Which is the more reasonable sensiate premise?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ANOK

 

I'll discuss moment conservation with you if you like. But since it's something you seem to have invented in your head it's going to be kind of one way.

How is moment conservation invented in my head lol? Have you ever took a physics class, ever?

This is nothing but an obvious distraction, just stop replying if you don't want to discuss reality.

Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. It is embodied in Newton's first law (the law of inertia).

scienceworld.wolfram.com...

How is that 'in my head'?

Watch this vid if you don't like my interpenetration of the law, pay close attention to what is said...



You just want to pretend it doesn't relate because it shows your opinions to be nonsense. You only want to discuss what you can refute, sorry I don't play that game.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666

 

not architect. Don't like to give out personal information.

Why? Are "they" going to get you if you do?

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666

 

not architect. Don't like to give out personal information.

Why? Are "they" going to get you if you do?

I have recieved veiled threats on other conspiracy forums due to my views. It is my belief that some of the more ardent supporters of conspiracy fanatasies may not be fully stable. Ergo, I would rather not reveal too much personal information. Suffice it to say I am involved in the construction and demolition field on a technical and managment level.

Originally posted by ANOK

How is moment conservation invented in my head lol?

Moment conservation is something you've made up.

Conservation of momentum is - as in the source you cite - what you mean. If you can't get the terms right I'm not sure I trust your interpretation of the more complex aspects, to be honest.

Originally posted by hooper
I have recieved veiled threats on other conspiracy forums due to my views. It is my belief that some of the more ardent supporters of conspiracy fanatasies may not be fully stable. Ergo, I would rather not reveal too much personal information. Suffice it to say I am involved in the construction and demolition field on a technical and managment level.

I can attest to this behavior. While discussing 9/11 conspiracies in another forum I had one guy so imbalanced that he started doing web searches on me in an attempt to "get me", and when he didn't find anything he started forging fake sex conversations in my name to discredit me. This isn't a rational conversation. This is cyberstalking.

BUT to be fair, this isn't because conspiracy people are crackpots. This is because crackpots are drawn to the conspiracy movement as an outlet to air their irrational views like a moth to a flame and do not represent the conspiracy movement as a whole. It's not confined to the 9/11 conspiracies either- there's one guy (forgot his name) so hard core convinced that the moon landings were fake he even staged a phony personal interview with astronaut Buzz Aldrin simply to trick Aldrin into showing up so that he could call Aldrin a liar to his face. Aldrin quite rightly slugged him and the judge quite rightly threw it out of court.

The warning of "don't reveal personal information out on the internet" applies to everyone here, not just one side or the other. THAT is the only "reasonable sensiate premise" here.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Moment conservation is something you've made up.

Why do you keep saying this when I showed you what it is? How am I making this up in my head?

Conservation of momentum is - as in the source you cite - what you mean. If you can't get the terms right I'm not sure I trust your interpretation of the more complex aspects, to be honest.

OK now I get what you're on about lol.

'Moment conservation' and 'conservation of momentum', mean the same thing genius. Both ways of saying it are correct.

Just another ridiculous attempt to ignore what is said. How about actually addressing the point instead of wasting time with semantics stupidity? If it makes you happy just read it as 'conservation of momentum'.

The Law of Momentum Conservation...Momentum Conservation Principle...

www.physicsclassroom.com...

See how many ways it can be written and mean the same thing? No wonder you can't get a grip on the physics I'm trying to explain when you are clueless about the terms and how they're used.

Now we've got that straight how about addressing the points I made? Probably not, because just as I said in the post I wanted you to address you are doing nothing but distracting from the discussion.

If you actually watch the vid you will see what I'm saying about 'moment conservation' is correct. That's obvioulsy why you wanted to pick on my wording and not address the points raised.

reply to post by ANOK


Moment and momentum are actually two different concepts in physics. Although it is not likely this will be understood and acknowledged by you, it is a clear example that you have no clue about physics.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

Moment and momentum are actually two different concepts in physics. Although it is not likely this will be understood and acknowledged by you, it is a clear example that you have no clue about physics.

Yes I see my a mistake now, I think you know I mean momentum conservation though, right? For some reason I got into the habit of writing it like that. I'm learning here, unlike you guys who do nothing but dismiss.

Replace my typo with the correct term and all is good again right? Me saying moment instead of momentum does nothing to change my point.

This is all you OSers can do is pick on spelling, not the actual use of the term. I mean I'm not the one saying there are no impossible physics, and that the laws of motion and momentum conservation are not important.

So now that is cleared up, how about actually addressing the points of the psychics?

reply to post by ANOK


It seems to me you ignored my last post where I explained why your understanding of the involved physics is wrong. So spelling is not at all "we" can do. This mistake is not just a spelling mistake though, and writing things like "No wonder you can't get a grip on the physics I'm trying to explain when you are clueless about the terms and how they're used" when you yourself have no clue about the used terms is rather ironic.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

It seems to me you ignored my last post where I explained why your understanding of the involved physics is wrong.

No I didn't because my understanding of the physics is not wrong. I mistyped is all. If you read moment as momentum, which is what it was supposed to be, then my points are correct. If you look a little deeper, instead of trying to find nonsense to bitch about, you'll notice I also use the term 'conservation of momentum', it's only when I write it 'momentum conservation' I mistyped 'moment'. So for that I thank you, because from now on I will not make that mistake so you can focus on the points being made instead.

"No wonder you can't get a grip on the physics I'm trying to explain when you are clueless about the terms and how they're used" when you yourself have no clue about the used terms is rather ironic.

No, because I was still am perfectly confident in my understanding of the physics. There is a difference in writing it wrong, and not understanding the term however it is written. Anyone who understands the physics would know it was a mistake in wording only, not in understanding.

When someone claims that 'momentum conservation means something moves regardless of what it hits', then I am going to say you do not understand what the term means. When people say 'there are no impossible physics' then it is obvious there is some misunderstanding going on somewhere in that head. When I say you don't understand I explain why, but you seem to miss that and prefer to feel insulted by it instead, oh well that is your loss.

Again all this because you misunderstand, more than just physics obliviously.

reply to post by ANOK


Give it up. They are going to cling to their conspiracy theory no matter what you say. Its the modus operandi of conspiracy theorists, or more precisly, the people who subscribe to a conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by ANOK
No, because I was still am perfectly confident in my understanding of the physics.

And here is your problem, this confidence is completely misplaced. As result you ignore actual explanations of real physics. Your understanding won't improve and you will be repeating the laws of motion mantra forever.

reply to post by -PLB-


Well so do the people who support the official conspiracy theory. That is the reason its just that, a conspiracy theory, that can not stand up to facts in the face of more rational explanations, that do not challenge the laws of physics. Its amusing how the people who champion the official conspiracy theory, feel their conspiracy theory is somehow better or even not a conspiracy theory at all, because the figurehead was an Ex-Junkie, (Ex?)-Alcoholic who with the help of his rich father and other benefactors graduated from yale with mediocre votes and later went on to become president, despite having been clearly adversly affected by his years of strife, in what was a controversial election.

Also you just said his "faith in physics" is missplaced after he pointed out that he misstyped momentum. I did not see either of you 2 displaying an in depth understanding of physics. That discussion is taking place, however not on conspiracy forums by wannabe scientists, but through qualified people. And the official conspiracy theory can not stand up to scrutinity anymore than Laz0rs from outer space can. The OS belongs on the same pile as the killer sattelite theory. And if we elmininate the more far fetched (as far as I am concerned) theories of wepaonized mechanics that might or might not exists (Hutchinson effect and the like) then the number of alternative plausible scenarios for the cause of the collapse of the wtc complex shrinks down to a singularity.

reply to post by Cassius666


There is no alternative theory. If you think there is, line it out, and we will see if it is any better than the "official" theory. Until that time the truth movement is nothing more than a bunch of people on the Internet saying that the current best theory does not satisfy them.

reply to post by -PLB-


But the official conspiracy theory is just that, an alternative theory, an alternative theory based on bad science defended only by people on the internet. Your attitude clearly shows that you somehow think the nist report is better than the killer sattelite theory, which underlines your delusions.

Neither of us here is an expert on the subject so we will have to go with what experts on the related subjects say. Id like to think Germany funds good universities.

reply to post by Cassius666


Delusional is thinking that all work by highly educated experts at FEMA, NIST, universities and other organizations is of the same level as laser beams from space. It is odd that on one side you reject authority and right after that make an appeal to authority. Yet you are not able to give a single name of these authorities you rely on. You want other people to believe you without anything to back up what you say and when they don´t you call them delusional.

reply to post by Wally Hope


I don't know who you are, nor do I recall ever having discussed this subject with you. So it is very well possible that I have never explained anything to you. What is it that you want to have explained?

reply to post by -PLB-


We are not talking about an indipendent report, we are talking about a bought report led by an organisation that came under scrutinity. The nist report is as well founded in science as the hutchinson effect. The best explanation for exploding buildings is explosives.

Also the authors themselves admit that their "best explanation" had a very low probability to occour. Its the best explanation they can give excluding the use of explosives, thats correct.