We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
Slartibartfast,
Just to be clear, I’m not calling you insane, I’m calling your idea insane.
It’s like you’re trying to build a perpetual motion machine just to explain the existence of the molten metal.
To put it another way, it made as much sense as Bugs Bunny using an electric fan to power his sail boat.
It doesn’t work that way.
Slartibartfast: “When you find yourself suggesting that energy was ‘USED UP’, you should probably take a step back and ask yourself where you are going wrong – energy is NEVER created or destroyed – this is natural law – you aren’t allowed to violate this any more than you can go faster than the speed of light. A little bit of thought would have told you that this argument is bunk anyway – first, where did the energy go after pulverizing the concrete and such? (hint: into the random motion of particles (i.e. heat) But let’s ignore this –.”
That is so wrong and so misleading. Energy is a finite resource; it does not float from one event to another like a ghost.
I didn’t say the energy was destroyed, I said it was used up; as in used up in the event. Events end. Baseballs and footballs come to rest, planes running into buildings are stopped by the opposing forces of the steel and concrete they’re pushing against. The Ke was used as work to BEND AND BREAK the building. We do not ask “where did the energy go after that” because its been used up in the event.
“Where did the energy go after pulverizing the concrete and such?”
You’re asking where ALL of it went. That’s tantamount to saying that I can develop a mechanism by which I recoup all that energy used in the event and recycle it to do another one just like it.
That’s insane.
Robert,
And what is preventing the application of a physical law to a physical system? That’s prime facie illogical. You state conclusory certainty of something that is manifestly incorrect. Physics is physics. Unless you also think gravity doesn’t apply to the WTC collapse too. But I’m thinking you’ve been far too reasonable to this point to be that manifestly insane. However, that’s exactly the quality of assertion you’ve just made about conservation. I suggest you rethink that and formulate some evidence as to why a law that applies to all the visible universe yet somehow doesn’t apply to four square blocks of Manhattan. Because you simply saying it doesn’t apply does not make it so.
Buddha Is Laughing,
I agree that the laws of conservation of energy are a real phenomena, but they cannot be applied to the falling of the WTC. Energy conservation laws cannot be applied to the WTCs.
Slartibartfast: “I assume if someone from NIST saw information about molten metal, they thought that it was unremarkable for it to be there (as I do). I’m not defending NIST….”
Byron,
As an engineer responsible for keeping people from being killed in accidents resulting from shoddy design and workmanship; do you think NIST had the luxury of overlooking molten metal as something ‘unremarkable?’ Or might you, and Karl fucking Popper, consider it a major component of the evidence to be analyzed in FULLY explaining the ‘collapses?’
Byron,
If you were investigating the collapse of something you built and one of your employees told you he ignored the existence of molten metal, wouldn’t you fire that employee for complete incompetence; possibly for being a liability as well?
Robert said:
“After reading the last comments by Slartibartfast and Byron, I’m just left shaking my head. Science has been replaced by stories. As if gravity is a major influence on the effect of a meteor hitting the earth? Plastics burn at 1300 degrees, for five days?
Throwing scientific terms into a pile is not science.
“Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.” – Jules Henri Poincare”
I thought that Byron summed up a response to this quite nicely, so I’ll just say ditto, but replace structural engineer with scientist. Then you went and tried to use a quote by one of my personal heroes (Poincare was an amazing genius – decades before computers he understood the beauty and complexity of fractals ) against me. Well, clearly you don’t understand that I’ve been building a structure stone by stone trying to teach you and Bob the basics of the physics in play here. Instead of trying to understand the two of you are choosing to be willfully ignorant. I’ll answer your question about gravity being the major influence on the SPEED at which a impactor hits the earth (by at least determining a minimum impact velocity, although I said it could be greater) by giving you the equation of motion. Consider a meteor a distance d from the earth traveling at a relative velocity v0. The velocity of the meteor as a function of time is given by the differential equation:
dx/dt = v0 + (integral from d to r0) M*G*[x(t)]^(-2) dt
where x(t) = distance from the center of the earth at time t
dx/dt = the velocity of the meteor at time t
M = the mass of the earth
G = the universal gravitational constant
r0 = the radius of the earth
You merely have to solve this equation for x(t), determine t0 such that x(t0)=r0 and then compute v(t0) (v(t) = dx/dt = velocity; v(t0) = impact velocity). This will give you impact velocity as a function of initial velocity – i.e. it will allow you to determine the significance of gravity in determining impact velocity. While this is a difficult to do analytically, it is straightforward to compute numerically, so I’ll just assume that you can do the rest yourself (sorry I don’t have the time to do it myself for at least a couple of days). I just saw Byron’s response to your other post and it is spot on – well done Byron. As for ‘Plastics burn at 1300 degrees for five days’, I’ve already told you about 3 sources of heat in the rubble and none of them required plastic burning at 1300 degrees or for five days.
Buddha,
Thanks for the assist.
Bob said:
“You’re not only leaving out the method of conversion, but you’re double dipping with the energy.
Let’s use the gold example. Say all my energy is stored in the form of gold. If I use ALL my gold to buy silver, then I’ve used up my ‘energy’ and it converted to silver. If I have any copper pennies laying around, it’s mere chump change as a result of the gold to silver conversion. (I just made that metaphror up and I’m on my first cup of coffee)”
You probably should have waited until after your second cup. 😉
Bob continued:
“Likewise, if I have a shitload of kinetic energy and it slams into a building, that KE is used up as it’s converted into pure force, work energy, etc., etc. WORKING to destroy all the things necessary to punch that hole in the building, rip apart the plane and bring the plane to a stop. Once the event ends, the balance of your energy bank account per the Ke of the Plane is gone. You used it up when it did it’s WORK on the building and the plane itself. This is why your question about ‘where did the Ke in the rubble go’ sound absurd — because it was USED UP in the creation of the rubble.”
When you find yourself suggesting that energy was ‘USED UP’, you should probably take a step back and ask yourself where you are going wrong – energy is NEVER created or destroyed – this is natural law – you aren’t allowed to violate this any more than you can go faster than the speed of light. A little bit of thought would have told you that this argument is bunk anyway – first, where did the energy go after pulverizing the concrete and such? (hint: into the random motion of particles (i.e. heat) But let’s ignore this – say you’re right, KE was ‘used’ to break up the structure of the building and say that this took the lion’s share of the energy originally stored as GPE, what would this imply – well, if that kinetic energy was converted into something else, the collapse would have slowed down – but the collapse wasn’t much slower than free fall speed (I know, you’re going to suggest that rolling demo charges took out the structure just below the collapse allowing it to go faster – try telling that to a demolition expert sometime – do it when he’s taking a sip of coffee, it will be funny…), what you can’t deny (except by willfully ignoring facts) is that you’ve still got a large mass of rubble moving at near free-fall speeds. In other words, right before that mass of rubble slams into the ground, its still got the lion’s share of that 2 trillion joules. Upon slamming into the ground, that kinetic energy becomes random energy of motion in the particles – heat. Same deal with the airplane. Unless the fuselage exits the building (which it didn’t), all of the kinetic energy contained in the airframe has been converted to other forms – mainly heat. To use your silly analogy, if I’ve got a whole bunch of gold, I can but some sliver and copper and not significantly change the amount of gold that I have.
Bob said:
“The jet fuel, on the other hand, IS CONVERTED INTO HEAT ENERGY when it burns. E.g. flight 175 spent most of its fuel in a pyrotechnic display when it exited the other side of the building. Another factoid; are you aware that jet fuel doesn’t stay lit when it’s merely lying on the ground? Saw that one on Mythbusters. Requires an aerosol state to ignite and stay lit. Just like on your oil burner.’
Question: Does jet fuel act as an accelerant to fires which are already burning? (Like gasoline or kerosene does. Hmmm… kerosene, why does that seem familiar?) Hint: The answer is a three letter word starting with Y and ending in S.
Bob said:
“My point is this; just as your gold won’t double in amount by sitting in a vault, energy cannot be created by attempting to use it twice. Now I know you’re going to say ‘some’ of the energy was converted to heat, and I’ll say it was so minute, as in the bending of metal type friction heat as to be as negligible.”
On what grounds do you make this assertion? What happens to the NEARLY 2,000,000,000,000 joules of KE that was clearly present a millisecond before impact? In order to make my point about KE being converted into thermal energy, I would like to ask you what happens when an asteroid 10km in diameter slams into the Earth at 14 km/s? I find that extreme cases like this frequently help to clarify things, so please answer this question.
Bob said:
“More later.”
Oh boy, I can hardly wait. By the way, I’m sure you heard Isaac Newton’s quote about being able to see so far because he’s standing on the shoulders of giants – well, let me tell you, the view from his shoulders is amazing!
Buddha,
re conservation of energy and closed systems. I defined the closed system to be the universe as there are no energy flows into or out of the universe (by definition), thus it is clearly a closed system. Neither Bob nor Robert can tell me where the KE goes when the rubble hits the ground in this system either. And their appeals to inefficiency of energy transfer, while true, are like trying to bail out the ocean with a teaspoon. They’re getting nowhere fast. Thanks for trying to explain closed/isolated systems to them although I fear the attempt was in vain.
Robert,
Eh, I’m going to have to disagree on your interpretation of the utility of isolation as related to conservation. It is a real phenomena. You cannot overcome E=mc^2. Conservation is a consequence of relativity. That we use an artifice to constrain analysis (isolated systems) doesn’t mitigate conservation as a natural phenomena – it just makes it practical to apply to structural analysis. As you said, you know a reactor isn’t perfectly closed. Herein lies your problem. The analysis of conservation would be a problem of infinite regression without the fiction of an isolated system telling you “STOP! Close enough to make sure things work.” Working out the actual inefficiency in a system with absolute precision (also a term you should wiki) is impossible as a practical reality. Isolated systems are simply that stop sign saying “You can go further, but why?”
I should have just left it as a “closed” system. We transfer heat energy (intentionally) but not mass.
Buddha Is Laughing,
Thanks for the Wikipedia link. I think that’s where Slartibartfast is getting confused about the laws of conservation of energy. i.e. they only exist in theory.
In nuclear power plants we attempt to create a closed or isolated system. (We like to keep the radioactive liquid on the inside.) Even there, we accept that it is not completely isolated. Insulation is only so good. Friction fights against our pumps and piping. And the purpose of the primary side (the reactor side) is to create energy that will go out to sea, or into the atmosphere (secondary cooling).
Byron,
If moving a 20 lb box across the floor doesn’t require work (conversion of energy), I’ve got a summer job for you. :>)
It doesn’t pay anything, but that should be ok, because there is no work involved.
Raising the box requires more energy (you have to overcome gravity), but some of that energy is retained in the form of potential energy.
Remember, Potential Energy doesn’t necessarily have to do with height. A compressed spring or a charged battery are forms of potential energy. Force (work) is the conversion of some potential energy into kinetic energy. Friction is generally considered a loss of energy. I squared R losses (I don’t know how to type exponents) are the friction of electricity.
Robert,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
The definition of conservation of energy is related to isolated systems, not closed systems. It’s an important distinction. Isolated systems do not exist in reality. They are an analytical construct. Conservation applies everywhere physics applies. Describing systems in isolation is a tool for our convenience in simplifying analysis.
Byron,
I have a BS in Nuclear Engineering. I’m also a certified nuclear grade welder. Energy is my game.
You should read this. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.com/wtc/arch/docs/WTCtower_FloorElevatorArrangment.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.com/wtc/arch/plan.html&h=980&w=1306&sz=263&tbnid=B_NvsaVH7z4jOM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Btrade%2Bcenter%2Bdesign&hl=en&usg=__Hx0vnUVYoYL4FByrUdf2f5acRiU=&ei=dLAnS_ulFNHBlAeo8KSlDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=8&ct=image&ved=0CCUQ9QEwBw
Even if the floors gave way, the core would have remained. The floors may be a horizontal structure that can pancake, but the core was a vertical structure. Even if a part of the core broke loose, the most likely thing to happen is a glancing blow to the steel below it.
I would have a better chance of winning the lottery 5 times in one year than those buildings would have of coming down evenly. Failure of multiple components does not repeat evenly in nature.
Robert:
isn’t work related to raising an object of a certain mass a certain height?
A box on the floor has no Potential Energy unless the floor is above the ground. Work is the amount of energy required to raise said box off the floor. Said work is then turned into PE, once box falls it has Kinetic Energy.
Box moving in an easterly direction has a force pushing it to the east (a scalar and a vector). Friction is resisting that force, friction is a function of box mass and surface coefficients of both box and floor. Force of push must be stronger than force of friction for box to move. Excess force is heat. Once box is moving it has kinetic energy in the amount of 0.5MV^2. This is what turns into heat.
Force of planes went into cutting building skin and columns, heat energy of aviation fuel went into heating members. All of that contributed to over stressing remaining members. Once remaining members overstressed they failed and down comes towers. Potential energy in towers is converted to kinetic energy. Reason building did not topple – 2 of Sir Issac’s laws, a body will remain in motion (and same direction) unless acted upon by another force. No other force acted on building so it went straight down.
Sir Isaac very bright man.
Bob Esq.,
Your Gold to Silver analogy adds to the confusion. I think some basic principles of physics are being misunderstood. It would probably be better to establish the basics.
What happened with the WTCs did not take place in a closed or isolated system. Conservation of energy only works in a closed system. Even the best attempts to create a closed system fail.
I think we all will agree that it requires energy converted to work to move a 20 lb box 10 feet to the east. When the box reaches the destination, it has no additional PE, and being stationary it has no KE. Where did that energy go? What happened to the conservation of energy?
Robert:
are you a scientist or an engineer? Not that that matters but I am not a lawyer and so do not know all of the nuances of the law.
I cant speak for Slarti but what I have relayed to you is my opinion based on the facts as I know them. These facts were gleaned from sources both pro and con and watching at least a few hours of video tape on theories and the actual fall of the buildings.
My opinion was derived from my basic understanding of structural engineering and materials (I have a degree in structural engineering and I am licensed so I have a state sanctioned minimum level of knowledge) and my understanding of the facts.
Could I be wrong, yes certainly and if other facts come to me that would warrant a change in my opinion I will do so. To date I do not have sufficient evidence to change my opinion.
I can answer most of the questions I have with simple explanations that fit with my knowledge of structural engineering principles. I also have some field experience and have heard steel break under tension/compression and seen the effects.
I don’t think Slarti and I are telling stories, we are formulating an hypothesis based on our knowledge of science and engineering. Could we be wrong, most certainly but until such time as there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary I shall believe it was the force of fully loaded jet airplanes flying at over 500 mph that brought those towers down.
Slartibartfast: “Yes, the plane punched into the building – at the end of the impact, the KE of the plane was gone – converted mainly into TE contained in the plane/WTC system. ‘Enough KE to melt 4 metric tonnes of steel’ comes from the estimated speed and weight of the faster of the two planes to hit the WTC.”
I’ll get back to the rest of your post later, but forgot to mention one more problem you exhibit with your analysis.
You’re not only leaving out the method of conversion, but you’re double dipping with the energy.
Let’s use the gold example. Say all my energy is stored in the form of gold. If I use ALL my gold to buy silver, then I’ve used up my ‘energy’ and it converted to silver. If I have any copper pennies laying around, it’s mere chump change as a result of the gold to silver conversion. (I just made that metaphror up and I’m on my first cup of coffee)
Likewise, if I have a shitload of kinetic energy and it slams into a building, that KE is used up as it’s converted into pure force, work energy, etc., etc. WORKING to destroy all the things necessary to punch that hole in the building, rip apart the plane and bring the plane to a stop. Once the event ends, the balance of your energy bank account per the Ke of the Plane is gone. You used it up when it did it’s WORK on the building and the plane itself. This is why your question about ‘where did the Ke in the rubble go’ sound absurd — because it was USED UP in the creation of the rubble.
The jet fuel, on the other hand, IS CONVERTED INTO HEAT ENERGY when it burns. E.g. flight 175 spent most of its fuel in a pyrotechnic display when it exited the other side of the building. Another factoid; are you aware that jet fuel doesn’t stay lit when it’s merely lying on the ground? Saw that one on Mythbusters. Requires an aerosol state to ignite and stay lit. Just like on your oil burner.
My point is this; just as your gold won’t double in amount by sitting in a vault, energy cannot be created by attempting to use it twice. Now I know you’re going to say ‘some’ of the energy was converted to heat, and I’ll say it was so minute, as in the bending of metal type friction heat as to be as negligible.
More later.
After reading the last comments by Slartibartfast and Byron, I’m just left shaking my head. Science has been replaced by stories. As if gravity is a major influence on the effect of a meteor hitting the earth? Plastics burn at 1300 degrees, for five days?
Throwing scientific terms into a pile is not science.
“Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.” – Jules Henri Poincare
Slarti:
I am enjoying this, although I think Bob has some physics and calculus under his belt. Not all attorneys just studied political science or Latin.
He does make some good points that I cant answer, namely that site did stay hot for a good long time. Although I think there is a simple explanation such as all of the plastic from the thousands of computers and other flammable debris and the fact that all of that rubble would have made a good insulator and the fact that 5 sides were insulated by ground and concrete so radiation could only occur out the top for all practical purposes (isn’t there some relation between surface area and heat loss?).
But you have reinforced my belief that airplanes and fire were what killed the beauties.
Byron,
Sorry, your reply got bumped again. Take it as a sign of respect. 😉
Robert said:
“The towers are not a closed (or isolated) system. You cannot impose the laws of an isolated system upon an open system. If the towers were a closed system, you would be able to account for all of the energy. You can’t.”
Take the closed system to be the universe (surely no energy from the WTC collapse could have escaped the universe?) Where did the kinetic energy of the falling WTC go? I say a good portion of it turned into thermal energy in the rubble pile.
Robert said:
“Was energy lost? It sure was. That pyroclastic flow= lost energy. The sound emitted as the tower came down= lost energy. Those projectiles thrown great distances away= lost energy. The force used to break the floors free= lost energy.”
Robert, energy is never lost – never. It can be converted into other forms or transferred out of (or into) the system. And I’ve specifically said that energy went into pulverizing materials (the pyroclastic-type flow and breaking the floors), but 2 trillion joules is a lot of energy and you think it went into the bang and flinging some girders about? You’re suggesting that removing a couple of grains of sand gets rid of the beach.
Robert said:
“I have no doubt that you are very good at your job. What is the extent of your education in the engineering field?”
Thank you. I’ve never pretended to have any training in engineering, just math, science (and critical thinking which you could use).
Bob posted:
“Robert: “Judging from the angle of the top floors in the photo, how was downward force applied to the back side? The weight of the top floors was only applied to some of the floors below. If the steel was weakened, why didn’t the top section just continue to fall off?”
Are you asking how the ‘official’ story accounts for the reverse in angular momentum of the top of the South Tower; i.e. how did the back side collapse increase so quickly as to keep the section from toppling off?
Good question. If I were from Kansas, I’d say it smacked of intelligent design.”
Wow. That’s such an apt analogy. Comparison to a theory with no scientific merit.
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast “The closed system would be the twin towers (either standing or in the rubble pile). Now any energy contained in this system (namely, 2 trillion Joules of gravitational potential energy)”
You are aware that the NASA thermograph puts the rubble of Building 7 at more than 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit five days after the collapse; aren’t you?”
I am now. That’s pretty hot (not like center of the sun hot but a lot warmer than high noon in the desert (except maybe on Mercury). So what?
Bob said:
“BTW, didn’t it bother you at all that an engineer from NIST, sent out to give a lecture at a university on what happened to those buildings on 9/11, could be completely ignorant of any ‘molten metal’ at ground zero?
How is it that both you and I know that fact but someone from NIST ‘claimed’ to have not?
That doesn’t annoy you?”
Not particularly. I assume if someone from NIST saw information about molten metal, they thought that it was unremarkable for it to be there (as I do). I’m not defending NIST – I saw (on the 911research site you sent me to) that the entire ground zero cleanup/investigation was done under the auspices of FEMA which is not a body which handles investigations. If only there were some way to judge the competence of FEMA during the Bush administration… Let’s see what another city close to New York alphabetically thinks – how about New Orleans? … Oh… They don’t seem to say very nice things about FEMA at all. Never attribute to conspiracy that which is more simply explained by incompetence. Heck of a job Bobby.