Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics

Science > Physics > Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Schoenfeld"
Date:	07 Aug 2006 02:14:53 PM
Object:	Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics

I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
established by Galileo.
In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
an apple thrown from the roof of that building.
The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".
Here, why don't you decide:
[Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
=====================================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.
For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html
Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.
Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an unnecessary delay.
Sincerely,
Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator
=====================================
[My Original Post]
==================
TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7
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
aconstant, 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.
==============================
For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
until you see the obvious?
For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
until you see the obvious?
For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?
For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
obvious?
The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
brainwashings do you need unil you see that?
.

User: "werty"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	21 Aug 2006 03:01:38 PM

...........Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics
Do we need words ? Are we having trouble expressing ourselves ?
It s/b read :
Luddites dont understand Physics ......
General Ned Ludd ( Birmingham UK about 1815 ) had an army of Trade
Unioinists
and would gather on the moors at nite , plan to burn or murder
"anti-trade unionists"
He perfectly exemplifies 90 % of the people who work for a living
today , especially teachers , professors ....
JOB SECURITY .....
If you teach , you hold back so you stretch your job out , maybe even
bloat , vague it ....
If you plumb , you install a leaky pipe to get another house call
from 23 miles away ....
If you do elect , you place the wires for a fire ...
If you want a job in school , you "correct" everyones grammar .
No REAL Job requires grammar , but communication , G' is to obtuse
and unintuitivize communication , NOT standardize it !
But the attitude of the L' !! They write as if they will convert us !
We will rewrite the English language to OUR way , and they will
accept it or starve ! After all , they have no marketable
skills/abilities .
______________________________________________________________
.
Schoenfeld wrote:

I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
established by Galileo.

In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
an apple thrown from the roof of that building.

The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".

Here, why don't you decide:

[Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
=====================================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,
Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

=====================================

[My Original Post]
==================
TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7

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
aconstant, 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.

==============================

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
obvious?

The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
brainwashings do you need unil you see that?

User: "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	21 Aug 2006 03:52:18 PM

A physicist is the atoms' way of thinking about atoms.
-- Anonymous
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"werty" <werty@swissinfo.org> wrote in message
news:1156190498.713975.10470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

..........Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics

Do we need words ? Are we having trouble expressing ourselves ?

It s/b read :

Luddites dont understand Physics ......

General Ned Ludd ( Birmingham UK about 1815 ) had an army of Trade
Unioinists
and would gather on the moors at nite , plan to burn or murder
"anti-trade unionists"

He perfectly exemplifies 90 % of the people who work for a living
today , especially teachers , professors ....
JOB SECURITY .....
If you teach , you hold back so you stretch your job out , maybe even
bloat , vague it ....
If you plumb , you install a leaky pipe to get another house call
from 23 miles away ....
If you do elect , you place the wires for a fire ...
If you want a job in school , you "correct" everyones grammar .

No REAL Job requires grammar , but communication , G' is to obtuse
and unintuitivize communication , NOT standardize it !

But the attitude of the L' !! They write as if they will convert us !
We will rewrite the English language to OUR way , and they will
accept it or starve ! After all , they have no marketable
skills/abilities .

______________________________________________________________

.

Schoenfeld wrote:

I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
established by Galileo.

In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
an apple thrown from the roof of that building.

The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".

Here, why don't you decide:

[Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
=====================================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,
Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

=====================================

[My Original Post]
==================
TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7

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
aconstant, 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.

==============================

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
obvious?

The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
brainwashings do you need unil you see that?

User: "Roger Bagula"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	07 Aug 2006 04:30:07 PM

I hear you pain.
and share it.
Schoenfeld wrote:

I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
established by Galileo.

In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
an apple thrown from the roof of that building.

The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".

Here, why don't you decide:

[Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
=====================================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,
Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

=====================================

[My Original Post]
==================
TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7

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
aconstant, 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.

==============================

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
obvious?

The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
brainwashings do you need unil you see that?

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	07 Aug 2006 06:02:56 PM

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	08 Aug 2006 09:07:29 AM

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:AEPBg.29190$Ca.8527@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

"Roger Bagula" <rlbagula@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zhOBg.2398$%j7.1891@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
|I hear you pain.
| and share it.

well said.

Androcles.

|
| Schoenfeld wrote:
|

Schoensmeer, Beluga and Fartocles, Useset's finest
shitting on each other's heap.
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	08 Aug 2006 09:11:40 AM

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:BU0Cg.10748$nt.163901@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
[anip]
Have a clue, clueless local village idiot:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/LTstretch.gif
Androcles
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	08 Aug 2006 08:49:42 PM

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:AEPBg.29190$Ca.8527@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

"Roger Bagula" <rlbagula@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zhOBg.2398$%j7.1891@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
|I hear you pain.
| and share it.

well said.

Androcles.

|
| Schoenfeld wrote:
|

Schoensmeer, Beluga and Fartocles, Useset's finest
shitting on each other's heap.

Dirk Vdm

xxein: And you constantly remind all of that this is your food supply.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	08 Aug 2006 08:59:22 PM

wrote:

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:AEPBg.29190$Ca.8527@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

"Roger Bagula" <rlbagula@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zhOBg.2398$%j7.1891@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
|I hear you pain.
| and share it.

well said.

Androcles.

|
| Schoenfeld wrote:
|

Schoensmeer, Beluga and Fartocles, Useset's finest
shitting on each other's heap.

Dirk Vdm

xxein: And you constantly remind all of that this is your food supply.

xxein: correction. 'all of us'. But 'us' does not include you. We
don't slither and speak with forked tongues.
.

User: "Lloyd Parker"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	08 Aug 2006 08:19:08 AM

In article <AEPBg.29190$Ca.8527@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:

"Roger Bagula" <rlbagula@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zhOBg.2398$%j7.1891@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
|I hear you pain.
| and share it.

well said.

If your native language isn't English.

Androcles.

|
| Schoenfeld wrote:
|
| >I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
| >physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
| >established by Galileo.
| >
| >In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
| >referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
| >an apple thrown from the roof of that building.
| >
| >The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
| >on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".
| >
| >Here, why don't you decide:
| >
| >[Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
| >=====================================
| >Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
| >inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.
| >
| >For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
| >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html
| >
| >Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
| >was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
| >post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
| >any moderated newsgroups.
| >
| >Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
| >co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
| >inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
| >email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
| >causing an unnecessary delay.
| >
| >Sincerely,
| >Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator
| >
| >=====================================
| >
| >
| >
| >[My Original Post]
| >==================
| >TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7
| >
| >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
| >aconstant, 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.
| >
| >==============================
| >
| >
| >For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
| >buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
| >until you see the obvious?
| >
| >For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
| >rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
| >dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
| >to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
| >until you see the obvious?
| >
| >For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
| >all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
| >and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?
| >
| >For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
| >that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
| >obvious?
| >
| >The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
| >brainwashings do you need unil you see that?
| >
| >
| >

User: "werty"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	09 Aug 2006 02:27:29 PM

Roger Bagula wrote:

I hear you pain.
and share it.

________________________________________________
Welcome to America , most political place on earth .
Here , you must be P' or starve !
My def' of P' is to pool power to steal your neighbors property
and "buy/control" education ( Universities ) .
-----------
Can you see some pooled power . boys and girls ?
One can not own real estate in US . You must rent it
from the Govt , stop paying rent , get tossed out ..
wanna argue that from the street
where your couch and TV are ?
Every educational institution in the World is Luddite .
( General Ned Ludd ,trade Unionist , murderer ,arsonist )
Einstein said they could not even teach , now those teachers
wanna claim his work ( they educated him )
NewsGroups are under control of those who paid for them
but they had to steal own $$ Taxes to buy it .
Leadership of all kinds destroys human society .
.

User: "Herman Family"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	08 Aug 2006 12:15:50 AM

Ok, ok, so you see that the top of the building was falling at free fall and
you dispute it.
The plane hit the building about 2/3 of the way up, clearing out a floor or
two. One floor failed, dropping on to the floor below. The columns also
buckled outwards about then. At that point the top indeed was falling, and
without any signficant support was pretty close to free fall. As the top of
the building descended it gathered a great deal of momentum. Any resistance
was quickly overcome by the force of the top third plus dropping on it.
When the building finally came down to rest, it wasn't at the bottom of the
pile. The rubble was a few stories up. Figure that each floor slowed the
reaction down by only a few milliseconds, and that the collapse started in
the center, some time before you notice the top starting to go down.
With the precision you are working at, you must remember that at 6 seconds,
things are moving at 180 ft/sec in free fall. At the precision you have
indicated, the apple could have been 100 ft ahead of the building, and you
would say it landed at the same time.
Michael
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154978093.664554.42190@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
established by Galileo.

In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
an apple thrown from the roof of that building.

The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".

Here, why don't you decide:

[Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
=====================================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,
Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

=====================================

[My Original Post]
==================
TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7

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
aconstant, 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.

==============================

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
obvious?

The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
brainwashings do you need unil you see that?

User: "Sorcerer"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	07 Aug 2006 05:52:55 PM

Ok, so "physicists" are shitheads. Engineers know this, what
would you have us do about it?
Androcles.
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154978093.664554.42190@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
| physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
| established by Galileo.
|
| In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
| referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
| an apple thrown from the roof of that building.
|
| The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
| on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".
|
| Here, why don't you decide:
|
| [Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
| =====================================
| Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
| inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.
|
| For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
| http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html
|
| Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
| was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
| post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
| any moderated newsgroups.
|
| Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
| co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
| inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
| email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
| causing an unnecessary delay.
|
| Sincerely,
| Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator
|
| =====================================
|
|
|
| [My Original Post]
| ==================
| TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7
|
| 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
| aconstant, 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.
|
| ==============================
|
|
| For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
| buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
| until you see the obvious?
|
| For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
| rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
| dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
| to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
| until you see the obvious?
|
| For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
| all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
| and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?
|
| For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
| that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
| obvious?
|
| The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
| brainwashings do you need unil you see that?
|
.

User: "Salmon Egg"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	07 Aug 2006 07:54:43 PM

On 8/7/06 12:14 PM, in article
1154978093.664554.42190@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Schoenfeld"
<schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
The following will not stop continuation of this crap but here goes anyway.
Recently, the first demolition of a Los Angeles by explosives in many years
was shown on television news. Obviously, the Government must have fixed it
to collapse much more slowly than a free fall just to refute shoenfeld1
claims.
Bill
-- Ferme le Bush
.

User: "asaguiar"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	07 Aug 2006 07:39:24 PM

Schoenfeld escreveu:

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.

Sorry if I am going to say something stupid. I am just a surgeon... not
a physicist.
As far as I understand you initially supposed that the building should
have a slower fall.
However, I'll guess the huge mass falling from top had such a high
momentum so that teh concrete below would impose a very small delay in
fall. And during the fall more conrete falling and higher speed
produced more and more momentum so that this delay, if any delay at
all, tended to xero comparing to a free fall.
The buiding had a very have body in its top related to its equilibrium
and as far as I know it was the fall of this body that produced the
collapse.
Aguiar
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	08 Aug 2006 12:24:17 AM

asaguiar wrote:

Schoenfeld escreveu:

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.

Sorry if I am going to say something stupid. I am just a surgeon... not
a physicist.

As far as I understand you initially supposed that the building should
have a slower fall.

Yes, it shouldn't of have fallen at all. If it burned for maybe another
2 years, parts of it may have broken off and fallen. The collapse as
observed requires simultaneous structure failure and that is the
providence of controlled demolition and only controlled demolition.

However, I'll guess the huge mass falling from top had such a high
momentum so that teh concrete below would impose a very small delay in
fall. And during the fall more conrete falling and higher speed
produced more and more momentum so that this delay, if any delay at
all, tended to xero comparing to a free fall.

The concrete would've acted as a major source of kinetic friction
during the descent and the structure should not have collapsed at all.
But, you need not consider the material or geometric composition of the
structure in order to see that how the laws of physics and the NIST
pancake theory cannot be reconciled.
Let us assume that a floor collapses at the instant the top floor
collided with it, having no delay.
For a building of 47 floors, we have 47 different freefalls. In other
words, the top floor accelerates from rest and collides with it's below
floor. Both combined* floors now accelerate from rest and collide with
their below floor, etc.
The collapse described by this model is a net motion composed of 47
separate freefalls, each spanning the height of 1 floor.
The video evidence clearly suggests 1 freefall spanning the height of
47 floors.
The NIST 'pancake model' is irreconcilable with the evidence and
established, elementary laws of physics.
*: If the floors did not combine, then it means the top floor decreases
in velocity (due to momentum transfer). This makes no difference since
the total time for all floors to fall to the ground is the same if they
did combine.

The buiding had a very have body in its top related to its equilibrium
and as far as I know it was the fall of this body that produced the
collapse.

It is as likely as a tree simultaneously turning into saw dust and
freefalling into the ground.

Aguiar

User: "John Savage"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	10 Aug 2006 01:04:36 AM

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

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.

For a building of 47 floors, we have 47 different freefalls. In other
words, the top floor accelerates from rest and collides with it's below
floor. Both combined* floors now accelerate from rest and collide with

There's your mistake, right there. Only the upper set of floors begin
their fall from rest; from then on each successive floor is accelerated
by the momentum of the upper floors hitting them. So when the weight of
N floors lands on another at a speed of v, they combine with a weight of
N+1 floors and their initial speed becomes N/(N+1) times v which once you
are a few levels down is near enough to unity times v, overlooking the
comparitively small resistance that the overloaded supporting columns
(designed to bear static weights) exert in opposition to the kinetic
forces. The collapse in this simplified senario is very much one freefall,
not 47. Even if the first level under the collapse *almost* managed to
stop the fall and initiate a second freefall, successive levels would
have no hope of halting the fall due to the ever increasing mass of the
collapsing stack of floors moving down.
I read your initial post and thought it was based on a perceptive
observation, but believe your analysis to be erroneous.
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	10 Aug 2006 02:19:54 AM

John Savage wrote:

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> writes:

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.

There is no mistake.
You are saying that floor A had non-zero initial velocity caused by the
colliding floor B above it. If that were the case, then B would lose
velocity (momentum transfer) and A would fall independently of B, not
combined.
Your scenario:
===========
Falling phase:
FLOOR B (falling)
FLOOR A (stationary)
Colliding phase:
FLOOR B (colliding)
FLOOR A (collapsing)
Falling phase:
FLOOR B (temporarily floating) <-- it transferred momentum to
floor A
FLOOR A (falling, starting with non-zero initial velocity due to
momentum gain)
That model still predicts the _total_ collapse time as the linear sum
of 47 separate floor-height freefalls (B's freefall was broken by the
start of A's). It's just that the pancake cascade is complicated by
some 'bouncing floors'. A pancake cascade cannot account for the
physics of freefalling buildings under ANY configuration of parameters:
The video clearly shows that the top of WTC 7 fell to the ground in 1
freefall the height of 47 floors.

overlooking the
comparitively small resistance that the overloaded supporting columns
(designed to bear static weights) exert in opposition to the kinetic
forces. The collapse in this simplified senario is very much one freefall,
not 47. Even if the first level under the collapse *almost* managed to
stop the fall and initiate a second freefall, successive levels would
have no hope of halting the fall due to the ever increasing mass of the
collapsing stack of floors moving down.

I read your initial post and thought it was based on a perceptive
observation, but believe your analysis to be erroneous.

I posted a more rigorous mathematical argument some time ago. Look it
up if interested.

--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

User: "Herman Family"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	08 Aug 2006 01:20:57 AM

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155014657.150213.250890@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

asaguiar wrote:

Schoenfeld escreveu:

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.

Sorry if I am going to say something stupid. I am just a surgeon... not
a physicist.

As far as I understand you initially supposed that the building should
have a slower fall.

Or of a weakended and buckled structure due to heat and the force above it.
All you really have to do is to get the loads to be non axial and things
buckle quickly. An aluminum soda can is able to hold well over 100 pounds
until it has the slightest dent in the side. Then the weight will collapse
it rather quickly. Much the same happened with the wtc.

The concrete would've acted as a major source of kinetic friction
during the descent and the structure should not have collapsed at all.
But, you need not consider the material or geometric composition of the
structure in order to see that how the laws of physics and the NIST
pancake theory cannot be reconciled.

Let us assume that a floor collapses at the instant the top floor
collided with it, having no delay.

For a building of 47 floors, we have 47 different freefalls. In other
words, the top floor accelerates from rest and collides with it's below
floor. Both combined* floors now accelerate from rest and collide with
their below floor, etc.

The collapse described by this model is a net motion composed of 47
separate freefalls, each spanning the height of 1 floor.

The video evidence clearly suggests 1 freefall spanning the height of
47 floors.

The collapse started 2/3 up the building. The top floor did not collapse
onto the floor below it until it was very nearly at its final resting point.
By then, it had enough momentum that when the supporting columns pushed back
a little, the ties failed instantly. The top 47 floors or whatever
basically punched through the lower section of the towers with their full
mass. The lower section couldn't resist that kind of impact.

The NIST 'pancake model' is irreconcilable with the evidence and
established, elementary laws of physics.

*: If the floors did not combine, then it means the top floor decreases
in velocity (due to momentum transfer). This makes no difference since
the total time for all floors to fall to the ground is the same if they
did combine.

The buiding had a very have body in its top related to its equilibrium
and as far as I know it was the fall of this body that produced the
collapse.

It is as likely as a tree simultaneously turning into saw dust and
freefalling into the ground.

Aguiar

Michael
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	08 Aug 2006 01:37:13 AM

Clearly, the reason this was rejected by sci.physics.research was
because the article is NOT about research in physics. Did you read the
charter that Igor directed you to? You've got almost the whole rest of
usenet to post this in, including sci.math (although the article isn't
about mathematics either) and sci.physics.
Philip
.

User: "Dave L. Renfro"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	08 Aug 2006 09:42:53 AM

wrote:

Clearly, the reason this was rejected by sci.physics.research
was because the article is NOT about research in physics.
Did you read the charter that Igor directed you to? You've
got almost the whole rest of usenet to post this in,
including sci.math (although the article isn't about
mathematics either) and sci.physics.

Well, one might argue that it's suggestive of mathematical
induction.
http://images.google.com/images?q=mathematical-induction+domino
Dave L. Renfro
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	08 Aug 2006 01:37:27 AM

Herman Family wrote:
[...]
I am referring to the WTC 7 building, the third building to freefall
collapse on 9/11. This building was a block away from the twin towers,
was not hit by any airliners or other significant debri.
The 2 month-old lease holder, Larry Silverstein (who profited by
several billion after this event), even admits to "pulling" the
building:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
.

User: "Lloyd Parker"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	08 Aug 2006 08:21:04 AM

In article <1155014657.150213.250890@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote:

asaguiar wrote:

Schoenfeld escreveu:

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.

Sorry if I am going to say something stupid. I am just a surgeon... not
a physicist.

As far as I understand you initially supposed that the building should
have a slower fall.

Yes, it shouldn't of have fallen at all. If it burned for maybe another
2 years, parts of it may have broken off and fallen.

No, the steel was weakened because the impact blew off the heat insulation.
Geez, at least read the reports before sounding off and looking so silly.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	11 Aug 2006 09:47:13 AM

Schoenfeld wrote:

I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
established by Galileo.

What do you mean by a "child-like law"?
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	09 Aug 2006 01:52:08 AM

UPDATE: I submitted the post again under a different title and it was
again rejected by Mr Khavkine for the same reason. This cannot be
dismissed as an accident, but, as intentional.
Schoenfeld wrote:

I recently posted an article on sci.physics.research about a simple
physics matter involving the child-like law of falling bodies, as
established by Galileo.

In my post, I showed that the WTC 7 building, as observed in the
referenced video, took the same amount of time to fall to the ground as
an apple thrown from the roof of that building.

The moderator of sci.physics.research, Igor Khavkine, rejected my post
on the grounds that it was "inappropriate" and "overly speculative".

Here, why don't you decide:

[Rejection notice from Igor Khavkine]
=====================================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be
inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you
email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive,
causing an unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,
Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

=====================================

[My Original Post]
==================
TITLE: Freefall collapse of WTC 7

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
aconstant, 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.

==============================

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
buildings can freefall into themselves, freefall through concrete,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that the flat
rotation curves of galaxies and missing mass problem mean that fairy
dust halos of unobservable dark matter occur at just the right places
to make the failed theory of General Relativity fit with observation,
until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be told by the physics elite that
all-permeating blobs of unobservable strings composed nothingness flip
and flop to create the physical universe, until you see the obvious?

For how much longer must you be brainwashed into believing in a sky
that is green but with fairy that makes it blue, until you see the
obvious?

The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock, how many more
brainwashings do you need unil you see that?

User: ""
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	09 Aug 2006 08:31:58 AM

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155106328.698714.105420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

UPDATE: I submitted the post again under a different title and it was
again rejected by Mr Khavkine for the same reason. This cannot be
dismissed as an accident, but, as intentional.

Yes. He intends to keep unsupported speculation out of his newsgroup (as is
his job). We get the Newtonian argument--you can stop repeating it ad
nauseum. The speculative part is the leap of faith that says that it must
have free-fallen. You have no way of knowing (since you've proven you know
essentially nothing about material statics or dynamics) how much slower it
would fall if it weren't free-falling. For all you know, with the data and
knowledge you have demonstrated (absolutely none), the amount it is slowed
down might be far smaller than you can detect by eye. And your arguments
that each floor free-falls is incorrect. The top floor does not come to
rest when it hits the floor below--it is merely slowed down as some momentum
is transferred. And the second floor does not free-fall, it is being pushed
by the momentum of the floor above it, which is not at zero speed when it
hits. Until you can put some credible numbers around how much slower it
would fall if it weren't intentionally demolished, then your leap of
imagination to intentional demolition is just that--a speculative leap.
Eric Lucas
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	09 Aug 2006 09:25:29 PM

wrote:

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155106328.698714.105420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

UPDATE: I submitted the post again under a different title and it was
again rejected by Mr Khavkine for the same reason. This cannot be
dismissed as an accident, but, as intentional.

There is no Newtonian mechanics involved in the law of falling bodies.
It is the mere Maclaurin series expansion of the function s(t) where
s'''(t)=0.
Armed with basic mathematics, the child is easily able to compute that
if WTC 7 fell in 6, and that if an apple would take 6 seconds to
freefall from the roof, then WTC 7 must've freefallen. Is it a surprise
that those who call themselves physicists cannot realize that? No, it
could not be otherwise.

Eric Lucas

User: "Mike"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	09 Aug 2006 10:34:02 PM

Schoenfeld wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155106328.698714.105420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

UPDATE: I submitted the post again under a different title and it was
again rejected by Mr Khavkine for the same reason. This cannot be
dismissed as an accident, but, as intentional.

There is no Newtonian mechanics involved in the law of falling bodies.
It is the mere Maclaurin series expansion of the function s(t) where
s'''(t)=0.

Armed with basic mathematics, the child is easily able to compute that
if WTC 7 fell in 6, and that if an apple would take 6 seconds to
freefall from the roof, then WTC 7 must've freefallen. Is it a surprise
that those who call themselves physicists cannot realize that? No, it
could not be otherwise.

Your ignorance of the most basic physics is utterly astonishing.
Mr. Khavine tried to hint to you, ever so politely, that you are an
ignoramous and a crank. Try posting this one:
General relativity can't be right because scientists have proven that
the propulsion systems of the extraterrestrial flying saucers are based
on anti-gravity physics.
or perhaps this one: Velikovsky showed that fundamental
assumptions about the stability of the solar system are false ...
Doubtless the man gets a few of these idiocies every day.
.

User: "Schoenfeld"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	10 Aug 2006 02:24:15 AM

Mike wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155106328.698714.105420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

UPDATE: I submitted the post again under a different title and it was
again rejected by Mr Khavkine for the same reason. This cannot be
dismissed as an accident, but, as intentional.

There is no Newtonian mechanics involved in the law of falling bodies.
It is the mere Maclaurin series expansion of the function s(t) where
s'''(t)=0.

Your ignorance of the most basic physics is utterly astonishing.

Please teach me which of Newtons laws Galileo used in formulating his
law of falling bodies?

Mr. Khavine tried to hint to you, ever so politely, that you are an
ignoramous and a crank. Try posting this one:

General relativity can't be right because scientists have proven that
the propulsion systems of the extraterrestrial flying saucers are based
on anti-gravity physics.

or perhaps this one: Velikovsky showed that fundamental
assumptions about the stability of the solar system are false ...

Doubtless the man gets a few of these idiocies every day.

User: "Aluminium Holocene Holodeck Zoroaster"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	21 Aug 2006 06:43:35 PM

Newton stole it from Hooke (as explained by the keynoter
at the 9th Annual Nonlinear Science Conference at UCLA),
and algebraaized Kepler's orbital constraints. however,
Newton's main "job" was to defame Leibniz.
your problem is that, like most carpenters, you consider only
compression,
not the vast amount of tension that went into the process
of building the tallest buildings on Earth. (again, at the risk
of turning some of you libertarians in to tarotists, I note that
the San Pedro Trade Center only required "5# of explosives"
to topple, although only the main girders & an enormous,
central concrete tower were left -- not even a just-fueled Cessna!)
you can learn all about Paolo Sarpi and Galileo
on http://larouchepub.com, if you like.

that each floor free-falls is incorrect. The top floor does not come to

There is no Newtonian mechanics involved in the law of falling bodies.

Please teach me which of Newtons laws Galileo used in formulating his

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://rand.org/news/press.06/08.07.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: "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect"
Title: Re: Evidence Showing Physicists Simply Do Not Understand Physics	22 Aug 2006 07:16:48 AM

As, also, a definitely from Ren� Descartes, as from others, the reason that
himself Isaac Newton, did not ever wanted anyone to approach him in any way
or even to approach anything along his work, as however, simply because, he
was also a damn good ***** kisser as a damn good a complainer all along.
Therefore, something which it was and it does still along the mean time, as
usually an ultimate deffence to any weak minds suffering along the fear.
However, do try to figure out, if he could be along the cybernetics time, as
in the mean time, which kind of an opportunity he could get along that
matter.
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Aluminium Holocene Holodeck Zoroaster" <QncyMI@netscape.net> wrote in
message news:1156203815.800222.280620@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Newton stole it from Hooke (as explained by the keynoter
at the 9th Annual Nonlinear Science Conference at UCLA),
and algebraaized Kepler's orbital constraints. however,
Newton's main "job" was to defame Leibniz.

your problem is that, like most carpenters, you consider only
compression,
not the vast amount of tension that went into the process
of building the tallest buildings on Earth. (again, at the risk
of turning some of you libertarians in to tarotists, I note that
the San Pedro Trade Center only required "5# of explosives"
to topple, although only the main girders & an enormous,
central concrete tower were left -- not even a just-fueled Cessna!)

you can learn all about Paolo Sarpi and Galileo
on http://larouchepub.com, if you like.

that each floor free-falls is incorrect. The top floor does not

come to

There is no Newtonian mechanics involved in the law of falling

bodies.

Please teach me which of Newtons laws Galileo used in formulating his

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://rand.org/news/press.06/08.07.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

Page 1 of 2