18 of 91
18
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 23 April 2013 01:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 256 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 23 April 2013 01:32 PM
VYAZMA - 23 April 2013 01:22 PM

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. LOL

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.

So says the genius who thinks that he understands the square cube law.

I say 15% BY HEIGHT.  Do you think the top 15% of the WTC by height weighed the same amount as the bottom 15% by height? 

I already said I had to use triple loops at the bottom of my model though single loops work at the top.  I explained in the description of my experiment that the washers are not all the same weight and they are sorted so the heaviest are at the bottom.  That is also why I talk about the distributions of steel and concrete of the towers.  But you talk about scaling a cubic kilometer of something as though the density is the same throughout.

[6,497]
psik

[ Edited: 23 April 2013 02:26 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 03:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 257 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 23 April 2013 01:32 PM
VYAZMA - 23 April 2013 01:22 PM

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. LOL

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.


There is also the problem of collapse time.  How did it all come down in 25 seconds?

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/168267/

The distribution of mass affects the collapse time due to the conservation of momentum.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 05:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 258 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 23 April 2013 01:45 PM

So says the genius who thinks that he understands the square cube law.

And you’ll show my math errors any minute now, right? LOL

I say 15% BY HEIGHT.  Do you think the top 15% of the WTC by height weighed the same amount as the bottom 15% by height?

Oh not at all, 15% of the upper superstructure will not be 15% of the total mass of the WTC by any stretch. However, as physics scaling clearly proves, even if you had made a completely accurate model in every dimension and design, your smaller structure is still orders of magnitude stronger. Three orders of magnitude in fact, if we continue with the 1:1000 ratio. Your 15% height of the upper superstructure is still a thousand times stronger than an exact model a thousand times bigger in dimensions. Same goes for the remaining 85% of your lower superstructure. LOL

I already said I had to use triple loops at the bottom of my model though single loops work at the top.  I explained in the description of my experiment that the washers are not all the same weight and they are sorted so the heaviest are at the bottom.  That is also why I talk about the distributions of steel and concrete of the towers.  But you talk about scaling a cubic kilometer of something as though the density is the same throughout.

ROFLMFAO! LOL Different densities throughout the structure at any point do not alter the simple fact the structure will be a thousand fold weaker at any point regardless what the density is when you scale at a ratio of 1:1000. This can be proven very simply using applied mathematics to physics. But what’s your opinion about applying mathematics to physics, psik?

For those who forget or missed it the first time, this is psik’s opinion about applied mathematics to physics:

psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 06:26 PM

Playing with math and assuming it must apply to physics is dumb.

ROFLMFAO!! LOL

I challenged you in an earlier post to demonstrate what happens when you scale a structure with differing densities at different points, psik. Here, I’ll post it again:

Here’s a challenge for you! Using math and my equation examples from before, calculate 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! LOL

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 08:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 259 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05
psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 06:26 PM

Playing with math and assuming it must apply to physics is dumb.

psik

e=mc^2
F=G(m1m2/r^2)

Yeah. Those are dumb.

You’ve jumped the shark, psikey.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 09:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 260 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
DarronS - 23 April 2013 08:44 PM

You’ve jumped the shark, psikey.

It’s only a matter of time before individuals like psikey break under the strain of trying to defend absolute bullshit and then hanging themselves with such obviously stupid comments. The trick is to have the time and patience to ensure they get enough rope. wink

Earlier in this thread he was more than happy to throw around math (which was hilariously undermining his position) and sneer at others claiming their math skills were inadequate. But when it becomes ridiculously obvious the math is actually destroying his position, rather than man up and admit he’s wrong, he decides it’s time to throw math out the window.

“When math proves you wrong, throw out math!” -Chapter 1, Debating Tactics 101 as written by psikey LOL

[ Edited: 23 April 2013 09:11 PM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 09:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 261 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05
Robert Walper - 23 April 2013 09:08 PM

It’s only a matter of time before individuals like psikey break under the strain of trying to defend absolute bullshit and then hanging themselves with such obviously stupid comments. The trick is to have the time and patience to ensure they get enough rope. wink

Earlier in this thread he was more than happy to throw around math (which was hilariously undermining his position) and sneer at others claiming their math skills were inadequate, but when it becomes ridiculously obvious the math is actually destroying his position, rather than man up and admit he’s wrong, he decides it’s time to throw math out the window.

“When math proves you wrong, throw out math!” -Chapter 1, Debating Tactics 101 as written by psikey LOL

Good job exposing his BS, Robert. No one with critical thinking skills can possibly take psikey seriously on this topic after reading that assertion. C’mon. “Playing with math and assuming it applies to physics” is as absurd a statement as possible. Good thing psikey wasn’t around when Isaac Newton was playing with math. Or Johannes Kepler. Or Albert Einstein. Or Niels Bohr. Or… Oh hell. You get the idea.

Thanks for playing, psikey, but there is no need to discuss this topic with you further. You’ve played your hand and Robert called your bluff. Time to fold.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 09:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 262 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
DarronS - 23 April 2013 09:17 PM

Thanks for playing, psikey, but there is no need to discuss this topic with you further. You’ve played your hand and Robert called your bluff. Time to fold.

Psikey has three options right now.

1) He can run off and not participate further in the discussion. The result: everyone would be entirely justified in calling him a coward if he does that.

2) He can continue to try defend his model and his claims. The result: everyone would be entirely justified in making fun of his position, comments and unwillingness to admit simple math proves him wrong. He’s gotten so desperate he’s now trying to claim simple math is wrong rather than himself.

3) Man up and admit he’s wrong and that his model proves nothing about WTC, and wouldn’t prove a thing about a skyscraper sized collection of paper and washers either. The result: everyone’s respect for him would go up. Being wrong is entirely human and even the greatest minds of our history and present have been guilty of this, even across timeframes of years. What is important is admitting and learning from it. I myself would defend him if he admitted he was wrong and anyone tried to give him shit for being wrong. Being wrong is entirely human and everyone is guilty of it throughout their life. It’s refusing to admit you’re wrong that is worthy of contempt, ridicule and attack.

Let’s see which path he chooses.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 09:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 263 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05

If history is any indication he’ll choose Door #2, when his whole world lies waiting behind Door #3.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 10:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 264 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

And you will of course direct us to what you consider an accurate model of the collapses, many of which now exist in engineering research faculties? Or would you say no-one’s done it because it’s unnecessary?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2013 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 265 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 23 April 2013 09:31 PM
DarronS - 23 April 2013 09:17 PM

Thanks for playing, psikey, but there is no need to discuss this topic with you further. You’ve played your hand and Robert called your bluff. Time to fold.

Psikey has three options right now.

1) He can run off and not participate further in the discussion. The result: everyone would be entirely justified in calling him a coward if he does that.

2) He can continue to try defend his model and his claims. The result: everyone would be entirely justified in making fun of his position, comments and unwillingness to admit simple math proves him wrong. He’s gotten so desperate he’s now trying to claim simple math is wrong rather than himself.

You can’t figure out option number 4?  Calmly wait while people with actual brains figure out the nonsense of your examples while I explain them.

Your scaling of a cube of something that weighs less than air at room temperature is absurdly amusing.

Consider a cubic meter of air at the Earth’s surface.  The difference in density between the top and the bottom would require an extremely fine instrument to measure.  But scale it up by a factor of 1,000.  That means each horizontal slice of one millimeter would become one meter in height.  But by the square cube law it becomes a billion times heavier while the slice below will only be a million times stronger.  So the bottom of the cubic kilometer becomes more dense while the upper portion less dense and strictly speaking it is no longer to scale.  Mathematics is not physics though it is usually taught that way.  That is why they have all of that frictionless surfaces crap.

But you didn’t even bother to check that the density was too low for air at a reasonable temperature.  I checked it.  The temp has to be 80 degrees centigrade for the density to go down to 1 kg/m^3.  Where does that happen on the Earth’s surface besides fires and volcanos?  Of course then there will be convection and the mass won’t be stable.  I have NEVER said the top 15% by mass though many times I do not specify height.  I don’t even know how many storeys it would take to be 15% by mass.  What do you know about it?  The top of the north tower that supposedly collapsed was only 13% though different sources vary.  Some say 12 stories and some say 14.  But you can make dumb mistakes all you want and still claim to be right and talk to me about “manning up”.

That is the problem of confusing ego with intellect.  This is grade school physics but you can’t find decent data on the density of steel and concrete down the towers after almost 12 years.  We don’t have data on the horizontal beams in the core. 

You keep insisting that I did, or have tried to do, what I have clearly stated many times I never even intended to do.  My model is not to scale so your scale argument is rubbish:

Oh not at all, 15% of the upper superstructure will not be 15% of the total mass of the WTC by any stretch. However, as physics scaling clearly proves, even if you had made a completely accurate model in every dimension and design, your smaller structure is still orders of magnitude stronger. Three orders of magnitude in fact, if we continue with the 1:1000 ratio. Your 15% height of the upper superstructure is still a thousand times stronger than an exact model a thousand times bigger in dimensions. Same goes for the remaining 85% of your lower superstructure. LOL

Then why did you say 15% by mass?  I never did.

If we don’t have accurate data on the distribution of mass down the tower then making an accurate scale model is impossible.  Just going by the external dimensions is nonsense because every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights above.  Every physical model must do that.  My model does.  But it also gets stronger toward the bottom because they were tested for strength, TO BE AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.  No calculations were done trying to scale to the steel in the tower because I don’t have that data anyway.

That is what I find so Ironic about this Center for INQUIRY.  People claiming to be skeptics can’t figure out what to be skeptical about and ask the obvious questions.  Notice how VYAZMA and DarronS provide moral support but neither of them claims, much less explains, how what you are saying is correct.  DarroS shows he can memorize equations that don’t even apply to the current problem.  Physics was happening for billions of years before the equations were figured out.  Equations are not physics.  People must understand the physics to figure out when to use which equations.  But then you need the correct data to put into the equations.  Why don’t you want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete if you think equations are so important?

Consider the psychological shock of millions of dummies having to “man up” and admit that it is physically impossible for the top 15% BY HEIGHT of a skyscraper to destroy everything below in a gravitational collapse.  But then how did the physics profession let this go on and not even mention the horizontal beams in the core?  letting the US go to war for years and still saying nothing.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/iraq-war-vet-letter-bush-cheney-tomas-young-154541674.html

The 9/11 Affair is a Higgs boson conspiracy.

But there is another 4th possiblity.  I may get bored with responding to your absurd justifications.  Not even checking what could have a density of 1 kg/m^3.  Give me a break! 

LOL  LOL  LOL  LOL  LOL

[6671]
psik

[ Edited: 24 April 2013 05:23 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2013 06:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 266 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 24 April 2013 11:11 AM

You can’t figure out number 4.  Calmly wait while people with actual brains figure out the nonsense of your examples while I explain them.

Yes, people with brains are going stop understanding simple math! ROFL!

Your scaling of a cube of something that weighs less than air at room temperature is absurdly amusing.

I picked meter and kilogram measures as a simple example, not as an attempt to scale a specific material! Bawahahaha! This is your objection? I could’ve used any measures I wanted and nothing changes about the math or the conclusions! I could’ve said kilometers and ounces and the math is still absolutely correct even though no such low density material exists! But that’s irrelevant, I’m not talking about a specific material, only mass, volume and dimensions!! I repeatedly told you use whatever types of measurement you want; imperial, metric, etc, nothing changes the math! LOL  LOL  LOL  LOL

Consider a cubic meter of air at the Earth’s surface.  The difference in density between the top and the bottom would require an extremely fine instrument to measure.  But scale it up by a factor of 1,000.  That means each horizontal slice of one millimeter would become one meter in height.  But by the square cube law it becomes a billion times heavier while the slice below will only be a million times stronger.  So the bottom of the cubic kilometer becomes more dense while the upper portion less dense and strictly speaking it is no longer to scale.  Mathematics is not physics though it is usually taught that way.  That is why they have all of that frictionless surfaces crap.

But you didn’t even bother to check that the density was too low for air at a reasonable temperature.  I checked it.  The temp has to be 80 degrees centigrade for the density to go down to 1 kg/m^3.  Where does that happen on the Earth’s surface besides fires and volcanos?

ROFLMFAO!! I wasn’t talking about air or any actual material! I was simply talking about mass, volume and dimensions and picked two quick examples off the top of my head, and now you’re desperately trying to change the subject to discuss the atmosphere of earth at different altitudes because the two random measures I picked kinda correspond to air!

This is priceless, pathetic and ridiculously obvious you’re trying to change the subject! LOL LOL LOL LOL

Of course then there will be convection and the mass won’t be stable.  I have NEVER said the top 15% by mass though many times I do not specify height.  I don’t even know how many storeys it would take to be 15% by mass.  What do you know about it?  The top of the north tower that supposedly collapsed was only 13% though different sources vary.  Some say 12 stories and some say 14.  But you can make dumb mistakes all you want and still claim to be right and talk to me about “manning up”.

That is the problem of confusing ego with intellect.  This is grade school physics but you can’t find decent data on the density of steel and concrete down the towers after almost 12 years.  We don’t have data on the horizontal beams in the core.

LMAO! I don’t care, the issue of scaling is completely unaffected by density of material or how it is distributed. My sole point is that your model is absolutely useless because scaling does not work. You did not scale your model, and even if you had scaled the model perfectly and made the design identical, it will behave completely differently. If your model is ten times smaller, it’s ten times stronger. If it’s a hundred times smaller, it’s a hundred times stronger. If it’s a thousand times smaller, it’s a thousand times stronger. But that’s only if the model is build identically and scaled perfectly, and you didn’t even do that! LOL LMAO!

Then why did you say 15% by mass?  I never did.

I didn’t remember the 15% reference figure correctly, I thought you would be concerned with the important variable of mass, not height. I over estimated your knowledge, my bad! LOL

If we don’t have accurate data on the distribution of mass down the tower then making an accurate scale model is impossible.  Just going by the external dimensions is nonsense because every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights above.  Every physical model must do that.  My model does.  But it also gets stronger toward the bottom because they were tested for strength, TO BE AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.  No calculations were done trying to scale to the steel in the tower because I don’t have that data anyway.

Bawhahahaha! You are literally saying “My model isn’t scaled correctly, and I didn’t even bother trying determining those variables in the first place.” LOL

That is what I find so Ironic about this Center for INQUIRY.  People claiming to be skeptics can’t figure out what to be skeptical about and ask the obvious questions.  Notice how VYAZMA and DarronS provide moral support but neither of them claims, much less explains, how what you are saying is correct.  DarroS shows he can memorize equations that don’t even apply to the current problem.  Physics was happening for billions of years before the equations were figured out. Equations are not physics. People must understand the physics to figure out when to use which equations.  But then you need the correct data to put into the equations.  Why don’t you want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete if you think equations are so important?

I don’t care about steel and concrete. The density and makeup of any material has zero bearing on the issue of scaling it. Also:

Equations are not physics.

Psikey gave us another one, folks. First he says applying math to physics is dumb, now he is saying equations are not physics. Which is like saying money is not numbers. Technically true if you mean literally money is made of (usually) paper, but any attempt to invalidate the importance of numbers relative to money is pure hilarity! LOL LOL LOL LOL

Consider the psychological shock of millions of dummies having to “man up” and admit that it is physically impossible for the top 15% BY HEIGHT of a skyscraper to destroy everything below in a gravitational collapse.

LIAR! You just finished saying you don’t have the data on the towers and then have the audacity to claim you can make conclusions about the physics and engineering of the structures! Right here:

No calculations were done trying to scale to the steel in the tower because I don’t have that data anyway.

Just how stupid are you?! That’s like saying you have an answer to a mathematical equation you don’t even have the variables for! OMFG!! LMFAO!! LOL LOL LOL

This is what psikey is saying people:

“I don’t have the data on the towers, I didn’t scale my model accordingly and I didn’t even try to figure it out. But I still know they shouldn’t have collapsed!”

LMFAO! Can you believe this guy? LOL LOL

Hey psikey! I just went over and kicked a pile of rocks over and they all collapsed to the ground! This proves the WTC should definitely have collapsed. Sure, those rocks are not the same material, are not designed the same way, not scaled correctly, I didn’t try to scale them correctly, and I didn’t even bother to check the variables or gather any variables! Just like your model! Are you convinced yet?!

Bawhahahaha!!!!! ROFLMFAO!! LOL LOL LOL LOL

But there is another 4th possiblity.  I may get bored with responding to your absurd justifications.  Not even checking what could have a density of 1 kg/m^3.  Give me a break! 

LOL  LOL  LOL  LOL  LOL

DING DING DGIN DING!!! Here we go folks! Psikey is becoming aware of how pathetic his position is and as per my previously mentioned three options he’s leaning toward fleeing the conversation like a coward because the math destroys his position and he will not admit he is wrong. And he’s trying to prep that outcome with the pathetic excuse “It’s because I find the conversation boring!” Bawahahaha!!!! LOL lol:

[ Edited: 24 April 2013 06:35 PM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2013 07:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 267 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02

Anyhow, back to the math and equations psikey keeps trying to say doesn’t apply to physics!! Here is my first example I presented (and for the record I’ve changed meters and kilograms to ‘units’, because whatever measure you want to use will work. We don’t want to confuse psikey and have him ranting about jello next if you happen to pick measurements that might be close to the density of it! LOL LOL

Model A
Height: 1 unit(s)
Width: 1 unit(s)
Length: 1 unit(s)
Mass: 1 unit(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:

Model B
Height: 1000 unit(s)
Width: 1000 unit(s)
Length: 1000 unit(s)
Mass: 1,000,000,000 unit(s)
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.

Presto, math crushing psikey’s pathetic model argument yet again.

But wait! He keeps crying about how a model is different densities at different layers. So let’s make another model that demonstrates that differing densities across any conceivable layer or even configuration changes nothing! Observe!

Model A

Height: 3 unit(s)
Width: 1 unit(s)
Length: 1 unit
Strength: 1 unit(s)

The total model is 3 units high, 1 unit wide and 1 unit long (3x1x1) with a load bearing surface area of 1 unit(s) which I’m calling strength. So there are three blocks in our model here that measure 1x1x1 and each one has a load bearing surface area of 1 unit. Now let’s make each block a different mass/density!

Top block: 1 mass unit
Middle block: 5 mass units
Bottom block: 10 mass units

The total mass of our model is 16 units. 6.25% of the total mass of our model is in the top block. 31.25% of the total mass of our model is in the middle.  62.5% of the total mass of our model is in the bottom block. The bottom block is a 1000% heavier than the top block and 200% heavier than the middle block. The middle block is 500% heavier than the top block.

Now let’s scale this model using simple math. First we will scale each block individually by a factor of 1000, remembering that we square root the strength and cube root the mass:

Top Block
Height: 1 unit(s)
Width: 1 unit(s)
Length: 1 unit(s)
Mass: 1 unit(s)
Strength: 1 unit(s)

Top Block Scaled
Height: 1000 unit(s)
Width: 1000 unit(s)
Length: 1000 unit(s)
Mass: 1,000,000,000 unit(s)
Strength: 1,000,000 unit(s)

Middle Block
Height: 1 unit(s)
Width: 1 unit(s)
Length: 1 unit(s)
Mass: 5 unit(s)
Strength: 1 unit(s)

Middle Block Scaled
Height: 1000 unit(s)
Width: 1000 unit(s)
Length: 1000 unit(s)
Mass: 5,000,000,000 unit(s)
Strength: 1,000,000 unit(s)

Bottom Block
Height: 1 unit(s)
Width: 1 unit(s)
Length: 1 unit(s)
Mass: 10 unit(s)
Strength: 1 unit(s)

Bottom Block Scaled
Height: 1000 unit(s)
Width: 1000 unit(s)
Length: 1000 unit(s)
Mass: 10,000,000,000 unit(s)
Strength: 1,000,000 unit(s)

Now we need to add the mass of all three blocks for the total:

Top block: 1,000,000,000 unit(s)
Middle Block: 5,000,000,000 unit(s)
Bottom Block: 10,000,000,000 unit(s)
Total mass: 16,000,000,000 unit(s)

So the new model once you crunch the numbers is:

Height: 3000 unit(s)
Width: 1000 unit(s)
Length: 1000 unit(s)
Mass: 16,000,000,000 unit(s)
Strength: 1,000,000 unit(s)

But wait a minute…even though all three blocks are of completely different mass/densities, why did we even bother calculating each one separately? The multiplier didn’t change for any of them! So in other words, take the entire model here:

Height: 3 unit(s)
Width: 1 unit(s)
Length: 1 unit(s)
Mass: 16 unit(s)
Strength: 1 unit(s)

Scale the model by a factor of the thousand and we still square root the strength and cube root the mass:

Height: 3000 unit(s)
Width: 1000 unit(s)
Length: 1000 unit(s)
Mass: 16,000,000,000 unit(s)
Strength: 1,000,000 unit(s)

Nothing changed! The outcome was absolutely identical even though we have three different layers of differing mass/density! You could rearrange the blocks in any fashion you want and nothing changes even though they are different densities!

This is amazing! It’s almost as if you can take any kind of structure, like a sophisticated human body of differing densities and load bearing qualities throughout it, and just scale the entire thing by one factor (in this case a thousand) and everything works out! And the result will always be the same, the structure will be a thousand times bigger in dimensions, a million times stronger in load bearing areas and a billion times heavier. Which means that the entire structure is a thousand times weaker because the mass increased three orders of magnitude more than the load bearing area!

DID YOU READ THIS PSIKEY?!?! DIFFERING DENSITIES AND CONFIGURATIONS OF A STRUCTURE CHANGE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND THE MODEL BECOMES A THOUSAND TIMES WEAKER EVERYWHERE WHEN YOU SCALE DIMENSIONS BY A THOUSAND?

WAS THE TEXT BIG ENOUGH PSIKEY? DID YOU READ THIS PSIKEY?!?! DIFFERING DENSITIES AND CONFIGURATIONS OF A STRUCTURE CHANGE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND THE MODEL BECOMES A THOUSAND TIMES WEAKER EVERYWHERE WHEN YOU SCALE DIMENSIONS BY A THOUSAND?

Whine some more about differing densities in a structure, psikey, math loves shitting all over your position! LMAO!!

WAIT! I FORGOT! YOU THINK APPLYING MATH TO PHYSICS IS DUMB AND PHYSICS ISN’T EQUATIONS!!!! BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! ROFLMFAO!!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 07:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 268 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05

I deliberately waited a while to see if you would get any support from your sidekicks.

Apparently not. 

Robert Walper - 24 April 2013 06:32 PM

I picked meter and kilogram measures as a simple example, not as an attempt to scale a specific material! Bawahahaha! This is your objection? I could’ve used any measures I wanted and nothing changes about the math or the conclusions! I could’ve said kilometers and ounces and the math is still absolutely correct even though no such low density material exists! But that’s irrelevant, I’m not talking about a specific material, only mass, volume and dimensions!! I repeatedly told you use whatever types of measurement you want; imperial, metric, etc, nothing changes the math!

It shows you can’t think about the realities of physics.  This can be what happens when people get the math wrong when dealing with reality involving physics.

NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/01/news/mn-17288

You demonstrate that you are not really thinking about the PHYSICS of the problem and just regard it as math.  You came up with a lighter than air example and didn’t even ask yourself what could be a meter cubed and only weigh a kilogram.  Do you really know how much a kilogram is?  Are you accustomed to thinking in metric?  I had to translate it to 2.2 pounds to think about it, then wondered what could have a density that low.  A cubic meter of balsa wood weighs 160 kilograms.  But this entire issue is about something made of steel and concrete.

So you think the way to resolve this issue and show how really smart you are is make it more abstract by talking about UNITS. 

So the density is unit/unit*unit*unit.

So does the density lower down have to be greater to support the density higher up.  Calculate that and let us know.

Impressive, real impressive.  LOL

This is what I said:

Playing with math and assuming it must apply to physics is dumb.

This is what you said:

Psikey gave us another one, folks. First he says applying math to physics is dumb, now he is saying equations are not physics.

Apparently you can’t figure out the meaning of the phrase “assuming it must apply” means.

And then you think you can figure out how to apply the math.

Too many LOLs on the page already.  They get boring with too much use.  LOL

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 08:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 269 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 28 April 2013 07:32 PM

I deliberately waited a while to see if you would get any support from your sidekicks.

Arguments stand on the basis of their merits, not their popularity. Not surprising in the least you think this is something to worry about. And with all this extra time you took replying, you must have some really good counter arguments, right? *snicker*

It shows you can’t think about the realities of physics.  This can be what happens when people get the math wrong when dealing with reality involving physics.

NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/01/news/mn-17288

A random link to a NASA error. Guess what this has to do with my argument? Absolutely nothing.

You demonstrate that you are not really thinking about the PHYSICS of the problem and just regard it as math.

LOL! When my math is in error or doesn’t apply to physics, let me know. LOL

You came up with a lighter than air example and didn’t even ask yourself what could be a meter cubed and only weigh a kilogram.

Because it doesn’t matter, the conclusion doesn’t change. I used the term units so anyone can plug in absolutely any values they want and get the same answer.

Do you really know how much a kilogram is?  Are you accustomed to thinking in metric?  I had to translate it to 2.2 pounds to think about it, then wondered what could have a density that low.  A cubic meter of balsa wood weighs 160 kilograms.  But this entire issue is about something made of steel and concrete.

See above. Wood, steel, concrete, water, air, what you’re talking about doesn’t matter. Talk about any material in existence, the math doesn’t change. Submit density differences anywhere by any magnitude you desire and the math does not change. I proved this in my last reply.

So you think the way to resolve this issue and show how really smart you are is make it more abstract by talking about UNITS. 

Yes, how silly of me to provide the calculation that makes it ridiculously obvious you can plug in absolutely any values you want and it still works.

So the density is unit/unit*unit*unit.

So does the density lower down have to be greater to support the density higher up.  Calculate that and let us know.

Impressive, real impressive.  LOL

So now you completely ignored my last post where I precisely calculated that and proved it changes nothing.

This is what I said:

Playing with math and assuming it must apply to physics is dumb.

This is what you said:

Psikey gave us another one, folks. First he says applying math to physics is dumb, now he is saying equations are not physics.

Apparently you can’t figure out the meaning of the phrase “assuming it must apply” means.

And then you think you can figure out how to apply the math.

Too many LOLs on the page already.  They get boring with too much use.  LOL

psik

So nothing more than desperate pleading on your part on how math doesn’t apply to physics, or as you’re trying to claim, ‘sometimes’ doesn’t apply.

And as everyone here knows, ‘sometimes’ must mean when it shows you’re wrong. LOL

Not one actual argument, piece of math or attempt to counter my position whatsoever. All you could do was:

-whine about my ‘sidekicks’ on the forum as if popularity is a merit to an argument
-whine about a NASA error
-whine about how I used the term ‘units’ so anyone could plug in whatever values they wanted to prove themselves what I’m talking about
-whine that when you said math doesn’t apply to physics, you only meant occasionally

Concession accepted, psikey. Feel free to reply again when you’re prepared to counter the argument I’ve made. LOL

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2013 09:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 270 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 28 April 2013 08:07 PM

Arguments stand on the basis of their merits, not their popularity. Not surprising in the least you think this is something to worry about. And with all this extra time you took replying, you must have some really good counter arguments, right? *snicker*
-whine about my ‘sidekicks’ on the forum as if popularity is a merit to an argument
-whine about a NASA error
-whine about how I used the term ‘units’ so anyone could plug in whatever values they wanted to prove themselves what I’m talking about
-whine that when you said math doesn’t apply to physics, you only meant occasionally

Concession accepted, psikey. Feel free to reply again when you’re prepared to counter the argument I’ve made. LOL

Arguments standing on the basis of their merits assumes those doing the evaluations have the brains to comprehend the merits.  Here is some scale for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iNQd3Dr9f4

Does that scale model actually contain 110 floors?  It might.  Do those floors have trusses?  Extremely doubtful.
But it could be made of painted wood, which is likely, or it could be aluminum.  Maybe less likely but entirely possible.  But that could change the weight considerably even with the exact same scale.  The material matters A LOT.

But that model is just about looks it is not for doing physics experiments which may destroy it. 

The towers were 6 1/2 times as tall as they were wide.  My collapse model is 12 times as tall as it is wide.  It is not to scale.  My impact model is 16 times as tall as it is wide.  One has 33 levels and the other 21.  They are not to scale.  They were never intended to be, I never claimed them to be, so all of your talk about SCALE is just idiotic blather that has little to do my models.

But material has everything to do with scale if physics experiments are actually being done and not just playing pseudo-intellectual games with mathematics.  A cubic kilometer of balsa wood scales perfectly with a meter of balsa wood if they are floating in intergalactic space a few hundred thousand light years from any galaxy.  Gravity has no effect.  The compressive strength of the material would be irrelevant.  But on the surface of a planet with a 5 G gravitational field there would be a problem.  Could a cubic meter of balsa wood support the weight of 4,995 cubic meters of balsa wood?  Not too likely.  It would be a problem on the Earth’s surface supporting the weight of 999 cubic meters.

That is what the square cube law is all about and why the material matters when scaling down a large object to make a physical model to DEMONSTRATE PHYSCIS and not trying to make a scale model that merely LOOKS LIKE the original object.  That is why I have paper instead of steel and anyone can duplicate it and test their own paper to make it AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE relative to the weight that has to be supported.  Of course that is still not to scale because skyscrapers are not designed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.  That is why it is relevant that my model still does not collapse even though the dropped weight is lifted nearly the height of the entire model.  The top of the WTC did not fall nearly as much in proportion to my weak model which still did not come close to complete collapse.

So anyone with a functioning brain can figure out the obvious but I am sure you will come up with some response.  Maybe I will take a week to read it.  We will see.  But I can already find a famous response.

“Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schiller

I am sure you will find some way to accuse me of “whining” about your brilliance again.  Ego games are so much more intelligent than physics where the strength and weight of real materials affect the results.  But “scaling” with just math is so impressive.

[7386]
psik

[ Edited: 04 May 2013 03:21 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
18 of 91
18