45 of 48
45
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 11 January 2014 07:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 661 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 10 January 2014 05:39 PM

That ‘magical phenomenon’ is called ‘gravity’, psikey. More of that simple physics you clearly do not understand.

And every LEVEL was strong enough to support all of the weight above it against gravity for 28 years.

So where has anyone computed the energy required to collapse each level?

It takes 0.118 joules to crush a single paper loop in my model.  I have computed I would have to raise the 4 washers 20 feet to have enough energy to collapse the entire structure.

So the physics profession has made the 9/11 Affair the second most hilarious event in human history by not explaining something so simple in 12 years.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2014 11:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 662 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 11 January 2014 07:54 AM

And every LEVEL was strong enough to support all of the weight above it against gravity for 28 years.

The static load above it, not a dynamic one. Again, simple physics you do not understand.

So where has anyone computed the energy required to collapse each level?

Go look it up.

It takes 0.118 joules to crush a single paper loop in my model.  I have computed I would have to raise the 4 washers 20 feet to have enough energy to collapse the entire structure.

Obviously not true, given you have reinforced your model with a completely solid core which is anchored to another structure next to it. Make your ‘model’ actually free standing and make it so that ONLY the paper is supporting the weight. Get rid of the additional structure and solid core that is not made of paper loops.

So the physics profession has made the 9/11 Affair the second most hilarious event in human history by not explaining something so simple in 12 years.

psik

Ironic, given how many simple things you fail to grasp.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 07:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 663 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05

I just learned about this:

http://aneta.org/debate/

Beware the Ides of March. LOL

The amusing thing about this is that before 9/11 I would have regarded the physics of skyscrapers as beneath the notice of anyone with a bachelors degree in physics.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2014 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 664 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05

This is not about physics but it says some interesting things about physics and psychology.

Modern art was CIA ‘weapon’

For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

LOL ROFLMAO LOL

I wonder if this will affect the prices of so called “art”.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2014 07:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 665 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nX8xt5YOjg

Physicist failing to discuss the distribution of mass in skyscrapers.

[20,347]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2014 06:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 666 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05

The excuse I hear repeatedly about trying to do a scale model of the collapse of the north tower is that gravity cannot be scaled.  I was sure engineers had to have strategies for dealing with this especially before we began getting reasonably good computers.  Now I have found evidence:

Small-scale testing is more economical than full-scale testing, but is subject to data interpretation problems caused mainly by similitude criteria violation, i.e., model distortion. One of the most troublesome causes of distortion in dynamic tests of model structures is gravity.

The objective of this effort was to develop concepts and procedures that compensate for gravitational effects without using a centrifuge.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a209252.pdf

That is from 1988 and methods were undoubtedly known before then.  So how have 12 years gone by and thousands of engineers have not mentioned this?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2014 07:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 667 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05

There appears to be more about it now that I know what to look for.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm:978-1-4020-8682-3/1.pdf&ei=zhlAU672K4ipsASh8YGQCA&sa=X&oi=unauthorizedredirect&ct=targetlink&ust=1396711638723505&usg=AFQjCNHLRe9icbuLMvLSXm-2azrRVP7vWQ

I searched Gregory Urich’s site for “Froude” and found nothing but there were almost 200 mentions of scaling.

psik

[ Edited: 05 April 2014 07:58 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2014 09:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 668 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
psikeyhackr - 05 April 2014 06:58 AM

The excuse I hear repeatedly about trying to do a scale model of the collapse of the north tower is that gravity cannot be scaled.  I was sure engineers had to have strategies for dealing with this especially before we began getting reasonably good computers.  Now I have found evidence:

Small-scale testing is more economical than full-scale testing, but is subject to data interpretation problems caused mainly by similitude criteria violation, i.e., model distortion. One of the most troublesome causes of distortion in dynamic tests of model structures is gravity.

The objective of this effort was to develop concepts and procedures that compensate for gravitational effects without using a centrifuge.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a209252.pdf

That is from 1988 and methods were undoubtedly known before then.  So how have 12 years gone by and thousands of engineers have not mentioned this?

psik

If it wasn’t the effects of the planes hitting the other buildings, including fire,  that caused Building 7 to collapse, what could have done it? The same physics would have been at work if other explosions had been set off in Building 7.  Explain, also, how controlled demolition that brought the building down could have occurred with no evidence of it?  And, while you’re at it, who set them off? Hard evidence would be appreciated instead of insupported and wild speculation with not one scrap of evidence offered.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2014 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 669 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Lois - 05 April 2014 09:53 AM

If it wasn’t the effects of the planes hitting the other buildings, including fire,  that caused Building 7 to collapse, what could have done it? The same physics would have been at work if other explosions had been set off in Building 7.  Explain, also, how controlled demolition that brought the building down could have occurred with no evidence of it?  And, while you’re at it, who set them off? Hard evidence would be appreciated instead of insupported and wild speculation with not one scrap of evidence offered.

Lois

Do you have a problem distinguishing “what could have done it” from “what could not have done it”?

Just because someone might prove that XYZ could not have cause ABC does not necessarily mean that they know what did cause it.

You are free to search these threads to see what I have ever said about controlled demolition.  There is nothing I can do about accusing your me of saying what I never said.  But even if I consider a particular cause most probable I am not going to say that it was unless I can explain the evidence.  I cannot read all of that junk about microspheres and nanothermite any better than you can so I see no point in talking about it.  But I can build a physical model and tell you how to duplicate it and test it for yourself.  If you don’t want to do that then again that is your business.

WTC 7 was more then 300 feet wide.  But all you have to do is watch the video to see that opposite ends of the building started falling at the exact same time.  We are supposed to believe that fire or debris damage could just happen to do that.

Personally I do not even find WTC7 interesting.  The north tower is interesting because such a small portion falling supposedly destroyed such a large portion.  The south tower is interesting because the top portion was so large and tilted so far but did not fall down the side and yet EXPERTS spend 12 years saying nothing about the center of mass.

But if you search the NIST report the only “center of mass” mentioned is for the aircraft as though that is really important.  LOL

[20,565]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2014 10:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 670 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
psikeyhackr - 05 April 2014 06:49 PM
Lois - 05 April 2014 09:53 AM

If it wasn’t the effects of the planes hitting the other buildings, including fire,  that caused Building 7 to collapse, what could have done it? The same physics would have been at work if other explosions had been set off in Building 7.  Explain, also, how controlled demolition that brought the building down could have occurred with no evidence of it?  And, while you’re at it, who set them off? Hard evidence would be appreciated instead of insupported and wild speculation with not one scrap of evidence offered.

Lois

Do you have a problem distinguishing “what could have done it” from “what could not have done it”?

Just because someone might prove that XYZ could not have cause ABC does not necessarily mean that they know what did cause it.

You are free to search these threads to see what I have ever said about controlled demolition.  There is nothing I can do about accusing your me of saying what I never said.  But even if I consider a particular cause most probable I am not going to say that it was unless I can explain the evidence.  I cannot read all of that junk about microspheres and nanothermite any better than you can so I see no point in talking about it.  But I can build a physical model and tell you how to duplicate it and test it for yourself.  If you don’t want to do that then again that is your business.

WTC 7 was more then 300 feet wide.  But all you have to do is watch the video to see that opposite ends of the building started falling at the exact same time.  We are supposed to believe that fire or debris damage could just happen to do that.

Personally I do not even find WTC7 interesting.  The north tower is interesting because such a small portion falling supposedly destroyed such a large portion.  The south tower is interesting because the top portion was so large and tilted so far but did not fall down the side and yet EXPERTS spend 12 years saying nothing about the center of mass.

But if you search the NIST report the only “center of mass” mentioned is for the aircraft as though that is really important.  LOL

[20,565]
psik

If you are going to claim that the north Tower or Building 7 did not fall as a direct result of the plane hitting both the North and South Towers you are going to have to come up with some rational explanation about what did cause the North Tower and Building 7 to collapse. All you have done is speciously claim they couldn’t have collapsed because of the plane. You have offered no other explanation.  You might as well say aliens did it. You have no argument unless you can offer another explanation. You have yet to do that. Until you can, as far as I’m concerned, there is no point to your argument.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2014 06:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 671 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4812
Joined  2007-10-05
Lois - 05 April 2014 10:31 PM

If you are going to claim that the north Tower or Building 7 did not fall as a direct result of the plane hitting both the North and South Towers you are going to have to come up with some rational explanation about what did cause the North Tower and Building 7 to collapse. All you have done is speciously claim they couldn’t have collapsed because of the plane. You have offered no other explanation.  You might as well say aliens did it. You have no argument unless you can offer another explanation. You have yet to do that. Until you can, as far as I’m concerned, there is no point to your argument.

Lois

Several of us told psikey exactly that two or three years ago. As you can see he is still rerunning the same old nonargument. Seeing as how psikey has no point to his argument that makes arguing with him pointless.

BTW, have you seen his WTC model Youtube video? It is pricelessly ridiculous.

 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: 06 April 2014 08:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 672 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Lois - 05 April 2014 10:31 PM

If you are going to claim that the north Tower or Building 7 did not fall as a direct result of the plane hitting both the North and South Towers you are going to have to come up with some rational explanation about what did cause the North Tower and Building 7 to collapse. All you have done is speciously claim they couldn’t have collapsed because of the plane. You have offered no other explanation.  You might as well say aliens did it. You have no argument unless you can offer another explanation. You have yet to do that. Until you can, as far as I’m concerned, there is no point to your argument.

Lois

And you do not have to explain how the conservation of momentum could go out the window to allow most of the mass of the north tower to come down in 11 seconds according to some sources.

The TV mast and roof from the North Tower struck the ground about 11 seconds after the descent began, at 10:28 AM EDT, 102 minutes after being hit. The central core of the lower 60 floors completely collapsed within 10 to 15 seconds after being bypassed by the falling upper floors.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_did_it_take_the_Twin_Towers_to_collapse

It is not my fault that you can BELIEVE the physics of the top 13% of a skyscraper falling straight down and destroying an intact 85% below without even demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete.

That is what I find hilarious about this site.  People portraying themselves as SCIENTIFIC but do not demand simple information. 

Believing, suspecting and KNOWING are three different things.  You can’t really KNOW until you can PROVE.  If the north tower could collapse it should not be very difficult to make a model that could do it and supply complete data on the model.  When problems were discovered with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940 they had a 1:200th scale model built in a wind tunnel in 4 months. But what engineering school has even announced it would try doing a model of the north tower in 12 years?  With 50 skyscrapers over 1000 feet tall constructed in the last 12 years the physics of skyscrapers cannot be that difficult.  Before 9/11 I would have regarded the physics of skyscrapers as beneath the notice of physicists.

That is why I haven’t watched any of Tyson’s COSMOS.  He lived 4 blocks from Ground Zero.  He had to abandon his home for days because of the dust.  It would annoy me too much to listen to him talking about Black Holes thousands of light years away that have no effect on his life when he won’t address the physics that made him leave his house. LOL

Real science is about KNOWING not suspecting or Believing.

I am supposed to believe that our engineering schools can’t do better models than this:

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

My model starts at 3:43.  But I can’t build one with the same mass distribution as the north tower if I don’t know what it is.  And I have not seen any engineering school bring up the issue in 12 years.  I have emailed people at Purdue because of their “scientific simulation” that contradicts the NIST by not moving horizontally.

That is another funny thing about this site.  People here believe in complicated climate simulations for projecting future climates but do not expect good computer simulations of skyscraper collapses.  I wonder if the problem is finding out that planes and fire could not do it then it would be too upsetting.  I truly do not give a damn who did it.

I consider the screwed up science to be much more of a problem in the long run.  It is hysterical for people in this country to be talking about STEM education.  The nation that put men on the Moon can’t do a model of a skyscraper collapse.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2014 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 673 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02

For those reading, when psikey says 13% of the upper tower destroyed the lower 85%, he’s outright lying. Even if you take his spouted figures at face value (with 2% of the building mysteriously unaccounted for with his figures), the instant the upper 13% destroys the floor below it, that floor becomes part of the falling destructive mass and the percentage of the upper tower falling onto the next floor rapidly increases.

If you have a 100 floor building collapsing, by the time the bottom floor has to deal with a dynamic load of falling floors, it has to deal with 99% of the building falling on it. The falling mass of the upper tower needs only to destroy the next floor down, and then the mass of that floor adds to the destructive force coming down on the next.

That is a pretty obvious indicator of how poorly psikey ‘understands’ physics. But just go watch his video and you can see (and laugh) for yourself. LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2014 11:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 674 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 06 April 2014 09:37 AM

the instant the upper 13% destroys the floor below it, that floor becomes part of the falling destructive mass and the percentage of the upper tower falling onto the next floor rapidly increases.

And the Conservation of Momentum does not apply and no energy is lost breaking supports.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/u4l2b.cfm

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2014 11:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 675 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 06 April 2014 11:22 AM
Robert Walper - 06 April 2014 09:37 AM

the instant the upper 13% destroys the floor below it, that floor becomes part of the falling destructive mass and the percentage of the upper tower falling onto the next floor rapidly increases.

And the Conservation of Momentum does not apply and no energy is lost breaking supports.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/u4l2b.cfm

psik

And you will of course demonstrate how the energy added by the additional collapsing mass is less than the energy lost due to impact resistance.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
45 of 48
45