ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th April 2016, 08:39 AM   #1
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 869
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What does any of what you have written apply to similar acceleration, similar direction of net force and similar sequences of the net forces. That is what Cole was demonstrating.

"Similar sequence of net forces...."

This is where the problem lies.

They are not similar and.... wait for it.... not to scale with the towers.

Therefore, while he adequately displays Newton's Laws, it is inadequate to use as any evidence of CD in the towers.

Basically, the numbers are wrong.

Maths raising its ugly head again.....

Mod InfoThis is a continuation thread. Part I can be found here.
Posted By:kmortis

Last edited by kmortis; 5th April 2016 at 09:18 AM.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 08:57 AM   #2
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
How can any experiment not agree with reality?
Well, would an experiment that sees one drop a chunk of beef into a beaker of Coke-a-cola model anything to do with structural response of the twin towers? No, of course not. The model must fit the reality of the situation you are investigating.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 08:59 AM   #3
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
The force of gravity between the Earth and the building are equal and opposite to each other.
This statement is wrong. The force of gravity is only one of the forces involved. The normal force is the other one. If you truly understood physics, you would never have made that statement using those words. Let me explain.
WilliamSeger's statement is correct.

A normal force (which is electromagnetic in origin, as with all familiar contact forces between solids) also exists and is involved in the basic scenario of a mass at rest upon the earth's surface, but that does not contradict WilliamSeger's statement that the gravitational forces between the building and the earth are equal and opposite to each other.

Your ability to provide false explanations for false claims ceases to matter at that point.
That FalseFlag can claim with a straight face that "The force of gravity between the Earth and the building are NOT equal and opposite to each other" proves, beyond a shadow of any doubt, that FF is not competent to discuss physics at any level.

Thus, this ends the thread.

Last edited by DaveThomasNMSR; 5th April 2016 at 09:02 AM. Reason: Yes. Yes, there was.
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 09:20 AM   #4
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,283
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Tell me, FF, which of Newtonís Laws tells you the ultimate strength of steel or aluminum?
Which of Newtonís Laws tells you the toughness of a material or a structure?
Which of Newtonís Laws tells you the deformation of a structure as it is loaded?

The correct answer is: Newtonís laws tell you NONE of that.

And yet, ultimate strength, toughness & deformation are all absolutely CRITICAL to the construction of a valid model.
Yes, FF's confusion over basic physics is only part of the problem. A more serious problem is that he apparently has no idea what determines whether or not a structure will fail under a given scenario. That's the thing that makes it impossible for him to understand why scale matters and why Cole's models are meaningless in the context of WTC buildings.

But let's test that: False Flag, in all of Cole's experiments, at least the first floor breaks free. Do you think I could build a model that's similar to Cole's but the first floor would arrest the falling weight without breaking free? Do you think I could build a model that's similar to Cole's but more floors would break free than they did in his experiment? I'm going to make a leap of faith that your answer is "yes" to both, and ask: What's going on here? What specifically is different in the three cases?

If you can answer that correctly, then we can talk about scale (although, if you understand the answer, we shouldn't need to).
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 09:51 AM   #5
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
From post #2354 in the other thread


Quote:
Originally Posted by FalseFlag
Show me the experiment that shows connection failure brought down the buildings in exactly the same way as what we can see in the videos of the collapse.
Response
Quote:
It was done years ago for Benson and Greening, all you have to do is break connections, and calculate the energy values, Engineers have done thousands of experiments on connection failures, all you have to do is Google them.

There are Litterally thousands of engineering papers that show Cole is a fraud.www.citg.tudelft.nl › Afdelingen › doc

Some even written before Cole was even hatched-born, from the egg of stupidity.
Experiments, documented going back all the way to Maxwell and Newton.
First, I am referring to this paper http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/405.pdf It was obviously written by Bazant.

You are referring to this paper http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.pdf which apparently addresses the issues in the first paper. I have not read the second paper, so I can not comment on it.

You still have failed to perform an experiment, or show an experiment that proves Cole is wrong.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 10:58 AM   #6
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post

You still have failed to perform an experiment, or show an experiment that proves Cole is wrong.
And what have you done ?

You haven't proved Cole is right and you haven't he is wrong, all in all you have done nothing except try and tell people what to do and that they are wrong.........

Why?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:13 AM   #7
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
From post #2382 in the original thread -

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Excuse me
I want to know more about the "Normal Force". What the heck are you talking about?
It cannot be significant, compared to g, since I have (a) never heard of it, and (b) never see a calcuation using it
I was using FF's term for the contact force between the building and the ground it was resting on. Because in the case under discussion the contact force is a normal force (as the building was vertical and the ground was horizontal) I didn't think the imprecision of terminology would do much harm.
How is this imprecise? Please explain how my example uses incorrect terminology. It doesn't. My example keeps things simple enough for anyone to understand, so they can see what is really happening. You are trying to take things to an unnecessary level in order to confuse the issue. There is no need for this.

I said that if a building rests on the surface of the earth it will exert a force on the earth. This force is from the gravitational pull of the earth, and the most common convention is to call this the force due to gravity. At the point of contact, the earth will exert an equal and opposite force on the building. This force is called the normal force, and this terminology is absolutely the most commonly used convention. If the building is not moving downwards or accelerating downwards, the force due to gravity and the normal force are equal and opposite to each other. Do I need to specifically state that the building is resting on a flat portion of the earth? If so, why are you trying to complicate things? There is nothing wrong with my statement. Nothing.

Edited after the entire text was posted - Oh, I get it, do I need to change my statement to the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite to each other? Is that what you want me to do? If so, how does it make my original statement wrong? It doesn't. Just because you have a gravitational force and an electromagnetic force, my original statement is not wrong. You are nitpicking for no valid reason, and your nitpicking unnecessarily complicates things.

Quote:
When the building is stationary with respect to the ground, the (upward) contact force of the ground upon the building balances the (downward) gravitational force of the earth upon the building.
We agree. The force due to gravity is equal and opposite to the normal force, based on a macro model and the most commonly used terminology.

Quote:
But that does not make those two different forces
Why are you doing this? To keep things simple, we are looking at things on a macro level. That is all that is necessary to understand Newton's laws of motion.

Instead, you want to unnecessarily complicate things in a futile attempt to prove that I am wrong. This tactic, in the simplest terms possible, is lame.

You accuse me of being wrong because I don't take into account the microscopic nature of the forces involved. This does not make me wrong. It means I am trying to make the example easy to understand.

What you are doing is saying that the normal force, a contact force, is not gravitational. Your conclusion is that because the normal force is not gravitational, at a microscopic scale, the forces are therefore not equal and opposite. This is utter nonsense, and you are making things much more difficult than they need to be.

Watch this video.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/...-contact-force

The video clearly explains the force due to gravity and the normal force. He could have stopped there and been correct. Then, solely for the purpose of explaining things fully, he discusses things at a microscopic level and talks about electromagnetic forces, which are causing the atoms to repel each other.

His model is correct at the macro level. When he discusses things at a microscopic level, his macro model is still correct. He simply takes things to a level he doesn't need to.

How does unnecessarily taking things to a microscopic level prove I'm wrong? It doesn't.

How does your statement, "The contact forces are not gravitational forces, as they are electromagnetic in nature and act in the opposite direction to gravitation, holding the objects apart instead of drawing them together" prove I'm wrong?

Gravity is drawing the atoms towards each other. The electromagnetic repulsion of the electrons in the atoms is causing them to stay apart. I think you are assuming that these forces can not be equal and opposite because they are not the same type. If so, this assumption is wrong.

Gravity is a force. Electromagnetism is a force. The magnitude of and direction of the forces due to gravity and due to electromagnetism can be equal and opposite to each other.

Watch this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt6MiLxeDv0

Once again, I have proven that I am not wrong. You have proven that you are unnecessarily trying to complicate things, and because I won't do this, you claim I am wrong. Why do you do this?

Everything I posted is correct. There are no statements that are wrong. Will you finally admit this?

Last edited by FalseFlag; 5th April 2016 at 11:46 AM.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:25 AM   #8
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
"The force of gravity between the Earth and the building are NOT equal and opposite to each other"
Thus, this ends the thread.
No, it does not prove I am incompetent. It actually proves you are.

Let's dissect his sentence.

"The force of gravity"

How many forces are mentioned? One.

"The force of gravity between the earth and the building"

Is there a force between two objects, or does one object exert a force on another? What is the most correct way to state this? If a person actually knew what they were talking about, wouldn't they state a claim using proper terminology?

"are"

This is plural. How many forces have been mentioned. One.

"equal and opposite to each other"

Only one force was mentioned. What force is gravity equal and opposite to?

Now, do you want to keep claiming I am wrong, or are you going to stop your nonsense and admit that I am right? You are the ones hurting your credibility, not me.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:33 AM   #9
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
"Similar sequence of net forces...."

This is where the problem lies.

They are not similar and.... wait for it.... not to scale with the towers.
How? Please explain how the direction of net forces and similar sequences of net forces are dependent on scale. Please provide a link to a credible source that supports your opinion.

Quote:
Therefore, while he adequately displays Newton's Laws, it is inadequate to use as any evidence of CD in the towers.
Really? You finally admit he "adequately displays Newton's laws". It only took 2000+ posts for a skeptic to finally confirm this.

If Cole "adequately displays Newton's laws", according to your own statement, and one of the ways to "adequately display Newton's laws" was to remove the support columns with firecrackers, how on earth can you make the statement that this is not evidence of CD?

The only way Cole replicated the observed motion during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was to remove the support columns with firecrackers. No other experiment replicated the observed motion. How can anyone possibly claim that this does not support the theory of CD?

Last edited by FalseFlag; 5th April 2016 at 11:35 AM.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:35 AM   #10
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
Basically, the numbers are wrong.

Maths raising its ugly head again.....
What numbers? Please show me where Cole uses numbers, or that they are necessary in his experiments.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:47 AM   #11
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
How? Please explain how the direction of net forces and similar sequences of net forces are dependent on scale. Please provide a link to a credible source that supports your opinion.



Really? You finally admit he "adequately displays Newton's laws". It only took 2000+ posts for a skeptic to finally confirm this.

If Cole "adequately displays Newton's laws", according to your own statement, and one of the ways to "adequately display Newton's laws" was to remove the support columns with firecrackers, how on earth can you make the statement that this is not evidence of CD?

The only way Cole replicated the observed motion during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was to remove the support columns with firecrackers. No other experiment replicated the observed motion. How can anyone possibly claim that this does not support the theory of CD?
They are Newton's Laws of [b]Motion [\b] and are not applicable to the static case, for starters. (Definition: Static- not moving relative to other bodies in the immediate vicinity or in contact )
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:49 AM   #12
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
They are Newton's Laws of [b]Motion [\b] and are not applicable to the static case, for starters. (Definition: Static- not moving relative to other bodies in the immediate vicinity or in contact )
You're kidding me right? What is Newton's first law of motion? Here, let me help you. It starts with, "an object at rest will stay at rest."

A definition of "static" is "lacking in movement, action, or change". An object at rest is static.

Now, how do Newton's laws not apply to the "static case"?

Last edited by FalseFlag; 5th April 2016 at 11:50 AM.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:51 AM   #13
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,143
Also, Cole's experiment does not demonstrate or confirm Newton's second or third laws in any way. It behaves (as does everything we observe in ordinary manipulation of objects) in a way that at a casual glance appears consistent with Newton's laws, but that does nothing to confirm them. The action and reaction forces occurring during the experiment are not measured, so how can the experiment confirm that they are equal or opposite? The forces, masses, and accelerations are not measured, so how can the experiment confirm that the observed accelerations are proportional to the acting forces and inversely proportional to the masses they're acting on?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 5th April 2016 at 11:58 AM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:54 AM   #14
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
No, it does not prove I am incompetent. It actually proves you are.

Let's dissect his sentence.

"The force of gravity"

How many forces are mentioned? One.

"The force of gravity between the earth and the building"

Is there a force between two objects, or does one object exert a force on another? What is the most correct way to state this? If a person actually knew what they were talking about, wouldn't they state a claim using proper terminology?

"are"

This is plural. How many forces have been mentioned. One.

"equal and opposite to each other"

Only one force was mentioned. What force is gravity equal and opposite to?

Now, do you want to keep claiming I am wrong, or are you going to stop your nonsense and admit that I am right? You are the ones hurting your credibility, not me.
Your comprehension being limited, allow me to spell it out for you.

The gravitational force exerted by the earth upon the building is equal to the gravitational force exerted by the building upon the earth.

That you cannot grasp this simple concept proves you are incompetent at physics.

Apparently, your pride that won't allow you to admit that obvious fact.
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:56 AM   #15
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Delete

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th April 2016 at 11:59 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:56 AM   #16
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Everything I posted is correct. There are no statements that are wrong. Will you finally admit this?

The post I was responding to was wrong, because it called another poster's statement incorrect when it was actually correct.

When you "simplify" things to the point where you're declaring two different forces, one gravitational and one electromagnetic, to be reaction forces of one another and therefore necessarily equal and opposite under Newton's third law, you've become wrong. You've done that consistently and as a result you've been wrong every time.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 11:57 AM   #17
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Your comprehension being limited, allow me to spell it out for you.

The gravitational force exerted by the earth upon the building is equal to the gravitational force exerted by the building upon the earth.

That you cannot grasp this simple concept proves you are incompetent at physics.

Apparently, your pride that won't allow you to admit that obvious fact.
No. I have made this statement many times previously. I have made it too many times to count.

I pointed out what I had an issue with, and you ignored it.

You are the one who lacks competence if you can't see this.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:02 PM   #18
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You're kidding me right? What is Newton's first law of motion? Here, let me help you. It starts with, "an object at rest will stay at rest."

A definition of "static" is "lacking in movement, action, or change". An object at rest is static.

Now, how do Newton's laws not apply to the "static case"?
And you left out the rest of the law
.
"unless acted upon by an outside force". Cherry-picked quotes again. What outside force.did you have in mind..
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:03 PM   #19
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
The post I was responding to was wrong, because it called another poster's statement incorrect when it was actually correct.
What?

Quote:
When you "simplify" things to the point where you're declaring two different forces, one gravitational and one electromagnetic, to be reaction forces of one another and therefore necessarily equal and opposite under Newton's third law, you've become wrong. You've done that consistently and as a result you've been wrong every time.
How are these sites wrong when they discuss the force due to gravity and the normal force?

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/clas...ypes-of-Forces

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/...-contact-force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_force

http://regentsprep.org/regents/physi...ion/normal.htm

http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-...-examples.html

http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/dy...section1.rhtml

http://physics.info/newton-first/

In order for your statement to be true, each and every one of these credible sources must be wrong.

What is the most likely scenario? Are you wrong, or is every credible source wrong? I know the answer to this, do you?

If I have used the exact same terminology to describe the exact things the credible sources are describing, how am I wrong? The fact that you want me to be wrong is not a valid reason.

Last edited by FalseFlag; 5th April 2016 at 12:05 PM.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:04 PM   #20
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
And you left out the rest of the law
.
"unless acted upon by an outside force". Cherry-picked quotes again. What outside force.did you have in mind..
There is a difference between relevant and cherry-picking. If you obviously don't understand the first part of Newton's post, what on earth would make anyone think you could understand the rest?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:05 PM   #21
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Your comprehension being limited, allow me to spell it out for you.

The gravitational force exerted by the earth upon the building is equal to the gravitational force exerted by the building upon the earth.

That you cannot grasp this simple concept proves you are incompetent at physics.

Apparently, your pride that won't allow you to admit that obvious fact.
If forces are not balanced in both directions then sumthin gots ta be movin'

The WTC towers stayed at the exact same location on this planet's surface for quite some time. Pretty sure it wasn't significantly sinking into the Earth or rising above it. Therefore, QED, forces were balanced, therefore downward force of gravity equalled the force from the foundation , and that kept the structure from moving in the vertical.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th April 2016 at 12:09 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:07 PM   #22
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
No. I have made this statement many times previously. I have made it too many times to count.

I pointed out what I had an issue with, and you ignored it.

You are the one who lacks competence if you can't see this.
We're in deep ****, guys. Weve been found out, and now every bridge and construct is coming to fall down immediately, if not sooner, because we've been doing it wrong for eons!
Every airplane, satellite, and planet will crash, and the wheels are really going to fall off.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:09 PM   #23
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
We're in deep ****, guys. Weve been found out, and now every bridge and construct is coming to fall down immediately, if not sooner, because we've been doing it wrong for eons!
Every airplane, satellite, and planet will crash, and the wheels are really going to fall off.
You post this and expect people to take you seriously?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:12 PM   #24
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,329
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
............In order for your statement to be true, each and every one of these credible sources must be wrong..............

No, no, no, no. FFS NO.

The sources are right. Myriad is right. It is your interpretation and understanding which is at fault, as it has been from your very first post.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:13 PM   #25
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What?

I said, "The post I was responding to was wrong, because it called another poster's statement incorrect when it was actually correct."

Quote:
How are these sites wrong when they discuss the force due to gravity and the normal force?

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/clas...ypes-of-Forces

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/...-contact-force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_force

http://regentsprep.org/regents/physi...ion/normal.htm

http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-...-examples.html

http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/dy...section1.rhtml

http://physics.info/newton-first/

In order for your statement to be true, each and every one of these credible sources must be wrong.

What is the most likely scenario? Are you wrong, or is every credible source wrong? I know the answer to this, do you?

If I have used the exact same terminology to describe the exact things the credible sources are describing, how am I wrong? The fact that you want me to be wrong is not a valid reason.

They are right. You are wrong. You are wrong because you confuse different forces that are balanced in some particular scenario (such as the force of gravity acting on an object at rest upon a surface, and the contact force with the surface also acting upon the same object to hold it up) with the reaction forces addressed by Newton's Third Law.

This error has repeatedly led you to ridiculous conclusions, such as that Newton's Laws require a falling object to necessarily decelerate if it strikes and crushes a stationary object along the way.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:14 PM   #26
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,329
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
.......or that they are necessary in his experiments.
Stupid comment. Stupid, ignorant comment.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:15 PM   #27
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
While there is a normal force in electromagnetics, it has reference in forces on a mass. Two different items.
"Normal" simply means " perpendicular. In this case perpendicular to the surface an object lies on. In this case since the angle between object, the tower, and surface, Manhattan, is π/2 and cos(π/2)=1, the "Normal force" is equal and opposite to the supplied force due to gravity.

This has absolutely #### to do with whether or not a structure can or cannot come apart and collapse.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:16 PM   #28
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Also, Cole's experiment does not demonstrate or confirm Newton's second or third laws in any way.
Your statement can't be true. The laws of physics are always being applied no matter what we do. Any experiment whatsoever is going to conform to the laws of physics. It is impossible to do any experiment that does not conform to these laws.

Cole's experiments are about similar accelerations, similar directions of net force and similar sequences of net forces. The laws of physics are seen no matter what he is demonstrating. The fact that he is not specifically mentioning Newton's second or third laws is irrelevant.

Quote:
It behaves (as does everything we observe in ordinary manipulation of objects) in a way that at a casual glance appears consistent with Newton's laws, but that does nothing to confirm them.
What? It is impossible for objects to behave contrary to the laws of physics. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote:
The action and reaction forces occurring during the experiment are not measured, so how can the experiment confirm that they are equal or opposite? The forces, masses, and accelerations are not measured, so how can the experiment confirm that the observed accelerations are proportional to the acting forces and inversely proportional to the masses they're acting on?
Your questions are irrelevant to Cole's experiments. I have already stated what he was trying to replicate.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:17 PM   #29
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
They are right. You are wrong. You are wrong because you confuse different forces that are balanced in some particular scenario (such as the force of gravity acting on an object at rest upon a surface, and the contact force with the surface also acting upon the same object to hold it up) with the reaction forces addressed by Newton's Third Law.
How am I wrong. Please pick any one of my statements regarding the normal force discussion and prove I'm wrong. Please make sure you provide a link to a credible source that shows my statement is wrong.

Quote:
This error has repeatedly led you to ridiculous conclusions, such as that Newton's Laws require a falling object to necessarily decelerate if it strikes and crushes a stationary object along the way.
My conclusion is ridiculous? Wow. If an object is accelerating downwards and it impacts another object, Newton's third law tells us what will happen. The accelerating object will exert a force on the object it strikes. The object it strikes will exert an equal and opposite force on the accelerating object. If the accelerating object encounters a force in the opposite direction, what must happen? It will decelerate at the instant of impact. Are you really going to try to tell me that I am wrong, or that this is not true?

Last edited by FalseFlag; 5th April 2016 at 12:23 PM.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:18 PM   #30
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Stupid comment. Stupid, ignorant comment.
I can say the same thing about thousands of comments made by skeptics. Please show me how my statement is stupid or ignorant by providing a link to a credible source that proves your claim is correct.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:20 PM   #31
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Your statement can't be true. The laws of physics are always being applied no matter what we do. Any experiment whatsoever is going to conform to the laws of physics. It is impossible to do any experiment that does not conform to these laws.
Good thing Myriad didn't say that then.

Quote:
Cole's experiments.......babble
Drop a brick on a sheet of rice paper being held perpendicular to the direction of travel. Brick passes through paper.
Brick will experience a slight lessening of its acceleration BUT acceleration will never be zero.

Right?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th April 2016 at 12:24 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:24 PM   #32
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,299
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2322

FalseFlag says:
Quote:
How? Please provide a link to a credible source that proves I am wrong
With "credible" defined by you - as someone who already agrees with you - right?

Isn't that a big part of the problem?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 5th April 2016 at 12:26 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:26 PM   #33
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Drop a brick on a sheet of paper being held perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Brick will experience a slight lessening of its acceleration BUT acceleration will never be zero.

Right?
At the instant of impact the brick will experience a change in acceleration. Newton's third law says this will happen, and we know Newton's third law is true based on numerous observations and experiments.

Your claim that the acceleration after impact will never be zero is not correct. There are scenarios where the paper could stop the brick. It depends on what type of paper is used, and the force exerted by the brick on the paper.

You changed your example to rice paper. If the force exerted by the brick is great enough, the paper might not stop the brick. The acceleration will still change at the instant of the impact.

Last edited by FalseFlag; 5th April 2016 at 12:28 PM.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:27 PM   #34
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2322

FalseFlag says:


With "credible" defined as someone who already agrees with you - right?

Hank
You're not even trying.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:29 PM   #35
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
No, no, no, no. FFS NO.

The sources are right. Myriad is right. It is your interpretation and understanding which is at fault, as it has been from your very first post.
LOL. Your frustration due to constantly being bombarded by truth is beginning to show. Good. Let the truth keep getting under your skin.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:30 PM   #36
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,329
Try this for size, FF.

I don't know exactly what the storey height was in the WTC buildings, but it doesn't much matter. Let's say it was 3.5 metres. When the first floor to collapse had travelled 3.4 metres downwards, what was the maths governing its force? Let's keep it simple. It was F= MA, and A was positive and non-zero. OK, with me?

The floor below it, at the same time, had a force of what? Given that its mass was the same as the one that was just about to crash into it, we don't have to know what it was and can just leave it as M. So, what force is relevant to that floor? The answer is again F=MA, where M is the same as the floor above. So the difference is the value of A. Please tell me you understand that as a static object, it has 0 acceleration, so A = zero.

So, we have one floor (the moving one) with a positive non-zero value of F, and another floor (the static one), with a force F=MA of zero (because M x 0 is zero). Why would you argue that the lower floor suddenly changes at the instant of contact to have an equal and opposite force to something that lands on it? Where does that vertical (upward) acceleration come from that would be necessary for your theory to work? 'cause you can stuff about with F=MA to your heart's content, but you can't make the two forces equal.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 5th April 2016 at 12:32 PM.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:31 PM   #37
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
This has absolutely #### to do with whether or not a structure can or cannot come apart and collapse.
Really?

If a structure comes apart and collapses, what causes it? Forces. Forces cause the collapse. Don't you think you need to understand the nature of forces if you want to understand why and how a structure can collapse?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:32 PM   #38
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Your statement can't be true. The laws of physics are always being applied no matter what we do. Any experiment whatsoever is going to conform to the laws of physics. It is impossible to do any experiment that does not conform to these laws.

The second and third laws specify equalities. The experiment cannot confirm them because no quantities were measured, so there is no way to determine whether or not they were equal in this case.

Of course, as you just said, you can just assume that they were, because as far as we know every such experiment must conform to those laws. But then you're falsely claiming that the experiment is demonstrating something (the accuracy and applicability of Newton's laws) when actually you've just assumed it.

Quote:
Cole's experiments are about similar accelerations, similar directions of net force and similar sequences of net forces.

Similar to what?

How about the magnitudes of the various forces; are those similar too? Because according to Newton's Second Law, the magnitudes of forces matter.

A concrete block a meter on a side dropped from 1000 feet up feet landing on a teacup, and pencil dropped from two feet up landing on a carpet, are "similar accelerations, similar directions of net force, and similar sequences of net forces." Would you expect the results to be the same?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:33 PM   #39
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,329
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
LOL. Your frustration due to constantly being bombarded by truth is beginning to show. Good. Let the truth keep getting under your skin.
If by truth you mean idiocy, then yes, we agree.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 12:35 PM   #40
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
My conclusion is ridiculous? Wow. If an object is accelerating downwards and it impacts another object, Newton's third law tells us what will happen. The accelerating object will exert a force on the object it strikes. The object it strikes will exert an equal and opposite force on the accelerating object. If the accelerating object encounters a force in the opposite direction, what must happen? It will decelerate at the instant of impact. Are you really going to try to tell me that I am wrong, or that this is not true?

Yep. Same mistake again, same wrong conclusion again.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.