[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
To save you some time, the whole discussion started because the claim was made that high school physics alone was a big problem to the NIST report. I asked for what specifically, since HS physics is basic and if true multiple people here will be able to follow along. The only two claims that were clear and what I would consider HS physics were an incorrect statement about the fastest something can fall through gravity alone and a correct kinematic equation for how far apoint mass will fall starting from rest on Earth due to gravity.
To save you some time, the whole discussion started because the claim was made that high school physics alone was a big problem to the NIST report. I asked for what specifically, since HS physics is basic and if true multiple people here will be able to follow along. The only two claims that were clear and what I would consider HS physics were an incorrect statement about the
You forgot Pythagoras dude. You can prove anything from the Earth being flat to space lasers with a bit of Pythagoras. Maybe sprinkle in a little sine and cosine if you want to get real advanced.
You forgot Pythagoras dude. You can prove anything from the Earth being flat to space lasers with a bit of Pythagoras. Maybe sprinkle in a little sine and cosine if you want to get real advanced.
The Greeks credited Pythagoras, alongside Parmenides, with the discovery that the Earth is spherical, so that's a mite awkward.
lolz
To save you some time, the whole discussion started because the claim was made that high school physics alone was a big problem to the NIST report. I asked for what specifically, since HS physics is basic and if true multiple people here will be able to follow along. The only two claims that were clear and what I would consider HS physics were an incorrect statement about the
What is physics?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
To save you some time, the whole discussion started because the claim was made that high school physics alone was a big problem to the NIST report. I asked for what specifically, since HS physics is basic and if true multiple people here will be able to follow along. The only two claims that were clear and what I would consider HS physics were an incorrect statement about the
The physics fail is surprise the "collapse" (begging the question i.e. logic fail) did not fall faster than g.
And kinematics is not physics. But you will see that when you successfully define physics as requested.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
For some reason, defining words in considered a 'semantic game' to some folks.
They'd rather post a stoopid meme instead. To each their own, I suppose.
It is necessary to any sensible discussion. But that isn't what they want. Keeping terms vague helps them distract.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
We might need to start with geometry there, brofessor. You know - planes, discs, spheres, the difference between them - stuff like that.
Wouldn't acceleration due to gravity in your "model" depend on the distance from the centre of the disc? The acceleration vector also wouldn't be oriented "straight down", but rather down and towards the centre, wouldn't it?
You are babbling incoherently. Sense: Terrestrial gravity is estimated as a uniform field. There is no "centre".
Universal gravitation is a non-uniform field i.e. radial field lines. Perhaps this is what you are conflating.
Anyway what's physics?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The physics fail is surprise the "collapse" (begging the question i.e. logic fail) did not fall faster than g.
And kinematics is not physics. But you will see that when you successfully define physics as requested.
A truther made the claim that refuting the NIST report only required high school physics. You can ask him what that means and to define it.
You are babbling incoherently. Sense: Terrestrial gravity is estimated as a uniform field. There is no "centre".
Universal gravitation is a non-uniform field i.e. radial field lines. Perhaps this is what you are conflating.
Anyway what's physics?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Terrestrial gravitation would depend on the shape of the Earth though, wouldn't it... I'm asking how it behaves on your Earth. Why don't you draw me a picture of your Earth (in any 3d projection of your choice), put a point where the WTC is, and show me the with an arrow the direction of the gravitational force acting on it. Then give me the horizontal and vertical component of the magnitude of that vector (what "horizontal" and "vertical" means would of course depend on the exact shape of your Earth - for example, on a sphere, "vertical" would be towards the centre and it would be 9.81Nkg^-1 and "horizontal" would be orthogonal to that along a plane tangent to the surface, and it would be zero).
That would be a good start for "physics".
A truther made the claim that refuting the NIST report only required high school physics. You can ask him what that means and to define it.
Aspects can certainly be refuted by equations of uniform acceleration, law of inertia, conservation of energy and momentum.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Aspects can certainly be refuted by equations of uniform acceleration, law of inertia, conservation of energy and momentum.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Which aspects? We keep asking you guys to be specific, but for some reason you refuse to do so.
Quote an "aspect" which can be refuted, and refute it. Can't be that hard, you guys keep saying a high schooler could do it.
Oh, and you forgot to respond about how gravitational fields work on your planet. Is it a cylinder or a cone? It matters.
Terrestrial gravitation would depend on the shape of the Earth though, wouldn't it... I'm asking how it behaves on your Earth. Why don't you draw me a picture of your Earth (in any 3d projection of your choice), put a point where the WTC is, and show me the with an arrow the direction of the gravitational force acting on it. Then give me the horizontal and vertical component of
That is your definition of physics is it?
No it would not depend on Earth shape (though it is consistent with a particular geometry). Terrestrial gravity is a uniform field. That means parallel field lines, i.e. no convergence to some "centre". You do not have varying values of g depending on height when modelling freefall. There cannot therefore be any presupposition as to the surface being curved, which requires a non-uniform field with radial field lines and varying field strength. On the contrary, it is a fixed 9.81 N/kg.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Which aspects? We keep asking you guys to be specific, but for some reason you refuse to do so.
Quote an "aspect" which can be refuted, and refute it. Can't be that hard, you guys keep saying a high schooler could do it.
You think you are getting more from me after your ungrateful behaviour?
See posts above and engage sensibly, then we will see.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
That is your definition of physics is it?No it would not depend on Earth shape (though it is consistent with a particular geometry). Terrestrial gravity is a uniform field. That means parallel field lines, i.e. no convergence to some "centre". You do not have varying values of g depending on height when modelling freefall. There cannot therefore be any presupposition as to the
Lol of course it depends on the shape you massive donk. The only reason that the gravitational field is uniform on the surface of a spherical Earth is because a). every point on the surface is equidistant from the centre (that is kinda the definition of a sphere) and b). for the purposes of our calculations, the density of the Earth, while not uniform, is also equidistributed from the centre.
At the very least, a). does not hold for other shapes. Therefore, points on the surface which have different distances from the centre will experience gravitational force with different magnitudes, and the direction will be towards the centre of mass (also called the "centre of gravity", ever wonder why?), so the direction of the force would not be "straight down", as it is on the surface of a sphere.
All the stuff you've said above is just massive word salad. It means nothing.
"Cylinder" "cone" "planet"?
Dude you are struggling with parallel lines here.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok, tell me more. Why do you think parallel lines are important? Do you think there is some universal law that says gravity has to act in parallel lines, whatever that means?
Parallel to what? Each other? Then I can just rotate the whole set of these lines by any angle I want and they remain parallel, is that how this works?
There is no such thing as parallel lines on the surface of a sphere, does that mean that there is no gravity on spherical planets?
You think you are getting more from me after your ungrateful behaviour?
See posts above and engage sensibly, then we will see.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Sorry sir, I am very grateful to hear about your fascinating theories and I would be honoured to subscribe to your publication.
You do not have varying values of g depending on height when modelling freefall.
Actually, you do, it's just that for most heights we are working with our approximation of 9.81 works fine. But of course it depends on height, gravity falls off with distance squared. Maybe you should have paid more attention in high school, then you could really get stuck in to correcting those NIST donks.
Here, genius:
