Askthepizzaguy [and that user name may be wrong] is far better at math than that errrmmm… Poster. I will refrain from commenting further on his math abilities, since it’s not the pit.
Doubtful.
His posts have yet to demonstrate the intellectual horsepower to grasp the concept of pi (notwithstanding the fact that those posts appear to share one of its properties).
OK. Back off on the personal insults, everyone.
[ /Moderating ]
Sorry. (note to self: edit twice, submit once)
Sorry.
Sorry. (I didn’t say anything but I thought it)
Oh look, completely ignoring my question of why the fuck any of this is relevant. I never would have expected that to happen. Not like you’re a CTer OH WAIT.
I regret nothing! BWA HA HA HA!
Why isn’t making the impacted masses 0.1 tons a good enough work around?
If you make a better program will the collapse time change significantly? I got 9.1 seconds with 0.1 tons while 9.22 seconds is the result with no impacts whatsoever. To me that confirms that the program is more than close enough for government work. Better than good enough is just useless apple polishing.
psik
Getting back on topic, could you respond to post #193, please?
And where are the Conservation of Momentum calculations of the reduced velocity?
That is what my Python program does. That is not the change in mass over time that the report was talking about.
psik
Wait. You want the exact weight of steel and concrete from other people but suddenly just tossing out a number is “good enough” when you do it? :dubious:
That’s not consistent. If that’s “good enough”, why is it “good enough”? And why isn’t it “good enough” when anybody else does it?
What reduced velocity?
You understand that “conservation of momentum” as you apply it is only valid when there is no net force applied to a body? From your posts, the only conclusion I can draw is that you have a flawed understanding of this principle.
But the falling bodies are subjected to a net force - gravity. You must take this into account. Yes, momentum is conserved in the larger system. But the larger system includes the entire planet Earth, which you aren’t taking into account.
Back to the topic of this thread: Are there any major conspiracy theories out there that you think are too ridiculous to be taken seriously?
Read the fucking link that you ignored the last time.
More on momentum conservation:
It also appears you are also assuming these collisions are fully elastic. That’s fine for an intro physics class. It’s not entirely valid in the real world. When a child bowls into you, you don’t bounce off each other. It’s an inelastic collision. Your velocities aren’t going to behave like your Physics 101 formulae, because of all the other forces at play.
When a car T-bones a bus, the bus doesn’t bounce off like your formula would have it bounce.
When I drop a weight onto the Earth, the weight doesn’t bounce with velocity the way your formula would have it.
These are all inelastic collisions (as many of the falling bodies from a skyscrapers would interact inelastically), and you aren’t taking it into account.
In all these cases, momentum is conserved, but not in the ultra-simplified way you understand it. Again, you clearly have an imperfect understanding of the principle of conservation of momentum.
What change of mass over time does the report talk about?
I’ve no idea, I’m neither an engineer nor a physicist.
Pretty sure it is:
What else would make the mass of the falling portion increase over time, except more of the building falling?
In my experience, CTs don’t buy into just one CT. Well, technically, I guess, they do as the various CT explanations always get back to the usual suspects behind it all and the various CT “explanations” for whatever is just one facet of the over-arching, all-encompassing “theory”.
I wish I could get psikeyhackr to get back on topic and answer this one.