It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Gravity Can't Do This!

page: 7
27
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:26 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by turbofan

You can ignore any horizontal motion and just focus on the vertical motion.

I agree, and it also helps your case because a horizontal component would also leave the object suspended
and traveling outward slowing the fall toward Earth.

Geez, I'm being too nice. No air resistance, and no horizontal vector!
edit on 16-6-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:29 AM
reply to post by turbofan

A horizontal motion would not "suspend" an object that is falling. But since you are ok with it, go ahead.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:58 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by turbofan

A horizontal motion would not "suspend" an object that is falling. But since you are ok with it, go ahead.

Are you sure about that? Think of object thrown laterally with great force vs. weaker force.

Think of a bullet...

[EDIT TO ADD: WIND, AERO PROPERTIES]

Imagine the difference in time it takes for both to hit the floor due to aero drag, wind resistance and wind causing
lift on the object.

Airplanes

Need more examples?

[EDIT]

When in flight, the main forces acting on the projectile are gravity, drag and if present wind. Gravity imparts a downward acceleration on the projectile, causing it to drop from the line of sight. Drag or the air resistance decelerates the projectile with a force proportional to the square of the velocity. Wind makes the projectile deviate from its trajectory. During flight, gravity, drag and wind have a major impact on the path of the projectile, and must be accounted for when predicting how the projectile will travel.

For medium to longer ranges and flight times, besides gravity, air resistance and wind, several meso variables described in the external factors paragraph have to be taken into account.

For long to very long ranges and flight times, minor effects and forces such as the ones described in the long range factors paragraph become important and have to be taken into account. The practical effects of these variables are generally irrelevant for most firearms users, since normal group scatter at short and medium ranges prevails over the influence these effects exert on firearms projectiles trajectories.

At extremely long ranges, artillery must fire projectiles along trajectories that are not even approximately straight; they are closer to parabolic, although air resistance affects this.

In the case of ballistic missiles, the altitudes involved have a significant effect as well, with part of the flight taking place in a near-vacuum.

edit on 16-6-2011 by turbofan because: add links for SPOOR

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:03 AM
reply to post by turbofan

If you ignore air resistance then yes, I am sure, a horizontal motion would not make any difference with respect to the acceleration to earth of that object. Except of course for the rounding of the earth it self. That is the principle on which satellites do not fall to earth. But the rounding of the earth can be ignored in this case, I can assure that.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:09 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
Are you sure about that? Think of object thrown laterally with great force vs. weaker force.

Think of a bullet...

Think of flicking something off of a desk vs. rolling it off. Imagine the difference in time it takes for both to hit the floor.

Oh dear, you really know nothing about physics. Both the flicked and the dropped object hit the ground at the same time, this is very basic physics!

en.wikipedia.org...

So once again a truther shows they know very little about physics. But no surprises there.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 08:57 AM

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by turbofan
Are you sure about that? Think of object thrown laterally with great force vs. weaker force.

Think of a bullet...

Think of flicking something off of a desk vs. rolling it off. Imagine the difference in time it takes for both to hit the floor.

Oh dear, you really know nothing about physics. Both the flicked and the dropped object hit the ground at the same time, this is very basic physics!

en.wikipedia.org...

So once again a truther shows they know very little about physics. But no surprises there.

After several replies, you still have not agreed to the values given (gee, I wonder why), and you come back
with 'fiziks" from YouTube, and Mythbusters! So certain examples may not consider aerodynamics, so
I'll take that back.

Well, the horizontal component although minimal is still a factor due to wind and drag. Aerodynamics of the
irregular object also present unpredicatable results. It is near impossible to measure and therefore we're going
to leave it out of our calculations.

You may want to read this:

en.wikipedia.org...

When in flight, the main forces acting on the projectile are gravity, drag and if present wind. Gravity imparts a downward acceleration on the projectile, causing it to drop from the line of sight. Drag or the air resistance decelerates the projectile with a force proportional to the square of the velocity. Wind makes the projectile deviate from its trajectory. During flight, gravity, drag and wind have a major impact on the path of the projectile, and must be accounted for when predicting how the projectile will travel.

For medium to longer ranges and flight times, besides gravity, air resistance and wind, several meso variables described in the external factors paragraph have to be taken into account.

For long to very long ranges and flight times, minor effects and forces such as the ones described in the long range factors paragraph become important and have to be taken into account. The practical effects of these variables are generally irrelevant for most firearms users, since normal group scatter at short and medium ranges prevails over the influence these effects exert on firearms projectiles trajectories.

At extremely long ranges, artillery must fire projectiles along trajectories that are not even approximately straight; they are closer to parabolic, although air resistance affects this.

In the case of ballistic missiles, the altitudes involved have a significant effect as well, with part of the flight taking place in a near-vacuum.

Now, last chance to agree to my previous values so we can move along!
edit on 16-6-2011 by turbofan because: Links for SPOOR

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:11 AM
Spoor, and anyone else please confirm these values:

Tower width 208 ft.

Accel. of gravity 32.1704 ft.s/s/

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by turbofan

Apart from the ft.s/s/ part, its correct. The unit is ft/(sxs) of ft/s^2 You can take 32 if you want, which is slightly in favor of your case.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:50 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

Units are also written as:

The value of g is 32 ft/s2 (feet per second squared) or 9.8 m/s2 (meters per second squared). The units are sometimes written ft/s/s or m/s/s.

www.electronicsteacher.com...

Thanks for confirming those numbers. I'll wait for Spoor before starting.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by turbofan

I have to admit I didn't know of that notation, although its still different from what you had. But lets drop the details and get to it.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:27 AM
That was my typo, the slashes should have come before the 's', not after like I had on the previous page.

I'll upload some scaling later this evening and we'll get to the root of this discussion (*finally).

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:48 AM

Your jet propelled piece of debris can also be seen in this video.

So how fast is it going.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:59 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
I'll upload some scaling later this evening and we'll get to the root of this discussion (*finally).

You say this as if someone has been holding you back. Don't you realize you should have done this before you even created this topic? Don't believe the crap you find on the internet just because it confirms your believes, but verify it.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:05 AM
I just love physics.
Simply no imagination and way too much inbox thinking. The ETs cannot stand you types because you are unteachable

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:22 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by turbofan
I'll upload some scaling later this evening and we'll get to the root of this discussion (*finally).

You say this as if someone has been holding you back. Don't you realize you should have done this before you even created this topic? Don't believe the crap you find on the internet just because it confirms your believes, but verify it.

Besides the other anomalies in the opening post which confirm alternative forces, I've done some crude
measurements o the debris jetting ahead of the dust cloud. Yes, I'll admit I relied on D. Chandler's work
for most of this, and I have never done a pixel-scaled measurement until now. I'm pretty confident we'll
see a duplicate of my previous measurements, or I wouldn't have suggested this in the first place.

The reason I'm stepping through the values is because I don't want anyone kicking back on the results
once the math is presented. That is the 'hold-up' and it wasn't really directed toward you, however you
were the first to agree to the values.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:06 PM
If there were explosives in the buildings then it would have taken a team weeks and months to do, and there is simply no way of that being possible.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by Viking9019

LOL I'm glad you noticed that too, some people....

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:06 PM

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
If there were explosives in the buildings then it would have taken a team weeks and months to do, and there is simply no way of that being possible.

If they are being careful to be effective while doing an absolute minimum of damage to surrounding structures.

Did WTC 1 & 2 do a minimum of damage? That is the interesting difference between WTC 7 and the first two. If you just cram in 3 or more times as much explosives as necessary you can probably save a lot of time though the destruction will no doubt be VERY IMPRESSIVE.

psik

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by psikeyhackr

So in order to save time they installed 3 or more times the explosives required. Hmmmmm no, doesn't make sense.

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:12 AM
reply to post by turbofan

Well apart from some obvious flaws and WRONG assumputions made, what I find hard to believe is statements made of what he sees sorry THINKS he sees in the video I mean its high quality
footage.

Of to work will post a comment later on his OBVIOUS mistakes!!!!!

One quick example in videos like this thes ALWAYS talk about the concrete turning to dust they infer that all the dust is concrete so I take it ALL the thousands of m2 of sheetrock in the building just fell of the walls did not crumble and was buried beneath the rest of the rubble!!!!
edit on 17-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

top topics

27