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
Robert said:
“When one object hits a stationary object, does the energy transfer to the stationary object, or is it retained in the object that was moving? Is it all or nothing? Momentum would indicate that it transfers.”
First of all, the objects make a difference. When one of the objects is the earth and one of the objects is the WTC we get to take advantage of the fact that the center of momentum frame of reference is located about 100 picometers from the center of the earth. This simplifies things. To go back to your hammer/plate analogy, kinetic energy is transformed into sonic, seismic, and thermal energy. The TE is the lion’s share of the energy and it remains in the head of the hammer. After the instant when the hammer strikes this heat behaves according to the heat equation. Momentum isn’t KE. Momentum is ALWAYS conserved, KE is not.
Slarti,
When one object hits a stationary object, does the energy transfer to the stationary object, or is it retained in the object that was moving? Is it all or nothing? Momentum would indicate that it transfers.
We started off with a GPE of just under 400,000,000,000 joules for each tower. I’m not going to deduct anything for breaking the floors loose or pulverizing the concrete. I’m just going to consider that all 400 billion joules were converted to kinetic energy and hit the ground.
Did these 400 billion joules land on the head of a pin? No. We all know they didn’t. They landed in an area the size of the building’s footprint (actually larger than that, as evidenced by photos). 400 billion joules landed in an area that is 64m x 64m. That’s 4096 square meters. If the head of a pin is 4096 sq. meters, Slarti’s calculations are valid. If the head of a pin is not 4096 sq. meters, Slarti’s calculations are invalid.
400 billion joules landed in 4096 square meters. Even a math wizard can see that an even distribution would be 97,656,250 joules per square meter. (How many pin heads in a square meter?)
Immediately upon impact, the energy contained in the falling material was transmitted to the impact area. The falling material stopped. Since it was now on the ground it had no potential energy, and since it was no longer moving it had no kinetic energy. When the impact occurred, it would be reasonable to consider that some friction existed, and that some deformation took place. For the most part, the energy was transmitted into the earth. (Slarti wants to completely ignore this. He has to. He wants to consider the universe to be his isolated system, but does not include the energy transmitted to the universe, or the earth, or even Manhattan Island, in his calculations.)
According to Slarti’s calculations, if we take a 100 kg hunk of steel and drop it from a height of 100 meters, the majority of energy will be converted to thermal energy. GPE = mass times height times gravity. For this experiment, that would be 100 x 100 x 9.8 = 98,000 joules. Using Slarti’s calculations, what should be the temperature increase? (Remember, Slarti never identifies the method of transfer, he just says it will happen.)
We’ll consider the specific heat to be a constant of 450 J/kg. The temperature change would be 98,000 Joules divided by 100 kg divided by 450 J/kg = 2.18 degrees C (or a little under 4 degrees F) This is assuming that the steel landed flat, and that no deformation took place.
Does anybody think this heat transfer (without accounting for friction and deformation) even really takes place? (I know Slarti does) Would it be uniform and instantaneous throughout the steel block, or does heat enter at one point, and flow?
In a previous experiment, Slarti stated that the head of a nail gets hot when you hit it with a hammer. Why just the head of the nail? What happen to instantaneous uniform transfer? Was it friction (mostly in the form of deformation) that generated the heat in the nail head?
I hope you’re starting to see that Slarti’s claim that KE becomes TE by magic just doesn’t work.
Slarti’s calculations completely ignore contact mechanics.
When we discuss impacts, we discuss the force of that impact. Bullets, meteors, and even World Trade Centers, impact other objects with force. None of these are true inelastic collisions. In a previous post, Slarti said “These types of collisions are referred to as inelastic collisions. This essentially means that there was no ‘bounce’ – the particles stuck together after the impact.” This assumption is not supported by the evidence. With the exception of the steel I-beams, pretty much everything else DID NOT stick together. Some of that occurred on impact. They do not account for deformation or bounce. Yes Slarti, the pieces of the WTC did bounce a little, but gravity (still being exerted) and the dust cloud made that bounce unnoticeable.
Force is directed energy. i.e. The force of a hammer hitting a nail. The force of a bullet hitting an object. When a bullet hits a solid object of much higher density, some of the energy deforms the bullet, and some of the energy is transmitted thru the object to the earth. (Of course a shotgun blast is probably closer to what takes place when the WTC falls. This would require dividing up the force by the number of shot –But that is not accounted for in Slarti’s model) This is known as energy redistribution. Since force is directed energy, and since it rarely takes place on the head of a pin, we calculate force over an area. The most common way we examine force over an area is by PSI or kg/m^2 (or SI or dynes).
Can we calculate the force of impact for the World Trade Center collapse. The answer is Yes and No. We know that the entire building DID NOT impact the ground below at the same time. For our calculations, I’ll consider it all to hit at the same time.
Is anybody in disagreement with what I have just stated?
The word ‘heat’ should not appear between ‘iron plate’ and ‘so thermal energy’ in my previous post.
Robert said:
“In the first part of your experiment, why did the head of the hammer heat up, but not the square of metal, and ultimately the floor? Was the majority of energy retained in the hammer head, or did it transfer to the metal square?”
The kinetic energy of the hammer was converted to thermal energy. The head of the hammer was in thermal contact with the iron plate heat so thermal energy could flow between them after the instant of collision.
I do not have an infrared thermometer. I cannot think of an easily performed experiment that will demonstrate this phenomena – the KE and TE involved in day-to-day things is not that much (that is why it is easier to illustrate this principle using large quantities of energy with obvious effects (like the impactor example). If you use a hammer with a 1 kg steel head and swing it with constant acceleration though an arc 1 meter long in 0.5 s, the temperature raise in the hammer is approximately 0.018 degrees C.
Slarti,
Do you have an infrared thermometer?
Slarti,
In the first part of your experiment, why did the head of the hammer heat up, but not the square of metal, and ultimately the floor? Was the majority of energy retained in the hammer head, or did it transfer to the metal square?
In Robert’s hypothetical he was hitting an iron plate with a hammer and hitting a nail with a hammer. Just to get some things straight up front: hitting an iron plate or a nail with a hammer is an inelastic collision (I’ll assume for the duration of this argument that the hammer doesn’t bounce in either case), the hammer is the object with kinetic energy before the collision, the hardwood floor is not compressed by the plate being struck with the hammer (this would lead to minor parasitic effects that I would just be distracting), and our system is the hammer, the nail, the plate, the floor and the earth (I’m ignoring the sonic energy emitted and will also ignore the seismic energy emitted).
Robert said:
“Slarti, Energy is conserved in the universe. However, if you’re going to consider the universe to be your isolated system, you must be able to account for all energy transfers in the universe. The only reason you consider your isolated system to be a universe is to avoid accounting for it.”
I’m only interested in accounting for the GPE stored in the WTC on 9/10/2001. I need to choose my system as large enough that this energy does not leave it. You required the system to be closed or isolated. The universe satisfies both of these conditions. The energy that I’m tracking remains in the system and I’ve accounted for all of the forms this energy takes that I am aware of. I’m claiming I’ve accounted for the vast majority of it (with the exception of the GPE left in the rubble pile, which just has the predictable effect of lowering the KE that became TE slightly and would be a pain calculate).
Robert said:
“I assert that kinetic energy becomes thermal energy in each individual piece of rubble”. How? What is the method by which the energy is transferred? It’s you model. You must be able to identify the method of energy transfer.”
Inelastic collision.
Robert said:
“I want you to perform an experiment: You will need a hammer, a hardwood floor, a nail, and a 3′ x 3′ piece of hardened steel.”
I have gathered the necessary equipment in my mind. 😉
Robert said:
“Put the piece of hardened steel on the hardwood floor and strike it with the hammer. Pick it up and examine the floor.”
The hammer strikes the steel plate in an inelastic collision. Since the steel plate is on the floor which is on the earth, the hammer stops instantly. The kinetic energy of the hammer’s motion disappears. It has been converted to a sonic shockwave (sound), a seismic shockwave (a very, very, very small earthquake), and thermal energy (in the head of the hammer). The temperature of the head of the hammer has gone up slightly.
Robert said:
“Now put the nail (point down) on the hardwood floor, and strike it with the hammer. Pick it up and examine the floor.”
The hammer strikes the nail in an inelastic collision. Since the mass of the nail is much less than the hammerhead, the hammer’s momentum is virtually unchanged. KE and momentum are transferred to the nail and it starts moving at the same speed as the hammerhead. Inefficiency in this transfer due to the structure of the nail (internal friction) causes some of that energy to become heat in the nail. The tip of the nail, now moving at the speed of the descending hammer, transfers kinetic energy into the floor, breaking the structure of the wood and remaining there as heat. This continues as the nail slides into the floor. Additionally, friction between the nail and the floor converts kinetic energy into heat in the surface of both the nail and the floor. When the head of the hammer hits the floor it undergoes the collision described above. The nail continues downward until its kinetic energy is sapped by friction and resistance from the structure of the wood.
Robert said:
“The same amount of energy was transferred. Why did one cause no damage, and the other leave you with a hole in your floor?”
Technically, it left me with a nail in my floor. 😉 The circumstances in these two inelastic collisions were different which lead to different results. I believe that I have accounted for all of the energy, so I’m gong to go and break some eggs… (to make my omelet).
Robert,
Enjoy.
I haven’t seen Dr. Horrible yet. One your recommendation, I am downloading it.
Robert,
Have you seen Dr. Horrible? Neil Patrick Harris as the super-villain wannabe title character and Nathan Fillion as Captain Hammer, his superhero arch-enemy. Did I mention that it’s a musical?
Slarti,
This season’s episodes have been very good. I really like the back to backs. Those from last night were a really good mind trip.
Buddha,
I’m working on a response to Robert’s hypothetical after which I believe I will make an omelet (and some toast, definitely some toast) because your latest post looks like something best not taken on an empty stomach. After that I will read and consider what you wrote. Thanks for the attempt to bridge the communication gap. Good luck fighting off the bats. (Does the hat of probability help with that?)
Bob (and Robert),
I’m beginning to think that the larger part of this conflict is misunderstanding rather than disagreement. If you will let me know what you disagree with in my post here:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical/#comment-99141
it would be a big help. Don’t feel that’s it’s necessary to explain why you think I’m wrong, I’m just trying to drill down on where we’re at odds.
After replying to Robert’s hypothetical, it will take me a while to consider and reply to Buddha’s post. Don’t worry, like Ahnold, “I’ll be back”.
Robert,
You and I are in complete agreement. I’m a HUGE Joss Whedon fan (I have five words for you – ‘Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog’ – it was on Hulu last I checked) Due to an insane fall, this season’s Dollhouse episodes are sitting unwatched on my DVR, but I’ll get the chance to watch them soon. I take it you like this season?
Buddha is Laughing,
You should have gotten “drugged up” and watched “Dollhouse”. Two episodes aired last night. Both wee very good. The first was “The Attic” and the second was “Stop Loss”.
If you’ve never watched it before, the Wikipedia entry for it should be sufficient to get you up to speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollhouse_(TV_series)
The episodes are available on Hulu. Here’s the link. http://www.hulu.com/dollhouse
Slarti,
1) I see Robert is going to address one of my points so I’ll let him do his thing and see if he and I are of like mind. As a teaser I’ll say I’m thinking gravity. You seem to have extra, Slarti.
2) The other error Bob points to the post ergo proctor hoc error. Now . . . this is a common fallacy and you BOTH have made it – just in different ways and different reasons. To answer further, I’ll copy part of an answer I was writing to Bob last night before the drugs took hold I had to fight off the bats.
____
The Elastic Question Pt. 1 – Begging the question. No issue there. That’s where the Gödel comment came from. I was hoping he’d catch that error on recalculation. However, convincing him it is relevant may be an issue and I’ll tell you why. It’s an assumption true enough, but you and I are used to a harder logic and Slarti is used to the Method. It’s a raw logic versus a process. They are related but different creatures as we both know. However, he’s likely to consider the fallacy a harmless one because of that damned word “reasonable”. It’s an assumption, not one that covers all the bases either, but from a SM perspective? It’s a reasonable assumption. In the normal course of events melting comes after energy is applied. Method treats time as linear as applied by 99% of all scientists because it’s usually appropriate to use linear time as that’s how we perceive time in general. Slarti has some issues with time. [Ed. Note: and I don’t know anyone who has said there is a problem with time here – except me from the very beginning.] Physicists sometimes snicker at that because they realize time behaves more like a fluid than an arrow but they also know linear time is a useful tool so a snicker is all that they give. Kind of a “that’s not exactly it, but close enough for government use” snicker. Kinda like how I treat most people’s abuse of Occam’s Razor.
Your view though, Bob, suffers from a lighter version of the same fallacy as Slarti – while it is a more through type of reductionist logical analysis to look pre and post impact for ALL explanations, it begs an assumption too and that is molten metal (an energy transfer) before impact and that thermite or some other element had something to do with it (based on a post impact observation – not contemporaneous or pre-impact chemical observations). Now while that would comport to the rest of your analysis as reduced from specific verified knowledge, it is still just an assumption as all our actual physical evidence comes post crash and from watching how the buildings fell. To PROVE your assumption, we’d need exactly that – proof metal was taking energy sufficient for heat of fusion before impact and a sufficient mechanism that cannot be rationally explained by another process. And I think thermite is now right out as a contender for the mechanism since there is now a possible explanation of the residue – residue that probably is complicating this analysis because it’s an energy carrying compound that MAY have added energy or not (but if it did I think it did so minimally and crudely – see below). This absence of proof however is not a proof of absence as related to explosives. You’ve assumed an explosive. You’ve erred in assuming a wrong kind of explosive but that error comes from Kant’s method. It was perfectly reasonable as a matter of reductionist logic that thermite could be the cause. We now have a viable alternative explanation of the residue though. You need to propose an alternative mechanism and we need something more than just the explosions themselves as visual evidence. We need more chemistry.
Every theory has an assumption. The problem is his assumption leads to an inaccurate in defining all the KE/PE – Slarti still has missing energy.
Your fallacy on the other hand, isn’t a “true” ergo propter hoc fallacy. It is part of your Kantian method. You’re a reductionist and your assumptions come from your methods operation, not out of thin air like this one (one of the freedoms and problems of using the Method over raw logics – less formal constraints). Kant is geared to find basic principles through logical reduction. The Method is really about pattern recognition and verification through testing based on observations. Apples and oranges. Both tasty and delicious, but not always interchangable in the kitchen. Not all tool are created equal. Not all errors are created equal. I’ve said all along I have energy deficiency issues. I think Slarti is off on his nets and that your questions about the missing joules are dead on. But you must see you too are making an assumption – the assumption molten metal existed/started to fuse before the impact. True, it explains the heat of fusion issue better. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong or Kant is wrong in his method.
It just means Gödel was right.
Every theory has an assumption. Your assumption comes from reduction. Slarti’s come because he’s limiting himself with time in his starting point for analysis. But I think yours fits the facts better than Slarti’s at this point because of the still missing joules. (Holy crap! It’s turning into a Cary Grant movie!)
I also think thermite is right out as a demo material, especially since there is now a viable chemical mechanism that might explain the residue. However, while I do think the impact could have created a kind of primitive thermite? It couldn’t have done it uniformly or timely and we are back to distribution and symmetry again.
I don’t disagree explosives could have been used. And after watching the dissected tape? Those explosions were in a set sequence that sets my suspicion alarm to red. Honestly? I’ve heard explosions and I’ve heard failures. Those were explosions. BOOM! not KERACK! Compression failure makes an entirely different noise from a concussive blast. And at the bottom of this rabbit hole, that is what we are talking about: compression failure versus concussive failure. But what caused those explosions? It is a mystery. Whatever it was? It wasn’t thermite. Even visually the blasts you could see were too energetic to be thermite – they were fast hard concussions. I’ve seen thermite in action. It burns almost as slow as gunpowder. We know themalitic compounds were found but now we have a possible reason as to why with the chemistry being filled in. But is there evidence for some other HE? C-4? Centex? Even TNT should have left nitrates everywhere. Some Top Secret compound? I don’t know. But I do know concussion and heat damage things differently. Again absence of proof is not proof of absence. But those four big booms were not thermite. I’d bet a dollar on that. I also don’t think they were the Tooth Fairy either. But that’s just my opinion.
Slarti went to the argument by analogy which I thought I addressed on the meteor question but I think the Chixalub details distracted him from my main point: energy at certain thresholds induces phase changes in materials and that his view of inelastic and elastic events was askew. Eh, my cretaceous geek got me and I wasn’t as clear as I could have been.
When I pointed out his error about inelastic explosions, I confess I missed his contention by implication about KE gained via free fall because what I was addressing was the plane impact. I should have been clearer and I should have read better both what you and he said in those posts (it’s been one of those weeks, my game is more than a bit off). If I had, I’d have asked Slarti how much does he think he weighs at sea level. The planes were an inelastic explosion. Not enough KE to cause the right kind of phase change and get rebound. The collapse of the towers was elastic however. The rebound threw shit all over the Island. Whatever actually caused the collapse imparted sufficient energy to induce phase changes. Was that energy sufficient to create long lasting pools of molten metal all derived from gravity? Alas, that is the question. Also another arrow pointing toward those missing joules. Yeah, I was being oblique about phase changes but Slarti sh/could have picked that up.
____
End Copy
____
I will be making a brief round on the threads maybe this evening but personal matters will be keeping me away from computers most of the day. I anxiously await seeing what gets done in my absence.
Bob and Robert,
I’m not sure what you guys find wrong with specifying the universe as my system.
Do you think this is an invalid choice of system? If so, why?
Do you think that this isn’t a closed system? I think that it’s the ultimate closed system (literally).
Do you think that energy isn’t conserved in this system? If so, explain why you are not violating conservation of energy.
I say that we need to account for half a teraJoule of energy (and I do account for it).
Robert,
I will respond to the hypothetical in your post momentarily.
Slarti, Energy is conserved in the universe. However, if you’re going to consider the universe to be your isolated system, you must be able to account for all energy transfers in the universe. The only reason you consider your isolated system to be a universe is to avoid accounting for it.
“I assert that kinetic energy becomes thermal energy in each individual piece of rubble”. How? What is the method by which the energy is transferred? It’s you model. You must be able to identify the method of energy transfer.
I want you to perform an experiment: You will need a hammer, a hardwood floor, a nail, and a 3′ x 3′ piece of hardened steel.
Put the piece of hardened steel on the hardwood floor and strike it with the hammer. Pick it up and examine the floor.
Now put the nail (point down) on the hardwood floor, and strike it with the hammer. Pick it up and examine the floor.
The same amount of energy was transferred. Why did one cause no damage, and the other leave you with a hole in your floor?
Robert,
Are you saying that the energy of the universe is not conserved? Because I just don’t agree with that and I never will. I assert that kinetic energy becomes thermal energy in each individual piece of rubble – if you’re going to argue with me, you must say where that energy is going, or else you’re violating conservation of energy. I’ll wait for your next post and Bob’s reaction to my last couple of posts but, quite frankly, I don’t see either of you changing my mind if you can’t explain where the energy goes.
Slarti,
Bob has asked you time and time again for your method of conversion from KE to TE. You danced around it. You did everything but answer it. You have a very good understanding of math, but don’t really have a good grasp on physics. You have tunnel vision.
I said “All of your calculations for energy transfer take place on the head of a pin, and they happen instantaneously.”
Slarti responded (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.
I’m going to let you in on something that is not so secret. Our world doesn’t exist on the head of a pin. The WTC was not the size of the head of a pin. The area in which most of it settled is not the size of the head of a pin.
In a true isolated system (not your made up size of the universe isolated system) all energy and mass can be accounted for. Because of this, all calculations can be performed as though they take place on the head of a pin.
“There is no time needed for transfer, because the energy remains in the same location it was in before the impact.”
That statement indicates that you can’t explain what happened to the KE when the rubble hit the ground. You think this is all magic.
Slarti, Hang on to your hat. In my next post I’m going to demonstrate why your head of a pin calculations don’t work. I tried to give a you a hint a couple of times. Now I’m going to show you; using your numbers.