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 Esq.,
Lost post. Sorry to hear that. I have had it happen before. Now I do all long posts in Word. Then I copy and paste.
Bob,
Did you post something that didn’t show up?
““What is the equal but opposite reaction of the earth when the Tower hits it? When a crane lifts an object, why doesn’t the crane go into the earth?”
Now you’re confusing force and energy.”
You do understand that gravity is force? You’ve been working with force since the beginning.
FYI, The force down on the earth is equal to the force used to lift the object. It’s that pesky equal but opposite reaction thing again.
An entire post lost?
What’s up with that?
What duplicate; it never posted in the first place.
Quoting me:
“Contact mechanics tells us how kinetic energy is transformed into thermal energy by the work performed to deform objects.”
Robert posted:
“Congratulations! You just discovered a method by which kinetic energy is transferred into thermal energy. Friction (rubbing) is another.
Which one of those is the method by which you transferred the kinetic energy of the falling WTC into the itself? Was it deformation or friction or none of the above?”
The individual atoms had 80m/s worth of kinetic energy at the moment of impact. The energy that didn’t go into shockwaves or breaking molecular bonds raised the vibrational energy of the atoms. The temperature of the atoms was increased (because temperature is a measure of the vibrational energy of atoms). Are we clear?
“Contact mechanics tells us how kinetic energy is transformed into thermal energy by the work performed to deform objects.”
Congratulations! You just discovered a method by which kinetic energy is transferred into thermal energy. Friction (rubbing) is another.
Which one of those is the method by which you transferred the kinetic energy of the falling WTC into the itself? Was it deformation or friction or none of the above?
Robert said:
“What is the equal but opposite reaction of the earth when the Tower hits it? When a crane lifts an object, why doesn’t the crane go into the earth?”
Now you’re confusing force and energy.
“Robert said:
“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newtons law of motion. The opposite reaction to the WTC energy hitting the earth is the energy of the earth to stop it from continuing.”
You are confusing kinetic energy and momentum again. The momentum of the earth is not appreciably changed by the impact.”
What is the equal but opposite reaction of the earth when the Tower hits it? When a crane lifts an object, why doesn’t the crane go into the earth?
Robert,
Contact mechanics tells us how kinetic energy is transformed into thermal energy by the work performed to deform objects.
I have patiently and thoroughly answered your questions. I would appreciate it if you would do me the courtesy of reading my whole post before you respond. You have a tendency to ask questions which are answered later in a post.
Robert said:
“It is also the first time you mentioned 300m x 300m or even 90,000 square meters. You did mention that the building was 64 meters by 64 meters, but never presented the use of that information in any of your calculations.”
The first time I calculated energy density was for the summary I quoted from. I mentioned that the building was 64m x 64m and later referred to the footprint of the building. What did you think I meant by that?
Robert said:
“A statement made without incorporating the use of that data into your calculation only shows that you were aware of it. It demonstrates nothing else.”
I used all of the data that I referenced, including the power requirements for a flux capacitor. I invite you to repeat my calculations to verify this.
Robert said:
“Heat is a measurement of thermal energy in transition.”
Replace every instance where I used the word heat with ‘thermal energy’.
Robert said:
“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newtons law of motion. The opposite reaction to the WTC energy hitting the earth is the energy of the earth to stop it from continuing.”
You are confusing kinetic energy and momentum again. The momentum of the earth is not appreciably changed by the impact.
Quoting myself:
“If it were distributed over the footprint of the building, it would yield 6 – 10,000 J/cm^2, enough to raise the temperature of our block of iron by 13 – 23 C.”
Robert said:
“Then how did it melt the iron. How did you manage to focus the energy?”
I never said either of those things happened. I suggested that 10K J/cm^2 was a rough upper bound of the energy density. I have also described other sources of thermal energy in the rubble. I believe that a combination of all of these sources would have been capable of locally melting iron.
Robert said:
“You can do a lot on the head of a pin, that you can’t expect to do in the real world.”
I’m not doing any sort of ‘computation on the head of a pin’. I have given the appropriate context for every number I have reported.
Quoting myself:
“**Friction is a process that has duration, it happens over a period of time. A collision is an event that happens instantaneously, it has no duration (like 12 noon). You cannot confuse these.”
Robert said:
“Did all of the WTC hit the ground at the same time? No. By your own calculations some of the pieces not involved in breaking the floors loose or perform pre-impact pulverization should have hit at near the speed of gravity, and the others should have hit later.”
Quoting myself:
“What is undisputed is that there was a descending mass of rubble with 200 GJ of KE and a short time later there was a rubble pile with no KE. It is my assertion that treating this as a single inelastic collision is reasonable given the accuracy of the calculation. This is the kind of modeling decision that my model will stand or fall on.”
You should really read the whole post before you reply.
Robert said:
“The earth deformed? This is the first time I have seen you mention it. If the earth deformed, it must have absorbed energy from the building. How much energy went into deforming the earth?”
It’s not a big deal – the foundations were concrete as was the ground around the towers. Any energy going into deforming the ground (breaking or crushing that concrete) ends up as thermal energy in that concrete i.e. thermal energy in the rubble pile.
Robert said:
“Inelastic collision is an event. It is not a method of heat transfer. Friction is a method of energy conversion. Deformation (the separating of molecular bonds) is a method of energy conversion.”
Quoting myself quoting Wikipedia:
“In collisions of macroscopic bodies, some kinetic energy is turned into vibrational energy of the atoms, causing a heating effect, and the bodies are deformed.”
Robert said:
“Two solid objects traveling at 30 mph each hit each other straight on. Which one transfers energy to the other?”
Kinetic energy may be transformed into thermal energy, transferred, redirected, or emitted as shockwaves depending on the specifics of the collision.
Robert said:
“A solid object is moving at 60 mph at hits a solid wall. Why doesn’t the wall move? Is the wall using energy to remain stationary?”
The wall is anchored to the earth – it has zero momentum with an enormous amount of mass.
Quoting myself quoting Wikipedia(again):
“In collisions of macroscopic bodies, some kinetic energy is turned into vibrational energy of the atoms, causing a heating effect, and the bodies are deformed.”
Robert said:
“Correct. What two “macroscopic bodies” collided? Was that the earth, and the WTC? If so, why does the WTC vibrate and the earth does not?”
Because the WTC had the kinetic energy which has been converted into thermal vibrations.
Robert said:
“Now that you have conceded that the earth deformed, I guess both the earth and the WTC heated up.”
Yup. All that thermal energy went into the rubble pile.
Robert said:
“Energy does nothing until it performs work. That battery in your car is full of energy, but until you turn the key on, the battery does nothing. That brick on your roof does nothing until it falls on your head, and when it does, the heat will not be the problem.”
Energy exists. Always. This is what the law of conservation of energy means. That is why I choose to model the energy distribution. This is the way physics is done. Energy is changed into other forms when it performs work. In this sort of problem energy is easy to follow, work is much more complicated – KISS (I assume you know what this means ;-)). The raise in temperature of the brick is negligible. If a pebble hit your head at escape velocity the heat would be a big deal.
Robert said:
“The reason your calculations fail is that they are performed on the head of a pin. Energy transfer on the head of a pin is not the same as energy transferred over an area. If it was all the same, nails would not be pointed. Directing energy does not have the same effect as spreading out the same energy. Your model does not compensate for that.”
My calculations are about rubble piles an the earth and seismic waves and sonic waves and 110 story buildings and pyroclastic flows. I don’t know where you’re getting this ‘head of a pin’ thing. Yes, energy density affects results of energy transfers, but we’re trying to understand the magnitude of the energies involved and where they are located. I’ve specified a mechanism and calculated the values I have no need to know the forces involved and energy transferred or transformed in every single collision in the collapse, I’m looking at the whole thing in aggregate.
Byron said “[D]o you just like to argue?”
I enjoy reasonable debate. Where I come from that is how ideas are exchanged and differences of opinion are solved. How does it work in your neck of the woods?
“Are there many people that believe CD brought the towers down?” How many people question anything these days? As long as the TV and iPod work, most of our society is happy to ignore everything else. I hope you weren’t suggesting that my determination of the facts should be influenced by public opinion. Are you? What percentage of this country do you think are capable of even understanding the physics involved?
Slarti,
“Now you’re confusing force and energy. I am doing calculations with energy – I’m not trying to answer questions about the forces involved – that is a much more complicated problem.”
Energy does nothing until it performs work. That battery in your car is full of energy, but until you turn the key on, the battery does nothing. That brick on your roof does nothing until it falls on your head, and when it does, the heat will not be the problem.
The reason your calculations fail is that they are performed on the head of a pin. Energy transfer on the head of a pin is not the same as energy transferred over an area. If it was all the same, nails would not be pointed. Directing energy does not have the same effect as spreading out the same energy. Your model does not compensate for that.
Wikipedia “Contact Mechanics”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_mechanics
“In collisions of macroscopic bodies, some kinetic energy is turned into vibrational energy of the atoms, causing a heating effect, and the bodies are deformed.”
Correct. What two “macroscopic bodies” collided? Was that the earth, and the WTC? If so, why does the WTC vibrate and the earth does not?
Now that you have conceded that the earth deformed, I guess both the earth and the WTC heated up.
Slarti,
Inelastic collision is an event. It is not a method of heat transfer. Friction is a method of energy conversion. Deformation (the separating of molecular bonds) is a method of energy conversion.
Two solid objects traveling at 30 mph each hit each other straight on. Which one transfers energy to the other?
A solid object is moving at 60 mph at hits a solid wall. Why doesn’t the wall move? Is the wall using energy to remain stationary?
Slarti,
The earth deformed? This is the first time I have seen you mention it. If the earth deformed, it must have absorbed energy from the building. How much energy went into deforming the earth?
“**Friction is a process that has duration, it happens over a period of time. A collision is an event that happens instantaneously, it has no duration (like 12 noon). You cannot confuse these.”
Did all of the WTC hit the ground at the same time? No. By your own calculations some of the pieces not involved in breaking the floors loose or perform pre-impact pulverization should have hit at near the speed of gravity, and the others should have hit later.
“If it were distributed over the footprint of the building, it would yield 6 – 10,000 J/cm^2, enough to raise the temperature of our block of iron by 13 – 23 C.”
Then how did it melt the iron. How did you manage to focus the energy?
You can do a lot on the head of a pin, that you can’t expect to do in the real world.
Robert:
do you just like to argue? Are there many people that believe CD brought the towers down?
My bad. I searched for 10K not 10,000K.