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

[FalseFlag]

FF uses English prose retorts and banter to contradict science and engineering.

From http://literarydevices.net/prose/ -

Prose Definition

Prose is a form of language that has no formal metrical structure. It applies a natural flow of speech, and ordinary grammatical structure rather than rhythmic structure, such as in the case of traditional poetry.

Normal every day speech is spoken in prose and most people think and write in prose form. Prose comprises of full grammatical sentences which consist of paragraphs and forgoes aesthetic appeal in favor of clear, straightforward language.

Um...let's think about this.

You claim I write in English prose. So, you're admitting I use normal, everyday speech with full grammatical sentences to contradict your twisted scientific and engineering claims.

OK. Thanks for pointing that out. I always thought it was obvious, but thanks for confirming it.

It’s like using a banana for a bat in baseball.

No, it's more like using a brain to apply logic and reason to a situation and then separate facts from hardcore BS.

 

[tfk]

I have run from nothing. I simply won't answer your nonsense because I know it's pointless. You see what you want to see. Period.

It's not MY nonsense that you won't answer.

YOU brought up the "explosions visible" in the video that YOU presented as evidence for one of you lame assertions.
Not me.

I merely asked you state "where you see the explosions that YOU claim are in this video."

That should be trivial. something like "at mm:ss of the video, vertically X% down from the top, horizontally Y% across from the left side."
__

And, who do you think you're kidding about "you won't answer because I won't see it."

You didn't bring up this video in a response to me.
I watched your video, to see what you consider to be "evidence".

You cited something doesn't even appear in the video.
You are incompetent in identifying what you see.

If you think that you are the competent one, and that I am the incompetent one, show everybody.

Show everyone where are the explosions in the video that YOU brought to the discussion.

Or not...

It really will not hurt your reputation.
It's not possible to hurt "the dead".

 

[tfk]

No. We both do. The difference is that one of us isn't ignoring it.

You keep emphasizing the "fact" that you are an engineer. It's irrelevant, and here's why.

Imagine a person is an apple farmer. They have been one for their entire lives. They hand you an orange but they insist it's an apple...

And your analogy collapses into its own footpring. "at free fall speed".
LoL.

You have a clueless concept of what an expert on apples would say.

An expert on apples would never say, "this orange is an apple".
That is what someone who is clueless about the difference between apples & oranges might say.

YOU might say that.
Not because you're clueless about the difference between apples & orange.
But because you don't give a rat's butt about the truth.

Imagine a person is a mathematician with a PhD. The mathematician says that 1 + 1 equals 876.

An expert in math would never say this.
But this is exactly what Twoofers say ... daily.

Because they are clueless amateurs.
Amateurs like you.
Clueless like you.

Now, imagine some anonymous person posts something on the internet. The person claims to be an authority on a subject, but that person routinely makes claims that a non-expert can see is wrong.

Presumably you're talking about me, here.

OK, champ. Provide one sentence that I've written that you feel you can prove that I'm wrong about.

Then have at it.
Prove me wrong.

Let's see what you can do.

Your expertise is meaningless when you deny basic principles of physics.

There's a bold, and bold-type, claim.
Let's see you back it up, boy.

Specify the basic principle of physics that I've denied.
State how I denied it.
State what the correct principle is.
Prove what you say.

Stop yelling clueless taunts from the cheap seats, boy.
Step in the ring.

 

[tfk]

ONE of knows how to do middle school physics.
ONE of us doesn't.

No. We both do.

OK, here's a simple opportunity for you to prove it.

NIST provides, in Fig. 12-76, an empirical equation for the drop of the roofline of WTC7 vs. time. It is:

[Eqn. 1] z(t) = 379.62 (1 - e^{(-0.18562 t)3.5126})

where z = the drop of the roofline from its original position.

You can see from the data that this curve fits the data far better than the velocity vs. time graph, shown in figure 12-77.

Use Eqn 1, above to generate:
the velocity vs. time equation
the acceleration vs. time equation
calculate the terminal velocity.

Show the graphs of the first two equations vs. time.

Show the data points from Fig. 12-77 on the empirical velocity graph & explain why they don't fall exactly on the velocity vs. time curve.

Saying that you understand physics is easy.
Now, show me.

 

[FalseFlag]

It's not MY nonsense that you won't answer.

YOU brought up the "explosions visible" in the video that YOU presented as evidence for one of you lame assertions.
Not me.

I merely asked you state "where you see the explosions that YOU claim are in this video."

Why? You will just ignore what can clearly be seen.

If you think that you are the competent one, and that I am the incompetent one, show everybody.

Why? You are doing all of the work for me. You're doing a great job, too.

 

[FalseFlag]

Stop yelling clueless taunts from the cheap seats, boy.
Step in the ring.

TFK is on tilt.

 

[FalseFlag]

Saying that you understand physics is easy.
Now, show me.

Why? How can I prove I understand physics to someone who spends so much time twisting it to suit their own personal fantasies and delusions? Why would I waste my time?

 

[abaddon]

Why? How can I prove I understand physics to someone who spends so much time twisting it to suit their own personal fantasies and delusions? Why would I waste my time?

But wait. It is your affirmative claim that you do not understand physics AT ALL.

Why would anyone who does care what you think?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Here you go.

Why? How can I prove I understand physics to someone who spends so much time twisting it to suit their own personal fantasies and delusions? Why would I waste my time?

It wouldn't be a waste of time at all. You can PROVE you understand physics simply by using popular programs like Microsoft Excel (or Office Libre Calc, available for free) to compute the 1st and 2nd derivatives of the NIST equation posted by TFK.

I was able to do so - a little tricksy, but extremely doable. Here is my result for acceleration, sans the vertical values.

All you have to do to prove some physics competency is to reproduce this acceleration graph from NIST's equation. I'm giving you a big boost by showing you the shape of the acceleration curve (you can check your work against this).

What is the value of acceleration at the ??s?

If you are incompetent at physics, you won't supply an answer.

 

[DGM]

It wouldn't be a waste of time at all. You can PROVE you understand physics simply by using popular programs like Microsoft Excel (or Office Libre Calc, available for free) to compute the 1st and 2nd derivatives of the NIST equation posted by TFK......................

Have you seen the Peanuts comics where the teacher speaks? That's what FF took from the highlite.

 

[FalseFlag]

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/wtc7-accel.gif[/qimg]

1. Is the intent of your graph to disprove NIST and Chandler's claims of 2.25 seconds of freefall?

2. Do you agree that your graph shows positive acceleration (not 0) for about 4.8 seconds?

3. Do you agree that the positive acceleration, when using normal conventions, means that the object being measured has a downward (normally negative) acceleration? We can use the values in your graph, we just need to agree on a convention. I propose that since the building was falling, whatever positive value exists in your graph is actually negative if we use a standard convention. Do you agree to this?

 

[GlennB]

1. Is the intent of your graph to disprove NIST and Chandler's claims of 2.25 seconds of freefall?

2. Do you agree that your graph shows positive acceleration (not 0) for about 4.8 seconds?

3. Do you agree that the positive acceleration, when using normal conventions, means that the object being measured has a downward (normally negative) acceleration? We can use the values in your graph, we just need to agree on a convention. I propose that since the building was falling, whatever positive value exists in your graph is actually negative if we use a standard convention. Do you agree to this?

This will get funny. FF has ventured into science I'd fetch my popcorn but it's bedtime in these parts.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

1. Is the intent of your graph to disprove NIST and Chandler's claims of 2.25 seconds of freefall?

No, it's to show that I can do physics, including evaluating derivatives with calculus.

2. Do you agree that your graph shows positive acceleration (not 0) for about 4.8 seconds?

Well, since I am using the graphs and equations mentioned just a while earlier in this very thread, I used my reading comprehension to note the key phrase "Figure 12-76 Downward displacement of north face roofline as WTC7 begins to collapse."

Downward Displacement means that the roofline is "falling", and ultimately that the acceleration will be positive if the object falls downwards with increasing downward velocity. In my graph, this is the case for just under 5 seconds.

3. Do you agree that the positive acceleration, when using normal conventions, means that the object being measured has a downward (normally negative) acceleration? We can use the values in your graph, we just need to agree on a convention. I propose that since the building was falling, whatever positive value exists in your graph is actually negative if we use a standard convention. Do you agree to this?

I agree with the highlighted portion above. We are talking about downward displacement, downward velocity, and downward acceleration.

Now, what is the value of the line with the ??s?

Your physics competency is "on the line" here.

 

[FalseFlag]

No, it's to show that I can do physics, including evaluating derivatives with calculus.

No. At best, it means you can google online calculators.

Why don't you post a link to the website you used, and paste the exact equation you used. Post screenshots to show each step. Then, copy and paste a picture of the graph of the equation.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

No, it's to show that I can do physics, including evaluating derivatives with calculus.

No. At best, it means you can google online calculators.

Why don't you post a link to the website you used, and paste the exact equation you used. Post screenshots to show each step. Then, copy and paste a picture of the graph of the equation.

No. I didn't use a "website". I used a useful piece of analysis software, Office Libre's Calc application, along with my knowledge of how to evaluate first and second derivatives, and the utility of these important quantities in physics.

So, No. The exact equation I used has already been posted several times. I used my "insider" knowledge of physics to transform that equation into velocity and acceleration profiles (the latter, along with another copy of the exact equation, appears here).

It's not my job to walk you through what I did, step by step.

It's YOUR job to prove that you have even a minimal grasp of the physics involved.

Can you derive these fundamental quantities (velocity, acceleration) from the given exact equation?

If not, then what makes you think you are the least bit qualified to pass judgment on experienced physicists and engineers?

Lurkers are getting plenty of LOLs while you stumble, FF.

Can you use Excel?

Can you take a simple derivative?

 

[FalseFlag]

*snip*

Can you use Excel?

Can you take a simple derivative?

Why won't you post your data?

Why won't you post your steps?

If you were so certain that you were correct, you would want to make sure as many people as possible could review your work and get the same results.

Well, at least that is how it should work, but you're a skeptic, and obfuscation is what you thrive on.

 

[TJM]

Why won't you post your data?

Why won't you post your steps?

It's not my job to walk you through what I did, step by step.

It's YOUR job to prove that you have even a minimal grasp of the physics involved.

Can you derive these fundamental quantities (velocity, acceleration) from the given exact equation?

 

[pgimeno]

I was able to do so - a little tricksy, but extremely doable. Here is my result for acceleration, sans the vertical values.

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/wtc7-accel.gif[/qimg]

All you have to do to prove some physics competency is to reproduce this acceleration graph from NIST's equation. I'm giving you a big boost by showing you the shape of the acceleration curve (you can check your work against this).

What is the value of acceleration at the ??s?

If you are incompetent at physics, you won't supply an answer.

Why won't you post your data?

Why won't you post your steps?

Because that would defeat the purpose of the exercise, obviously. It's being fun to see him prove the point.

 

[FalseFlag]

Because that would defeat the purpose of the exercise, obviously. It's being fun to see him prove the point.

The only purpose of the exercise is to deflect attention away from the fact that skeptics deny any and everything that goes against their fantasy.

It's pure nonsense to make any sort of claim that a person needs to do calculus busy work in order to understand physics.

Skeptics can only play their game when the most simple facts are obscured by unnecessarily complexity. That is what they are trying to do here. It's easy to see, and I'm not playing the game.

 

[TJM]

The only purpose of the exercise is to deflect attention away from the fact that skeptics deny any and everything that goes against their fantasy.

It's pure nonsense to make any sort of claim that a person needs to do calculus busy work in order to understand physics.

Skeptics can only play their game when the most simple facts are obscured by unnecessarily complexity. That is what they are trying to do here. It's easy to see, and I'm not playing the game.

Are the Stundies still running?