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: knews4u2chew on 24 Mar 2010 16:59 On Mar 24, 1:40 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:4baa0937$0$1783$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, > Peter Webb <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> mused: > > > "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote in message > >news:uqCdnaa5sqElYzTWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... > >> 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). > > And as I keep pointing out, the issue that was under debate, and > remains so, isn't what happened AFTER the collision. The issue is > what were the forces being exerted on the upper block DURING THE > COLLISION. The statement in question was about what was happening > during the interaction of the upper block with the support > structure. As such, your continued insistence that equations which > only apply "after inelastic collisions" is nonsensical to the issue > of what happened DURING THE COLLISION. > > It's just a continuation of a long trend of obfuscation on your part > in a transparent attempt to avoid admitting that you were wrong. > > > As I have done on many previous > > occassions, I recommend you Google "inelastic collisions" or go > > straight tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collisionand > > 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. > > Yes, and because that site confirms that those equations are ONLY to > be used for the purpose of determining the VELOCITIES of masses that > collided AFTER the collision is all over, then you've just proven, > again, that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. > Those equations don't, in any way, address what was happening DURING > THE COLLISION of the upper block with the lower support structure. > And THAT is the issue under debate. > Friction.
From: AllYou! on 24 Mar 2010 17:18 In news:c09a0f43-3c03-4d55-b66d-baf8db586991(a)k24g2000pro.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 1:40 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:4baa0937$0$1783$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, >> Peter Webb <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> mused: >> >>> "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote in message >>> news:uqCdnaa5sqElYzTWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... >>>> 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). >> >> And as I keep pointing out, the issue that was under debate, and >> remains so, isn't what happened AFTER the collision. The issue >> is what were the forces being exerted on the upper block DURING >> THE COLLISION. The statement in question was about what was >> happening during the interaction of the upper block with the >> support structure. As such, your continued insistence that >> equations which only apply "after inelastic collisions" is >> nonsensical to the issue of what happened DURING THE COLLISION. >> >> It's just a continuation of a long trend of obfuscation on your >> part in a transparent attempt to avoid admitting that you were >> wrong. >> >>> As I have done on many previous >>> occassions, I recommend you Google "inelastic collisions" or go >>> straight tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collisionand >>> 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. >> >> Yes, and because that site confirms that those equations are >> ONLY to be used for the purpose of determining the VELOCITIES >> of masses that collided AFTER the collision is all over, then >> you've just proven, again, that you don't know what the hell >> you're talking about. Those equations don't, in any way, >> address what was happening DURING THE COLLISION of the upper >> block with the lower support structure. And THAT is the issue >> under debate. >> > > Friction. Yes, there's more than enough to go around.
From: Peter Webb on 24 Mar 2010 17:22 "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:tKOdnbob24BtiDfWnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "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! > You haven't. >>> 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. > No. If you think I have said something incorrect, you should quote me, not make stuff up. > >>> 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. > I think there is an "upward, normal force deriving fom its interaction with the lower part of the building". I have already told you about 200 times this statement is "absolutely correct". >> 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! > No, I do know how to use these equations. In fact, I used these equations - or rather ones mathematically equivalent - to derive the equations of motion, and only bothered to provide the links when you didn't seem to understand the equations I had derived. Do you know how to use the equations on the web pages I cited? Why don't you use them to produce the correct answers for what happens when floors collide, just like I did? Because you can't? Or is there some other reason?
From: Peter Webb on 24 Mar 2010 17:28 "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message news:fqqdnb0isbc-5TfWnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... > In news:4baa0937$0$1783$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, > Peter Webb <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> mused: >> "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message >> news:uqCdnaa5sqElYzTWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... > >>> 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). > > And as I keep pointing out, the issue that was under debate, and remains > so, isn't what happened AFTER the collision. The issue is what were the > forces being exerted on the upper block DURING THE COLLISION. No. The forces that occur *during* a collision cannot be determined, and do not form part of the equations of motion for an inelastic collision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision See any mention of forces? No? So why do you think the forces are an issue during an inelastic collision?
From: Remy McSwain on 24 Mar 2010 17:54
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4baa82e1$0$28464$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:tKOdnbob24BtiDfWnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... [snipped a bunch of lies about not having previously told you where you're wrong] > I think there is an "upward, normal force deriving fom its > interaction with the lower part of the building". > > I have already told you about 200 times this statement is > "absolutely correct". LOL! Well, as subtle as that lie is, it's a clear indication that you know you're wrong. THAT isn't the statement you keep claiming is correct. THIS, AGAIN, is the statement which you're said, about 200 times, is "absolutely correct": "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." Clearly, the N to which he refers is the mg of the upper section. And just as clearly, he's claiming that it's DURING THE COLLISION. Therefore, taken as a whole, that statement is wrong. DURING THE COLLISION, the relevant force is F=(d/dt)mv (up to the point of failure of the support structure). So just as clearly, the reaction (N) of the support structure is to that force. Not F=mg. If it were F=mg, then the distance from which that upper block had fallen prior to the collision would not matter. But it does matter. If it had fallen from 100 feet, or even 200 feet, the relevant force DURING THE COLLISION would be much greater. Why? Because the 'v' in (d/dt)mv would've been much greater because g would've lasted for a much greater time. So please stop embarrassing yourself. Admit you were wrong, and move on. Your pain could be over just that easily. |