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

PhantomWolf said:
I think that you'll find that he's talking noticeable change. For instance, if the Earth hit an a small Asteroid head on, do you think that those of us that survived its effects would have to change the length of a year?



If the object is in a state of constant velocity this is true, but what happens in the case of an object that is accelerating and thus had its velocity changing over time already?



This is true, but by how much must it change?



Here is where you go wrong. Remember that a falling object is accelerating at 9.8 m/s2. Lets go back to our Skydiver. On jumping out of the plane the Skydiver will immediately begin experiencing Air Resistance, thus a force in the opposite direction of travel.

Will the Skydiver accelerate, or decelerate?

If you say Accelerate, then explain how this is true if the hilited part above is correct, and if you say decelerate, then explain how come when they jump out of the plane they don't just float in the air and their downward velocity decreases due to deceleration.



Incorrect



So far so good, the mistake is coming up



And here is your mistake, you make an incorrect assumption that all collisions will cause an accelerating object to decelerate. You are missing two scenarios that I showed you with Air Resistance. The collision may simply lessen the Acceleration id the force is less than that of gravity, or it might reduce it to zero if it is equal to gravity. It will only cause a deceleration if the force experienced is greater then the force applied by gravity.



You are still forgetting that your falling object is already accelerating. You keep treating it as if it's travelling at a constant velocity, not like it accelerating.

If you are in a 1,544 kg Ferrari 488 Spider and are accelerating at along a runway at 25m/s2 and hit a stationary 2 gram bee, will that cause the car to decelerate?



Again, remember that you're dealing with an already accelerating object, not one at constant Velocity, it really makes a difference.



Good advice, I suggest you take it on this one too.
Click to expand...

I agree. If you want me to correct another mistake I have made, point it out and I will do so.
 
Dave Rogers said:
This is incorrect. Consider an object of mass m falling under gravity in a vacuum, which is therefore accelerating at 1g. It strikes an obstacle which, at the instant of collision, exerts a force of mg directly upwards. What is the acceleration of the object at that instant? Will the object's velocity be increasing or decreasing at that instant?
Click to expand...

At the instant of impact acceleration will become zero. Whatever velocity the object had at the instant prior to the impact will be maintained at the instant of impact. Velocity will continue to increase at g at the instant after impact. Right?

Wrong. A force in the opposite direction greater than the sum of the forces the object is already subject to will reduce the velocity of the falling object. A lesser force will reduce its acceleration, but not its velocity. And deceleration is defined not as a decrease in acceleration, but in velocity.

And that is the most important application of Newton's Laws to the collapses in this context, and one that you need to understand.

Dave
Click to expand...

OK. We agree. Do you now agree I understand what you are trying to say? If not, please explain what concept you think I still need to work on.
 
pgimeno said:
Once again:
​
Read the rest of PhantomWolf's post again, this time for comprehension. He explains why.
Click to expand...

He can "explain" whatever he wants. That does not mean he is right. If he wants credibility, provide a link to a credible source that proves he is right.
 
jaydeehess said:
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?
Click to expand...

The skydiver will experience a force that reduces acceleration for an instant. Velocity will still increase before, during, and after the impact.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I specifically asked that you explain your answer using Newtonian physics. Post #317 demonstrates that you don't understand the definition of deceleration (specifically, what "slows down" means :eek:), you don't understand how to combine forces with vector math to get the net force, and you don't even understand the cause-and-effect relationship between acceleration and velocity.
Click to expand...

I have corrected my mistakes. If I have missed something, please point it out and I will correct it.
 
Myriad said:
What motions do they replicate? Please provide a link to a credible source that states Cole's experiments replicate motions.
Click to expand...
Cole's experiments replicate the motions observed during the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2. The motions observed during the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 are lateral, or outward, ejections of pulverized building contents and then a downward motion of pulverized building contents. In the simplest terms possible, the observed motions are out and then down.

My claim is the observed motions are out and then down. My proof would be any video or picture of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. Do I really need to post a video or picture of this?

My claim is that Cole replicates these motions in his video. The video is proof. The video is credible because Cole is an engineer. There are also no other experiments anywhere that duplicate the observed motions of out and then down. I can not provide additional proof because it does not exist. No evidence proving Cole wrong exists, either.
 
NoahFence said:
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.
Click to expand...
You don't need to understand physics to believe the official story. That is a fact.

If you understand physics, even at the most basic level, you can see the official story is a lie.
 
GlennB said:
Two-off ;) He admitted some weeks back that he had the wrong overall collapse time for WTC1.

It's progress :D
Click to expand...

Why does the overall collapse time matter, other than to create a distraction for debate? For the sake of future arguments, pick a number between 5 and 20. I agree with it. Debate settled.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Replicating the motion allows no further conclusion than that it was replicated.
Click to expand...
This statement is wrong, and your own posts prove you know this. You are simply continuing the argument because you don't want to admit that you have admitted Cole is right.

At this point, you are the one going around in circles.
 
jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a different concept than the one currently being discussed.
 
GlennB said:
No. You discovered that the collapse time for WTC1 was different from your claim because others pointed you to the correct answer, for example.
Click to expand...

Once again, pick a number between 5 and 20. Whatever number you pick can be the collapse time. You win. I won't debate your number.
 
Oystein said:
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.
Click to expand...
If I'm correct, how am I struggling? Also, thanks for saying I am 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.
Click to expand...

You have posted something. I see that you have posted something, but what you are saying seems to complicate things. First, what building are you describing? If you say 2/3g, then you must mean WTC1, but I don't know that is the only building you are discussing. You then talk about a transfer-of-momentum model. I see your post. I am not qualified to discuss transfer-of-momentum models, so I won't. I am not ignoring you. I have replied to your post, but I can not offer any meaningful reply to it so I'm not going to.
 
NoahFence said:
But you're never wrong are you? LOL

How's that alternative scenario you're ignoring coming along?
Click to expand...
I'm wrong all the time. I am willing to admit it. I don't see too many others willing to do this, and I promise you it's not because they are not wrong.

I also have no idea what you are talking about, so I guess it's not coming along well.
 
pgimeno said:
First prove they are similar. I don't see the similarity.
Click to expand...

Are you really saying that if a train has a velocity of 40m/s to the right, and a car has a velocity of 40m/s to the right that their motions are not similar?

Are you really saying that if an object accelerates downward at g and another object accelerates downwards at 5m/s/s that their accelerations are not similar?
 
FalseFlag said:
Are you really saying that if a train has a velocity of 40m/s to the right, and a car has a velocity of 40m/s to the right that their motions are not similar?

Are you really saying that if an object accelerates downward at g and another object accelerates downwards at 5m/s/s that their accelerations are not similar?
Click to expand...
Gravity is not the only acceleration into play. Prove that the rest of the accelerations are similar between Cole's models and the WTC.
 
FalseFlag said:
If this were true you would repost the link just to prove I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
You're wrong all the time (your words). No need to prove that again in this case. The video is still there.

Quick poll: did anyone else see it? (just yes or no, please don't post the link, don't do FalseFlag's job, since he keeps demanding that from others it's just fair that he does it in this case).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom