• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The New Physics?

thanks for the link Mike, i think i fixed mine as well. so did you read it? what do you think?
 
thanks for the link Mike, i think i fixed mine as well. so did you read it? what do you think?
It's really not my field so I'll have to spend a while going over it properly to try and pick out anything detailed... From a first skim through it looks good, though, and I definitely like the idea of having these topics aired in a peer-reviewed journal. A real one, too.
 
just had a quick browse. very interesting.
can't fathom the equations presently but am embarking on a physics degree so can't wait to be able to tackle this sort of paper.

BV
 
MikeW; said:
It's really not my field so I'll have to spend a while going over it properly to try and pick out anything detailed... From a first skim through it looks good, though, and I definitely like the idea of having these topics aired in a peer-reviewed journal. A real one, too.

Perhaps we should encourage the authors to submit it to http://st911.org/ for peer review? I think that would be very interesting.
 
Perhaps we should encourage the authors to submit it to http://st911.org/ for peer review? I think that would be very interesting.
Ha! My head is spinning a bit. Started to get lost at "Shanley bifurcation of equilibrium path." I had a track coach named Shanley whose septum was bifurcated, giving him a distinctive voice. Have to go play softball now. Maybe that will clear my head.
 
bonavada; said:
just had a quick browse. very interesting.
can't fathom the equations presently but am embarking on a physics degree so can't wait to be able to tackle this sort of paper.

BV

An excellent course of study. It's very easy to pick up a few extra degrees in the process as well; mechanical engineering,electrical engineering and mathematics. Good Luck :)
 
Ooh, a new paper from Bazant...

And one or two other people you might recognise. :D

My compliments to the authors. A well-thought paper indeed.

I'm a little surprised the "crush-down / crush-up" equations couldn't be solved analytically... must take a closer look. Anyway, it should be a riot listening to the Idiot Movement trying to figure out how to pronounce "Runge-Kutta."
 
R.Mackey; said:
Anyway, it should be a riot listening to the Idiot Movement trying to figure out how to pronounce "Runge-Kutta."

lol, it will probably be the same way I always did, very softly and mumbling. In my head it will always be "rang koota method".
 
An excellent course of study. It's very easy to pick up a few extra degrees in the process as well; mechanical engineering,electrical engineering and mathematics. Good Luck :)


the mathematics i am tackling right now. i'm enjoying that so taking it a level further in september. along with an astronomy course. then hopefully some serious physics early next year. i'm relishing the thought of being able to understand all of the analysis of the paper in the OP.
anyway, thanks.....

BV
 
bonavada; said:
i'm relishing the thought of being able to understand all of the analysis of the paper in the OP.
BV

yes, they've certainly kicked it up a notch this time. i think there are very few people capable of reading this paper once and understanding the equations. i am certainly no exception.
 
Well in the first paragraph I already feel vindicated.
at
least 237 tons of TNT per tower, installed into many small holes drilled into each concrete floor slab
and core wall, would have been needed to produce the same degree of pulverization).

This is what I have been saying for years now when CT's try to say that explosives or thermobaric bombs or mini-nukes pulverised the concrete.
 
HeyLeroy; said:
Ooh, if I PM you my birthdate can you do my horoscope? :D

ETA: Thanks for the link. Way over my head, but thanks.

Were you at the Kildare last night? I was looking for you.
 
Well in the first paragraph I already feel vindicated.


This is what I have been saying for years now when CT's try to say that explosives or thermobaric bombs or mini-nukes pulverised the concrete.

a certain mr c brown might feel the same way :-]

BV
 
,,,, and again with
Thereafter, the top part must have been rotating essentially about its centroid,
which must have been falling almost vertically. The rotation rate must have decreased during
the collapse as further stationary mass accreted to the moving block.

this matchs what I have been telling CT's all along
 

Back
Top Bottom