The author does not even mention the Conservation of Momentum in his mathematical analysis. :lol:
What mathematical analysis???
There was none.
Tossing out some statistical facts of dubious legitimacy is not an analysis.
Of course, if I was too thick to catch it, please do share and correct my impression.
As for Miatello as some sober arbiter of complex matters, he seems to have all sorts of theories that invalidates accepted science:
WHY LUNAR HEATING/COOLING DISPROVES THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY ON EARTH
Published on July 14, 2014
Written by Alberto Miatello
Fresh scientific analysis of the heating and cooling rate of the moon has produced startling evidence to show that the greenhouse gas theory of global warming on earth is false. Italian researcher, Alberto Miatello presents a simplified version of his peer-reviewed and verified study to show that mainstream climate science has misunderstood a key function of earth’s climate system: its inherent cooling abilities. Principia Scientific International presents Miatello’s summary below:
I have been asked to explain the main concepts of my article of 2012: “Lunar Cooling Refutes the Greenhouse Effect Theory”, without using too much mathematical symbolism and I am pleased to do that.
To be honest sounds more like a contrarian’s cottage industry.
Principia Scientific International even.
What is interesting is that he doesn’t even bring up the certainty that the mass density of any skyscraper must increase down the building, thereby increasing the strength and the deceleration caused by the Conservation of Momentum.
God damnit Psik, think man think.
All that extra mass density is along those bearing points, such as main columns and that incredible perimeter skirting, the “girdle”.
Now think of those blue prints and all that open floor space between those concentrated bearing points???
Why wasn’t that the first skeptical question you asked about this guy’s spiel?
Skinny trusses spanning the distance, simple steel pans filled with rebar and a couple inches of concrete.
Please explain how were those floors supposed to stop the building falling down on top of it?
What about all that floor space, that provided zero residence to the exponentially increasing load?
I read through your link, and it’s all handwaving and the usual nasty general slander towards the establishment and loads of imaginative doubt mongering - but nothing that gets down to the brass tacts of explaining how his supposition is supposed to work.
He provides zero structural analysis except for one pretty drawing,
zero recognition of all the floor area that provided next to zero resistance to the imploding load.
It’s all so sickeningly juvenile sensationalism, rather than honest curiosity to learn. :down:
[ post # 943 ]
”How powerful and correct this model is, can be evaluated just thinking that the “variable mass” approach in physics and engineering was many times used, since the beginning of XX century,
to precisely calculate the energy to send rockets to space and to the Moon…”
But psik, we are talking about structural failure.
That’s a very, very different beast from the physics of energy and space.
Why do such freak notions capture your imagination so easily?
Why does your skepticism only seem to go in one direction.
Oh and then you never finish with a topic, always on to the next.
I choose to label that as intellectually dishonest.
Like nothing is ever allowed to get resolved.
Or like you’re trying to convinced me, hey here’s another crack pot theory,
a hundred crack pot theories can’t all be wrong!
The hell they can’t psik - sorry to say, but so it is.
It’s like you rather play games with your own imagination,
me myself, I rather try to hone my imagination to the
realities of the physical world around us.