It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Azp420
Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right? It can be in many forms such as thermal, gravitational,chemical,etc...right?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Azp420
Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right? It can be in many forms such as thermal, gravitational,chemical,etc...right?
ROFLMAO
I just don't know what else to say.
ROFLMAO
psik
PS - kinetic energy is not thermal or chemical. The kinetic energy of falling water can be converted into electricity in a hydro-electric damn. Then the electricity can be used to charge a rechargeable battery in a laptop computer. Then it has been changed into chemical energy. But it ain't kinetic energy anymore. The electricity can be used to heat water in a microwave for thermal energy.
See why we can't resolve a grade school physics problem in NINE YEARS.
Originally posted by esdad71
If it is grade school physics, explain it. Explain why, not with opinion, the OS is not correct. Use a few paragraphs. I can read. Please tackle what I stated in the second paragraph instead of reasking my question.
Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right?
It can be in many forms such as thermal, gravitational,chemical,etc...right?
So, if the factors that affect an object's gravitational potential energy are its height relative to some reference point, its mass, and the strength of the gravitational field it is in.
So, are you trying to say the potential energy was smaller than the gravitational energy so it would not collapse after the initiating event?
Originally posted by by esdad71
Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right?
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by by esdad71
Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right?
And it loses that kinetic energy as soon as it hits resistance as it is converted to other energy.
You seem to have this notion that energy is all powerful and overcomes everything.
KE is solely dependent on motion, and is a measurement of the work done to create that motion. You keep taking it out of context like it's a power all of it's own.
Again Newtons 3rd law comes into play when a moving object hits a stationary object it's the MASS that decides what happens not KE. The forces are equal, the mass isn't.
If a bug hits a windshield the forces on the bug and windshield are the same, and that includes the KE. The KE of the bug will be met with an equal force on the windshield pushing back. The bug splatters because of it's MASS, not it's KE.
They are all connected, and all explained by the laws of motion, that you all keep try to claim doesn't explain anything. You take them out of context because you don't understand them.
edit on 4/21/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by esdad71
So, was the reaction that occurred during the collapse an elastic or inelastic collision?
Also, are you stating that the KE for the upper part of the building became 'zero' when it hit the lower floors there fore does not adhere to the 3 laws?
We are describing the laws in detail but you are simply stating that what 'you' perceived occurred on 9/11 could not have happened based on 'your' understanding of physics. Also, it is not just mass, it is also velocity that will determine what the KE does. Then, if you add momentum it is a different equation but still a descriptive of KE.
Here is a simple example, if a ball is moving at 10 mph it takes the same force to stop it. However, if it was thrown at 20 mph, the KE of the object is now 4x what it was at 10...it is not just about mass.This is the application including momentum.
Kinetic energy is an expression of the fact that a moving object can do work on anything it hits; it quantifies the amount of work the object could do as a result of its motion. The total mechanical energy of an object is the sum of its kinetic energy and potential energy.
Einstein Rescues Momentum Conservation
Einstein was so sure that momentum conservation must always hold that he rescued it with a bold hypothesis: the mass of an object must depend on its speed! In fact, the mass must increase with speed in just such a way as to cancel out the lower y-direction velocity resulting from time dilation. That is to say, if an object at rest has a mass M, moving at a speed v it will have a mass . Note that this is an undetectably small effect at ordinary speeds, but as an object approaches the speed of light, the mass increases without limit!
the mass increase m is related to the kinetic energy E by E=Mc2
try an example, such as a jet airplane weighing 100 tons moving at 2,000mph. 100 tons is 100,000 kilograms, 2,000mph is about 1,000 meters per second. That’s a kinetic energy ½Mv² of ½×1011joules, but the corresponding mass change of the airplane down by the factor c², 9×1016, giving an actual mass increase of about half a milligram, not too easy to detect!
Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK
Thanks but I did not need an explanation, I wanted to know what you thought about the collapse. Can you answer a questions without telling someone they are not correct, or do not understand..etc?
Now, if you feel that it is elastic then the momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. Almost no energy is lost to sound, heat,,deformation,etc.
In the case of the WTC would it be elastic since it struck a non moving object and since there was no loss in KE or momentum, but as it feel it gained mass, right? I am trying to understand what you are explaining.
try an example, such as a jet airplane weighing 100 tons moving at 2,000mph. 100 tons is 100,000 kilograms, 2,000mph is about 1,000 meters per second. That’s a kinetic energy ½Mv² of ½×1011joules, but the corresponding mass change of the airplane down by the factor c², 9×1016, giving an actual mass increase of about half a milligram, not too easy to detect!
Also, it does not matter only if the floors fell a few feet(actually multiple floors). Here is an example for you. You may be able to hold a 20 lb barbell in one hand over your head. Now, Have someone stand 6 inches above you and drop that same barbell. Not that far to fall but you will have a difficult time catching and holding it, right? Now substitute that for 15-20 floors of a high rise. It is one thing to design a building to withstand wind or an earthquake but quite another to stand without the design elements in place anymore.
You keep referring to safety standards also and they were in place. If it had been just a fire, it would have been in place and more than likely worked.
Factor of Safety in buildings or other construction is kept so that to compensate any uncertainty in the design process. The uncertainty could come from anywhere in the design process including calculations, material strengths, environmental conditions, natural phenomenons, duty of the structure and last but not the least quality of materials used. Though there exist some difference when viewed in technical perspective but factor of safety can also be termed as Margin of safety or even Reserve strength.
But you had structural damage so your safety factors cannot be applied since that was not part of the original design to allow the building to stand without inner and outer column support. It was designed to allow escape in the event just a fire which is set to two hours based on when the WTC was build and existing codes.
I also never refereed to the planes adding KE but I have heard a few people talking about how 'explosives' would have.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
As it goes, while only one floor is technically being acted on at a time, the top section has gravity acting down on it, while the bottom part is not pushing upward with gravity. It is resisted by the ground. Since gravity will continuously push down the top section, and since after the first floor gets destroyed it becomes a discombobulated mess, then the floors above and below are no longer being acted on under design conditions. The horizontal trusses will now be resisting dynamic vertical load, and the vertical columns will be resisting twisting forces and angled impacts.
I don't see how anyone could expect these to remain in one piece.
Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Azp420
Kinetic Energy is the 'energy' a object possesses due to motion, right? It can be in many forms such as thermal, gravitational,chemical,etc...right?
So, if the factors that affect an object's gravitational potential energy are its height relative to some reference point, its mass, and the strength of the gravitational field it is in.So, are you trying to say the potential energy was smaller than the gravitational energy so it would not collapse after the initiating event?
I just want to verify what you are saying before i post again with what I feel is correct...
edit on 21-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by GenRadek
ANOK, it gained mass because when it hit the floor below it, it destroyed that floor and cut it loose from the surrounding columns. It is now part of the falling mass. Hence, the whole falling mass just gained mass.
Now the floor below that one is being hit by the mass of the initial falling 30 floor section PLUS the now destroyed floor. And then, when that floor is destroyed, the floor below it is being impacted by the mass of 32 floors. Then 33. Then 34. Etc etc etc.
What, did you believe the destroyed floor just disappears along with its mass?