Building Collapses in Rio

Originally posted by Darkwing01
That's funny, because in my profession

What profession? Conductor in the local orchestra? Do you have an extravagant haircut?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
and in many others an undergrad degree is not proof of anything more than a base a ability to manipulate some formulae.

I've never seen you post any formula. Ever. Perhaps you perceive the ability to construct the plural of a feminine Latin noun as a substitute for knowing math?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Undergrad degrees don't typically require any understanding.

How would you know? As soon as anything gets technical, you bail. A technical undergraduate is equivalent to ten masters degrees in whatever arts field you've majored in.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
You claim that idealization [sic] are used to great success, which is of course true. But idealization [sic] are ONLY used if they successfully predict things in the real world.

And they do. At least, they do much better than woolly sophistry and self-indulgent beard-scratching.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
You can cite equations till you are blue in the face, but they only describe the assumptions built into your model. Whatever outcome you reach is only true for your model, not all reality, unless you can also show that your model also actual systematically predicts real world phenomena it is not valid scientifically.

You can criticize equations until you're blue in the face, but until you (A) understand those equations and (B) through demonstrating you understand those equations, gain some much needed credibility and (C) by satisfying (A) and (B), convince the rest of us that your opinion on what constitutes a reliable model matters, we are not interested.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
This is what bugs me so intensely about you Irish, you think that no one can see through your jargon and spot the model underneath, a model which makes ROOSD and Bazant look like the height of sophistication.

What on earth are you on about? Do you think that pseudo-philosophical abstractions become valid as soon as you mention the word "model" > 15 times?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Psikey has his tube with paper loops and washers, you have a tube with sand poured down it. All the math aside, Psikey's is a far better model of reality especially considering that his is how real world collapses happen whereas yours exists only in your head.

No, you and Psikeyhacker's models are children's toys, whereas some Balzac-Vitry demolitions are real world examples of top-down crush all progressions which render your "experiments" irrelevant in the extreme. Which is why you tuck tail every time I mention this. Paper loops versus actual building. No contest. Next!

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Can we please cut through the pompous cr4p and concentrate on the fact that Psikey's paper loops are an approximation of reality and your sand tube is an approximation of whatever it is that you would like to prove?

See above, the more you clatter, bloviate and ramble on about your and your friend's embarrassingly inept grade school physics project, with some discs on a rope, in the face of reality-based Balzac-Vitry top-down demolition, the more you discredit yourself.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
We can do the math,

No you can't. You can't understand, grasp, nor critique math. You're allergic to it, in fact.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
idealization and simplification only when we have established the model has some real world predictive power, doing it before is just a waste of everybody's time.

I know what a waste of time is, and it's deeply related to the reduction of science to people ashore trying to play captain.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
You can derive your model mathematically too of course, but it has to be rigorous formalism, none of these touchy feelly interjections you come up with.

What would you know about math? What you've read in books about the philosophy of science? Have you ever even solved an equation? Just curious?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
But whether you start with the model or the formalism either is worthless if it fails to predict novel events in reality.

That's just the thing. That 'novelty' you're talking about. How can anything new ever be established if it requires precedent first? Can you answer that one Darkwing? Thank you.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by huh2142

 

You can't do science like this.

You can't look at the towers, divine a cause and then model such that that cause is shown. That is a textbook example of pseudoscience. Tweaking the model to match the input it was developed from is the first rule of how NOT to do modelling.

That is not what I'm proposing. You do not understand what I'm telling you. You do not understand modeling. It is very obvious that you do not have the intellectual capacity to carry on a logical conversation. You are the one that is using pseudoscience to support your theory. You are making crap up and calling it science. Have fun wallowing in your ignorance.

Originally posted by huh2142
If your physical model doesn't show the same results as reality then your model is wrong. Gravity, fire, damage due to plane impacts explains the collapse of the twin towers. The tube in tube design can not be modeled as washers supported by paper rings with a broom stick handle through the washer centers.

Or there is some aspect of reality which people are failing to recognise or acknowledge. The top of the south tower tipping 22 degrees is the most obvious indicator of that. And then physicists don't ask about the center of mass of those 29 stories, but the center of mass of the plane is mentioned numerous times in the NCSTAR1 report. Most peculiar.

The problem here is the dispute over whether airliners and fire could destroy the towers.

This has changed from a physics problem to a psychological issue but physics does not and cannot care about psychology. But if we just stick to the physics there is no reason whatsoever why we should not have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. Accurate data won't change how the physics worked. The NIST even admitted the information was necessary to analyse the airliner impact.

But there are still arguments about how much concrete was in the towers.

forums.randi.org...

Sources from before 9/11 say there was a total of 425,000 cubic yards of concrete in both towers. That would be more than 300,000 tons per tower. That is not what Gregory Urich came up with though.

psik

Originally posted by snowcrash911
No, you and Psikeyhacker's models are children's toys, whereas some Balzac-Vitry demolitions are real world examples of top-down crush all progressions which render your "experiments" irrelevant in the extreme. Which is why you tuck tail every time I mention this. Paper loops versus actual building. No contest. Next!

Or for that matter, the buildings in Rio, which this topic is about. Although we don't know the exact mechanism there, I have read that collapse started in higher floors. It does prove, without a doubt, that the support structure holding a building up, can completely fail as result of localized damage to the support structure.

The reasoning based on that model of psikeyhackr is completely flawed. "I made something that is nothing like the WTC and it did not fully collapse. I am too incompetent to make something that does completely collapse. Therefor INSIDE JOB".

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But if we just stick to the physics there is no reason whatsoever why we should not have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. Accurate data won't change how the physics worked. The NIST even admitted the information was necessary to analyse the airliner impact.

The data for the steel and concrete is out there from many sources.
You don't what to do with it. Therefore you chose to ignor it.

Perhaps you should concentrate you studies on the damage caused by the fire. Because none of the physicst question the fact that once the collapse started nothing would stop it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Or for that matter, the buildings in Rio, which this topic is about. Although we don't know the exact mechanism there, I have read that collapse started in higher floors. It does prove, without a doubt, that the support structure holding a building up, can completely fail as result of localized damage to the support structure.

Of course, a concrete building is not a steel framed high riser, but I am saying that a top down pneumatically-induced collapse of a concrete apartment building is a hell of a lot better than paper loops. So, I'm astounded that anyone advancing a paper loop model cannot see this and then adds insult to injury by lecturing about the scientific method and the validity of models.

I am also saying that due to Galileo's Square-Cube Law, scale models of the WTC are extremely difficult to construct. Even though one can allegedly compensate by using spaghetti strands for columns, crackers for floors, etc. etc... I'm unconvinced it'll suffice. The forces at play during dynamic loading with something the scale and size of the WTC vastly exceed the material strength of the building components. There is a reason horses and elephants break their bones sooner than cats. SC-law governs everything from structural engineering to biomechanics. Allegedly SC-law isn't taught in high school physics curriculum due to the dinosaur conundrum... (dinosaur size appears to contradict SC-law, but this has been contested) SC-law is also the reason why the largest animals on earth are sea-based. Water buoyancy compensates for problems animals of that size would have to grapple with on land.

Once those upper floors of the WTC were poised to move downward, that 3.7meter allowed for sufficient momentum buildup to crush the concrete and overcome the strength of the floor connections. At that scale and mass, force applied through gravitational acceleration vastly exceeds material strength. Paper loops can't model this, at all.

reply to post by snowcrash911

A technical undergraduate is equivalent to ten masters degrees in whatever arts field you've majored in.

You seem to imagine I have only one degree....

I've never seen you post any formula.

Anybody can post impressive looking formulae, and anyone can read short little descriptions about what each term means and write simple visualizations based on them.


Some people do that sort of thing for a living and can do it quicker than others, but there is nothing special about solving or citing a formula. What point is there in arguing about formulas and running simulations when whatever the output is you find some cheap excuse to deny it?

I'll you what, and I kid you not here. If you can come up with a set of formulae that makes an actual replicable real-world surprising prediction about a model that everybody here can agree actually means something in this context we can have another e-peen measuring competition about who can cite the most formulae in the shortest period, okay?

I promise I'll even let you win.

But you don't have a model do you? You don't have a clue how to start looking for a model. So instead you just solve any old equation you find in your textbook and hope it will magically mean something all of a sudden.

Well I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it just doesn't work that way.

I am talking to the same Irish here who solemnly argues that a good physical description has no need to be either scientific or conform to some of the basic laws of physics to be acceptable. Who believes that math can substitute for logic. The same Irish who thinks that measurement doesn't need to take frame of reference into consideration, who sincerely believes that models can validated by the very same data they were developed from.

Are you kidding me? You wonder why I would get exasperated?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But if we just stick to the physics there is no reason whatsoever why we should not have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. Accurate data won't change how the physics worked. The NIST even admitted the information was necessary to analyse the airliner impact.

The data for the steel and concrete is out there from many sources.
You don't what to do with it. Therefore you chose to ignor it.

Perhaps you should concentrate you studies on the damage caused by the fire. Because none of the physicst question the fact that once the collapse started nothing would stop it.

And the many sources contradict each other. Gregory Urich contradicts an engineering magazine from 1970. Many sources from before 9/11 say there were 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of steel in the two towers. The NIST agrees on the steel but does no specify a total for the concrete. That much concrete would be more than 300,000 tons.

psik

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by snowcrash911
No, you and Psikeyhacker's models are children's toys, whereas some Balzac-Vitry demolitions are real world examples of top-down crush all progressions which render your "experiments" irrelevant in the extreme. Which is why you tuck tail every time I mention this. Paper loops versus actual building. No contest. Next!

Or for that matter, the buildings in Rio, which this topic is about. Although we don't know the exact mechanism there, I have read that collapse started in higher floors. It does prove, without a doubt, that the support structure holding a building up, can completely fail as result of localized damage to the support structure.

The reasoning based on that model of psikeyhackr is completely flawed.

The topic is the absurdity of JREFers talking about building collapses in Rio when the buildings were only 20 stories tall in comparison to the collapses on 9/11.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I don't see anything absurd about this at all. It's not as tall as the twin towers, for sure, but if carefully examined, we might learn something about buildings and collapses. Very likely this tragedy was caused by poor construction standards, or faulty construction that did not follow the design correctly.

How is the height of the buildings even relevant to the "paper loop" school of thought? I mean, your model is not representative of any particular building, but you claim that it behaves as the twin towers should have. Why does your model apply to the twin towers, and not to this building?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The topic is the absurdity of JREFers talking about building collapses in Rio when the buildings were only 20 stories tall in comparison to the collapses on 9/11.

Thats pretty funny coming from "Mr. Model". You keep insisting someone build a model and when you are presented with a smaller scale incident you claim its not relevant because of size. Pathetic.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
You seem to imagine I have only one degree....

What degrees do you have?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Anybody can post impressive looking formulae, and anyone can read short little descriptions about what each term means and write simple visualizations based on them.

Solving a third degree polynomial. What's your point? Is there a point? When will you critique the subject at hand in this thread and the math IWW posted?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Some people do that sort of thing for a living and can do it quicker than others, but there is nothing special about solving or citing a formula. What point is there in arguing about formulas and running simulations when whatever the output is you find some cheap excuse to deny it?

In fact, it's very special. It separates the mathematicians and the physicists from the charlatans.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I'll you what, and I kid you not here. If you can come up with a set of formulae that makes an actual replicable real-world surprising prediction about a model that everybody here can agree actually means something in this context we can have another e-peen measuring competition about who can cite the most formulae in the shortest period, okay?

I promise I'll even let you win.

You have already been presented with such a set of fomulae, a few pages back, and you're studious in ignoring it, resorting to more pseudo-scientific blathering. There is no 'win', because that implies you're actually participating in technical discussion instead of derailing it with pretentious blather. It needs to be said. You do this everywhere you go. Disruptive, vacuous and meaningless.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
But you don't have a model do you? You don't have a clue how to start looking for a model. So instead you just solve any old equation you find in your textbook and hope it will magically mean something all of a sudden.

Again and again and again. Drop the word 'model' and you pretend you've stated something meaningful and you've contributed to the discussion. Hilariously, you leap to the defense of another 'model' of a bunch of paper loops on a rope, telling me all I need to know about your grasp of 'models'.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Well I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it just doesn't work that way.

News or nonsense?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I am talking to the same Irish here who solemnly argues that a good physical description has no need to be either scientific or conform to some of the basic laws of physics to be acceptable.

That's a lie.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Who believes that math can substitute for logic.

Another lie.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
The same Irish who thinks that measurement doesn't need to take frame of reference into consideration, who sincerely believes that models can validated by the very same data they were developed from.

Don't make the accusation, prove it. You're just throwing around accusations hoping something will stick, without context, without sources, without honesty, and without even a modicum of understanding of the scientific principles you lecture about. Very unfortunate.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Are you kidding me?

No.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
You wonder why I would get exasperated?

Not really.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Darkwing01
But whether you start with the model or the formalism either is worthless if it fails to predict novel events in reality.

That's just the thing. That 'novelty' you're talking about. How can anything new ever be established if it requires precedent first? Can you answer that one Darkwing? Thank you.

Bump for Darkwing.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The topic is the absurdity of JREFers talking about building collapses in Rio when the buildings were only 20 stories tall in comparison to the collapses on 9/11.

Thats pretty funny coming from "Mr. Model". You keep insisting someone build a model and when you are presented with a smaller scale incident you claim its not relevant because of size. Pathetic.

Have you noticed people constructing buildings while using materials AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE?

psik

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The topic is the absurdity of JREFers talking about building collapses in Rio when the buildings were only 20 stories tall in comparison to the collapses on 9/11.

Thats pretty funny coming from "Mr. Model". You keep insisting someone build a model and when you are presented with a smaller scale incident you claim its not relevant because of size. Pathetic.

Have you noticed people constructing buildings while using materials AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Have you noticed people constructing buildings while using materials AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE?

psik

Spaghetti Warehouse comes to mind. I'll never set foot in a building made of dried pasta.

reply to post by snowcrash911

But whether you start with the model or the formalism either is worthless if it fails to predict novel events in reality.

That's just the thing. That 'novelty' you're talking about. How can anything new ever be established if it requires precedent first? Can you answer that one Darkwing? Thank you.

Good question. You can't. That is why the scientific method is the standard and not mathematical formalism alone.

Google: Dilek Arli: THE PARADOX OF ANALYSIS (ON THE POSSIBILITY OF AN INFORMATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONCEPTS)

If you describe your data perfectly correctly in terms of a set of mathematical formulas you cannot have gained any new knowledge without having made a "mistake". For a long time people thought there was a way around this but three important results showed that this issue is intrinsic to math itself and cannot be reduced out of the system, they are (in chronological order):

Russel's Paradox
The incompleteness theorem
and the entscheidungsproblem

Taken together these four insights show that you cannot do what the logical positivists wanted to do and that you and Irish and the rest of the guys down at the pub want to do, which is to dispense with the "science" part of the scientific method and deal only with formulae.

The only way to learn something is to develop a theory (or a model of behavior for whatever it is you are trying to describe). Using math you can systematically describe that model and develop predictions for what SHOULD occur in the real world if your model is indeed correct, but that isn't contained in the data you have at hand. The classic example is the weather, where you predict TOMORROW's weather and get no prizes for "predicting" yesterday's weather.

It is only by comparing what we think SHOULD happen in terms of our formulae with what DOES happen in a new situation that isn't included in our original data that we can learn anything at all about the world.

I am not making this stuff up Snow, it is called the scientific method, and if it worked well for Newton it can work well here too.

SnowCrash, I honestly have no idea what this clown thinks I do, or you do. He doesn't read, he doesn't understand, he projects his concept of what's going on without even looking at what is...

I'm still wondering what he was referring to when he talked about my "model" and sand tubes. Complete gibberish; like he's talking about someone else. It all sounds very nice until my name appears there in the text and I wonder, "what the hell?" I have a model? And it's sand in a tube? WTF?

The latest round of lying tops anything previous.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Not exactly analogous, but here this is a very crude example:

Say your data is: [3, 5, 7...]
Your model is all odd numbers greater than one are prime.
Your formula is y is odd if y=2x+1 where x is a non-zero natural number.

This model is perfectly valid as long as you only test against the data used to derive it, but fails the moment you include "external" data.

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are asked to test the following hypothesis: All odd numbers greater than one are prime.
The mathematician: "Three is a prime, five is a prime, seven is a prime, but nine is not a prime. Therefore, the hypothesis is false."
The physicist: "Three is a prime, five is a prime, seven is a prime, nine is not a prime, eleven is a prime, and thirteen is a prime. Hence, five out of six experiments support the hypothesis. It must be true."
The engineer: "Three is a prime, five's a prime, seven's a prime, nine's a prime..."

This is exactly what sunk the Black-Scholes model by the way, proof that complex internally valid math does not external reality dictate:
en.wikipedia.org...

Like I said, I have no idea WTF he's talking about. What data? Analogies to thin air, cutesy anectdotal quotes that have nothing to do with anything.

I think he needs to take a break from his jihad.