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
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Slarti/Bob:
I think you both are right on the bullet. Think depleted Uranium shape sabot and then down size to steel jacketed bullet.
Some heat is from barrel, some heat from impact.
I know a 303 British steel jacketed bullet puts about a quarter size hole in 1/2″ steel plate and it looks melted but that may just be coincidence.
Slartibartfast: “Incorrect. The kinetic energy of the bullet has become thermal energy in the deer/bullet system – not a lot (compared to the heat capacity of the system, but that’s where the kinetic energy of the bullet went.”
If energy is defined as the capacity of an object for doing work, is it your contention that the bullet merely kept the fucking deer warm? The bullet did no WORK on the internal organs of the deer? SERIOUSLY?
Slartibartfast: “It is always reasonable to ask ‘Where’s the energy now?’ since energy is neither created or destroyed.”
Of course, but once an event has completed, or once the capacity of an object for doing work has been EXPENDED, we observe the actual work product.
You on the other hand engage in the fallacy of ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy (‘after this then therefore because of this’) when it comes to the energy stored in the towers. “There was molten metal in the debris after the collapses, therefore the collapses must have caused (created) the molten metal.”
Slartibartfast: “Let’s try a thought experiment, okay.”
And people accuse me of getting lost in inner space…
Slartibartfast: “Get your favorite gun and a steel wall thick enough to stop the bullet. Fire the gun at the wall and pick up the bullet. After you stop screaming and treat the burns on your fingers (I recommend aloe), ask yourself, “Where did this heat come from?”
I place a .243 cartridge in my model 70. The firing pin ignites the powder in the cartridge; the burning powder converts chemically into hot gas; the hot gas propels the bullet down the rifle barrel; in order for the bullet to follow the rifling groove there must be FRICTION; that friction of the bullet against the barrel adds to the heat created by the hot gas leaving us with a hot bullet and a hot barrel — thus the reason high powered rifles use metal jacketed bullets; i.e. to keep the bullet from melting due to the friction and hot gas within the barrel.
And not for nothing, but if you’re looking to bark up that meteor tree again, the average speed of a high powered bullet, (with a high ballistic coefficient) is in the neighborhood of 3,000 feet per second, or about .95 km/sec. One eleventh the minimum speed of a meteor. Where does the majority of the kinetic energy go when that hot bullet hits the steel plate? Flattening it. Might the friction of the bullet compressing against itself as THE ENERGY OF THE PROPELLANT “WORKS” IT WAY TO FLATTEN THE BULLET upon impact create some heat? Maybe. But seeing the bullet is already hot enough to burn my fingers once it leaves the barrel, I’ll go out on limb and say the heat generated from compression is negligible in comparison–something tantamount to the heat created by bending a wire coat hanger back and forth–warm but not BURNING HOT.
There’s a finite amount of energy in the powder and when we ignite the powder, releasing its energy, most, BUT NOT ALL, of the energy is transformed into the bullet’s motion. The remainder, i.e accounting for the ‘energy is neither created nor destroyed’ factor, takes the form of barrel heat & wear, unburned powder, etc. IOW, ALL THE ENERGY IS ACCOUNTED FOR.
How am I doing so far?
Slartibartfast: “Did it come from the chemical propellant?”
See above.
Slartibartfast: “Not if your gun and bullet were of an efficient design (any energy heating the bullet here is not going in to speeding the bullet up).”
I’ll have you know it’s a mint condition Pre-64 Winchester Model 70 heavy barrel fitted with a Leopuld Vari-XIII … oh wait, you’re talking about one of dem der magically efficient imaginary guns; ain’t ya? Yeah, well we don’t see many of them round these parts…
Slartibartfast: “Did it come from friction? Maybe a little bit, but do you think the temperature of the bullet will be effected by halving or doubling the distance to the wall?”
Shoot much? Byron does; ask him what he thinks.
Slartibartfast: “No? Well then, friction must have been a minor component of the heat.”
Don’t believe what I said before about the reasoning for copper jacketed bullets on high power rifle cartridges? Try typing the words ‘copper jacket lead would melt’ into google and see what comes up on the first hit.
Slartibartfast: “What’s left? The kinetic energy of the bullet transformed into heat. By exactly the same process which occurred when the rubble pile slammed into the ground. Don’t believe me? Go get a gun and try it yourself.”
Wasn’t this exercise fun?
For the Record said:
“WTC 7 had a hole 20 stories tall (in a 40 story building)
you bumped your head, apply an ice pack and go lie down before you have a meltdown.”
Bob,
See, this is the problem with you posting your pseudo-scientific sounding ignorance – it breeds this kind of crap.
From http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let’s review the evidence…
What we do have for sure.
1) Fireman saying there was “a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” “I would say it was probably about a third of it”.
2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, “that building doesn’t look straight.” He then says “It didn’t look right”.
3) They put a transit on it and afterward were “pretty sure she was going to collapse.”
4) They “saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13”.
5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.
6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.
7) The collapse happened from the bottom.
8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can’t see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
[…]
What we don’t have…
1) Clear view of the large hole
2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact
3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side
4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
WTC 7 had a hole 20 stories tall (in a 40 story building)
you bumped your head, apply an ice pack and go lie down before you have a meltdown.
Bob,
In regard to errors in reporting on 9/11, look up the term ‘fog of war’ and ask yourself if you think that everyone was 100% accurate in obtaining and relaying information on 9/11.
Bob,
WTC 7 had a hole 20 stories tall (in a 40 story building) torn in it by debris and thick smoke billowing out of it from fires that the NYFD couldn’t fight. I call that massive damage.
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “If you just tell me what happened to the kinetic energy of the rubble and convince me (or Buddha, Robert, and Byron) that you’re correct, I’ll let this drop. I think this energy turned into a seismic shock, a big kaboom, and heat in the rubble pile. What have you got?”
What happens to the kinetic energy of a bullet when it hits a deer? Answer, (assuming soft point) part of it makes the bullet mushroom and the rest goes into shredding the vital organs of the deer (assuming a well placed shot.)”
Incorrect. The kinetic energy of the bullet has become thermal energy in the deer/bullet system – not a lot (compared to the heat capacity of the system, but that’s where the kinetic energy of the bullet went.
Bob said:
“You don’t look at the dead deer and ask “where’s the kinetic energy now?” The only way that question would be applicable is if you missed the f’n deer.”
It is always reasonable to ask ‘Where’s the energy now?’ since energy is neither created or destroyed. Let’s try a thought experiment, okay. Get your favorite gun and a steel wall thick enough to stop the bullet. Fire the gun at the wall and pick up the bullet. After you stop screaming and treat the burns on your fingers (I recommend aloe), ask yourself, “Where did this heat come from?” Did it come from the chemical propellant? Not if your gun and bullet were of an efficient design (any energy heating the bullet here is not going in to speeding the bullet up). Did it come from friction? Maybe a little bit, but do you think the temperature of the bullet will be effected by halving or doubling the distance to the wall? No? Well then, friction must have been a minor component of the heat. What’s left? The kinetic energy of the bullet transformed into heat. By exactly the same process which occurred when the rubble pile slammed into the ground. Don’t believe me? Go get a gun and try it yourself.
Bob said:
“Likewise, if a structure falls, THROUGH THE PATH OF GREATEST RESISTANCE, and the kinetic energy from the collapse goes into shredding the building, making noise, pulverizing concrete and all that jazz, when the event is over, you don’t look at the pile of rubble and ask “where did the kinetic energy go?” You’re looking at it in the rubble. What goes up must come down. Your 1.6 million joules were deposited during the building the towers and they were withdrawn upon collapse. You learned that in the seventh f’n grade. But instead of conceding the point, you hit me with this cosmik debris theory and these metaphysical claims of ‘energy is eternal’ so eternal it sounds like your next step is to create a car that never runs out of fuel.”
This is equally daft, but I need to finish this off for the night, so I’ll just note that I’m talking about trillion, not million – i.e. 1,600,000,000,000 joules, not 1,600,000 joules – this is not a small amount of energy to misplace. Robert’s bought you 5 to 10,000,000,000 joules and I’m sure you can get a megajoule or two out of the kaboom and a bit more from flying debris, but you’ve got a long way to go and you’re running out of options…
Bob said:
“The closest kinetic energy comes to heat energy is through the mechanism of FRICTION. But you don’t even attempt to account for that conversion either.”
Friction is converting kinetic energy into thermal energy, but (in my opinion) this effect is many orders of magnitude less significant.
Slartibartfast: “Nice try Bob. WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed as a result of damage suffered in the plane strikes. WTC 7 collapsed as a result of (massive) damage sustained when WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed.”
Actually, according to FEMA, there was no structural damage from the collapse of the North Tower. They said that a piece of debris from that collapse breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. That piece of debris had to travel across WTC6 and Vesey St., penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of WTC 7, including a concrete masonry wall.
And it was all that ‘burning fuel oil’ that not only managed to completely bring down a steel building for the first time in history, but its collapse was explained by the BBC 20 minutes before it ever happened.
Slartibartfast: “And you still haven’t let us in on where you stashed 800,000,000,000 joules of kinetic energy (not including WTC 7).”
Of course you wouldn’t want to include the hottest spot in the NASA thermograph; i.e. the rubble of Building 7 at more than 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit five days after the collapse. Ain’t it amazing how WTC 7 was able to mimic the miracle of physics performed by its brothers WTC 1 & WTC 2; when it’s not even 1/3 its size & mass?
Slartibartfast: “If you just tell me what happened to the kinetic energy of the rubble and convince me (or Buddha, Robert, and Byron) that you’re correct, I’ll let this drop. I think this energy turned into a seismic shock, a big kaboom, and heat in the rubble pile. What have you got?”
What happens to the kinetic energy of a bullet when it hits a deer? Answer, (assuming soft point) part of it makes the bullet mushroom and the rest goes into shredding the vital organs of the deer (assuming a well placed shot.)
You don’t look at the dead deer and ask “where’s the kinetic energy now?” The only way that question would be applicable is if you missed the f’n deer.
Likewise, if a structure falls, THROUGH THE PATH OF GREATEST RESISTANCE, and the kinetic energy from the collapse goes into shredding the building, making noise, pulverizing concrete and all that jazz, when the event is over, you don’t look at the pile of rubble and ask “where did the kinetic energy go?” You’re looking at it in the rubble. What goes up must come down. Your 1.6 million joules were deposited during the building the towers and they were withdrawn upon collapse. You learned that in the seventh f’n grade. But instead of conceding the point, you hit me with this cosmik debris theory and these metaphysical claims of ‘energy is eternal’ so eternal it sounds like your next step is to create a car that never runs out of fuel.
The closest kinetic energy comes to heat energy is through the mechanism of FRICTION. But you don’t even attempt to account for that conversion either.
Bob posted:
“Byron: “I think no matter how you slice it, its planes.”
Just one more problem with that theory, as I stated before …
The NASA thermograph puts the rubble of Building 7 at more than 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit five days after the collapse.
No planes Byron.”
Nice try Bob. WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed as a result of damage suffered in the plane strikes. WTC 7 collapsed as a result of (massive) damage sustained when WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed. And you still haven’t let us in on where you stashed 800,000,000,000 joules of kinetic energy (not including WTC 7).
Byron: “I think no matter how you slice it, its planes.”
Just one more problem with that theory, as I stated before …
The NASA thermograph puts the rubble of Building 7 at more than 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit five days after the collapse.
No planes Byron.
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “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).”
I’m illogical? You’re the one making the energy in the towers pull double duty. Not only is it used up in the shredding of the building, but it SOMEHOW sticks around, perhaps by request of Maxwell’s Demon, to create heat sufficient to melt steel!
I’m being illogical??”
Yes, you’re being illogical. I’m the one insisting that energy is neither created or destroyed but may change into other forms. Maxwell’s Demon would be the best explanation you’ve provided so far of what happened to the equivalent of 100 metric tons of TNT (per tower) that you refuse to consider. If you just tell me what happened to the kinetic energy of the rubble and convince me (or Buddha, Robert, and Byron) that you’re correct, I’ll let this drop. I think this energy turned into a seismic shock, a big kaboom, and heat in the rubble pile. What have you got?
Bob said:
“You can’t just say ‘stuff happened.’ Come on.”
Well, it did, but I’m trying to be a little more precise…
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “while the persistence of molten metal may be testimony to the magnitude of forces involved,”
HOW?? How is molten metal testimony to the magnitude of the forces involved. You’re a scientist; give me an explanation. Show me the math instead of laying this Indiana Jones Science rap on me.”
I’ve been giving you numbers, equations, and computations – If you want I can ‘show you the math’ tomorrow. Below you admit that KE is converted into thermal energy in an impact – I’ll add some comments, but you have admitted to the mechanism already. (Incidentally how does me using the term ‘conspiracy theory’ to describe a theory which alleges the twin towers were brought down by a conspiracy using CD compare with you calling my comments ‘Indiana Jones Science’ in terms of poisoning the well? You ‘Nuked the Fridge’ a ways back…)
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “Just like no explanation is required (or one is immediately obvious) for tons of molten rock in a meteor impact crater.”
Right, so assuming the building collapsed at free fall speed, within 8 seconds, approximately the time it took to collapse, it would have a velocity of approximately 55m/s. Compare that with a f’n meteor, which I believe you stated would be traveling at a minimum velocity equal to the escape velocity of earth, or 11,000 m/s (or 11km/s) and you are telling me that the collapse of the building, which at 8 seconds into the event is only moving at 1/2 of one percent the velocity of a meteor, is comparable to the creation of a crater from said meteor.”
Yes, I am saying that the difference between these two phenomena is scale – just like the difference between a firecracker and a nuclear weapon (both impacts, both explosions). I’ve quantified the energies involved here (an impactor 10km in diameter yields 4 x 10^23 joules vs. 4 x 10^11 joules (per tower) you refuse to account for in the WTC collapse) all you’ve done is say ‘but that doesn’t matter’ in violation of conservation of energy.
Bob said:
“The meteor that’s traveling so f’n fast that the rear of the object on impact is still traveling so fast that it creates heat from the compression of collapsing on itself? That meteor?
Please. Let’s get real.”
Yes, the kinetic energy of the metorite is converted into thermal energy (a big explosion) via impact with the earth. Exactly the same thing that happened when the debris of each of the towers slammed into the ground (albeit on a much smaller, but still very big, scale). I’m being real and you keep losing credibility when you make my arguments for me while refusing to account for 400 billion joules of kinetic energy present in the rubble the moment before impact. It was unquestionably there, I’ve estimated its magnitude, and it went somewhere. I think it turned into heat in the rubble pile via exactly the same mechanism seen when an impactor hits the earth (or the moon or any other solid (remember Shoemaker-Levy 9 and Jupiter) planetary body). If you have any explanation of where this energy might have gone I’ll gladly listen, but all you have done so far is throw a tantrum about having to obey the laws of nature. Do you think that what happened to 80% of the gravitational potential energy of the WTC is unimportant? When you are arguing for the need for thermite to account for molten metal representing a tiny fraction of the energy that I’m talking about? Can I please have some of what you’re smoking?
Robert said:
“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.
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.”
That’s fine, cut all of my estimates in half then. Remember, you’re trying to account for 400 billion joules of energy. I did the calculation for seismic energy (based on a magnitude 2.1 quake when one tower fell and got a number I consider ridiculously low (~0.005 tons of TNT – likely a result of a lot of loose estimates…) – looking it up in wikipedia, I find (in the article on the Richter scale) that a quake of magnitude 2.0 is the equivalent of 1 metric ton of TNT or 4.2 billion joules, so I think you’re going to come up a little short on this one… 😉 I will congratulate you, however, as this is definitely a legitimate drain of energy from the system. Don’t forget the big kaboom, too – that might get you another megajoule or so. Unfortunately, the energy to collapse the floors (and pulverize them) remains in the rubble so this wont help you (it would still be interesting to know).
Slartibartfast: “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).”
I’m illogical? You’re the one making the energy in the towers pull double duty. Not only is it used up in the shredding of the building, but it SOMEHOW sticks around, perhaps by request of Maxwell’s Demon, to create heat sufficient to melt steel!
I’m being illogical??
Byron: “I think no matter how you slice it, its planes.”
Did you catch the part about NIST not being able to reproduce the event in a computer simulation; that whole non-refutability problem?
But if you think you’ve got the chops, let’s see the math.
BTW, how did those planes create the explosions in the basements of the Towers?
Slartibartfast: “That’s a fine straw man you’ve built.”
No, it’s a process hypothetical designed to take us through the scientific method with the help of the law of parsimony.
Slartibartfast: “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,”
You can’t just say ‘stuff happened.’ Come on.
Slartibartfast: “while the persistence of molten metal may be testimony to the magnitude of forces involved,”
HOW?? How is molten metal testimony to the magnitude of the forces involved. You’re a scientist; give me an explanation. Show me the math instead of laying this Indiana Jones Science rap on me.
Slartibartfast: “it is a completely predictable consequence of the collapse and therefore not an anomaly requiring explanation.”
Wrong again Mr. Popper. NIST was never even able to create a model explaining the collapse; i.e. it was ‘non-refutable’ in the BAD SCIENTIFIC METHOD WAY. Further, how can you say something is predictable when you’ve provided pure speculation and ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION as to the mechanism by which the KE was converted into heat energy.
Slartibartfast: “Just like no explanation is required (or one is immediately obvious) for tons of molten rock in a meteor impact crater.”
Right, so assuming the building collapsed at free fall speed, within 8 seconds, approximately the time it took to collapse, it would have a velocity of approximately 55m/s. Compare that with a f’n meteor, which I believe you stated would be traveling at a minimum velocity equal to the escape velocity of earth, or 11,000 m/s (or 11km/s) and you are telling me that the collapse of the building, which at 8 seconds into the event is only moving at 1/2 of one percent the velocity of a meteor, is comparable to the creation of a crater from said meteor. The meteor that’s traveling so f’n fast that the rear of the object on impact is still traveling so fast that it creates heat from the compression of collapsing on itself? That meteor?
Please. Let’s get real.