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 -PLB-
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
How is a discussion between the authors and two experts known by full name anonymous? It seems you ignored that part, choose the least relevant, and started picking on that as if that is the main reason I reject Jones work. It isn't. It is the least significant reason. Nevertheless it has some influence on my opinion. If some anonymous person on an internet forum is able to reproduce Jones results, it would also influence my opinion. I would be a lot more inclined to support further experimentation.
Originally posted by ANOK
How can gravity make a mass fall through another mass without being effected by resistance of that mass?
In other words, how did Ke increase to overcome increasing mass and resistance?
A simplified version of what happened is that mass 1 fell on top of mass 2. The dynamic load made the connection that held mass 2 fail. Still, this force slowed down mass 1 a bit. After the connections failed, mass 1 and mass 2 fall further together to the next floor. The additional mass actually has a positive effect on Ke and Momentum during the fall. And the resistance was hardly increasing, if at all.
So from a scientific point of view, my conclusion is that Jones work is not accepted and ignored. From a non-scientific point of view, my conclusion is that his work contains many issues and needs more work. Over all conclusion, his work is inconclusive.
Originally posted by -PLB-
A simplified version of what happened is that mass 1 fell on top of mass 2. The dynamic load made the connection that held mass 2 fail. Still, this force slowed down mass 1 a bit. After the connections failed, mass 1 and mass 2 fall further together to the next floor. The additional mass actually has a positive effect on Ke and Momentum during the fall. And the resistance was hardly increasing, if at all.
Originally posted by -PLB-
But now we get to a really interesting part in my opinion. If his work is inconclusive, then why aren't there any additional experiments to convince critics?
I can only think of one reason we do not see additional experimentation, and that is because the results are not in favor or earlier conclusions.
Only truthers think that is was not a progressive "pancake" collapse. The rest of the world (who has more or less studied the subject) does.
As for your "areguments" about Jones being conclusive, I am not going over it again. I see you ignored my last post that science required confirmation. Lets just leave it at that, to me that is telling enough.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-
CONFIRM GRAVITY FOR ME PLB.
It should be simple enough, I have asked you many times now.
If science requires confirmation then it should be easy enough for you to do.
Posted by PLB
A simplified version of what happened is that mass 1 fell on top of mass 2. The dynamic load made the connection that held mass 2 fail. Still, this force slowed down mass 1 a bit.
After the connections failed, mass 1 and mass 2 fall further together to the next floor. The additional mass actually has a positive effect on Ke and Momentum during the fall. And the resistance was hardly increasing, if at all.
Originally posted by -PLB-
My point is, even if you are right (although it is pretty much speculation you must agree),
Seemingly, Jones has a different agenda.
Originally posted by ANOK
What stopped the connections that held the floors in the top section from failing? If you were for once in your life actually include the equal opposite reaction laws, that you keep ignoring, you would have to address the fact that the falling mass is less then the impacted mass, and would fail before it could cause the impacted mass to completely fail.
That it was a 'dynamic load' is irrelevant, it is a falling mass and has to abide by the laws of physics no matter what you call it. You think it makes you sound smart keep calling it a 'dynamic load' but fail to realise how irrelevant the term is in this context. It's also irrelevant that columns, or trusses failed, when it come to resistance, the floors and the steel pans they sat in would create resistance as they stacked up. If you have no stacking floors then you have no pancake collapse, where are the floors to do any pancaking?
The collapse did not slow down at all btw. You can pretend it did, but in fact if you believe it was a pancake collapse you would have to conclude the collapse had to speed up in order to not be slowed from the loss of Ke to other energy such as friction/resistance, deformation, sound, heat etc.
You do understand Ke HAD to be lost right? IF the collapse had started to slow it would have continued to slow. So how could the collapse NOT have slowed? Where did all the floors that you claim built up and continuously added weight go, they just disappeared afterwords? You can't have it both ways, floors can not both pancake, and be ejected out of the footprint.
Again you ignore equal opposite reactions law, the fact that the lower floors will push back equally on the falling floors, and will resist the collapse. There will be no mass added because you would be losing as much mass from the top as the bottom, and the top would run out of mass before the bottom. 110 floors resisting the collapse of 15 floors, it's not rocket science.
Any experiment that shows a ~9.8m/s acceleration of a falling mass in a vacuum confirms it.