy, then yes, we agree.
 
FalseFlag said:
My conclusion is ridiculous? Wow. If an object is accelerating downwards and it impacts another object, Newton's third law tells us what will happen. The accelerating object will exert a force on the object it strikes. The object it strikes will exert an equal and opposite force on the accelerating object. If the accelerating object encounters a force in the opposite direction, what must happen? It will decelerate at the instant of impact. Are you really going to try to tell me that I am wrong, or that this is not true?
Click to expand...


Yep. Same mistake again, same wrong conclusion again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom