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
Slarti,
I’m referring to a CD style downward collapse that left a minimal damage footprint area wise to the more likely toppling that would have been a truly epic scale disaster wiping out blocks of skyscrapers. That was the most likely outcome of an asymmetric event like the impacts, an asymmetric result.
Down, straight down, is order after an asymmetrical strike. It’s an unlikely optimization to happen as an anomaly (although I don’t discount that chance – I do follow Finnagle’s Law (Larry Niven) “The perversity of the universe tends toward the maximum.”)
That is the order I am plagued by.
That 3,000 people died bothers me.
But what really bothers me more is that 10,000 people didn’t die from this event.
It’s the more likely outcome.
Order from chaos.
Byron,
I’m guessing your suggestion to move the thread is related to trouble scrolling on the page. I suggest using Mozilla Firefox. I have the scrolling problem with Internet Explorer, but Firefox works great on the same page.
Earlier today I had 48 Internet Explorer sessions open, and was on this thread with FireFox. All were smooth. If I open just this page with IE, it acts up.
Buddha is Laughing,
Thanks for the tip on Avatar. The trailers have been pretty good.
To add to your recent post: I would have probably accepted the uniform collapse of one tower. I would have just considered it to be a freak alignment of the stars. But three buildings? That dealer got busted a long time ago.
I second Byron’s suggestion of piracy!
“Speakers use heat sinks to dissipate vibrational heat.”
The heat isn’t generated by vibration, it’s generated by electrical impedance.
14 GJ to break the floor loose. I thought I posted the whole thing, but I only took you most of the way there. After you (Byron) compared my load estimate, and found it to be reasonably close, I forgot about the rest. I didn’t save the spreadsheet. If you need it, I’ll work on it tomorrow. I do remember that the 14 GJ came from double what I thought the floor should handle. I know that’s well above the safety margin, but I’m permitting for uniform instant failure of each floor. I think it was pretty conservative. To get that kind of explosive collapse, the real number should be much greater.
Buddha,
I’m still working on the response to your earlier post, but I thought that I would give my reaction to the opening of this post. And I plan on seeing Avatar on Monday.
Buddha said:
These are what I am taking as given, Note that 1 & 2 are assumptions but if any of you cats think you can take on Gödel or Smales or Poincaré, be my guest.”
I wouldn’t dream of it, those guys are my idols! (and it’s Stephen Smale, btw)
Buddha said,
“Chaotic systems are a subset of complex systems not governed by their history. Here we have two complex system driven to disorder by adding E and that results in . . . more order. Hmmmm. Curiouser and curiouser. Now to my assumptions.
1) Gödel was correct.
2) Complexity/Chaos theory is correct.
3) You have both stipulated that assumptions have been made.
4) When two assumptions collide, being that they are assumptions and unprovable, it’s the Battle of Coke vs. Pepsi.
5) There is indeed a language gap here.”
1) His Theorem is one we CAN prove (or at least he can, anyway)
2) And cool. And it makes pretty pictures. I even have my own fractal.
3) Hereby stipulated and assumed.
4) I prefer Coke, but I don’t drink any because I have no need for phosphoric acid and high fructose corn syrup in my diet.
5) Since you are agreeing with me, I have to agree with you by the reflexive property of agreement.
What order coming out of chaos are you referring to?
Buddha:
those buildings were extremely well designed and were able to sustain the initial loads. I was honestly surprised they were able to remain vertical as long as they did. But steel is ductile and therefore tough.
This is not chaos theory it is pure Newtonian mechanics and some chemistry. That we may think it chaos is only because our knowledge at this point is insufficient to bring order.
May I make a suggestion, lets hikack another thread with a smaller number of postings, I suggest the following:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/16/the-not-so-speedy-trial-turkish-trial-ended-after-28-years/
it has only 4 posts and is 4 days old.
“why couldnt vibration cause something to heat up? It is just energy.”
It could be done, but it wouldn’t be very fast or very efficient. The molecular bonds are such that they would rather permit the vibration to propagate along the path of least resistance then exit, than rip themselves apart.
Robert:
Speakers use heat sinks to dissipate vibrational heat.
Also I am waiting with anticipation for you to present your findings on the amount of energy needed to release a floor.
I would be happy if you just gave the general procedure and a few calculations that we could kibitz. If you were the one that said 14 GJ I would like to know how you came up with it. I have an idea as to how I would do it and would like to see if you were thinking the same way.
Also: GO SEE AVATAR NOW.
I have no shame telling you this.
I am not a huge Cameron fan. T1 is a Harlan Ellison rip off that’s aged like Hell, T2 was a great action flick as was Aliens, Titanic was soap opera crap (Sorry! It’s junk and Winslet can’t act her way out of a bag). He’s spotty at best and anyone who has HMFIC (Head Mother F’er In Charge) on his set caps? Yeah, I’d have to tell him to blow me in person with that kind of ego. Story wise, it’s nothing special – it’s a hundred different Tarzan movies or Dances With Wolves In Space. Competently executed, but neither the Bard or Kurt Vonnegut would have lost sleep over the competition.
But visually . . .
When I saw Pandora and the Navi?
I had the weirdest sensation.
Like no movie, book, sex act or drug has ever given me. I’ve done lots of all of those, some to excess, but I never felt this way about a film.
I felt like I had found home. I mean HOME. Those were the people we should be. The Navi were the people I should be.
That’s not hyperbole. I actually had tears in my eyes.
It’s the damnedest thing. But thanks to Everett? I know somewhere, somewhen, I may actually be HOME.
I certainly hope so anyway.
Slarti/Bob/Robert/Gyges/Byron (in no particular order),
My point is simply this:
These are what I am taking as given, Note that 1 & 2 are assumptions but if any of you cats think you can take on Gödel or Smales or Poincaré, be my guest. Chaotic systems are a subset of complex systems not governed by their history. Here we have two complex system driven to disorder by adding E and that results in . . . more order. Hmmmm. Curiouser and curiouser. Now to my assumptions.
1) Gödel was correct.
2) Complexity/Chaos theory is correct.
3) You have both stipulated that assumptions have been made.
4) When two assumptions collide, being that they are assumptions and unprovable, it’s the Battle of Coke vs. Pepsi.
5) There is indeed a language gap here.
I have found both sides raise some interesting points – none of which are conclusory. But really I think the points are more interesting than the conclusions because the conclusion about the how of collapse is irrelevant to a large degree until another question is answered. Patience, I’m getting to that.
I’m not making an assumption other than those stated above. The transaction is complex. Millions of parts, thousands of different chemicals, lots of KE/PE. The route to the end of the equation is actually irrelevant in light of the result.
One side says enough KE/PE, the other says nay without some extra boom-boom.
I say you’re both looking at the wrong ball.
How the ball gets to the plate is irrelevant. It’s the home run – the order from the chaos – that matters. There are millions of paths that lead to fouls and outs, but only a few that lead to home runs. Why’d we get a homer?
I expect my coin flips to be random, damn it.
Order not randomness. It’s either 1) anomaly or 2) induced. The third possibility, an emergent system – nature’s way of making order, does not apply here. That’s said in English, but I guarantee it’s also in the math. Language differences are not always fatal.
Do you both now see why I’ve been less concerned with the collapse than the order of it? Too many assumptions about how.
The question should have never been what caused the collapse. Energy imparted in excess of the buildings carrying capacity is what caused the collapse. End of line. The question should have been what caused the collapse to have an optimal result. That’s a different question than “how”. It’s the question of “why” followed by “how”. Ultimately how is even irrelevant.
I’m saying “Look at that! A giant gorilla where there should be a cartload of monkeys!” You guys are arguing about how to make a giant gorilla.
The how conversation has been quite entertaining (and I still think Bob has a point about your use of gravity Slarti), but I really don’t care how as a matter of first instance. Never have. I’ve been wallowing in this argument simply because it’s a hoot and you two are two of the best debaters here.
I care why first. I’ve said so from the start.
Why didn’t the towers just topple as is the most likely outcome?
Why did they fall straight down?
Why is there an optimal ordered outcome from a chaotic event?
You say you are talking about math, Slarti. So am I. Unlike you, I readily admit I’m too lazy to do the math. These days I limit my actual number crunching to what is required to do my job. But still . . .
It’s as if Skylab fell an made a Toyota FourRunner instead of a crater of strewn garbage.
There’s order in that there pile of rubble, my friends.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkrQlhDkSmY&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
All my how questions relate to that. Hence the time/sequence fixation in relation to an ordered outcome. How is important to me only as it relates to why I have an observation that makes no sense as a matter of probability.
Hey, would you look at that! I’m still the Swiss. Or you can call me Walter.
P.S. Bob – I’m going to keep mentioning Kant every time you act like a methodological reductionist because Kant is shorter to type. I’m lazy. If you have a shorter notation of preference, I’ll be glad to use it. MRsubK?
“Where does the kinetic energy go?”
As a kid, did you ever tie a string between two paper cups? Did you talk back and forth? Well, that’s were the kinetic energy that was imparted into the string went. It comes in one end (the point of impact) and out the other. The path of least resistance is the string, so it follows the string. At the end, it comes out as sound. It then disappears into the air. Your ear captures a part of it. The same thing happens with any other material. The vibration (just like sound vibration) will always take the path of least resistance. A sound made 3 ft below the water may be able to be heard 30 ft away in the water, but not be heard above the water.
Robert:
why couldnt vibration cause something to heat up? It is just energy.
Robert,
At one point you suggested that it would take 14 GJ to break loose a floor. Where did you get that number?
Robert,
Where does the kinetic energy go?
“Each atom in every object in the rubble contained roughly 80m/s worth of kinetic energy when they were stopped by impact with the ground.
via interaction with it’s neighbors in the structure of the object that kinetic energy was converted into randomized vibrational energy – i.e. thermal energy.”
NO. You are misinterpreting translational kinetic energy. Ojects have to be heated in order for the molecules to be able to move freely and faster (that’s why it expands). Vibration of the magnitude required to conform to your theory cannot take place. Their just isn’t room between the molecules for it to happen in the magnitude required to support it. Minor increases (maybe a degree of so) yes, major no way.
Byron said:
“There are rational answers to all of these questions that Robert and Bob posit. Bob is correct in thinking that a better investigation should have been undertaken.”
I would also like to add that I think that incompetence is a simpler explanation of the investigation than a coverup is. (Not saying that this is unquestionable, just that it is what I believe. I would have liked a better investigation, too, Bob. I just don’t think the reasons for what happened were sinister. (Apart from the terrorists.)
To be clear:
All I have ever asserted is that thermal energy originally stored as GPE, in concert with energy from the plane impacts, multi-fuel fires both before and after collapse, and exothermic reactions in the rubble heap are a plausible source of the observed heat (including molten iron dripping down beams) in the rubble. This all began when Bob contended that Occam’s razor favored his theory over mine. I’ve presented my theory and as Bob has presented no coherent theory of his own, I think mine’s simpler by default. (Or my knowledge compares more favorably with the object of inquiry than the knowledge contained in his non-existent theory.
Robert said:
“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.”
Each atom in every object in the rubble contained roughly 80m/s worth of kinetic energy when they were stopped by impact with the ground.
via interaction with it’s neighbors in the structure of the object that kinetic energy was converted into randomized vibrational energy – i.e. thermal energy.
Robert said:
“I thought you were trying to account for the pools of molten steel that existed at ground zero.”
I have stated on multiple occasions that the only evidence I have seen for ‘pools of molten steel’ is a picture in which workers are clustered around a glow purported to be molten steel. One of the worker’s legs were in the glow. If the picture had truly been of molten steel, his legs would have been on fire. This is not credible. Eyewitnesses report drips of molten steel running down beams. I believe that the ‘natural’ sources of heat in the rubble are sufficient to account for this.
Quoting myself:
“No, I invite review because I know what I’ve done can withstand it.”
Robert said:
“And that’s why every scientist invites peer review. Those that a proven wrong by peer review also thought they could withstand peer review.”
Then check my computations yourself. It’s not very well organized, but I have laid out what I have done and what the results were.
Quoting me:
“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.”
Robert says:
“Slarti, Energy is conserved in an isolated system. Your isolated system is the universe, but you think the energy can’t go anywhere but the WTC. It does. It all did. For the most part, every bit of energy that was in the towers left those towers immediately upon impact. The pieces that were hauled away did not have the stored energy in them. (other than the binding energy that existed before the towers fell.)”
I am accounting for energy originally stored as GPE in the WTC. That is all I ever claimed to be doing. You seem to think that energy ‘left those towers immediately upon impact’ yet you have specified no mechanism by which it did so. In doing so, you are requiring energy to move at infinite speed. I’m asserting that this energy stayed where it was and changed into a different form through a collision. The resultant thermal energy was slowly dissipated from the rubble pile which was why it was so hot.
Robert says:
“That’s the problem with your model. You use the universe, but refuse to measure anything but the WTC. Your refusing to leave your house, but wanting to tell me about the world. (I hope you understand the analogy.”
As I said before, my intent is to account for the energy stored as GPE in the WTC. That’s what I did. Energy from solar radiation in Sheep Meadow (in Central Park) is irrelevant to what I’m doing – I ignore it.
Robert/Slarti:
what did work, where did it go?
It went right where Slarti said it did, into vibration and bending big steel beams (as in your nail and vise grip analogy).
Robert wants to know what work was done, Buddha wants to know about the big bangs as does Bob. The big bangs were the columns failing under huge compressive forces almost instantaneously. The sound probably amplified/modified by the shape of the columns and surrounding structures.
There are rational answers to all of these questions that Robert and Bob posit. Bob is correct in thinking that a better investigation should have been undertaken.
“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.”
Slarti, Energy is conserved in an isolated system. Your isolated system is the universe, but you think the energy can’t go anywhere but the WTC. It does. It all did. For the most part, every bit of energy that was in the towers left those towers immediately upon impact. The pieces that were hauled away did not have the stored energy in them. (other than the binding energy that existed before the towers fell.)
That’s the problem with your model. You use the universe, but refuse to measure anything but the WTC. Your refusing to leave your house, but wanting to tell me about the world. (I hope you understand the analogy.