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 25 Mar 2010 03:51 "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:TvadnZCU-_yf9TrWnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4ba75adf$0$19545$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:qNadnW-QUoQ_yTrWnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:4ba44860$0$9751$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>>> >>>> <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:0062820c-6e9b-470f-ab33-9319b7d454f6(a)f14g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Mar 19, 5:38 pm, "Peter Webb" >>>> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>> <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> news:98207f45-eb2d-4e66-9790-0146aff82c80(a)k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >>>>> On Mar 19, 4:51 am, "Peter Webb" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>> > <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> >news:acb2c267-cdca-4017-ba19-ccc89517d9d0(a)k4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >>>>> > On Mar 18, 11:16 pm, "Peter Webb" >>>>> >>>>> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>> > > You still haven't told us the TRUTH of what happened on 9/11. >>>>> >>>>> > > Why haven't you? >>>>> >>>>> > > What are you keeping it a secret? >>>>> >>>>> > > You must be a MOSSAD agent. >>>>> >>>>> > Yes. >>>>> > And I'm telling you it was an inside job. >>>>> > The short version is: >>>>> > Three buildings were illegally demolished by the Bush crime family >>>>> > and >>>>> > it's Neocon cronies world wide to trick the world into letting them >>>>> > get away with wars of aggression. >>>>> > G.H.W.B. has been a close friend of us here at the Mossad for many >>>>> > many >>>>> > years.http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/ >>>>> >>>>> > ______________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> > Tell me the long version. >>>>> >>>>> > I have heard that the objects that crashed into the WTC, Pentagon >>>>> > and a >>>>> > field in Pennsylvania were not the commercial airplanes claimed by >>>>> > the >>>>> > government. >>>>> >>>>> > Were they? >>>>> >>>>> No way to tell. >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>> But what do you believe to be true? What is your theory? >>>> >>>> 4 Jets. >>>> Unknown origin. >>>> Remote controlled. >>>> Maybe had live Americans on board. >>>> >>>> _________________________________ >>>> Do you believe the planes that crashed into the twin towers were the >>>> planes claimed by the government? What do you believe the TRUTH to be? >>> >>> >>> Do you believe that the support structure was compromised by a >>> controlled demolition? >> >> No. >> >>> If not, then how did a force greater than the weight it was designed to >>> support come to act upon it, thus causing it to fail? >> >> It didn't. >> >> The "cause" of the collapse was the failure of the steel beams supporting >> one floor (the floor of the crash). These were weakened by fire to the >> extent that they could not support the upper structure (as they were >> designed to do) and a catastrophic pancake collapse ensued. > > And when it ensued, the upper block came crashing down upon the lower > support structure. And then that support structure, which was designed to > support the weight of that upper block, failed. So how did it come to be > subjected to a greater force than mg? The upper part of the building - the pancake - crashed into it. > Is it your claim that the catastrophic crash never imposed a force upon > the lower support structure of greater than mg? Yes or no? > The catastrophic crash caused force. Obviously. In fact, in classical mechanics the force is infinite but last for zero time. This is easily verified. The equations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision give velocity as a function of time. If you differentiate this wrt to time and multiply by m you can re-formulate this as an equation for Force as a function of time (as F = m (d/dt)V, and the equation for V is given in terms of t). You may like to try this at home. You get an infinite force for zero time. Now its not really an infinite force, and its not for zero time, as the materials deform and hence the concept of V is not uniquely defined. The actual function F(t) will depend upon the materials used, their shapes, etc. However, you don't need to know any of this to solve the equations of motion (ie produce the equations on the web page); it simply does not use the function F(t) so the fact that it cannot be determined doesn't matter. Again, you may note the absence of force terms in the equations of motion. I could elaborate on this in several ways, as it used often in physics. For example, the model tacitly assumes a dirac delta function for the force, and another interesting line of argument is looking at the integral of the Force over time to measure momentum and over distance to measure kinetic energy. But quite frankly, as you do not seem to understand the basic physics of an inelastic collision, trying to explain any of the more advanced physics is a waste of my time. But if you do want to learn more, google these words.
From: Peter Webb on 25 Mar 2010 04:37 "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:trWdnVaV0eV1-zrWnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4ba759ff$0$6090$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>>> But what do you believe to be true? What is your theory? >>> >>> F=ma. F=mg (weight) >>> What is YOUR theory for the increase in the value of 'a' beyond 'g' >>> DURING THE CRASH? >>> >> >> Let me get this straight. You think that the buildings fell faster than >> gravity? > > For you to come to that conclusion from what I said shows your complete > lack of understanding of physics. In fact, it's exactly why you're so > confused about how to analyze what it was that imposed more of a force in > the support structure than it was designed to withstand. > But isn't "g" the acceleration due to gravity in your equation? And if a>g, doesn't that by definition mean that it is falling faster than gravity? > So answer the question.... Given that F=ma (which, in the case of weight, > F=mg because a=g), and that the mass of the upper block didn't change > appreciably, and that the structure was designed to support mg, then that > would mean that for the structure to fail, the F being imposed upon the > support structure had to be greater than mg. So that means that the 'a' > DURING THE CRASH, had to be greater than 'a', right? If your question is whether the acceleration changes "during the crash", yes it does. In fact at the moment of collision (ideally, instantaneous) the acceleration is upwards and infinite. In practice it is upwards and huge. Yes, upwards. In the opposite direction to the motion itself. > > If not, then tell us of F increased beyond mg. If so, then how did 'a' > come to be greater than 'g' DURING THE CRASH? >
From: Peter Webb on 25 Mar 2010 04:41 "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:WvadnefBQYDvnTfWnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4ba9fdd6$0$16520$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:-7ednYV2d9mibjTWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:4ba95b03$0$6094$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>>> >>>> "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:dMqdneLvB_CGdDXWnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>> >>>>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:4ba8c334$0$7966$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>>>>> >>>>>> "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:WridnRCHqs-dITXWnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:4ba8b62b$0$32441$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am very comfortable with the subject of dynamics, and it is very >>>>>>>> clear that you know nothing at all about the subject. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attempt to obfuscate the issue just like all of your KOOK brethren >>>>>>> do, but here's what you keep trying to avoid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At one point in time, just minutes after the plane crashed into the >>>>>>> WTC1, there existed the following conditions: >>>>>>> A) There were a whole bunch of floors, the structure of which was >>>>>>> significantly damaged. >>>>>>> B) There were a whole bunch of floors above (A) which were undamaged >>>>>>> by the plane crash. >>>>>>> C) There were a whole bunch of floors below (A) which were undamaged >>>>>>> by the plane crash. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eventually, the fires raged long enough such that the lateral floor >>>>>>> trusses sagged significantly enough so as to pull in on the support >>>>>>> columns thereby causing them to buckle inward (as can be seen in the >>>>>>> videos), thereby causing the upper block (A) to begin falling >>>>>>> downward toward the largely undamaged structure (C). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviously, as had been proven over decades, every part of the >>>>>>> support structure of that tower was capable of supporting the weight >>>>>>> of everything above it. So when that upper block (A) crashed into >>>>>>> the remaining support structure (C), some force greater that the >>>>>>> weight of (A) was exerted upon (C) so as to cause it to fail >>>>>>> structurally. >>>>>> >>>>>> All true. >>>>> >>>>> Then you've proven yourself to be a KOOK for having consistently >>>>> denied that there was ever any such an "interaction" between the upper >>>>> block, and the lower support structure. >>>> >>>> >>>> When am I supposed to have said that? >>> >>> >>> When you said that the statement by the other KOOKS was correct, KOOK. >>> >> >> The statement they made *was* correct. > > So you believe in foceless collisions then? No. > After all, the claims in that statement were for the time during which the > collision That is not the actual prediction, which said explicitly when "falling", and *not* "colliding". Not that it matters; it is true under either interpretation. > between the upper block and the remaining support structure was in > progress, and it says that only gravity, and a reaction to it, That "reaction" being the collision ... > were the only two forces involved. For you to believe that defines you > as a KOOK! Or worse yet, for you, mistaken. LOL! > So: 1. Gravity 2. Reaction from the rest of the building (at the time of collision, according to you, which means the force of the collision acting on the upper block) So what's #3 ?????
From: Remy McSwain on 25 Mar 2010 07:28 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4baaf062$0$19545$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:8bSdndtHMvatFzfWnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "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. > > > Clearly not. He says there are two forces; if they were the same > force there would only be one force. Furtermore, gravity (mg in > your terminology) is a downward force, and he says that N is an > upward force. He could not possibly be talking about gravitational > force (mg). > > > >> And just as clearly, he's claiming that it's DURING THE >> COLLISION. > > > No, he actually says when it is "falling", and doesn't even > mention collision in the quote you gave. Go look at it again, KOOK. He says DUE TO ITS INTERACTION WITH THE LOWER SECTION OF THE BUILDING. That interaction, and the normal upward force of the lower section that you went to great lengths to describe, could not possibly happen except DURING THE COLLISION. For you to keep claiming that he's talking about some time period before the collision would mean that the lower section was supplying NO upward force to it, and so it would be wrong on that basis as well. Keep trying, KOOK, but either way you look at it, the statement is WRONG, and so are you. > Not that it matters, the statement is still absolutely correct. So it doesn't matter if it's the time period DURING THE COLLISION? Then he's wrong on that basis because he ignored the force of the crash DURING THE COLLISION. So now you're proven that you're doubly wrong. >> 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). > > > That is always true, and not just for falling buildings. It is the > definition of force. And, whereas you JUST said that it doesn't matter if his claim means DURING THE COLLISION, then you've just admitted he's wrong to have ignored the forces that were at play DURING THE COLLISION!
From: Remy McSwain on 25 Mar 2010 07:45
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4baaf17e$0$11705$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:u-KdnQG_mruIEzfWnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in >> message news:4baa841d$0$1785$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>> >>> "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. >> >> The equations for motion for an inelastic collision do not even >> apply to the situation of what is occurring DURING THE COLLISION, >> and so your continued references to them for that situation is a >> wrong-headed red herring. >> >>> 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? >> >> See any mention of DURING A COLLISION? NO? See any mention of >> AFTER A COLLISION? YES? >> >> "The formulas for the velocities after a one-dimensional >> collision are:" Do you see it now? "AFTER [] COLLISION"? >> >> So why would you ask me to look at those equations for anything >> that has to do with what happens DURING A COLLISION if the site >> itself says that those equations are only applicable for the >> velocities of the masses AFTER A COLLISION? Are you really that >> dense? >> > > The formulas show the changes of speed that result from inelastic > collisions. Which is what you need to work out how long the > building will take to fall. Sakin' & Bakin again! LOL! Go waaaaay up to the top of this post. Did you see it? Did you see what the subject of this particular exchange is? AY challenges you to give YOUR opinion of what YOU think were the forces that were actiing upon the the upper block and the lower support structure, DURING THE COLLISION. Did you catch that. Since then, all you've done is refer to the equations that were developed in order to determin the velocities of the masses AFTER THE COLLISION. I don't know if it's ADD, or excessive pride, or just plain stupidity that causes you to be all over the place, and I really don't care. But the fact remains that for whatever reason, most of your responses have nothing to do with whatever issue is at hand. The question, this time, was your opinion of the forces YOU think were acting upon the upper block, DURING THE COLLISION. As you try to either answer, or deflect from answering in your response, keep in mind that just today, you said that the statement by the other KOOK that the only two forces that he said were relevant to that upper block would be correct even it he was referring to the time DURING THE COLLSISION. >> As I've been explaining to you all along, your confusion stems >> from the fact that because this was an inelastic collision, and >> because you found those equations on a web site entitled >> "inelastic collisions", you've mistakenly concluded that those >> equations apply to a consideration of the dynamics of what >> happens DURING A COLLISION. > > No, I derived my equations from first principles using > conservation of momentum. I didn't and don't need to refer to a > web page for this stuff, its really basic physics. OK, then. I accept your response that you picked out the wrong equations all by yourself! LOL! >> But they do not. As that site clearly indicates, those equations >> are only for the purposes of determining the velocities of the >> masses involved in a collision, but only AFTER the collision, and >> not DURING THE COLLISION, when accelerations and forces are most >> definitely at work. > > It gives before and after velocities. Exactly what you need. For what? Please go there. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE go there. "you need" for what DURING THE COLLISION? >> Just admit your mistake, and be done with it. >> > > If you think I have said something incorrect, you should quote my > exact words. All of the above by you as it pertains to what forces you think were relevant to what was going on DURING THE COLLISION. |