Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of

# The Line

337 replies to this topic

### #16 RaptorBites

RaptorBites

Psychic Spy

• Member
• 1,761 posts
• Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 28 May 2013 - 04:37 PM

Little Fish, on 28 May 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

I'll try again, this time explaining what should have been self evident.

"we get a downward force of 23,104N vs. an upward force of 3960N, which results in a downward force of 19,144N"
this is incorrect.

newtons third law says "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."

so, if the top block hits the bottom block with a force of 23,104 N, then newtons third law says that the bottom block will also exert an upwards force of 23,104N on the top block.

I'll use an example to hopefully help you understand where you are getting it wrong.

Take a 50lb weight and gently place it on a scale.  How much does it weigh?

Take the same 50lb weight and drop it 5ft off the ground on top of the scale.  At the moment it decelerates after striking the scale, does the weight change in that fraction of a second?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

### #17 Little Fish

Little Fish

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,000 posts
• Joined:23 Jul 2009
• Gender:Not Selected

• The default position is to give a ****

Posted 28 May 2013 - 04:46 PM

RaptorBites, on 28 May 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

How does the state of the upper mass make any difference in its destructive force?

Regardless if it was "rigid" or in "little itty bitty pieces", the "entire mass" falling simultaneously within a fraction of a second still has enough weight to overload the floors below.
I suspect you are misspeaking using the term "weight", because if it "has enough weight to overload the floors below" then please explain how the building managed to stand for 30 years.

in any realistic destructive situation some mass will spill over the sides and through air spaces without collision, so there is going to be a difference when the top block is broken into pieces and those pieces strike/miss the solid bottom block. Those "itty bitty" forces only occur at the point of contact, a fraction of a second between those forces makes all the difference. throw some sand into the face a friend, then throw the equivalent weight in solid stone. which one cracks the head of your friend?

### #18 Little Fish

Little Fish

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,000 posts
• Joined:23 Jul 2009
• Gender:Not Selected

• The default position is to give a ****

Posted 28 May 2013 - 04:51 PM

RaptorBites, on 28 May 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

I'll use an example to hopefully help you understand where you are getting it wrong.

Take a 50lb weight and gently place it on a scale.  How much does it weigh?

Take the same 50lb weight and drop it 5ft off the ground on top of the scale.  At the moment it decelerates after striking the scale, does the weight change in that fraction of a second?
no.

### #19 RaptorBites

RaptorBites

Psychic Spy

• Member
• 1,761 posts
• Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 28 May 2013 - 04:58 PM

Little Fish, on 28 May 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

no.

Then I sympathize that you are unable to determine the difference between weight and mass.

Carry on heiwa.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

### #20 Little Fish

Little Fish

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,000 posts
• Joined:23 Jul 2009
• Gender:Not Selected

• The default position is to give a ****

Posted 28 May 2013 - 05:03 PM

RaptorBites, on 28 May 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

Then I sympathize that you are unable to determine the difference between weight and mass.
weight is the force of gravity on a mass. in your example, the mass of the 50lb object is constant. gravity is also constant on this planet, so the weight of your 50lb mass is also constant on this planet.

### #21 Little Fish

Little Fish

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,000 posts
• Joined:23 Jul 2009
• Gender:Not Selected

• The default position is to give a ****

Posted 28 May 2013 - 05:11 PM

RaptorBites, on 28 May 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

RaptorBites said:

Then I sympathize that you are unable to determine the difference between weight and mass.

maybe this will cure your misplaced snarkiness

### #22 05854

05854

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 67 posts
• Joined:24 May 2013
• Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 May 2013 - 05:22 PM

aquatus1, on 27 May 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

It occurs to me that there needs to be a sort of neutral territory where people can talk about forces that affect our lives regardless of what sort of political intrigue presumably commands it from behind the curtains.  Attempts to address things such as actual physics, chemistry, biology, or various other objective forces tend to be either ignored, dismissed, or most often, shouted down, rather than addressed.

At the same time, however, there is an acknowledgement that most of us simply aren't all that conversant with some of the sciences involved.  Not a problem, as the sciences can be kept as simple as possible, while at the same time acknowledging that, in the real world, things are much more complex.  Nor does it have to be strictly the empirical sciences either; probabilities, properly shown and supported, are welcome too.

I am proposing that, in this thread, we keep things to the pure science of a given situation.  Never mind the secrets, or whodunnit, or plans for NWO, but just focus on the actual, academic, portion, of the many different conspiracies.

If nothing else, at least it will give people some way to rebut without relying on LOL!! as their main supporting argument.
But where's the Conspiracy???

### #23 Little Fish

Little Fish

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,000 posts
• Joined:23 Jul 2009
• Gender:Not Selected

• The default position is to give a ****

Posted 28 May 2013 - 06:12 PM

05854, on 28 May 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

But where's the Conspiracy???
my reading is that aquatus is trying to show that the wtc north tower could have collapsed without the aid of demolition devices. he has started with a model of floor slabs suspended in air like magic carpets. this alone invalidates any conclusion since it is the columns/walls that hold up a building. storey 1 needs to resist the weight of all storeys above it, but in aquatus model, storey one is only resisting the weight of 2 storeys. so the model fails there as well.

Edited by Little Fish, 28 May 2013 - 06:16 PM.

### #24 Little Fish

Little Fish

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,000 posts
• Joined:23 Jul 2009
• Gender:Not Selected

• The default position is to give a ****

Posted 28 May 2013 - 10:54 PM

aquatus1, on 28 May 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

Did anyone notice what I omitted from the above example, where 1 floor devastated the 5 floors below it?
err...the basics of science - an experiment.

can you explain why the experiments in the video did not completely destroy the structures?

### #25 shrooma

shrooma

Ugly bag of mostly water.

• Member
• 2,707 posts
• Joined:14 Feb 2013
• Gender:Male
• Location:leeds, UK.

• Live.
Sin.
Die.

Posted 29 May 2013 - 12:27 AM

Little Fish, on 28 May 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

weight is the force of gravity on a mass. in your example, the mass of the 50lb object is constant. gravity is also constant on this planet, so the weight of your 50lb mass is also constant on this planet.

Little Fish, on 28 May 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

weight is the force of gravity on a mass. in your example, the mass of the 50lb object is constant. gravity is also constant on this planet, so the weight of your 50lb mass is also constant on this planet.
.
Force=Mass x Acceleration.
gravity & acceleration are both interchangeable and indestinguishable from each other.
a 50kg object at rest doesn't have the same mass characteristic as an accelerating 50kg object, which is why aquatos made the analogy of a weight at rest and an accelerating body. so your saying that gravity acting on mass as a constant is wrong. that's why you experience accelerative g-forces, not because you've suddenly become heavier, but because you've gained energy, E=Mc2 remember. the more energetic, the more mass, which is why only massless bodies can achieve light-speed, because the faster something is moving, the more massive it becomes.
you can't properly apply newton's third law to the problem of the collapsing floor due to momentum. the floor underneath the collapsing floor may respond with an equal force, but as the floor underneath's collapse point is well below the force being applied, there is no way for it to be sustained, so it WILL collapse.

''One is all for religion until one visits a really religious country. Then, one is all for drains, machinery, and a minimum wage.''
-Aldous Huxley-

### #26 aquatus1

aquatus1

Forum Divinity

• 17,954 posts
• Joined:05 Mar 2004
• Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 May 2013 - 01:01 AM

Babe Ruth, on 28 May 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

In this hypothetical, or whatever it is properly called, is one allowed to examine the big picture?  Is one allowed to examine the forensics involved with whatever the result of floor failure turns out to be?

There are plenty of threads where people can pretend to understand what forensic evidence is and how to analyze it.  This thread is for the simpler, foundational aspects, that are often ignored while looking at the "big picture".  It isn't so much a hypothetical, as a primer in the basic academic aspects of physics and critical thinking.

### #27 aquatus1

aquatus1

Forum Divinity

• 17,954 posts
• Joined:05 Mar 2004
• Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 May 2013 - 01:37 AM

Little Fish, on 28 May 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

I'll try again, this time explaining what should have been self evident.

If it had been self-evident, there wouldn't need to be a thread specifically for people to show their work now, would there?

Be snarky somewhere else.  In this thread, support yourself or beat it.

Quote

"we get a downward force of 23,104N vs. an upward force of 3960N, which results in a downward force of 19,144N"
this is incorrect.
newtons third law says "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."

so, if the top block hits the bottom block with a force of 23,104 N, then newtons third law says that the bottom block will also exert an upwards force of 23,104N on the top block.

Technically, yes, however the entire purpose of this example is to show the compounding increase of energy achieved by a falling object as opposed to one at rest.  Newton's 1st Law is about balanced forces, such as forces at rest.  Newton's 3rd Law is about forces interacting.  Newton's 2nd Law, however, is about forces which are unbalanced, such as collisions and impacts, which is what we are dealing with.

So, what I am attempting to show in this example, is that a slab of concrete that exerts X amount of force while at rest (while simultaneously receiving X amount of force from the slab it is resting on, as per Newton's 3rd), is going to gain dramatic amounts of energy after falling (acceleration due to gravity).  At the moment that these two slabs contact (interact), the bottom slab (which was pushing upwards with X amount of force) is now being pushed downwards with a slab that has X times 5, 10, 15 times as much force as before.  Sure, it can try to push back with the same amount of force, but whether or not it actually succeeds in doing so is another question altogether.

By sheer definition, Newton's 3rd law tells us that if an object is at rest (equilibrium) in one position, adding energy to that object automatically creates a state of imbalance, which requires us to use Newton's 2nd law.  The Potential Energy of an object and the Kinetic Energy of an object remains the same, and the force of both slabs pushing against each other at equilibrium are equal, however the addition of the energy gained due to gravitational acceleration adds extra energy to the top slab, and has to be factored in.

Little Fish, on 28 May 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

my reading is that aquatus is trying to show that the wtc north tower could have collapsed without the aid of demolition devices.

Not at all.  That's too big picture.  At this level, all I am trying to do is to give people an idea of just how much energy we are dealing with here.  It is my hope that when people notice how ludicrously, ridiculously, large the differences in forces are, they will be able to, all on their own, decide whether or not the conspiracy arguments are valid or merit credibility.

Quote

he has started with a model of floor slabs suspended in air like magic carpets. this alone invalidates any conclusion since it is the columns/walls that hold up a building.

What supports the slabs is irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is that they were supported with X amount of force, pushing upwards to match the X amount of force pushing downwards.  What the material was, what the configuration was, none of that is relevant to the equations of force, which is the only thing that is being discussed in this example.

Quote

storey 1 needs to resist the weight of all storeys above it, but in aquatus model, storey one is only resisting the weight of 2 storeys. so the model fails there as well.

If you are not going to bother going paying attention to the example, do not bother posting about it.

I made it very clear that each floor was being given the appropriate multiple of force.  Floor 5 was pushing up with the force required to match 2 slabs, Floor 4 was pushing up with the force to match 3 slabs, Floor 3 was pushing up to match the force of 4 slabs, and so on.

I also showed how Floor 5 was struck with a force equivalent to more than 5 slabs, Floor 4 was struck with equivalent of more than 13 slabs, Floor 3 by the force of more than 264 slabs, and so on.

It is this unbelievable multiplication of forces involved that I want people to wrap their heads around.  It is the sheer absurdity of the quantities of energy produced that I believe will make people look at many conspiracy arguments and go "Oh...well, yeah, that's kind of silly, now that we look at it this way."

Little Fish, on 28 May 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

err...the basics of science - an experiment.

If we were actually producing experiments or evidence, sure.  Being that we are simply discussing a set of mathematical equations derived from Newton's Laws of Motion, well, I'm sure Youtube has plenty of videos of teachers swinging bowling balls at their student's noses and such.

Quote

can you explain why the experiments in the video did not completely destroy the structures.

Yes, I can, but I want an acknowledgement from you that you understand the academic side of it first.  I have no intention of arguing the validity of Newtons Laws of Motion.  If you do not understand some aspect of it, I will be more than happy to explain that as well, but if you do not understand the foundation of an experiment, you will not understand the experiment either, no matter how much you think that you do.

### #28 Stellar

Stellar

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 14,500 posts
• Joined:27 Apr 2004
• Gender:Male

• The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
-Patton

Posted 29 May 2013 - 01:41 AM

Just pointing something out, because the physics I'm seeing people argue here is horrendous:

The force opposite to the floors falling due to gravity is the Earth getting pulled up to the floors that are falling... now continue.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

### #29 aquatus1

aquatus1

Forum Divinity

• 17,954 posts
• Joined:05 Mar 2004
• Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 May 2013 - 01:47 AM

Stellar, on 29 May 2013 - 01:41 AM, said:

Just pointing something out, because the physics I'm seeing people argue here is horrendous:
The force opposite to the floors falling due to gravity is the Earth getting pulled up to the floors that are falling... now continue.

Oh, that is going to blow some minds!

Incidentally, in response to my own question:

"Did anyone notice what I omitted from the above example, where 1 floor devastated the 5 floors below it?"

Floor 7.

Yep.  All those crazy numbers?

The actual results are much, much bigger.

By the way, I am going to double-check my maths and clean it up a little, but as has been pointed out, this is not something that is either directly applicable to real world situations, or which, in and of itself, will invalidate any specific conspiracy theory.  It is my hope, however, that it will provide a much needed sense of proportion to some of the outlandish claims one does see being spread.

### #30 shrooma

shrooma

Ugly bag of mostly water.

• Member
• 2,707 posts
• Joined:14 Feb 2013
• Gender:Male
• Location:leeds, UK.

• Live.
Sin.
Die.

Posted 29 May 2013 - 01:56 AM

aquatus1, on 29 May 2013 - 01:47 AM, said:

It is my hope, however, that it will provide a much needed sense of proportion to some of the outlandish claims one does see being spread.
.
you'd probably be better off with napalm.
lots & lots of napalm.
;-)

''One is all for religion until one visits a really religious country. Then, one is all for drains, machinery, and a minimum wage.''
-Aldous Huxley-

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users