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
“The work is performed on the subatomic level. The kinetic energy of the atoms becomes vibrational energy of the atoms. Why do you believe that this energy just disappears? Wikipedia says that this happens, why do you persist in acting like I’m making this up myself?”
I had to laugh. One day I hope to learn how to deal with things at a subatomic level. :>) Care to discuss antineutrinos?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutrino
Vibrations propogate. They don’t just stay in a material. The denser the material, the faster the vibration travels through it. Go hit a piece of steel with a hammer. How long did you hear the vibration? Put your hand on it and do the same thing. How long did you continue to feel the vibration? Where did it go? Hint: It didn’t turn into a bunch of subatomic vibration in the block of steel. The energy was transfered to whatever the steel was sitting on or attached to. From there it went into the earth and the air.
“What I said could be interpreted as ‘if a lump of iron weighing 100 metric tons and containing half a teraJoule of energy hit the earth in an inelastic collision, it would liquify’. Statements like that were intended to give a context for the magnitude of the forces involved and were clearly (at least in my mind) not intended to mean ‘the impact of the WTC liquified 100 metric tons of iron’. If you can point to me having said that, I will admit I spoke incorrectly, but I don’t think I have.”
I thought you were trying to account for the pools of molten steel that existed at ground zero.
“No, I invite review because I know what I’ve done can withstand it.”
And that’s why every scientist invites peer review. Those that a proven wrong by peer review also thought they could withstand peer review.
““What you have just told me, is that you can’t comprehend how energy can leave your model (even though it is supposedly the universe), so it has to remain there. That’s not scientific, that’s just plain lazy.”
Slarti:”Please specify any energy that I am not taking into account.”
You’re taking the kinetic energy and turning it into thermal energy by means of magic. You’re not claiming that friction or deformation was the mode. Again, collision is an event. Provide us with the work performed to transfer the energy. Friction is work. Deformation is work. Collision is an event.
This one is also very good. I really like the way it demonstrates the different possibilities. Look at the core in the first example.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QMSAsOkumI&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Robert said:
“What you have just told me, is that you can’t comprehend how energy can leave your model (even though it is supposedly the universe), so it has to remain there. That’s not scientific, that’s just plain lazy.”
Please specify any energy that I am not taking into account.
Robert said:
“You have a map in which you believe to be correct. It must be nice to consider yourself to be above peer review. I hope coming across as arrogant was your intention.”
No, I invite review because I know what I’ve done can withstand it. Yes, I am being arrogant here – it’s a result of answering your questions all day, sorry.
Robert said:
“Slarti, I spent 25 years as an engineer at nuclear power plants. I’ve designed my modifications and emergency support systems. Heat transfer is my job. Forces are my job. Energy, well, they don’t call it nuclear energy because we avoid understanding energy. You want to know how fast a reactor heats up? The rate is equal to the mass flow rate of the coolant times the specific heat transfer coefficient of the coolant times the temperature difference between the coolant and the surface of the reactor core. What happens to the pressure in that system as the coolant heats up? What controls reactor power during a transient? Why does it have that effect? What happens to reactor power when you open the steam valve to the turbine?”
You know your job. I believe that. You’ve been telling me for days that I don’t know mine. I do.
Robert said:
“You’re trying to discuss physics in one dimension while attempting to use the universe as your isolated system. You decided that your model had enough remaining energy to melt steel, but only if that steel was all on the head of a pin.”
What I said could be interpreted as ‘if a lump of iron weighing 100 metric tons and containing half a teraJoule of energy hit the earth in an inelastic collision, it would liquify’. Statements like that were intended to give a context for the magnitude of the forces involved and were clearly (at least in my mind) not intended to mean ‘the impact of the WTC liquified 100 metric tons of iron’. If you can point to me having said that, I will admit I spoke incorrectly, but I don’t think I have.
Robert said:
“Having the energy available to do work, and actually doing work are two completely different things. Is there enough energy in a falling hunk of steel to increase the heat of that steel? Yes, but it doesn’t change from kinetic to thermal without performing work. That’s your blind spot. To you it’s PFM. You don’t need a mode, you just accept that it can happen, and don’t feel a need to understand the details of the exchange.”
The work is performed on the subatomic level. The kinetic energy of the atoms becomes vibrational energy of the atoms. Why do you believe that this energy just disappears? Wikipedia says that this happens, why do you persist in acting like I’m making this up myself?
Robert said:
“I’m not just familiar with physics, I very capable of discussing nuclear physics, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and electrical power generation and distribution.”
I don’t doubt it, but you have shown some real blind spots in the fundamentals.
Robert said:
“If you would like to discuss the the thermalization of a neutron as it passes thru varying materials, and the resulting effect on reactor power, I’m all in.”
No, thank you, I don’t know anything about that. If you think that I am wrong about where the energy goes, you must tell me where you think it goes and why you think it. You seem to think that the law of conservation of energy isn’t important. I don’t accept that. I wont answer any questions in violation of the law of conservation of energy.
Bob said:
“but I do know that assuming steel falling from a maximum height of 415 meters, accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, will melt upon impact –[is per se unreasonable].”
Yes it is. And I have never said otherwise.
Bob said:
“I haven’t read any posts since last night.
We’re expecting 12-18″ here.
Must get to store now.”
I did that yesterday. 1-2” were forecasted (that’s serious here in North Carolina) but all I saw were flurries. At the very least we’ve provided you with reading material for being snowed in. Stay warm.
mespo727272 said:
” have the distinct feeling I have wandered into a meeting of the Vienna Circle and can’t get out. I think we have as many “elastic” jowls here as elastic joules!”
Hi mespo!
This video is pretty good. I think Slarti will enjoy all the math.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbkpOnNzvU8&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
“We’re expecting 12-18″ here.”
Be careful out there Bob.
We got a dusting last night. If I was a kid, I’d be jealous, but as the one who has to shovel the driveway, I’m happy to let you keep your snow.
I have the distinct feeling I have wandered into a meeting of the Vienna Circle and can’t get out. I think we have as many “elastic” jowls here as elastic joules!
I haven’t read any posts since last night.
We’re expecting 12-18″ here.
Must get to store now.
but I do know that assuming steel falling from a maximum height of 415 meters, accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, will melt upon impact –[is per se unreasonable].
Part II….
Buddha: “I’ve said all along I have energy deficiency issues.”
Raul Duke: “We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers… Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all that for the trip, but once you get locked into a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can….”
Buddha: “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.”
You’re all sideways man. If I’m assuming anything, it’s simply this: that steel falling to earth, from any height, doesn’t fucking melt before or after impact.
Buddha: “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.”
I don’t know where Slarti’s assumption ‘comes from’, but I do know that assuming steel falling from a maximum height of 415 meters, accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, will melt upon impact.
Buddha: “I also think thermite is right out as a demo material,”
Too many variables, too many unknowns; especially since we haven’t yet let go of the current fairy tale being defended.
Buddha: “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.”
Like I said, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. You’re getting too far ahead of yourself. But I will concede that those explosions would begin to explain that unaccounted for energy existing at ground zero for nearly six months after 9/11.
Buddha: “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.”
I have no problem with the assumption of an inelastic collision; I just have a problem with changing Earth’s gravitational acceleration for sake of argument.
Buddha: “Whatever actually caused the collapse imparted sufficient energy to induce phase changes.”
Now you see my reasoning for posting the article regarding thermitic material found in the debris of ground zero; shedding light on a more plausible explanation while revealing more doubts about the original story that fails to account for said evidence.
Buddha: “Was that energy sufficient to create long lasting pools of molten metal all derived from gravity? Alas, that is the question.”
Thus, according to Ockham, we ought never to postulate the reality of any entity unless it is logically necessary to do so.
Part I
Buddha: “It’s an assumption, not one that covers all the bases either, but from a SM perspective? It’s a reasonable assumption.”
A man’s got to know his limitations. No one is entitled to assume an event that has never been witnessed on Earth as a valid premise in an argument or logical proof. If we are given a gravitational acceleration constant of 9.8 m/s^2 (at or near sea level), an assumption necessitating that steel dropped from a maximum height of 415 meters reached a velocity of 3,000 mph by the time it impacted the ground is, if anything, unreasonable.
Buddha: “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).”
As I tried to explain to Gyges earlier, I have one objective here and that’s to show the immense disparity between knowledge and its object with regard to the explanations proffered for the molten metal found at ground zero. There are reasons I posted additional material; but I never volunteered to accept the burden of proving anything. I assure you, I’m not wearing a tin foil hat; although I find that filtered water does taste better than plain tap water. My bodily fluids are fine and I’ve never had to answer to the Coca Cola company either. (See Dr. Strangelove)
By posting a link to the paper about finding evidence of thermitic material (i.e. thermate, not thermite) at ground zero, it was at most to elucidate the complete lack of investigation into the collapses of the buildings; due in no small part to the disposal of the crime scene and the barring of any investigation by local authorities.
So, we’re left with Slarti’s unique attempt to explain the existence of molten metal at ground zero for a period of nearly six months.
Buddha: “To PROVE your assumption, we’d need…”
to read what I clarified above.
Buddha: “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.”
Slarti’s been as meticulous as Dexter Morgan; excepting with his assumption that the gravitational acceleration here on earth enables him to use the potential energy of the towers to melt steel via conversion to Ke from free fall from the maximum height of 415 meters (i.e. the second floor is about 4 meters from the ground, etc. extrapolate up from there)
Buddha: “Your fallacy on the other hand, isn’t a “true” ergo propter hoc fallacy. It is part of your Kantian method.”
Just for now, pretend I never mentioned that man’s name.
Buddha: “Apples and oranges. Both tasty and delicious, but not always interchangable in the kitchen.”
2000 Year Old Man: “Eat Nectarines! Half a peach, half a plum; it’s a hell of a fruit.”
… (Continued)
This is just obscene. Maybe I should try to post it in two parts
“I am not taking this debate into quantum mechanics. I have enough problems trying to explain Newtonian mechanics to you”.
What you have just told me, is that you can’t comprehend how energy can leave your model (even though it is supposedly the universe), so it has to remain there. That’s not scientific, that’s just plain lazy.
“I have a map which I know to be correct (it is spoken in the language of mathematics expressing the laws of physics)”
You have a map in which you believe to be correct. It must be nice to consider yourself to be above peer review. I hope coming across as arrogant was your intention.
Slarti, I spent 25 years as an engineer at nuclear power plants. I’ve designed my modifications and emergency support systems. Heat transfer is my job. Forces are my job. Energy, well, they don’t call it nuclear energy because we avoid understanding energy. You want to know how fast a reactor heats up? The rate is equal to the mass flow rate of the coolant times the specific heat transfer coefficient of the coolant times the temperature difference between the coolant and the surface of the reactor core. What happens to the pressure in that system as the coolant heats up? What controls reactor power during a transient? Why does it have that effect? What happens to reactor power when you open the steam valve to the turbine?
You’re trying to discuss physics in one dimension while attempting to use the universe as your isolated system. You decided that your model had enough remaining energy to melt steel, but only if that steel was all on the head of a pin.
Having the energy available to do work, and actually doing work are two completely different things. Is there enough energy in a falling hunk of steel to increase the heat of that steel? Yes, but it doesn’t change from kinetic to thermal without performing work. That’s your blind spot. To you it’s PFM. You don’t need a mode, you just accept that it can happen, and don’t feel a need to understand the details of the exchange.
I’m not just familiar with physics, I very capable of discussing nuclear physics, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and electrical power generation and distribution.
If you would like to discuss the the thermalization of a neutron as it passes thru varying materials, and the resulting effect on reactor power, I’m all in.
Buddha said:
“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.”
Let me know what you think now.
Buddha said:
“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.”
I think that one of the big issues here is language. The language of mathematics is very precise. Every sentence written or spoken in it means exactly one thing. English is not that way – there are multiple meanings, nuance, etc. It is very frustrating to me that I can explain this in a language in which I cannot lie, but all of you understand that language incompletely at best. This is a real problem when it comes to the hard part – making the analogy between the map and the terrain. I have a map which I know to be correct (it is spoken in the language of mathematics expressing the laws of physics). I strongly believe that it is a map of the territory in front of us and I have good evidence to support this connection. Additionally, the map has an unmistakable piece of terrain on it (200 GJ available for destruction of structure) If we can find any part of this feature in the terrain (an estimate of the energy to break loose a floor, for example), we will have good evidence of whether or not my analogy is apt. Until then, you can question my assumptions and you can question the analogy that I’m trying to make, but given my assumptions, my model is a correct implementation of the physics involved.
I’m not sure what the point of the previous paragraph was, but I thought that I would post it in the hopes that Buddha finds it interesting and to whet his appetite for more posts later tonight. This discussion seems to be evolving in a physics discussion with Robert and Byron and a meta-discussion with Budda, Bob, and Gyges. That’s fine with me, but I’m going to have to switch gears right now, so I may not be answering Robert’s posts for a bit – I mean no offense, but I can only do so much.
Robert said:
“1. You say that all of the vibrational energy stays in the pieces of the WTC. What is that vibration not propagated into the surrounding environment? What makes you think the vibration remains in the material that fell?
2. Even if you permit the vibration to be shared by the earth and the WTC; why doesn’t the vibration continue to travel? Is dirt to rock transmission taboo? Is steel to air transmission of vibration taboo?”
I am not taking this debate into quantum mechanics. I have enough problems trying to explain Newtonian mechanics to you.
Robert posted:
“Slarti said; “No, I was working with the gravitational potential in order to ‘follow the energy’”
“Potential energy is energy that is stored within a system. It exists when there is a force that tends to pull an object back towards some lower energy position.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
GPE only exists because of force. If the force of gravity did not exist, you would not be able to discuss GPE.”
I have done my entire calculation without using force – I never said nor implied that there weren’t forces involved. The fact that my analysis doesn’t involve any calculations of forces is irrelevant. I didn’t include electromagnetic radiation either, so what?
Slarti said; “No, I was working with the gravitational potential in order to ‘follow the energy’”
“Potential energy is energy that is stored within a system. It exists when there is a force that tends to pull an object back towards some lower energy position.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
GPE only exists because of force. If the force of gravity did not exist, you would not be able to discuss GPE.
“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?”
No. We’re not clear.
1. You say that all of the vibrational energy stays in the pieces of the WTC. What is that vibration not propagated into the surrounding environment? What makes you think the vibration remains in the material that fell?
2. Even if you permit the vibration to be shared by the earth and the WTC; why doesn’t the vibration continue to travel? Is dirt to rock transmission taboo? Is steel to air transmission of vibration taboo?
Bob,
I’ve also been writing my posts elsewhere and pasting them into the text box. Last spring I had a couple of posts that began with “Professor Turley” disappear. I definitely sympathize.
Robert said:
“You do understand that gravity is force? You’ve been working with force since the beginning.”
No, I was working with the gravitational potential in order to ‘follow the energy’
Robert said:
“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.”
What have I ever said that would lead you to believe that I didn’t understand this?