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

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

You almost got it in that post but if initial impact velocity is sufficient to break through the first paper"floor",
And
It then accelerates positively from time of drop, which it does, then all subsequent impact v's must be greater than first impact.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why have you not done so?
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
True, I wanted help to develop a correct computer generated collapse model by updating the Greening model with what we now know since the Greening model actually used floor stripping to do the work of connection sheering it appears it would have been easy.

However after Oz accused me of worshipping the Greening, Benson, Banzant paper I dropped the whole project, an do not intend going back to it now, too busy to do so.
Click to expand...

Oz seems to have a misunderstanding of the Bazant paper and continues to attribute it to everyone else.
 
FalseFlag said:
Your post makes no sense. Cole's experiments are relevant to 9/11. They belong in this forum, even though you don't agree with them.
Click to expand...

They are Irrelevant to understanding 9/11/2001.

Because in the experiment Cole uses the wrong energy va!ues, for G-R=A.

Gravity minus Resistance = acceleration.

On a sky diver falling, he falls faster with out the added air resistance of the parachute.

The resistance slows his fall, without it he dies,

The buildings resistance slowed the collapses to less than free fall.

That's why Dave is correct you can't do subtraction, the resistance on impact is subtracted from the Kinetic energy as the mass travels downward.
 
FalseFlag said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. You discovered that the collapse time for WTC1 was different from your claim because others pointed you to the correct answer, for example.
 
FalseFlag said:
...
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.
...
Click to expand...

I see you are trying but struggling.
I think the correct conclusion you seem to be hinting at is this:

If the object falls freely most of the time, but at certain intervals meets a bit of momentary resistance that decreases the instantaneous acceleration (i.e.: ai<g), then average acceleration is also decreased (aavg<g).
Yes, that is correct.
It is also what was in fact observed when the twin towers collapsed and a large portion of the falling mass of the tops fell inside the perimeter and hit floor slabs every 12 feet. David Chandler measured an average acceleration of about 2/3 of g for one tower during the first few seconds, while the top wasn't already obscured by dust. This happens to be near theoretical results for a very simple transfer-of-momentum model, where the mass of the floor slabs only is considered.
 
FalseFlag said:
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.
Click to expand...

The experiment requires rebuilding the buildings, are you willing to do that to achieve the correct energy values?
 
FalseFlag said:
Refresh my memory and repost the link that completes the challenge.
Click to expand...
I'll say what you usually say in these circumstances: do your own search. I even copied the message from the other thread here. You even responded to it, but you didn't address the experiment I posted. You totally ignored that part.
 
PhantomWolf said:
pgimeno said:
:deadhorse

You seem to be making the same mistake again. Newton's First Law says that if they accelerate (or decelerate), it's because the forces are not in equilibrium, therefore they are not equal and opposite. This should be bleeding obvious. There's a limit to how much opposing force the connections can exert to oppose the movement of the falling floor. Past that, you get acceleration (=imbalanced forces). That's a case where the magnitude of N+ and N- does not equal that of G+ and G- (using PhantomWolf's terminology).
Click to expand...
Okay this isn't quite right. All forces between two objects have a force pair that are equal and opposite. This means that when a weight falls on the floor, the floor will respond with an equal and opposite force. Now if that floor has a limit to the amount of force it can respond to before it deforms or breaks, or the wall connections fail, and the falling weight exceeds that force, then that will still be the maximum force that can be applied to it, and the total force that it will apply back on the object that has fallen on it. Once it fails, the weight will continue to apply excess force to it, and it will continue to apply an equal force until they are moving at the same velocity.

Note that these force pairs act on different objects.

Acceleration occurs when an object has a unbalanced force action on it, not when the force pairs are unbalanced.

For example if we placed a book on the floor, the book would have gravity pulling it down, and the floor pushing it up. These would be equal and opposite meaning that they cancel out and the book remains stationary, but they aren't a force pair. Now if we disintegrate the floor leaving the book with nothing to rest on, it will still have gravity pulling it down. The equal force pair is still there, with the book attracting the Earth upwards, but since there is only a single force acting on the book now, it will accelerate downwards.

You are actually making the exact same mistake that FF made, getting Force Pairs mixed up with combined forces acting on a single body.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how we're not saying the same thing. I didn't say there's an imbalance in pairs of forces. G+ and G- are always balanced, and are one pair of forces. N+ and N- are always balanced, and are a pair of forces. I said that N- does not need to equal G+ (maybe I should have said that N- + G+ does not need to equal zero), and when that happens, you get acceleration. Note that there's a third pair of forces that enters the game when the objects collide, due to the inertia and compressibility of each object, and like in a Newton's cradle, these forces can be huge, causing a tremendous acceleration if the objects are hard to compress. The normal force would then be equal to gravity plus the force exerted due to elasticity and inertia, therefore not equal to gravity, which is what I said.

If I'm wrong, can you explain how, please?
 
My impression I get when reading posts and how FF responds to them. Senator Elizabeth Warren questions Leonard Chanin.
https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/videos/579919018837262/

Senate Republicans held a Banking Committee hearing today to talk about why we should roll back the rules on mortgages and credit cards because they’re just too costly for the banks. One of their witnesses, Leonard Chanin, had helped lead the Federal Reserve division that refused to regulate deceptive mortgages — including the subprime lending that helped spark the crisis. The bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission called that “pivotal failure” the “prime example” of the kind of hands-off regulatory approach that allowed the crisis to happen. Today I asked Mr. Chanin: Given his abysmal track record, why should anyone take him seriously when he says the new rules are too expensive? Watch what he said.
Click to expand...
 
pgimeno said:
I'll say what you usually say in these circumstances: do your own search. I even copied the message from the other thread here. You even responded to it, but you didn't address the experiment I posted. You totally ignored that part.
Click to expand...
If you want me to comment on the link, please repost it.
 
FalseFlag said:
Are you saying I would make a good politician? If so, the similarities were not intended. There is a major difference between a politician and myself; I will admit when I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


But you're never wrong are you? LOL

How's that alternative scenario you're ignoring coming along?
 
FalseFlag said:
How do they matter in any experiment involving similar accelerations, similar directions of net forces and similar sequences of net forces? Please provide a link to a credible source that supports you claim.
Click to expand...
First prove they are similar. I don't see the similarity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom