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,
Just provide us with one reputable source who says that energy is conserved in an open system. Appealing to your own authority is not acceptable.
What is an open system? It’s one where both mass and energy can leave the system. Your own equation tells us that you recognize your system to be an open system.
[kinetic energy expelled from the system in dust/debris] + [thermal energy expelled from the system in dust/debris] + [sonic energy emitted] + [seismic energy emitted]
None of those statements apply to an isolated system. I’m even using the definition that you provided. “It obeys a number of conservation laws: its total energy and mass stay constant. They cannot enter or exit, but can only move around inside.”
Insert Energizer Bunny here, it just keeps going and going and going.
Mornin Doc Slarti, still “Duke” N it out I see.
GOOOOOO!!!!! Blue Devils 🙂
Duh,
I have provided a multitude of references, not just from Wikipedia but from other web sites, a physics text, and the paper ‘On the mechanical equivalent of heat’ by James Joule to show not just that energy is conserved in every instance of work but that the type of energy-based analysis that I’ve done is valid. Once again, my opponent (that would be you in this case) has taken the dishonest, hypocritical path of claiming that not only am I wrong based on nothing but their own ignorance, but somehow I’m the one appealing to authority. Nice move, hypocrite. Everyone reading this should decide whether they want to put more weight in the unsupported opinion of an anonymous commenter at a blog, or the opinion of a scientist with a PhD in math that is supported by multiple websites, a physics text (really ALL physics texts support what I’m saying), and the work (pun intended) done by the scientist for whom the SI unit of energy is named. I’ll get around to taking apart your latest posts line-by-line later, but for now just let me repeat my challenge: where are the sources that support your interpretations? If I’m so incredibly stupid that I don’t understand basic physics, why the trouble finding even a single source which contradicts me?
Slarti said “Do you disagree that the following equation holds for the WTC collapse?
[initial GPE] = [energy remaining in the system] + [kinetic energy expelled from the system in dust/debris] + [thermal energy expelled from the system in dust/debris] + [sonic energy emitted] + [seismic energy emitted]”
I don’t agree. You’re trying to apply energy conservation law, but your conservation equation above defies the law. When you try to tell me that energy is conserved, and then you use an equation that has two forms of energy, and a whole lot of mass, being “expelled from the system”, I’m going to tell you that you’re full of shit. What part of NO MASS OR ENERGY CAN LEAVE THE SYSTEM don’t you understand?
Here’s an example of the type of science you are attempting to use:
‘All energy is yellow. If you don’t agree, you must prove that I am wrong. I have a master’s degree in art, so I know that to be true, and it is common knowledge. You’re just too ignorant to know what I’m talking about.’
Does that sound familiar to anyone?
Slarti,
Energy remains constant in an isolated system. Not an open system or a closed system, but an isolated system. That is a law. If you want to apply that law to an open or closed system, you have the responsibility of providing support for doing so.
You’re so full of your own crap that you can’t see why a non-tangible boundary cannot apply to an isolated system. Just because you choose to ignore the mass and energy crossing your boundary, does not mean that it cannot. In an isolated system, mass and energy CANNOT cross the boundary. Nothing can come in, and nothing can leave. Until you can recognize that to be a fact, nobody should waste their time with you.
Duh posted:
All three of my definitions were consistent with both Wikipedia and common usage (if you want to question that, please provide a source). The following are all from the beginning of the named Wikipedia articles:
Isolated systemIn the natural sciences an isolated system, as contrasted with an open system, is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings. It obeys a number of conservation laws: its total energy and mass stay constant. They cannot enter or exit, but can only move around inside. An example is in the study of spacetime, where it is assumed that asymptotically flat spacetimes exist.
Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality (except perhaps for the universe as a whole), because, for example, there is always gravity between a system with mass and masses elsewhere. However, real systems may behave nearly as an isolated system for finite (possibly very long) times. The concept of an isolated system can serve as a useful model approximating many real-world situations. It is an acceptable idealization used in constructing mathematical models of certain natural phenomena
Closed systemA closed system is a system in the “state of being isolated from its surrounding environment.”[1] The term often refers to an idealized system in which closure is perfect. In reality no system can be completely closed; there are only varying degrees of closure.
In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange heat and work (a.k.a. energy), but not matter, with its surroundings. In contrast, an isolated system cannot exchange any of heat, work, or matter with the surroundings, while an open system can exchange all of heat, work and matter. For a simple system, with only one type of particle (atom or molecule), a closed system amounts to a constant number of particles.
Open systemAn open system is a system which continuously interacts with its environment. The interaction can take the form of information, energy, or material transfers into or out of the system boundary, depending on the discipline which defines the concept (see below). An open system should be contrasted with the concept of an isolated system which exchanges neither energy, matter, or information with its environment.
As you can see, I haven’t appealed to my authority at all – just a convenient definition which is consistent with common usage. (By the way, for all that Bob and Robert have complained about my use of Wikipedia, neither of them (nor you) have provided a single reference refuting anything I’ve quoted from there and I’m not going to ignore the hypocrisy inherent in this nor the idiocy of all of the unsupported specious objections that the three of you have brought up. If you keep raising objections about my references (which I generally include, always provide upon request and have never been caught without) with nothing but your own unsupported ignorance, I’m going to call out your hypocrisy.
Do you disagree that the following equation holds for the WTC collapse?
[initial GPE] = [energy remaining in the system] + [kinetic energy expelled from the system in dust/debris] + [thermal energy expelled from the system in dust/debris] + [sonic energy emitted] + [seismic energy emitted]
If so, provide support for your objection and I wont call you a hypocrite (I may still call you an idiot). If you can’t do this then you don’t have a valid objection and I’m not going to shy away from pointing that out.
Duh posted:
I’m calling you an ignorant hypocrite because all you have done is raise specious and trivial objections to my arguments based only on an implied appeal to your own authority while making obviously false charges that I am appealing to authority. You’ll notice that I didn’t start calling you ignorant until you started demonstrating ignorance – I’ll stop when you do, but until then I don’t really care if I offend you. I have no problems with substantive challenges to my arguments – it’s the banal and insipid trivialities put forward by hypocrites that annoy me. I’m actually hoping that when Buddha replies to my latest post directed at him that I will get a well-argued challenge to the substance of my argument (no pressure, Buddha ;-)) because I know that if he disagrees with me he will make a logical argument that will force me to think, as opposed to the kind of trivialities that you seem to be learning from Robert. I know I’ve leveled a lot of disrespect at you here, but I’m sick and tired of the hypocritical disrespect that both Bob and Robert have shown me throughout this entire debate. While you weren’t responsible for that, you have shown your own ignorance and hypocrisy and you have repeated their lies. If you would like me to treat you with more respect, then show me some respect and I will do the same. But until you do, you can expect to be called out on ignorance and hypocrisy.
Slarti,
I know what a system and a physical system are. Anything under consideration is called a system. I cannot for the life of me understand why you would quote the definition of a physical system (which is not, nor ever has been in dispute) but then proceed to make up your own definitions for everything that followed. As Bob Esq. has stated numerous times, “you’re appealing to your own authority”. Provide a definition and a link to your source, or I’m going to question it.
I have no problem with you using Wikipedia as a reference, but I do have a problem with you using it as an authority. Even Wikipedia says that an isolated system “is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings”, but you say it can have negligible interaction. I can’t give you points when your own preferred reference disagrees with you. In one paragraph you say “An isolated system is one which has negligible interaction with its environment”. Then you provide a definition that says Isolated System “No mass or energy is allowed to cross the boundary of the system”. What is there, other than mass or energy, to interact with? The definition says NO MASS OR ENERGY, but you say negligible. Either you are wrong or the definition you provided is wrong. (Or there is something that is neither mass nor energy that you are suggesting.)
“The cut between the system and environment is a free choice, generally made to simplify the analysis as much as possible.”
I know the reason you did it, but I can’t find anything that would permit you to take advantage of laws that are reserved for use in a real isolated system. Can you please provide me with a reference that supports the use of energy conservation laws in a system with no physical boundaries?
Maybe I should ask what is bound by your boundary, and how is it bound? I’m smart enough to know the difference between ignored and bound.
“The WTC collapse is an example of an open system”.
That’s what everybody keeps telling you, but as soon as they point out that the laws of conservation of energy only apply to an isolated system you change your tune.
“enough to make it roughly between ambient temperature and room temperature”
What the hell is the difference between ambient temperature and room temperature? We’re talking about a building collapse here.
“Now you can argue with me (and I’ll bet you will), but unless you can come up with something besides your own ignorance to support your arguments,”
I just would like to see you provide something other than your own authority to support your arguments. Is is customary in your circles to provide definitions that you yourself created as a means of providing supporting authority? To me, that’s like an attorney telling the court “Because I said so”.
You might not like to be challenged, but I take offense to you calling me ignorant when you choose to appeal to your own authority.
Duh posted:
Okay Duh, you asked for it – don’t say I didn’t warn you…
EVERYONE ELSE – WARNING! BORING SEMANTIC DISCUSSION AHEAD! PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!
For this discussion, I will assume that we aren’t discussing nuclear reactions so we can treat mass and energy as separate.
First off, let’s see what Wikipedia has to say (from the ‘Physical system’ entry):
In physics the word system has a technical meaning, namely, it is the portion of the physical universe chosen for analysis. Everything outside the system is known as the environment, which in analysis is ignored except for its effects on the system. The cut between system and environment is a free choice, generally made to simplify the analysis as much as possible. An isolated system is one which has negligible interaction with its environment.
So a system is a ‘portion of the physical universe’ – what does this mean? Well for the purposes of most physics problems (including this one) the universe can be assumed to be ‘living’ in 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension, therefore a ‘portion of the physical universe’ is just a region in 4-dimensional spacetime. The ‘physical boundary’ of a region is given by the mathematical definition that I posted before (if you want to use a different definition of boundary, please state what it is so I can show that it is equivalent to mine or incorrect). I gave a description of the region that I was using and showed that it was both well-defined and had the properties that I wanted (and when I say ‘showed’, what I really mean is ‘proved mathematically’). In light of the fact that ‘The cut between the system and environment is a free choice, generally made to simplify the analysis as much as possible.’, neither you nor Bob nor Robert have come up with any valid reason to object to any of the choices of system that I have used.
Now let’s take a look at how we deal with conservation of energy in different types of systems. First off, we know that ‘Everything outside the system is known as the environment, which in analysis is ignored except for its effects on the system.’ so in order to obey conservation of energy we need only consider the effect of the environment on the system (or vice versa). In other words, we need to know the flux of energy across the boundary of the system. So let’s look at the different types of systems and see how we do this:
Isolated system: No mass or energy is allowed to cross the boundary of the system, i.e. both the mass and energy flux across the boundary must be zero. Conservation of energy tells us that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant. An example of an isolated system is the universe – since an underlying assumption of science is that there is nothing outside the universe, it has no boundary and hence no energy (or mass) flux over the boundary.
Closed system: No mass can cross the boundary of a closed system, but energy may. In a closed system, the total energy of the system obeys the conservation equation:
(total energy) = (initial energy) + (input energy) – (output energy)
An example of a closed system would be a balloon filled with a gas (and sealed shut). The number of gas molecules remain constant but energy can be transferred through the boundary in either direction in the form of heat by putting the balloon in an environment that is hotter or cooler than the gas inside the balloon.
Open system: In an open system both mass and energy are allowed to pass through the boundary. The WTC collapse is an example of an open system (I defined the system in the post Duh referenced). In this case, we are interested in the destination of all of the energy that originated as GPE in the WTC (in order to determine if additional energy was required to destroy the building) so we need to take into account how much of this energy exits the system (as we’re only interested in the GPE, we don’t have to worry about inward fluxes since the assumption that none of the GPE leaves the system and returns is a reasonable one and other inward fluxes (like sunlight) were not originally stored as GPE). The conservation of energy equation looks like this:
[initial GPE] = [energy remaining in the system] + [kinetic energy expelled from the system in dust/debris] + [thermal energy expelled from the system in dust/debris*] + [sonic energy emitted] + [seismic energy emitted]
*any expelled mass had initial thermal energy (enough to make it roughly between ambient temperature and room temperature) and may have gained additional thermal energy due to the fires – neither of these energies are included here.
Now you can argue with me (and I’ll bet you will), but unless you can come up with something besides your own ignorance to support your arguments, I think that everyone reading will be able to determine which one of us knows what he’s talking about (unless their eyes glazed over about half a paragraph into this). I hate to disappoint you because I know that you’re making a valiant effort, but it’s unlikely that you will be able to catch either Bob or Robert in the race for the title of most ignorant. Between Bob’s implications that tracing heat backward and using Newton’s third law in dynamic situations where the forces involved are unknown are good analytical techniques and Robert’s novel theories of sound and the majority of energy being ‘ejected into the atmosphere’ in a collision (which is also technically sound), the title of ‘King Idiot’ is pretty much out of your reach. Nice try, though.
Slart said “So, what did I do here? I was challenged as to the definition of a mathematical term (boundary) – did I say, ‘I’m a mathematician so I’m right!’? No, I warned Duh that continuing this behavior would lead to boredom on everyone’s part and I gave a definition of the term in question (with citation so anyone who cared could check it) and went on to explain how the definition applied to the question at hand.”
Slarti, I chose not to respond, not because you provided a correct or adequate explanation, but because I found further discussion to be futile. A boundary (in terms of energy conservation) is a physical boundary. It can be easily identified and recognized by everyone or anyone involved. I know that you can’t have an isolated system without first having a closed system.
Wikipedia says that a closed system is a system in the “state of being isolated from its surrounding environment”. That’s what I like about physical properties.
Bob,
I had forgotten that I originally used the term ‘impact fire theory’ to describe what I’ve been calling the ‘natural’ theory for several months, but you have implied that the term referred somehow to the impact heating of the rubble rather than to the jetliner impact and resulting fires as I clearly meant in context. This is how I introduced the term:
You [Bob] said:
“Since we’re not discussing the elements of the inchoate (incomplete) crime of ‘conspiracy’ I’ll ask you to refrain from using that term.”
[Me] From now on I will refer to IFT (impact fire theory) and CDT (controlled demolition theory)
So you were misinterpreting what I said slightly differently than how I thought you were – not exactly a shining example of your intellectual honesty…
Buddha,
I would rather have your response when you are in top form, so I will patiently wait. I hope your recovery goes smoothly and quickly.
Byron,
Don’t worry about stealing my thunder, I’ve got plenty to spare…
Gang,
I promise to rejoin the conversation as soon as I am of full faculty. This thread actually requires my full brain and the flexerils are a supervening factor. I’m operating at about 70% of nominal capacity at the moment.
Bob,
I hope everything is . . . as well as can be expected. The offer to bend an ear is without expiration.
Slarti: As I’ve explained to you many times, collisions heat objects up – if they are moving fast enough that will result in melting or even vaporization (I never said anything like combustion would happen due to impact – that’s just you trying to misinterpret what I said into another strawman)
Denies the months of innuendos and makes yet another false claim as to what I’ve “interpreted.”
Hey Wyatt, do you see what I mean?
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-119121
Slarti:
Not to steel your thunder but have you looked at high temperature transition of steel? Was there any evidence at the WTC sites? Maybe Robert or Bob could find a reference for that. If thermite was used there should be some evidence of a change in the crystalline structure of the steel due to the high temperatures of thermite. So far I haven’t seen any information on that line of investigation.
Slarti: So, Bob, where are we now?
Byron, which part Slarti’s case did you find most persuasive?
I’m guessing that he finds the combined weight of my entire argument much more persuasive that the incompatible isolated hypotheses that you’ve been touting.
Fire Impact theory;
As I’ve explained to you many times, collisions heat objects up – if they are moving fast enough that will result in melting or even vaporization (I never said anything like combustion would happen due to impact – that’s just you trying to misinterpret what I said into another strawman). The debris in the WTC collapse were moving nowhere near this speed and I have never said or implied differently. In fact, I have stated that the KE dissipated in the impact would have been sufficient to raise the temperature of the entire mass of the building by about 20 to 30 C. Lying about what I’ve stated is intellectual dishonesty and when you accuse me of attributing arguments that you didn’t make to you, it becomes hypocrisy.
containing the counterfactual implication that steel was accelerated far beyond that of gravitational acceleration, up to a speed of Mach 4 before ‘impacting’ with the ground below so as to melt?
I have not made any counterfactual assertions or implications about the velocity of the debris (or anything else) and have refuted all of your and Robert’s accusations of such. I don’t know where the ‘Mach 4’ number you give comes from, but I’ve said the the debris were traveling somewhere in the 60 to 80 m/s range at impact (possibly lower than 60 m/s).
Lane’s process; where the steel was raised to the heat of fusion by pouring cold water over it?
A known exothermic reaction that occurs between iron and steam which produces hydrogen gas which you’ve given no evidence could not have occurred in the rubble. For something which isn’t central to my argument about which you have no scientific evidence you sure have spent a lot of time on this. This reaction is just one of the myriad reactions that may have occurred in the soup of various compounds and free energy that was the rubble pile – why are you so up in arms about it? I’ve already got a much better candidate for which there is actual evidence – the corrosion of aluminum by water (which is also an exothermic reaction that produces hydrogen and which we know almost certainly occurred due to water samples from the basements – before you whine about me bringing up something new without references, I’ve already mentioned this (with references) several times).
Claiming for months that ‘the system is the universe;’ except when such vague definition failed to serve his purpose anymore so he then defined the system as the WTC?
There are infinitely many valid choices of system for analyzing this event and I am free to choose any of them as long as I account for mass and energy flux over the boundary of the system (if there is any). I choose different systems in order to make different arguments (all valid) as to why my analytical methodology using conservation of energy was correct and appropriate. And I hardly think that defining my system as the universe is vague – in fact it’s pretty specific (there being only one universe that we’re aware of), but maybe that’s just another thing that you don’t understand (like Ockham’s razor).
That wasn’t disingenuous was it?
No, it wasn’t. The choice of system had no effect on the substance of my argument, it was a semantic argument that Robert forced me into to defend my use of basic physics. I would think that someone who embodies the term disingenuous as well as you do would have a better idea what it meant.
Claiming that molten aluminum glows hot orange instead of dull gray?
That would depend on how hot it was – and if it was molten steel, why wasn’t it white hot? I find it interesting that in one of the 2 trials that Dr. Jones did, orange sparks were emitted by the molten aluminum and hydrocarbon mixture yet he saw no reason to do more extensive and realistic trials. That’s some scientist you’ve got there…
Turning Newton’s thee laws of motion into Newton’s Three Laws of Stasis because Slarti says Newton’s third law doesn’t apply well to “dynamic” systems?
I explained why your analysis via Newton’s third law was inappropriate, yet you persist in repeating your incorrect theories – can you tell us what all of the forces on all of the columns were when the upper block impacted the lower block? How much did the structure of the building have to ‘give’ in order to ‘catch’ the upper block?* (In order for the lower block to do the work of dissipating the kinetic energy of the falling upper block, force must be exerted over a distance.)
*A simple (for me) calculation shows that assuming that the lower block columns were carrying 30% of their max load (were exerting 30% of the maximum force that they were able to exert) and that they could still exert this force in trying to ‘catch’ the upper block, the columns would have to continue to exert the maximum force while being compressed by 1.11 m in order to dissipate the kinetic energy gained by the upper block in a 3.7 m drop. So either the columns were carrying significantly less than 30% of their maximum load, they could be compressed over a meter without yielding or there was no possible way the the collapse could have been arrested once it started. This calculation uses forces in a simple (but correct) way and I will be happy to provide the details if anyone asks.
Slarti’s refusal to reconcile his ‘theory’ with the collapse of WTC 7; as if he was Antonin Scalia making an argument for “just this one case?”
All I’ve ever said is that the collapse of WTC7 is very different than the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 (and due to your and Robert’s intransigence on basic physics, I didn’t want to try to combine the two arguments). The collapse of WTC7 is perfectly consistent with the ‘natural’ hypothesis and like the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 shows no signs of intentional demolition.
Claiming there was a 20 story hole in WTC 7; without offering any evidence known to mankind of such a hole?
There is evidence of significant damage and unfought fires in WTC7. the extent of the damage is difficult to ascertain due to the smoke billowing from the south face of the building, but there is plenty of evidence of both fire and damage.
Claiming a 767 could travel 500 knots?
In response to your whining about ‘never before has a building collapsed due to fire’, I quoted a paragraph from debunking911.com which referred to “…a plane traveling 500 miles an hour…” (which you seized as if that invalidated the point – as if there had been many skyscraper impacts with jetliners traveling at slower speeds). In all of my calculations regarding the plane, I used the speed of 404 knots from the NIST report. Once more Bob lies to create a straw man – it must be a day ending in ‘Y’.
Using approximated totals for his energy analysis while claiming Newton’s third law is inapplicable because we cannot simply approximate forces; i.e the way he approximated the energy totals?
You can use Newton’s third law if you can approximate the force bearing on each column (and how it changes with time) while the lower block tried to stop the descent of the upper block – you have made no attempt to do so. The force calculation that I performed above shows that it is extremely unlikely that the lower block could dissipate the KE resulting from a 3.7 m drop.
Proclaiming victory by appealing to his own authority?
Bob, since you apparently haven’t read anything that I’ve posted or linked (or at least you haven’t understood any of it) and your own argument consists of nothing but an appeal to the dubious authority of Dr. Jones and your unsupported claims that I am wrong, this charge has zero credibility – especially in light of the fact that I have made extensive arguments supported with dozens of references from various sources which I ask everyone reading to consider on their merits.
Let’s examine one of the few cases where my credentials are more than evidence of a general competence in science (strangely, I believe that having published peer-reviewed scientific papers tends to indicate that one is a scientist). In response to Duh’s unsupported (and untrue) allegation that the system I described had no boundary, I replied thusly:
So, what did I do here? I was challenged as to the definition of a mathematical term (boundary) – did I say, ‘I’m a mathematician so I’m right!’? No, I warned Duh that continuing this behavior would lead to boredom on everyone’s part and I gave a definition of the term in question (with citation so anyone who cared could check it) and went on to explain how the definition applied to the question at hand. I don’t need to appeal to authority like you do, Bob, because I actually understand physics and I’m willing to explain things to other people and provide references so that they can confirm that I am correct if they want to. Unfortunately you have decided that you can’t hold your own in a scientific discussion so you avoid reasoned discussion on the facts at all costs.
Slarti: While I admit the comparison with Bernie Madoff was hyperbolic, I did not make an ad hominem attack – I called Dr. Jones’s actions and statements unethical and provided evidence of it.
Would that be the same post you attributed an argument to me that I had not made?
To wit:
Slarti: “I find it deeply ironic that you continue to excoriate Dr. Greening for his poorly stated reference to Newton’s 3rd law after arguing for months that conservation of energy did not apply.
While you may not have directly stated that conservation of energy didn’t apply, you certainly never once gave any indication that you didn’t agree with Robert’s ignorant argument along those lines and you did question my assertion that ‘work’ conserves energy in my analysis (physics that has been accepted for 150 years by everyone except you and Robert, it seems).
Talking about intellectual honesty, I’m still waiting for you to show me where I argued that.
I just did. And you should do some research on ‘intellectual honesty’ before you talk about something you clearly know nothing about.
And what argumentation skills lab did you fall out of when you don’t see the following as an ad hominem?
Slarti: Apparently you overlooked the word ‘independent’ in my statement, or is ‘Steven E. Jones’ not the same ‘Dr. Steven Jones’? And is this article published in the ‘Journal of 9/11 Studies’ that Dr. Jones founded and which has the ethical standards of Bernie Madoff? Is this even additional evidence of ‘thermic’ material?”
I made an allegation about Dr. Jones’ ethics based on his actions and statements (and added an admittedly hyperbolic comment) – it’s not an ad hominem attack to make a charge and back it up by with evidence.
And I love your use of the word ‘thermic’ — as vague and useless as your defining the system as the universe and equally indicative of poor reading skills; since the term used was ‘thermitic.’ And no, it wasn’t a spelling error because you used the term repeatedly in the post.
So my using the incorrect form of a term is the best argument you can come up with? How impressive.
Slarti: “this is a summary from a page about Dr. Jones (link below) along with some of my comments”
Keep it. You are not addressing the arguments made by Jones, you are arguing against the man.
It’s too bad you didn’t read the page since all of the arguments on it are substantive attacks on Dr. Jones’ scientific credibility including not controlling his samples for by-products of welding by cleanup crews at ground zero or metalwork by a sculptor working in the household in which the samples were collected, not allowing independent researchers to test his samples to confirm his findings, not reporting evidence he’s collected which would weaken his findings (additional spectra besides his alleged ‘thermitic’ signature), not to mention a pattern of unethical behavior… I don’t have anything against Dr. Jones as a man, but from what I’ve seen he is a terrible scientist and your acceptance of his work without question is just more proof of your confirmation bias.
And of course, the prime architect is your pal Greening.
If you could find a single scientific objection to any of the arguments in Dr. Greening’s papers I’m sure you would have done so by now. I’ve said that I would answer any objection you had to his science, but you’ve declined to provide any example of where his papers are incorrect. To be fair, you would need to be able to understand his arguments to do that and it’s awfully hard to find errors that aren’t there (although that’s never stopped you from making straw men out of my arguments).
Slarti: So, Bob, where are we now?
Being that you’re such an evasive #$%^ it’s hard to say.
Yes, making a scientific analysis, providing supporting references and answering all of you and Robert’s ignorant misinformation is horribly unfair of me…
Slarti: I’m pretty happy that I used Dr. Greening’s solid, well-documented scientific arguments, especially given that I’ve got plenty of additional scientists with theories and evidence totally consistent with Dr. Greening’s theories (as well as my own).
The chemist who believes Newton’s third law doesn’t apply… well why rehash the obvious.
As I’ve said, Dr. Greening’s papers stand on their own and I can provide additional sources consistent with his (and my) analysis. Additionally, although Dr. Greening’s argument was ineloquent, I think that it is pretty clear that his point was that it is inappropriate to use Newton’s third law in the kind of simplistic dynamic argument in which you are using it.
Slarti: Dr. Jones, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to make the grade for good science and your whole argument basically depends on him.
Which part of his argument did you refute; specifically? Oh, that’s right you quoted from that site with stuff by Greening.
As I usually do, I quoted from several sources to discredit Dr. Jones (which you would have known if you actually read my post and followed the links). I question his lack of control for his samples, his selective reporting of results, his lack of good scientific procedure (which is shown in his laughable video experiments with molten aluminum), his unjustified leaps to conclusions and his poor ethical standards.
Cheers for your intellectual honesty and immaculate debating skills.
You clearly have no idea what the term ‘intellectual honesty’ means (or you are just trying to smear me with it in the hope that no one will notice the blatant hypocrisy) and I haven’t been debating, I’ve presented a scientific argument – you should try it sometime.
Slarti: Who do you have in the bullpen?”
The facts; ready to be turned generic, i.e. stripped of the loaded label of 9/11 and examined by any physicist.
You mean the fact that the observations of the collapse all but rule out explosives or other deliberate forms of demolition? You cling to one highly dubious allegation (Dr. Jones’ assertion that he found residue that must have come from thermitic material) and ignore the mass of evidence which makes your theory nigh impossible.
You know, the same physicists that would laugh at fire impact theory; lane’s process; Newton’s three laws of stasis; ‘the system is the universe’; molten aluminum glows hot orange, etc., etc.
Feel free to show my analysis to a physicist. Unless you edit it to misinterpret my intent, I think you’ll be sorely disappointed with their reaction – I doubt you’ll be able to find a physicist who doesn’t think that objects heat up (and even melt or vaporize if they are going fast enough) on impact, who would instantly rule out a process that is known to occur between reactants which were present in the rubble pile, who would think that a simplistic analysis of the WTC collapse using Newton’s third law was a better idea than an analysis using energy, who would have a problem taking the universe as their system, or who would deny that aluminum glows orange when it is sufficiently hot*.
*I’d also like to point out that once again you’re on the wrong side of Ockham’s razor – molten aluminum pouring out of the window requires no unknown heat sources like molten steel would (and you should also take a look at the behavior of molten steel in a foundry).
Slarti: Jim Hoffman? He’s no more a scientist than Robert is. I’ve repeatedly debunked his paper as well as linked to Dr. Greening’s response to it in addition to pointing out that his explanation requires the equivalent of 2 kilotons of TNT going off throughout each tower without anyone noticing or the dust cloud reaching temperatures of over 700 C.
You didn’t touch Hoffman’s analysis; you simply repeated Greening’s.
I actually read his analysis and didn’t have any problem debunking it, but Dr. Greening had already done it and written it up (much more clearly that I could have in this venue), so I used his work. Hoffman’s analysis says that either there was the equivalent of 2 kilotons of TNT in pre-drilled boreholes throughout the building (in order to pulverize the concrete and supply the energy he says was necessary to expand the dust cloud) or the temperature of the dust cloud was over 700 C. Try showing Hoffman’s analysis to a physicist – I’m sure they’ll get a kick out of what idiots both of you are.
Slarti: You continue to cite him anyway – gotta love the intellectual honesty there, Bob!
I told you the reason I cited his work. Nothing wrong with showing what you may have missed.
Apparently you missed the complete lack of good science in his work.
Slarti: I suppose you could always go with the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth… too bad I pretty thoroughly destroyed their credibility in my last post.
There you go again; beating your chest and proclaiming victory.
If you’d like to address the objections to A&E for 9/11 Truth that I raised, feel free – if not people can take a look at them and make up their own mind… My arguments stand just fine on their own – the rest is just smack talk. For someone who has been as disrespectful and dismissive with as little cause as you have throughout this entire argument, you sure seem awfully sensitive. If you’d like me to treat you with respect, then show me some and stop spouting hypocrisy and ignorance.
If you only knew how much your credibility sinks every time you do that… It’s tantamount to you spitting your food across the dinner table at your guests. Quite unseemly.
Hmm… me making well supported allegations about Dr. Jones’ credibility as a scientist is an unfair ad hominem, but your gratuitous attacks are just fine. I expect that people will judge my credibility on the substance of what I say, although I understand that the last thing you want is to argue the science on its merits.
Robert:
“Actually, drywall screwed to the studs can provide a good bit of structural support. It’s is definitely not near as much as Steel beams, but it is definitely much more than “No” support.”
it is only about 5-10 lbs per lineal inch in shear. and they probably used steel studs for interior partitions, 22ga steel.
it would be a sink but very negligible.
Slarti: While I admit the comparison with Bernie Madoff was hyperbolic, I did not make an ad hominem attack – I called Dr. Jones’s actions and statements unethical and provided evidence of it.
Would that be the same post you attributed an argument to me that I had not made?
To wit:
Slarti: “I find it deeply ironic that you continue to excoriate Dr. Greening for his poorly stated reference to Newton’s 3rd law after arguing for months that conservation of energy did not apply.
Talking about intellectual honesty, I’m still waiting for you to show me where I argued that.
And what argumentation skills lab did you fall out of when you don’t see the following as an ad hominem?
Slarti: Apparently you overlooked the word ‘independent’ in my statement, or is ‘Steven E. Jones’ not the same ‘Dr. Steven Jones’? And is this article published in the ‘Journal of 9/11 Studies’ that Dr. Jones founded and which has the ethical standards of Bernie Madoff? Is this even additional evidence of ‘thermic’ material?”
And I love your use of the word ‘thermic’ — as vague and useless as your defining the system as the universe and equally indicative of poor reading skills; since the term used was ‘thermitic.’ And no, it wasn’t a spelling error because you used the term repeatedly in the post.
Slarti: “this is a summary from a page about Dr. Jones (link below) along with some of my comments”
Keep it. You are not addressing the arguments made by Jones, you are arguing against the man. And of course, the prime architect is your pal Greening.
Slarti: So, Bob, where are we now?
Being that you’re such an evasive #$%^ it’s hard to say.
Slarti: I’m pretty happy that I used Dr. Greening’s solid, well-documented scientific arguments, especially given that I’ve got plenty of additional scientists with theories and evidence totally consistent with Dr. Greening’s theories (as well as my own).
The chemist who believes Newton’s third law doesn’t apply… well why rehash the obvious.
Slarti: Dr. Jones, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to make the grade for good science and your whole argument basically depends on him.
Which part of his argument did you refute; specifically? Oh, that’s right you quoted from that site with stuff by Greening. Cheers for your intellectual honesty and immaculate debating skills.
Slarti: Who do you have in the bullpen?”
The facts; ready to be turned generic, i.e. stripped of the loaded label of 9/11 and examined by any physicist. You know, the same physicists that would laugh at fire impact theory; lane’s process; Newton’s three laws of stasis; ‘the system is the universe’; molten aluminum glows hot orange, etc., etc.
Slarti: Jim Hoffman? He’s no more a scientist than Robert is. I’ve repeatedly debunked his paper as well as linked to Dr. Greening’s response to it in addition to pointing out that his explanation requires the equivalent of 2 kilotons of TNT going off throughout each tower without anyone noticing or the dust cloud reaching temperatures of over 700 C.
You didn’t touch Hoffman’s analysis; you simply repeated Greening’s.
Slarti: You continue to cite him anyway – gotta love the intellectual honesty there, Bob!
I told you the reason I cited his work. Nothing wrong with showing what you may have missed.
Slarti: I suppose you could always go with the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth… too bad I pretty thoroughly destroyed their credibility in my last post.
There you go again; beating your chest and proclaiming victory. If you only knew how much your credibility sinks every time you do that… It’s tantamount to you spitting your food across the dinner table at your guests. Quite unseemly.
Slarti: So, Bob, where are we now?
Byron, which part Slarti’s case did you find most persuasive?
Fire Impact theory; containing the counterfactual implication that steel was accelerated far beyond that of gravitational acceleration, up to a speed of Mach 4 before ‘impacting’ with the ground below so as to melt?
Lane’s process; where the steel was raised to the heat of fusion by pouring cold water over it?
Claiming for months that ‘the system is the universe;’ except when such vague definition failed to serve his purpose anymore so he then defined the system as the WTC? That wasn’t disingenuous was it?
Claiming that molten aluminum glows hot orange instead of dull gray?
Turning Newton’s thee laws of motion into Newton’s Three Laws of Stasis because Slarti says Newton’s third law doesn’t apply well to “dynamic” systems?
Slarti’s refusal to reconcile his ‘theory’ with the collapse of WTC 7; as if he was Antonin Scalia making an argument for “just this one case?”
Claiming there was a 20 story hole in WTC 7; without offering any evidence known to mankind of such a hole?
Claiming a 767 could travel 500 knots?
Using approximated totals for his energy analysis while claiming Newton’s third law is inapplicable because we cannot simply approximate forces; i.e the way he approximated the energy totals?
Proclaiming victory by appealing to his own authority?
Bob,
Instead of re-debunking everything you’ve just posted (which is getting very repetitive and boring), let me just say to everyone else: ‘Everything Bob just said is hypocritical bullshit and the previous 1,300 posts prove it.’ I’ll address some of it line-by-line later if I have the time.
Now that we have that out of the way, you like to complain that I merely appeal to my own authority (ignoring the lengthy explanations and frequent references which make this a bald faced lie), so why don’t we take a look at the authority your entire argument appeals to – let’s take a closer look at your hero, Earl.
[Short Round] “You call him ‘DOCTOR JONES’!”
Sorry, let’s see what we can find out about Dr. Steven Earl Jones…
Wikipedia says:
You might notice the term ‘muon-catalyzed fusion’ in there – better known as ‘cold fusion’. To be fair, apparently Dr. Jones’ less sensational claims didn’t require retraction like the claims that fellow BYU researchers Pons and Fleischmann made in their famous press conference the day before they and Dr. Jones had agreed to submit their respective papers to Nature. It looks like Dr. Jones learned the wrong lesson from that mess…
The following accusation was in one of your recent volleys of misinterpretation, ignorance and hypocrisy:
[Bob posted]
While I admit the comparison with Bernie Madoff was hyperbolic, I did not make an ad hominem attack – I called Dr. Jones’s actions and statements unethical and provided evidence of it. In addition, I called his science shoddy and provided evidence of that as well. Finally, I said that the journal he co-founded (JONES*) has poor ethical and scientific standards (I provided sources for that accusation as well).
*I find it amusing that the acronym for the Journal of 9/11 Studies is ‘JONES’.
Lest you ignore what I’ve already posted (like you do with just about every argument I make and every source that I post), this is a summary from a page about Dr. Jones (link below) along with some of my comments – all of these items are supported in greater detail on the linked page:
Since I know Bob still believes in thermite (and presumably the tooth fairy and the easter bunny as well) the page that this summarizes can be found here:
http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Steven+Jones
And since I know that Bob wont take the time to follow the link, I thought I’d pick out this highlight from a researcher who submitted several articles to JONES (one of which was published):
OUCH! Do you think that most respected scientific journals have their authors making comments like this about them? In case you think that this is the only source that I could find that was critical of Dr. Jones, read this:
or these quotes from a letter written by a BYU colleague:
and
[Preceding quotes from: www(dot)debunking911(dot)com/jones.htm ]
There’s plenty more about the good Dr. Jones on that page as well… Do you still think that Dr. Jones maintains good scientific and ethical practices? That the scientific evidence favors your argument in any way?
So, Bob, where are we now? I’m pretty happy that I used Dr. Greening’s solid, well-documented scientific arguments, especially given that I’ve got plenty of additional scientists with theories and evidence totally consistent with Dr. Greening’s theories (as well as my own). Dr. Jones, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to make the grade for good science and your whole argument basically depends on him. Who do you have in the bullpen, Jim Hoffman? He’s no more a scientist than Robert is. I’ve repeatedly debunked his paper as well as linked to Dr. Greening’s response to it in addition to pointing out that his explanation requires the equivalent of 2 kilotons of TNT going off throughout each tower without anyone noticing or the dust cloud reaching temperatures of over 700 C. You continue to cite him anyway – gotta love the intellectual honesty there, Bob! I suppose you could always go with the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth… too bad I pretty thoroughly destroyed their credibility in my last post. I’m sure you’ll find a way to raise more straw men from my comments and slay them most impressively, but I’ll just keep calling bullshit on your ignorance, misstatements and hypocrisy.
Slarti said “it takes a lot less energy to crush drywall and break some 2×4s than it does to bend a steel I-beam into a horseshoe.”
[I asked] “Where did you get the 2×4’s from?”
[Slarti’s response] “I assumed that there were interior walls made of 2×4 frames covered with drywall – what do you think that interior walls were made of, ice cream?”
Steel studs are required by code for high-rise buildings. Notice that you didn’t see any wood 2×4’s in the rubble pile?
[I asked] “How much energy does it take to crush a sheet of drywall?”
[Slarti’s response] Not much on the scale we’re talking about.
When drywall is screwed, or screwed ans glued (as required by some building codes), it provides a large amount of structural strength and stability. I wouldn’t expect a mathematician to know that. It’s not a big deal, but it does demonstrate why a mathematician and a chemist cannot fully comprehend all of the energy sinks.
How many sheets of drywall were crushed?
Quite a few. I would assume that most of the interior partitions were crushed in the collapse.
Did those sheets of drywall provide any structural support?
No.
Actually, drywall screwed to the studs can provide a good bit of structural support. It’s is definitely not near as much as Steel beams, but it is definitely much more than “No” support.
Slarti said “You asked for a picture of buckled steel columns – here’s one (about 1/5 of the way down the page):
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
Slarti,
Those are “exterior columns”. A visual observation of the collapse would lead us to expect buckled “exterior columns”. I’m looking for evidence of buckling of the interior core columns. You know; the ones that I say were cut.
“The columns also appear to have been in a fire – hmm…”
That statement signifies what exactly? No one is claiming that there were no fires in the towers or the rubble. Are they?