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,
Please review the link provided in my previous post. re: joules
Again you limit the time for installation of thermite. Why? Why not permit installation to take place over a year or two?
Bob and Robert,
The two of you are arguing that there wasn’t enough energy in the collapse, requiring the addition of energy through incendiary or explosive devices while simultaneously asserting that we can ignore 800 billion joules of KE unquestionably present in the falling debris (of EACH tower) a moment before impact. You’re saying that we need more energy to make this work, but we’re ignoring 1,600,000,000,000 joules of energy in favor of explosives (you need the equivalent of 432 tons of TNT just to equal the energy you want to ignore) all placed covertly in the WTC in the days or weeks leading up to 9/11. Can you see why your argument lacks credibility?
Byron said:
“should you me and Bob write a book on this? The novel could be about thermite and planes so we cover all our basis. Lay the plot out so people can come to their own conclusion. Don’t end the book, I have a good ending in mind.”
I’m certainly writing enough for it… It could have two timelines (I’m a fan of SF) – one where the planes destroyed the towers and another where they were demolished…
Sorry for the delay in responding. I’m doing a little research. I wanted to find an accurate calculation of GPE. According to this analysis, the GPE of WTC-1 was about half a trillion joules.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
Now I’m looking into how much energy had to transfer into kinetic energy in the earth to permit the seismic readings detected. I’m also looking for how much energy would have been required to break a floor loose.
BobEsq:
A bridge usually falls in a long line and so the energy is not concentrated in a relatively small foot print.
I think no matter how you slice it, its planes.
It sure would make a great novel though.
Slarti:
should you me and Bob write a book on this? The novel could be about thermite and planes so we cover all our basis. Lay the plot out so people can come to their own conclusion. Don’t end the book, I have a good ending in mind.
Bob,
That’s a fine straw man you’ve built.
Byron: “If I had no knowledge of why the building came down I would look into what was causing the molten metal as part of my investigation.”
Which is to say that if you had competing theories, you would look to the theory that encompassed the entire event; i.e. explained the molten metal.
Now let’s say you built a very important bridge. I don’t know, a drawbridge protecting high tech planes for the DOD on the other side of a gorge surrounded by mountains; whatever. It’s a very important bridge with support columns open to passing traffic way down below on either side. You’ve designed the bridge withstand the force of impact of one of the largest trucks; maybe not one of those Caterpillar dump trucks that can flatten houses at 30mph, but the largest trucks for civilian highway use.
A truck hits one of the support columns, there’s a fire, a few hours later the bridge collapses. In the rubble you find molten steel. In your wildest dreams would you ever consider the energy released in the collapse as ALSO CONVERTED into heat energy? Or would Ockham’s razor tell you that it is now absolutely necessary to postulate the existence of another entity in the equation to account for the molten metal?
Buddha said:
“Robert,
I’m exactly claiming that any analysis of the WTC that doesn’t treat it as an isolated system for the purpose of checking net joules against conservation is flawed fundamentally from a formally logical analytical standpoint. You cannot as a practical matter discuss the transfer of energy with even minimal precision, much less absolute precision, without looking at imposing that artifice/limiter of putting the system in isolation. You are still creating an infinite regression without it. Assuming infinites are a mathematical abomination to be avoided in analysis of any sort, where do you suggest you stop your analysis of the transfer? Strength of the covalent bonds holding individual molecules together? The tensile strength of spacetime? Conservation applies. That you are applying it improperly is another issue.”
Right on again. Bob and Robert are trying to distract us with illogic so we don’t notice the 1.6 trillion joules that they are trying to hide (that’s 1/25th the energy released at Hiroshima for those of you scoring at home). By the way, infinities are just fine in mathematics, but any type of singularity is a problem when you’re using mathematics to describe the physical universe.
Robert said:
‘“It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time).” [wikipedia]
An isolated system is very important to energy conservation. I don’t think you are trying to claim that the WTC existed in an isolated system.’
We solve the ‘isolated system’ problem by taking note of energy flows into and out of the system. As long as we account for this, conservation of energy holds.
Robert said:
“When we say “used up”, it means that it has been distributed in such a manner as to render it not recoverable. It’s the not recoverable part that is so important.”
Yes, that is important. The ‘non-recoverable’ part of the energy has become randomized motion in the particles of the system (i.e. heat). You’re shooting yourself in the foot here.
Robert said:
“If we lift a 10 lb box 5 ft in the air, it has potential energy directly related to its height and weight. When we drop that box onto a pile of foam rubber, the energy is transferred, but not recoverable. Therefore, it is not conserved.”
The energy is not recoverable, but it is still there in the form of thermal energy in the foam rubber and box. Energy is ALWAYS conserved.
Buddha said:
“You mean the fan thing won’t work? Damn it! There goes my plans for how to get to Tahiti. Stupid ACME products . . .”
I’ve got a map you can borrow, just make sure to take a left turn at Albuquerque…
Bob said:
“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.”
You’re trying to ignore 2 eight hundred billion joule gorillas in the room. It doesn’t work that way.
Bob said:
““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.
Just to be clear, I’m not calling you insane, I’m calling your idea insane.”
That’s nice – I’m not calling you an idiot, I’m calling your ideas idiotic. Converting energy from one form to another is never 100% efficient (a consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics) – the problem for you is that the ‘lost’ energy ends up as heat.
Think of it this way: You’re keeping the accounting books for the energy in the system (which is gold in your analogy, so keep close track of it). Let’s trace the entries for the 2 trillion joules of GPE. Some of it went into pulverizing the building as it fell (and hence remains in the descending rubble), some of it was ejected in the pyroclastic flow, some of it flung girders out of the debris, and some of it resided as KE in the rubble heap a millisecond before impact. Can we estimate the how much of the energy resides in each of these forms? It turns out that in the case of the KE of the descending rubble we can. Assuming that the collapse took 6.6s vs. 6s for objects in free fall we can compute that the debris hit the ground at 54 m/s (vs. 60 m/s for an object in free fall). Considering that KE is proportional to the velocity squared (KE=1/2mv^2), we estimate that 82.6% of the original GPE in the tower was tied up in KE of the descending rubble a millisecond before impact. Let’s round this down to 80%. This means that the debris of EACH tower hit the ground with something like 800 billion joules of KE. You want us to believe that it is reasonable to account for 400 billion out of 2 trillion joules and consider your account complete? That’s idiotic.
Bob said:
“That is so wrong and so misleading. Energy is a finite resource; it does not float from one event to another like a ghost.”
My god man, do you ever think about things before you post them? Energy is eternal, it will continue to be present, possibly being transformed into other types of energy, forever.
Bob said:
“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.”
Wrong again. Energy is never ‘used up’. There is a tendency for energy to ultimately reside in the random motion of particles (Damn you second law of thermodynamics!) but another name for that would be ‘heat’. It is always an appropriate question to ask ‘what happened to the energy after that?’ as one thing we know for sure is that it still exists.
Buddha said:
“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.”
(r)Amen. (don’t want to offend any pastafarians who might be reading…)
Robert said:
“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.”
So you’re saying that you can violate natural law? Take any closed system (I’ve defined several closed systems that include the WTC and rubble pile) all of the energy initially in the system either (A) remains in the system in some form, or (B) is transferred out of the system in some way (energy may also be transferred into the system (i.e. EM radiation from the sun), but that’s not relevant to this discussion). You can argue that the energy is converted differently than I suggest it is (in which case you must explain where the KE that is undeniably in the descending rubble one millisecond before impact has gone to after impact – I’m not going to let you sweep 2 trillion joules under the rug) but if you argue that something else happens to the energy, you are committing a crime against nature 😉 and violating one of the laws of physics – which means that you’d better have your perpetual motion machine on my desk by noon tomorrow or you’re getting an F. 🙁
Bob posted:
“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?’”
Perhaps ‘unremarkable’ was not the best choice of words there – how about ‘not unexpected’? I’m saying that in investigating a collapse in which 2,000,000,000,000 joules of GPE was liberated, there were numerous fires burning (both before and after the collapse), and where conditions were conducive to various exothermic reactions, while the persistence of molten metal may be testimony to the magnitude of forces involved, it is a completely predictable consequence of the collapse and therefore not an anomaly requiring explanation. Just like no explanation is required (or one is immediately obvious) for tons of molten rock in a meteor impact crater.
Robert,
I’m exactly claiming that any analysis of the WTC that doesn’t treat it as an isolated system for the purpose of checking net joules against conservation is flawed fundamentally from a formally logical analytical standpoint. You cannot as a practical matter discuss the transfer of energy with even minimal precision, much less absolute precision, without looking at imposing that artifice/limiter of putting the system in isolation. You are still creating an infinite regression without it. Assuming infinites are a mathematical abomination to be avoided in analysis of any sort, where do you suggest you stop your analysis of the transfer? Strength of the covalent bonds holding individual molecules together? The tensile strength of spacetime? Conservation applies. That you are applying it improperly is another issue.
BobEsq:
“To put it another way, it made as much sense as Bugs Bunny using an electric fan to power his sail boat.”
Dont you know that Bugs had special batteries and a hydromite to produce electricity to charge those batteries? He used the fan only during the doldrums having stored excess wind energy in the batteries.
Robert:
I stand corrected pushing the box is work to overcome friction.
But I think the PE/KE is correct.
BobEsq:
I would look into all possible explanations. If I saw a pool of molten metal that would certainly raise some issues. But I would probably not be thinking thermite because I just saw 2 big planes crash into the towers.
If I had no knowledge of why the building came down I would look into what was causing the molten metal as part of my investigation.
I must disagree with you and Robert on this until evidence to the contrary is submitted which does not have an explanation other than it was thermite.
Buddha Is Laughing,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
“It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time).”
An isolated system is very important to energy conservation. I don’t think you are trying to claim that the WTC existed in an isolated system.
When we say “used up”, it means that it has been distributed in such a manner as to render it not recoverable. It’s the not recoverable part that is so important.
If we lift a 10 lb box 5 ft in the air, it has potential energy directly related to its height and weight. When we drop that box onto a pile of foam rubber, the energy is transferred, but not recoverable. Therefore, it is not conserved.
You mean the fan thing won’t work? Damn it! There goes my plans for how to get to Tahiti. Stupid ACME products . . .