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

[NoahFence]

The idea that one needs to be versed in Newtonian Physics to understand what happened is one of the biggest jokes 9/11 twoofers have.

Junior here can't even come up with a plausible alternative for the collapses. Why are we entertaining him?

 

[sts60]

Do I need to point out the problems with your post, or will you just accept that you are wrong?

I'm always willing to be corrected. But since you already admitted you're a layman, and I'm the physics major (and working engineer), I won't simply accept your say-so.

Will you accept post #317 as proof you are wrong, or do I need to dissect each of your claims and prove why they are wrong?

All you need to do is demonstrate that the net force on the brick is upward (opposite to the direction of the travel) at any point.

If you ask to me to prove that you are wrong, once I do so by providing reasons and links to credible sources that support my claims, what will I get in return?

I don't need you to once again regurgitate popular science Web sites. I already discussed your misunderstanding of the ones you've quoted. Pointing to popular sources that say the same things I learned in 8th grade, but that you don't really understand, won't educate me and won't fix your errors.

If you are just going to say that I'm wrong, like the other skeptics do, then I'm not going to waste my time pointing out the mistakes.

I wouldn't just say you're wrong and expect you to accept that. I just got through showing you where you went wrong, in detail, but let's try again:

1. The paper/tissue/whatever can support a weight less than mg, where m is the mass of the brick and g is the average gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface. We know this because the paper can't hold up the brick in this scenario.

1a. This is equivalent to saying the maximum total (upward) force the paper/tissue/whatever can exert on the brick is less than the (downward) force exerted by the Earth's gravity on the brick.

2. The acceleration of the brick is determined solely by the net force on the brick. We're already in agreement that the net force on the brick (disregarding air resistance, solar photons, asymmetrical thermal emission, relativity, etc.) is equal to the force of gravity on the brick, before and after it hits the tissue.

3. During the impact, the net force on the brick is:
(Force of gravity on the brick = weight of the brick, positive because downward)
minus
(upward resistance force of the tissue, the magnitude of which from (1) is something less than the weight of the brick)

Obviously, this net force can't be negative (upward), or even zero. It is still positive (downward).

4. A positive (downward) net force on the brick means that it is still accelerating (downward), and thus its velocity is still increasing, downward, during the impact.

This is one of the simplest conceivable dynamics problems. I and others have explained it to you multiple times in multiple ways.

The people trying to explain this to you include both laymen and people with physics degrees, including IIRC at least one actual physicist with a PhD. You keep stubbornly rejecting both. This perfectly illustrates the hermetic nature of your circular validation of your own expertise, which prevents you from learning anything. You admitted you were wrong on some other issue, which was a hopeful sign, but that now appears to be a one-off.

 

[GlennB]

You admitted you were wrong on some other issue, which was a hopeful sign, but that now appears to be a one-off.

Two-off He admitted some weeks back that he had the wrong overall collapse time for WTC1.

It's progress

 

[WilliamSeger]

They are only valid in replicating the motion.

You are right. They are only valid in replicating the motion observed during the collapse.


We agree 100 percent.

Actually, no, Cole's experiments DIDN'T replicate the motion of the collapses, and the problem is the ridiculous conclusion he drew from that observation.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What do you mean "the mechanism" of the motion? You are just trying to use unnecessary words to make it look like Cole is still wrong.

See again you show that you lack the knowledge to keep up, you don't understand a lot of things because you don't know the basic terminology.

The Mechanism of the motion means the cause of the motion. How it occurs.

If we compare our sail and wheel again, The mechanism of the Windmill sail is that the wind blows across the aerofoil creating lift and this drives the sail around, making it rotate. The mechanism of the car tyre is that fuel is burned in a combustion engine that uses pistons and crankshafts to turn a driveshaft which eventually powers the axles and turns the wheels.

As you can see, these things are quite different. Understanding that Air flow over the sails causes the Windmill Sail to rotate tells us absolutely nothing about what causes the car wheel to rotate.

Replicating the motion allows no further conclusion than that it was replicated.

He is not, and you admitted it.

Actually all I have said is that if that is what he was trying to do, according to you, then he can't use it for anything but saying that he replicated the motion in his model.

Personally I would disagree that any of his models actually replicated the motion very well at all, for instance, not one of his models had walls that peeled away and toppled downwards. This was a signification feature in the WTC collapses.

Now, let's answer the last part of your question. Why is Cole's experiment in a 9/11 CT thread? What did Cole call his experiment that most closely replicated the observed motions during the collapse? Do you remember? What did he call it?

You claim that Cole's experiment was only valid in replicating motion. You are right. The experiment that most closely matched the observed motion was called the "Controlled Demolition Theory". Now, if the "Controlled Demolition Theory" was the name of the experiment that most closely matched the observed motions, don't you think his experiments belong in this forum?

I do.

So your whole reason was because of a label on an experiment? What is he had just called it, Experiment #5? Or Mashed Banana and Chocolate?

Now if you want to claim that there is something about the name, or the experiment that you can relate to the towers, then by all means do so, but since you have already admitted that they are unable to tell us anything about the mechanism of the WTC collapses then trying to make such a claim now would be rather hard.

In the end, the only think that Cole shows is that if you put a firecrackers in a model built with walls made from paper circles and stiff card for floors, then you can cause it to collapse and spread paper all over the place.

If that was what he was attempting to show, then yes he succeeded, though I am unsure why he needed an experiment to do that.

 

[BasqueArch]

FalseFlag
Your statement is proof that you don't understand Newton's third law of motion. You are a victim of the tricks that the "experts" have done. They have intentionally over-complicated things so that it is easier to get concepts confused.



Everything I posted is correct. There are no statements that are wrong. Will you finally admit this?


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


Please show me how my statement is stupid or ignorant by providing a link to a credible source that proves your claim is correct.


What numbers? Please show me where Cole uses numbers, or that they are necessary in his experiments…..Why does he need numbers? What would they prove?


You are playing the semantics game, and you have written a whole lot of meaningless stuff to try to make a simple issue more complicated.


I will tell you whether or not it conforms to or rejects basic science.


If you want to claim I'm wrong, pick a statement and prove it's wrong. Otherwise your game is now one player, and that player is not me.



This statement proves that you do not understand Newton's laws of motion. I can't do anything else to help you.


You are entitled to your opinion. When you consider that you are still discussing scale when it has been prove to be irrelevant is proof that you might be the one fantasizing about something.



You're right. I will never modify my position, because I know I am right. You have a gross misunderstanding of the forces involved.



I do understand what is going on, and I'm about to destroy your model and your gross misunderstanding of physics.

An Experiment in Negative Acceleration


​

STAY DOWN !!​

​

​

 

[abaddon]

You have to be kidding. I have clearly stated the correct definitions. The fact that you asked this is proof you are simply ignoring my posts.

The constant refrain of "prove me wrong" is just a bit tired. It is up to you to prove yourself right, a task you have assiduously avoided by means of persistent lame attempts at shifting the burden of proof.

 

[jaydeehess]

Phantomwolf, FF seems to have missed your post this time around. So I am bumping this query you posed to him.


False Flag?
Does the sky diver accelerate, or decellerate? Does his vertical, downward velocity become less or more as he jumps out of the aircraft?

FalseFlag? Hello, ......

 

[rwguinn]

No, he's not, for a falling object. If the force is less than mg then there will be no net deceleration, because the resultant force is still downwards.



Let the forces be F1 due to gravity and F2 due to the collision. F1=mg (defining positive as downwards). If F2 is negative and |F2|<mg, then the resultant force F1+F2 is positive and less than mg, so the resultant force is still downwards. There will be a reduction in acceleration, but not in velocity.

Dave

Show me the math. I do not fear calculus.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Show me the math. I do not fear calculus.

That is the maths. No calculus needed, it's a simple one-dimensional problem so it doesn't even need vector sums.

Dave

 

[rwguinn]

No, this is wrong. Impact will create a reduction in Acceleration not velocity, unless the Impact force if greater than mg. If the Acceleration the object is undergoing via gravity is greater then that the Impact Force created in the opposite direction, the over all acceleration is still down and thus the object continues to increase in velocity despite the impact, just as a lower rate than it would have had the impact not occurred.

Show me the math. I have no fear of calculus

 

[sts60]

No, there cannot be. From the statement of the problem, the tissue is unable to exert a force equal in magnitude to the weight of the brick, which is the force exerted by gravity on the brick.

Newton's third law has nothing to do with what happens to each object after the impact. Your refusal to admit this proves you just won't admit I'm right, or you really don't understand basic concepts.

The companies that have employed me as a space systems engineer for a quarter-century would be surprised to hear that last part.

Anyway, one last try.

Place the brick gently on the tissue and let go.

The weight of the brick exerts a downward force = mg on the tissue.

If the tissue held up the brick, then the contact force of the tissue on the brick would also be mg, upward. Nothing is moving and the forces are exactly in balance.

But the tissue can't hold up the brick in this problem. That means the contact force of the tissue on the brick is less than mg, because the brick starts at rest and starts moving downward when you let go.

If it starts moving downward from rest, then it necessarily has undergone a downward acceleration, which necessarily means it experienced a net force downward.

A small part of the force exerted by the brick on the tissue is "used" to rupture the tissue, and the remainder causes the brick to accelerate downward. When the interaction is over, the entire force causes it to free-fall.

I've already addressed your argument in post 317. Your refusal to accept it is not proof you are right. You keep posting the same wrong concepts repeatedly. I have shown why they are wrong. Your denial is nothing more than that - denial.

You keep addressing the point incorrectly. Refusal to accept your misconceptions of a very simple problem is not denial; it's optimism that people who actually know what they're talking about can educate you.

I have to conclude that optimism is misplaced. You are willfully ineducable. The other alternative is that you are simply a troll.

Well, either way, I tried.

 

[FalseFlag]

No, this is wrong. Impact will create a reduction in Acceleration not velocity, unless the Impact force if greater than mg. If the Acceleration the object is undergoing via gravity is greater then that the Impact Force created in the opposite direction, the over all acceleration is still down and thus the object continues to increase in velocity despite the impact, just as a lower rate than it would have had the impact not occurred.

I agree.

 

[FalseFlag]

The companies that have employed me as a space systems engineer for a quarter-century would be surprised to hear that last part.

Anyway, one last try.

Place the brick gently on the tissue and let go.

The weight of the brick exerts a downward force = mg on the tissue.

If the tissue held up the brick, then the contact force of the tissue on the brick would also be mg, upward. Nothing is moving and the forces are exactly in balance.

But the tissue can't hold up the brick in this problem. That means the contact force of the tissue on the brick is less than mg, because the brick starts at rest and starts moving downward when you let go.

If it starts moving downward from rest, then it necessarily has undergone a downward acceleration, which necessarily means it experienced a net force downward.

A small part of the force exerted by the brick on the tissue is "used" to rupture the tissue, and the remainder causes the brick to accelerate downward. When the interaction is over, the entire force causes it to free-fall.



You keep addressing the point incorrectly. Refusal to accept your misconceptions of a very simple problem is not denial; it's optimism that people who actually know what they're talking about can educate you.

I have to conclude that optimism is misplaced. You are willfully ineducable. The other alternative is that you are simply a troll.

Well, either way, I tried.

I agree with your statements. What I don't agree with is the example you used. The example we were talking about was the brick falling from a height through the rice paper. We never needed to go into what would happen if the brick was resting on the paper.

Either way, I agree with your conclusions. In post #317, there are instances where I should have used the word acceleration instead of velocity.

This is really unfortunate because my post is not a concept error. My post is an attempt to try to conform to what others are saying. I have always known that forces cause accelerations and accelerations change velocity. Post #317 might not prove that, but I do know how the terms are related.

 

[FalseFlag]

Show me the math. I have no fear of calculus

I spent the last hour researching this, and exploring what would happen instant by instant. I already know that no one will give me credit for this, but I did.

Forces causes acceleration. Acceleration causes changes in velocity. The impact will make a less than g for just an instant. Acceleration will still be positive, which means v will also be positive. The issue is that the instant of impact, v will increase, but not quite as much as it would have if a were still g.

It is correct to say that in the brick example, at the instant of impact, a decreases but v still increases, just not as much for one instant. After the impact, v once again increases at g.

Here is proof, sort of that they are right (about this one issue).


Let v⁰ = velocity prior to impact instant 0, a = g
Let v¹ = velocity prior to impact instant 1, a = g
Let v² = velocity prior to impact instant 2, a = g
Let v³ = velocity prior to impact instant 3, a = g
Let v⁴ = velocity prior to impact instant 4, a = g
Let vⁱ = velocity at instant of impact, a = g - a^{impact force}
Now, let's give values to each v. They don't have to be exact, they just need to be more positive than the previous because a is positive throughout the entire discussion.

Let v⁰ = .00000002
Let v¹ = .00000006
Let v² = .00000012
Let v³ = .00000024
Let v⁴ = .00000048

Now, what will vⁱ be? It can not, under any circumstances be caused by g. If it can't be caused by g, and the new a is less than g, solely for the purpose of argument, let's assume the following.

Let vⁱ = .00000095. The number is still positive, because the new a is positive, it's just less than g. If a never changed because of the impact, and you follow the example above, vⁱ should have been .00000096. It's not. Why? Simple, it's because a decreased, even if it was just for an instant. Once the brick passes through the paper, you could easily say that v⁶ would be .00000190, and it would increase each instant afterwards at the rate of g.

The conclusion is that v is just less than it should have been, but it has still increased with respect to the previous instant.

I do understand some of the attacks, because some of your claims are correct. What you fail to realize is how hard it is to switch gears when responding to various posters. You also have to look at it through my point of view, which is one of a truther. You might claim that truthers reject physics. I do not. I have made reasonable attempts to understand what you are saying. The issue is that many, if not most, of the claims that are made here are absurd. Then, when someone makes a valid claim it takes a long time for me to see it. I have proven that I am willing to understand what you are trying to say.

I really wish that most skeptics would extend the same courtesy to me.

 

[sts60]

OK. I was just using the brick-placed-on-tissue as a way to bound the maximum possible upward force.

 

[Belz...]

That's funny, because I have so completely shut you down, and everyone else, that you are not even bothering to try to refute my claims.

You are hilarious. Dunning-Kruger has taken physical form, like Gozer, and it is you.

You can't because they are right.

Nobody reading this thread is taking you seriously, Flag, when you ignore the ACTUAL arguments made against your nonsensical claims, and you just pretend they were never made, asking for us to do everything over and over again. No one believes for a second that you missed those.

Your refusal to accept my claims and the supporting proof is clear evidence that all of you are in denial.

Superior knowledge is not denial.

 

[Belz...]

LOL.

This is yet another post that needs to be a sticky.

Translation: I don't understand any of that, therefore it must be false. I understand my own ravings, therefore they must be true.

Where have I said that all forces in the universe are equal?

I'm just extrapolating from your nonsense thus far.

 

[FalseFlag]

The constant refrain of "prove me wrong" is just a bit tired. It is up to you to prove yourself right, a task you have assiduously avoided by means of persistent lame attempts at shifting the burden of proof.

If it's tiring then provide the proof I am asking for. So far, every time I have discovered I am wrong, I am the one who found the proof.

I am not shifting any burden on anyone. If you make a claim, you have the burden to prove it.

 

[FalseFlag]

Replicating the motion allows no further conclusion than that it was replicated.

What did Cole have to do to replicate the motions.

See, this is what I mean by changing gears.