[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
Handy we have other data then really, isn't it? It's almost like universal gravitation is not the only theory to exist in all of physics.And yes, relative to the earth, the sun does in fact orbit the earth. It's just that this is not a particularly useful frame of reference, since there are also other objects in the night sky. If the whole universe consisted of just the sun and
Handy we have other data then really, isn't it? It's almost like universal gravitation is not the only theory to exist in all of physics.And yes, relative to the earth, the sun does in fact orbit the earth. It's just that this is not a particularly useful frame of reference, since there are also other objects in the night sky. If the whole universe consisted of just the sun and
Universal gravitation is not a theory.
It is a third law pair but the accelerations are not the same. You can argue a common barycenter I suppose.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Generally they do know how science works. I am part of the scientific community and I can tell you from experience they know. But if they do go off half-cocked it matters not, the experiment is all the evidence required.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Universal gravitation is not a theory.
It is a third law pair but the accelerations are not the same. You can argue a common barycenter I suppose.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I edited it to say that the forces are not the same, but the trajectories are, regardless of which frame of reference you use to do the calculations.
So when are you going to give a proper explanation of your terrestrial gravity experiment(s)?
I edited it to say that the forces are not the same, but the trajectories are, regardless of which frame of reference you use to do the calculations.
So when are you going to give a proper explanation of your terrestrial gravity experiment(s)?
The magnitude of the force on each is the same, opposite in direction.
Terrestrial gravity test is not an experiment. It is an observation ideally in a vacuum chamber to show a consistent rate of acceleration regardless of mass.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So, your whole claim that the NIST version of events is impossible is predicated on a photo showing lots of dust, which you have extrapolated to mean that the whole building turned to dust. Have I got this about right?
That was exhibit A. All good things to those who wait.
I dont want you going all Neo on me and becoming overwhelmed upon realisation of the Matrix.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The magnitude of the force on each is the same, opposite in direction.
Terrestrial gravity test is not an experiment. It is an observation ideally in a vacuum chamber to show a consistent rate of acceleration regardless of mass.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Which is consistent with universal gravity. I am asking what experiment you conducted to validate your theory that on earth, the gravitational field lines are parallel and not radial. My, you do seem to experience a lot of selective forgetfulness.
That was exhibit A. All good things to those who wait.
I dont want you going all Neo on me and becoming overwhelmed upon realisation of the Matrix.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I wouldn't worry too much about that, I think you're quite safe. Let's see all this evidence and calculations.
I say again, floors have to collapse BEFORE collision. You need to get knocked over prior to the car hitting you. Fall rate cannot exceed g (regardless of Gorgo's suggestion it might somehow break the law of freefall).
This is not particularly relevant to our present discussion, but it was pointed out earlier ITT that buildings can in fact collapse faster than freefall. I can find the relevant posts if you like.
It's not particularly relevant since your numbers are so far out there (27s, 100s) that you're nowhere even close to freefall.
Which is consistent with universal gravity. I am asking what experiment you conducted to validate your theory that on earth, the gravitational field lines are parallel and not radial. My, you do seem to experience a lot of selective forgetfulness.
"My theory"? I did not say I had a theory. I said that the gravitational field here on Earth is uniform. All field lines are parallel. We measure the field any number of ways. Such as parallel plumb lines, walls of buildings are parallel, canals are built flat and level etc etc. This is not a scientific theory. But it comes in useful.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
"My theory"? I did not say I had a theory. I said that the gravitational field here on Earth is uniform. All field lines are parallel. We measure the field any number of ways. Such as parallel plumb lines, walls of buildings are parallel, canals are built flat and level etc etc. This is not a scientific theory. But it comes in useful.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes, you have a theory of "terrestrial gravity", remember? Do we need to go to the record?
Right, this is exactly what I'd like you to show, how you know that these field lines are parallel. I had no idea you could measure gravitational field lines like you measure the walls of a building, can you tell me more about this methodology please? Just describe it in baby steps like I'm 5.
This is not particularly relevant to our present discussion, but it was pointed out earlier ITT that buildings can in fact collapse faster than freefall. I can find the relevant posts if you like.
It's not particularly relevant since your numbers are so far out there (27s, 100s) that you're nowhere even close to freefall.
Genuinely curious how a building can collapse at a rate greater than g. I have been berating the guy for suggesting it. Prove me wrong.
Yes the 10 seconds is not possible with a progressive collapse.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Genuinely curious how a building can collapse at a rate greater than g. I have been berating the guy for suggesting it. Prove me wrong.
Yes the 10 seconds is not possible with a progressive collapse.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
That's just not true for extended bodies in classical mechanics. But thanks for at least saying something clear enough to be determined false. That basic logic or hand calc Newtonian physics(not that anybody even did any!) are enough to make it obvious planes couldn't collapse large buildings is a ludicrous claim filled with a ton of errors like this. I can't imagine too ma
I don't know much about this, feel free to follow the discussion yourself, but the chain on the left appears to fall faster than the free-falling chain on the right.
Yes, you have a theory of "terrestrial gravity", remember? Do we need to go to the record?Right, this is exactly what I'd like you to show, how you know that these field lines are parallel. I had no idea you could measure gravitational field lines like you measure the walls of a building, can you tell me more about this methodology please? Just describe it in baby steps like I'
There is terrestrial gravity and there is universal gravitation. These are separate models or conceptions, or colloquially theories, but they are not scientific theories.
A plumb bob hangs vertically, i.e. perpendicular to the horizontal ground. All plumb lines hang vertically to the horizontal ground. Hence all plumb lines are parallel to one another. Faraday represented fields with field lines, extending this to gravitational fields. These field lines are all parallel, hence the field is uniform. This gives a sure way to construct buildings, canals etc.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
"My theory"? I did not say I had a theory. I said that the gravitational field here on Earth is uniform. All field lines are parallel. We measure the field any number of ways. Such as parallel plumb lines, walls of buildings are parallel, canals are built flat and level etc etc. This is not a scientific theory. But it comes in useful.
Towers of long suspension bridges?
Fair enough.Firstly it is acknowledged by NIST that the average time of descent of wtc 1 and 2 was 10 s (9 and 11 seconds each).[Above it was claimed that "youtube videos" show it to be more like 20 s. I said fair enough let us say 20 s for the sake of argument to get some agreement to move on. 20 s is still impossible for the mechanism that NIST claim].So we have a near free-f
You seem fully convinced for some reason that each floor needs to re accelerate from rest or something 110 times. If you swing a wrecking ball through a 110 post fence it doesn't hit the first fence board stop then re accelerate and stop again 110 times.
But I can see why the fall would looks suspicious if I did so believe that so I guess it is what it is.
A plumb bob hangs vertically, i.e. perpendicular to the horizontal ground. All plumb lines hang vertically to the horizontal ground. Hence all plumb lines are parallel to one another.
I already explained to you why this is not true, remember? I even drew you a picture of a circle like you're 5. It's only true if you assume a priori that the ground is flat and not curved, like, I dunno, the surface of a sphere.
Here it is again, in case you forgot:
If the circumference of this circle is "the ground", both of these vectors are perpendicular to it. They are not parallel to each other.
Consider those two lines your plumb bobs. They are both perpendicular to the ground (the circumference of the circle). They are not parallel to each other.
For someone who claims to be "part of the scientific community" you seem to struggle with some really, really basic concepts. Or maybe you just have a phobia of circles or something, is that a thing?
You keep saying "horizontal ground", "level ground", like that's a given. Hint: it's not.
I don't know much about this, feel free to follow the discussion yourself, but the chain on the left appears to fall faster than the free-falling chain on the right.
Interesting. There are additional forces, tensions in the wires caused by repeated collisions with the table and the rungs, I think. The left hand system is not well approximated with a free fall model. Also the system as a whole is falling rather than being in a progressive collapse.
The assertion earlier maintains that the force of upper floors above is possibly sufficient to cause rate of fall greater than g, hence "surprise" at mere g. That is of course impossible.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
