[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
Right, so, just to get your claim straight, you are saying that this force doesn't change regardless of whether I gently rest this weight on the object, or fire it at the object at light speed, is this correct? Either it makes a hole or it doesn't, the speed doesn't matter?
You seem to have a problem understanding weight. Your analogy would be more reasonable if you compared firing a bullet horizontally vs firing it vertically downwards. It is the former case that is of relevance here.
If you are asking about impulse, i.e., change in momentum (you have not mentioned this but I can only assume this is what you mean) then ok, we (that is, me, because it is clear you don't know how to do this) might explore that model. I predict it makes no difference.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
We don't need big words or intelligence here, Billy. A thingie moving faster is more likely to punch a hole, innit? I think my dog understands this. Yet you don't seem to.
Yes, it is called impulse which is the change in momentum. It requires estimates of time of impact. A further issue for you there is the required shearing of 8 floors.
My model is much simpler (if you know some basics) and gives a similar result.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes, it is called impulse which is the change in momentum. It requires estimates of time of impact. A further issue for you there is the required shearing of 8 floors.
My model is much simpler (if you know some basics) and gives a similar result.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Simpler to the point of not modelling anything at all, by the sounds of it. Your model is complete dogshit and I simply don't believe you that it gives a similar result for a stationary mass as it does for the same mass travelling at 60m/s, which is 135mph. Forget the horizontal component of the velocity. 60m/s is the vertical component after falling 200m, which is half the height you originally gave.
Listen to yourself. You are literally stubbornly arguing that you have model for car crashes that is not materially different for a car at rest to the same car going at 135 miles per hour. And you claim to be doing a masters in physics. Do you not feel even the slightest bit of shame or embarrassment?
Not to mention the fact that the formula for kinetic energy has a velocity squared factor lol. So yeah, faster moving things cause a lot more damage than slower moving things, who ****ing knew.
Simpler to the point of not modelling anything at all, by the sounds of it. Your model is complete dogshit and I simply don't believe you that it gives a similar result for a stationary mass as it does for the same mass travelling at 60m/s, which is 135mph. Forget the horizontal component of the velocity. 60m/s is the vertical component after falling 200m, which is half the hei
That is not "literally" what I am saying. I said nothing about car crashes.
Read my first post again. Notice we just require a single sheet of concrete of thickness 10 cm to shear off under the weight of 4 or 5 floors of mass 15 tons. This concrete floor is totally unsupported besides its own inertia. The applied shear stress is a mere 3% of the shear strength of the concrete. I did not say the "meteor" from a standing start is to pummel through a further 7 floors, including steel, and overcome any resistance from steel supports. Steel has a far greater shear strength than concrete.
If you want to apply an impulse model, then ok, but you need to consider the time interval of impact, which increases each time the meteor impacts a new floor, thus reducing the resultant force.
If I have time I will do it and you will see the effect is not dissimilar to a static collapse of a single 10 cm concrete layer.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Not to mention the fact that the formula for kinetic energy has a velocity squared factor lol. So yeah, faster moving things cause a lot more damage than slower moving things, who ****ing knew.
And what happens to KE during an inelastic collision? See above.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Maybe I'm being thick or maybe you're just really **** at explaining things, but I really do not understand how this is different to, say, a car resting on a concrete floor (your model) vs rotating the floor 90 degrees, calling it a wall, and driving the car into it at 135mph (what would seem to be the correct model). Obviously it's a lot more likely to shear, or punch a hole, or whatever you want to call it in the latter case. I do not know whether this is correctly modelled with impulse or kinetic energy, but I suspect the latter.
And what happens to KE during an inelastic collision? See above.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
A significant portion of it gets used to... wait for it... deform the objects involved! Or, shear, if you like.
Prosecution rests.
You're dam right I don't.
Incorrect.
The same guy that thinks during a collapse each floor would have to accelerate at 1G from rest doesn't understand the difference between a dynamic load and a static load.
Color me shocked.
MUST BE SPACE LASERS THEN
fing moron
Billy, question ...
I would assume that the four astronauts who are believed to be in the capsule, yet are in a Hollywood studio would know that the earth is either flat or that they can't go to the moon but what about the entire film crew as well as those who built the rocket. The engineers, the techs, the control systems trained to monitor and assist in any failure, third party observatories and literally all of NASA's entire workforce and every employee who ever worked for them and all outsourced employees as well as all their friends and families?
Do they know or not? And how would you imagine that it would all be a successful cover up?
I think if someone paid for billy to go to space I'm sure he would find some reason to think he was drugged and the whole thing was a simulation.
The same guy that thinks during a collapse each floor would have to accelerate at 1G from rest doesn't understand the difference between a dynamic load and a static load.
Color me shocked.
MUST BE SPACE LASERS THEN
fing moron
This budding Einstein is trying to calculate the possible damage that can be done by an object and claims there is little to no difference between the object being at rest and the object travelling at 135mph. Can't make this **** up.
As I said upthread, I'm pretty sure my dog understands this better than he does. And I don't even have a dog.
This budding Einstein is trying to calculate the possible damage that can be done by an object and claims there is little to no difference between the object being at rest and the object travelling at 135mph. Can't make this **** up.
As I said upthread, I'm pretty sure my dog understands this better than he does. And I don't even have a dog.
I'll verify later if time but just lol googling for now:
Kinetic energy of 13 000 kg at 60 m/s gives 24 MJ. Is this enough to shear 42 sq metres (area of WTC6 hole) of concrete?
Google says no. They say this is less than 3% of the required energy. "Coincidentally" the same percentage as per my force model.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Also working on an impulse model.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Still can't be right because by this logic a bag of dogshit does the same damage as a bag of tungsten spanners with the same mass and velocity. Properties of both materials involved in the collision need to be taken into account.
Sounds like you are just regurgitating a formula you saw in a textbook and you lack the common sense to realise that if it doesn't take certain input variables into account then it can't possibly be the correct calculation to model the real life situation in question.
Still can't be right because by this logic a bag of dogshit does the same damage as a bag of tungsten spanners with the same mass and velocity. Properties of both materials involved in the collision need to be taken into account.Sounds like you are just regurgitating a formula you saw in a textbook and you lack the common sense to realise that if it doesn't take certain input v
I am regurgitating google right there. We are yet to see whether they are correct. (They most likely are).
Textbooks are useful. You should consult them before sounding off your massively ignorant horn.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Billy, question ...I would assume that the four astronauts who are believed to be in the capsule, yet are in a Hollywood studio would know that the earth is either flat or that they can't go to the moon but what about the entire film crew as well as those who built the rocket. The engineers, the techs, the control systems trained to monitor and assist in any failure, third pa
All they seem to have done is sit on their asses passing a microphone around.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I am regurgitating google right there. We are yet to see whether they are correct. (They most likely are).
Textbooks are useful. You should consult them before sounding off your massively ignorant horn.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Because you've asked Google about shear stress. But if the shear stress model doesn't take velocity or material properties into account then it can't possibly be the correct model for a collision of this type. You lack the common sense and intelligence to recognise this, hence "regurgitating formulas".
Master of physics my ass. The only thing you are a master of is duncedom.
Also, you got a source for this 13 tonne number? Let's just make sure you're not making that up along with everything else.
I also find it extremely puzzling that we are assuming only one large piece of debris impacted this building.
Today's Billy round-up:
- The damage caused by an object involved in a collision depends only on its mass, not its velocity, shape, or material properties.
- Gun industry in shambles as billions of people worldwide realise they can just throw large marshmallows at each other instead of wasting money on expensive firearms.
Today's Billy round-up:
- The damage caused by an object depends only on its mass, not its velocity, shape, or material properties.
- Gun industry in shambles as billions of people worldwide realise they can just throw large marshmallows at each other instead of wasting money on expensive firearms.
It's a curious thing, but HMS Rodney's one-ton 16-inch shells, when sitting in the ship's magazines, did nothing much at all, yet when fired from the guns they each hit the Bismarck at around Mach 1.5 with an armour-piercing force of 30,000 foot tons.
D2_e4 is certainly dedicated to proving Billy is wrong. Almost as dedicated as Billy is to spouting absolute nonsense.
D2_e4 is certainly dedicated to proving Billy is wrong. Almost as dedicated as Billy is to spouting absolute nonsense.
I don't think pointing out that objects in motion do more damage than those same objects at rest requires a huge amount of dedication, but in general, yeah, I find his complete and utter cretinism a source of entertainment, and occasionally frustration.
