Horizontal Ejecta from Ryan Mackey's Paper - Part Two

[Bolo Boffin]

I last posted this excerpt back in 2007. I would have kicked the first thread, but it's been archived. So for the benefit of scott75, who's all gangsta on Ryan Mackey, here's a short excerpt from the piece. It concerns something I've heard here dozens of times, so please, those of you who don't believe this particular CT, trust me: this is a common CT belief about the collapse of those buildings. I can't think of too many people here on the alternate theory side who don't think the towers were brought down with a controlled demolition, though.

Anyway, the quote:

Dr. Griffin’s next observation is that a number of large steel fragments (as well as aluminum cladding) were found several hundred feet away from the original sites, with as much as 600 feet claimed. He states without proof or support that the steel could not have traveled so far in a gravity-driven collapse. This, to him, also proves that “large and powerful explosives” were to blame:

According to NIST’s theory, the only energy available was gravitational
energy, which is strictly vertical, causing matter to fall straight down. It
is hard to imagine what could account for the horizontal ejections of extremely
heavy pieces of steel, except very powerful explosives.

The author can imagine several other explanations. Because the Towers were of great height, it would take a relatively small horizontal velocity to travel 600 feet – for example, a piece ejected from the 50th floor would remain airborne for at least 6.3 seconds, and thus could travel the 600 foot maximum distance if it had an initial horizontal velocity of only 95 feet per second, or 65 miles per hour. It is easy to see how such a piece could acquire this velocity through either elastic collision, as a fragment thrown off in a violent column failure, or potentially thrown off through leverage if a partially intact assembly was hit off-center and rotated by the falling mass (much as an automobile can launch a shovel a great distance by running over the blade).

Let me consider the first and simplest example, that of a ricochet. Suppose a large piece of steel is broken loose and swept along with the upper block at the very edge. This piece then experiences a hard collision with the lower block – say the beam-framing of one of the mechanical floors – and ricochets outside the falling mass, becoming an effectively free ballistic projectile until it hits the ground or another building. If the piece ricochets elastically, which is possible for a steel-on-steel collision, then it can rebound with almost the same speed at which it was falling before the collision. To reach 600 feet distance, the piece can be ejected lower in the structure at which point it will have picked up more speed; or it can be ejected higher, in which case it will ricochet with less speed, but it will have more “hang time” in which to travel.

There are many ricochet solutions possible in the WTC collapses. To pick one at random, a piece pushed at the front of the upper block until ricocheting horizontally at the 50th floor would be ejected with a speed of about 95 feet per second, using the “crush down” velocity profile predicted by Dr. Bazant et. al. Upon bouncing off horizontally, it would still have 6.3 seconds to fall, and would reach a distance of 605 feet away from the former Tower perimeter. If the piece bounced at a slight upward angle, but still rebounded elastically, it could reach an even greater distance. (This calculation does not include aerodynamic drag, but a large, dense, slender object like a steel column will have a high ballistic coefficient, and drag will have a relatively minor effect.) Many such possible scenarios can be computed. Therefore Dr. Griffin’s assertion, that the NIST theory cannot explain this event, is false.

Now that seems pretty straightforward to understand. Can anybody poke a hole in this? Now's your chance.

[AZCat]

1. What's "gansta"? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

2. I was trying to see if anyone was paying attention.

*grumble, grumble, too late to edit*

Gangsta.

ETA: *grumble, grumble, not too late to edit*

[AZCat]

3. I know.

I probably wouldn't have commented if it had been past an hour, but now it's all better! :)

[scott75]

4. A preliminary counter...

I last posted this excerpt back in 2007. I would have kicked the first thread, but it's been archived. So for the benefit of scott75, who's all gangsta on Ryan Mackey, here's a short excerpt from the piece. It concerns something I've heard here dozens of times, so please, those of you who don't believe this particular CT, trust me: this is a common CT belief about the collapse of those buildings. I can't think of too many people here on the alternate theory side who don't think the towers were brought down with a controlled demolition, though.

Yes, I think there is little disagreement on the alternate theory side that they were taken down by controlled demolition. Anyway, to your quote...

Dr. Griffin’s next observation is that a number of large steel fragments (as well as aluminum cladding) were found several hundred feet away from the original sites, with as much as 600 feet claimed. He states without proof or support that the steel could not have traveled so far in a gravity-driven collapse.

Actually, he provides a logical explanation for why the steel couldn't have travelled so far in a gravity-driven collapse, which he quotes presently...

This, to him, also proves that “large and powerful explosives” were to blame:

According to NIST’s theory, the only energy available was gravitational
energy, which is strictly vertical, causing matter to fall straight down. It
is hard to imagine what could account for the horizontal ejections of extremely
heavy pieces of steel, except very powerful explosives.

The author can imagine several other explanations. Because the Towers were of great height, it would take a relatively small horizontal velocity to travel 600 feet – for example, a piece ejected from the 50th floor would remain airborne for at least 6.3 seconds, and thus could travel the 600 foot maximum distance if it had an initial horizontal velocity of only 95 feet per second, or 65 miles per hour. It is easy to see how such a piece could acquire this velocity through either elastic collision, as a fragment thrown off in a violent column failure, or potentially thrown off through leverage if a partially intact assembly was hit off-center and rotated by the falling mass (much as an automobile can launch a shovel a great distance by running over the blade).

I think it's safe to say that comparing a collapsing building to an automobile running over a shovel is a pretty big stretch. Mackey is adept with coming up with spurious claims; I have a strong feeling that if Griffin or Hoffman were to see the above statements and put a little time into countering them, they would do quite well, as Hoffman has shown in his lengthy critique of Mackey's work here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html">A critique of Ryan Mackey's essay: "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking..

I'll leave the rest for now. I'll also see if my friend or Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer, might like to say a few words concerning this...

[AZCat]

5. It would be nice if, when commenting on Mackey's argument...

you didn't make a strawman of it. It would make the whole discussion a lot easier.

Oh - and who cares if Szamboti is a mechanical engineer? That's irrelevant. All that matters is the quality of his arguments.

[scott75]

11. Where do you believe I made a strawman?

Also, Bolo is apparently a big fan of degrees and such, so I thought I'd satisfy his need for such things. However, aside from Tony's degree in mechanical engineering, he has also written several well done peer reviewed papers concerning the WTC buildings, 3 of which I have linked to in the "Tony Szamboti comments" post.

[AZCat]

31. Are you really not aware of your misrepresentation of Mackey's argument?

See below for an explication if you aren't.

I'd be careful about hitching your carriage to Tony Szamboti's horse. He may have a BSME, but his engineering skills leave something to be desired.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Again, I remind you that Mackey has already dealt with Hoffman's silly little treatment

It's available in the latest version of the paper:

http://ae911truth.info/pdf/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

A whole appendix going through Hoffman's weak, weak attack. More attention that the silly thing was worth!

[scott75]

12. I've seen some of Mackey's rebuttals...

He gets into technical stuff that really isn't my field, but there was a time when I found that his supposed 'rebuttal' was nothing more then window dressing and did not, in fact, rebut the point at all.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Here is an opportunity for you to show how Mackey's arguments are just "window dressing"

So far you have:

a) exaggerated what he said into something that sounded ludicrous to you (building a straw man) and pretending that he said it
b) tried to divert the argument into another topic on the advice of the 9/11 CT guru Tony Szamboti
c) shown a video in which a high school physics teacher demonstrates his inability to understand conservation of momentum (points for actually finding something that did deal with the topic, but still a fail for not actually rebutting what Mackey had said)
d) defended your straw man without recognizing what you had done

Less evasion and dancing, more dealing with Mackey's words. You asked me to provide an example of what I considered to be a good argument from Mackey's work. I've done so. Be so good as to try to tear it down, not what you think he said.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. "comparing a collapsing building to an automobile running over a shovel"

Mackey did not do that. Please read it again.

[scott75]

13. Yes, he did...

No need to read it again.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. No, he did not.

You have built a straw man. Mackey compared a single part of the collapse to an automobile hitting a shovel, not the entire thing. You have exaggerated what he said to pretend it was silly.

You are not doing well in this discussion so far. Deal with Mackey's actual words, not what you want Mackey's words to be.

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. let's try this

Rather than debate whether he "compar(ed) a collapsing building to an automobile running over a shovel," maybe you could explain whether and why you think the argument to which you refer is "spurious."

If you're simply asserting that a piece could not be thrown off through leverage because a building is not like a car or a shovel, then at best your argument needs further elaboration. (It's somewhat as if I said, "All else equal, a tree falling through the air will continue falling, just as a stone will continue to roll downhill," and you objected that a tree is not like a stone. At least both are subject to gravity.)

[spooked911]

8. one hole is that Bazant's crush down theory is a fraud

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-bazants-hack-science-and-wtc.html

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/further-examination-of-physical-and.html

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/bazants-work-rests-on-complete-baloney.html

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Mackey is not using Bazant's crush down theory in this argument. n/t

[spooked911]

28. really?

"To pick one at random, a piece pushed at the front of the upper block until ricocheting horizontally at the 50th floor would be ejected with a speed of about 95 feet per second, using the “crush down” velocity profile predicted by Dr. Bazant et. al."

[Bolo Boffin]

29. D'oh!

Egg on my face.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Your first link is talking about the dust creation - off topic.

Your second is talking about the crush-down, on-topic.

Your third betrays your inability to understand what it is that Bazant is doing. Bazant shows that collapse in the most symmetrical case possible could happen. That is the best case scenario for the building to stop the collapse from happening. Any asymmetical collapse would tear the building down if the entirely symmetrical scenario does. When Bazant shows the symmetrical scenario doesn't stop the advance of the upper section, the building would tear itself apart in any circumstance. You can rail all you like about the symmetrical case not being likely, which Bazant admits, but all you are doing is showing you don't understand what Bazant is doing.

Your second link in another post.

[wildbilln864]

32. Show us another example of "crush down" actually happening...

where 1/3 actually completely destroys 2/3!
"....the building would tear itself apart in any circumstance."!? That's some real science there bolo! :rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Stick to the topic, please, wildbill.

Do you have any other problems with Mackey's argument?

ETA: And please remember that Spooked is also advocating a once-in-history demolition scenario, since "nuclear demolition with subsidiary help from conventional explosives" has never been observed anywhere else, and you yourself, when you bother to take a position at all, advocate a once-in-history demolition scenario with your thermite devices, also never observed anywhere before or since. So laugh it up -- you're the butt of your own joke.

[wildbilln864]

49. so there are no other examples in history!?

[Bolo Boffin]

50. No, there are no other examples in history of thermite being used to demolish a building. n/t

[wildbilln864]

51. That wasn't the question and you know it. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

52. It is still 100% true. n/t

[wildbilln864]

54. right! about like a sledge hammer hitting glass!

:rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

55. :eyes: n/t

[SDuderstadt]

34. Jesus, Bill...use your brain!

What is so hard to understand about this? You're trying to pretend it's like the top 1/3 vs. the bottom 2/3's. It's not. It's the top third versus the next floor..then the top 1/3 + that next floor against the next floor, then the top 1/3 plus the next two floors already destroyed versus the next fllor, etc. What is so hard to understand about that?

[wildbilln864]

45. I think your scenario would have taken longer that the actual collapses! nt

You see if as you say the top 1/3 hits the next floor and destroys that floor it should also destroy the bottom floor of the top third. And so on and so on. They're made the same way and of the same materials except the core columns get bigger the further you go down. So if it destroys the top floor of the lower 2/3 then it would also destroy the bottom floor of the top 1/3! :eyes: Simple physics Sduder! For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction!

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Ye gods, the second post doesn't apply to this at all.

You (or Anonymous Physicist, rather) are dealing with equations for the calculation of energy dissipated by comminution of the concrete. That has nothing to do with falsifying Bazant for the purposes of Mackey's ejection argument.

This is nothing but a distraction to talk about your own hobby horse. Deal with Mackey's arguments or go haunt your own threads.

[William Seger]

37. Looks like you've been out of the loop for a while

Here's a totally gravity-driven demolition that was performed by weakening the columns on two floors of a building and then causing them to fail simultaneously with hydraulic jacks -- not a single explosive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

The collapse looks remarkably like the towers collapsing, because it was indeed remarkably similar. A major tenet of the Truthism religion -- that such a collapse is impossible by gravity alone -- lies in that pile of rubble, Spooky.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Seger, that video deserves a thread of its own

Out of nukes and thermite and gravity-driven, only one has ever been shown to actually work at this point.

[wildbilln864]

46. Gee William, I think....

if you take the legs out from under a table the table top will fall! :eyes:

[William Seger]

47. Yup

And then what happens, wildbill?

(Hint: Watch the Balzac video again. Or, either of the tower collapses. :eyes:)

[wildbilln864]

48. not even close William! nt

see this link! link

[William Seger]

53. Couple of problems with your reasoning in that linked post

The major problem is that even if the falling block was also being destroyed in the impacts, the mass of its debris -- and its kinetic energy of its falling -- were not being destroyed. The only losses would be whatever fell over the side, but we're talking about a pile of debris that was over 200 feet wide, so it just not likely that anything but a small percentage from each floor would escape over the side.

Another more subtle problem is the "equal and opposite reaction" thing. While the principle is certainly true, your analysis leaves out critical details that lead you to the wrong conclusion. The major problem is that you are leaving out an important element. In addition to the top block and the lower intact structure, there is a third element: the growing pile of rubble between the two, from the floors already destroyed. The forces on the top block and bottom structure are not equal, and the difference is the force being applied on the bottom by that falling debris pile. Another detail left out of your analysis is that while the bottom section is sitting on the ground and must absorb all of the force as strain energy, the top section is moving and can absorb forces as deceleration. And finally, a lot of the energy absorbed by the falling top block and rubble mass will go into further pulverizing the rubble, leaving the top to ride down on that rubble without suffering nearly as much damage as the bottom structure.

The proof of all this is right there in the Balzac demolition video (seen especially in the slow-motion part of the second video): What you think ought to happen doesn't match reality. Yes, there is some destruction of the top block, but the bottom structure gets the worst of it, by far, until the collapse front gets to the lowest level. Why would you continue clinging to failed speculation in the face of clear disproof?

[wildbilln864]

56. no clear disproof there William....

"the top section is moving and can absorb forces as deceleration." When did the alleged deceleration occur?

[scott75]

9. A more in depth counter...

This one from my friend, H...

check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=B9YjireIPCQ

heavy steel girder ejected at 72mph from floor 82.
the top chunk of the building (even if it fell at freefall speed) would have reached floor 82 at only 36mph.
so a 36 mph vertical speed is translated into a 72mph horizontal speed??

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. yikes -- conservation of momentum

I haven't checked the video or the facts, but anyone who doesn't understand how a 36 mph vertical speed of a large mass could be "translated into" a faster horizontal speed for a much smaller mass seems to be missing something crucial.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Thanks, OnTheOtherHand

You got it in one. Chandler continues to embarrass himself.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. David Chandler really messed up. It's worse than we thought.

OK, this is what Chandler says.

I'm accepting all of his estimations for the sake of the argument. So --

This piece started at the 82nd floor, granted. (To be conservative, we'll only measure from the top of the 82nd floor.)
It's traveling horizontally at 32 m/s, granted.
The leading edge of the descending section is the bottom of the 96th floor, granted.

So the descending section has to fall 13 stories. The stories in the towers were 13 feet, 4 inches tall (NIST NCSTAR1, p. 10 (pdf 60)). In meters, that's 4.06 m tall. 13 stories is 52.78 m that the section descends before reaching the top of the 82nd floor.

So this is what we know: The descending section started at 0 m/s, it fell 52.78 m at 9.81 m/s², and David Chandler says that when it got there, it was traveling at 16 m/s.

But David Chandler is wrong.

http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantacceleration/cavelocityt.php

Solving for time, you plug in initial velocity (0), final velocity (16), and acceleration (9.81). You get 1.63 seconds.

http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantacceleration/caavevelocity.php

Solving for average velocity, you plug in initial velocity (0) and final velocity (16). You get 8 m/s.

http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantacceleration/cadisplacement.php

Solving for distance, you plug in time (1.63) and average velocity (8 m/s). You get 13.04 m.

So in freefall conditions, as specified by Chandler, if the final velocity is 16 m/s, the descending section has only fallen 13.04 m, not 52.78 m.

Chandler fucked up big time. As a matter of fact, after falling 52.78 m at 9.81 m/s², you get a final velocity of 32 m/s, exactly the velocity of the horizontal component as measured by Chandler.

Does he ever get tired of confirming the official story?

ETA: Let me show my work. Assuming a final velocity of 32 m/s --

http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantacceleration/cavelocityt.php

Solving for time, you plug in initial velocity (0), final velocity (32), and acceleration (9.81). You get 3.2 seconds.

Average velocity is 16 m/s.

http://www.ajdesigner.com/constantacceleration/cadisplacement.php

Solving for distance, you plug in time (3.2) and average velocity (16 m/s). You get 51.02 m. Much closer to the actual distance than Chandler. Using the assumption that the upper section is descending with no resistance, it CANNOT physically have fallen 52 m faster than 3.2 seconds, and by that time it will be traveling around 32 m/s.

Oh, my, how Chandler did fuck up. Is it just a coincidence that the actual average velocity is what he claims the final velocity to be? Did Chandler grab the average velocity and use it as final velocity and post a big fuck up on the intertubes?

Somehow, this must be NIST's fault, right?

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. alas, I'm paying very little attention...

Is the acceleration here indeed g? I was just staring at some 9/11 paper that proudly documented nearly constant acceleration of one of the tower-tops substantially less than g. (Back in the day, I thought this would be evidence against CD, but now apparently it is evidence for CD.)

It's embarrassing to admit not paying attention, but less embarrassing than some of the alternatives. (And I have a huge stack of papers to grade.)

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Chandler based his 16 m/s figure on freefall - acceleration by g.

That's what the video said.

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. ah, those damn videos

OK. Confusing average velocity with final velocity sounds possible. Ugly, but possible. (As a high school physics teacher -- that's right, isn't it? -- he should be able to do that one in his sleep.) But I'll let you do the lifting on that.

Still puzzling over what it would mean for puffs of dust to be "propelled by elastic action," and how ruling that out would bring us to "mis-timed squibs." Must. Stop.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Wait a minute!

You have a huge stack of papers to grade? That must mean you're a teacher. Unless you teach at a private school, wouldn't that make you a government employee? If so, you're obviously "in on it" because you are afraid of losing your job for daring to question the "OCT"!

Oh, wait...my apologies, OTOH...I was channeling a "trtuher" there for sa moment.

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. (groan)

Yeah, in fact, I'm not a government employee. But my wife is a school teacher, so I guess I'm complicit.

I do think it's bizarre and hilarious (mostly) when people think I (or others similarly situated) must be part of a plot. But I can sort of understand having formed a strong opinion that (say) the towers must have been demolished, and then buttressing that opinion with auxiliary notions about why that opinion hasn't won out. I guess this is the "stigmatized knowledge" thing, although I haven't read that book.

[SDuderstadt]

42. watch out!

if you deny that you're a government employee, that's just part of your cover. oh, wait...i'm still channeling a ''truther''.

[scott75]

10. Tony Szamboti comments..

Tony Szamboti has made an important point. In case you haven't heard of him: Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer and author of various peer reviewed papers concerning the WTC buildings, such as the collaborative peer reviewed work, http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM">Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, the co authors being Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan and James R. Gourley, as well as other works such as http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf">The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers and his collaborative work with Graeme MacQueen, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf">The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis.

When I presented your excerpt from Mackey, he felt that the most important thing to remember was the narrowly focused high velocity dust ejections we see 200 feet below the collapse zone. He explains why:

They could not be propelled by elastic action and they are without a doubt mis-timed squibs which went off before the debris cloud cover could hide them.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Jesus, you are a little Googlebomb factory, aren't you?

Mackey's argument is not talking about the ejection of dust. He is talking about ejection of structural pieces. You are sidestepping what Mackey said here. Pardon me, Tony is the author of several papers published in the pretend scholarly journals created by the outlier 9/11 scientist to "peer-review" their own works, and his paper published in a open source internet-only journal with questionable review practices (yes, I know I'm talking about the Environmentalist), and Tony has counseled you to evade Mackey's actual argument in order to press something irrelevant to that argument.

Please stick to the subject at hand.

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. Do you even know what "google bomb" means?

Do you enjoy making yourself look dumb?

[scott75]

22. Nothing to do with google there..

I personally correspond with Tony at times and this was one such occasion.

Mackey's argument is not talking about the ejection of dust. He is talking about ejection of structural pieces. You are sidestepping what Mackey said here.

Tony believes that the ejection of structural pieces argument is one that Mackey would prefer since it's more difficult to ascertain whether or not a gravitational collapse could have done it. Not so with the ejection of dust.

Pardon me, Tony is the author of several papers published in the pretend scholarly journals

There is nothing pretend about them. They are scholarly journals that live up to their name of intensive peer review, unlike some of the OCT "peer reviewed" papers that have been thoroughly debunked by more serious scholars.

created by the outlier 9/11 scientist to "peer-review" their own works, and his paper published in a open source internet-only journal with questionable review practices

Nothing questionable about their review practices, but by all means, attempt to provide some evidence to the contrary.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Your linking to Szamboti's papers which have nothing to do with the subject

is indeed linkspamming and has everything to do with raising the profile of said links in search engines. Please do not pretend otherwise.

I don't give a fuck what Tony believes Mackey prefers. I've presented an argument from Mackey's paper as requested. Yammering on about what Tony believes Mackey would prefer doesn't do anything to answer Mackey's argument. Are you conceding that this is a valid argument and that structural pieces being ejected from the collapse is nothing that need be explained with explosives (contrary to what the fine minds at AE911Truth would claim)? Is this your concession of the argument as presented?

We've got several threads on each of these "papers." I won't allow you to derail this topic by discussing them here. They are immaterial to the point -- Mackey's ejecta argument. Either concede the argument or argue against it. Now would be good.

[William Seger]

38. Perhaps Mr. Szamboti should get someone

... to calculate the velocity, as well as the changes in velocity over time, for that "squib" and then do the same thing for a cloud of debris known to be from an explosive, so we can compare the two. (Perhaps Mr. Szamboti can perform the calculations himself -- hopefully he learned something from the embarrassing debacle of his "missing jolt" "peer reviewed" paper.)

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. has he noticed the debacle?

I came across this fascinating bit of New Physics:

(Mackey: ) You can often ignore Newton's Third Law anyway, depending on the problem -- dropping a rock, for instance. The ground is pulled up with the same force that gravity pulls the rock down, but this equal-and-opposite force is negligible due to the disparity in mass.

(Szamboti: ) ...Additionally, Mackey is wrong about gravity "pulling the ground up". Of course, he is referring to the rock's gravitational effect on the earth, but that isn't an equal and opposite force to that of the earth on it. Gravitational force is a function of mass. The earth's crust is being pulled downward by the earth's own gravitational pull with many orders of magnitude greater force than any little force applied by the rock and it is the outward acting pressure from inside the earth which keeps it in balance with the inward pull of gravity. Why does he think stars collapse when they run out of fuel? So much for his bluster.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90779&page=16

Szamboti is actually reaching essentially the same conclusion as Mackey -- that Newton's Third Law can practically be ignored in this case -- but Szamboti's innovation is actually to deny Newton's Third Law (and I'm not talking about relativity here).

Call me an elitist, but I really expect anyone who wants to say anything about the physics of gravity to have thought about how Newton's Third Law applies to gravitation between two unequal masses, and to grasp the distinction between force and acceleration.

As for why Szamboti launches into an exposition of "the outward acting pressure from inside the earth" that keeps it from imploding, well, I guess there's something about "dropping a rock" that just got him all riled up. :shrug:

[William Seger]

43. He finally corrected the math

It took three or four people numerous attempts to convince him that the method he was using to calculate "instantaneous velocity" from the video was totally whacked, and would never under any circumstances show the "jolt" he claimed he was looking for, even if the falling mass came to a complete stop! And this was a paper that Steven Jones said had been given months of "arduous" "peer review." But, eventually, he did "get it" and corrected the math. Now, if he comes to recognize that if the top fell at 0.7g acceleration, then it must have experienced -0.3g decelerating force from the resistance of the building -- whether or not there was a "jolt" that was measurable using his method....

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. so there are now two versions of "Missing Jolt"?

I had no idea. I had managed not to hear of the paper until yesterday or so.

Yes, I was amazed that the authors didn't (as far as I could see) comment on the "missing free fall."