Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[ergo]

We're not talking about units of measurement.

We are talking about kinetic energy and the measurement of kinetic energy, as per your definition of temperature.

Temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of the individual molecules within, in this case, solid steel. As this kinetic energy increases the mechanical bonds that make steel rigid and strong weaken.

So, if temperature is a measurement of this kinetic energy, what is causing the weakening of the mechanical bonds in the steel? The kinetic energy or the measurement of the kinetic energy?

Simple question.

 

[GlennB]

Ever hear of blasting mats? Covert CD is not going to look the same as overt CD.

Ah. So after the building was evacuated they ran around installing thousands of 'blasting mats'. Which need heavy plant to lift them into place. Then fixing to walls and columns (how?). Inside the building. With nobody noticing the huge piles of 'blasting mats' lying around beforehand. Righto.

lol

 

[twinstead]

cmatrix you're all talk. All your doing is arguing about stuff I'm still not sure you even understand completely on a relatively obscure internet forum, while the rest of the engineering and scientific world ignores you.

Perhaps in the blindness caused by your irritating misplaced arrogance you fail to see just how much in the abject minority you are, but I sure see it. You will not get your new investigation. No reputable and respected scientific journal will ever give you folks the time of day. No legitimate law enforcement or judicial agency or organization will ever listen to you.

You can whine about it. You can declare they're all 'in on it'. You can call the contributers to the NIST and the authors of any other papers that say you are wrong incompetent. You can muse about the reason for this all you want, it's up to you.

I know why.

 

[Newtons Bit]

We're not talking about units of measurement.

We are talking about kinetic energy and the measurement of kinetic energy, as per your definition of temperature.




So, if temperature is a measurement of this kinetic energy, what is causing the weakening of the mechanical bonds in the steel? The kinetic energy or the measurement of the kinetic energy?

Simple question.

It's already been answered. Temperature is the way man expresses that kinetic energy. What other units would you affix to the kinetic energy of molecules in a solid?

 

[ergo]

Newtons Bit, why do you keep trying to change the subject? What you're raising has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Perhaps reformatting the question will help your comprehension:

If temperature is a measurement of this kinetic energy, what is causing the weakening of the mechanical bonds in the steel?

a) the kinetic energy

or

b) the measurement of the kinetic energy

Is the answer a) or b) ?


Anyone? Newtons Bit is having difficulty with this.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Newtons Bit, why do you keep trying to change the subject? What you're raising has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Perhaps reformatting the question will help your comprehension:

If temperature is a measurement of this kinetic energy, what is causing the weakening of the mechanical bonds in the steel?

a) the kinetic energy

or

b) the measurement of the kinetic energy

Is the answer a) or b) ?


Anyone? Newtons Bit is having difficulty with this.

You're a broken record. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you get to keep asking it over and over again. All you're doing is spamming the forums and wasting everyones time.

 

[cmatrix]

Why is this thread still going on when Dr. Thomas ended it halfway through the first page?

Presumably because even JREF "debunkers" understand that a hand-waving dismissal does not equate ending a discussion.

 

[ergo]

You know that answering the question will show that this entire silly "debate" regarding heat vs. temperature was a complete waste of everyone's time, and you were bluffing for ozeco, misrepresenting what I said, and lying in the process.

 

[ergo]

Shall we conclude that bee dunkers really don't understand the difference between kinetic energy and the measurement of kinetic energy?

Newtons Bit cannot answer the question. It seems to go over his head. Are you "out of your league" here, Newtons Bit? It's a pretty easy question. I'm practically handing you the answer.

Let someone else answer for you, then:

If temperature is a measurement of kinetic energy, what is causing the weakening of the mechanical bonds in the steel? The kinetic energy or the measurement of the kinetic energy?

 

[DGM]

You know that answering the question will show that this entire silly "debate" regarding heat vs. temperature was a complete waste of everyone's time, and you were bluffing for ozeco, misrepresenting what I said, and lying in the process.

What's funny is the way you've attempted to shift it away from what you originally said. Kind of like the "moon sized" comment.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

a hand-waving dismissal does not equate ending a discussion.

You mean like the way you responded when it was shown that you lied about contacting the University of Calgary?

Or do you mean a different kind of "hand-waving dismissal"?

 

[Newtons Bit]

You know that answering the question will show that this entire silly "debate" regarding heat vs. temperature was a complete waste of everyone's time, and you were bluffing for ozeco, misrepresenting what I said, and lying in the process.

Your question is a false dichotomy and I've already stated why. Asking it over and over again doesn't change the fact that you are:
1) Committing a logical fallacy.
2) Still don't understand the relationship between heat and temperature or even what their definitions are.

 

[cmatrix]

I don't think you'll find anything useful. It's an article of faith with truthers that buildings fall at freefall speed in a CD; few of them have ever got off their arses and tried to measure any accelerations in an attempt to prove it, and those who have tend to find out that, in fact, they don't, because the CD charges only sever the supports at one point and there's still a progressive crush-up to slow the building to some extent. This tends to shut them up for a bit, because the argument that "WTC7 didn't fall at freefall, and CD's don't fall at freefall, so WTC7 was a CD" is apparently too idiotic even for a truther.

Dave

Amazing! Now you are saying it's impossible for CD to have free fall. But it's quite possible for a gravity collapse to have free fall. ROFL

 

[ergo]

Ozeco said here:

Probably of most relevance here is the fact that it is temperature which weakens steel.

I am asking you now:

If temperature is a measurement of kinetic energy, what is causing the weakening of the mechanical bonds in the steel? The kinetic energy or the meas-ure-ment of the kinetic energy?

Answer, bee dunkers.

 

[ergo]

Obviously, this requires a thread of its own. Newtons Bit can post his "causation" (sic) graph and explain to us all how the measurement of kinetic energy causes the weakening of the mechanical bonds in steel.

Right, Newtons Bit? You'll explain that to everyone?

 

[DGM]

Obviously, this requires a thread of its own. Newtons Bit can post his "causation" (sic) graph and explain to us all how the measurement of kinetic energy causes the weakening of the mechanical bonds in steel.

Right, Newtons Bit? You'll explain that to everyone?

Or we could go back to where this all started.

 

[ergo]

Yes, you can, DGM. It starts right here.

 

[ergo]

I can't tell if it's outright lying or deep, deep stupidity. Either way, it's pretty disgusting.

And you wonder why people stop coming here.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So you now agree that when an object is in free fall all the available gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy?

That's a misrepresentation of what Dave Rogers wrote. From what we have seen so far, it is entirely possible that cmatrix does not understand that converting some of the available GPE to kinetic is not the same as converting all of it.

Yet here you state:

"your statement that "With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy" is inconsistent with simple Newtonian mechanics. Clearly, then, you don't understand Newtonian physics. (I'm being charitable here and assuming you're merely incompetent, rather than lying.)"

Unbelievable.

cmatrix is still having trouble with that Lagrangian.

 

[beachnut]

...
Answer, bee dunkers.

Is that a summation of your knowledge on 911 and science? Why do you have to ask other people and and resort to idiotic weak insults?

This is your invisible fire at WTC 7 on 911.

Are you color blind?