Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Sorcerer" wrote in message ...

"Roger Bagula" wrote in message
t...
|I hear you pain.
| and share it.

well said.

Androcles.


|
| Schoenfeld wrote:
|

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

Dirk Vdm

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

wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Sorcerer" wrote in message ...

"Roger Bagula" wrote in message
t...
|I hear you pain.
| and share it.

well said.

Androcles.


|
| Schoenfeld wrote:
|

Schoensmeer, Beluga and Fartocles, Useset's finest
****ting 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.

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?do...32340306101329

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?

Schoenfeld wrote:
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.

Of course it's intentional, why would you think otherwise? If you read
the charter you'll see why. Sci.physics.research was set up to keep a
lid on the signal-to-noise ratio observed in unmoderated groups like
sci.physics. In this context, SNR refers to the ratio of
posts-about-physics to total-posts.

It's not about whether your post is "correct" or not, it's whether it's
relevant to sci.physics.research. Are you describing any new results in
physics? No. Your post *uses* physics but is not *about* physics. At
best I would say you've made some observations and confirmed that,
indeed, stuff falls exactly like Newton predicted. Hardly worth sending
to sci.physics.research is it? "This just in! Gravity still works!".

So the heading of your post is not true. This doesn't constitute
"evidence that physicists don't understand physics", it's just shows
that they don't want posts that aren't about physics to be posted in
sci.physics.research. Ok?

While I'm at it I'll repeat that it's not relevant to sci.math either,
or sci.chem, and certainly not sci.physics.relativity, so why do you
insist on posting it there?

Philip

Schoenfeld wrote:
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.

Of course it's intentional, why would you think otherwise? If you read
the charter you'll see why. Sci.physics.research was set up to keep a
lid on the signal-to-noise ratio observed in unmoderated groups like
sci.physics. In this context, SNR refers to the ratio of
posts-about-physics to total-posts.

It's not about whether your post is "correct" or not, it's whether it's
relevant to sci.physics.research. Are you describing any new results in
physics? No. Your post *uses* physics but is not *about* physics. At
best I would say you've made some observations and confirmed that,
indeed, stuff falls exactly like Newton predicted. Hardly worth sending
to sci.physics.research is it? "This just in! Gravity still works!".

So the heading of your post is not true. This doesn't constitute
"evidence that physicists don't understand physics", it's just shows
that they don't want posts that aren't about physics to be posted in
sci.physics.research. Ok?

While I'm at it I'll repeat that it's not relevant to sci.math either,
or sci.chem, and certainly not sci.physics.relativity, so why do you
insist on posting it there?

Philip

wrote in message
ups.com...

Peter Kinane wrote:
"David" wrote in message
news:4CSBg.86247$ZW3.46744@dukeread04...

Personally I am not a fan of the law of falling bodies, as established
by
Galileo. It does not consider wind resistance. The larger cannon ball
should fall faster due to differences in the ratio of mass and surface
area. A microscopic "cannon ball" may not even fall. Particles of a
fine
powder do not fall at the same rate as large objects even when they are
composed of the same material.

www.ILikeIt.Unfranchise.com

I wonder if one buys three 'identical' footballs and leaves one full of
air,
fills the second with water and the third with lead, when dropped, would
they all reach the ground simultaneously?

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

xxein: Haven't heard from you in a long time!


Hi

Of course, we subscribe to very different formulations of things. This comes
down to philosophy. I'm not sure that you claim to have a coherent, or
whatever, system. And I'm not going into detail about mine here. Remains to
be seen how long it's going to take this lot to cop-on that they need to
look at philosophy, if - excuse me - they're not to die with a circular
posture.

Do you have a view on my question about footballs?

Btw, I've a few recent posts he
http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.ph...7825526e143f66
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

Schoenfeld wrote:
wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
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.

Of course it's intentional, why would you think otherwise? If you read
the charter you'll see why. Sci.physics.research was set up to keep a
lid on the signal-to-noise ratio observed in unmoderated groups like
sci.physics. In this context, SNR refers to the ratio of
posts-about-physics to total-posts.

The reason Khavkine gave was "inappropriate for the newsgroup because
it is overly speculative". I didn't realize the law of falling bodies
was a speculative matter.

The physics establishment is a historical laughing stock. Your post
makes you one too.


Whatever. Khavkine's just being polite. Seriously, why do you want to
post this particular article in that newsgroup when it's clearly not
relevant to it? For the last time: it is not about research in physics,
why are you trying to post it in sci.physics.research?

Philip

wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Schoenfeld wrote:
| wrote:
| Schoenfeld wrote:
| 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.
|
| Of course it's intentional, why would you think otherwise? If you read
| the charter you'll see why. Sci.physics.research was set up to keep a
| lid on the signal-to-noise ratio observed in unmoderated groups like
| sci.physics.


Whilst that may have been the intent, the reality is that the signal is
censored by the moderator(s) in the mistaken belief that he is
holier-than-thou,
particularly true for Baez.
However, I too consider this collapse of WT7 article to be noise.
What is signal is curiously indicated in the author's pseudonym,
"linearised",
Einstein's derivation of the so-called "Lorentz" transformations is not
linear,
as RESEARCH will show.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ket/Rocket.htm
Androcles.

"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
oups.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

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 .