Australia is facing a controversy that is all too familiar to Americans. Fundamentalists in state schools are teaching children that humans and dinosaurs lived together and Noah brought dinosaur eggs on to the Ark.
Children are also taught that Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs “because they were under a protective spell.”
This is consistent with Palintology — the new science advanced by Sarah Palin — which insists that man and dinosaur must have co-existed despite carbon dating and simple logic.
Source: News
Woosty:
that otter lived longer than most otters. From the San Diego Zoo facts:
http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-otter.html
Average life span 15-20 years. Nyac 6 months + 19 years +/- analysis-about 20 years. What does that mean? Old age killed her. Human beings get cancers as they age because of declining immune systems. Don’t you think otters may be prone to similar health risks since they are living creatures?
Lincoln posted on August 14, 2010 at 1:58 pm
The amount of energy required to collapse every column on a floor can be calculated (Bazant, et al. estimated it at 500 MJ according to this report which calculated it to be 629 MJ). What this means is that something like 500 MJ is dissipated by crushing an entire floor and severing every single column on a floor would require 629 MJ of work to be done.
When a force acts over a distance it does work that increases the stress on load bearing members. The magnitude of this work is measured in Joules which are units of energy. Talking about stress in terms of the work energy that must be dissipated by the beam is perfectly reasonable. It is also important to consider the amount of stress that a beam can dissipate in an elastic fashion versus a plastic fashion – once a beam has passed its elastic limit it is no longer able to ‘bounce back’ and will eventually succumb to ongoing dynamic stresses and fail.
Here is a link to a module on conservation of energy. It explains how to use energy to analyze events. When a force acts over a distance work is performed which converts energy from one form to another (or transfers it from one place to another). When a force is balanced by an equal and opposite force no motion occurs so no work is done and no energy is transferred.
My god, what a terrible analogy. Do you even think that means something? What I’ve done is to take a quantity known to be conserved and estimate the initial amount of it and the various resultant amounts of it in order to compare two values which we know to be equal. What do you think is wrong with this approach?
If you assembled the best musicians in the world without music or a conductor, they would probably start to jam and produce beautiful music (haven’t you ever listened to improvisational jazz?) Which goes to show that not only does your analogy provide absolutely no insight into its object, but it’s untrue on its face as well. Nicely done.
Well, I’m glad that train wreck is finally over…
Gravity, in fact, converts GPE into KE with 100% efficiency. That KE is then used to power work of various sorts and eventually ends up as thermal energy. Since energy is conserved the total of the various sorts of work plus the remaining GPE is equal to the original GPE. Do you understand?
Take the dimensions of the dump truck to be 17′ x 8’6″ x 5′ – this gives a volume of about 20 cubic meters. Assuming a density of 3000 kg per cubic meter (solid rock), this gives a mass of about 60 tons (the mass of the upper block of the WTC was about 22 kilotons, by the way). At an average of 8 feet above the ground… hell, let’s make it 3 meters, we get a total GPE in the neighborhood of 1.8 MJ. WTC1 and WTC2 combined contained over half a million times more GPE than this – it would take over 300 times this amount of energy just to collapse a single floor of the WTC. This is enough energy to crush 268 kg of concrete into 50 micrometer powder, or assuming that the ‘gravel’ was instead a 60 ton block of an unyielding substance with the same footprint as the dump truck that doesn’t bounce and neglecting the energy lost to sonic and seismic waves, then enough energy would be dissipated into the roadway to pulverize less than 1 cm of concrete (this thickness will vary with the cube of particle size, by the way). I used calculations from the report linked above to do this analysis. Does that answer your question?
Lincoln,
You’ve made a lot of non-specific attacks. If you’re going to continue attacking me, I’d appreciate it if you would give examples of what you’re suggesting that I’m doing (specific scientific criticism is also fine – preferably with references).
Lincoln posted at August 14, 2010 at 11:03 am:
I thought that since my analysis was based on the theory developed from the seminal paper “On the mechanical equivalence of heat” by James Joule, Esq. and that I had used quotes from that paper to demonstrate that my interpretation of energy is in complete agreement with the theory originated in that paper that I would use a little hyperbole and say that he agreed with me. In fact I did discuss my analysis with a colleague (a professor of applied mathematics with a PhD in physics) and he, too, was floored by Bob’s objections about basic physics. If, despite all of this, I am wrong then it should be a simple matter to find a source on the web that contradicts me…
‘Argumentum, ad nauseum, ad populum’ – could you please provide specific examples like I do when I accuse Bob of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.
You’re new to this fight, so I’ll recap – I have set out to scientifically analyze the collapse of WTC1. The hypothesis I’m testing is: ‘natural’ causes arising from the airliner impact are sufficient to explain observations of the collapse and aftermath. This is a falsifiable (i.e. scientific) hypothesis – for instance if the energy sinks in the collapse totaled more than the available GPE that would falsify the hypothesis (I’ve discussed other ways to falsify it on several occasions). I have provided links to scholarly papers with calculations supporting this hypothesis as well as explanations of calculations that I have performed that also support it. I am willing to answer any scientific criticism directed at any of these calculations and I would be happy to explore a complete theory of the collapse that assumed controlled demolition if someone would like to provide one. In what way have I behaved unscientifically?
It would, for example, take an enormous amount of explosives (the equivalent of 600 tons of TNT, according to Dr. Greening) to pulverize the concrete if it were not done via gravitational collapse. Other assertions by Bob or sources Bob has linked would have required large amounts of explosives as well. Additionally, Bob has been consistently vague about how explosives and/or incendiaries could have kept metal molten for six months and how much would be required. I believe that he cannot come up with any complete theory of the collapse involving the use of incendiaries and/or explosives that is consistent with all of the observations. On the other hand, I have a complete theory and have shown that the GPE of the towers is sufficient to account for all of the energy sinks in the collapse (with 50 or 60 gigaJoules to spare in my rough estimation). This accounts for the energy necessary to compromise the structure of the building. If some of the structure was compromised by demolition charges, this unbalances the conservation of energy equation even further. Bob has never suggested any energy sink that I’m not accounting for, but if you think that there’s anything I’m overlooking I’d be happy to consider it.
Again, the issue here is asking Bob to provide a consistent theory (or more accurately, pointing out that he’s trying to have it both ways). He has posted links that assert explosives were used throughout the towers. I have posted links to scholarly papers which show the collapse would have been self-sustaining. Bob has a problem with initiating charges on a single floor or group of floors as this doesn’t yield enough explosives/incendiaries to account for the heat (although as I’ve pointed out, he’s never explained how unexploded demolition charges could have resulted in molten metal six months later).
Which is a standard technique for analysis in physics – refer to the link I posted for a tutorial in the use of conservation of energy. Typically one resorts to analysis via energy because it is difficult or impossible to measure the forces involved while the energies are much easier to determine. It is almost always the best place to start the analysis of any physical system.
If they sustained an aircraft impact severe enough to compromise their structural integrity, sure. Any building taken down by controlled demolition has shown itself to be vulnerable to gravitational collapse.
Buildings are not designed to be able to arrest a progressive collapse once it is initiated. If the kinetic energy gained through the fall of one floor can not be absorbed by the floors above and below the collapse, then the fall is self-sustaining. I’ve provided links to several calculations which show that this was the case in the WTC.
No, and in fact I have provided links to calculations (and made calculations myself) regarding the impact energy of the plane. They showed that the impact energy of the plane was sufficient to do damage on the order of what would have been necessary to collapse a floor after accounting for crushing the airframe and imparting sway to the building (this is important for any columns that sustained damage past their elastic limit as it essentially doomed them). A smaller plane would likely not have had enough impact energy to deal the building a fatal blow.
It’s Bob who likes to appeal to authority (generally that of Dr. Jones). Throughout this debate I’ve continually provided quotations and references from several sources to support my arguments (sometimes against repeated attacks showing obvious ignorance and misunderstanding of science). Additionally, I have attacked the sources that Bob has provided with specific, scientific criticism of their analyses and conclusions (and ethics) – accusations that Bob generally doesn’t see fit to refute. You can take on any part of my analysis and I’ll gladly defend it (unless you choose to question my use of physics pioneered by Mr. Joule a century and a half ago, in which case I will defend it with as much derision as I can muster). I don’t believe that people here think of me as appealing to my own authority other than when speaking on topics on which I claim to be an authority(you can verify the credentials I claim, if you like – My name is Kevin Kesseler and I have a PhD in mathematics from Duke). So go ahead and find an example in those 500 posts where you think I was incorrect on the physics and I’ll respond to your argument. I would appreciate it if any argument you make was accompanied by supporting references however, since I have continually lived up to that standard. 😉
Again, please provide specific examples and I will respond to your argument (with references supporting my rebuttal ;-)).
So NIST and FEMA were just wasting their money trying to understand the collapse? This statement is just ridiculous. There’s an enormous amount of information available regarding the WTC collapse – the idea that no sound conclusion can be reached based on the available information is silly. You’re saying that I can’t look at, say, the seismic record and ask if it is consistent with a natural collapse? That people advocating controlled demolition don’t need to be able to explain why the effects of explosions weren’t seen on the seismographs? I’ve made a hypothesis and found arguments that support it. People can weigh those arguments (and I would be ecstatic if anyone was interested in trying to repeat the calculations ;-)) and any counter-arguments that have been made and make up their own mind. Personally, I believe that the scientifically sound conclusion is that it is highly unlikely that deliberately placed explosives were involved in the WTC collapse.
For a collapse to occur, something on the order of 600 MJ of structural damage needs to be done (an estimate of the energy required to sever all of the columns on one floor). I’ve given estimates of the kinetic energy of UA175 and AA11 as well as the maximum energy dissipated in crushing a 767. If you give me access to FEMA’s finite element model, I could probably tell you if a particular set of impact parameters were likely to lead to a collapse, but why should I be able to tell you what the minimum size was? The relevant question (the only one that I’ve given an opinion on) is: ‘was AA11’s impact sufficient to lead to a collapse?’ and I’ve linked to a calculation and made arguments that suggest that the answer to that question is ‘yes’.
Slarti: “My examples showed the very same effect (the creation of thermal energy) resulting from the very same process (internal friction) at different scales.”
No, you provided your impactor example during your attempt to explain the existence of molten metal at ground zero. The example inappropriately implied there was some sort of equivalence between your example and the actual facts at ground zero. Steel falling a hundred or so stories is NOTHING like cosmic debris hitting the earth at Mach 3.94 and liquifying upon impact. It does nothing but obfuscate the analysis of the origins of molten metal at ground zero with musings about something that did not happen.
Slarti: “it’s impossible to tell which energy source did which part of heating molten metal (to be able to do so, we would need to solve the reverse heat equation, something that is mathematically impossible – although it’s a standard technique in Bob’s world…). What we can do, however, is determine (or estimate) the amount of thermal energy that could have been supplied by different means. In asking if the observed heat in the rubble is anomalous, we need to know that the impact supplied hundreds of gigaJoules of thermal energy to the mass of debris (just like the lion’s share of the half yottaJoule of kinetic energy in the Chixulub impactor was converted into thermal energy at ground zero).”
“we need to know that the impact supplied hundreds of gigaJoules of thermal energy to the mass of debris”
To paraphrase a beautiful quote by Lincoln: “What the 1500 or so posts on the 9/11 thread demonstrate is that a mathematician has attempted to account for the [molten metal at ground zero] using energy without associating [mechanics or how such energy was DIRECTED to create said molten metal]. … According to the Slartibartfast analyisis of collapse, all structures are on the brink of collapse, [and creating pools of molten metal in their footprints] simply because they have the GPE to effectively “self-destruct” [and melt metal in the process].”
Slarti: “I never said that the method of acceleration of the impactor was the same”
The impactor example has nothing to do with the observed facts at ground zero. It’s overkill for a diminimus factor in regards to the creation of molten pools of metal. And your use of said impactor example worked only to confuse the casual reader into accepting (without analyzing) your argumentum ad verbosity. It’s the same sophistry as “9/11” “Sadam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.” “9/11” (repeat as necessary.)
In Re: your paper clip example, all you did was further show how the example is inapplicable.
Slarti: “Your Niagra Falls analogy is flawed – you should ask why Niagra Falls isn’t boiling.”
No, I specifically said “on fire” because the statement begs the question you’re always begging: “where’s the directional component?”
Or, in the same way that Lincoln claimed: “a mathematician has attempted to account for the collapse using energy without associating force.”
Your analysis is rife with sums of energy SANS any defining (directional) factors accounting for the phenomena that you claim you’re explaining; thus your need to stretch such inane examples as the impactor and the paper clip.
To wit: “it would take about 16 million years for the falls to dissipate as much GPE as the Chixulub impactor”
Just how the hell is the foregoing digression relevant AT ALL to anything we’re discussing?
And here you go again with your bush league tactic of re-defining my premises and attacking them.
Slarti: “Excuse me. More unique than DNA? You’re saying that nano-thermite is more unique than a substance that in most cases identifies a unique organism and at least identifies a small group of organisms or a species of uni-cellular organisms. Wow”
Did I say that nano-thermite was more unique than DNA? Hmm, let’s examine the subject of the following sentence:
Me: “The non-fungibility of the nano-thermite makes it more unique than DNA.”
The subject of the foregoing sentence is “the non-fungability of the nano-thermite.” The predicate attached to the aforesaid subject addresses the issue of whether the item in question is capable of being replaced or altered. Fungability. In other words, is DNA fungible? Can DNA be replaced or altered? Absolutely, just switch it with another sample of DNA. Proving something like that is the reason you hire someone like Barry Scheck as part of your “Dream Team.”
Can the nano-thermite found in the dust be replaced or altered? Answer: NO, because it’s created by just a handful of labs world wide; labs that are not accessible to the public.
Or as Niels Harrit has said: “This stuff has only been prepared under military contracts in the USA and probably in bigger allied countries. This is secret military research. … It was not prepared in a cave in Afghanistan. “
However, rather than move on, you diddled with my premises once again; falsely claiming I said “DNA was more unique than DNA.” If you’re going to diddle, diddle with yourself; leave my premises alone.
And here’s another example of you making inappropriate statements in light of the fact that you didn’t read the paper by Harrit:
Slarti: “You’re saying that there’s something in the milk that must be a trout, but you haven’t ruled out it being a piece of the cookie you just dunked in the milk…”
Before you bastardize Thoreau; come to think of it, what do you care? You didn’t even read the paper.
Slarti: “Except that if the collapse were started at the base of the building it would have been a bottom-up collapse (typical of controlled demolition) instead of the crush-up, crush-down collapse observed (and consistent with a progressive failure leading to a global collapse in the impact zone). “
And as Lincoln would ask, how are you in a position to claim how an alleged demolition must proceed? Does James Joules agree with you on this one as well? Seems to me if the intention is to raise hell and inspire fear, all bets as to how ‘controlled’ the alleged demolition “must” be are off the table.
Slarti: “Also, you seem to want to give eyewitness testimony under some of the most stressful circumstances possible the credibility of, say, the professional opinion of a demolition specialist.”
Apparently you’re not familiar as to why ‘excited utterances’ and ‘present sense impressions’ are deemed reliable; even when the declarant is available.
My examples showed the very same effect (the creation of thermal energy) resulting from the very same process (internal friction) at different scales. This is a common way to consider physical processes and I think that it generally helps people to understand them better. Obviously I was wrong in your case. And what is at issue is heat – or rather thermal energy. In order to determine if the thermal energy in the rubble was unusual, we need to determine how much thermal energy may have been supplied to various parts of the rubble by various sources. Thermal energy is the ultimate fungible quantity – it’s impossible to tell which energy source did which part of heating molten metal (to be able to do so, we would need to solve the reverse heat equation, something that is mathematically impossible – although it’s a standard technique in Bob’s world…). What we can do, however, is determine (or estimate) the amount of thermal energy that could have been supplied by different means. In asking if the observed heat in the rubble is anomalous, we need to know that the impact supplied hundreds of gigaJoules of thermal energy to the mass of debris (just like the lion’s share of the half yottaJoule of kinetic energy in the Chixulub impactor was converted into thermal energy at ground zero). Even if the average temperature rise in the debris was around 20°C – 30°C it makes the debris pile as a whole hotter and thus effects our expectations. When we consider the cause of hot spots, it is important to know how much thermal energy is generated in the stressed area when a steel beam is bent like a paper clip – especially since we know that it took about 500 MJ per floor to compromise the steel. There was more than a terraJoule of gravitational potential energy in the towers the morning of September 11 and the law of conservation of energy tells us that most of it was converted to thermal energy in the rubble.
Except I’ve shown that a eutectic mixture of steel including sulfur could be molten at temperatures as low as 700°C, a temperature that could be probably have been reached in the rubble by fire alone, even without any other chemical reactions (which very likely occurred) or thermal energy supplied by impact or stress (which is known to have added the better part of a teraJoule of thermal energy to the rubble. Additionally, neither explosives nor incendiaries are good candidates for a sustained source of heat, they both tend to release their energy very quickly compared to combustion or other exothermic reactions that I’ve suggested may have taken place in the rubble – especially considering that the collapse would have generated a lot of heat generally as well as many hot spots – providing an environment conducive to chemical reactions.
I never said that the method of acceleration of the impactor was the same and since most of the building was accelerated by the descending mass of debris it wouldn’t be considered freely falling, and although the overall collapse speed was limited by gravity (and the resistance put up by the buildings) this did not involve the concept of terminal velocity. A steel beam dropped from the top of the WTC would hit the ground at 90.41 m/s and would have almost 8200 joules of kinetic energy per kilogram (neglecting air resistance). This would be enough energy to raise the temperature of the steel by about 17°K were it all to be converted to thermal energy in the steel. At impact a small portion of this kinetic energy would be converted into sonic energy and a slightly bigger portion would be converted to seismic energy in the form of shockwaves in the air and ground. The bulk of the energy would be converted to thermal energy in the beam and the ground due to their deformation and the kinetic energy in the bounce. This kinetic energy would be converted into gravitational potential energy and then into kinetic energy again (thorough the mechanism of gravitation – I know you’re keen on knowing the mechanism – that operates via a device called the planet Earth). This process is then repeated until there is no bounce. In the end all of the 8200 joules would have been converted into sonic energy, seismic energy, and thermal energy. The same analysis applies to a steel ball-bering dropped from shoulder height or an iron impactor 10 km in diameter hitting at escape velocity. The fact that you don’t seem to be able to understand a simple conservation of energy analysis like this astounds me. This is stuff I learned in early childhood (to quote my first calculus teacher).
The paper clip example shows that when you bend a steel beam, it will heat up. The greater structural integrity of a steel beam means that it requires a lot more force to bend and thus more heat is generated when it is bent. If this bending takes place quickly, the heat doesn’t have time to flow from the deformed portion of the beam to the rest of it and thus this heat is concentrated. If the steel at the bend is heated to the melting point in this manner, the beam will snap in two (a very small amount of material would actually melt since once the beam was severed the stress would be relieved).
I’ll wait to say anything about the Harrit paper until I’ve read it, but I had this to say about an interview with Dr. Harrit:
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-135866
(There are some comments praising your intellectual honesty in this post as well ;-))
Although many of the papers I’ve used to support my arguments are not peer reviewed (some are, by the way), I’ve repeatedly offered to defend the science in any of them (specifically in any of Dr. Greening’s papers) to the best of my ability. You’ve never taken me up on that offer. Come on, give Robert and Duh a call – if my arguments are as fucked up as you say they are, then you guys should have no problem finding references on the web debunking the papers I’ve cited and correctly explaining the science. As for directing GPE to melt steel, do you mean like a steel beam being bent fast enough to sever it in the collapse of a building? Your Niagra Falls analogy is flawed – you should ask why Niagra Falls isn’t boiling. The reason that it isn’t boiling even though nearly a gigaJoule of GPE is dissipated every second (that’s about 100 times the GPE in the WTC dissipated every day and it would take about 16 million years for the falls to dissipate as much GPE as the Chixulub impactor) is because that energy is spread out over 1833 cubic meters of water. Each drop of water only dissipates enough energy to raise it’s temperature by about 1/4°K even if the total energy dissipated every second by the entire falls is enough to liquify a ton of iron at room temperature.
Excuse me. More unique than DNA? You’re saying that nano-thermite is more unique than a substance that in most cases identifies a unique organism and at least identifies a small group of organisms or a species of uni-cellular organisms. Wow. That’s right up there in the running for the stupidest thing you’ve said. I’m arguing that Dr. Jone’s assertion of nano-thermite’s non-fungibility is unsupported (along with several other reasons to doubt the assertions that Dr. Jones makes). You’re saying that there’s something in the milk that must be a trout, but you haven’t ruled out it being a piece of the cookie you just dunked in the milk… Given your track record on basic physics, I would have thought you’d be a staunch proponent of the aether.
The story of the janitor came from one of your links and required less than 5 minutes of research to thoroughly debunk…
Except that if the collapse were started at the base of the building it would have been a bottom-up collapse (typical of controlled demolition) instead of the crush-up, crush-down collapse observed (and consistent with a progressive failure leading to a global collapse in the impact zone). Also, you seem to want to give eyewitness testimony under some of the most stressful circumstances possible the credibility of, say, the professional opinion of a demolition specialist.
You know, I’m pretty happy with the case I’ve made. As always the readers can choose what they want to think.
Finally, we end with some classic Bob boilerplate using the time-honored tactic of accusing me of his own sins:
I have repeatedly and at length given reasons to support my claim that Dr. Jones’s research is dubious and my assertion that the ‘natural’ theory of the collapse is supported by the science. Therefore by your little argument I’m behaving rationally. You, on the other hand, ask us to take Dr. Jones’s word for it, but fail to support that argument beyond a blind appeal to his authority. So by your own argument you’re irrational.
… argument
Slarti,
Against my better judgement I am beginning to take an interest in this arguement
Buddha said:
Hopefully in the time it’s taken me to reply you’ve recovered from your encounter with Shelob.
I’m sorry you got dragged back into this zombie topic but I’m keeping an eye on you, so don’t go trying to eat my brains…
Yes, you did. I haven’t had time to finish reading the paper Bob linked yet, so I’ll wait to comment more on the science which asserts that the samples were manufactured explosives.
I don’t believe that MIC explosives will allow the production of a complete theory of the collapse and aftermath, either. I looked at what you posted and linked, but didn’t research it further as I don’t think that it really affects considerations like the amount of explosives required or the effects of using explosives to produce given results. From what I read you don’t so much get extra heat (the chemical reactions are the same) as you get the heat faster (hence explosive rather than incendiary results) so the total energy yield per kg will be about the same as thermite (there may be some increase due to more of the compound reacting).
Perhaps – I don’t think the symbolic impact would have been diminished all that much if the towers had taken a couple of days to fall (or were brought down by controlled demolition after several weeks if they hadn’t fallen on their own – I think that they were beyond repair after the impacts). The increase in impact seems wildly out of balance with the risk and difficulty of controlled demolition to me. What did the impact and collapse accomplish that the impact alone would not have done? The collapse might have exacerbated the mistakes we made after 9/11, but I don’t think that it would have made that much of a difference.
I agree, although I also question Bob’s (or really Dr. Jones’s) interpretation of their evidence. In my opinion it does not mean what they think it means…
I also agree with this except to note that some of the suggested effects of explosives (pulverizing concrete, for example) border on the impossible at best. I cannot prove that explosive charges were not used in the impact zone to initiate the collapse, for instance, but they are not necessary to explain how the collapse started or why it was self-sustaining. Out of curiosity, what do you think would be sufficient evidence to re-open the case?
In 2008, Nyac died of chronic leukemia, a disease previously unknown to otters but often associated with petroleum. Do you think that was a long range after effect of the oil spill?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-ott/emoilgateem-bp-and-all-th_b_667709.html
now named ‘Oilgate’….Riki Ott staying on top of the truth….
Buddha: “A destroyed symbol has more value to those who wish to inspire fear than a symbol than endures despite attempts at destruction. In fact, it has an inverse value to an enduring symbol. Had they not brought the Towers down, we might not have been so easily misled into the twin tragedies of the Patriot Act and attacking a third party not responsible for the attacks.”
I forgot to mention I agree wholeheartedly with the foregoing. And seeing that the tactic of terrorism is ultimately a means of coercion, the ultimate question is ‘cui bono?’ Seems to me you already began to answer that question. Nonetheless, while those answers may seem frighteningly obvious, I still think those issues are secondary and tertiary to sounding out the ‘official story’ and following the evidence that was previously ignored.
AY,
During the reception following a solo performance, I was approached by a member of the audience …”Usually I enjoy everything you play,” she said.
“But not tonight?” I responded.
“Well …. no.” she said.
“Why?” I asked.
“There were too many notes in the songs. Fewer notes is better.” Then she walked away.
It took me a couple of weeks to absorb that one … I dismissed the stupidity but always included at least one “Adagio/minor key” piece in every program thereafter. It was a constructive criticism hidden within a destructive delivery.
Blouise,
There ya go, talking about me…. You know, I still have a hard time separating the whites from the yoke….
That in which you speak is a very hard lesson to learn….It became easier to just shut down and not deal with it….then I learned that they may saying something I agree with and not learn to take the BS personal.
Swmom,
Many years ago the Maestro gave this young teenager (me) a simple instruction: “Fear of criticism is the kiss of death in the courtship of achievement. Learn to separate destructive from constructive criticism; ignore the one and absorb the other and success will be yours … and devote at least three hours a day to practice no matter what level of success you attain.”
Learning to recognize and ignore destructive criticism was the most difficult part of that instruction.
Buddha: “Generating extra heat with minimized explosive off gassing is something well within their potential. ”
“In the end, Bob has enough evidence to question the findings, but just not enough to overcome them.”
You really should re-read the paper so as not to ignore the “detailed results from the Differential Scanning Calorimeter, the two Figures with DSC plots, which show that the energy release from two chips in kJ/gram EXCEEDS the maximum output available from THERMITE alone.”
And once again, the non-fungability/ultimate uniqueness of the material clearly shifts the burdens of production and persuasion on to those who care to explain just how that trout got into the milk.
Blouise,
Thank you. I just remember Charley yes, one of the newest owners of the Rangers, said to me one time that I was not bad for a white boy…..
(I guess his minority stake gives a new meaning to minority majority.)
Swathmore mom,
I could not agree more. Buddha is smooth as butter cream in the south in July or slicker than greased owl shit. Take your choice.
Buddha,
One lives to be of service…..Of course..are you sure that was a spider bite and not a reaction to the sun….You living up North for a number of years would explain your sun diversion. Nothing better than home grown……tomatoes, that is…..
Smom,
I do not question that at all. Blouise is a certified charmer.
Thanks, Blouise.
I’m glad to be feeling somewhat normal again.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0_1F0_20mE&hl=en_US&fs=1]
Buddah Blouise is the smooth one, and I mean it as a compliment.
Buddha Is Laughing,
See what you miss while trying to develop an immunity to the venom of the Brown Recluse. I’m very happy to be reading your poly green self again.