Smrekar's Dialog on Lightpoles and Momentum Options

[Smrekar]

Looking at the momentum (p) in this alleged inelastic collision:

p = mass * velocity

530 mph ~= 777.3333333333 fps [or approx. 460.5574082073434 knots]

Since the amount of fuel or passenger load in AA77 can be disputed, let's use the operating empty weight for a 757-200 for a "light" estimate:

Operating empty with P&W engines 57,840kg (127,520lb), with RB211s 57,975kg (127,810lb). Basic max takeoff 99,790kg (220,000lb), medium range MTOW 108,860kg (240,000lb), extended range MTOW 115,665kg (255,000lb) or 115,895kg (255,550lb).

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=101

127,810lb * 777.3333333333 fps = 99350973.3333334 ft-lb/sec [of B757-200 momentum]

Let's "guess" a 1% momentum transfer in this inelastic collision (a quite conservative estimate):

99350973.3333334 ft-lb/sec * 0.01 = 993509.733333334 ft-lb/sec [of light pole momentum]

Now dividing by the assumed 200 lb. light pole mass,

993509.733333334 ft-lb/sec / 200 lb = 4967.5486666667 ft /sec [of light pole velocity]


Just for comparison, most rifles fire a bullet at 2000-4000 ft/sec.

Is a broken windshield all that we would expect to see happen to Lloyd's? cab?

I'm sorry, but this analysis is simply impossible from a physical standpoint. It assumes that an object traveling at 777 ft/s hitting a stationary object could propel the stationary object along it's trajectory at over 4000 ft/s. This is, I believe, quite impossible. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
You're welcome to source me to an article that would say otherwise, of course ... though I do doubt there would be any.

[KP50]

I'm sorry, but this analysis is simply impossible from a physical standpoint. It assumes that an object traveling at 777 ft/s hitting a stationary object could propel the stationary object along it's trajectory at over 4000 ft/s. This is, I believe, quite impossible. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
You're welcome to source me to an article that would say otherwise, of course ... though I do doubt there would be any.

Can we just ban this person now and save ourselves time later? All of this polite

"source me to an article"

bullshit. We know exactly what is happening, don't we? So let's not play the game.

[Smrekar]

Can we just ban this person now and save ourselves time later? All of this polite

"source me to an article"

bullshit. We know exactly what is happening, don't we? So let's not play the game.

Sure you can. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But you'll have to ban one of your global administrators, as well - he's the one that has been demanding the same from me all the time.

The assumption made in the calculation is obviously wrong, and that won't change no matter what you do.

This post has been edited by Smrekar: Oct 13 2008, 04:58 AM

[KP50]

Sure you can. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But you'll have to ban one of your global administrators, as well - he's the one that has been demanding the same from me all the time.

The assumption made in the calculation is obviously wrong, and that won't change no matter what you do.

"We" won't have to do anything - I'm in favour of banning you because your whole purpose is to waste the time of people who have better things to do. Luckily I am watching cricket so really do have nothing better to do. Farewell as I don't think you'll be around in my morning.

[dMz]

I'm sorry, but this analysis is simply impossible from a physical standpoint. It assumes that an object traveling at 777 ft/s hitting a stationary object could propel the stationary object along it's trajectory at over 4000 ft/s. This is, I believe, quite impossible. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
You're welcome to source me to an article that would say otherwise, of course ... though I do doubt there would be any.

Actually, I don't think I mentioned trajectory anywhere. Which "it's trajectory" again- the 777 fps object or the stationary object? Thanks for agreeing that the hypothetical Lloyd Cab "lightpole 1" "collision" and 4000+ fps would be quite impossible though. I don't even think there was a collision BTW- that was sort of the point of the calculation. Savvy?

I value my privacy, and you likely wouldn't believe my credentials if I told you anyway Smrekar [so I won't], but you might be surprised. I've posted about 2200 clues around here for you though. Why don't you do a little more homework/reading and less unsourced "I believing?" Here are a few good places to start:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/colcon.html#c1

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/collision.htm
"The total momentum of the involved bodies is conserved, regardless whether the collision is elastic or inelastic. The movement of the common center of gravity (indicated by a yellow dot) is not influenced by the collision process."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision
"An inelastic collision is a collision in which kinetic energy is not conserved (see elastic collision).

In collisions of macroscopic bodies, some kinetic energy is turned into vibrational energy of the atoms, causing a heating effect. ... Inelastic collisions may not conserve kinetic energy, but they do obey conservation of momentum."

[Smrekar]

"We" won't have to do anything - I'm in favour of banning you because your whole purpose is to waste the time of people who have better things to do. Luckily I am watching cricket so really do have nothing better to do. Farewell as I don't think you'll be around in my morning.

I was under the impression that this website is about scientifically correct analysis of the 9/11. I have pointed out a flaw in one hypothesis presented on it. How is that wasting time? I'm quite sure working with an unworkable hypothesis would've wasted much, much more time very quickly.

Shunning me for it IS wasting time, however. But that's another story.

[Smrekar]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/colcon.html#c1

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/collision.htm
"The total momentum of the involved bodies is conserved, regardless whether the collision is elastic or inelastic. The movement of the common center of gravity (indicated by a yellow dot) is not influenced by the collision process."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision
"An inelastic collision is a collision in which kinetic energy is not conserved (see elastic collision).

In collisions of macroscopic bodies, some kinetic energy is turned into vibrational energy of the atoms, causing a heating effect. ... Inelastic collisions may not conserve kinetic energy, but they do obey conservation of momentum."

Yes. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Obviously, the momentum will be conserved in our estimate, but the assumption was that 1% of aircrafts' momentum would carry down to the light poles. Since that would require them to fly away at roughly three times the speed of sound, and four times the speed of the impacting aircraft, the assumption cannot be correct, and the calculation and it's conclusions are meaningless.

[KP50]

I was under the impression that this website is about scientifically correct analysis of the 9/11. I have pointed out a flaw in one hypothesis presented on it. How is that wasting time? I'm quite sure working with an unworkable hypothesis would've wasted much, much more time very quickly.

Shunning me for it IS wasting time, however. But that's another story.

Nice try but I don't think enigmatic comments suit you. Farewell once more.

And mods, feel free to delete this pointless exchange whenever you want.

[dMz]

I'm sorry, but this analysis is simply impossible from a physical standpoint. It assumes that an object traveling at 777 ft/s hitting a stationary object could propel the stationary object along it's trajectory at over 4000 ft/s. This is, I believe, quite impossible. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
You're welcome to source me to an article that would say otherwise, of course ... though I do doubt there would be any.

OK- we've got Smrekar's unsourced opinion and belief of "simply impossible." I provided collision dynamics, momentum transfer, inelastic collisions (all with hyperlinked sources). I even did the math for everyone, showing my steps for independent verification.

The reason that I didn't provide a link to a formula for momentum ( p = m * velocity ) is because I have it memorized from college. Perhaps Smrekar has a problem with that, too (or possibly physics in general).

[Smrekar]

OK- we've got Smrekar's unsourced opinion and belief of "simply impossible." I provided collision dynamics, momentum transfer, inelastic collisions (all with hyperlinked sources). I even did the math for everyone, showing my steps for independent verification.

The problem is that the links you provided do not even address the issue I have pointed out. Can you point out which one examines the case where the impacted object travels faster after the impact than the impacting object before the impact?
None.
It's impossible to prove the negative, so I can't really source you anything, I'm afraid.

You can, of course, source me something that does speak of that option. None of your links thus far do that.

The reason that I didn't provide a link to a formula for momentum ( p = m * velocity ) is because I have it memorized from college. Perhaps Smrekar has a problem with that, too (or possibly physics in general).

No, not really, no. I just have an issue with blatantly wrong assumptions (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that formula or your calculations (aside from using about 10 decimal spaces more than you should). It's that you made a rather preposterous assumption along the way, and drew conclusions from that.

What was your major, if you don't mind me asking? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[dMz]

Yes. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Obviously, the momentum will be conserved in our estimate, but the assumption was that 1% of aircrafts' momentum would carry down to the light poles. Since that would require them to fly away at roughly three times the speed of sound, and four times the speed of the impacting aircraft, the assumption cannot be correct, and the calculation and it's conclusions are meaningless.

So there is a point you are trying to make then here? Pray tell us what is it?

Now it's time for Smrekar to look yet more foolish, as Smrekar demonstrably does NOT understand the scientific definition of "assumption." When I say "assuming" it has a very specific meaning BTW. I've been waiting to see if Smrekar was aware of that meaning.
------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_qu..._out_of_context

Fallacy of quoting out of context

The practice of "quoting out of context", sometimes referred to as "contextomy," is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Quoting out of context is often a means to set up "straw man" arguments. Straw man arguments are arguments against a position which is not held by an opponent, but which may bear superficial similarity to the views of the opponent. [1]
----------------------
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assumption

Noun 1. assumption - a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
premise, premiss
posit, postulate - (logic) a proposition that is accepted as true in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning
major premise, major premiss - the premise of a syllogism that contains the major term (which is the predicate of the conclusion)
minor premise, minor premiss, subsumption - the premise of a syllogism that contains the minor term (which is the subject of the conclusion)
thesis - an unproved statement put forward as a premise in an argument
precondition, stipulation, condition - an assumption on which rests the validity or effect of something else
scenario - a postulated sequence of possible events; "planners developed several scenarios in case of an attack"
----------------
Now before Smrekar can claim that "assumption" does not belong in science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

"Philosophy of science is the study of assumptions, foundations, and implications of science. The field is defined by an interest in one of a set of "traditional" problems or an interest in central or foundational concerns in science. In addition to these central problems for science as a whole, many philosophers of science consider these problems as they apply to particular sciences (e.g. philosophy of biology or philosophy of physics)."

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumpt..._of_Science.htm

http://neutralscience.org/
--------------------
OK clearly Smrekar has deemed that 1% momentum transfer "cannot be correct." Carve that in stone, kids- some anonymous internet poster named Smrekar said so. So what percent of momentum transfer is acceptable to the omniscient Smrekar's a priori "beliefs"? 0.000%? Based upon what sourced reasoning or principle? I'll wait for a sourced answer here- likely a very long time.

You may want to think carefully before answering Smrekar, but I fear that you may lack that capacity (or perhaps have been retained not to).

Just out of curiosity, which of the illusionist's acolytes' username(s) might you be? Heeeyy- I might start a "sock pool" or poll here. Gentlemen- place your bets.

Now it's time for Smrekar to go play with balls. Something could be learned.

http://www.kingsford.org/khsWeb/rfs/elemsci/tmomen.html

--------------
My calculator posts many digits- deal with it (I've explained this here before). HINT: truncate or round, as applicable. My college years and work experience are "need to know"- you don't I'm afraid Smrekar. I'll let you wonder or do some research. You also might want to take a closer look at the whole Conservation of Momentum/collision thing again based upon your repeated question- I think you missed a few things there.

Ta.

EDIT: Split Smrekar's debate-oriented portion of topic per forum member request from:
What Brought Down The Light Poles?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13034

[Smrekar]

OK clearly Smrekar has deemed that 1% momentum transfer "cannot be correct." Carve that in stone, kids- some anonymous internet poster named Smrekar said so. So what percent of momentum transfer is acceptable to the omniscient Smrekar's a priori "beliefs"? 0.000%? Based upon what sourced reasoning or principle? I'll wait for a sourced answer here- likely a very long time.

Using your own sources, the maximum acceptable transfer of momentum to the impacted object is the same as the weight difference between the two objects.
In this example, this is 247lb/127,810llb = 0,00193 = 0,193% per pole. The true(er) number is actually (1 - 0,00193) * 0,00193, because the aircraft will also slow down by that ratio, but that's way less than other estimates already in the system (e.g. aircraft weight) and should be ignored.

It's not a matter of belief, really. This is readily observable phenomenon.

Sources ... well I guess posting these again can't hurt.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/colcon.html#c1
http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/collision.htm (esp. this one, play a little with it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision

My calculator posts many digits- deal with it (I've explained this here before). HINT: truncate or round, as applicable. My college years and work experience are "need to know"- you don't I'm afraid Smrekar. I'll let you wonder or do some research. You also might want to take a closer look at the whole Conservation of Momentum/collision thing again based upon your repeated question- I think you missed a few things there.

Ta.

What was your major and what do you work in?
You estimated the speed of the aircraft to accuracy of the same order of magnitude as the radius of an atom (10^-10m). HINT: you're supposed to truncate or round as applicable (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Showing that many decimal spaces isn't a sign of quality work, but of poor knowledge of the subject.

Please, point out what it is that I have missed. You just keep hinting at it, so I'm really wondering if you just aren't covering for yourself.

This post has been edited by Smrekar: Oct 13 2008, 07:07 AM

[dMz]

You estimated the speed of the aircraft to accuracy of the same order of magnitude as the radius of an atom (10^-10m). HINT: you're supposed to truncate or round as applicable (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Showing that many decimal spaces isn't a sign of quality work, but of poor knowledge of the subject.

Perhaps you can source where I mentioned significant figures, accuracy, or uncertainty in the OP, Smrekar. Again, methinks you assume too much about my knowledge base and intentions. Again, you cast aspersions with no sources provided to back them up- I've noticed a pattern there.

Dude, this is an internet discussion forum, not an academic textbook- get over yourself already. Have you ever heard of "scope, " "hairsplitting," or "intended audience?" If my calculator's paste function isn't to your liking (it is called expediency BTW)- you could always find a different internet forum. Your opinion is noted again.

EDIT: Take a look at post #11 above again Smrekar.

Also, BTW- I said "guess" 1% (a conservative estimate), not "assume" above- I was testing your reading comprehension. You might want to read a bit closer and post a bit slower.

You are becoming tedious IMHO.

[dMz]

Using your own sources, the maximum acceptable transfer of momentum to the impacted object is the same as the weight difference between the two objects.

Please provide a verifiable source for this assertion.

[Smrekar]

Perhaps you can source where I mentioned significant figures, accuracy, or uncertainty in the OP, Smrekar. Again, methinks you assume too much about my knowledge base and intentions. Again, you cast aspersions with no sources provided to back them up- I've noticed a pattern there.

You haven't said anything about what's significant and what isn't, you just wrote the figures down. It is generally accepted that you write down significant figures and not the ones beyond it, since they are meaningless.
If there is a different reason for writing them down, please, say so. It might be legitimate, though I don't see how.

Dude, this is an internet discussion forum, not an academic textbook- get over yourself already. Have you ever heard of "scope, " "hairsplitting," or "intended audience?"

Yes, I have. Splitting the hairs would be, for example, writing down an impossibly accurate figure, then worm your way out that you never said those numbers were accurate.

Also, BTW- I said "guess" 1% (a conservative estimate), not "assume" above- I was testing your reading comprehension. You might want to read a bit closer and post a bit slower.

You guessed 1%, and stated it is a conservative estimate. Since neither is corroborated by any sources, it mets the criteria of an assumption.

Please provide a verifiable source for this assertion.

I gave you some links, I believe? They aren't there just for show, you know.

The proof for it is in the Wikipedia article:

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/6/7/a67f6747e38ecfcb0458d1f6456239a4.png)

This is actually sufficient, but you have to do this:

Cr = 0 for a perfectly inelastic collision in your example:

v2f = (M1V1 + M2V2) / (M1 + M2)

Note that V2 = 0, light pole was stationary.

Therefore:

v2f = M1V1/(M1 + M2)
v2f = (M1/(M1 + M2)) * V1

Note that M2 > 0, light pole had a mass. M1 > 0, aircraft had a mass as well.

M1 < (M1 + M2)

(M1/(M1 + M2)) < 1

v2f < V1

This is all very elementary and not a subject to opinion.

This post has been edited by Smrekar: Oct 13 2008, 09:15 AM

[grizz]

What was your major, if you don't mind me asking? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I have no idea what you guys are talking about. But I assure you that dMole definitely does know what he's talking about. He's likely overqualified for this discussion.

[dMz]

The problem is that the links you provided do not even address the issue I have pointed out.

So now you're going to use the links that I provided you to "prove" "the maximum acceptable transfer of momentum to the impacted object is the same as the weight difference between the two objects."

Again, please provide a source for the "maximum transfer of momentum" part of your assertion- you failed to do so.

Now going back to the inelastic collision Wiki, your reading comprehension suffers yet again. Although I didn't assume a "perfectly inelastic collision in your example", you have when you set C_R = 0 in your "proof." Had you read more carefully, you would have noted that: "In a perfectly inelastic collision [1], i.e., a zero coefficient of restitution, the colliding particles stick together."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_col...astic_collision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision

So are you now claiming that the lightpoles all stuck to a B757-200 then Smrekar? I'm fairly certain that this conclusion is not supported by photographic evidence- see the Pentagon forum (or the OP) here. You could stand to improve your reading comprehension considerably before doing so IMHO. Assume less, understand more.
------------

This is actually sufficient, but you have to do this:

Cr = 0 for a perfectly inelastic collision in your example:

- Smrekar, 2 posts above this one.

BTW, you've also dodged several of my questions above Smrekar. I suppose I'll need to number them for you in my next reply Smrekar for your convenience in answering them.

[dMz]

Although I've addressed my calculator twice before (posts #11 and #13 above), our apparently-obsessive "It might be legitimate, though I don't see how" Smrekar might need a picture drawn for him?:

(IMG:http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/1176/copypastewr6.jpg)

Again, HINT: Truncate or round, as applicable. Have you ever heard of a "back of the napkin" calculation Smrekar? I'm primarily interested in the underlying concepts, trends, and results, not in bean-counting single digits. You can wait for my v2.0 of my internet discussion forum posts, I suppose. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

EDIT:
3 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 1 Anonymous Users)
2 Members: dMole, Turbofan

[dMz]

Gee, where'd "anonymous" go TF? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

[dMz]

...
I gave you some links, I believe? They aren't there just for show, you know.

The proof for it is in the Wikipedia article:
...

http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/ironyterm.htm

irony
Definition:

The use of words to convey the opposite of their literal meaning; a statement or situation where the meaning is contradicted by the appearance or presentation of the idea. Three kinds of irony are commonly recognized:

1. Verbal irony is a trope in which the intended meaning of a statement differs from the meaning that the words appear to express.
2. Irony of situation involves an incongruity between what is expected or intended and what actually occurs.
3. Dramatic irony is an effect produced by a narrative in which the audience knows more about present or future circumstances than a character in the story.

See also:

* What Is Irony?
* "A Modest Proposal," by Jonathan Swift
* Sarcasm
* Accismus
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif)

EDIT:

"Can you point out which one examines the case where the impacted object travels faster after the impact than the impacting object before the impact?
None.
It's impossible to prove the negative, so I can't really source you anything, I'm afraid."- Smrekar

http://www.fearofphysics.com/Collide/collide.html

Dump truck vs. stationary kid's scooter:
http://www.fearofphysics.com/cgi-bin/colli...m&mode=wrap