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

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