9-11 First Responders See Loonylies Loser Tactics
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 9-11 First Responders See Controlled Demolition -- FACT
Next: easy proof for rectangular-wedge tiler Re: the revised Maximum Tiler conjecture in 2D and 3D #522 Correcting Math
From: Peter Webb on 24 Mar 2010 08:29 "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message news:ZY6dnf6bW5MSaTTWnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... > In news:4ba96073$0$11705$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, > Peter Webb <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> mused: >> "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message > >>> You knew that. And the statement itself proves this with "due >>> to its interaction with the lower section of the building". IOW, the >>> context was during the time interval of the crash of >>> that upper block into the lower support structure. >>> >> >> Perhaps. >> >> For your information, the statement that was provided is true >> when the top section of the building is falling between floors, >> and it is also true when the floors collide. > > But that's not what the statment said. The statement was about the block > of floors DURING ITS INTERACTION with the lower structure. No matter how > much you lie about it, that's what it was about. > The statement was about when it was "falling". And its true even if you interpret this as meaning even during collisions. > All the rest of your bullshit is just a cover for the fact that you > thought that statement was made by the NIST, and so you defended it, no > matter what it said, and now you can't admit it. > > I defended it because its true. Simple as that.
From: Peter Webb on 24 Mar 2010 08:43 "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message news:uqCdnaa5sqElYzTWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... > In news:mtudnUkl2_5cbjTWnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com, > Remy McSwain <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> mused: >> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in >> message news:4ba96073$0$11705$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> [snipped a bunch of lies by PW] >> >> Look, I'm tired of all of your shaking and baking and every other >> kind of obfuscation you're tried to throw out there just to avoid >> admitting your mistakes. As far as saying that the following >> statement is "absolutely correct", you're dead wrong. >> >> "The only two relevant forces acting on the falling block are >> gravity (mg) and an upward normal force (N) due to its >> interaction with the lower section of the building." >> >> You want context, here's the context. A debate between AY and >> the KOOK Henry was being waged as to whether or not the >> remaining lower support structure of the towers failed because >> the upper block of floors fell on it, or whether it failed for >> other reasons. The KOOK kept saying that the proof it had >> fallen for other reasons was that the support structure was >> designed to hold up the weight of the upper block, and that this >> was the only force being exerted on it, and yet, it didn't hold >> up. >> You knew this was the context of that quote. You could not know >> otherwise. Yet, in light of that context, you pronounced that >> statement "absolutely correct". That's clearly wrong. >> >> Since then, you've tried to defend your position by claiming >> that, by definition, the only force that could be exerted on a >> falling body_is_gravity. But that's not only contrary to the >> context in which that statement was made, your claim is also >> contrary to the statement. It doesn't say that the only force >> acting on the falling block was gravity. It says there were two >> forces acting on that body, and that the other was the reaction >> force of the lower structure "due to its interaction". >> >> So the falling body in that statement was interacting (i.e., >> colliding) with a support structure. By definition, and in the >> context of 911, this HAD to be the infamous collision of the >> falling block with the lower structure. Do you know of any >> Newtonian forceless collisions? We're not talking about quantum >> physics here, and so remember context. >> >> You've tried to salvage your position by mischaracterizing the >> condition in that statement as that of just a falling body >> because only gravity acts on a falling body. But that's not the >> condition described by the statement. The statement says that >> the falling body is falling, AND interacting with the support >> structure. THAT is the case of a collision, and in the case of >> a collision, and as AY has correctly pointed out, Newton's >> second law of motion F=(d/dt)mv is also going on. >> >> YES, that means a force other than the weight of the upper block, >> which means that the statement that weight, and the "normal >> upward" reaction to it, were the only forces going on in that >> collision is dead wrong. It was the force which resulted from >> the collision. It wasn't F=mg. It was F=(d/dt)mv. 'g' only >> served to establish the maximum 'v'. >> >> Either way, that statement is not correct. Either way, you're >> wrong to say that it was correct. >> >> The bottom line for you, and for the KOOK Henry, is that the >> momentum of the upper block played a very significant role in the >> failure of the lower support structure. Any way you slice it, >> that change in momentum 'mv' by the function of 'd/dt' resulted >> in a force which was the very reason that the support structure >> failed. During the interaction between the two bodies, it was >> (d/dt)mv that was acting upon the upper block. >> >> And BTW, you were also wrong to think that your analysis of the >> collapse of the towers which ignored the resistance of the >> support structures could answer the question of whether or not >> that support structure offered any resistance to the collapse. That's a >> self-contradicting position. Even a KOOK could see the >> error there. > > Exactly! > > All of his obfuscation is just as bad as what the KOOKS do. I have not obfuscated. I have simply said the statement is true, and asked if you don't believe its true, say why. > PW has consistently tried to ignore the fact that the statement clearly > applies to the time interval of the collision ("interaction"), and so by > claiming that the only forces being imposed upon the upper block during > the collision was gravity, and the support structure's reaction to it, > he's claiming that the collision of the upper block with the support > structure was forceless. > No. Why not quote me? I am happy to defend anything I say. > Notice that he's never given his opinion as to what forces he thinks were > acting upon the upper block DURING THE COLLISION with the lower support > structure? Well, this has been discussed. But as I keep pointing out, the forces literally do not enter the equations for what happens after inelastic collisions (or elastic ones, for that matter). As I have done on many previous occassions, I recommend you Google "inelastic collisions" or go straight to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision and note the complete absence of any force term or even any terms with the units of force in any of the discussion or solutions. The concept of "force" is as relevant to solving the equations of motion for collisions as is the colour the floors were painted - ie completely irrelevant. That is why the Wikipedia page (and Physics 1 textbooks) don't even mention "force" as something that enters the equations. > He keeps trying to divert his answer to the time period that it was > falling, but before the collision, but, as we've both pointed out, the > statement refers to the time DURING THE COLLISION. > Actually, the exact word they use is "falling", but that doesn't matter; as I said their statement is absolutely correct. > Hell, he's the one who also came up with the analogy of a blob of goo > being thrown at, and hitting, a wall, and yet, he's never been able to > tell us whether or not he thinks that this collision resulted in a force > being applied to the wall. It does. > He knows that if he admits that it did, that he would also have to admit > that there was a force being applied to the goo as well. There was. > And if he does that, then his whole argument collapses just as quickly, > and as obviously, as the WTC. Perhaps if you provide an exact quote of something I said that you think is wrong? > > >
From: Remy McSwain on 24 Mar 2010 09:26 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4baa056c$0$11181$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:mtudnUkl2_5cbjTWnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in >> message news:4ba96073$0$11705$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> [snipped a bunch of lies by PW] Parse everything to death all you want so that you can continue your campaign of obfuscation, but you know for certain that the context of that statement was as a premise for the assertion that the lower structure had no reason to fail as a result of the upper block falling on it because it was designed to support that weight. You know this because you responded many times to that argument. Moreover, the statement itself, when taken as a whole, and not parsed as you keep doing so as to obfuscate the issue, is clearly indicating that the "N" to which they refer is a reaction to "mg" (i.e., the weight of the upper block). Not the result of resisting the momentum of the upper block, but of the weight "(mg)" of the upper block. And the proof that this is so is contained in what followed in that report. And before you go there, what followed in that report had been posted here very many times by your KOOK brethren, and so you cannot claim that you didn't know the context unless you lie, which, of course, you will. And you can keep claiming that I've never told you what other force was at play during that collision, but that's just another lie on your part. I've said it all along, and I'll say it now. The force ignored by that statement was F=(d/dt)mv. And BTW, as to your response about your other mistake? "All I [you] did" was entirely incorrect as it pertained to the question. What you did was analogous to someone asking you what color the sky is, and you answering that the ocean is deep. It's a valid comment, but it's wrong as it pertains to the question. The question at hand was how much resistance the support structure provided to the fall of the upper block, and your approach was to assume zero as a premise to your answer. Notwithstanding the fact that your approach was overly simplistic anyway, it was nonsense as an answer to the question at hand. >> Look, I'm tired of all of your shaking and baking and every other >> kind of obfuscation you're tried to throw out there just to avoid >> admitting your mistakes. As far as saying that the following >> statement is "absolutely correct", you're dead wrong. >> >> "The only two relevant forces acting on the falling block are >> gravity (mg) and an upward normal force (N) due to its >> interaction >> with the lower section of the building." >> > > Its correcr. There is no obfuscation; there never has been. > > >> You want context, here's the context. A debate between AY and >> the >> KOOK Henry was being waged as to whether or not the remaining >> lower >> support structure of the towers failed because the upper block of >> floors fell on it, or whether it failed for other reasons. The >> KOOK >> kept saying that the proof it had fallen for other reasons was >> that >> the support structure was designed to hold up the weight of the >> upper block, and that this was the only force being exerted on >> it, >> and yet, it didn't hold up. >> > > I don't know what else they said, or whether it was correct. > > This statement: > > "The only two relevant forces acting on the falling block are > gravity (mg) and an upward normal force (N) due to its interaction > with the lower section of the building." > > This is correct. Unless you can point to some other "relevant > force"; I have asked you this several times and you haven't. And > you can't; what they said is correct. > > >> You knew this was the context of that quote. You could not know >> otherwise. Yet, in light of that context, you pronounced that >> statement "absolutely correct". That's clearly wrong. >> > > You provided zero context for their quote. I have not read the > original document. How on earth could I know what else they said, > and why would I care? The simple fact is that waht you said they > said is correct, and derspite repeated questioning you have not > said why you think it is wrong. > > So here is another chance. "The only two relevant forces acting on > the falling block are gravity (mg) and an upward normal force (N) > due to its interaction with the lower section of the building.". > If you think this is wrong, you have to show either that these > forces are not relevant, or there is another relevant force. > > So, go for it. What additional forces do you think there are, > exactly? > > > > >> Since then, you've tried to defend your position by claiming >> that, >> by definition, the only force that could be exerted on a falling >> body_is_gravity. > > No. I didn't say that. Again, if you want to accuse me of saying > something incorrect, you should providemy exact words. I said > nothing like that at all. > > >> But that's not only contrary to the context in >> which that statement was made, your claim is also contrary to the >> statement. It doesn't say that the only force acting on the >> falling >> block was gravity. It says there were two forces acting on that >> body, and that the other was the reaction force of the lower >> structure "due to its interaction". >> > > Yes. > > They are the only two relevant forces. > > Unless you know of another? > > >> So the falling body in that statement was interacting (i.e., >> colliding) with a support structure. By definition, and in the >> context of 911, this HAD to be the infamous collision of the >> falling >> block with the lower structure. Do you know of any Newtonian >> forceless collisions? We're not talking about quantum physics >> here, >> and so remember context. >> > > No. > > >> You've tried to salvage your position by mischaracterizing the >> condition in that statement as that of just a falling body >> because >> only gravity acts on a falling body. > > No. > >> But that's not the condition >> described by the statement. > > Its not even the claim of the statement, which clearly does not > state that gravity is the only force. > > >> The statement says that the falling >> body is falling, AND interacting with the support structure. >> THAT >> is the case of a collision, > > > Without seeing their quote in context, I doubt it. Not that it > matters, the statement is correct. > > >> and in the case of a collision, and as >> AY has correctly pointed out, Newton's second law of motion >> F=(d/dt)mv is also going on. >> > > Yes, that is the "upward normal force (N) due to its interaction > with the lower section of the building." > > > >> YES, that means a force other than the weight of the upper block, >> which means that the statement that weight, and the "normal >> upward" >> reaction to it, were the only forces going on in that collision >> is >> dead wrong. It was the force which resulted from the collision. > > "upward normal force (N) due to its interaction with the lower > section of the building." The interaction in this case being the > collision. > > >> It >> wasn't F=mg. It was F=(d/dt)mv. 'g' only served to establish >> the >> maximum 'v'. >> >> Either way, that statement is not correct. Either way, you're >> wrong to say that it was correct. >> >> The bottom line for you, and for the KOOK Henry, is that the >> momentum of the upper block played a very significant role in the >> failure of the lower support structure. > > Momentum is not a force. > > >> Any way you slice it, that >> change in momentum 'mv' by the function of 'd/dt' resulted in a >> force which was the very reason that the support structure >> failed. > > Yes. > >> During the interaction between the two bodies, it was (d/dt)mv >> that >> was acting upon the upper block. >> > > Yes. Its interaction with the lower part of the building. > > >> And BTW, you were also wrong to think that your analysis of the >> collapse of the towers which ignored the resistance of the >> support >> structures could answer the question of whether or not that >> support >> structure offered any resistance to the collapse. That's a >> self-contradicting position. Even a KOOK could see the error >> there. >> >> > > All I did was apply a classical analysis based upon an inelastic > collision conserving momentum. Just like the web pages I pointed > you at, and the many physics lectures I have attended on dynamics. > > If you think there are additional relevant forces, you should list > them. Momentum is not a force. BTW, there is a third force, but > its not relevant - air resistance. I assume that is why they used > the word "relevant". There is absolutely nothing wrong with what > they said; these are the only two relevant forces. > > > >
From: Remy McSwain on 24 Mar 2010 09:33 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4baa05e4$0$9751$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message > news:ZY6dnf6bW5MSaTTWnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... >> In news:4ba96073$0$11705$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, >> Peter Webb <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> mused: >>> "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message >> >>>> You knew that. And the statement itself proves this with "due >>>> to its interaction with the lower section of the building". >>>> IOW, the context was during the time interval of the crash of >>>> that upper block into the lower support structure. >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps. >>> >>> For your information, the statement that was provided is true >>> when the top section of the building is falling between floors, >>> and it is also true when the floors collide. >> >> But that's not what the statment said. The statement was about >> the block of floors DURING ITS INTERACTION with the lower >> structure. No matter how much you lie about it, that's what it >> was about. >> > > The statement was about when it was "falling". And its true even > if you interpret this as meaning even during collisions. There is no IF, KOOK! It's right there in the statement. And during the collision, the force normal to the upper block (N) isn't the mg of the falling block, it's the (d/dt)mv of the falling block. The statement is therefore wrong, and anyone who says it's right is also wrong. That's you, KOOK! >> All the rest of your bullshit is just a cover for the fact that >> you thought that statement was made by the NIST, and so you >> defended it, no matter what it said, and now you can't admit it. >> >> > > I defended it because its true. > > Simple as that. Yes, you're a very simplistic thinker. That's why you tried to answer the question of whether or not there was any resistance to the falling block by assuming there was none from the outset. LOL!
From: Remy McSwain on 24 Mar 2010 09:38
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4baa0937$0$1783$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message > news:uqCdnaa5sqElYzTWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... >> In news:mtudnUkl2_5cbjTWnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com, >> Remy McSwain <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> mused: >>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in >>> message news:4ba96073$0$11705$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>> >>> [snipped a bunch of lies by PW] >>> >>> Look, I'm tired of all of your shaking and baking and every >>> other >>> kind of obfuscation you're tried to throw out there just to >>> avoid >>> admitting your mistakes. As far as saying that the following >>> statement is "absolutely correct", you're dead wrong. >>> >>> "The only two relevant forces acting on the falling block are >>> gravity (mg) and an upward normal force (N) due to its >>> interaction with the lower section of the building." >>> >>> You want context, here's the context. A debate between AY and >>> the KOOK Henry was being waged as to whether or not the >>> remaining lower support structure of the towers failed because >>> the upper block of floors fell on it, or whether it failed for >>> other reasons. The KOOK kept saying that the proof it had >>> fallen for other reasons was that the support structure was >>> designed to hold up the weight of the upper block, and that this >>> was the only force being exerted on it, and yet, it didn't hold >>> up. >>> You knew this was the context of that quote. You could not know >>> otherwise. Yet, in light of that context, you pronounced that >>> statement "absolutely correct". That's clearly wrong. >>> >>> Since then, you've tried to defend your position by claiming >>> that, by definition, the only force that could be exerted on a >>> falling body_is_gravity. But that's not only contrary to the >>> context in which that statement was made, your claim is also >>> contrary to the statement. It doesn't say that the only force >>> acting on the falling block was gravity. It says there were two >>> forces acting on that body, and that the other was the reaction >>> force of the lower structure "due to its interaction". >>> >>> So the falling body in that statement was interacting (i.e., >>> colliding) with a support structure. By definition, and in the >>> context of 911, this HAD to be the infamous collision of the >>> falling block with the lower structure. Do you know of any >>> Newtonian forceless collisions? We're not talking about quantum >>> physics here, and so remember context. >>> >>> You've tried to salvage your position by mischaracterizing the >>> condition in that statement as that of just a falling body >>> because only gravity acts on a falling body. But that's not the >>> condition described by the statement. The statement says that >>> the falling body is falling, AND interacting with the support >>> structure. THAT is the case of a collision, and in the case of >>> a collision, and as AY has correctly pointed out, Newton's >>> second law of motion F=(d/dt)mv is also going on. >>> >>> YES, that means a force other than the weight of the upper >>> block, >>> which means that the statement that weight, and the "normal >>> upward" reaction to it, were the only forces going on in that >>> collision is dead wrong. It was the force which resulted from >>> the collision. It wasn't F=mg. It was F=(d/dt)mv. 'g' only >>> served to establish the maximum 'v'. >>> >>> Either way, that statement is not correct. Either way, you're >>> wrong to say that it was correct. >>> >>> The bottom line for you, and for the KOOK Henry, is that the >>> momentum of the upper block played a very significant role in >>> the >>> failure of the lower support structure. Any way you slice it, >>> that change in momentum 'mv' by the function of 'd/dt' resulted >>> in a force which was the very reason that the support structure >>> failed. During the interaction between the two bodies, it was >>> (d/dt)mv that was acting upon the upper block. >>> >>> And BTW, you were also wrong to think that your analysis of the >>> collapse of the towers which ignored the resistance of the >>> support structures could answer the question of whether or not >>> that support structure offered any resistance to the collapse. >>> That's a self-contradicting position. Even a KOOK could see the >>> error there. >> >> Exactly! >> >> All of his obfuscation is just as bad as what the KOOKS do. > > I have not obfuscated. I have simply said the statement is true, > and asked if you don't believe its true, say why. Which, in itself, is a lie because it implies that he, or I, have never told you why. You're a liar, KOOK! >> PW has consistently tried to ignore the fact that the statement >> clearly applies to the time interval of the collision >> ("interaction"), and so by claiming that the only forces being >> imposed upon the upper block during the collision was gravity, >> and the support structure's reaction to it, he's claiming that >> the collision of the upper block with the support structure was >> forceless. >> > > No. > > Why not quote me? > > I am happy to defend anything I say. The logical conclusion of what you've said is that there are forceless collisons. >> Notice that he's never given his opinion as to what forces he >> thinks were acting upon the upper block DURING THE COLLISION with >> the lower support structure? > > Well, this has been discussed. Sure it has. We've asked, and you've avoided answering. > But as I keep pointing out, the forces literally do not enter the > equations for what happens after inelastic collisions (or elastic > ones, for that matter). And there's the proof. Instead of telling us what forces you think were acting on the block, you go on and on about how you don't know what to do with the equations you looked up on the internet. LOL! |