The physics toolkit

[Carll68]

I suggest the pointless posts from those who are contributing nothing to this thread should either be removed or split. In particular the tedious and trolling repitition from Carli should be sorted out. It arises from him claiming a difference between *0.5 and /2. And has been his method of *attack* for several years. Wow. Hilarious. If you want to start a thread on that point Carli, be my guest, but please keep your nonsense out of this one.

Wrong..look how the uneducated Charlatan wiggles and squirms to hide his tender underbelly. The question he assumes I asked was never asked by me..yet indeed it was asked by someone else..I pointed this out, and hilarity ensued.

In fact, as it was pointed out, the correct answer to the question he pretended I asked was and is *0.5 ... yet he answered 1/1.76 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5971926#post5971926 on this very forum. Doesn't get more uneducated than that folks.

Kid doesn't even have a clue when he exposes himself. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5977115#post5977115

Copy of his failed answer to the question http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5979148#post5979148 and the ensuing argument between him and "bigc0282"..notice how he does not even grasp what 'bigc0282' is saying.....then, without proof, states i am 'bigc0282'

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5979877#post5979877 further evidence of his insane uneducated delusions

 

[femr2]

In fact, as it was pointed out, the correct answer to the question he pretended I asked was and is *0.5 ... yet he answered 1/1.76

Priceless.

It's around 1/1.76 to 0.5 * Fo

...and you replied with...

Wrong answer fake Physics fraud

The thread will break if F=Fo/2.

No matter how many times it has been explained to you, it still doesn't register. Instantaneous load amplification factor of 2 is not a constant. There is limited information about the example system, so my answer is correct. Seems you can't read either, so I'll expand on the obvious...

The answer...

1/1.76 *Fo -to- 1/2 *Fo

Am pretty sure there is no real-world system where the factor of exactly 2 is physically reasonable.

Not that it'll even touch the sides with you, but whatever. Enjoy. Please stay on topic. I've already suggested that if you wish to start a thread to vent your gripes to go ahead...

 

[tfk]

femr,

Eh ? Am sure you know that is not what NIST defines...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/155958691.png

Yes, you're right.
I know NIST's timing.
It was NIST's "stage" terminology that I quoted.
I put in my timing.
I think my numbers are better.
That's just me...

The content of the rest of your post does not use any actual data.

Gee, I've noticed that a fair number of these posts don't contain actual data. Imagine that.

I'll await the results of your analysis applying a "smooth, noise-robust differentiator" to the data provided to you.

OK.

No. They use a point on the building, using a method based on pixel intensity as is made perfectly vlear on this thread.

Yes, I did not "Recall Correctly".

You're right. A roof pixel.

Only if an over-simplistic approach of applying low order curve fitting is the *meaning* of any particular building feature t(0) diluted.

LoL. Wow, that was a mouthful.

 

[femr2]

I think my numbers are better.

Will be interesting to see what period of sustained >=g drops out of your analysis method. When I've finalised the scaling metrics, I'll post the same for my methods (which include wide-band symmetric differencing, wide-band moving averaging, polynomial line fit by least squares comparing results from linear to order of 50, ...)

Wow, that was a mouthful.

Er, yeah. Not the easiest of sentences to read. You got the gist I assume ?

ETA: Rekn it should read... Only if an over-simplistic approach of applying low order curve fitting is used is the *meaning* of any particular building feature t(0) diluted.

 

[Carll68]

Priceless.



No matter how many times it has been explained to you, it still doesn't register. Instantaneous load amplification factor of 2 is not a constant. There is limited information about the example system, so my answer is correct. Seems you can't read either, so I'll expand on the obvious...

The answer...

1/1.76 *Fo -to- 1/2 *Fo

Classic..pure classic self debunk on your behalf exposing your uneducated Charlatan ways.

The answer: The thread will break if F=Fo/2.

The solution:
Before the force is applied the weight of the object hanging on the thread is balanced by the tension force of the thread. Once the additional force F is applied downwards the TOTAL force becomes F, and the weight starts executing harmonic oscillation under the influence of the forces. It starts the oscillation at the top point of the period. After a quarter of the period it reaches the midpoint of the oscillation at which the total force vanishes. After half of the period it reaches the bottom point of the oscillation, at which, by symmetry, the total force is F UPWARDS. This total force is result of the applied external force F pointing downwards, and the increase in the thread tension, which must be 2F and point upwards. Thus, the maximal thread tension is TWICE larger than the applied force. Consequently, F=Fo/2 breaks the thread.


Comment: This problem has been taken from an old issue of the journal "Kvant" ("Quantum") (Problem F1209, the issue of 1990). Copies of the old issues of that journal can still be found (in Russian) on the web. It is probably the best Physics-Mathematics journal for high-school children (as well as university students).

Geesh.......

 

[femr2]

Geesh ? You have forgotten the question...

Femr, lets say a 5lb object is dangling from an elastic thread. Then, an additional stretching force F is applied & slowly increased. When F reaches value Fo the thread separates,
~ Now, what would be the minimal size of F that separates the thread, if F is applied instantaneously and remains unchanged.?

I've told you why the answer has a range. System definition omission, critical part of any physics question...

1) You don't know the length of the thread. Billion miles ?
2) You don't know the mass of the thread. Billion Kg ?
3) You don't know enough about the elasticity of the thread.
etc.

I'm fully aware you are not going to take any notice of my answer to you, so perhaps some other bods here will finally be able to put you straight. Your cut and paste answer even quantifies the limited applicability of it's answer elsewhere in the text.

Again, please stay on topic.

ETA: Perhaps you may benefit from reading-up on the implications of damping ratio for suddenly applied loads.

 

[Carll68]

Geesh ? You have forgotten the question...


I've told you why the answer has a range. System definition omission, critical part of any physics question...

1) You don't know the length of the thread. Billion miles ?
2) You don't know the mass of the thread. Billion Kg ?
3) You don't know enough about the elasticity of the thread.
etc.

I'm fully aware you are not going to take any notice of my answer to you, so perhaps some other bods here will finally be able to put you straight. Your cut and paste answer even quantifies the limited applicability of it's answer elsewhere in the text.

Again, please stay on topic.

ETA: Perhaps you may benefit from reading-up on the implications of damping ratio for suddenly applied loads.

AHAHAHAHA

This is classic. Look at FEMR dance. I am so happy you decided to re-engage in this and show everyone once again your utter stupidity when it comes to physics.

Lets refresh what was asked--as per you--by "bigC'...that you answered WRONG...again...

LMAO-----

Then, we can dive head first into what I ASKED YOU:

Answer to the Question 09/05

BREAKING A THREAD

The question was:

A weight is hanging on an elastic thread. An additional stretching force F is applied and is gradually (slowly) increased. When the force reaches value Fo the thread breaks. What should be the minimal size of a force that breaks the thread, if such a force is applied instantaneously and remains unchanged.


The answer: The thread will break if F=Fo/2.

The solution:
Before the force is applied the weight of the object hanging on the thread is balanced by the tension force of the thread. Once the additional force F is applied downwards the TOTAL force becomes F, and the weight starts executing harmonic oscillation under the influence of the forces. It starts the oscillation at the top point of the period. After a quarter of the period it reaches the midpoint of the oscillation at which the total force vanishes. After half of the period it reaches the bottom point of the oscillation, at which, by symmetry, the total force is F UPWARDS. This total force is result of the applied external force F pointing downwards, and the increase in the thread tension, which must be 2F and point upwards. Thus, the maximal thread tension is TWICE larger than the applied force. Consequently, F=Fo/2 breaks the thread.


Comment: This problem has been taken from an old issue of the journal "Kvant" ("Quantum") (Problem F1209, the issue of 1990). Copies of the old issues of that journal can still be found (in Russian) on the web. It is probably the best Physics-Mathematics journal for high-school children (as well as university students).

 

[femr2]

AHAHAHAHA

This is classic. Look at FEMR dance. I am so happy you decided to re-engage in this and show everyone once again your utter stupidity when it comes to physics.

How very tedious. Read, and try to understand...

What is the damping ratio for either the original or your equivalent new question (which simply omits the hanging mass quantity) ?

What medium is the system in ? Air, water, ... ?

What are the drag coefficients for either the hanging or applied masses ?

 

[Dog Town]

1) You don't know the length of the thread. Billion miles ?

Now that there's funny! Wasn't it you complaining about folks interrupting "your" thread. Yet, here you go. In answer to question #1, I sure hope this don't end up being, a realistice thread! And what was all that whining about "cut & paste"?

 

[femr2]

Now that there's funny!

The purpose is to illustrate the unknown elements of the question, which affect the answer. Extreme and unrealistic value, of course.

Wasn't it you complaining about folks interrupting "your" thread.

No. Not my thread at all. The focus of this thread has wandered somewhat, but there's been a relatively clear topic for a few pages.

And what was all that whining about "cut & paste"?

Carli has been trolling with the same inept rubbish over multiple threads for a long time, has been told time and time again why his cut and paste example omits critical system definition features and that such affect the answer.

A more appropriate post for you to make would be to criticise Carli for his ridiculous behaviour. Hopefully he will accept my original answer, provided over a year ago, apologise, and go and do something less boring instead.

 

[Carll68]

The purpose is to illustrate the unknown elements of the question, which affect the answer. Extreme and unrealistic value, of course.

Let this short discussion serve it's intended purpose; as an EYE POPPING example of just what an uneducated mess FEMR is. As you can see, he has no real world grasp of physics, and, consequently, does not even know he does not have a real world grasp of physics.

Look at this frauds answer; It is wrong. Plain and simple, end of story, no two ways about it WRONG.

On a test, if the question was asked; his answer would be WRONG and he would FAIL. It is as simple as that. Yet, the charlatan still fights on, trying to justify his incorrect answer.

FEMR..please note..to correctly answer the question..you do not need (cut from your post #366)

1) The length of the thread. Billion miles ?
2) The mass of the thread. Billion Kg ?
3) The elasticity of the thread.

If you truly had a grasp of physics, you would know this. But you do not, so you don't. You can, and people have, answered the question correctly w/o this extraneous fluff. These are all 'dodges' from you, trying to shuffle off and hide the fact that you do not understand, and never have, simple physics.

Tell ya what hero, why don't you go ahead and show your work for all here to see on how you arrived at an answer of 1/1.76 for this question:

BREAKING A THREAD

The question was:

A weight is hanging on an elastic thread. An additional stretching force F is applied and is gradually (slowly) increased. When the force reaches value Fo the thread breaks. What should be the minimal size of a force that breaks the thread, if such a force is applied instantaneously and remains unchanged.

tick tock tick tock

 

[Carll68]

Carli has been trolling with the same inept rubbish over multiple threads for a long time, has been told time and time again why his cut and paste example omits critical system definition features and that such affect the answer.

The floor is yours super-star! What are you waiting on? Your answer of 1/1.76 is 100% incorrect.
WRONG
I WILL SAY TYPE THIS AGAIN; If this was a test, you would FAIL.

So, have a go at it slick...don't delay, don't run - show me why the answer to the question posted below is wrong, and why you insipid answer is correct:

BREAKING A THREAD

The question was:

A weight is hanging on an elastic thread. An additional stretching force F is applied and is gradually (slowly) increased. When the force reaches value Fo the thread breaks. What should be the minimal size of a force that breaks the thread, if such a force is applied instantaneously and remains unchanged.


The answer: The thread will break if F=Fo/2. (Not 1/1.76)

The solution:
Before the force is applied the weight of the object hanging on the thread is balanced by the tension force of the thread. Once the additional force F is applied downwards the TOTAL force becomes F, and the weight starts executing harmonic oscillation under the influence of the forces. It starts the oscillation at the top point of the period. After a quarter of the period it reaches the midpoint of the oscillation at which the total force vanishes. After half of the period it reaches the bottom point of the oscillation, at which, by symmetry, the total force is F UPWARDS. This total force is result of the applied external force F pointing downwards, and the increase in the thread tension, which must be 2F and point upwards <<<Pay attention. Thus, the maximal thread tension is TWICE larger than the applied force. Consequently, F=Fo/2 breaksthe thread.

Comment: This problem has been taken from an old issue of the journal "Kvant" ("Quantum") (Problem F1209, the issue of 1990). Copies of the old issues of that journal can still be found (in Russian) on the web. It is probably the best Physics-Mathematics journal for high-school children (as well as university students).

 

[femr2]

Carli,

You are an utter fool.

Conduct your experiment in water, and determine the instantaneous load amplification factor.

You have not a clue.

I am SURE that other members here with any self-respect whatsoever are going to set you straight. I've tried, repeatedly, to illustrate your errors to no avail.

You really are making a fool of yourself.

The low-bound is an arbitary estimate, however, there is NO system I am aware of that has a real-world factor of exactly 2. I've provided you with a direct calc for a modifying factor, damping ratio, and you have learned nothing. We can all make mistakes, but you are without hope of any progress.

With no respect whatsoever,

femr2

 

[alienentity]

It's only critical when attempting to fit a simple curve to derive metrics, and to, for instance, determine the time of descent. Looking at change in rate of increase in velocity between two arbitary points is not dependant upon a specific t(0). There's no smooth descent curve in this instance, so it'll even be difficult to relate a *good* t(0) to at-G or over-G derivations.


A longer copy of the video would clarify, but twisting would appear to preceed descent of the East penthouse by up to 20s.

This segment presented earlier (if watched until your eyes bleed) may provide insight into internal behaviour...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/920361115.gif[/qimg]

This video is very interesting indeed. I've just posted links on a couple of my videos to it.

femr2 - you've done much laudable work in carefully measuring the collapses, congratulations! And I particularly enjoyed your debate with Tony Szamboti - in many respects you are bang on.

What I find puzzling is that, in spite of your own admission that the collapses do not require explosives to propagate once the initial failures occur, you still choose to cling to CD theory.

IMO, your findings DISprove CD theory almost perfectly.

Your WTC7 clip is a wonderful illustration that the collapse of the building did not begin when Richard Gage and David Chandler claim it did, nor in the time interval they claim.

One of the latest truther excuses I've seen is that the E PH is 'demolished' before the rest of the building, so has nothing to do with the rest of the collapse.

 

[Dog Town]

Snip...drivel

A more appropriate post for you to make would be to criticise Carli for his ridiculous behaviour.

It's funny how you just addressed my last post. You really seem to have problems properly comprehending what you read, at least your general replies make it appear so. Is English not your first language? That would certainly explain a lot.
You telling me what is appropriate to post, is beyond laughable. Your interaction with Carli is your problem! For a person who loves to dance, it's funny that you don't seem to realize, IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO!

 

[pgimeno]

One of the latest truther excuses I've seen is that the E PH is 'demolished' before the rest of the building, so has nothing to do with the rest of the collapse.

Oh WOW!

Just imagine the planning phase.

- So, how do we bring down building 7 while making it look like the building collapsed because of fire?
- We could do like we decided for the towers: to bring it down from the top.
- Nah, I want to laugh at the face of these bastards and make it look like the controlled demolition it is. I just want to cover my ass when it's investigated.
- Mmmmm... In that case, we could start fires in the lower stories and blow the east penthouse first so that it looks like a column failure.
- You think that will work?
- Sure! I have some people at NIST that will cover us up for a substantial sum.
- (writing the check) Ok, that will be. But tell them not to hurry with the investigation, or it will look too evident that we blowed it up.
- But wasn't the purpose to laugh at people making it look like a CD?
- Oh yeah, but you never know...

I had a really hard time trying to figure out such a dialog. It's just too surreal.

 

[femr2]

This video is very interesting indeed.

My reason for posting it is focussed upon revealing internal building behaviour, thus the colour processing. It's just a small segment of the NIST Camera #3 footage.

What I find puzzling is that, in spite of your own admission that the collapses do not require explosives to propagate once the initial failures occur, you still choose to cling to CD theory.

I've made my position repeatedly clear. There are serious issues with the accepted initiation sequences, and I am using whatever means at my disposal to investigate.

IMO, your findings DISprove CD theory almost perfectly.

There are certainly many suggested behaviours that my work shows to be incorrect. It would be a mistake to jump to catch-all conclusions.

Your WTC7 clip is a wonderful illustration that the collapse of the building did not begin when Richard Gage and David Chandler claim it did, nor in the time interval they claim.

Neither have my respect, but that's irrelevant. My work also shows the innacuracy of much of NISTs, however much others may object or disagree. Again, it would be a mistake to then jump to wide-scope conclusions. You may be interested in my recent work on building feature movement for WTC 1 following the Sauret camera shake. Then again you might not, but the only reason I can imagine you might not is the questions asked following the very draft findings.

One of the latest truther excuses I've seen is that the E PH is 'demolished' before the rest of the building, so has nothing to do with the rest of the collapse.

A longer copy of the NIST Camera #3 footage would be handy to determine the earlier behaviour. Without that data it will be difficult to use the techniques to make correct conclusions about the building behaviour which causes the facade *twisting*, as the twisting is already in progress at the start of the clip I have (which is probably the longest view available t'public.)

 

[Carll68]

Carli,

You are an utter fool.

Conduct your experiment in water, and determine the instantaneous load amplification factor.

You have not a clue.

I am SURE that other members here with any self-respect whatsoever are going to set you straight. I've tried, repeatedly, to illustrate your errors to no avail.

You really are making a fool of yourself.

The low-bound is an arbitary estimate, however, there is NO system I am aware of that has a real-world factor of exactly 2. I've provided you with a direct calc for a modifying factor, damping ratio, and you have learned nothing. We can all make mistakes, but you are without hope of any progress.

With no respect whatsoever,

femr2

Fraud..Let's see....How can I state this succinctly....you DO NOT UNDERSTAND PHYSICS BEYOND AN 8TH GRADE LEVEL.

That is point blank the fact.

You answered the question WRONG. If it was a test, you would FAIL. Your understanding of physics is flawed. You lack comprehension. Your answer and subsequent refusal to admit --or realize--your error is laughable.

There is no "maybe"...it is fact. Your answer was, is and always will be wrong...despite your idiot loon dance...despite the extraneous fluff you added in to try to justify being wrong.


You realize that you do not need to know:

) The length of the thread.
2) The mass of the thread.
3) The elasticity of the thread.

Don't you?

Man up and admit it, or go into your 'conservation of momentum' comprehension faliure mode yet again. I asked you to show you work, but you dance and skirt and fail to admit what everyone else here knows. YOU ARE WRONG ON YOUR ANSWER...show your work...why is it 1/1.76?

Can't answer? Not suprised kid.


PS---- The problem presented has been solved correctly (13/9/05) by Qiu Shi Wang and Ying Cun Luo, freshmen at Peking University, China , and (13/9/05) by Chetan Mandayam Nayakar, a student at India Institute of Technology, Madras, India . They answered F=F0/2! The correct answer is, was, and always will be F=Fo/2

 

[Carll68]

Carli,

You are an utter fool.

Conduct your experiment in water, and determine the instantaneous load amplification factor.

You have not a clue.

I am SURE that other members here with any self-respect whatsoever are going to set you straight. I've tried, repeatedly, to illustrate your errors to no avail.

You really are making a fool of yourself.

The low-bound is an arbitary estimate, however, there is NO system I am aware of that has a real-world factor of exactly 2. I've provided you with a direct calc for a modifying factor, damping ratio, and you have learned nothing. We can all make mistakes, but you are without hope of any progress.

With no respect whatsoever,

femr2

Junior..you already have displayed you utter incompetence here for all to see...and, earlier, you stated I was welcome to test your ..uh-hum (lol)..how did you word it years ago? Oh yeah...'physics expertise' with additional questions. Just like years ago Rizla, on youtube, under this screen name, my only account, carll68, despite your paranoid delusions that I am everyone else, you will fail to answer correct (already done) then run and hide (what you are about to do), claiming you are 'above answering' while clinging to the fact that your prior wrong answer was 'correct'. You are an absolute joke.

Last time, you would not answer after being proved wrong and made to look like a stooge because you stated "I don't answer people who call me truther'. Now man up and get some tougher skin truther, stop your dime store physics and show 'your stuff'.

So..lets see if you can answer a SAT physics question correct...you already failed once:

So, femr, lets say an object, any object, at rest has a length of 100 m. Can you detail at what speed this object must approach a tunnel 80 m long so that an observer at rest (with respect to the tunnel) will see that the entire train is in the tunnel at one time?

Show your work fraud.

tap tap tap tap tap

 

[femr2]

Your answer was, is and always will be wrong.

No, I have provided a range of values. I have told you why the amplification factor of *2* is not a constant. I've provided you with all manner of reasons why. It's ridiculous.

show your work...why is it 1/1.76?

1/1.76 is a reasonable bottom-end estimate, as I've already told you. Could be even larger, even approaching 1*Fo. The answer is anywhere inbetween that and > 1/2. It is most definitely NOT exactly 1/2, as any real-world system with an amplification factor of exactly 2 is physically unreasonable.

A reminder...

Read it again, and TRY and understand.

Can't answer? Not suprised kid.

Gave you the answer over a year ago. That you cannot comprehend that your cut and paste answer makes assumptions and provides a theoretical answer, not a real-world one, is your problem. Many examples in physics make assumptions about the real-world. Your quoted example is one of them. There's nothing wrong with that as such, until you say that a more correct answer which does take account of assumptions is wrong.

PS---- This problem has been solved correctly (13/9/05) by Qiu Shi Wang and Ying Cun Luo, freshmen at Peking University, China , and (13/9/05) by Chetan Mandayam Nayakar, a student at India Institute of Technology, Madras, India . The correct answer is, was, and always will be F=Fo/2

No. That is the one answer which is WRONG. It's a reasonable approximation.

I'll try one last time to help you see the *real-world*...

1) The question does not state the medium the experiment is conducted within. Correct ?

2) So the answer you say is correct should be the same whether it's done in air, or in treacle. Correct ?

3) The question does not state by how much the elastic string stretches before it breaks. Correct ?

4) So the answer you say is correct should be the same whether the string stretches by 1mm or 1 mile. Correct ?

5) If you drop a weight in air it falls at a different rate than it would in treacle. Correct ?

6) The surface area of the weight dropped in the treacle has an effect on it's drop rate when it's mass is taken into account. So the drag coefficient will affect it's drop rate. Correct ?

7) The time it takes for the elastic thread to break is not stated. Correct ?

8) How much the elastic thread stretches by before breaking, what medium the experiment is conducted within and the drag coefficient of the applied mass will all affect the time it takes for the elastic thread to break. Correct ?

Etc.

Do you understand the implications of the text in the included image ?

Specifically why (1+e^-ζπ) is relevant in this context ?

"In practice damping is rarely included in calculations of this sort"

Tell you what. Ask some of the local physics bods. Let me know how you get on.

ETA...

So, femr, lets say an object, any object, at rest has a length of 100 m. Can you detail at what speed this object must approach a tunnel 80 m long so that an observer at rest (with respect to the tunnel) will see that the entire train is in the tunnel at one time?

Could you let me know exactly why you have chosen this question ? I'm not going to pollute this thread further with your nonsense. I am sure the mods will agree to split the thread, to allow the discussion to return to more productive endeavours.