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 26 Mar 2010 21:02 "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:L-idnTna3ZRqIDHWnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "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. So that would be the reactive force deriving from the blocks interaction with the lower structure, exactly as in the quote? > That's the relevant force, KOOK! > You need to specify a third force acting on the falling block. The authors already listed gravity and the reactive force of the lower structure. You can't use either of these as a third force; they have already been counted.
From: Remy McSwain on 27 Mar 2010 16:07 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4bad5915$0$11705$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:L-idnTna3ZRqIDHWnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "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. > > So that would be the reactive force deriving from the blocks > interaction with the lower structure, exactly as in the quote? Was there anything about the change in momentum of the upper block in that quote? You've established beyond any doubt that you're a buffoon. Stop embarrassing yourself. It's really quit pathetic.
From: Henry on 29 Mar 2010 11:17 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Momentum still isn't a force ya clueless, deluded, confused, >> in way over your head nut job. But thanks again for the >> laughs... <chuckle> > But a force results when the momentum changes, which is exactly what > he said. Yes, that is exactly what Mr. Chandler said, which is why no one has been able to refute even one word or one number in his research. As has been proved, the static load was greater than the load exerted as the upper block was accelerating downward. Learn how to read and think. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf "Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight." I emailed David Chandler and showed him your kook rant. Here is his reply. Like most followers of the government's insane cartoon fairy tale, you are ignorant, simpleminded, and clueless. "Momentum is not a force. The momentum of the falling mass is not a force on the falling mass. This person apparently does not understand physics. He/she is shooting from the hip, substituting intuitive ideas for actual physical laws. Force is related to the "rate of change" of momentum, but I have taken this into account. This paper is rigorous and has passed peer review by other physicists who really do understand the laws of physics." --David Chandler -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Remy McSwain on 29 Mar 2010 11:48 "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote in message news:hoqgal$e5s$21(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> Momentum still isn't a force ya clueless, deluded, confused, >>> in way over your head nut job. But thanks again for the >>> laughs... <chuckle> > >> But a force results when the momentum changes, which is exactly >> what he said. > > > Yes, that is exactly what Mr. Chandler said, And yet, he says that there was no resulting force to be considered. ROFLOL!
From: AllYou! on 29 Mar 2010 14:03
In news:hoqgal$e5s$21(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> Momentum still isn't a force ya clueless, deluded, confused, >>> in way over your head nut job. But thanks again for the >>> laughs... <chuckle> > >> But a force results when the momentum changes, which is exactly >> what he said. > > > Yes, that is exactly what Mr. Chandler said, Really? So why did he also say that the only force acting on the support structure was the weight of the upper block? Why didn't he say it was the change in the momentum of the mass of the upper block? |