Robert, I commend your fortitude but you’re not going to get anywhere with this.
Oh but I disagree. You are completely correct I’m not going to get anywhere with psikeyhackr, but it’s not for his benefit that I make the argument. It is for the benefit of those reading who are undecided and want to know how physics works for comparing things like large and small structures. In this case why psikeyhackr’s YouTube model is a hilarious joke.
And for those reading, here’s a summary of how the discussion went.
-if you want a model to behave similar to another model, you need to scale variables equally. Physics dictates this is either extremely impractical or impossible (this is why experts use computer models and not paper and washers! LMAO!). I proved this by telling psikeyhackr his model (if it was at a ratio of 1:1000) would weigh 450 tons if all variables were scaled equally. He then hilariously pretends that my argument is his model ‘should’ weigh 450 metric tons rather than my point being his model does not weigh 450 metric tons and this proves mass did not scale equally with dimensions.
-mass does not scale equally with dimension changes, mass changes by the cube root of the factor by which you are changing the dimensions of a structure. I got psikeyhackr to prove this with math and he tries to laugh as if he’s disproving my position.
-strength of a model (load bearing of the structure) also does not scale equally with dimension changes, strength changes by the square root of the factor by which you are changing the dimensions of the structure.
Height: 1 meter
Width: 1 meter
Length: 1 meter
Mass: 1 kilogram(s)
Strength (load bearing): 1 unit(s) of force
All variables are equal. Now scale that structure up by a factor of a 1000 assuming completely equal unit of mass per volume:
Height: 1000 meter
Width: 1000 meter
Length: 1000 meter
Mass: 1,000,000,000 kilograms
Strength (load bearing): 1,000,000 unit(s) of force
Notice how mass and strength of the model changed far differently than the dimensions? Mass of the structure increased by a factor of a billion, and strength of the structure increased by a factor of a million. There’s a big uh oh there too; mass is increasing far faster than the strength of the model. So while the strength of the model increased by a million, the mass increased by a billion. That’s a thousand fold difference from Model A going to Model B when comparing the strength to the mass. In other words, by making Model A into Model B, we made the structure a thousand times weaker. If you reverse the process and are shrinking the structure, the math is the same. You make the structure a thousand times stronger (relative to its mass) than the larger one. This is why your small paper airplane can hit the ground from very high and sustain very little damage (look ma, I made it out of paper! ...wait, that sounds familiar?), but a much larger full scale airplane made of vastly stronger metals gets turned into a debris field falling from height ratio of identical factors.
Very simple physics that takes into account the extremely important aspect of scale when comparing structures of different size.
And what was psikeyhackr’s response to the serious issue of scaling?
Provide a link to where I claimed the model was scaled.
Bawhahaha! He outright admits his model isn’t scaled, admits all variables do not scale equally, and on top of that his model is not designed anything at all like the WTC structures. So according to psikeyhackr, when you want to make a model of something, we can ignore design, mass, strength and dimension changes! Why not just make a model of jello and start modeling the WTC with that!
He then goes on to say this:
The supports are made of PAPER. This has been known all along.
(just like my paper airplane ma!)
To which I reply:
Yes, and you picked paper because its compressive strength is a properly scaled for your model relative to the compressive strength of structural steel, taking into account the orders of magnitudes difference in loading bearing capacity do to simple physics of scaling.
Whoops! Silly me, I forgot you keep insisting you didn’t scale your model at all, and when I said your model isn’t scaled properly you demanded I prove you claimed it was!
To which he replies with the last two following statements:
I have not done anything to research the compressive strength of steel
My point is to demonstrate why they could not collapse from the top.
Can you imagine anyone honestly making the following claim:
Person A: “My point is to demonstrate the water could not have boiled away on the stove.”
Person B: “Did you look into the boiling point of water?”
Person A: “I have not done anything to research the boiling point of water.”
Seriously folks, you cannot make this kind of shit up! Keep it up, psikeyhackr, you are now my favorite running joke on the forums.
I’ve quite conclusively proven my point at this juncture. Please psikeyhackr, post some more arguments about your model. There’s no shame in making people laugh, and you’re a gold mine for them!