Ask a physicist anything. (4)

[mzungu]

I'm not a physicist, but the answer to this is no. The atmosphere is not perfectly still, it's still moving with the Earth, but not necessarily at the same speed. Hence why the wind generally goes in certain directions but not others, due to the Coriolis effect (again).

Of course, someone better educated may correct me on this, but this is what I understand.

Generally the atmosphere rotates with the earth; We can see this by observing a lofted balloon in a room or calm day. It will remain motionless!

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

What, are yo telling me steel hasn't been observed loosing it's strength in fire.

No I'm telling you a steel framed skyscraper has never been observed to collapse due to fire.

And secondly, there has't been an event like 9-11 before or aft.

If you're referring to the planes hitting the buildings

1) The plane impacts wern't even mentioned by the official explanation for the collapse, only the fire.

2) WTC 7 was never hit by a plane.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

Generally the atmosphere rotates with the earth; We can see this by observing a lofted balloon in a room or calm day. It will remain motionless!

Generally? Sooooo......

When theres a wind then the atmospheres NOT rotating with the Earth?

Is that correct?

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

No I'm telling you a steel framed skyscraper has never been observed to collapse due to fire.

Maybe people should have a look at the facts before they start commenting:

9-11 Loose Change Documentary

YouTube - 911 Loose Change (full-length)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Great let's see how we measure star distances without using heliocentricity or theorization.

We use the various traits that change with distance. For instance, the EM spectrum of a star tells us its absolute brightness - or, more specifically, that its absolute brightness is the same as other stars with the same spectrum.

In other words, we can work out star distances by noting that stars with the same spectra have the same absolute brightness, and so any variation in apparent brightness is due to their different distances.

I'm sure even you can appreciate that a distant object appears dimmer than its closer twin.

How do you measure Pluto's distance then?

The theoretical baseline used in stellar parallax is 186,000,000 miles.

The true baseline is a maximum of 8,000 miles. (Diameter of Earth)

8,000 X 23,250 = 186,000,000

Therefore the factor of error is 23,250 to one.

You realise, of course, that the distance to Pluto is in no way dependant on what baseline we use. A baseline X times larger will give us more accurate results, not results that are X times bigger. A baseline of 8000 miles, and a baseline of 186,000,000 miles, will both give the same distance to Pluto.

My God man, are you even trying?

If it involves theoretical science, yes I reject it as truth.

It's a mathematical model that has been vindicated by over a century of experimental data. Of course, because it still has the word 'theory' in its name, you instantly baulk and run away, right?

Can you link me to some papers that explain this?

Newton's Laws are pretty well established in the world of science.

It's a theory. I reject it.

Because it's a theory? How bizarre. I suppose you also reject the chemical theory of atoms? The germ theory of disease? The quantum theory of matter? The "If I turn a kettle on, water will boil" theory of making tea?

As I keep saying, 'theory' is not a dirty word. It simply means 'a claim supported by the evidence'.

Gravity doesnt describe orbits.

Yes, it does. What else keeps the planets orbiting the Sun, or the Moon around the Earth, or, indeed, the artificial satellites?
Turn on a GPS, and see proof that gravity is real.

But a theory none the less. Aetheism is also a theory adopted by the masses. But I know darn well it's wrong.

How, exactly?

Ok well in my universe you can believe your eyes and the forces are real.

I'll stick to reality, thanks.

All that maths is alien to me. Can you tell me if his calculations assumed that the inside of the shell was a perfect vacuum, or if it was made up of....'stuff'?

The mathematics ignores any medium inside the shell, thus, the medium is irrelevant. The proof holds no matter what you fill the shell with: the shell itself does not exert any gravitational or electromagnetic force on the object(s) within.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Question for a physicist:

Do you believe that the World Trade Centre twin towers AND WTC 7 collapsed due to fire, when no such phenomenon as ever been observed before regarding steel framed structures before OR since 9-11 without the use of strategically placed controlled demolition charges?

Yes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Maybe people should have a look at the facts before they start commenting:

9-11 Loose Change Documentary

YouTube - 911 Loose Change (full-length)

That is your basis for 'fact'?

 

[Nabobalis]

Question for a physicist:

Do you believe that the World Trade Centre twin towers AND WTC 7 collapsed due to fire, when no such phenomenon as ever been observed before regarding steel framed structures before OR since 9-11 without the use of strategically placed controlled demolition charges?

Windsor Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors; firefighters needed almost 24 hours to extinguish it. While seven firefighters were injured, nobody was killed in the fire, which was arguably the worst in Madrid's history.

So if a simple fire collapses the outer structure, imagine what a plane would do.

 

[Nabobalis]

Generally? Sooooo......

When theres a wind then the atmospheres NOT rotating with the Earth?

Is that correct?

No. The wiki explains more elegantly that I could ever do.

Wind is caused by differences in pressure. When a difference in pressure exists, the air is accelerated from higher to lower pressure. On a rotating planet the air will be deflected by the Coriolis effect, except exactly on the equator. Globally, the two major driving factors of large scale winds (the atmospheric circulation) are the differential heating between the equator and the poles (difference in absorption of solar energy leading to buoyancy forces) and the rotation of the planet. Outside the tropics and aloft from frictional effects of the surface, the large-scale winds tend to approach geostrophic balance. Near the Earth's surface, friction causes the wind to be slower than it would be otherwise. Surface friction also causes winds to blow more inward into low pressure areas.[1]

 

[Nabobalis]

That is your basis for 'fact'?

I have watched that, I don't recommend it. Not unless you want high blood pressure.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Windsor Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if a simple fire collapses the outer structure, imagine what a plane would do.

That's what I love about it. Why did the WTC fall? Because a hulking great plane blew up inside it!

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

Windsor Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So if a simple fire collapses the outer structure, imagine what a plane would do.

So here is the collapsed building you're talking about yes?

Just like the twin towers ??? >?>>

Erm....sorry :::: NO SALE!

 

[PhoceanCity]

I have a question for a physicist (for anyone in fact): In your personal opinion, what will be the next great discovery that will redefine the way we see our universe? A unified theory of everything, the developement of strong AI, discovery of life trough the universe... ? Wich one of the great unknown of science do you think will be resolved in your lifetime?
Kind of a personal question in fact.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

That's what I love about it. Why did the WTC fall? Because a hulking great plane blew up inside it!

Ahh so the official report by NIST didn't talk about the plane impact and 'blowing up inside the building' but that's your explanation?

And how about WTC 7?

No plane. Minimal fires.

Global collapse at practically freefall speed in it's own footprint.

The physics please.

 

[pgp_protector]

Why does CF allow blatant trolls to keep posting?

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

I have a question for a physicist (for anyone in fact): In your personal opinion, what will be the next great discovery that will redefine the way we see our universe? A unified theory of everything, the developement of strong AI, discovery of life trough the universe... ? Wich one of the great unknown of science do you think will be resolved in your lifetime?
Kind of a personal question in fact.

Biblical Geocentricity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have a question for a physicist (for anyone in fact): In your personal opinion, what will be the next great discovery that will redefine the way we see our universe? A unified theory of everything, the developement of strong AI, discovery of life trough the universe... ? Wich one of the great unknown of science do you think will be resolved in your lifetime?
Kind of a personal question in fact.

Personally, the kind of paradigm shift that accompianied QM and GR isn't going to happen in my lifetime, i think. That said, I'm hopeful that we'll encounter alien life, even if it's not intelligent - after all, we've invented the science of finding exoplanets within my own mere 22 years, and discovered an Earth-like planet just 20 ly away.

So for me it's aliens

 

[Nabobalis]

So here is the collapsed building you're talking about yes?

Just like the twin towers ??? >?>>

Erm....sorry :::: NO SALE!

The two are not fully comparable, the fire was able to collapse the outer structure of a newish building. While at the WTC, the plane hit the central pillar head on which is what holds up the building, combined with the fire which further weakens the metal, it was enviable that it would collapse.

 

[Nabobalis]

Personally, the kind of paradigm shift that accompianied QM and GR isn't going to happen in my lifetime, i think. That said, I'm hopeful that we'll encounter alien life, even if it's not intelligent - after all, we've invented the science of finding exoplanets within my own mere 22 years, and discovered an Earth-like planet just 20 ly away.

So for me it's aliens

Well I don't know how long you intend on living , but I want a GUT in my lifetime and aliens and FTL.

 

[pgp_protector]

Personally, the kind of paradigm shift that accompianied QM and GR isn't going to happen in my lifetime, i think. That said, I'm hopeful that we'll encounter alien life, even if it's not intelligent - after all, we've invented the science of finding exoplanets within my own mere 22 years, and discovered an Earth-like planet just 20 ly away.

So for me it's aliens

Go send a probe under the ice of Europa.
I'd lay good odds that their's life on that moon.