The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Moderating Moderators?  (Read 11373 times)

Offline psikeyhackr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Live Long & Suffer
    • View Profile
    • GlobaLIES
Moderating Moderators?
« on: 21/12/2009 23:39:10 »
Someone called "Geezer" locked my thread here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21925.0

This was his excuse:
Quote
Per psikeyhackr:
Quote
Therefore SOMETHING ELSE had to be responsible for the destruction.  I am not trying to say what that Something Else was.  That is other people's problem.

In otherwords, the objective of the "experiment" was a foregone conclusion.

This is a conspiracy theory disguised as a science experiment.
 
This thread is locked.

Mod.

He made no attempt to explain what was wrong with my math here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21925.msg251656#msg251656

In fact he didn't try to explain what was wrong with my experiment.  He just blissfully associated it with whatever he thinks a "conspiracy theory" is and locked the thread.  This thread has been going since April and apparently no other moderator objected to it.

How many moderators are there and who are they?  How can they be contacted?  I have already e-mailed the webmaster and have not gotten a response.

psik


 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Moderating Moderators?
« Reply #1 on: 22/12/2009 01:11:31 »
That would be because the moderators are in the process of discussing this decision.

Try some patience.

Oh, and they can all be contacted through the "report to moderator" link on every post.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Moderating Moderators?
« Reply #2 on: 22/12/2009 03:40:24 »
If the poster had not sent me an irate message titled "Conspiracy Crap" I would be more sympathetic.
 

Offline psikeyhackr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Live Long & Suffer
    • View Profile
    • GlobaLIES
Moderating Moderators?
« Reply #3 on: 22/12/2009 04:10:04 »
Quote
If the poster had not sent me an irate message titled "Conspiracy Crap" I would be more sympathetic.

I wasn't aware that the Laws of Physics required sympathy or cared about conspiracies.

Have you found an error in the math of Fall of Physics?

Or have you checked?  I have posted it on various sites since July of 2008.
No one has "explained" an error yet, though two people have claimed it was wrong.
One said I had the F=m*a calculation wrong.  But it doesn't contain any F=m*a calculations because acceleration due to gravity is constant near the surface since F/m is constant.

psik
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Moderating Moderators?
« Reply #4 on: 22/12/2009 08:26:14 »
Yes I have looked at the math. It's your model that's nonsense. There is a lot more going on here than conservation of momentum.

When the first set of supports in the Twin Towers failed to support the structure above them, the entire weight of the structure above that point acted like a hammer when it encountered the floor below the columns that failed. When that happened, the columns supporting many, if not all the floors below became simultaneously overloaded. Your model makes no attempt to take that into account, and your "experiment" is entirely incapable of including that effect. Also, the effects of friction between the washers and the dowel render your "experiment" virtually worthless.

Wolfkeeper attempted to make you understand that on several occasions, but it seems you did not think it was necessary to modify your model, perhaps because you were spending more time trying to convince everyone that this is science rather than a poorly disguised conspiracy theory.

 
« Last Edit: 22/12/2009 08:29:30 by Geezer »
 

Offline psikeyhackr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Live Long & Suffer
    • View Profile
    • GlobaLIES
Moderating Moderators?
« Reply #5 on: 22/12/2009 17:51:50 »
When the first set of supports in the Twin Towers failed to support the structure above them, the entire weight of the structure above that point acted like a hammer when it encountered the floor below the columns that failed. When that happened, the columns supporting many, if not all the floors below became simultaneously overloaded. Your model makes no attempt to take that into account, and your "experiment" is entirely incapable of including that effect. Also, the effects of friction between the washers and the dowel render your "experiment" virtually worthless.

In the first place the columns were in the CORE and on the PERIMETER.

The FLOOR SLABS that everyone makes a BIG DEAL about are supported at the inner and outer edges.  The columns shouldn't come down on the floor slabs.  But what people don't talk about is the BEAMS that connected those columns. Where is the data on the MASS OF THOSE BEAMS?  So in order for the top of the north tower to come straight down then the upper core would have to come down on the lower core and those BEAMS would impact each other and masses would impact each other involving the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM.

I knew someone would try to EXAGGERATE the importance of friction with the dowel that is why some of the video has TWO MASSES falling next to each other.  One on the dowel and one in free space.  You can watch them both fall and see how much difference it makes.

Now about those floor slabs.  Why don't you try finding how much a complete floor assembly weighed?  It is easy to compute what the concrete should have weighed from the dimensions and the density of 110 lb/cu.ft.  It comes to 601 tons.  But the concrete was poured on corrugated pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses.  The upper knuckles of the rebar were embedded into the concrete slab so it could not be separated.  So let's see you find the total weight of the entire assembly anywhere.  I never have.  And I downloaded the entire NCSTAR1 report and burned it to DVD two years ago.  I have searched it hundreds of times.  It does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

So how is it you can complain about friction when I have two masses falling next to each other at 1:30 into my video.

Also I build another model and had just explained what it was before you locked the thread.  I still have to edit the video.  I can't show the new model there if the thread is locked so what does that say for your complaints about the old model even if they were valid?

psik
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Moderating Moderators?
« Reply #6 on: 22/12/2009 18:26:01 »
When the first set of supports in the Twin Towers failed to support the structure above them, the entire weight of the structure above that point acted like a hammer when it encountered the floor below the columns that failed. When that happened, the columns supporting many, if not all the floors below became simultaneously overloaded. Your model makes no attempt to take that into account, and your "experiment" is entirely incapable of including that effect. Also, the effects of friction between the washers and the dowel render your "experiment" virtually worthless.

In the first place the columns were in the CORE and on the PERIMETER.

The FLOOR SLABS that everyone makes a BIG DEAL about are supported at the inner and outer edges.  The columns shouldn't come down on the floor slabs.  But what people don't talk about is the BEAMS that connected those columns. Where is the data on the MASS OF THOSE BEAMS?  So in order for the top of the north tower to come straight down then the upper core would have to come down on the lower core and those BEAMS would impact each other and masses would impact each other involving the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM.

I knew someone would try to EXAGGERATE the importance of friction with the dowel that is why some of the video has TWO MASSES falling next to each other.  One on the dowel and one in free space.  You can watch them both fall and see how much difference it makes.

Now about those floor slabs.  Why don't you try finding how much a complete floor assembly weighed?  It is easy to compute what the concrete should have weighed from the dimensions and the density of 110 lb/cu.ft.  It comes to 601 tons.  But the concrete was poured on corrugated pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses.  The upper knuckles of the rebar were embedded into the concrete slab so it could not be separated.  So let's see you find the total weight of the entire assembly anywhere.  I never have.  And I downloaded the entire NCSTAR1 report and burned it to DVD two years ago.  I have searched it hundreds of times.  It does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

So how is it you can complain about friction when I have two masses falling next to each other at 1:30 into my video.

Also I build another model and had just explained what it was before you locked the thread.  I still have to edit the video.  I can't show the new model there if the thread is locked so what does that say for your complaints about the old model even if they were valid?

psik

As we have come to expect, you have done nothing to address the flaw in your model. You continue to shout "conservation of momentum" but ignore the simultaneous effects on the lower supports. Your model treats every floor as if it was an independent system. It's not. You have to model the entire building as a system and take into account all the forces acting on it at all times.

But then, why would we expect anything else from someone who is dedicated to proving that the twin towers collapsed because of some grand conspiracy.
 

Offline psikeyhackr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Live Long & Suffer
    • View Profile
    • GlobaLIES
Moderating Moderators?
« Reply #7 on: 22/12/2009 18:59:29 »
Quote
As we have come to expect, you have done nothing to address the flaw in your model.

I just said I built another model that I can't show because YOU locked the thread.  I still have to edit the video.

 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Moderating Moderators?
« Reply #8 on: 22/12/2009 19:31:04 »
I was not referring to the model in your "experiment". I was referring to your mathematical model.
 

Offline psikeyhackr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Live Long & Suffer
    • View Profile
    • GlobaLIES
Moderating Moderators?
« Reply #9 on: 22/12/2009 19:45:20 »
I was not referring to the model in your "experiment". I was referring to your mathematical model.

So one minute you are complaining about friction in the physical model after saying you checked the mathematical one but then you want to play switch up and object to the mathematical version.

How is anyone supposed to keep up with the word games you are playing and understand what you are really talking about?

I notice you haven't said anything about the TWO MASSES I dropped to show that friction against the dowel was negligible in the physical model.

You haven't said anything about the TOTAL WEIGHT of a floor assembly or the BEAMS in the CORE either.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Moderating Moderators?
« Reply #10 on: 22/12/2009 23:13:06 »
You asked me to review your math. I did. Your mathematical model is no good. Are you going to address the issues I raised, or will you keep trying to change the subject?

My observations on your "experiment" are of less importance.

Oh, and I suggest you do not accuse me of using "word games". Should I take it that you are insinuating I am being deliberately deceptive? That's a rather serious allegation.
« Last Edit: 22/12/2009 23:20:00 by Geezer »
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Moderating Moderators?
« Reply #11 on: 22/12/2009 23:17:31 »
I'll lock this one and for the moment - NO MORE COMPLAINING.

You agreed to the Acceptable Use Policy, Dude, so live with the decision.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0

10.   The moderators are the final arbiter.
   
In all matters, the moderators' judgement is final.


You are temporally banned - and probably soon the ban will be total. GEEZER will ,do the banning
  
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Moderating Moderators?
« Reply #11 on: 22/12/2009 23:17:31 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums