wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Kinane wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Peter Kinane wrote:
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

xxein: Footballs? Oh yeah. The lead one will fall faster in air
because the air resistance has a harder time slowing down a higher
mass
momentum. The opposite for the air filled one in a relative
fashion.
(I use the word 'relative' with care. There are many 'relatives'
that
are NOT what Einstein uses for his formulation of theory and many
are
invented out-of-class.) But the greater space of this universe
contains no 'air' or any substantial ether other than energy itself.
We know profound effects of electro-magnetism in which no other
substrate is present. That is the point of it all. Energy
difference
IS the substrate that guides motion from inertial to non-inertial.

There is a weight and mass factor to this issue. So, perhaps we should
be
working on objects of the same volume and shape, but of different
weight/mass.

If so, in air and gravity, the speed at which bodies fall is
influenced
by
their weight/mass.
Where there is no gravity, if ever, there is neither weight nor mass -
so
no
experiment- -law.

xxein: There IS mass and momentum. Inertia. Bang your head into an
air filled football. Now do the same to a football filled with lead.

Where there is gravity but no air, contemporary wisdom says that
different
weight objects fall at the same speed.

No kidding!


This latter 'was shown' on the Moon by dropping a feather and a
wrench.
These objects had neither the same volume not shape. I don't know what
theirs respective weights and masses were, nor over how many feet they
fell,
nor how sensitively 'the race' was observed.

Re "inertial": I do not feature - subscribe to - this concept.

I would be afraid to bang my head into a lead filled football, too.






And, of course, I have a coherence from a black hole to an expanding
universe! But, the same with us all, we still haven't filled all
the
nooks and crannies (especially when it comes to the extremes). But
trying to force observations into an existing theory cannot work as
well as being lucky enough to have a different conceptual theory
that
incorporates the observations in a more rational context.

Which came first? The chicken or egg?

With respect, your concept "first" is a categorical concept. I am an
Effectuationist.

I have to bow to Stephen J.
Gould and "a punctuated equilibrium". It is adiabacity in the
extreme
form. Nothing can remain perfect in form if there are extraneous
'forces' to which it is subjected to. Change MUST occur.

Are you becoming an Effectuationist too.

Not in your expression of what it might be.


It is a
matter of the class of forces and the class of affected change in a
physical (matter or energy) form that we must now recognise as a
continuous happening. It is self-similarity brought to bear as not
the
same thing happening over and over again, but intermingled with the
changes. It may take eons or seconds. A humanity, or the
unleashing
of all the nuclear devices we have in our world's arsenal. Change
is
the keyword. Not when or how fast it will occur. We need to get
that
point (change is inevitable) into our thick heads.

Compared to Einstein's theory, I think that I have already
over-detailed mine. Put obsevation into a "better" theory, even if
it
is 'strange' at first. Wasn't Einstein's?

I have notes of all sorts that would make a well diversified physics
library (not really). 90% of them fall into a physical line that is
coherent. Of the other 10%, 90% are worth considering, if, for no
other reason than a remote physical possibility or a comparison of
mistakes. That leaves 1% of trash as a reminder to me that I, at
least
considered it. Einstein is in that 1%. It just can't simply work
within its own totality.

I didn't choose to fight with Einstein. I initially chose to
understand him. So much for that. He made me into a physicist
because
he is not. He is a mathematicist. Let him do stock trend analysis.
Not physics.

But you are into another theory. 'Effectualism" I'm sorry that I
can't buy it in the language you use to describe it.

Do you think it is possible to understand a model and reasonable to
comment
on it, or to make a decision about it, if one has not conceptualised
the
model? If coherence is important to you, then it would seem necessary
to
be
aware of the whole model to have an opinion of its coherence.


I can conceptualise. But that does not make a real physic. As with
news stories, color and spin do not change a physical fact (however it
is understood to have a contextual meaning outside of the same physical
fact of occurrance).

Perhaps over a year ago, I believe, I addressed this point with you. My
system, which you 'pass judgement on' without having conceptualised it,
does
not feature your notion of "outside of". As befo "If the world is an
'it', third person singular, where does that leave you?"


Maybe the same
can be said on me. I certainly know that my communication skills
are
not that good and that I lack the continued effort to put out a
paper,
but I remain confident. I know too much.

I really do give the myriad theories a chance to express themselves
(including yours). In the end, they manage to conflict with their
own
belief of existense. As with Einstein, even string theory cannot
separate a reality from its core conceptual form. Neither can we
expect a chicken to lay a clone egg. Things change, and we see it
with
all the self-similarity of all classes of observation from the micro
to
the macro (timescales).

Physics cannot be simply the business of making everything conform
to a
conceptual theory. That would be to place a static into changing
scenario. We need a more dynamic theory. One that can recognise
the
true cause of a change in the inherent dynamic. We don't have to go
into the root cause of existense, but we do have to figure out what
we
do have in an existense.

A conceptual framework that coherently expresses everything would seem
a
formidable criterion of value. A conceptual framework could express
dynamism. 'Have you heard of "Effectuationism"?'

Yes. From you. And it appears to force a concept on the reality that
is not naturally present. We can't and shouldn't force our limited
concept on nature when it does so well and will act, by itself, despite
our concepts. That might be called "ineffectualism". Iow, we can
affect our environment, but we cannot change any natural laws. That
might just be one reason for self-similarity to exist in our measure
and concept.

Again, the "itself" issue, and again "We can't and shouldn't force our
limited concept on nature when it []". You are attributing concepts to my
model which are not there, or else your understanding of the term "model"
needs to be explained.




Expanding universe from what starting function? But while I'm at
it,
why does anything exist? Why should we jump to that question before
we
adequately answer how that which does exist, exists and functions?
My
favorite answer to that is that if we cannot contemplate an end of
all
existense, why should there have been a beginning? How is that a
different scenario?

Again, you are expressing categorical concepts - connoting categorical
premises.


What??? Existence and non-existense is not a primal factor for the
universe to act upon?

Again, those concepts and their connotations do not feature in model -
only
in your guessing at my model.


I am a godless creature. Where did God come from? No beginning and
no
end, huh? Where did a specific knowledge of a creation of existence
come from? Where DID a god come from? Remove the middlegod. Is
there
end? Is there beginning?

Which fairy tales do we believe and which not? We hardly have a
coherent idea. Each class of thinking produces different results.
That tells us that which we should know. We tend to create a
reality
that conforms to each individual's thoughts. Do we group and be
influenced by authority? Yes, like birds on a wire. Our
environment
shapes the way and how we think, just like birds.

Nevertheless, I do have a coherent thought (as it were) that
includes
all such things. I am not shallow with such matters even if they
are
just thoughts. But they do make present theories look like specific
religion or KKK topics.

It is hard to examine outside thyself. But it is possible. All you
have to do is say everything is hogwash and develop physics again
from
scratch with all of the observation we have made, excluding the
warrentless conclusions. We don't hold to Archimedes or Newton any
more, do we? Who was Einstein in that progression? Get smart
instead
of looking for smart in others. But that doesn't always work, does
it?
You read the posts and know what I mean.

I don't think that you are ready for critical thinking. As you
mellow,
you will find that there is a lot of room for different thoughts. I
made a guess (which is all we can do) and tested it. It was a
stupid
guess by today's reckoning, but it proves beyond the sophisticated
thinking that we use as our physical framework. It settles (and I
mean
settles) into a natural framework that we generally think about but
trash because of the likes of an Einstein or a string theory that
seem
to tell us how to think because they explain the lesser obvious in
their terms of expression. We are easily fooled (so it seems). We
do
not examine with enough rigor. We tend to put IT into a pre-slot of
whatever thinking we adhere to whether there is a slot for it or
not.

We cannot change physics into whatever we wish to believe. Take
this
to the bank.


It can be difficult to get the first of a herd through a gap (to
evolutionary progress). But once they're through, watch out for the
crush.
It can take even more time if one wants to smarten them up to choose
to
do
so.


You have just described a (particular) belief theory. You seem to
believe that a particular belief would have some sort of influence over
the natural laws. We developed the science of physics to prevent just
such as that. We expose the man behind the curtain. Are we secretely
afraid of truth?

I am expressing a theory or formulation of the nature of things.

You say about "the science of physics [you developed]": "That leaves 1%
of
trash as a reminder to me that I, at least considered it. Einstein is in
that 1%." If you see some of (your) science as "trash", does it not raise
questions for you about the model? How do you see it as sufficing as a
knock-down of my work (which you have not conceptualised)?


Why should we analogise reality? Have we become so vein as to attempt
to ignore the reality in favor of some mere person's belief/concept and
call it the physic?

Re "analogise reality": more misrepresentation of Effectuationism, if
that
is what you're referring to.


You need to find a way to get back to ground-zero. The universe is
dissing you. You need to do a 24-7 for about ten years and then come
back and tell us a story.

Peter wrote: "Again, you are expressing categorical concepts -
connoting categorical premises. Re "inertial": I do not feature -
subscribe to - this concept."

It is YOU who is catagorizing and ignoring other concepts. Inertia is
well beyond your thoughts until you actually bang your head the filled
football (lead vs.air).

Again, perhaps you should conceptualise "Effectuationism" before
presuming
to ridicule it.

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

xxein: I think the universe would still operate without a specific
conception of it made by us.

You're still a million miles off the mark.

That is what we claim to seek in the name
of science. There isn't that fine of a line between a generalised
conception and an extroverted mass paranoia. Attempting to tweak any
non-physical concept can only move us farther from the actual physics
of the matter.


Perhaps you would care to have a go at this instead, see how it rates with
the model you see as "trash":
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum...tml?1153656126

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

__________________________________________________ ____________

A physicist is the atoms' way of thinking about atoms.

-- Anonymous

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"werty" wrote in message
ups.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?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?

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.co...litude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/33...o_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf

As, also, a definitely from René 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 ass 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" wrote in
message ups.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.co...litude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/33...o_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf