Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Followers 3

The Line

338 posts in this topic

Momentum is a force,

no it isn't

force = mass x acceleration

momentum = mass x velocity

1 person likes this

Share on other sites

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "count"

.

count as in ''be a relevant part of the equation''

as in ''the effect is so negligable it can be discounted'' count.

Share on other sites

You kinda dodged the second question above; although I agree that the notions you are talking about above are absurd, it doesn't have anything to do with anything I said. If some of the mass of the crushed stories, which is constantly growing as the collapse continues, is freefalling as you admit, then the answer to my question is obviously yes, the remaining intact lower block has to withstand a force, that provided by the mass of the falling middle crushed stories, that the upper block does not. Thus the forces on the intact lower block and the intact upper block cannot be equal past the first collision, in general. So then it follows that the resultant damage from these forces, in general, should not be expected to be the same on the lower block and the upper block as the forces are not equal at those two separate points.

what you need to do at this point is move from hypothesis to experiment.

science is not conducted by theoretical rhetoric. you need to produce an experiment which demonstrates what you believe.

explain why the experiments i put up in the videos do not confirm the bolded bit.

I also remember seeing the "Brainiac" science tv show demonstrating the principle of one object being dropped on another object doing the same damage to both.

Thus, I don't know why you think the damage would be equal and that a failing floor in the lower block, after the first stories have been crushed, must also result in a crushed floor in the upper block.
well that is extremely weird since i already told you why in the bit of my post you deleted in your response.

http://www.unexplain...30#entry4792718

experiment trumps rhetoric.

[media=]

[/media]
2 people like this

Share on other sites

what you need to do at this point is move from hypothesis to experiment.

science is not conducted by theoretical rhetoric. you need to produce an experiment which demonstrates what you believe.

experiment trumps rhetoric.

Another incorrect idea that you have is that experiments are something that you need to rush into as fast as possible. Experiments are not simple things. Designing a proper experiment is something colleges take two semester to teach researchers to do properly. The worst thing you can do is run an experiment without actually understanding what you are testing.

It is a matter of common sense. If you do not understand the foundational concept of what you are testing (to say nothing of actually defining what the experiment is supposed to show), then how could you possibly design an experiment around it? At best, you would end up with an experiment designed to prove your hypothesis to be correct, which is, of course, the exact wrong thing to do.

Unfortunately, too many people give experiments more authority than they merit. An experiment proving a mistake does not make the mistake correct; it just creates a stronger belief in the mistake.

no it isn't

force = mass x acceleration

momentum = mass x velocity

That entire post, and the only thing you respond to is...!?!

*sigh*

Do you understand that Newton's 3rd law is not about the quantity of energy a given object contains? As long as we are on the same page about that, we can keep going with the example.

Edited by aquatus1
2 people like this

Share on other sites

Another incorrect idea that you have is that experiments are something that you need to rush into as fast as possible. Experiments are not simple things. Designing a proper experiment is something colleges take two semester to teach researchers to do properly. The worst thing you can do is run an experiment without actually understanding what you are testing.

right, because we've only had 12 years to think about this, and nobody has produced an experiment that shows an object can crush an identical object, or better still show me an experiment that demonstrates any object can crush 10 identical objects.
It is a matter of common sense. If you do not understand the foundational concept of what you are testing (to say nothing of actually defining what the experiment is supposed to show), then how could you possibly design an experiment around it? At best, you would end up with an experiment designed to prove your hypothesis to be correct, which is, of course, the exact wrong thing to do.
forget "proof", show me an experiment that is consistent with the assertion of unequal damage of identical colliding objects.
That entire post, and the only thing you respond to is...!?!

*sigh*

it is difficult to extract your meaning when you incorrectly conflate the basic physics principles.

if you think momentum is a force, then everything that follows using that mistake is going to be incorrect. if you build your house on sand, there is no point arguing about whether the roof is squashing the walls.

Do you understand that Newton's 3rd law is not about the quantity of energy a given object contains?
of course. and I never stated that. i already stated what newtons third law is. Edited by Little Fish
4 people like this

Share on other sites

Aquatus1, Flying Swan.. you have great patience in the face of such misuse (and misunderstanding) of dear Isaac's postulates and their application to the real world...

Given their obvious desire to believe in the CT, I can't help thinking that those arguing with you are simply not open to education, and their last few posts tell that tale.

But it's a valiant effort nonetheless, and I salute you!

2 people like this

Share on other sites

This is getting too bogged down with textbook definitions, rhetorical tangents (such as whether momentum is force), running large numbers through equations correctly with no frame of reference or causal bridge to dictate what is the expected behavior of this structure in a collapse. The 9/11 collapses happened exactly how I would expect them to happen 99 times out of 100 if they were repeated 100 times. They are the correct experiment to analyze here, not backyard physics problems using household materials trying to impose what we should expect to see. If the collapses couldn't have happened exactly as I will now expect them to happen 99/100 times, I would have expected to see a top-shelf engineering dissertation by now confirming that the collapses as we see them right before our eyes were impossible without truther bombs. It's only been over 11 years already.

Are we still mystified by the velocity of the collapses? Are we still insistent that just because something looks like a controlled demolition, it must be a controlled demolition?

Speaking of incredulity, I was already duly impressed with how well the terrorists handled the physics of airliner flight that they even hit the towers at all especially with the speeds and experience they were flying with. It's also an incredible magic trick that Bush covered this grand insider ala truther conspiracy up for all these years. Because video evidence (valid experimental evidence) clearly shows the collapses began at the smoldering scars created by the impacts, it's beyond belief that the "insiders" planted explosives right where those airplanes hit the towers creating what must be the greatest ruse in the history of earth. Allah himself must have been flying those planes to achieve that kind of accuracy.

Newton's laws cannot be violated but they can be rhetorically butchered in two opposite directions to support a political or conspiratorial opinion. While there's a lot of rhetorically-accurate statements flying around from multiple posters here, with arbitrary numbers being dropped into formulas for little to no purpose (other than building credibility in the eyes of other posters) the truth of what happened on 9/11 isn't hiding behind an elaborate and impossible curtain, but right in front of our faces and all the evidence we're ever going to need.

2 people like this

Share on other sites

what you need to do at this point is move from hypothesis to experiment.

science is not conducted by theoretical rhetoric. you need to produce an experiment which demonstrates what you believe.

Why? Because you don't understand the extremely simplistic argument I made? It's step-by-step, explain where the logic fails, explain how there can be equal damage when it is clear from what you said that the forces on the lower and upper block cannot be the same beyond the first collision, how do unequal forces equate to equal damage? Or, produce your experiment that accurately mimics the structure of WTC and the events of 9/11 and demonstrate how it cannot happen; 'experiment trumps rhetoric', or do you not hold yourself to that standard? If you really knew something about physics as you boast, it should be effortless to show where the flaw in my grade-school explanation is.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
3 people like this

Share on other sites

quite true yamato.

the people coming to this thread out of interest, out of a desire to learn something from what promised to be a good idea are just gonna be put off by all the 'my physics is better than your physics' 'ooh, aren't I more cleverer than you' malarky, and instead of staying in droves, they'll just be runnin' for them thar hills!!

Share on other sites

I think people are getting confused here by 'experiment', and aquatus' 'example'

you're not helping anyone with bickering over semantics you know, especially the (good) idea behind the OP.

time out eh children, or it'll be the naughty step for you all.....

Share on other sites

Building 7 wasn't hit by force like the Twin towers , the fires were small and scientifically it should not have collapsed, but wait, someone said they were going to pull it? What exactly did "pull it " refer to? B.T.W let's not overlook that Newton law was based on bouncing balls, not towers of steal.

1 person likes this

Share on other sites

This is getting too bogged down with textbook definitions, rhetorical tangents (such as whether momentum is force)

I agree it is getting bogged down. but if you invoke physics you need to be explicit and use the correct terms, one might be well intentioned but using incorrect terms leads to confusion.

"The 9/11 collapses happened exactly how I would expect them to happen 99 times out of 100 if they were repeated 100 times."

such a thing has never happened before, you have no reference point, so how do you claim it is what you expected?

the top block of wtc1 accelerates down through the building, there is no deceleration, which is inconsistent with newtons laws. the verinage demolition (most similar experiment) show the deceleration, the wtc do not (and you can't pick it up just by eye).

I would have expected to see a top-shelf engineering dissertation by now confirming that the collapses as we see them right before our eyes were impossible without truther bombs

studies have been done. but what you are not factoring is the reaction to the actions of those studies. they are simply dismissed as "conspiracy throrists". top-shelf? what "top-shelf" journal would touch such a thing? the journal process of rejecting a paper is as simple as "no", proving that political expediency is a stronger force than scientific enquiry.

Edited by Little Fish
3 people like this

Share on other sites

I agree it is getting bogged down. but if you invoke physics you need to be explicit and use the correct terms, one might be well intentioned but using incorrect terms leads to confusion.

"The 9/11 collapses happened exactly how I would expect them to happen 99 times out of 100 if they were repeated 100 times."

such a thing has never happened before, you have no reference point, so how do you claim it is what you expected?

the top block of wtc1 accelerates down through the building, there is no deceleration, which is inconsistent with newtons laws. the verinage demolition (most similar experiment) show the deceleration, the wtc do not (and you can't pick it up just by eye).

studies have been done. but what you are not factoring is the reaction to the actions of those studies. they are simply dismissed as "conspiracy throrists". top-shelf? what "top-shelf" journal would touch such a thing? the journal process of rejecting a paper is as simple as "no", proving that political expediency is a stronger force than scientific enquiry.

I agree it is getting bogged down. but if you invoke physics you need to be explicit and use the correct terms, one might be well intentioned but using incorrect terms leads to confusion.

"The 9/11 collapses happened exactly how I would expect them to happen 99 times out of 100 if they were repeated 100 times."

such a thing has never happened before, you have no reference point, so how do you claim it is what you expected?

the top block of wtc1 accelerates down through the building, there is no deceleration, which is inconsistent with newtons laws. the verinage demolition (most similar experiment) show the deceleration, the wtc do not (and you can't pick it up just by eye).

[media=]

studies have been done. but what you are not factoring is the reaction to the actions of those studies. they are simply dismissed as "conspiracy throrists". top-shelf? what "top-shelf" journal would touch such a thing? the journal process of rejecting a paper is as simple as "no", proving that political expediency is a stronger force than scientific enquiry.

Little Fish, that video is so informational , very explanatory. Was also an interesting and dear reflection of past history in that Galileo was mistreated for knowing what he knew. The experiments speak volumes . Great posting Little Fish !!!

1 person likes this

Share on other sites

the top block of wtc1 accelerates down through the building, there is no deceleration, which is inconsistent with newtons laws. the verinage demolition (most similar experiment) show the deceleration, the wtc do not (and you can't pick it up just by eye).

What is your definition of deceleration in regards to this topic?

Share on other sites

Building 7 wasn't hit by force like the Twin towers , the fires were small and scientifically it should not have collapsed, but wait, someone said they were going to pull it? What exactly did "pull it " refer to? B.T.W let's not overlook that Newton law was based on bouncing balls, not towers of steal.

**A reminder that this thread is NOT about the conspiracies themselves, and will focus only on the science behind the arguments.**

**Do not muddy up the waters by throwing in a dozen variables when there isn't even agreement on a single one, and do not go and change around a given example until it has been agreed on. There are plenty of other threads for that circular nonsense..**

Edited by aquatus1

Share on other sites
What is your definition of deceleration in regards to this topic?
the video defined the terms at the 2:13 mark
1 person likes this

Share on other sites
right, because we've only had 12 years to think about this, and nobody has produced an experiment that shows an object can crush an identical object, or better still show me an experiment that demonstrates any object can crush 10 identical objects.

Irrelevant to this thread.

forget "proof", show me an experiment that is consistent with the assertion of unequal damage of identical colliding objects.

Wait..."forget proof" followed by "show me an experiment"? What?

Never mind. Like I said, experiments are useless without an understanding of the actual subject being tested. If you cannot define what is being tested, you have no way of knowing whether an experiment is actually testing it.

it is difficult to extract your meaning when you incorrectly conflate the basic physics principles.

I apologize for that. The problem is that I am attempting to describe this in the simplest ways that I can, and it is difficult to tell, at times, how much someone knows, how much they don't know, and more importantly, how much people think they know, but don't actually know.

How about instead of arguing about the literal semantics, if you see an equation being applied in a given way, you assume the term used in conjunction with it is being applied to that equation, instead of assuming that it is being applied in a way irrelevant to the example it is being applied to? You have to be willing to give a little here in order to allow the discussion to move forward about the actual topic, instead of focusing on the semantics.

if you think momentum is a force, then everything that follows using that mistake is going to be incorrect. if you build your house on sand, there is no point arguing about whether the roof is squashing the walls.

Fine. Momentum is not force, but rather a quantity of motion, measured by how much energy is going in one direction over time and how much energy is added to it. Just as I used it in every example I gave. Being that absolutely NONE of the numbers are going to be changed now that these semantics have been clarified, and that I will likely, on occassion slip and use the term "a force" to refer to a given amount of energy moving in a given direction over a span of time, simply because it is easier and (usually) understood by everyone involved, can we stop beating the throughly dead horse and actually talk about the numbers involved?

of course. and I never stated that. i already stated what newtons third law is.

What you stated was:

aquatus1:

Do the math and we get a downward force of 23,104N vs. an upward force of 3960N, which results in a downward force of 19,144N

Little Fish:

this is incorrect.

newton's third law !

"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."

Followed by:

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.

In other words, when you emphasized magnitude, you were including the energy added by the acceleration of the falling block. This implies that you consider this energy to be part of the force referred to by Newton's 3rd Law. This, however, is not correct. The acceleration does not have to be equal in magnitude; only the force does. The calculation of energy on impact is not a function of Newton's 3rd Law. It is a function of Newton's 2nd Law. Newton's 2nd Law allows us to calculate the energy each object has. Newton's 3rd Law tells us how that energy is going to behave.

In neither case, however, does this actually become relevant. If we have an objects mass, velocity, and stopping distance, we can figure out the Impact Force it will generate. Similarly, if we have an objects mass and it's acceleration, we can figure out the force it will generate. At this point, we are beyond Newton's 3rd Law. Remember that Newton's Laws only directly apply to single-point masses. Size, shape, material, etc, do not apply to Newton's Laws, which is why all this talk about breaking and failing and supports is irrelevant. If we are talking about Impact force and collision with force at rest, Newton's 3rd Law is just not applicable.

The equations of motions are derived from Newton's Laws, meaning that they are extensions of his original ideas. They take precedence over the original three laws.

I agree it is getting bogged down. but if you invoke physics you need to be explicit and use the correct terms, one might be well intentioned but using incorrect terms leads to confusion.

Is everything clarified now? The energy from acceleration does not have to be equal in magnitude in regards to Newton's 3rd, and Newton's 3rd isn't actually relevant to impact equations, in the sense that it does not change or affect any of the given equations or numbers that have already been presented?

studies have been done. but what you are not factoring is the reaction to the actions of those studies. they are simply dismissed as "conspiracy throrists". top-shelf? what "top-shelf" journal would touch such a thing? the journal process of rejecting a paper is as simple as "no", proving that political expediency is a stronger force than scientific enquiry.

**Again, a general reminder that this thread is about science and critical thinking, not conspiracies.**

1 person likes this

Share on other sites

I agree it is getting bogged down. but if you invoke physics you need to be explicit and use the correct terms, one might be well intentioned but using incorrect terms leads to confusion.

"The 9/11 collapses happened exactly how I would expect them to happen 99 times out of 100 if they were repeated 100 times."

such a thing has never happened before, you have no reference point, so how do you claim it is what you expected?

the top block of wtc1 accelerates down through the building, there is no deceleration, which is inconsistent with newtons laws. the verinage demolition (most similar experiment) show the deceleration, the wtc do not (and you can't pick it up just by eye).

[media=]

[/media]

studies have been done. but what you are not factoring is the reaction to the actions of those studies. they are simply dismissed as "conspiracy throrists". top-shelf? what "top-shelf" journal would touch such a thing? the journal process of rejecting a paper is as simple as "no", proving that political expediency is a stronger force than scientific enquiry.

Show me the dissertation handed out by a top-10 engineering school showing that the evidence we have in front of our faces is somehow impossible and you'll have the credibility you need to assert that claim. Professors at my school would have laughed you out of their office and that explains why the only "experts" you have parroting this conspiracy crap are the ones who aren't holding jobs at said top universities but rather individuals with a political bone to pick.

When those towers collapsed I have no expectation to see "deceleration" with the naked eye despite what suffering this untrained rhetoric is telling me I'd have to see. They didn't collapse in their own footprint, they did lean, there was thermite everywhere once we understand what thermite is, the puffs of smoke were pressurized air and dust being forcibly ejected in advance of the collapsing structure above it, there were a lot of loud noises that day, there's no political motive for imploding WTC7 if you're going to bring the twin towers in this elaborate ruse people still actually believe in. Every bit of truther conspiracy I've ever seen is a pile of politically-motivated nonsense. That whole movement has accomplished nothing more than taking our eye off the truth of what really happened on 9/11 and most importantly, why it happened in the first place.

1 person likes this

Share on other sites

When an object with momentum hits another object the MA side of the F equation begins. Playing rhetorical gotcha games that "momentum isn't force" doesn't garner one a greater command of Newton's laws much less evidence that their analysis is the one to believe in.

Share on other sites
Show me the dissertation handed out by a top-10 engineering school showing that the evidence we have in front of our faces is somehow impossible and you'll have the credibility you need to assert that claim. Professors at my school would have laughed you out of their office and that explains why the only "experts" you have parroting this conspiracy crap are the ones who aren't holding jobs at said top universities but rather individuals with a political bone to pick.

so for you, it is who says it, not whether what is said matches observations. this puts you in disagreement with the scientific method and "top-notch" Richard Feynman who said in the video i put up "it doesn't matter who says it or who's name it is, if it disagrees with observation, it's wrong".

where are the "dissertations" from these top-notch institutions which explain the collapses, the nist report stated the collapse was inevitable and then refer to bazant et al, yet there are many examples of tower demolition which did not completely collapse proving collapse is not inevitable, and bazant et al which NIST refers to specifies a massive jolt to completely collapse the towers, yet no jolt was observed in the measurements of the north tower, just uniform acceleration.

"When those towers collapsed I have no expectation to see "deceleration" with the naked eye despite what suffering this untrained rhetoric is telling me I'd have to see."

i stated that it could not be seen with the naked eye, that it had to be measured. the expected deceleration is not "seen" in the wtc measurements, but it is seen in the measurements of verinage collapses.

"They didn't collapse in their own footprint, they did lean"

the three towers didn't have to collapse exactly in their own footprint, demolition devices or not.

"there was thermite everywhere once we understand what thermite is"

I would argue you are mis-describing the evidence for thermite, you have argued that top-notch institutional dissertations are your standard, but there has been no published rebuttal to harrit et al in 5 years. the evidence shows unreacted thermite intimately mixed at the nano scale. a substance like that is not "everywhere", you are appealing to simplicity and in opposition to the laws of entropy - you doin't get a chunk of unreacted tnt by crushing its constituents in a chaotic fashion.

"the puffs of smoke were pressurized air and dust being forcibly ejected in advance of the collapsing structure above it"

speculation not fact. i calculated those large debris expulsions on the north tower occurred at a level down the building before any debris could have fallen to and reached the expulsion point which is consistent with the core being blown below the "collapse point" as the collapse initiator.

"there were a lot of loud noises that day"

yes, including many credible witnesses that specifically stated bombs and explosions, here are just some:

"there's no political motive for imploding WTC7 if you're going to bring the twin towers in this elaborate ruse people still actually believe in."

you are looking for reasons to ignore the facts, rather than looking at the facts.

wtc7 fell at freefall speed for 20-some floors, NIST initially denied this fact and stated "that would suggest the lower supports were completely removed", they were then later forced to acknowledge the building fell at freefall speed without acknowledging what that meant for the supports below. if you accept wtc7 was demolished you have to at least look at the possibility that the other towers were too.

"taking our eye off the truth of what really happened on 9/11 and most importantly, why it happened in the first place."

i think you might be confirming what i said about political expediency- dismiss the evidence and discussion because it undermines your personal political viewpoint.

2 people like this

Share on other sites

**A reminder that this thread is NOT about the conspiracies themselves, and will focus only on the science behind the arguments.**

1 person likes this

Share on other sites

in the twin towers or any building, there is likely more mass in the vertical support structures than there is likely in the horizontal floors, yet your model assumes magical zero mass for the upright supports, your model is akin to stacking and holding slabs up on small cardboard tubes, dropping a slab and saying "voila, progressive collapse".

so what is the point here?

1 person likes this

Share on other sites

**A reminder that this thread is NOT about the conspiracies themselves, and will focus only on the science behind the arguments.**

you keep saying that. but where exactly is the science not being discussed in my posts?
2 people like this

Share on other sites

in the twin towers or any building, there is likely more mass in the vertical support structures than there is likely in the horizontal floors, yet your model assumes magical zero mass for the upright supports, your model is akin to stacking and holding slabs up on small cardboard tubes, dropping a slab and saying "voila, progressive collapse".

so what is the point here?

The point?

While it is true that velocity adds energy to a moving object, few people really bother to take a good look at just how much energy we are talking about. Of course, in the real world there are many, many more variables involved, but for the purpose of answering the question of how just a few floors collapsing could result in a catastrophic failure of the entire tower, here is a very simplified version of how I understand it.

...but I am doing so just to try to explain an incredibly compex subject with the most basic formulas that people might recognize.

...Again, keeping this simple, just to give people an idea of the forces involved.

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 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 this unbelievable multiplication of forces involved that I want people to wrap their heads around.

As I mentioned before, this is a simple example to demonstrate one single aspect of physics, that of the logarithmic increase of energy due to gravity.

Were any of these unclear?

Share on other sites

you keep saying that. but where exactly is the science not being discussed in my posts?

Little Fish...

You never discuss the science in your posts.

You make claims. You post other peoples videos and arguments. You make claims.

But getting you to actually discuss anything is like pulling teeth.

2 people like this

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account