Science > Physics > Choir Of Parrots: The Post 1984 Scientific Establishment
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2006 06:34:44 AM |
| Object: |
Choir Of Parrots: The Post 1984 Scientific Establishment |
According to physicists, this fire
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm
Caused the freefall collapse of WTC 7.
Background:
An examination of this video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completed
at second 23. That is a total of 6 seconds.
It can be easily shown that this building collapsed in the same time it
would take an apple to fall from the roof of this building and hit the
ground - a freefall.
Let's do a simple calculation:
distance travelled = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 *
acceleration * total time^2
or
s = ut + 1/2at^2
Since the apple was stationary before falling (just like building was
prior to collapse), u = 0.
Since the height of the building was 174 meters, s = 174.
Since we are at ground level the gravitational field strength is a
constant, so a = 9.8 m/s^2
Now,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof
of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse.
The 10 year old intellect can easily deduce then that WTC 7 must've
freefallen, further deducing that the ENTIRE STRUCTURE MUST'VE
COLLAPSED SIMULTANEOUSLY.
No minor fires can do that, _ONLY_ syncronized explosions can.
That, ladies and gentleman, evidently exceeds the boundaries of the
competence of our 'leading physicists' - the Wittens of the world, the
Wheelers, their loyal groupies, those so called 'experts' who love to
sell fables on gravitation and call others 'laymen', those who love to
tell others that they 'have no chance'.
References:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Choir Of Parrots: The Post 1984 Scientific Establishment |
25 Aug 2006 03:38:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
According to physicists, this fire
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm
Caused the freefall collapse of WTC 7.
Background:
An examination of this video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completed
at second 23. That is a total of 6 seconds.
It can be easily shown that this building collapsed in the same time it
would take an apple to fall from the roof of this building and hit the
ground - a freefall.
Let's do a simple calculation:
distance travelled = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 *
acceleration * total time^2
or
s = ut + 1/2at^2
Since the apple was stationary before falling (just like building was
prior to collapse), u = 0.
Since the height of the building was 174 meters, s = 174.
Since we are at ground level the gravitational field strength is a
constant, so a = 9.8 m/s^2
Now,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof
of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse.
The 10 year old intellect can easily deduce then that WTC 7 must've
freefallen, further deducing that the ENTIRE STRUCTURE MUST'VE
COLLAPSED SIMULTANEOUSLY.
No minor fires can do that, _ONLY_ syncronized explosions can.
That, ladies and gentleman, evidently exceeds the boundaries of the
competence of our 'leading physicists' - the Wittens of the world, the
Wheelers, their loyal groupies, those so called 'experts' who love to
sell fables on gravitation and call others 'laymen', those who love to
tell others that they 'have no chance'.
VERGON
Even before I saw this video I wondered about something.
They (the lying media) claim the towers collapsed because the fires
melted the steel
concrete covered beams supporting the buildings.
Now looking at the videos we see the fires are at the TOP of the towers
-- a long way from the steel beams below.
How could the fires that far away melt the beams? Besides you can
plainly see the explosions proceding sequentially down the towers.
There is no doubt -- this was an inside job -- that required a
pre-knowledge of the plane attack. Remember Pearl Harbor, remember the
Main, Remember the Penai "incident".---
all domestically contrived excuses to go to war.
Another thing, it is common practice FOR YEARS for military aircraft to
be scrambled and intercept ANY plane that is off course and
incommunicado. My wife was on one such
plane that overflew Hawaii and was on the way to Japan -- which it
never would have made. A fighter showed up and guided the plane back to
Hawaii.
Now the highjacked planes were candidates for this interception (and
could be shot down once it was evident what they were up to).
However, IT IS ON RECORD that the air force was ORDERED to stand down
for 19 minutes before being scrambled. Of course by then it was too
late to catch the planes.
Also, there is an air force base FIVE MINUTES from the Pentagon. No
plane showed up.
Such orders can only come from the top level. Why was there no
investigation into the why and who of this matter?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aluminium Holocene Holodeck Zoroaster" |
|
| Title: Re: Choir Of Parrots: The Post 1984 Scientific Establishment |
24 Aug 2006 01:31:31 PM |
|
|
according to no-one, that I've heard. more likely,
the fall of the two towers severely damaged the enormous,
underground concourse taht contained the subway etc.
ah, but you won't even mention that,
no matter how often it is brought "up;" eh?... well,
I'm just a blip in your hits-per-troll.
According to physicists, this fire
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm
Caused the freefall collapse of WTC 7.
thus:
I hate to drag Michelson-Morley-Minkowski into this, and
I have to really *apologize* for dragging Sarfatti along with them,
but that's better than the stinking remains of Schroedinger's cat!...
anyway, the sole datum upon which this *stuffus darkus* relies upon,
actually bifurcates into two: a)
the interpretation of the redshift as being solely or mostly
to velocity, and b)
that the Cosmic Background Microwaves are really out there,
not just a local phenomenon (as far as I know,
could be inside of the heliopause)....
are there any other primary data?
Things are even more, umm..., "interesting" than that. There are two
types of dark matter: baryonic and non-baryonic. The WMAP "recipe"
has baryonic matter totaling 4.4% of the critical density, and
something over half of it is dark. Possible constituents include
black holes, boulder to planet-size solid objects, gas-giant planets,
old (and thus cold) white dwarfs, red and brown dwarfs (though with
new observations these are not so "dark" any more), and probably
other things I'm forgetting.
"Dark _matter_", on the other hand, is postulated invisible
(doesn't interact with electro-magnetic radiation) matter
concentrated around visible galaxies.
This is the "non-baryonic dark matter." WMAP puts its density at 21%
of the critical density.
thus:
that's a nice, full circle, although a)
New Scientist has always included every goofy/new/wicked thing,
sort-of-like the printed equiv. of Art Bell on the radio, and b)
you and/or NS habitually parrot the Big White Lie,
ignoring the regular anamolies that Michelson-Morley-Minkowski found,
and that was later refined by others (notably Dayton C. Miller .-)...
anyway, there's nothing wrong with an actual ether, although
these guy's "extra degree of freedom, the Aether, in the form
of a vector field that is coupled covariantly, but non-minimally,
with the space-time metric," is also of interest ... if
I knew enough math!...
NB: NS's real, intellectual predecessor is *The [Holy] Economist*. as
for *The Onion*, their first LA-specific edition was fun, but
the next issue was back to the same dreck, note really readable.
I saw the top minds in physics go crazy trying to understand the Dark Side!...
New Scientist is competing now with The Onion.
http://www.theonion.com/content/...
Even Bekenstein in desperation has become a Ptolemeist with epicycle
fudge factors....
Ether returns to oust dark matterFrom his office window, Glenn Starkman
can see the site where Albert Michelson and Edward Morley carried out
their famous 1887 experiment that ruled out the presence of an
all-pervading "aether" in space, setting the stage for Einstein's ...
astro-ph/0607411From: T.G Zlosnik [view email] Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006
12:43:44 GMT (10kb)Modifying gravity with the Aether: an alternative
to Dark MatterAuthors: T.G Zlosnik, P.G Ferreira, G.D Starkman
Comments: Submitted to Physical Review Letters
There is evidence that Newton and Einstein's theories of gravity cannot
explain the dynamics of the universe on a wide range of physical scales.
To be able to understand the properties of galaxies, clusters of
galaxies and the universe on the whole it has become commonplace to
invoke the presence of dark matter. An alternative approach is to modify
the gravitational field equations to accommodate observations. We
propose a new class of gravitational theories in which we add a new
degree of freedom, the Aether, in the form of a vector field that is
coupled covariantly, but non-minimally, with the space-time metric. We
explore the Newtonian and non-Newtonian limits, discuss the conditions
for these theories to be consistent and explore their effect on
thus:
doesn't it depend unpon whether
your first trigon's apex is greater than or less
than 60 degrees?...
would it alternate between those cases,
as it gets closer to equigonal?...
that's just a guess.
ABC. Now you can repeat the procedure, moving B or
C
(respectively A or C), to obtain a new isosceles
triangle, and so on. The sequence of inscribed
thus:
I was also feeling that the *top* picture might be aspension,
if that's what you were saying....
after I'd typed that, I'd had the Vast Realization That
The Bicycle Wheel Is Aspension, but
I guess that You Must Have Mentioned It,
before.
sounder. That's an interesting technique using a tensegrity four-prism
to support the rim of the aspension. Usually it is done using some
compressive outer structure, like a bicycle rim or a rigid foundation of
some kind, like a cylinder.
(http://home.hetnet.nl/~janmarcus1/Tensegrities0.htm), and I think it
thus:
to be featured in the next movie,
"Harry Potter's New Crusades and
the 'Public' Charter Schools: Faith-based Initiatives
in the New Millennium CCE: Come the Rapture,
No Child Left Behind!:"
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3333uk_scoop_soc.html
--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/Amplitude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3322_ethanol_no_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Choir Of Parrots: The Post 1984 Scientific Establishment |
24 Aug 2006 04:23:26 PM |
|
|
Aluminium Holocene Holodeck Zoroaster wrote:
according to no-one, that I've heard. more likely,
the fall of the two towers severely damaged the enormous,
underground concourse taht contained the subway etc.
ah, but you won't even mention that,
no matter how often it is brought "up;" eh?... well,
I'm just a blip in your hits-per-troll.
Look at the photos imbecile, the WTC 7 was not damaged at all. It had
some minor fires.
According to physicists, this fire
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm
Caused the freefall collapse of WTC 7.
thus:
I hate to drag Michelson-Morley-Minkowski into this, and
I have to really *apologize* for dragging Sarfatti along with them,
but that's better than the stinking remains of Schroedinger's cat!...
anyway, the sole datum upon which this *stuffus darkus* relies upon,
actually bifurcates into two: a)
the interpretation of the redshift as being solely or mostly
to velocity, and b)
that the Cosmic Background Microwaves are really out there,
not just a local phenomenon (as far as I know,
could be inside of the heliopause)....
are there any other primary data?
Things are even more, umm..., "interesting" than that. There are two
types of dark matter: baryonic and non-baryonic. The WMAP "recipe"
has baryonic matter totaling 4.4% of the critical density, and
something over half of it is dark. Possible constituents include
black holes, boulder to planet-size solid objects, gas-giant planets,
old (and thus cold) white dwarfs, red and brown dwarfs (though with
new observations these are not so "dark" any more), and probably
other things I'm forgetting.
"Dark _matter_", on the other hand, is postulated invisible
(doesn't interact with electro-magnetic radiation) matter
concentrated around visible galaxies.
This is the "non-baryonic dark matter." WMAP puts its density at 21%
of the critical density.
thus:
that's a nice, full circle, although a)
New Scientist has always included every goofy/new/wicked thing,
sort-of-like the printed equiv. of Art Bell on the radio, and b)
you and/or NS habitually parrot the Big White Lie,
ignoring the regular anamolies that Michelson-Morley-Minkowski found,
and that was later refined by others (notably Dayton C. Miller .-)...
anyway, there's nothing wrong with an actual ether, although
these guy's "extra degree of freedom, the Aether, in the form
of a vector field that is coupled covariantly, but non-minimally,
with the space-time metric," is also of interest ... if
I knew enough math!...
NB: NS's real, intellectual predecessor is *The [Holy] Economist*. as
for *The Onion*, their first LA-specific edition was fun, but
the next issue was back to the same dreck, note really readable.
I saw the top minds in physics go crazy trying to understand the Dark Side!...
New Scientist is competing now with The Onion.
http://www.theonion.com/content/...
Even Bekenstein in desperation has become a Ptolemeist with epicycle
fudge factors....
Ether returns to oust dark matterFrom his office window, Glenn Starkman
can see the site where Albert Michelson and Edward Morley carried out
their famous 1887 experiment that ruled out the presence of an
all-pervading "aether" in space, setting the stage for Einstein's ...
astro-ph/0607411From: T.G Zlosnik [view email] Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006
12:43:44 GMT (10kb)Modifying gravity with the Aether: an alternative
to Dark MatterAuthors: T.G Zlosnik, P.G Ferreira, G.D Starkman
Comments: Submitted to Physical Review Letters
There is evidence that Newton and Einstein's theories of gravity cannot
explain the dynamics of the universe on a wide range of physical scales.
To be able to understand the properties of galaxies, clusters of
galaxies and the universe on the whole it has become commonplace to
invoke the presence of dark matter. An alternative approach is to modify
the gravitational field equations to accommodate observations. We
propose a new class of gravitational theories in which we add a new
degree of freedom, the Aether, in the form of a vector field that is
coupled covariantly, but non-minimally, with the space-time metric. We
explore the Newtonian and non-Newtonian limits, discuss the conditions
for these theories to be consistent and explore their effect on
thus:
doesn't it depend unpon whether
your first trigon's apex is greater than or less
than 60 degrees?...
would it alternate between those cases,
as it gets closer to equigonal?...
that's just a guess.
ABC. Now you can repeat the procedure, moving B or
C
(respectively A or C), to obtain a new isosceles
triangle, and so on. The sequence of inscribed
thus:
I was also feeling that the *top* picture might be aspension,
if that's what you were saying....
after I'd typed that, I'd had the Vast Realization That
The Bicycle Wheel Is Aspension, but
I guess that You Must Have Mentioned It,
before.
sounder. That's an interesting technique using a tensegrity four-prism
to support the rim of the aspension. Usually it is done using some
compressive outer structure, like a bicycle rim or a rigid foundation of
some kind, like a cylinder.
(http://home.hetnet.nl/~janmarcus1/Tensegrities0.htm), and I think it
thus:
to be featured in the next movie,
"Harry Potter's New Crusades and
the 'Public' Charter Schools: Faith-based Initiatives
in the New Millennium CCE: Come the Rapture,
No Child Left Behind!:"
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3333uk_scoop_soc.html
--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/Amplitude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3322_ethanol_no_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Choir Of Parrots: The Post 1984 Scientific Establishment |
28 Aug 2006 06:14:02 PM |
|
|
I'll have you know,
I am a founding member of Beauxeaux Synonyme.
to me, it is obvious that the WTC7 was damaged,
by falling into the enormous subway system,
with its associated underground utilities, parking,
shopping, paintball/lasertag emporia etc.... even though,
I don't know the "plan" of any of these objects,
in relation one-to-the-other. there had to be *some* sort
of effect, and that was visibly the main one.
the fact is that the towers had to be severely weakened
by the plane-bombs, for *them* to fall into it,
thus leading to some sort of "reaction."
you think that there should be no result
of the two biggest buildings on Earth, collapsing
into a huge causeway -- and, so, why is that?
Look at the photos imbecile, the WTC 7 was not damaged at all. It had
thus:
lies, polls, statistics. anyway,
the last venue I'd ever try for "trendwatching,"
just after Faith Popcorn, SRII and the WAND Corp.,
would be from within the googolplex. no, thank YOU....
*that* chronofile is a *circular* file.
thus:
actually, I am unsure how the cross-hairs are made (if
it's not two, rhinocerous hairs-at-right-angles), but
there has to be some sort of optics associated with them,
whatever you mean by "engraved...." so,
"prismatic" may be the wrong word, and
some crosshairs are just in the eye-pieces.
thus:
it apperas that 12 years of the Original George, and
6 years of the Other George [*] have made everyone believe that a)
global warming is not an oxymoron, and that b)
the energy cartels do not love the Protocol of the Elders
of Kyoto (sik) -- even though it's been online since Feb.12
of *last* year, meaning tens of billions of dollars per year,
already, in hedgefundtrading.
icebergs are breaking off of Antarctica ("the sky is glowing!"), and
Dubya didn't *sign* the Protocol that his daddy & Gore helped
to write. dang, that Liberal Media Owned by ConsWervatives!
as for the war, it is pretty obviously the detonator
to prove the statistical doctrine of the cartel,
Hubbard's Peak Oil, since it a)
cut-off the Iraqi oil and b)
it takes a huge amount of oil to "go" to war,
let alone to make it. (not that I dysagree with Peak Oil, but
this admistration has no nuclear energy policy --
we shouldn't be burning *any* "fossilized" fuels for electricity,
because of one word:
plastics!
* http://tarpley.net/bush8.htm
There is no "made a mistake" here. The Senate voted 95:0 against.
In 1990 the California legislature passed a law mandating that "within
10 years all the cars sold in California must be 'zero emission'
ones". The little fact that the technology to achieve this noble goal
didn't exist (wasn't even in sight, in fact) bothered nobody since it
was obvious to the honorable legislators that once they pass the law,
the technology will materialize. Only, it didn't....
access to your oil, we stop the sanctions". Much simpler and cheaper.
thus:
I prefer the formula piDD, where D is the diameter;
the area of its greatcircles is then piDD/4....
coordinatewisely, I can only do tripolars!
thus:
[How Big Is Infinity?]
nowhere nohow noway anywise as big as yo' momma....
anywho, the Hindoos are never going to agree
with that assumption.
Assuming that the universe is finite (which at this point is a
thus:
he is Right. I mean,
Why are their no left trigona?...
it seems a lot of this is wrapped-up in the projections
to the ordinary plain, which provides the canonical right angle,
made on the diameter of a circle with compasses. the above dyscussion
on affine geometry may be the best approach....
three mathematical dimensions are very special;
four are also special, but they aren't "right" in the same way:
the four altitudes of a regular tetrahedron all meet pairwise
at the same angle, not ninety degrees (arcos 2/3 ?);
the altitudes of a general tetrahedron do not meet, at all,
as you might expect by analogy to the trigon. also,
no more than four lines can meet pairwise at the same angle,
in this static (and 3D) sense....
Hamilton's vector terminology was deconstructed
by Gibbs into "inner & outer products," which seems
to give rise to co- and contra-variance in these "bigger"
(somehow) spaces. (I just found a good text on this,
vis-a-vu electromagnetism, stressing that
4D in this area is really always 3D + 1D, in spite
of any ellision or hype over or from Michelson-Morley-Miller-Minkowski,
or decategorizations (in modern term; Minkowski was added
to the problem-set in Memorium & by Mystaque,
by special order of the Department of Einsteinmania,
the Musical .-))...
below, you are comparing a pure (and unit) vector
with a pure scalar (also unit, and negative) e.g.
0 + 1 * i + 0 * j + 0 * k and (- 1) + 0 * i + 0 * j + 0 * k.
The angle between these is 90 degrees when plotted in
Cartesian coordinates.
Their projections in 3-space: (0,1,0) and (-1,0,0) are also
at 90 degrees. Do you think otherwise?
This evidence of projections doesn't give us the required condition of
rectangularity
Usually, the angle between two functions isn't as important as being
able to prove (in some circumstances) that the angle is 90 degrees. The
formula for the coefficients of the Fourier Transform relies on the
fact that the following functions are pairwise orthogonal:
1, sin x, sin(2x), sin(3x), ..., cos x, cos(2x), cos(3x), ...
Here, f*g = integral(f(x)g(x), x=-Pi..Pi).
thus:
the brachistocrhone problem actually helped Leibniz and Bernoulli
to establish "the" calculus. I'm sure, Newton had to weigh-in
with his cannonballs, but, Who cares?... I mean,
all he did was algebraize Kepler's orbital constraints
-- and didn't cite his contemporary ... I mean, Galileo didn't, either
--
although evidence points to his stealing the 2nd-power law
from what's-his-face (no-one knows, since Sir Duh destroyed all
of his portraits at the Society, which wrote a whole Philosphic Tract,
to obfuscate the basic idea....
Bernoulli's paper is fairly elementary,
even in French.
thus:
to be featured in the next movie,
"Harry Potter's New Crusades and
the 'Public' Charter Schools: Faith-based Initiatives
in the New Millennium CCE: Come the Rapture,
No Child Left Behind!:"
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3333uk_scoop_soc.html
--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/Amplitude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3322_ethanol_no_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
