GStan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,350
You've already made that painfully obvious to everyone here who does understand it, but thanks for the additional clarification.
10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II
- Thread starter GStan
- Start date
You've already made that painfully obvious to everyone here who does understand it, but thanks for the additional clarification.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
On the other hand, I'm perfectly sure that you have no idea what you mean.
If one makes repeated measurements of the same value, the results of these measurements will not be identical. They will differ by varying amounts, forming a distribution of values with a width equal to the measurement error. If, therefore, the measurement error is known to be ±0.3, then a single measurement with a value of 2.3 may result from a real value anywhere between 2.0 and 2.6, and a single measurement with a value of 2.1 may result from a real value anywhere between 1.8 and 2.4. We therefore know that the Richter scale values of the two collapses were respectively (a) between 1.8 and 2.4, and (b) between 2.0 and 2.6, which means that we cannot state that they are different; both may lie between 2.0 and 2.4 and share the same actual value.
I should charge for this tuition.
Dave
Last edited:
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
There was a huge gash in the building as the final report shows. At the time people thought it was a factor in the collapse. Now the report states that it was not, people have revised their thoughts on it.
Sunder did not lie. He stated there was a gash and he approximated its size.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
"The measuring cup has an expected error of at least 0.25 cups."
At which point, I'd buy a better measuring cup.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
You have to take into account the entire duration of the quake, not just the peak on the richter scale, if you want to measure the energy released.
Take your cup of sugar, and pour it on a scale over a period of 5 seconds. Then do it again over a period of 4 seconds. Do you think the scale will see the same maximum reading in both cases?
The buildings both began collapsing at different heights, with different size upper sections. They didn't hit the ground the same way, so they shouldn't have identical seismic signatures.
Take your cup of sugar, and pour it on a scale over a period of 5 seconds. Then do it again over a period of 4 seconds. Do you think the scale will see the same maximum reading in both cases?
The buildings both began collapsing at different heights, with different size upper sections. They didn't hit the ground the same way, so they shouldn't have identical seismic signatures.
I have to say, I am very surprised that anybody is trying to follow up with this guy, after the above.
Honestly, ask yourself -- what was missing from my post? What did I get wrong, do wrong, fail to explain? Do you think you can do any better?
Unless you can do a whole lot better, you're not likely to get much response.
Until we can tie our posts to a rock and administer them directly, this is the situation Ignore was made for. I'm finished here.
A W Smith
Philosopher
This bears repeating
Keep in mind this measurement was taken 21 (thats TWENTY ONE) miles away. also keep in mind after the first tower collapsed, conditions changed in that bath tub, You no longer had a second 110 story tower to absorb energy like a tuning fork. Debris was compacted into the tub from the first collapse. Conditions were far from identical.
Keep in mind this measurement was taken 21 (thats TWENTY ONE) miles away. also keep in mind after the first tower collapsed, conditions changed in that bath tub, You no longer had a second 110 story tower to absorb energy like a tuning fork. Debris was compacted into the tub from the first collapse. Conditions were far from identical.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
You seem to completely misunderstand what error means.
It is the uncertainty of the precision of the measurement in question.
When one takes an undergraduate physics course the first thing taught in the lab portion of the course is how to determine the errors in your measurements. That is how to determine how accurate those measurements are.
The very first consideration is the precision of the equipment being used to perform a measurement. Generally that is said to be the quantity of the least significant digit of the device. So if a Richter measureing device gives results to 0.1 then the margin of error right off the bat is +/- 0.1
then one checks into how the measurement is accomplished and in this case there are a number of variables that are taken into account which add another 0.2 to the margin of error to get to the +/-0.3 that is stated in the above link.
So, yes, the difference in Richter number bewteen the collapse of each building may be 0.2 but the accuracy of each measurement is not such that one can say that this is in any way a true difference. In fact, scientifically a difference of 0.2 in Richter measurements is insignificant.
Now you just might understand why the Richter scale was designed as a logarithmic scale. Whereas the difference of 0.2 is a doubling of energy released, 0.3 represents 2.8 times and if the scale was given in energy release the margin of error would be a factor of 2.8
he has no idea what you are talking about
That's favourite, but trolling is a close second. Few are as dense as KreeL appears to be.
I understood exactly what mackey stated.
"magnitude values given by different seismological observatories for an event may vary" - mackey (himself or his source)
Perhaps someone can point out some other observatories that measured this event. Then we could average our numbers. I'm all for it.
"seismologists often revise magnitude estimates as they obtain and analyze additional data"
So lay on us the revised magnitudes. I'm all for that also.
I expect your revision to make the collapses identical. Makes sense, because if not, someone would have to explain the difference in a closed model.
Mr. Smith likes this one - "You no longer had a second 110 story tower to absorb energy like a tuning fork." You want to explain this for him, mackey?
"magnitude values given by different seismological observatories for an event may vary" - mackey (himself or his source)
Perhaps someone can point out some other observatories that measured this event. Then we could average our numbers. I'm all for it.
"seismologists often revise magnitude estimates as they obtain and analyze additional data"
So lay on us the revised magnitudes. I'm all for that also.
I expect your revision to make the collapses identical. Makes sense, because if not, someone would have to explain the difference in a closed model.
Mr. Smith likes this one - "You no longer had a second 110 story tower to absorb energy like a tuning fork." You want to explain this for him, mackey?
Who said throw them out?
You are the one NOT paying attention to science and throwing it out.
You do NOT understand the fundemantals of basic physics. You have no idea what the principle of error is. Your understanding of it is lower than university level. I will bet a million US dollars that you have NEVER studied physics at university level.
The use of error figures is done because of ACCURACY OF MEASUREMENT. The accuracy of a richter scale has been explained. You CHOOSE to IGNORE it. The machine cannot give you a reading of 100% certainty that it is 2.1.
Lets assume an event happens which the "real" value is 2.1875. Now one machine reads it as 2.1 +- 0.1. Due to the technical limitations of the machine, it cannot say exactly what the value is, but it definitely ranges from 2.0 to 2.2. It could be any one of the infinite numbers in that range.
Now another machine gives a value of 2.2 +-0.1. Due to the technical limitations of the machine, it cannot say exactly what the value is, but it definitely ranges from 2.1 to 2.3. It could be any one of the infinite numbers in that range.
Since 2.1875 falls in both the ranges of the machines measurments, both machines have given the correct reading. The only difference is that they are totally incabable of giving a correct result to all the significant numbers of that answer.
Your poor understanding of physics has resulted in you formulating an incorrect understanding of what the Richter scale readings mean. You can spin it many ways, but the very foundation of the results is seated deep within principles of physics that have been tried and tested by generations.
I understood your language perfectly. You were using typical truther methods of spinning scientific principles which you have NO understanding of, to create a LIE which would reinforce your biased beliefs of what happened on 9/11. Unfortunately for you, phyisics trumps LIES.
Finding exactly this information took me about 20 seconds in Google. Try it for yourself.
No you can't. It's far from being that simple. Do some research on why and tell us what you find.
You've been spoon-fed a lot of information in some of the posts above. Show that you're capable of learning and I'm sure people will be happy to continue.
Another subject for your research - what else was different about the 'bathtub' when the second collapse occurred?
Last edited:
Well, then back to the subject of this thread.
The south tower explodes, but hardly scratches WTC7. The north tower explodes, and from a further distance it nearly knocks WTC7 over by raining thousands of tons of steel onto it. A 10+ story gash nearly all the way through it, east side is crushed, southeast corner gets ate up, and the entire south face looks like a 10 year old dartboard at your local pub.
No big difference here, my friends, move along.
The south tower explodes, but hardly scratches WTC7. The north tower explodes, and from a further distance it nearly knocks WTC7 over by raining thousands of tons of steel onto it. A 10+ story gash nearly all the way through it, east side is crushed, southeast corner gets ate up, and the entire south face looks like a 10 year old dartboard at your local pub.
No big difference here, my friends, move along.
Bet you wish you took calculus and went to engineering school. You should not use the hearsay, lies, and fantasy of 911Truth to form failed opinions.
I assume you are not an engineer or a seismologist. So your ML work is worthless to make a statement about anything on 911. Failed opinions using numbers from failed people in 911Truth. This sums up your effort so far?
What do you say about this post?
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
As opposed to your careful study of error margins and their reconciliation with the theory you're trying to argue?
Mackey's right. Your contribution here is worthless.
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I can see you've studied 9/11 in considerable detail here. The rest of us, knowing that WTC7 was to the north of the complex, naturally assumed that the north tower was closer to it. However, in your world, that seems not to be the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg
No, it looks like it's still the case in the real world.
Epic fail.
Dave
More research for you - what dramatic mistake have you made in those statements ?
eta: Dave beat me to it.
Tell us, KreeL, are you in fact a psychology student researching into the testing of other people's patience by pounding them with relentless stupidity ?
Last edited:
