• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heiwa's bathroom scale experiment

Heiwa, I have it on good authority that if you jump from 3.7 meters into a pool of pirahna fish, you will see God. ;)
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Well I have to admit when I jump on my scale it spikes.

But what does that mean? Why are you here?

Is it all settled because my scale spikes?

9/11 that is.

Why not?
Click to expand...

I'll be honest with you, the fact that your scale spikes is not proof of 9/11 being exactly how NIST described it.

That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the point of this thread, which is Heiwa describing an "experiment" which he says proves his ideas about physics, and everyone else schooling him.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Well I have to admit when I jump on my scale it spikes.

But what does that mean? Why are you here?

Is it all settled because my scale spikes?

9/11 that is.

Why not?
Click to expand...



Not quite.

Heiwa is still arguing that a resistance force equal to the weight of a falling object can bring it to rest.
In support of this absurd idea, he has trotted out this experiment involving a scale, claiming that since it shows reading A when the load is static, and shows the same value (reading A) after impact (when the downward motion of the load has stopped) that it therefore proves that a resisting object (the object being impacted) can only provide a force equal to the force of gravity on the impacting object.

What he forgets (and this is a major flaw) is that decelerating the falling object to a stop is a dynamic situation.

Imparting acceleration on mass requires a net force, so merely balancing the force due to gravity will result not in the mass slowing its descent (which is what Heiwa claims happens) but rather in the mass continuing it's motion at constant velocity.

I proved this here and here (correction to second post here.

Heiwa showed he understands the physics of the situation here, but by the miracle of doublethink still clings tenaciously, even doggedly, to his fatally-flawed preconception.


Hope that helps explain the situation.
 
[X] said:
Not quite.

Heiwa is still arguing that a resistance force equal to the weight of a falling object can bring it to rest.
In support of this absurd idea, he has trotted out this experiment involving a scale, claiming that since it shows reading A when the load is static, and shows the same value (reading A) after impact (when the downward motion of the load has stopped) that it therefore proves that a resisting object (the object being impacted) can only provide a force equal to the force of gravity on the impacting object.

What he forgets (and this is a major flaw) is that decelerating the falling object to a stop is a dynamic situation.

Imparting acceleration on mass requires a net force, so merely balancing the force due to gravity will result not in the mass slowing its descent (which is what Heiwa claims happens) but rather in the mass continuing it's motion at constant velocity.

I proved this here and here (correction to second post here.

Heiwa showed he understands the physics of the situation here, but by the miracle of doublethink still clings tenaciously, even doggedly, to his fatally-flawed preconception.


Hope that helps explain the situation.
Click to expand...

Not quite? What are you fighting and why? That is if no one believes it? Is there no one with the same degrees who doesn't buy into NIST? Why isn't it obvious to all? Please explain why you are here.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Not quite? What are you fighting and why? That is if no one believes it? Is there no one with the same degrees who doesn't buy into NIST? Why isn't it obvious to all? Please explain why you are here.
Click to expand...


You asked a question. More to the point, you actually asked a relevant question. I took you off ignore for that. Congratulations, don't make me regret it.

I am no longer discussing this with Heiwa, due to his blatant dishonesty. But I will provide explanations to people on the fence, or leaning toward his hypothesis.

That is why I am here, right now, in this thread.

Why? Because I think it's valuable to see the kind of error-ridden physics Heiwa uses.

Think about it: if he can not even apply elementary-school physics correctly, if he cannot differentiate between static (stationary) and dynamic (moving) systems, how likely is he to be correct in his analyses?


I am merely showing that his physics is hopelessly in error. Without correcting it (he refuses to acknowledge the error, despite demonstrating that he knows the correct physics (see my previous post)), his model will never be right. And by showing this error and Heiwa's callous refusal to correct it, I hope to demonstrate to people sitting on the fence (you, I am thinking) that, if nothing else, Heiwa's physics should not be trusted.


I have made no comment about NIST, no comment about Bazant, indeed no comment about any model of the collapse except Heiwa's. And I have shown explicitly and repeatedly that Heiwa's model is based on shoddy physics.

I have never even read NIST or Bazant, in point of fact.

You are free to follow whatever model you wish. Just beware that at least this one is based on incorrect foundations.
 
Last edited:
New result!

In the interest of science, I decided to improve on Heiwa's experiments by combining them. After all, if a stack of pizza boxes is a good model of a WTC Tower, and jumping on a scale is a good model of the initiating event, then surely combining them must make an even better model!

So, I obtained a dozen Pizza Hut Personal Pan Pizza boxes and glued them together into a stack. Next to that, I stood the tallest ladder I could get my hands on and carried my bathroom scale up with me to the top. It was a little hard to measure the exact height, but I held the scale approximately 3.4 meters above the little PPP tower and let go.

To my surprise, the pizza box tower collapsed globally when the scale hit it!

I thereby conclude that Heiwa's analysis has in fact been correct all along, only he failed to take his experiments further towards their logical conclusion - The WTC Towers were destroyed by scales! I suspect Jenny Craig.


Next up: What happens when you scale* a scale** tower and drop a scale*** on it.

* = proportional measurement
** = of the bathroom variety
*** = fish part
 
Last edited:
Zipster said:
I found something that everyone might find interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfTE4J87aQQ

Watch the first few minutes. It pretty much explains everything we're talking about here. An MIT professor refutes Heiwa completely!

Simply put, Fscale = m * (a + g). (a + g) determines the multiplying factor of how "heavy" the scale thinks you are. The higher your velocity when you hit the scale (or in the elevator example given, moving up or down), the "heavier" you are.

Since I'm on His Royal Arrogance's ignore list, would someone who's not on ignore like to repeat all of this or at least repost the lecture video link and see what he says?
Click to expand...



Having watched the lecture, which is not only more interesting than I remember my physics lectures being, but also more understandable (evidently I have learned something in my Engineering studies), I feel I should highlight the time in the video that illustrates Heiwa's error.

It is from 29 minutes in to 31 minutes in. For a fuller explanation (and an experiment that is almost exactly what Heiwa ordered) keep watching until 40 minutes in.
The professor explains the concept quite clearly.
It proves Dave Rogers and myself correct (again) in the Pizza Box thread, and more importantly exposes Heiwa's elementary error (repeated from the other thread) for what it is. Garbage physics.

I predict he'll say that since the scale in the experiment bounced, it proved him right. If he does so, bear in mind that a foam cushion (what the scale landed on) is NOT analogous to a steel skyscraper or a rubber ball.

The claim that a falling mass can be brought to a stop by a resistance equal to the force of gravity on the falling mass is WRONG!

So, to all you fence-sitters out there, watch the lecture, read the links I posted in my first response to Homeland Insurgency, and ask yourself: Do you really think Heiwa's physics describe reality?

Do yourself a favor, find a different model.



Only one question remains: Why is the prof wearing a bagel?
 
Last edited:
It's for his free lunch! Duh! And I do owe you a cookie [X] for reposting my post.

I would suggest Heiwa watch continue to watch until the 40 minute mark. The professor does an actual demonstration of what he explains in the 29 to 31 minute range. Just to drive the point home to Heiwa (and any others who are on the fence) who would probably just argue that the professor's only "talking NWO nonsense" from the 29 to 31 minute range.

I'm surprised I found this video in the first place! Good old MIT professors come through again! I'm going to get myself a cookie.

Now we've thoroughly debunked Heiwa Physics! For the up-tenth time in a row.
 
Last edited:
Zipster said:
My scale is broken because the display permanently shows the words "ERR". If Heiwa was right (which he isn't), the scale would still be fine and show the normal zeroed "0.0" on it. But instead, the force of the stack of textbooks being dropped from the second story window overloaded the sensor in my scale.

Time to buy another one!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it probably read 202 right before breaking, right? Oh, this thread is a hoot. Heiwa, you know the funny thing is, the other one was started by someone else, and maybe they could be accused of misrepresentin'. But this is your own experiment in your own thread! Dude, I've observed a scale needle bouncing up and down as I just stand there and bob up and down on my toes.

I mean, I'm totally dumb (more lazy actually) when it comes to the finer points of science stuff but you say:
As JREF posters discussing the WTC1 collapse on the Pizza Box Tower thread don't know the difference between weight/mass (kg) and force (N) and moving bodies
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out, you have these lumped wrong - heiwa can't tell the difference between weight/force and mass.

OK, but you normally do not measure your weight by jumping from 3.7 meters on your bathroom scale! So whatever you measure then, was not your weight.
Click to expand...

So the relevance is that the falling portion of the towers might impact with something other than (greater than) its static weight? Wow! Where did I see that same contention just earlier today? Are we getting somewhere?
 
Heiwa said:
Assume you are in the bathroom and step on the scale and that it announces that your weight it 120 kgs (or what ever that is in US - 20 inches)! OK, you are only 160 cms (what is that - 3 lbs?) tall, so you are a small, fat weight, but who cares. Most Americans are overweight.
Click to expand...


This has to be some sort of performance art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom