psikeyhackr - 21 October 2012 08:56 PM

Write4U - 21 October 2012 08:32 PM

I admitted it was an error, a misnomer (though not quite so far off the mark as you present it to be).

Is there such a thing as a thermo-dynamic washer?

There may be a little similarity in the sound but what is there in relation to reality.

They are both kind of weird names and that make you go “What the hell is that?” so that is probably what made me remember it.

psik

That is exactly what I thought when composing the sentence. “What the hell was that thing called”... ....I picked the first name that came to mind…

Write4U - 21 October 2012 09:15 PM

That is exactly what I thought when composing the phrase. “What the hell was that thing called”... ....I picked the first name that came to mind…

I have mentioned General Semantics on this site a few times.

http://www.gestalt.org/semantic.htm

I read most of Korzybski’s book almost 40 years ago.  It makes one very aware that what something IS and what it is CALLED are two very different things.  It also makes one notice most people are very sloppy, semantically speaking.  But if this is pointed out to people they usually just get angry.

I first encountered the mention of “visco-elastic dampers” years ago and if memory serves the writer said there were thousands of them in each tower and that the WTC was among the first skyscrapers to ever use them.  But he did not explain what they were, where they were or what they did.  Even with searching the Internet I think it took me a couple of months to understand what they were about.

They perform a function similar to shock absorbers in a car.  They damp out oscillations, they do not support the weight of a car.  Of course since the towers were far more massive than a car and rarely subjected to sudden stimulus the dampers just slowed down any already slow swaying.  The airliner impacts were certainly the most sudden shear force the buildings were ever subjected to.

So when you said “therm-dynamic washers” I had absolutely nothing real to associate that term with.  I even did an Internet search and still had no idea what you were talking about.  I was pissed.  I hate word puzzles.  Math puzzles were always more fun.  I do not discuss this subject on the Internet for entertainment.  I think the amount of time that I have spent on this 9/11 business would persuade people that I do not regard this as some kind of joke.

[3953]
psik

psikeyhackr - 22 October 2012 05:15 PM

I think the amount of time that I have spent on this 9/11 business would persuade people that I do not regard this as some kind of joke.

The fact you tried to compare models many orders of magnitude different in scale seems to strongly suggest otherwise.

Robert Walper - 22 October 2012 05:19 PM

psikeyhackr - 22 October 2012 05:15 PM

I think the amount of time that I have spent on this 9/11 business would persuade people that I do not regard this as some kind of joke.

The fact you tried to compare models many orders of magnitude different in scale seems to strongly suggest otherwise.

Less than 3 orders of magnitude difference in height.

Or that one of us is full of crap about comprehending physics.

Funny how that link to work by a supposed physicist gets the quantity of steel wrong and has no mention of the quantity of concrete just like the NIST report.

Are you aware of anyone anywhere in the world demonstrating a model of any size that can be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less?  What is interesting is that no engineering school has tried to model the collapse.  If you watch my video you will see a model at the end of one done by MIT but of course it does not collapse.  I think it is a far bigger joke than mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

psik

psikeyhackr - 22 October 2012 05:15 PM

Write4U - 21 October 2012 09:15 PM

That is exactly what I thought when composing the phrase. “What the hell was that thing called”... ....I picked the first name that came to mind…

I have mentioned General Semantics on this site a few times.
psik

Yet you insist that your model which in all respects is just a “semantic interpretation” of the real physics is infallibly correct.

Personally I would rather have the right position and use a misnomer, than to be fundamentally wrong no matter how accurate the semantics in describing that position.

I have apologized 3 times now for using a misnomer, but now that this has been cleared up, you still will not address the issue, but keep talking about semantics as if that somehow makes your position stronger. Childish and petty in my book.

As I said before I am satisfied with the consensus and I am moving forward to more immediate and important matters than trying to debunk a general assertion of some vague conspiracy based on flawed assumptions and flawed models.
I’m done.

psikeyhackr - 22 October 2012 06:14 PM

Less than 3 orders of magnitude difference in height.

Irrelevant, I was talking about mass. A three dimensional model that is scaled up by a factor of a thousand across all three axis has a mass a billion times greater.

This of course assumes no change in density, strengths and mass of building materials. Which is absurd, hence why we do not build skyscrapers out of styrofoam or paper like your laughable ‘model’, even though paper and styrofoam would be suitable for construction at that scale. This is why we can build houses and smaller commerical buildings out of wood, but need to change to higher strength, much heavier materials like steel columns and steel reinforced concrete for bigger projects.

Clearly you are ignorant on this subject, or I wouldn’t have to sit here explaining it to you.

Or that one of us is full of crap about comprehending physics.

Funny how that link to work by a supposed physicist gets the quantity of steel wrong and has no mention of the quantity of concrete just like the NIST report.

Are you aware of anyone anywhere in the world demonstrating a model of any size that can be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less?  What is interesting is that no engineering school has tried to model the collapse.  If you watch my video you will see a model at the end of one done by MIT but of course it does not collapse.  I think it is a far bigger joke than mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

psik

I’ve already explained how and why your model is completely invalid. If you can’t figure out why, go try building something even remotely the size of the WTC out of paper. Better yet, you can even use wood. Structural engineers can point and laugh at you while you try.

You are obviously not qualified to have this discussion, and even when I point exactly how you are wrong, you strawman my argument by pretending the orders of magnitude difference I’m talking about was dimensions and not mass (AKA either you’re illiterate or lying).

There’s a reason you’re not having this discussioin with actual structural engineers and designers. First off, they wouldn’t waste their time discussing anything with you because you are ignorant of their sciences. Secondly, you already know this, hence why you sit here trying to convince a bunch of laypersons rather than the scientific community that would rip your ignorant claims and knowledge to pieces far more easily and effectively than I can.

Robert Walper - 22 October 2012 10:22 PM

psikeyhackr - 22 October 2012 06:14 PM

Less than 3 orders of magnitude difference in height.

Irrelevant, I was talking about mass. A three dimensional model that is scaled up by a factor of a thousand across all three axis has a mass a billion times greater.

Clearly you are ignorant on this subject, or I wouldn’t have to sit here explaining it to you.

I have explained the square cube law here many times.

That is why my model uses paper for supports.  That is what enables me to make the supports

AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE

relative to the weights they support.  A bigger heavier model would be better.  It would also be much more expensive and even potentially dangerous.  Anyone can duplicate my model for about $30.  I could improve my model by doubling up on the washers.  But obviously I would have to redesigne the bottom 16 paper loops to support the doubled weight.  That is the thing about tall buildings.  The top of the south tower should have fallen down the side, especially since it already had that tilt.

You are welcome to build a bigger one to PROVE I am wrong.

But until then all you have is talk.  Put in heavier weights and the supports must be stronger.  More energy will be required to crush them.  So how can the weights have enough potential energy to do it?  You are like the people on JREF screaming

STATIC, DYNAMIC, STATIC, DYNAMIC!

The supports must be strong enough to hold the static load no matter how great the weight and height.  But the energy required to crush them comes from the kinetic energy built up from their potential energy through falling.  So it is so curious that our experts do not insist on knowing the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers to accurately compute the potential energy and then compute the energy required to collapse each of the towers.

It takes 0.118 joules to flatten a single paper loop.  I computed the potential energy of my drop and it was enough to flatten 8 loops.  In the actual drop 9 loops were damaged but some were not completely flattened.  Mathematics does not predict the randomness of reality perfectly.  But I thought that was pretty close.

But our better engineering schools could have built bigger better models and tested them in 11 years.  But what have they done?  As far as I can tell most of them will not even discuss the subject.  So you can TALK.  I am impressed.

That is the problem with 9/11 after 11 years.  If the experts are wrong then they have spent 11 years being LIARS.  A good physical model would just demonstrate that.  So why would they want to build a bigger, better model?  But then we have all of this crap about STEM education and Critical Thinking.  In a way the situation is hilarious.  7th and 8th graders should understand this simple physics.

[4061]
psik

Psikey, Robert has the best idea. Your BS got tiresome around here a long time ago. Take your ideas to a discussion forum where architects and structural engineers hang out. Despite your lofty MENSA brain I predict the subject matter experts will tear your stupid model apart and shove it where the Sun does not shine.

Which may explain why you prefer to remain here and shout louder than everyone else.

Write4U - 22 October 2012 08:12 PM

psikeyhackr - 22 October 2012 05:15 PM

Write4U - 21 October 2012 09:15 PM

That is exactly what I thought when composing the phrase. “What the hell was that thing called”... ....I picked the first name that came to mind…

I have mentioned General Semantics on this site a few times.
psik

Yet you insist that your model which in all respects is just a “semantic interpretation” of the real physics is infallibly correct.

A PHYSICAL MODEL is not a semantic interpretation.  Semantics is about WORDS and their MEANING.

A physical model is REAL.

psik

DarronS - 23 October 2012 06:53 AM

Psikey, Robert has the best idea. Your BS got tiresome around here a long time ago. Take your ideas to a discussion forum where architects and structural engineers hang out. Despite your lofty MENSA brain I predict the subject matter experts will tear your stupid model apart and shove it where the Sun does not shine.

Which may explain why you prefer to remain here and shout louder than everyone else.

Notice that your great architects and engineers don’t discuss the distributions of steel and concrete down skyscrapers even on sites where they discuss skyscrapers. 

It is like von Neumann machines not being discussed at IBM even though John von Neumann was hired as a consultant in 1952.  I worked for IBM.

It is like guild secrets and the masses are supposed to believe it is complicated.  That is what makes this funny.  A 10,000 page report that does not specify the amount of concrete in the towers.  Oh sure, that is BS.

Why don’t you tell us where it is in the report?

psik

psikeyhackr - 23 October 2012 07:15 AM

Why don’t you tell us where it is in the report?

psik

I am neither an architect nor a structural engineer. If you want to talk photography, writing or the environment feel free to come to me as a subject matter expert. If you want to argue skyscraper collapse find a forum with appropriate subject matter experts. All you are doing here is repeating yourself, and most of us are fed up with your incessant conspiracy mongering.

DarronS - 23 October 2012 07:26 AM

I am neither an architect nor a structural engineer. If you want to talk photography, writing or the environment feel free to come to me as a subject matter expert. If you want to argue skyscraper collapse find a forum with appropriate subject matter experts. All you are doing here is repeating yourself, and most of us are fed up with your incessant conspiracy mongering.

Conspiracies are irrelevant.  I have not said anything about who did what or why.

I do not care.

But photography is about physics in that it involves the refraction of light and the geometry of lenses.  I used to work in the camera department of a department store.  I had an Olympus OM-1.  Of course there isn’t so much chemistry involved anymore now that everything has gone digital.

But apparently you believe that everyone is supposed to be intellectually compartMENTALIZED and experts can pretend that simple stuff is as complicated as they want.

The conservation of momentum is too difficult for you. 

As I said the EXPERTS have also avoided discussing the center of mass of the tilted top of the south tower.  Another concept relevant to other areas.

At the heart of the laws of motion lies a vehicle’s center of gravity, the point at which an object’s mass is in equilibrium. “You could literally attach a hook to the center of gravity and pick a car up, and it would be perfectly balanced front to rear, top to bottom, and from side to side,”

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/apr/featnewton

Reality does not compartmentalize just because some people insist on doing that with their brains.

This is why I consider the 9/11 Decade to be the pinnacle of European culture.  This intellectual NAZIism is disgustingly curious.

psik

psik, according to the forum rules you are in violation by posting off-topic messages:

(g) Threads and posts that are disruptive to the flow of conversation by being off-topic, or which in the opinions of Moderators were written to drive up a post-count or otherwise not relevant to the mission of CFI and its Forum are not allowed. They are subject to locking, editing or deletion.

This thread is supposed to be about basic principles of science and how CFI is in violation of its mission by supporting fraudulent pseudo-science. It is not about the physics. Start your own physics thread and stop hijacking the threads of others.

psikeyhackr, it’s quite obvious at this point you don’t actually believe the arguments and position you’re making (due to the poor nature of them), so I’m curious why you’re holding it?

Robert Walper - 23 October 2012 01:42 PM

psikeyhackr, it’s quite obvious at this point you don’t actually believe the arguments and position you’re making (due to the poor nature of them), so I’m curious why you’re holding it?

Well who am I to argue with the OBVIOUS?

psik