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
Bob,
I’ve been thinking about our failure to communicate and I thought that I would make an attempt to clarify my view of the physics involved and exactly what I’m claiming. First, when a moving object hits an immovable object (m1 << m2), the kinetic energy it contains is instantly transformed. Some of it may remain in the object as kinetic energy with it's momentum changed (bounce), some of it may be transferred into the earth as seismic energy or into the atmosphere as sonic energy. The rest of it is instantly transformed into thermal energy in the object (the energy stays were it is but changes form). The law of conservation of energy tells us that energy is conserved in any collision and this case is simple enough that we can track it all. In the case of an asteroid 10k wide moving at escape velocity there is an enormous amount of kinetic energy released resulting in enough heat to cause the mantle to form a crater as well as a fireball and seismic wave. This is all caused by the kinetic energy of the impactor becoming so much thermal energy that the meteorite literally explodes. In the case of the WTC rubble, this effect is far smaller in magnitude, but the same in principle. Every bit of rubble had somewhere between 65 and 85 m/s worth of kinetic energy which was converted (mostly) to heat at the moment of impact. It also had whatever thermal energy it had received earlier in the form of kinetic energy converted via work done in bending steel and pulverizing concrete. Additionally, while the 10,000 J/cm^2 energy density probably only occurred near the center of the collapse and would only result in a roughly 20 degree temperature rise in iron, the density may have been locally higher in places and would engender different responses in different materials, depending on their specific heat and density. Aluminum has a specific heat almost twice that of iron (at room temp), but it's density is far lower (I couldn't quickly find good numbers for specific heat and heat of fusion, but if I can track them down, I can do the calculation). Some materials are going to heat up more than others and there will be heat transfer between them, we don't know how hot any particular thing will get, but we can calculate the thermal energy that will have been added to the rubble pile as a whole (theoretically, I could make an estimate of the temperature increase of the rubble as a whole, but it would be a lot of work for a very shaky estimate at best). And it's the better part of half a teraJoule. When I say the the energy is sufficient to melt 100 metric tons of iron, the implicit part of that sentence is 'if it were concentrated in 100 metric tons of iron'. No, its not going to melt the rubble like an impactor can melt the mantle of the earth, but it is going to heat things up. It isn't surprising to me then, that the rubble pile is very hot and retains that heat for a long time – Unfortunately, I have no idea what value to use for the coefficient in the heat equation, so I can't do the calculation (and the rubble pile was decidedly not homogenous) but I suspect that the rubble was a fairly good insulator. When you add to this with multi-fuel fires both before and after the collapse, plus the fact that hot iron reacts exothermicly with steam and also produces hydrogen which would react exothermicly with oxygen (I've tried to find information on the energy produced in these reactions, but no luck yet). These reactions are important because they generate heat regardless of the temperature of the reactants (so, unlike fire, they could theoretically be responsible for melting steel). Given all of these heat sources, I thing that molten metal and persistent high temperatures are only to be expected at ground zero. Bob and Robert (and Buddha and Byron as well), if there are any parts of this analysis that you disagree with or don't understand, let me know and I'll try to explain it better or we can compare our respective knowledge to its object and determine the truth.
That was a little longer than I had intended it to be and is probably very dense (no way am I going to reread it – I apologize for any typos), but I think it gets all of the concepts across and I tried to clear up the points where you might have mistakenly thought that I was violating laws of physics. Goodnight all.
Robert said:
“All of your calculations for energy transfer take place on the head of a pin, and they happen instantaneously.”
(Well, in the head of a pin – so to speak.) I’ll let you in on a little secret, you’re right. In the moment of impact the kinetic energy of an object striking the earth is instantly converted to thermal energy (among other things). There is no time needed for transfer, because the energy remains in the same location it was in before the impact.
Robert said:
“I think your references to meteor impacts and atomic bombs may have led you astray. Even your bullet reference is an instantaneous event.”
Each collision of a bit of rubble with the earth is also an instantaneous event.
Robert said:
“I was hoping that you would get the difference between an explosion and an event of longer duration. I was also hoping that you would understand the difference between imparting energy on a point, and that of imparting energy on an area.”
I understand the difference very well, thank you.
Robert said:
As to the bending of iron beams, the reason they get hot is deformation. This is a form of friction. It is internal friction at a molecular level.”
Yes, when a beam is bent, kinetic energy is transformed into heat energy through the process of friction.
Robert said:
“When an object hits the earth, it transfers its kinetic energy to the earth.”
You’re thinking of momentum. Look up ‘inelastic collision’ in wikipedia. See what it says there about the change in kinetic energy. One instant the KE is there, the next instant its not. Where did it go? It couldn’t have moved anywhere in an instant, so it is logical to assume that it didn’t. I say that it was instantly transformed into thermal energy (along with a few other things that don’t amount to much of the original energy). It HAD to go somewhere. Just tell me where that energy is if it is not present in the object as heat.
“The energy continues along the path of least resistance.”
This sentence is meaningless. Energy is transferred and transformed in a variety of ways. It all eventually ends up as heat – that’s what the second law of thermodynamics says.
Robert said:
“You may be able to consider a very small portion of that energy to generate heat. In addition the area upon which it impacts determines the force exerted. This is represented in kg/m^2 or psi. We don’t end up with a puddle of joules.”
energy is not an entity on its own. We always refer to the energy of an object, or a electro-magnetic, sonic, or seismic wave. There is a gravitational potential in all of space around a planet, but only an object can have gravitational potential energy.
Did anyone else notice that Bdaman disappeared when the fur started flying in this discussion? At least he has the instincts of a small rodent to scurry for cover when there are large predators about.
Bob,
As a postscript to my last post, if I’m ever in a courtroom I want you as my lawyer and if you’ve ever ridden in a Saturn L200, you’ve trusted my modeling.
Bob,
I’ve enjoyed this debate as well. As I have previously indicated, your criticism showed me where my arguments were weak and unclear allowing me to improve my theory and my model. I’ll listen to what Buddha has to say (as I’ve listened to everything you’ve said) and if you (or Buddha or anyone else for that matter) would like to email me privately, My advisor is the current chair of the Duke Math department and I am his most recent graduate student. The address (lastname)@math.duke.edu will reach me, but be careful spelling my last name. I am (obviously) certain that I am correct and I assume that you are confident in your opinions as well. In all probability some of our disagreement is from each of us not understanding each other’s positions and some of it results from one (or both) of us being wrong. If you would like to discuss this privately in an effort to alleviate the former in the hopes of determining the latter in the absence of you dancing around me with rhetoric and me bludgeoning you with numbers, I welcome it.
Slartibartfast,
Short answer, you committed two major fallacies in your reasoning and your inelastic collision explanation for the heat generation requires changing the earth’s gravitational acceleration.
I just wrote Buddha a long email. Here’s hoping he can explain it to you; seeing you obviously don’t want to hear it from me.
Fun debate though I must say.
lol
I didn’t see that, but I got the email and responded earlier. Thus the post and this explanation of the patently obvious
Bob,
What you don’t seem to understand is that I know my analysis is true. I know it in the same way that I know the Pythagorean Theorem is true. I correctly applied the relevant laws of physics and performed the needed calculations. Anyone with enough knowledge of physics and math can repeat my experiment from the information I’ve posted here and will get the same results. I shaped my model to answer a specific question: “Can the energies involved reasonably explain observations of the collapse of the WTC?”. I have in no way misrepresented my results and I clearly pointed out what my interpretations of the results were and what I thought was reasonably inferred from it – that the answer to the question I asked is “Yes.”. We started this arguing about Occam’s razor. I said my scenario was simpler, you said otherwise. Well, I’ve laid out my case in numbers and laws of physics while you have yet to put a complete theory (of what led to the collapse of the twin towers and the observed heat in the rubble) in the field. What type of explosives were used? What is the yield? (you don’t get enormously better than TNT – I think the stuff they use for nukes is only like 8-10 times more powerful) What were the charges designed to do? Where is a physical model of the collapse that requires explosives to account for observations? When I say I’ve won, this is what I mean. I have a theory which accounts for all of the energy that was unquestionably stored in the WTC. You have nothing but a couple of facts that you say favor your point (and if you don’t think that large quantities of aluminum being present when half a terraJoule of energy is sloshing around hurts your argument, you’re blind). I said I know that my argument is correct – I don’t think you know what I mean by that. When a scientist (like me) says something like this is correct, they are staking their reputation on it. Now, I’m not going to have my reputation destroyed if it turns out that an argument I made on a blog is wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that I am that confident about this model. I am thinking of writing a short paper on this model. If I do, you could take the paper to any physicist (or other expert qualified to understand it) and they would tell you that it is essentially correct. I know this because there are rules in my world and the best part about these rules is that when you follow them the result is true and I have followed them. Byron and Buddha may think I have a good argument (that energy is accounted for more or less the way I described), I, however, have successfully learned and understood the laws of physics and the mathematics that are used to interpret them. I have correctly applied those laws and accurately completed the relevant calculations. I’ve gone all-in and showed you my hand, and it’s a royal flush. I know the full house you have looks good, but I don’t advise you to call. I have repeatedly acknowledged that, as Gyges said, you are master wordsmith and I’m sure you are an outstanding lawyer, but what you don’t seem to realize is that I’m good at my job, too. And my job is creating mathematical models. I’m not toying around with this on weekends, I didn’t just take some physics in college. I spent 4 years in college and another 10 as a graduate student and earned a BS, an MS, an MA, and a Ph.D. so that I could spend my time doing this sort of thing professionally. I am paid to create mathematical models and I couldn’t get anyone to do that if I wasn’t up to the task. You have continually disrespected me in this discussion even after I apologized for my own disrespect and behaved as politely towards you as I am able. I have repeatedly answered questions for you and Robert with patient answers based on the laws of physics even though you don’t seem to understand. In your ignorance you mock the truth and I’m getting tired of it. So if I seem arrogant, it’s because I’m annoyed with your willful ignorance and lack of respect in the face of my knowledge that I am speaking the truth. I don’t expect you to turn around and admit that I’m right, but I grow weary of you throwing stones from your broken-down glass house. While I’ll keep answering your attacks I no longer believe that you offer any relevant criticism of my model and I’m not going to hide it. I’ve made a prediction – there was as much as 200 GJ of energy present to collapse the structure, pulverize the materials and eject the pyroclastic flow. This prediction is out there. You can not touch it – you don’t have the physics or the math. Robert is speaking my language now. If he comes up with a number (and the theory to back it up) for the energy required to break loose a floor, it with either be more or less energy than I say is present. If it is less, it validates the model. If it is more it casts the model into grave doubt (and means that I will have to reconsider my opinion) unless I can refute his theory or his math or his numbers or find more energy in my theory (i.e. evidence for a longer collapse time). You are irrelevant to this process. Sorry.
Buddha,
Check your email
Bob,
Check your e-mail.
Bob,
I’m not sure where I mentioned free fall.
That has nothing to do with particulating aluminum. I corrected my over statement.
Please, elucidate. The only bodies in free fall I’ve mentioned are asteroids and THEY DO break the sound barrier because they are hauling some serious ass when they hit. But their free fall there has the added momentum of their natural state of motion. They are V = Δx/Δt + G.
But other than that? I haven’t mentioned free fall to my knowledge. Unless you mean the suspiciously orderly free fall of the debris. The planes are in powered motion, the buildings are stationary.
Sorry, buddy. You took a left turn there while I was looking for the last of the mescaline and I feel out of the Shark. Come back and get me and tell me about this free fall error I’m making.
I tend to agree with Buddha, at this point we are arguing for the sake of argument.
Bob and Robert think CD and crazy people, Slarti and I think big planes and crazy people.
I know I don’t have enough information to change my mind about this and obviously Bob and Robert don’t either.
Buddha,
Yeah, I’ve been seeing Bob get his Kant on up close and personal. It’s like staring down the barrel of Andy’s Dobie-O-Matic. (It’s a Far Side reference if you don’t get it.) This is definitely a heavyweight fight, glad your enjoying the show. I feel like I’ve gotten the upper hand now (I’ll explain why when in my next post to Bob). If you liked this, I hope you get a chance to see me engaged in an evolution debate (although it’s unlikely that anyone could do the job Bob’s done with intelligent design ;-)).
you said:
“The first rule of Fight Club is . . .”
Rule #2 is ‘No poofters’, right?
Buddha,
In Bob’s world, here on Earth, objects don’t break the sound barrier in free fall.
Get it?
We live on planet Earth Buddha; third stone from the sun with a gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. Surely you’ve heard of it. Come back … Buddha…
Raoul Duke: “Psychedelics are almost irrelevant in a town where you can wander in a casino any time in the day or night and witness the crucifixion of a gorilla [much less the fucking laws of physics here on EARTH!]”
Bob,
You and I both know it wouldn’t have to be perfect granularization of the aluminum. All it had to be was small enough pieces to get the surface areas exposure to oxygen the FeO and heat to ignite. I may have overstated the “dust” effect, but Al is soft and it shreds easy. Shavings would be all that’s needed with the addition of the FeO and the excess heat. Because while jet fuel burns cool, it does burn hot enough to ignite thermite.
Bob,
The specific heat of aluminum is much smaller than that of iron.
The Swiss explain nothing.
Besides.
You guys aren’t arguing my point. You’ve both conceded my observation and question are legitimate. You guys are playing football and I’m on baseball field.
But please continue to argue yours. I this is MUCH better than TV. And right now? It’s TV or abuse the hospital WiFi. It’s the first time I’ve got to watch Slarti in heavy action and I always like to see Bob get his Kant on. I will say Slarti’s take on physics and mine are slightly different as are mine and Bob’s (although mine is actually closer to Bob’s). This comes from our different paths to the subject I suspect.
So I’m not explaining shit. It’d ruin my entertainment. 😀
Who gives a damn who wins! The fight is the thing!
Now.
The first rule of Fight Club is . . .
Buddha: “Impact alone could have vaporized/aerisolized the aluminum.”
4566 °F??
What fell that fucking fast?
Byron,
I didn’t meant to imply you said thermite was created. But FeO and Al could still not only cause residue but reaction as well. It’d be like crappy, poorly mixed thermite, but who says that can’t ignite? “Making” isn’t the issue. The raw materials were there and exposed to heat. Remember – Fire is easy. Air Fuel Heat.
Robert,
Enough energy induces phase state changes in materials (see he asteroid impactor comments). Impact alone could have vaporized/aerisolized the aluminum. And Iron Oxides tend to be powdery anyway. It’s rust.
Slartibartfast: “Everyone else can see that I’m making an entirely reasonable argument based on the principles of physics.”
Your theory doesn’t even work on the planet Jupiter; yet you’re convinced you’re making a valid argument?
Slartibartfast: “I’ve clearly stated my assumptions, my methods, my results, and what I think the proper interpretation of those results are. You have ceased to make any valid criticisms of my model, simply because you can’t.”
3,000 mph or about Mach 3.94? What objects even so much as break the sound barrier when falling? And where do you get off with your petitio principii? Accusing you of assuming that which you claim you will prove is an invalid criticism? On what planet; the one where your steel is capable of reaching the velocity of 3,000 mph in free fall?
Slartibartfast: “I have built my argument on the laws of physics using the structure of mathematics.”
Greased up with a generous portion of fallacies.
Slartibartfast: “Built on the foundations of my assumptions, the structure is unquestionably true i.e. It’s been proven and cannot honestly be denied.”
Unquestionably true? Proven? You haven’t proven anything. In fact, given your claim that your theory cannot be denied, having based entire said theory on multiple fallacies of reasoning, you apparently wouldn’t be able to find a proper syllogism with two hands and a flashlight.
Piaget would have a field day with you.
Slartibartfast: “My assumptions were shaped by the scientific method and are the correct ones to answer the question I posed: “Was there enough energy in the WTC collapse to account for observations without the use of explosives?” My model answers this question and the answer looks like yes to me.”
Your model answers require changing the earth’s gravitational acceleration to make them work. Boy if I had a nickel…
Slartibartfast: “the model is falsifiable and by your and Popper’s definition, good science (that’s not the only way to falsify it, mind you).”
Since we live on earth, and steel cannot liquify by virtue of gravitational force, your theory is nonsense and most certainly non-refutable — since we can’t falsify your f’n imagination.
Slartibartfast: “You can continue using your golden keyboard to run circles around me, but I’ve already won and I know it. And deep down, I think you know it, too.”
What are you, a fucking five year old?
Buddha has said some flattering things about you; but let’s see him explain your behavior here.