Comments for ilovephysics.com :: physics educators and students

Comment on A research lesson for 9/11 Truthers by psikeyhackr

psikeyhackr — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:44:16 +0000

{{{ 1) completely unavoidable friction between the stick and the washers }}}

LOL

You are the second nitwit to try to make a big deal about that. But I already anticipated that when I made the video. Why do you think I have TWO MASSES falling, one on the stick and one in empty air. How much difference is there in the rate of fall?

And of course there is Fall pf Physics that someone claimed has incorrect F=M*a calculations even though it doesn’t contain any F=M*a calculations. LOL

Comment on A research lesson for 9/11 Truthers by Fangbeer

Fangbeer — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:21:25 +0000

How about I link to you to a picture of the picture that I posted, but is still awaiting moderation?

(Let’s see if I can trick the filter into not realizing this is a URL) Replace the - with /

i269.photobucket.com-albums-jj77-fangbeer-PhysicsMessage.jpg

Comment on Wanna be a teacher? Your Ph.D. is no qualification by alephgirl

alephgirl — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:19:21 +0000

Yes, I can relate. I hold a BA cum laude, BPhil and DPhil (PhD) degrees plus 10 years university teaching experience as a casual lecturer, but that does not qualify me to teach. I have to take a DipEd to teach in Australia. The narrow-mindedness and inflexible bureacracy is amazing. That being said, it should be good to get some advice on classroom management of teenagers as university teaching does not really demand exactly the same behavioural skill set. However, it’s another year of foregone earnings. Fortunately I have a spouse who will support this further endeavour, which will resolve our academic two-body problem. I will also get to spend my daughter’s last year before primary school without a full-time job, which could be good for work-life balance. It is the family-friendly nature of school teaching that attracts me, rather than the intellectual stimulation which will probably be a lot less than at university.

Comment on A research lesson for 9/11 Truthers by Geekengineer

Geekengineer — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:10:28 +0000

Let me amend that:

Your experiment can NOT be associated with the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, WTC7, or any other building (in any place or any time) in any way, shape, or form. There is absolutely ZERO correlation.

None.

Nada.

Nichts.

Zilch.

Comment on A research lesson for 9/11 Truthers by Geekengineer

Geekengineer — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:58:56 +0000

“I demonstrated that MASS slows down a gravitational collapse.”

Whoopee.

You demonstrated that washers set up on a wooden stick and allowed to fall will slow down based on the specific setup you made.

Your experiment has three glaring conditions:

1) completely unavoidable friction between the stick and the washers

2) only one degree of freedom for the washers (the vertical axis); the washers are severely constrained

3) washers on a stick (this is not an experiment that can be extrapolated to a larger scale due to, well, too many factors to list)

Your experiment can not be associated with the collapse of WTC7 in any way, shape, or form. There is absolutely ZERO correlation.

None.

Nada.

Nichts.

Zilch.

Comment on A research lesson for 9/11 Truthers by psikeyhackr

psikeyhackr — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:19:24 +0000

{{{ Yeah of course you didn’t say modeled. You don’t know what a model is. You’ve proven that with your washers and tooth picks. }}}

I demonstrated that MASS slows down a gravitational collapse.

So why don’t you people that CLAIM TO LOVE PHYSICS demand to know the distributions of steel and concrete in WTC 1 & 2?

What were the weights and quantities of the exterior wall panels?

I provided links to pictures of WTC7 during the WTC1 collapse right after post #40 but that post kept disappearing and reappearing. So if A BUILDING FELL ON TOP of WTC7 because of the WTC1 collapse shouldn’t there be LOTS of broken windows on the front of WTC7 that faced WTC1.? Why don’t you link us to a picture showing all of those broken windows?

Comment on A research lesson for 9/11 Truthers by Fangbeer

Fangbeer — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:55:16 +0000

Yeah of course you didn’t say modeled. You don’t know what a model is. You’ve proven that with your washers and tooth picks.

If you are trying to claim that the Beijing tower should have behaved similarly to the WTC7 then you need to establish that the tower modeled the conditions present within the WTC7. On that subject you’ve fallen quite short.

Comment on A research lesson for 9/11 Truthers by Geekengineer

Geekengineer — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:19:04 +0000

The Beijing otel was not struck by a large jet airliner, nor was it struck by a building that collapsed due to the impact (and resultant massive structural damage and fires) of a large jet airliner.

You should never have even mentioned the Beijing hotel in the first place. It had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Also, your characterizing the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 as “anomalies” is illogical and incorrect.

Comment on A research lesson for 9/11 Truthers by psikeyhackr

psikeyhackr — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:30:10 +0000

{{{ 1. In what way does the Manderin Hotel model WTC7? }}}

Where did I say “modeled”?

The Mandarin Hotel burned longer and obviously hotter than WTC7. And it not only did not collapse completely but apparently none of the steel frame collapsed at all. Just like all of the other skyscraper fires in the world except for the THREE ANOMALIES in New York on one day.

Comment on The Magnetic Monopole by alessadnro

alessadnro — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:15:58 +0000

why are they so sure to having witnessed a monopole?
could not their “spagetti-like magnetic fields” go from one ond of a dipole to the other end of another dipole?