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: Henry on 30 Mar 2010 12:40 AllYou! wrote: > 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? Because momentum still isn't a force, kooker. 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: Henry on 30 Mar 2010 12:40 Remy McSwain wrote: > "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote >> AllYou! wrote: >>> 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! Nope, he never said that, either. You lie a lot and are easily confused. 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: AllYou! on 30 Mar 2010 13:46 "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote in message news:hot9ia$l5$11(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... > Remy McSwain wrote: >> "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote >>> AllYou! wrote: > > >>>> But a force results when the momentum changes, which is exactly >>>> what he said. > >>> Yes, that is exactly what Mr. Chandler said, > >> And yet, he says that there was no resulting force to be >> considered. ROFLOL! > > Nope, he never said that, either. So you BOTH believe in forceless collisions? LOL!
From: AllYou! on 30 Mar 2010 13:56 In news:hot9hj$l5$10(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: >> 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? > > Because momentum still isn't a force, kooker But a change in momentum is. Or didn't you know that? LOL!
From: Henry on 30 Mar 2010 14:13
AllYou! wrote: > "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote >> Remy McSwain wrote: >>> "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote >>>> AllYou! wrote: >>>>> 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! >> Nope, he never said that, either. > So you BOTH believe in forceless collisions? LOL! You're still acting like you're insane and failing to comprehend what you read, nut job. BTW, still "think" there's no such thing as gravitational potential energy? <chuckle> >> What do you nut jobs call gravitational potential >> energy? We can use your "term" just for fun. <chuckle> > There is no such thing, and so there's nothing to call it. Well, at least you know how to keep your many betters amused with your ignorance and kook drivel. Doesn't help the credibility of you or your insane cartoon conspiracy, though....<chuckle> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/gpot.html "Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. The most common use of gravitational potential energy is for an object near the surface of the Earth where the gravitational acceleration can be assumed to be constant at about 9.8 m/s2." 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 |