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

What do I dismiss? Do I dismiss relevant facts, or do I dismiss guesses?

How can you tell? You have proudly declaimed that you know nothing about any of it?

You have proudly declaimed that you have no education whatsoever in such matters.

Somehow you know more than those of us who do. How does that work?
 
What do I dismiss? Do I dismiss relevant facts, or do I dismiss guesses?

You dismiss physical constants of the whole universe, that alter mass energy reactions described by Sir Isaac Newton, for motions of Gravity vs. Resistance energy values have to be equal to the event being modeled failure to do so renders the model useless!

Cole's Model and experiments are there fore Useless and fraudulent representations.
 
Your laymen opinion noted.

There's a reason it's taken them 10 years to only get 2500 engineers to sign their members list. ;)

This proves one thing, and one thing only. The fact that is has taken 10 years to get 2500 architects and engineers to sign the petition proves only one thing. It only proves that it has taken 10 years to get 2500 architects and engineers to sign the petition. It proves nothing else.
 
So your basic understanding of basic physics doesn't include explosives ?

It is still physics. F=MA.

I have given you the mass can't you do the rest ?

Why are you telling us it had to be explosives, if you can't explain explosives to us ?
 
How can you tell? You have proudly declaimed that you know nothing about any of it?

You have proudly declaimed that you have no education whatsoever in such matters.

Somehow you know more than those of us who do. How does that work?

"Declaimed"? I can't respond to your post. I do not know the meaning of that word.
 
I am not an expert. I am certainly not an expert on explosives. I will not discuss this issue. We need an investigation by experts to provide the answers you are looking for.

Thanks for the tell, though.

You had it Truthers are nuts that is my expert opinion.
 
So your basic understanding of basic physics doesn't include explosives ?

It is still physics. F=MA.

I have given you the mass can't you do the rest ?

Why are you telling us it had to be explosives, if you can't explain explosives to us ?

What else explains the motions observed?

Once again, ask all you want. I am not an expert on explosives; therefore, I will not discuss the subject of explosives.
 
Your claim that no explosions were heard is not supported by the massive amounts of evidence that exists to the contrary.
Really? Prove your claim.

So not proof. OK, then.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to the people that were there.
Why do you refuse to do that very thing?

And no. Your word is useless as you have demonstrated yourself to lie. Nobody with a brain will be taking your word for anything.

If you continually deny the evidence that exists, you will never be able to accept the truth. Your first step is to admit that the evidence you claim does not exist actually does exist.
What truth? You keep making this claim yet provide no evidence for it. Surely you are not making it up out of whole cloth?
 
What else explains the motions observed?

Once again, ask all you want. I am not an expert on explosives; therefore, I will not discuss the subject of explosives.
You will also keep asking a question you ignore the answer to.

Your games are boring.
 
Really? Prove your claim.

So not proof. OK, then.

The video is proof. Anyone who watches it can now clearly see that you are delusional. The video contains many eyewitnesses talking about explosions that they saw or heard. You can deny the video, but the video proves you are wrong.

Seriously, your cognitive dissonance and delusions are severe.
 
No. This is not the most accurate because the "crush up" phase the Bazant paper describes is never observed.
Neither was it observed in the real building, nor does Bazant's paper necessarily apply to the real collapse. It still matches the observed movement best, and the cause was gravity.
 
Show me the math. I have no fear of calculus

Already posted, but...

Let's consider the ball in the next frame to have a Mass (m) of 1kg and for this experiment, air resistance is negligible cause it will complicate the math, even though Air Resistance itself is an example of what we are about to do*.

picture.php


Our falling object is accelerating due to g. Force is mg

g = 9.8 m/s2
picture.php


Our falling object encounters an opposing force that produces an acceleration less than g

F = 5N

since F = ma

a = F/m

a = 5/1

A = 5 m/s2
picture.php


To determine the final acceleration we must add the two acceleration vectors. This means that we could get into the laws of co-sines, (c2=a2+b2−2abcosθc2), but since these to vectors oppose each other we can instead just add their magnitudes and for convention sake we assign all accelerations that oppose the direction of travel as negative, and any in the direction of travel as positive.

So this means that g = +9.8 m/s2 and A = -5 m/s2
Thus....

AFinal = g + -A
AFinal = g - A

AFinal = 9.8 - 5
AFinal = 4.8 m/s2
Our final Acceleration is 4.8 m/s2 and since it is positive it is in the same direction as our object is travelling (according to our convention above), thus it is still accelerating at 4.8 m/s2 through the time of the opposing force.



* If the above wasn't enough to convince you, then consider this. Every time something moves on Earth it experiences air resistance (Drag) as a force opposing that motion. If such a force always cause objects to have a negative acceleration when they occurred, then nothing could actually move because as soon as they attempted to accelerate, the air resistance would decelerate them, and their velocity would remain zero.

Rather what we see is that their acceleration is lessened by the air resistance they encounter, hence why we design cars and planes to have as low as possible drag, so they can gain more of their engine's acceleration by having less drag on them meaning that their engine's acceleration minus their drag is maximized and they use less fuel to counter the drag.

Also consider pushing an object across a table. When we do this we create friction, an opposing force. If it decelerated our object then we could not actually push it across the table because as soon as we accelerated our object by pushing it, friction would decelerate it back to velocity of zero. Again it doesn't, it merely lowers the acceleration the object experiences from our pushing.

The only time an object will always experience deceleration when facing a force opposing its direction of travel is when it is moving with a constant velocity because all current forces on that object are balanced. Thus the new force unbalances those forces and creates a negative acceleration.

If an object is already undergoing acceleration due to a force (FA), then encountering an opposing force (FO) will do one of three things.

1) if FO < FA = Reduced Acceleration
2) if FO = FA = No Acceleration
3) if FO > FA = Negative Acceleration
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom