It’s not my intention to play backseat moderator, Vyazma, but I’d point out crop circles is not at all related to this thread topic.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d wager you could easily crush psik in a debate on the issue, but aside from being off topic, that subject would be a typical excuse from someone like psik as to why they no longer have time to address the actual topic or issue they are currently getting spanked on.

We are talking about someone who claims applying math to physics is dumb, after all.

A kilogram per cubic meter is less than the density of air at room temperature.

What do you claim to be scaling?
psik

I did not claim to be scaling anything specific. I simply chose straight forward metric units for ease of understanding, you can input any real world material density and strength you desire and the math is identical. That is why I didn’t specify an actual unit of force, since I wasn’t actually specifying any actual material.

You demonstrate the problem of using math stupidly and not really doing physics.

In a cubic kilometer of air the air will be more dense at the bottom than at the top.

The world trade center had to be stronger and therefore heavier at the bottom.

Because I tested my paper loops to be as weak as possible I had to have triple loops at the bottom to support the weight even though single loops sufficed at the top.

So when are you or anyone else going to actually build a physical model that can be collapsed by its top 15%? Otherwise all you do is talk and get your math wrong and then claim it is correct. Now you scale something that has to be lighter then air but say it’s OK because you were not being specific. But even air would not scale because the density would vary but you left that detail out. So you are correct no matter how ridiculous what you say actually is.

Or maybe Haldane’s article “On Being the Right Size” will help you to understand why you can’t simply scale things down and up the way you’re doing it here:

Let us take the most obvious of possible cases, and consider a giant man sixty feet high—about the height of Giant Pope and Giant Pagan in the illustrated Pilgrim’s Progress of my childhood. These monsters were not only ten times as high as Christian, but ten times as wide and ten times as thick, so that their total weight was a thousand times his, or about eighty to ninety tons. Unfortunately the cross sections of their bones were only a hundred times those of Christian, so that every square inch of giant bone had to support ten times the weight borne by a square inch of human bone. As the human thigh-bone breaks under about ten times the human weight, Pope and Pagan would have broken their thighs every time they took a step. This was doubtless why they were sitting down in the picture I remember. But it lessens one’s respect for Christian and Jack the Giant Killer.

Going back to your model, the walls of your towers would have to be so thin that even the thinnest paper available to us wouldn’t be an accurate scaled-down representation of the twin towers. (Which is also why we can’t build little Hot Wheel cars to use for collision testing.)

Going back to your model, the walls of your towers would have to be so thin that even the thinnest paper available to us wouldn’t be an accurate scaled-down representation of the twin towers. (Which is also why we can’t build little Hot Wheel cars to use for collision testing.)

My model is not a scale model and I never claimed it was.

Building a scale model would also requiring the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. How many times have I pointed out that we do not have that information.

My model is built to test the physics principles of a gravitational collapse. So all of this scale business is just a false argument attempting to sound intelligent. My model is tested to be as weak as possible relative to its weight. Anyone can duplicate it and test it for themselves. Anyone who can afford to can build and test bigger and heavier models.

The washers provide the mass and the paper provides the strength and crushable component.

George - 23 April 2013 10:02 AM

I don’t think you can build such a model, Psik. It’s like trying to build little models of cars to test them in collisions. It’s simply not possible.

I have no problem with an engineering school building a 1/20th scale model which would be 68 feet.

Men volunteered to go to war because of 9/11. There should be no question about aircraft destroying the towers. The NIST can’t even specify the quantity of concrete in the towers.

So does your model differ from my model of putting a Lego guy in a Hot Wheels Ford Mustang and smacking it against a wall, claiming that no people should get hurt in car accidents while driving Ford Mustangs since the Lego guy remained intact?

So does your model differ from my model of putting a Lego guy in a Hot Wheels Ford Mustang and smacking it against a wall, claiming that no people should get hurt in car accidents while driving Ford Mustangs since the Lego guy remained intact?

Build the car out of paper and that solves everything, just ask psik! Just don’t play with math and apply it to physics, that is just dumb! LMAO!

Hey psik! I’m at work right now, so here’s a challenge for you! Using math and my equation examples from before, calcuate the mass and strength change of three blocks! Make the bottom block a mass of three, the middle block a mass of two and the top block a mass of 1. Scale that model’s dimensions by a factor of a thousand and calculate mass and strength changes. Use whatever size blocks you want. Use whatever type of mass measurement you want. See what happens when you scale a stucture of differing densities and mass per cubic unit of volume!

I’m sorry, but I’m assuming you can stomach the notion of using math and applying it to physics for a couple of minutes! ROFLMAO!!

Have you ever told anyone what your model shows Psikey? What does your model prove?

That is what makes his model so absolutely hilarious! His model proves absolutely nothing.

Even if his model was based on a skyscraper sized design that was built exactly like his model including enormous sheets of paper and washers, it still doesn’t prove anything because scaling proves his model is smaller and therefore stronger. If his model was a thousand times smaller, it’s a thousand times stronger, so of COURSE it won’t behave like the bigger version. Even though they are identical in design and scaled perfectly for dimensions.

And then he tries to compare it to skyscraper building made of steel, concrete, glass and designed completely different from his model. His model is a joke and uselss for making determinations about anything. And that includes a skyscraper sized structure of enormous pieces of paper and giant washers!

That is why scaling is so important and why experts use computer models.

Have you ever told anyone what your model shows Psikey? What does your model prove?

That is what makes his model so absolutely hilarious! His model proves absolutely nothing.

Even if his model was based on a skyscraper sized design that was built exactly like his model including enormous sheets of paper and washers, it still doesn’t prove anything because scaling proves his model is smaller and therefore stronger. If his model was a thousand times smaller, it’s a thousand times stronger, so of COURSE it won’t behave like the bigger version. Even though they are identical in design and scaled perfectly for dimensions.

And then he tries to compare it to skyscraper building made of steel, concrete, glass and designed completely different from his model. His model is a joke and uselss for making determinations about anything. And that includes a skyscraper sized structure of enormous pieces of paper and giant washers!

That is why scaling is so important and why experts use computer models.

Yeah, I get that. I watched the video once too…I was a little embarrassed.
But let’s say for the sake of it that Psikey’s model is relevant. That it could stand up to scientific tests.
I still want to know what Psikey thinks it shows. This is the crux Robert, and forgive me but I don’t know if you’ve been debating with Psikey for long, but he refuses to correlate the Jet Planes, The Towers and his model.
What does he think his model shows?

Oh that’s easy. His model shows that his model doesn’t entirely collapse when he drops part of it onto itself. If he built his model to skyscraper size, it would collapse under its own static weight, never mind dynamic forces. This is why we don’t build building out of paper and washers and instead build them out of stuctural steel that can handle the load bearing capacities needed. One of those facts psik publicly admitted he didn’t bother looking into.

That what his model actually shows, and what he THINKS it shows is that any structure having a significant fraction of its own mass dropped onto it (15% according to him) will not be sufficient to collapse it, regardless of scale.

Have you ever told anyone what your model shows Psikey? What does your model prove?

Proofs exist in mathematics. Try finding where I said the model PROVES something.

I have said many times that a larger heavier model would be better. But it would also cost a lot more and even be dangerous to test without significant safety precautions.

But it is really curious that before 9/11 scientists could do computer simulation of asteroids weighing millions of tons hitting the Earth at 25,000 mph.

In the latest computing scenario, an asteroid 1.4 kilometers in diameter strikes the Atlantic Ocean 25 miles south of Brooklyn, N.Y. To model the event the scientists broke up a 120-square-mile space that roughly approximates the New York City metropolitan area, the air above, and the water and earth below, into 100 million separate cubes, or grids. Sandia’s teraflops supercomputer then calculated what happened inside each cube as the asteroid splashed down. The cubes were reassembled to produce a three-dimensional moving picture of the collision. The teraflops, currently the world’s fastest computer, performs more than one trillion mathematical operations per second.

But with all of the increase in computer performance since 2001 we don’t have decent simulations of the supposed collapses of the towers. But a computer simulation requires accurate data.

So why doesn’t everyone want to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level to do the simulation?

One other thing Robert. Let’s not forget that actually there were TWO models that day. Each tower underwent a similar event and each tower had the same similar outcome.
That’s like a double test. We often look at the 2 towers as one event sort of. I say this because you had compared the actual real tests to Psikey’s model.
You said we didn’t need Psikes model because we had the test already in real scale in real settings. I couldn’t agree more!!
And I’m not saying you overlooked this point at all, but it is important to note that there were 2 separate tests that day.
And lo and behold….both went down due to the impact of a jet airliner.

Have you ever told anyone what your model shows Psikey? What does your model prove?

Proofs exist in mathematics. Try finding where I said the model PROVES something.

I have said many times that a larger heavier model would be better. But it would also cost a lot more and even be dangerous to test without significant safety precautions.

But it is really curious that before 9/11 scientists could do computer simulation of asteroids weighing millions of tons hitting the Earth at 25,000 mph.

In the latest computing scenario, an asteroid 1.4 kilometers in diameter strikes the Atlantic Ocean 25 miles south of Brooklyn, N.Y. To model the event the scientists broke up a 120-square-mile space that roughly approximates the New York City metropolitan area, the air above, and the water and earth below, into 100 million separate cubes, or grids. Sandia’s teraflops supercomputer then calculated what happened inside each cube as the asteroid splashed down. The cubes were reassembled to produce a three-dimensional moving picture of the collision. The teraflops, currently the world’s fastest computer, performs more than one trillion mathematical operations per second.

But with all of the increase in computer performance since 2001 we don’t have decent simulations of the supposed collapses of the towers. But a computer simulation requires accurate data.

So why doesn’t everyone want to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level to do the simulation?

psik

No you’re broken. Nobody builds a model without trying to show something. Nobody. After all why are you spending so much time defending the math and physics behind your goddamned model???!!!
You got a tic.

One other thing Robert. Let’s not forget that actually there were TWO models that day. Each tower underwent a similar event and each tower had the same similar outcome.
That’s like a double test. We often look at the 2 towers as one event sort of. I say this because you had compared the actual real tests to Psikey’s model.
You said we didn’t need Psikes model because we had the test already in real scale in real settings. I couldn’t agree more!!
And I’m not saying you overlooked this point at all, but it is important to note that there were 2 separate tests that day.
And lo and behold….both went down due to the impact of a jet airliner.

Completely true on all accounts, no disagreemsnt here.