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: Remy McSwain on 25 Mar 2010 11:09 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4bab533f$0$8039$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>> >>> 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. ROFLOL! So you had to snip it? You really are a KOOK, aren;t you. >> 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. >> > > The equations completely specify the position of the pancake at > every time, including the exact instant of collision. Answer the question, KOOK! What is 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. >> 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. >> > > Gee, mostly I just say "If you think that I have said something > which is wrong, please quote me exactly" and try and explain the > equations of motion for an inelastic collision that appear on > about 1,000 websites. Gee, and you've mis-applied every one of them. >> The question, this time, was your opinion of the forces YOU think >> were acting upon the upper block, DURING THE COLLISION. > > My opinion? > > They were very large. And impossible to calculate. ASnd completely > irrelevant to the equations of motion of an inelastic collision, > which is why no web pages on this subject mention them. They were irrelevant to the equations of fluid dynamics too. So what? That isn't the issue.
From: Peter Webb on 25 Mar 2010 21:32 >> The equations completely specify the position of the pancake at >> every time, including the exact instant of collision. > > Answer the question, KOOK! What is 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. > The question was what forces apply to the falling block. There are two: 1. Gravity. 2. An upward reactive force deriving from its interaction with lower parts of the building. Got a third? No? So what are you going on about?
From: Peter Webb on 26 Mar 2010 08:55 "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:nIWdnUgNUcblPzHWnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > Go see my other response to your continuing lying bullshit, KOOK! > <SNIP> >> Funny, you still have yet to produce a single direct quote of mine which >> you believe to be in error. >> >> Happy to defend what I say. >> <SNIP> >>> >> >> perhaps you are misunderstanding what I say. That is why even a single >> direct quote of mine which you believe to be in error would be useful. >> >> > And so it goes. Your other response doesn't quote me either. I am still waiting for you to produce a single thing I have said which you believe is wrong. Why won't you? Is it because you can't? And, BTW, momentum is not a force. HTH
From: Remy McSwain on 26 Mar 2010 09:08 Of course you have to snip your lies. It's all you've got left, KOOK. "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4bacaea6$0$1783$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:nIWdnUgNUcblPzHWnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> Go see my other response to your continuing lying bullshit, KOOK! >> > > <SNIP> > >>> Funny, you still have yet to produce a single direct quote of >>> mine which you believe to be in error. >>> >>> Happy to defend what I say. >>> > <SNIP> > > >>>> >>> >>> perhaps you are misunderstanding what I say. That is why even a >>> single direct quote of mine which you believe to be in error >>> would be useful. >>> >>> >> > > And so it goes. Your other response doesn't quote me either. > > I am still waiting for you to produce a single thing I have said > which you believe is wrong. > > Why won't you? > > Is it because you can't? > > And, BTW, momentum is not a force. > > HTH > >
From: Remy McSwain on 26 Mar 2010 10:00
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4bacb58f$0$9751$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:18ydnV-H7P8kLDHWnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > The statement is true - absolutely correct - under either > interpretation. Absolutely wrong. > No, the only two relevant forces on the falling block were the > force of gravity and reactive forces (as the quote says, upwards > and normal) from the building below. Absolutely wrong. > Unless you can identify a third relevant force. It's an absolute lie to suggest that I have not. >>> And you see, you are talking about forces on the lower structure >>> (the head, in your analogy). >> >> Which is equal to the force being applied to the rock, KOOK! Or >> are you ignorant of Newton's Third Law? Here, in case you are, I >> found a site that even YOU should be able to understand! >> > > So that would be the force on the rock deriving from the > *reaction* with your head, just like in the quote? No, YOUR head, KOOK! Try to focus. >> http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/Newtlaws/U2L4a.cfm > Why not instead google "inelastic collision" instead, More misdirection from you, huh? So, unless you're denying that Newton's third law isn't valid, then the fact that the structure is reacting to the change in momentum of the upper block during the crash means that the same magnitude of force was acting upon the upper block during the crash as well. That's the relevant force, KOOK! |