Debunking the Stundies - March Edition [Archive]

William Rea

4th April 2007, 12:49 PM

Having enjoyed debunking two of the March "Stundie" Awards Voting Nominations I am starting a thread away from the normal "Stundies" activities to debunk the basis of any nominations that do not stand up to their stated aims.

In the same spirit as the "Stundies" this thread is not restricted to analysing any particular side of the debate in preference over the other but, its content will reflect the nominations put forward in the "Stundies".

I am interested in comments from people who have gone back and reviewed "Stundie" nominations and found the quotes taken completely out of context. This is an opportunity to redress the lack of impartiality of any quotes.

NOTE - I cannot emphasise enough that this thread is not for flamers, if you have nothing to add to the analysis then avoid it. By the same token I will no longer involve myself in any of the "Stundies" threads leaving everyone to have their version of fun as they see fit.

Undoubtedly there are elements who will not welcome this thread and will do everything within their power to disrupt & personalise it and so get it moved out by the Moderation. Time will tell but, I think it's worth the effort.

William Rea

4th April 2007, 01:00 PM

Context of the Nomination cut and pasted from the "Stundies"...

-2-

Nominated by apathoid

[From a no-plane thread...Killtown has trouble understanding the limits of the internet; context provided]

Originally Posted by Why Won't God Heal Amputees
If you watch a normal video (not an internet video) of the plane hitting, you will see that after the plane 'disappears' there is in fact a cloud of shredded plane skin falling downward outside of the building on the same side that it hit.

Originally Posted by Killtown
link to a "normal" video?

================================================== ===
Actual context of the posts in the thread cut and pasted from LCF...

Originally Posted by Jarrayo in LCF

Excellent observation Amputees.

Obviously the WTC wall is not a giant solid smooth mass. Strangely in the video, it seems so. Why?

Because this video was recorded by who-knows what camera (could have even been a crappy one, such as a camcorder), I doubt the person who recorded gave the original footage to the person who posted it on the internet, so most likely he recorded it from a TV. After that, he send it to the computer. After that he compressed it by an enormous degree to allow fast internet replay. And after that it was posted on YouTube (or GoogleVideo) where it looses even more resolution. And after that someone made a screen capture of the already crappy footage and in most cases blew up the image to focus on the plane.

If you know about videos and graphics, you'll know that every step of the translation of the recording makes the video loose resolution. So the NPTers are basing their "evidence" on already faulty videos.

Response by Killtown

1) link to a "normal" video?

2) Example?

================================================== ==

1. Killtown was responding to Jarrayo's post not Amputees as is implied in the nomination.

2. The "normal" video link requested could easily be a link to a bit torrent for the original video, we don't know.

3. However diagreeable Killtown's stance is on WTC his post is neither ignorant nor illogical nor fallacious when seen in its full context.

chipmunk stew

4th April 2007, 01:04 PM

I'm very much more interested in your agreement with David Ray Griffin that "...gravitational energy...is vertical..."

Let's go back to Griffin's quote:
"...gravitational energy, which is vertical..."

When an object is suspended above the ground:
Its position (height) is vertical
The gravitational force acting on it is vertical
Its gravitational potential energy IS NOT VERTICAL

When the object is dropped:
Its displacement is vertical
Its gravitational acceleration (g) is vertical
Its kinetic energy IS NOT VERTICAL

You may as well argue that the object's mass is vertical.

Griffin is mixing up fundamental physics concepts. If he weren't making (or repeating) claims about how the twin towers should have collapsed without the aid of explosives, it would be no big deal. But he is (and he has many avid followers) so it is.

Zdenek Bazant represents energies with vectors in his analysis.

???

This I gotta see. Show us some quotes with citations.

I decided to get out of this thread to stop you all whingeing about me posting in it. :D

So you couldn't find any references to Bazant saying energy was a vector?

Dave

You never finished your expert debunking.

Quad4_72

4th April 2007, 01:04 PM

Who cares if Stundie was taken out of context?....Its Stundie.

Brainster

4th April 2007, 01:09 PM

William Rea

4th April 2007, 01:32 PM

rwguinn

4th April 2007, 01:34 PM

Horatius

4th April 2007, 01:53 PM

The paragraph as cut and pasted from....

Morons and Magic: A Reply to George Monbiot

By David Ray Griffin

"At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic."

================================================== =====

3. In its correct context it is neither ignorant nor illogical nor fallacious, the man just doesn't have the knowledge of scientific language to express himself. Despite this he clearly shows an understanding of how it works.

That's pretty much the definition of ignorant. He's a theologian, presuming to discuss physics at a level where he can claim that other's analyses can be dismissed as "magic", and yet he knows so little of the topic, he cannot even use the correct terminology.

This is aside from his glossing over how a downwardly directed force can result in lateral movement, provided there is some mechanism to redirect the effect of the force. He simply ignores the fact that these particular beams were not acting solely under the influence of gravity, but were also interacting with all of the masses around them.

So, ignorant, and willfully blind. Pure Stundie material.

DavidJames

4th April 2007, 01:55 PM

Having enjoyed debunking two of the March "Stundie" Awards Voting Nominations I am starting a thread away from the normal "Stundies" activities to debunk the basis of any nominations that do not stand up to their stated aims.You seem to be a bright fellow, why don't you start a thread with your analysis of engineering aspects of the building collapses instead of your analysis of a silly quote thread. I'm serious, lay out your thoughts, state your case.

William Rea

4th April 2007, 01:57 PM

This is aside from his glossing over how a downwardly directed force can result in lateral movement, provided there is some mechanism to redirect the effect of the force.

It never ceases to amaze me. You just slated Griffin for NOT saying that and I have been slated in the past for saying just that, but I digress, now I'll have to report myself for posting off topic.

Horatius

4th April 2007, 02:09 PM

It never ceases to amaze me. You just slated Griffin for NOT saying that and I have been slated in the past for saying just that, but I digress, now I'll have to report myself for posting off topic.

Your arguments would carry more weight if you'd link to such examples. Some people in these discussions have misrepresented what was said earlier so often and so badly, that we simply cannot accept such assertions at face value.

Note, I said, "a downwardly directed force can result in lateral movement, provided there is some mechanism to redirect the effect of the force".

Consider a wedge being forced sideways under a weight. The sideways force can produce an upward movement of the weight, as the wedge acts to re-direct the effect of the force. There are losses (due to friction, and whatnot), but the principle is sound.

Pipirr

4th April 2007, 02:18 PM

William Rea, this is a good idea for a thread. Context is always good for anybody's quotes, whoever and whatever they are.

Horatius

4th April 2007, 02:29 PM

William Rea, this is a good idea for a thread. Context is always good for anybody's quotes, whoever and whatever they are.

Which is why we encourage people to include links in the Stundies threads. You'll note a startling lack of same in Mr. Rea's posts above, however. I shan't speculate on his motives for failing to include them.

defaultdotxbe

4th April 2007, 03:03 PM

1. Killtown was responding to Jarrayo's post not Amputees as is implied in the nomination.

2. The "normal" video link requested could easily be a link to a bit torrent for the original video, we don't know.

3. However diagreeable Killtown's stance is on WTC his post is neither ignorant nor illogical nor fallacious when seen in its full context.
nice try, but nowhere in jarrayos post does the word "normal" appear, killtowns use of it in quotes indicates he is responding to amputees instruction for him to watch a "normal video"

from experience killtown deals exclusiely in youtube, i doubt he was asking for a torrent or any other p2p link

Pipirr

4th April 2007, 03:21 PM

Honestly, I'm not a fan of the Stundies, so I don't go there very often.

If someone wants to offer some balance, or an opposing view, or defend or debunk the Stundies, that's fine with me. Not because it's the Stundies and I don't like them, but because that's what happens on just about every other thread in the JREF forum.

starting a thread away from the normal "Stundies" activities to debunk the basis of any nominations that do not stand up to their stated aims.

That sounds like a worthy goal (and a recipe for a lot of argument)...

Good luck ;)

William Rea

4th April 2007, 04:08 PM

nice try, but nowhere in jarrayos post does the word "normal" appear, killtowns use of it in quotes indicates he is responding to amputees instruction for him to watch a "normal video"

from experience killtown deals exclusiely in youtube, i doubt he was asking for a torrent or any other p2p link

Jarrayo is suggesting that the available video being used for analysis has degraded so much that the surface of the building looks smooth. He then goes on to speculate how the degredation might occur implying that there might be an original source video. That original source might be considered the "normal" condition for investigation.

Justifiably Killtown asks how to obtain this "normal" video.

The use of "normal" with the quotation marks indicates a sense of irony in the use of the word. I suggest that the poster is raising a question mark about what a "normal" video might be. To me this positively indicates he is aware that this source may not be available via a normal bit streaming source.

For some reason I cannot see the original post but killtown quoted Jarrayo in his reply so I can only infer he was responding to him/her.

William Rea

4th April 2007, 04:11 PM

Honestly, I'm not a fan of the Stundies, so I don't go there very often.
If someone wants to offer some balance, or an opposing view, or defend or debunk the Stundies, that's fine with me. Not because it's the Stundies and I don't like them, but because that's what happens on just about every other thread in the JREF forum.
That sounds like a worthy goal (and a recipe for a lot of argument)...
Good luck ;)

Thank you for the good wishes, I already suspect I will need them.

I am endeavouring to go legit so to speak so, I will refrain from responding in kind to obnoxious posts. In a way it is a test of myself and the forum to see if it is really possible to engage in a more positive manner.

jhunter1163

4th April 2007, 04:20 PM

I agree that context should be provided for the Stundies. It's only fair, after all, as Twoofers are regularly castigated for taking quotes out of context.

Of course, this won't reduce the number of nominees that much. There are plenty of in-context outrageous things said by Twoofers every day.

chipmunk stew

4th April 2007, 04:21 PM

"At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic."

================================================== =====

To defend this one hurts me because Griffin is a Theologian and I am at the very least agnostic but here goes...

1. David Ray Griffin's language is not scientific but its intent is clear.

Yes. He makes it quite clear that he believes that GPE can contribute ONLY to a vertical force vector.

2. It actually shows a little insight into how Gravitational Potential Energy acts and releases in a vectorial manner.

This statement actually gives us a little insight into how little you understand the concept of GPE. It in no way "releases in a vectorial manner." That makes absolutely no sense. It shows no insight on Griffin's part at all. Everyone knows that gravity makes stuff fall down. His confusion about the physics behind it is embarrassing.

3. In its correct context it is neither ignorant nor illogical nor fallacious, the man just doesn't have the knowledge of scientific language to express himself. Despite this he clearly shows an understanding of how it works.

:yikes: In its full context, it's even clearer that he has NO IDEA how it works. Let's see that again:

"At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic."

He not only vectorializes (it's a word, I swear) energy, but also implies that NONE of the GPE in a collapsing structure can be spent on lateral force components (except by "magic").

Judging by this sentence alone, he is completely inept in the realm of physics.

4. Other scientists and engineers express energy and conversions in similar terms.

So you say. Examples? Found that Bazant quote yet?

defaultdotxbe

4th April 2007, 04:29 PM

Jarrayo is suggesting that the available video being used for analysis has degraded so much that the surface of the building looks smooth. He then goes on to speculate how the degredation might occur implying that there might be an original source video. That original source might be considered the "normal" condition for investigation.

Justifiably Killtown asks how to obtain this "normal" video.

The use of "normal" with the quotation marks indicates a sense of irony in the use of the word. I suggest that the poster is raising a question mark about what a "normal" video might be. To me this positively indicates he is aware that this source may not be available via a normal bit streaming source.

For some reason I cannot see the original post but killtown quoted Jarrayo in his reply so I can only infer he was responding to him/her.
i feel his use of "normal" in quotes indicates a direct response to amputees instructing him to find a "normal video" your free to ask to killtown what he meant by it, but i think any "normal" person will take it this way

William Rea

4th April 2007, 04:37 PM

i feel his use of "normal" in quotes indicates a direct response to amputees instructing him to find a "normal video" your free to ask to killtown what he meant by it, but i think any "normal" person will take it this way

You are free to make your analysis. I am confident with mine.

I think it would have been more in keeping for the context to have been asked BEFORE the nomination.

William Rea

4th April 2007, 04:39 PM

Fig 2 http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-PROGRESSIVE-COLLAPSE-BAZANT.pdf

Horatius

4th April 2007, 04:50 PM

Fig 2 http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-PROGRESSIVE-COLLAPSE-BAZANT.pdf

From the linked paper:

F = gm(z) represents the inertia force that must be generated by acceleration or deceleration of the block of tower mass m(z) above level z of the top floor of the story.

Those vectors are forces, not "energy".

William Rea

4th April 2007, 04:51 PM

Yes. He makes it quite clear that he believes that GPE can contribute ONLY to a vertical force vector.
This statement actually gives us a little insight into how little you understand the concept of GPE. It in no way "releases in a vectorial manner." That makes absolutely no sense. It shows no insight on Griffin's part at all. Everyone knows that gravity makes stuff fall down. His confusion about the physics behind it is embarrassing.
:yikes: In its full context, it's even clearer that he has NO IDEA how it works. Let's see that again:
"At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic."
He not only vectorializes (it's a word, I swear) energy, but also implies that NONE of the GPE in a collapsing structure can be spent on lateral force components (except by "magic").
Judging by this sentence alone, he is completely inept in the realm of physics.
So you say. Examples? Found that Bazant quote yet?

In comment to your post, I am being told that energy has no vectoral element so it appears that whilst it is apparent that everyone knows that gravitational energy makes stuff fall down this is simply not so. I also infer that thermal energy doesn't flow from hot to cold since it has no sense of direction.

William Rea

4th April 2007, 05:00 PM

From the linked paper:
Those vectors are forces, not "energy".

Please refer to the section on page 14 that analyses the Potential and Kinetic Energies and related equations.

I cannot find your reference text.

defaultdotxbe

4th April 2007, 05:08 PM

You are free to make your analysis. I am confident with mine.

I think it would have been more in keeping for the context to have been asked BEFORE the nomination.
a link to the thread should be available on the nomination page, its one of the requirements for finalists,so theres your context, included at the time of the nomination

Horatius

4th April 2007, 06:33 PM

Please refer to the section on page 14 that analyses the Potential and Kinetic Energies and related equations.

I cannot find your reference text.

It's on page 5 of the pdf. Search on "inertia force", it was the first hit I got.

This is the full paragraph:

Deceleration and Acceleration During the Crushing of One Story. The two intersections of the horizontal line F = gm(z) with the curve F(u) seen in Fig. 3 and 4a (top) are equilibrium states (there is also a third equilibrium state at intersection with the vertical line of rehardening upon contact). But any other state on this curve is a transient dynamic state, in which the difference from the line F = gm(z) represents the inertia force that must be generated by acceleration or deceleration of the block of tower mass m(z) above level z of
the top floor of the story.

And the page you reference doesn't seem to be refering to vectors. It is discussing energy, but that's not the same as vectors. Do you know what a vector is? Focre is a vector, it has magnitude and direction. Energy is a scalar, it has only a magnitude.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Totally aside from that, the passage I quoted shows quite clearly that the vectors that you highlighted in the figure are not "energy vectors", they are force vectors, as defined above. You might be able to find some other reference to support your position, but you simply must acknowledge that that figure does not support your position.

Horatius

4th April 2007, 06:39 PM

In comment to your post, I am being told that energy has no vectoral element so it appears that whilst it is apparent that everyone knows that gravitational energy makes stuff fall down this is simply not so.

No, it is gravitational force that makes things fall down. No one disputes that force is a vector.

Consider a ball rolling down one side of a U-shaped valley, and up the other. Just before it reaches the bottom, it has almost all the kinetic energy it will have, as a result of being accelerated by the force of gravity. If this energy is a vector, with a direction, how then does it use that energy to roll up the other side of the valley? Is there some instantaneous impulse that completely reverses the energy of the ball into "upward energy" just as it reaches/passes the lowest point?

chipmunk stew

4th April 2007, 06:46 PM

In comment to your post, I am being told that energy has no vectoral element so it appears that whilst it is apparent that everyone knows that gravitational energy makes stuff fall down this is simply not so.
The force of gravity makes stuff fall down. Gravitational energy does not.
I also infer that thermal energy doesn't flow from hot to cold since it has no sense of direction.
Again, this makes no sense. Heat transfers internal energy from one system to another, but it's not a directional transfer. You can't say: the flame heats the pot of water 100 Joules to the left. It's a scalar transfer. Think of it like taking a chunk out of one ball of clay and adding it to another. This transfer of mass is a scalar transfer.

Tbone

4th April 2007, 07:03 PM

In comment to your post, I am being told that energy has no vectoral element so it appears that whilst it is apparent that everyone knows that gravitational energy makes stuff fall down this is simply not so. I also infer that thermal energy doesn't flow from hot to cold since it has no sense of direction.

Are you saying that the energy holding Earth in orbit around the sun is a downward force? Or is the gravitational energy caused by the mass of the Earth different from the gravity caused by the Sun? Also remember that "down" is a subjective concept judged from your placement in the system. If you observed the collapse from space, the "direction" would be inward toward the center of the mass, not down.

Also, about the Killtown quote, wouldn't the best thing to do be asking Killtown to clarify what he meant? If he says that he was indeed replying to the intervening posts between his and the first post, then obviously we cannot prove him wrong in any way at all. It wouldn't matter whether or not most people here believe he is a lying scumbag. If he supports your point of view on his context, obviously the quote would have to be removed from the voting. Wouldn't that be better than injecting your own speculation and inference into the situation? (Why does that sound familiar?)

apathoid

4th April 2007, 11:15 PM

Nominated by apathoid

[From a no-plane thread...Killtown has trouble understanding the limits of the internet; context provided]

Originally Posted by Why Won't God Heal Amputees
If you watch a normal video (not an internet video) of the plane hitting, you will see that after the plane 'disappears' there is in fact a cloud of shredded plane skin falling downward outside of the building on the same side that it hit.

Originally Posted by Killtown
link to a "normal" video?

================================================== ===
Actual context of the posts in the thread cut and pasted from LCF...

Originally Posted by Jarrayo in LCF

Excellent observation Amputees.

Obviously the WTC wall is not a giant solid smooth mass. Strangely in the video, it seems so. Why?

Because this video was recorded by who-knows what camera (could have even been a crappy one, such as a camcorder), I doubt the person who recorded gave the original footage to the person who posted it on the internet, so most likely he recorded it from a TV. After that, he send it to the computer. After that he compressed it by an enormous degree to allow fast internet replay. And after that it was posted on YouTube (or GoogleVideo) where it looses even more resolution. And after that someone made a screen capture of the already crappy footage and in most cases blew up the image to focus on the plane.

If you know about videos and graphics, you'll know that every step of the translation of the recording makes the video loose resolution. So the NPTers are basing their "evidence" on already faulty videos.

Response by Killtown

1) link to a "normal" video?

2) Example?

================================================== ==

William, we are talking about Killtown here, not R.Mackey. His posting history would indicate that he deserves no benefit of the doubt. This is the same Killtown who won the Stundie last month with "The same way they did the evil faces" post in response to an inquiry as to how the perps wrote 911 in the WTC smoke. I also nominated his beautifully ironic "Saved for prosperity" quote in which he had the audacity to imply that what another poster had just written was soooo far out of touch with reality that he had to save a screenshot of the post[for prosperity]. I've also nominated his "You think those birds are real?" post this month which is sadly gone as the "alternative theories" section is now history.....Killtown emits Stundie material in nearly every thread he posts in. The guy is simply living in another world.

Yes, the "Link to a normal video?" quote is a little nitpicky but I nominated it specifically because of what WWGHA wrote in parenthesis "(not an internet video)".

Anyhow, as for your debunk of the nomination - the "alternate" theories section is now gone so there is no way to review the context. I don't recall Jarroyo's post falling between Killtown's post and WWGHA's post, but that could've been the case, I don't remember. However, it's funny you didn't include WWGHA's reply to Killtown because that's what sealed the nomination for me. He basically asked Killtown how he was "... supposed to provide a link to a non-internet video?" "{Some sarcastic remark}, go watch your Loose Change DVD of the second hit"

So it would appear that the original poster(WWGHA) agrees with myself, Moby, and the six people who voted for the quote that Killtown just had a "blond" moment.

apathoid

5th April 2007, 12:08 AM

Anyhow, as for your debunk of the nomination - the "alternate" theories section is now gone so there is no way to review the context. I don't recall Jarroyo's post falling between Killtown's post and WWGHA's post.....

William, you weren't trying to be intentionally deceptive just to spite us, were you?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9902461490b17b08d.jpg

Link from Googles cache (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:gJBTaNCb4RUJ:z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D4343+loose+change+z10+%22L ink+to+a+normal+video%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us).

I don't see Jarroyo's post anywhere, do you William?

Brainache

5th April 2007, 02:03 AM

William, you weren't trying to be intentionally deceptive just to spite us, were you?

....

I don't see Jarroyo's post anywhere, do you William?

But but William is a serious and committed seeker of objective truth, he would never tell fibs. So I guess in this case reality must be wrong, or something.

Oliver

5th April 2007, 02:16 AM

What a Drama. I should start a new Thread called:
Debunking of the "debunking the debunkers Stundie". :rolleyes:

westprog

5th April 2007, 02:40 AM

Nomination cut and pasted from the "Stundies"...

-11-

Nominated by Dave Rogers

[David Ray Griffin discovers that energy is a vector...]

Originally Posted by David Ray Griffin
...gravitational energy, which is vertical...

================================================== ===

The paragraph as cut and pasted from....

Morons and Magic: A Reply to George Monbiot

By David Ray Griffin

"At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic."

================================================== =====

To defend this one hurts me because Griffin is a Theologian and I am at the very least agnostic but here goes...

1. David Ray Griffin's language is not scientific but its intent is clear.

2. It actually shows a little insight into how Gravitational Potential Energy acts and releases in a vectorial manner.

3. In its correct context it is neither ignorant nor illogical nor fallacious, the man just doesn't have the knowledge of scientific language to express himself. Despite this he clearly shows an understanding of how it works.

4. Other scientists and engineers express energy and conversions in similar terms.

That Griffin mangles scientific language and concepts isn't surprising. It is the least of his errors.

Clearly when anything falls down, all or part can fall sideways. See Jenga for an example. What Griffin is claiming is that it can't fling things as far happened with the WTC. He's insisting that something is fundamentally impossible when all daily experience shows that to be entirely wrong.

That would be bad enough - but one of Griffin's chief arguments that the WTC was demolished is that it didn't fall sideways, like a tree falling in the forest. IOW his two chief arguments are that things shouldn't be hurled sideways, and that everything should be hurled sideways. That makes him special, even in the demanding context of 911 conspiracy theories.

Dave Rogers

5th April 2007, 02:59 AM

To defend this one hurts me because Griffin is a Theologian and I am at the very least agnostic but here goes...

1. David Ray Griffin's language is not scientific but its intent is clear.

This is actually the exact point I would take issue with.

OK, confession time. I do, occasionally, as does practically every other scientist, from time to time express an idea in rather more scientific, rather than vernacular language, than is necessary. I shouldn't do it, but I'm only human. It's a kind of appeal to one's own authority, a way of implying that I'm right because I'm a scientist and you're not, and it's generally a very bad way of conducting an argument. We're none of us perfect.

What Griffin is trying to do here is exactly that. He could have said "gravity, which acts vertically", and though his overall statement would be a fallacy I would have no particular issue with that part of it; when dealing with relatively much smaller objects falling close to the surface of the Earth, it's so near to correct that the most sensitive instruments would be unable to measure the inaccuracy. But Griffin didn't say that; he said "gravitational energy". His use of the word "energy" in that quote is clearly included to carry the message "I know what I'm talking about because I'm using scientific-sounding words". So he was using BS to make his point, and in doing so he got it wrong.

In short, the essence of a Stundie.

4. Other scientists and engineers express energy and conversions in similar terms.

As we've seen from the example you included, you only think that because you don't understand what they're saying.

Now don't get me wrong, I have no issue with you continuing to hold, and state publicly, the opinions that GPE is a vector, and that Bazant agrees with you. Freedom of speech, after all, would be no freedom at all if it excluded the freedom to state the patently ridiculous. Just be warned that, when you state these opinions to someone who actually knows what they're talking about, you'll start at some point to see a look in their eyes that suggests that they feel their time would be more profitably spent talking with someone different.

I'm getting that exact look in mine right now. Enjoy your thread.

Dave

chipmunk stew

5th April 2007, 07:45 AM

Horatius

5th April 2007, 08:41 AM

Yes, the "Link to a normal video?" quote is a little nitpicky but I nominated it specifically because of what WWGHA wrote in parenthesis "(not an internet video)".

...
So it would appear that the original poster(WWGHA) agrees with myself, Moby, and the six people who voted for the quote that Killtown just had a "blond" moment.

William, you weren't trying to be intentionally deceptive just to spite us, were you?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9902461490b17b08d.jpg

Link from Googles cache (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:gJBTaNCb4RUJ:z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D4343+loose+change+z10+%22L ink+to+a+normal+video%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us).

I don't see Jarroyo's post anywhere, do you William?

And it's interesting to note, just after WWGHA asks how to link to a non-internet video, KT posts, but does not correct WWGHA's interpretation of KT's post. So even KT himself agrees with our interpretation!

Busted on "normal videos", busted on "energy vectors". Care to try for a third strike?

HeyLeroy

5th April 2007, 09:42 AM

What a Drama. I should start a new Thread called:
Debunking of the "debunking the debunkers Stundie". :rolleyes:

Don't you dare!! I await William Reas' attempt to debunk the one for which I was nominated. Impossible!

Mobyseven

5th April 2007, 11:01 AM

William, you weren't trying to be intentionally deceptive just to spite us, were you?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9902461490b17b08d.jpg

Link from Googles cache (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:gJBTaNCb4RUJ:z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D4343+loose+change+z10+%22L ink+to+a+normal+video%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us).

I don't see Jarroyo's post anywhere, do you William?

Swing and a miss, eh William?

Not only would it seem that you lost out on challenging the David Ray nomination (unless you are willing to drastically alter the current understanding of energy and physical forces), but you have now been shown to have actively lied in an attempt to change the context surrounding the quote.

Not very intellectually honest now, is it? My only question is this - Will you own up, apologise, and withdraw your accusations?

And by the way - context is a REQUIREMENT for quotes to even be considered for the finals. Sorry to name names, but from memory - StateOfGrace, I had to disqualify a number of your posts automatically because you had failed to provide links. If I've gotten the person wrong I apologise, but I think it was you, and I hope you don't mind me using you as an example here.

Mobyseven

A W Smith

5th April 2007, 01:19 PM

Horatius

5th April 2007, 01:48 PM

That was his third strike. remember the "what truthers say it fell faster than free fall?" debate?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2437317&postcount=110

How long between at-bats is it? :)

Odd that he hasn't posted lately......Perhaps he's out hunting Easter eggs, instead.

JonnyFive

5th April 2007, 02:13 PM

What's up with all this, William? First you apparently made up an intervening post in a message board that never existed. Then you attributed stuff to a paper that doesn't actually say what you claim. Then you claim not to be able to find the quote one of the other posters cites, even though it's right there on page 4 (page numbers, not PDF page) of the paper and Acrobat Reader has a search function.

Also, the page 14 that you cited does not discuss vector components, it talks about energy and conservation of energy.

You also seem to have force and energy confused or something.

Are you being dishonest with the material you're claiming to use as sources, or are you simply confused?

Horatius

5th April 2007, 03:34 PM

Are you being dishonest with the material you're claiming to use as sources, or are you simply confused?

Now now, none of that false dichotomy stuff! It could also be that he's just not very bright.

Brainache

5th April 2007, 06:32 PM

Let's not be too harsh on William. I'm sure he intends to come here and post an apology for trying to mislead us and also admit that he was wrong about the gravity thing, after all that's what sincere, honest, serious thinkers like William do when their errors are pointed out.

He probably got lost on his way to the forum or something. I'm sure he has a perfectly reasonable excuse.:rolleyes:

gumboot

5th April 2007, 06:42 PM

2. The "normal" video link requested could easily be a link to a bit torrent for the original video, we don't know.

The above comment expresses precisely the same ignorance that resulted in Killtown's nomination.

You can't have a bit torrent of an original video.

In order to get the video in any sort of digital file format, it has to be digitised, and in the process it is compressed - uncompressed DV weighs in at about 1 GB for every 15 seconds of footage.

The original video is magnetic information on a tape. You cannot "link" to that.

-Gumboot

Horatius

5th April 2007, 08:06 PM

He probably got lost on his way to the forum or something. I'm sure he has a perfectly reasonable excuse.:rolleyes:

Well, I'm going out of town for a few days. Perhaps by the time I return, he will have found his way back, and his honour, and posted an admission of his errors.

LashL

5th April 2007, 10:27 PM

Mr.D

5th April 2007, 11:05 PM

In comment to your post, I am being told that energy has no vectoral element so it appears that whilst it is apparent that everyone knows that gravitational energy makes stuff fall down this is simply not so. I also infer that thermal energy doesn't flow from hot to cold since it has no sense of direction.

In case you're wondering, this is exactly why I haven't started that "other thread" I mentioned elsewhere. If you didn't learn in Physics 101* about vector dot products and why kinetic energy is a scalar, then I don't even want to begin trying to explain the torques and cross products that are necessary to discuss rotational motion (ie, "the "tipping" of the top sections of the WTC towers.)

* or for that matter, Physics 102 or Calculus 201** (or whatever the equivalent was at the school you got your engineering degree at)

** or for that matter high school physics - I learned it at the age of 16, along with two hundred and fifty other high-schoolers.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 08:52 AM

The above comment expresses precisely the same ignorance that resulted in Killtown's nomination.
You can't have a bit torrent of an original video.
In order to get the video in any sort of digital file format, it has to be digitised, and in the process it is compressed - uncompressed DV weighs in at about 1 GB for every 15 seconds of footage.
The original video is magnetic information on a tape. You cannot "link" to that.
-Gumboot

DV = Digital Video. Even through he wasn't specific I don't think anyone would interpret video as anything but a digital video format. If Killtown was nominated on that basis then I'm afraid it is an even weaker nomination than even I first thought. I don't believe that anyone would ask for a link to audio on the internet implying they wanted to link to a cassette tape.

I am working under the premise that you are perhaps being ironic with the above post so will not make any further serious comment on it.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 09:13 AM

It's on page 5 of the pdf. Search on "inertia force", it was the first hit I got.
This is the full paragraph:
And the page you reference doesn't seem to be refering to vectors. It is discussing energy, but that's not the same as vectors. Do you know what a vector is? Focre is a vector, it has magnitude and direction. Energy is a scalar, it has only a magnitude.
This is pretty basic stuff.
Totally aside from that, the passage I quoted shows quite clearly that the vectors that you highlighted in the figure are not "energy vectors", they are force vectors, as defined above. You might be able to find some other reference to support your position, but you simply must acknowledge that that figure does not support your position.

The figure referred to in your quote is not Figure 2. I would appreciate if you could address figure 2 with your answer.

@ the forum.

I should have made it clearer earlier in the thread but failed to do so which is an oversight on my part. I am NOT trying to prove that energy as defined by classical physics is a vector, as I have said numerous times in the thread already. I am saying that energy has a vectoral quality, specific examples being that gravitational energy can only be released in one direction which is commonly referred to as vertical, that thermal energy only flows from hot to cold.

Energy is scalar as far as the scientific and engineering community is concerned. I will expect the same latitude from you on this as was expected by the forum when I started using engineering terms on here and was slated for using them in the strictest engineering sense.

I am however saying that the nomination for a Stundie was unfounded because there is a lack of understanding of the strictest sense of scientific language in the nominated quote. I fully take on board the rather ridiculous quotes around it but, they weren't nominated were they.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 09:15 AM

In case you're wondering, this is exactly why I haven't started that "other thread" I mentioned elsewhere. If you didn't learn in Physics 101* about vector dot products and why kinetic energy is a scalar, then I don't even want to begin trying to explain the torques and cross products that are necessary to discuss rotational motion (ie, "the "tipping" of the top sections of the WTC towers.)
* or for that matter, Physics 102 or Calculus 201** (or whatever the equivalent was at the school you got your engineering degree at)
** or for that matter high school physics - I learned it at the age of 16, along with two hundred and fifty other high-schoolers.

I was hoping to enjoy an exchange of posts with you because you came across as very reasonable in the previous couple of posts we exchanged. I am afraid to say that this post has reversed that opinion which is a little sad.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 09:19 AM

Well, I'm going out of town for a few days. Perhaps by the time I return, he will have found his way back, and his honour, and posted an admission of his errors.

Be reassured that if I am wrong I apologise, I have a record for doing this on the forum, in fact I believe that I am probably one of a handful of people on here with the humility to do so when proven wrong.

@ forum

I am also on vacation for a few days so it would be appreciated if the thread is not filled with posts mocking me for not answering posts within a period of time that is considered acceptable. Thank You.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 09:30 AM

The force of gravity makes stuff fall down. Gravitational energy does not.

Actually it is the work that gravitational energy does on the mass that makes stuff fall down.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 09:39 AM

Not sure I agree with your claim that Killtown was responding to an intervening post--note the word "normal" in quotes, which Jarroyo never uses. On the other hand, it certainly could be argued that Killtown was asking for a link to a site selling a "normal" video. So I think you're right that this should not have been included in the list.

Thank you for your reasoned response, it is very welcome and absolutely in keeping with how I'd like the thread to be.

I was sure when I visited the thread that I read it exactly as I quoted. I cannot get back into the original thread on LCF to check it again (it appears to be closed down). Without any further evidence to back me up I have no option but to agree with your analysis completely. Thank you for pointing this out in a very rational manner and please accept my apology for initially misleading you.

I fully agree with you that this apparent discrepancy on my part does not invalidate the rational argument that asking for a link to "normal" video does not qualify the nomination.

chipmunk stew

6th April 2007, 09:44 AM

I am saying that energy has a vectoral quality, specific examples being that gravitational energy can only be released in one direction which is commonly referred to as vertical,
:notm
that thermal energy only flows from hot to cold.
Which is not directional.

Give it up, William.

chipmunk stew

6th April 2007, 09:47 AM

Actually it is the work that gravitational energy does on the mass that makes stuff fall down.
:notm

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 09:47 AM

DV = Digital Video. Even through he wasn't specific I don't think anyone would interpret video as anything but a digital video format. If Killtown was nominated on that basis then I'm afraid it is an even weaker nomination than even I first thought. I don't believe that anyone would ask for a link to audio on the internet implying they wanted to link to a cassette tape.

I am working under the premise that you are perhaps being ironic with the above post so will not make any further serious comment on it.

You're kidding right? Someone asks for a link to a "normal" video, which by the context given refers to a non-internet video, and you dismiss this on the grounds that you think that it is unlikely they would really ask for that?

Do you know what an argument from incredulity is?

And why have you not addressed that fact that you falsified the cotext of the quote in the hope that we wouldn't find out? You blatantly lied!

chipmunk stew

6th April 2007, 09:50 AM

Thank you for your reasoned response, it is very welcome and absolutely in keeping with how I'd like the thread to be.

I was sure when I visited the thread that I read it exactly as I quoted. I cannot get back into the original thread on LCF to check it again (it appears to be closed down). Without any further evidence to back me up I have no option but to agree with your analysis completely. Thank you for pointing this out in a very rational manner and please accept my apology for initially misleading you.

I fully agree with you that this apparent discrepancy on my part does not invalidate the rational argument that asking for a link to "normal" video does not qualify the nomination.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:gJBTaNCb4RUJ:z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D4343+loose+change+z10+%22L ink+to+a+normal+video%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

William Rea

6th April 2007, 09:56 AM

You're kidding right? Someone asks for a link to a "normal" video, which by the context given refers to a non-internet video, and you dismiss this on the grounds that you think that it is unlikely they would really ask for that?
Do you know what an argument from incredulity is?
And why have you not addressed that fact that you falsified the cotext of the quote in the hope that we wouldn't find out? You blatantly lied!

I think it is unwise to argue that he was asking for a link to a "video tape" when the context of digital video quality degredation had already been raised in prior posts. I know for certain that this discussion is present in the thread because it's there in the google archive.

I believe I already addressed your last paragraph.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496233#post2496233

JonnyFive

6th April 2007, 09:59 AM

Actually it is the work that gravitational energy does on the mass that makes stuff fall down.

No, gravity is a force. Gravitational potential energy is the measure of the work done by that force. The force does work, which is measured as energy. The energy is not doing any work, it is a measure of work.

You might use the words interchangeably, but that doesn't make you right.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 10:00 AM

:notm

Contradicting someone is not an argument. If my analysis is wrong I would prefer you to educate me as to how it is wrong. If energy does not do work a mass then what is the conversion process for potential to kinetic energy?

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 10:02 AM

gravitational energy can only be released in one direction which is commonly referred to as vertical,

So you'd say that the Earth and the planets are held "vertically" in orbit then?

that thermal energy only flows from hot to cold.

Not a direction.

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 10:06 AM

Be reassured that if I am wrong I apologise, I have a record for doing this on the forum, in fact I believe that I am probably one of a handful of people on here with the humility to do so when proven wrong.

Then why is this not happening?

Instead you are presenting what can only be called desperate arguments where you try to redefine terms that are in no need of redefining.

apathoid

6th April 2007, 10:06 AM

Okaaaay, this isn't too pathetic William. I guess you zoomed right on past my post in the thread where I:

- posted a screencap of nomination post and the posts on either side.
- provided a link to the thread.

It's quite clear that Killtown was not responding to Jarroyo....

1) The steel and concrete are not the facade of the building. The Facade is aluminum. The wings and tail section were in fact completely destroyed by the steel beams and concrete slabs. If you watch a normal video (not an internet video) of the plane hitting, you will see that after the plane 'disappears' there is in fact a cloud of shredded plane skin falling downward outside of the building on the same side that it hit.

2) Now please answer this question - How do you explain the smooth, solid appearance of the world trade center's facade (when we all know it is not smooth and solid) in these pictures and videos?

1) link to a "normal" video?

2) Example?

That's the entirety of the context. Now please apologize for your behavior.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 10:07 AM

So you'd say that the Earth and the planets are held "vertically" in orbit then?
Not a direction.

If I take a bar of steel and increase the thermal energy in one end of it you're saying the thermal energy will not flow to the other end of the bar?

JonnyFive

6th April 2007, 10:12 AM

Contradicting someone is not an argument. If my analysis is wrong I would prefer you to educate me as to how it is wrong. If energy does not do work a mass then what is the conversion process for potential to kinetic energy?

Energy never does any work because it is simply a measure of the work done by something, or the potential work that could be done by something - i.e. the energy stored in a system.

With GPE, the potential energy is the energy that could be released if gravity were allowed to act freely on an object in the absence of a restraint. As I said in my post above, gravity is a force that is doing work, and the energy measures are a measure of the potential energy that is stored in the system, or the kinetic energy that is being released by the system.

You simply equated energy with the element of the system doing the work when it is not. It's a mistake of terms, nothing else.

It's a crude explanation (I am not a physicist), but it should be adequate to clear up the confusion, I hope.

Your metal bar example also shows a misunderstanding of the terms involved. Simply because a situation involves a direction, that doesn't mean that every term involved is also directional. If I'm in a car and I travel at 50 mph to the north, that doesn't mean that my speed is suddenly a vector. Similarly, because the temperature of a steel bar being heated tends towards equilibrium does not mean that the measure of energy involved is expressed as a vector.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 10:16 AM

Okaaaay, this isn't too pathetic William. I guess you zoomed right on past my post in the thread where I:
- posted a screencap of nomination post and the posts on either side.
- provided a link to the thread.
It's quite clear that Killtown was not responding to Jarroyo....
That's the entirety of the context. Now please apologize for your behavior.

As has been posted before in the thread, he could just as easily have been asking for a link to purchase a "normal" video. As I've stated, that does not even mean that "normal" video even refers to a magnetic media. You are basing the whole argument on your interpretation of what Killtown means in defiance of any actual facts. I am pointing out that whilst alternative interpretations are viable the nomination does not hold.

Not an "internet video" could simply mean not a video that is suitable for bit streaming real time over the internet. A video downloaded at high resolution from a bit torrent is not an "internet video", it is a video downloaded from the internet. When I download high definition MP4 or avi files I don't refer to them as internet videos, do you?

I only have to show doubt, you have to show absolute proof that you KNOW exactly what Killtown meant.

This is all assumption on the part of the nominee.

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 10:18 AM

I think it is unwise to argue that he was asking for a link to a "video tape" when the context of digital video quality degredation had already been raised in prior posts. I know for certain that this discussion is present in the thread because it's there in the google archive.

I believe I already addressed your last paragraph.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496233#post2496233

If you watch a normal video (not an internet video)

1) link to a "normal" video?

Why are we still even having this discussion, William? This is open and shut - WWGHA defines a 'normal video' as 'not an internet video'. Killtown then asks for a link to a video that is, by definition, not on the internet!

You cannot link to something that isn't on the internet, William.

And you have not yet addressed my last point. You willfully and knowingly lied about the context of that post in an attempt to strengthen your argument and hoped that I wouldn't notice.

At the very least, I would appreciate an apology for falsifying and lying about the context of the post.

I would also like an apology in regards to your accusation that the Killtown quote is an ad hominem attack and for you to retract that accusation.

These are very simple things to do, and it would certainly be an act of good faith that you can indeed recognise when you are incorrect.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 10:22 AM

Okaaaay, this isn't too pathetic William. I guess you zoomed right on past my post in the thread where I.

I simply did not feel inclined to answer you.

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 10:22 AM

If I take a bar of steel and increase the thermal energy in one end of it you're saying the thermal energy will not flow to the other end of the bar?

If you heat one end of a metal bar, yes the other end will also heat up due to the conductive nature of metal.

And you know what? I guarantee it won't matter how you orient the bar, it will still heat up, doesn't matter if you point the bar up, down, sideways, at an angle between these, anything. Because the heat is not a force being applied in a specific direction.

The air near the surface of the bar will also experience a temperature increase. What do you make of that?

I would also appreciate a retraction of your accusation that the "gravitational energy...which is vertical" is an ad hominem attack.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 10:29 AM

Why are we still even having this discussion, William? This is open and shut - WWGHA defines a 'normal video' as 'not an internet video'. Killtown then asks for a link to a video that is, by definition, not on the internet!

You cannot link to something that isn't on the internet, William.

And you have not yet addressed my last point. You willfully and knowingly lied about the context of that post in an attempt to strengthen your argument and hoped that I wouldn't notice.

At the very least, I would appreciate an apology for falsifying and lying about the context of the post.

I would also like an apology in regards to your accusation that the Killtown quote is an ad hominem attack and for you to retract that accusation.

These are very simple things to do, and it would certainly be an act of good faith that you can indeed recognise when you are incorrect.

The necessary apology already happened.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496233#post2496233

I will not withdraw the ad hominem accusation because to my satisfaction it is proven so you are correct that it is open and shut. If you do not agree then I have no problem with that but I would prefer if you would make the point and let it stand rather than berating me for not doing something completely wrong like apologising for being right.

Indeed these things are very simple to do for everyone when they have mislead either intentionally or unintentionally.

I refer you to my previous answer.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496364#post2496364

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 10:33 AM

apathoid

6th April 2007, 10:35 AM

As has been posted before in the thread, he could just as easily have been asking for a link to purchase a "normal" video. As I've stated, that does not even mean that "normal" video even refers to a magnetic media. You are basing the whole argument on your interpretation of what Killtown means in defiance of any actual facts. I am pointing out that whilst alternative interpretations are viable the nominations does not hold.

I only have to show doubt, you have to show absolute proof that you KNOW exactly what Killtown meant.

This is all assumption on the part of the nominee.

You have a link to the thread now. What was Killtown's response to:

1) How the hell do I Link to a video that is not on the internet?? Get out your loose change DVD, i am pretty sure the videos playing in the menu will have a few examples of what i mean.

Was it:

"Whoa wait.... dude, dude - I was asking for a link to purchase some magnetic media or maybe a DVD, ie "normal" videos. I am not so stupid as to ask for a link to a DVD track or a VHS cassette. But I am so stupid as to not be able to use Google to find a link to purchase some "normal" media - so I have to ask you for the link in a manner that makes me look like I'm simply asking to be able to view a normal video with a single mouse click, kinda like I do with internet videos. Sorry for the confusion"

or was it...

"The videos are fake, what else do you need to know?"

I simply did not feel inclined to answer you.

Why is that not surprising, considering this piece of deception:

================================================== ===
Actual context of the posts in the thread cut and pasted from LCF...

Originally Posted by Jarrayo in LCF

Excellent observation Amputees.

Obviously the WTC wall is not a giant solid smooth mass. Strangely in the video, it seems so. Why?

Because this video was recorded by who-knows what camera (could have even been a crappy one, such as a camcorder), I doubt the person who recorded gave the original footage to the person who posted it on the internet, so most likely he recorded it from a TV. After that, he send it to the computer. After that he compressed it by an enormous degree to allow fast internet replay. And after that it was posted on YouTube (or GoogleVideo) where it looses even more resolution. And after that someone made a screen capture of the already crappy footage and in most cases blew up the image to focus on the plane.

If you know about videos and graphics, you'll know that every step of the translation of the recording makes the video loose resolution. So the NPTers are basing their "evidence" on already faulty videos.

Response by Killtown

1) link to a "normal" video?

2) Example?

================================================== ==

William Rea

6th April 2007, 10:36 AM

You are really clutching at straws here. You are reading more into the quote than exists, rather than dealing with the given context.
Stop posting highly unlikely hypotheticals, stop trying to change the meanings of words to suit your definition, and just man up and apologise.
That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. We can never provide 'absolute proof' that we know what ANYONE means. The truth movement could for all we know be a huge practical joke and everyone involved is in on it. But the balance of probabilities says that this probably isn't the case. Similarly, given the context of the Killtown quote, it is an entirely reasonable and significantly more probable assumption than any other proposed scenario that the one in which Killtown is unthinkingly asking for a link to a non-internet video is the correct interpretation.
Yes. And given the context of the quote, this is a perfectly valid assumption. Covered above.

Again I politely ask you to stop berating me to make an apology that is not deserved. The scenarios I present are just as likely in the context with the facts we know. Again I politely ask to stop telling me I am wrong and show me I am. the nomination was not mine, you are the prosecution so prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. I have given plenty of reasonable doubt.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 10:40 AM

You have a link to the thread now. What was Killtown's response to:
Was it:
"Whoa wait.... dude, dude - I was asking for a link to purchase some magnetic media or maybe a DVD, ie "normal" videos. I am not so stupid as to ask for a link to a DVD track or a VHS cassette. But I am so stupid as to not be able to use Google to find a link to purchase some "normal" media - so I have to ask you for the link in a manner that makes me look like I'm simply asking to be able to view a normal video with a single mouse click, kinda like I do with internet videos. Sorry for the confusion"
or was it
"The videos are fake, what else do you need to know?"
Why is that not surprising, considering this piece of deception:
================================================== ===
Actual context of the posts in the thread cut and pasted from LCF...

Originally Posted by Jarrayo in LCF

Excellent observation Amputees.

Obviously the WTC wall is not a giant solid smooth mass. Strangely in the video, it seems so. Why?

Because this video was recorded by who-knows what camera (could have even been a crappy one, such as a camcorder), I doubt the person who recorded gave the original footage to the person who posted it on the internet, so most likely he recorded it from a TV. After that, he send it to the computer. After that he compressed it by an enormous degree to allow fast internet replay. And after that it was posted on YouTube (or GoogleVideo) where it looses even more resolution. And after that someone made a screen capture of the already crappy footage and in most cases blew up the image to focus on the plane.

If you know about videos and graphics, you'll know that every step of the translation of the recording makes the video loose resolution. So the NPTers are basing their "evidence" on already faulty videos.

Response by Killtown

1) link to a "normal" video?

2) Example?

================================================== ==

Again, I will politely point out that I will not be berated by aggressive posting into making a false apology. I am on record in this thread for apologising for an unintendedly misleading post.

I have calmly and politely explained my rational position on it and again I politely point out that because I was incorrect about the posting does not make me incorrect regarding the central tenet of the incorrect nomination.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 10:42 AM

Energy never does any work because it is simply a measure of the work done by something, or the potential work that could be done by something - i.e. the energy stored in a system.

With GPE, the potential energy is the energy that could be released if gravity were allowed to act freely on an object in the absence of a restraint. As I said in my post above, gravity is a force that is doing work, and the energy measures are a measure of the potential energy that is stored in the system, or the kinetic energy that is being released by the system.

You simply equated energy with the element of the system doing the work when it is not. It's a mistake of terms, nothing else.

It's a crude explanation (I am not a physicist), but it should be adequate to clear up the confusion, I hope.

Your metal bar example also shows a misunderstanding of the terms involved. Simply because a situation involves a direction, that doesn't mean that every term involved is also directional. If I'm in a car and I travel at 50 mph to the north, that doesn't mean that my speed is suddenly a vector. Similarly, because the temperature of a steel bar being heated tends towards equilibrium does not mean that the measure of energy involved is expressed as a vector.

JonnyFive, as you can see I have my hands full with the other subject but I will get right back to you. I will have to sign off soon for a few days anyway so it may take some time.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 10:53 AM

You are really clutching at straws here. You are reading more into the quote than exists, rather than dealing with the given context.

It would appear that Killtown is aware that higher quality downloadable video files exist

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2483711#post2483711

A link to a DivX file?

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 11:04 AM

The necessary apology already happened.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496233#post2496233

Let's see what you said...

I was sure when I visited the thread that I read it exactly as I quoted.

Let's see what you originally posted...

Actual context of the posts in the thread cut and pasted from LCF...

So you claimed that you had directly cut and pasted the following from Loose Change Forums. Do you now admit that you were lying about this?

Originally Posted by Jarrayo in LCF

Excellent observation Amputees.

Obviously the WTC wall is not a giant solid smooth mass. Strangely in the video, it seems so. Why?

Because this video was recorded by who-knows what camera (could have even been a crappy one, such as a camcorder), I doubt the person who recorded gave the original footage to the person who posted it on the internet, so most likely he recorded it from a TV. After that, he send it to the computer. After that he compressed it by an enormous degree to allow fast internet replay. And after that it was posted on YouTube (or GoogleVideo) where it looses even more resolution. And after that someone made a screen capture of the already crappy footage and in most cases blew up the image to focus on the plane.

If you know about videos and graphics, you'll know that every step of the translation of the recording makes the video loose resolution. So the NPTers are basing their "evidence" on already faulty videos.

This post occurs a full four posts before WWGHA's post. Also, you have reproduced it here with incredible fidelity. I would in fact say that it would have been impossible for you to reproduce Jarrayo's post with such remarkable fidelity (it is in fact, identical), typos still intact, without actually viewing the thread it comes from.

In fact, it would seem that you DID cut and paste this post directly from the Loose Change Forums. However, you did NOT cut and paste any of the posts that occur between this one and the post for which Killtown was nominated. This includes the one in which WWGHA replies to Killtown.

I would posit that it would be very difficult to miss WWGHA's reply to Killtown, especially as Killtown quotes it in the post he was nominated for.

In fact, Killtown even numbered the paragraphs in WWGHA's post and responded in order of the numbers.

Response by Killtown

1) link to a "normal" video?

2) Example?

Here you have completely failed to mention that Killtown actually quoted WWGHA in his post, numbered his paragraphs and responded accordingly. As I have already established that you must have been on the actual thread to reproduce Jarrayo's post with cut-and-paste fidelity, this means that you have deliberately edited out of this post Killtown's quoting of WWGHA!

That is not some accident or mistake, William. That is deliberately changing the facts and trying to mislead the people here.

Not only that, but in your attempt to reproduce the context of the thread so accurately you ALSO somehow missed the exchange between WWGHA and Killtown that occurs after Killtown's nominated post...

1) How the hell do I Link to a video that is not on the internet?? Get out your loose change DVD, i am pretty sure the videos playing in the menu will have a few examples of what i mean.

2) Look at the pictures in this thread, and the videos they come from! Look at practically any video on the internet of the second airplane hitting the tower.

Does Killtown correct WWGHA and explain that what he really wanted was a bittorrent link to a high quality MPEG4, or a link to a site that sells such videos? No - he simply dismisses all the videos that WWGHA has suggested are fakes...

The videos are fake, what else do you need to know?

So my question is this - why did you leave these out? Could it be because they support the idea that Killtown was asking for a link to a video that is not on the internet?

So you'll have to do better than a halfway there apology for accidentally misleading us.

Apologise for what you actually did. Apologise for deliberately lying to us in an attempt to strengthen your position, by editing the context of the quote from Loose Change and by omitting highly relevant contextual information from the thread in question.

I will not withdraw the ad hominem accusation because to my satisfaction it is proven so you are correct that it is open and shut. If you do not agree then I have no problem with that but I would prefer if you would make the point and let it stand rather than berating me for not doing something completely wrong like apologising for being right.

A question - why is this an ad hominem? How are we attacking the person here? We have ridiculed a request that he made, we have not insulted him as a person.

And another question - if you are so certain that this IS an ad hominem, then why did you deliberately edit the post in question (omitting the WWGHA quote from Killtown's post) and deliberately omit highly relevant contextual information (such as WWGHA post immediately preceding and following Killtown's nominated post)?

Indeed these things are very simple to do for everyone when they have mislead either intentionally or unintentionally.

Well, you have intentionally attempted to mislead the members of the JREF forums and also possible lurkers. An apology for what you actually did would go a long way to restoring your credibility. And a withdrawal of your accusation would go even futher in restoring your credibility.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 11:05 AM

And it's interesting to note, just after WWGHA asks how to link to a non-internet video, KT posts, but does not correct WWGHA's interpretation of KT's post. So even KT himself agrees with our interpretation!

Busted on "normal videos", busted on "energy vectors". Care to try for a third strike?

I don't know what facts you have based this assertion on because Killtown makes no subsequent comment regarding Amputees "normal" video question. Interestingly, Amputee doesn't press him any further so on the same basis as your argument I will infer that Amputee doesn't agree with his own question.

He only goes on to say that the video files in the suggested source are probably fakes. That is the only fact that can be derived from it.

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 11:09 AM

Again I politely ask you to stop berating me to make an apology that is not deserved. The scenarios I present are just as likely in the context with the facts we know. Again I politely ask to stop telling me I am wrong and show me I am. the nomination was not mine, you are the prosecution so prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. I have given plenty of reasonable doubt.

Question: You are aware that as you are essentially accusing me of slander, that in this situation YOU would be the representative for the plaintiff, and I would be the defendant, right?

Another Question: You do realise that slander is not a criminal offence, it is a tort?

Another Another Question: You do realise that "beyond reasonable doubt" is only applicable to criminal cases, and that the term used in a torts case is "balance of probabilities"?

Another Another Another Question: You do realise that the scenarios you presented are only even mildly probably given your version of the context surrounding the quote, which I have shown above that you deliberately falisified?

apathoid

6th April 2007, 11:10 AM

Again, I will politely point out that I will not be berated by aggressive posting into making a false apology. I am on record in this thread for apologising for an unintendedly misleading post.

I have calmly and politely explained my rational position on it and again I politely point out that because I was incorrect about the posting does not make me incorrect regarding the central tenet of the incorrect nomination.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you when you say it was unintentional. You managed to copy the actual content of the posts exactly, which means you had the page open and were copying from it. So I don't believe it's plausible that you mistakenly attributed Killtowns reply to Jarroyo's post, because Killtown's post had a quote box, and in that quote box was WWGHA's post, not Jarroyo's. If you had to lie in order to make your case, your case can't be all that strong.

Now I'll ask you to review some other of Killtown's nominations to get an idea of what you're dealing with.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 11:13 AM

Let's see what you said...

Let's see what you originally posted.....attempted to mislead the members of the JREF forums and also possible lurkers. An apology for what you actually did would go a long way to restoring your credibility. And a withdrawal of your accusation would go even futher in restoring your credibility.

I don't understand why you are adopting such an aggressive posting manner and constantly berating me to apologise for something I have already apologised for as well as to incorrectly apologise for something I have no need to apologise for.

I am politely withdrawing from responding to your posts now as this has stepped way beyond the realms of normality. If you wish to have a more agreeable exchange of views I will then be more than happy to resume corresponding with you.

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 11:16 AM

Again, I will politely point out that I will not be berated by aggressive posting into making a false apology. I am on record in this thread for apologising for an unintendedly misleading post.

Except that it wasn't unintentionally misleading. It was deliberate.

Or are you saying that you just "didn't notice" that Jarrayo's post occured five posts before the one the Killtown was nominated for?

And that you "didn't notice" WWGHA's post that occurred directly above Killtown's nominated post?

And that you "didn't notice" that Killtown had quoted WWHGA's post in his own post, and that when you cut-and-pasted Killtown's response from Loose Change into the first page of this thread that you "didn't notice" that you "accidentally deleted" the part of the post where Killtown quotes WWGHA?

And that you "didn't notice" WWGHA's post directly after Killtown's, where WWGHA expresses that he can't post a link to a video that isn't on the internet?

And that you "didn't notice" Killtown not correcting WWGHA on this matter, but instead concluding that all the videos are faked anyway?

Face it, William. You're busted. Now own up and apologise before I lose even more respect for you than I already have.

William Rea

6th April 2007, 11:17 AM

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you when you say it was unintentional. You managed to copy the actual content of the posts exactly, which means you had the page open and were copying from it. So I don't believe it's plausible that you mistakenly attributed Killtowns reply to Jarroyo's post, because Killtown's post had a quote box, and in that quote box was WWGHA's post, not Jarroyo's. If you had to lie in order to make your case, your case can't be all that strong.

Now I'll ask you to review some other of Killtown's nominations to get an idea of what you're dealing with.

You don't have to accept my sincerety, that is up to you. I have to accept that you now no longer trust my posts and I will have to strive harder to regain that trust. I can only recall what I believe I saw, and I believe that despite not having access to the original thread (for some obscure reason) and in the face of the Google facsimile (which has a disclaimer on it) that my given apology was adequate.

My error does not alter the logic of the argument, attacking my personal honesty does not undermine the facts as they stand.

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 11:32 AM

I don't understand why you are adopting such an aggressive posting manner and constantly berating me to apologise for something I have already apologised for as well as to incorrectly apologise for something I have no need to apologise for.

William, one does not apologise for "accidentally" misleading people if it was in fact deliberate. I see that you have conveniently deleted a large part of my post where I analysed your original claim and demonstrated that you had to have been deliberately lying in your original post.

You complain about my "aggressive" posting manner - was it not you who posted in The Stundies for the sole purpose of stating that you were not participating because you believed them to be ad hominem attacks? Might I remind you that you claimed that "at least two" were ad hominem, a claim you have yet to provide any justification for? Was it not you that began this thread for the sole intention of attacking The Stundies and provoking the other members here?

And was it not you who had to deliberately falsify the context of a quote in order to give your accusation any grounds whatsoever?

Not to mention that you are STILL defending the ridiculous "gravitational energy...which is vertical" quote, despite the fact that it is just outright wrong???

My style may seem aggressive, but that is only because the best defence is a good offence. You began this, and now you are upset because the tables have turned on you?

Tough.

I am politely withdrawing from responding to your posts now as this has stepped way beyond the realms of normality. If you wish to have a more agreeable exchange of views I will then be more than happy to resume corresponding with you.

Translation:

I am not going to reply to you anymore, as you have now repeatedly shown that I had to deliberately lie, falsify context and omit information in order to make my position seem more credible. By saying that I am "politely withdrawing" it seems as though I am taking the moral high ground, and by saying that, "...this has stepped way beyond the realms of normality..." I am subtly suggesting that you are mentally unbalanced. However, I concede that if you promise to stop exposing my intellectual dishonesty and if you stop asking me to apologise for the things that I have obviously done wrong but refuse to admit to then I will talk to you again.

Just a nice move there - running away when you're losing the argument, but trying to frame me as the bad guy. That's not going to make anybody here respect you more.

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 11:35 AM

...I believe that despite not having access to the original thread (for some obscure reason)...

If you didn't have access to the thread, then how could you have produced Jarrayo's post with perfect fidelity, including typos?

My error does not alter the logic of the argument, attacking my personal honesty does not undermine the facts as they stand.

Except that the exact thing you were dishonest about were "the facts as they stand."

William Rea

6th April 2007, 11:51 AM

For those that have entered this at the last page and have not read the OP I would like to post this link so you may see the intent.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2490973#post2490973

I am hoping that my new calmer more rational demeanour will attract people who wish to post in the same manner and who wish to resolve issues calmly and without resorting to personal attacks.

That is my aspiration, and to achieve this my reaction will be to ignore aggressive posting and not to escalate it, even in the face of the most extreme provocation. I never use the ignore button so I will see all posts but I will select which ones I answer.

I also aspire to try to have conversations through the forum where ideas have a chance to evolve.

As my opinions are so often contrary to many on the board please understand that I will have to answer probably 10 times more posts than you will make, so if I do not respond immediately a polite reminder will always be acceptable to me.

chipmunk stew

6th April 2007, 12:09 PM

The force of gravity makes stuff fall down. Gravitational energy does not.

Actually it is the work that gravitational energy does on the mass that makes stuff fall down.

:notm

Contradicting someone is not an argument. If my analysis is wrong I would prefer you to educate me as to how it is wrong.
Okay.

Your statement was: "the work that gravitational energy does on the mass...makes stuff fall down"

This is wrong. Stuff falls down because it's in the gravitational force field of the Earth. The force of gravity is acting on the mass.

The gravitational potential energy of the mass is a result of its position within this force field. GPE is not "acting on" the mass. The mass is storing GPE. The work done on the mass was done by whatever lifted it above the Earth's surface. This work was then stored in the mass as GPE. As the mass falls, no work is being done on the mass. Although the mass's GPE converts to kinetic energy as it falls, no energy is spent--the mass retains all of its energy until it collides with something (in an ideal system, that is--in reality some energy is converted to heat and sound, for instance.)

Think about it. If the Earth had to spend energy attracting things to it, it would run out of energy pretty quickly, wouldn't it?

chipmunk stew

6th April 2007, 12:37 PM

If I take a bar of steel and increase the thermal energy in one end of it you're saying the thermal energy will not flow to the other end of the bar?
Your example only is (sort of) directional because of the shape you chose to heat and the way you chose to heat it. It's still just a thermal system tending towards equlibrium, though.

If you place a cold turkey in a hot oven, in which direction is the turkey going to be heated?

JonnyFive

6th April 2007, 01:03 PM

If you place a cold turkey in a hot oven, in which direction is the turkey going to be heated?

Vertical, of course!

Brainache

6th April 2007, 06:10 PM

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 08:55 PM

Just catching up with this thread. So did WR actually apologise for deliberately lying in the case of Killtown V WWGHA? All his obfuscation and condescending nonsense makes it hard to tell. It's pretty obvious that he lied, but he seems to be pretending that it was all some kind of innocent mistake.

I guess I now know just how much credibility to give his posts in the future. ie- Zero.

@ Mobyseven if I ever need a Lawyer in Vic. I'll look you up.

You'll have to wait about five years, as I'm still at law school (Melbourne Uni) and doing a double-degree...it takes some time, that's for sure. Especially if I'm accepted into the Dip. of Modern Languages which I'm going to apply for at the end of this year.

But depending on what type of legal issue it is, I could probably point you in the right direction to someone who could answer questions far better than me right now.

By the way - I'd like to point out that when William Rea talks about "personal attacks", he is talking about the fact that I have now repeatedly called him a liar.

This is because he is a liar. See my previous posts if you are not sure why he is a liar. But he is a liar.

Hokulele

6th April 2007, 09:14 PM

You'll have to wait about five years, as I'm still at law school (Melbourne Uni) and doing a double-degree...it takes some time, that's for sure. Especially if I'm accepted into the Dip. of Modern Languages which I'm going to apply for at the end of this year.

But depending on what type of legal issue it is, I could probably point you in the right direction to someone who could answer questions far better than me right now.

By the way - I'd like to point out that when William Rea talks about "personal attacks", he is talking about the fact that I have now repeatedly called him a liar.

This is because he is a liar. See my previous posts if you are not sure why he is a liar. But he is a liar.

He is claiming people are personally attacking him now? Isn't that ironic. He is currently the sole occupant of my ignore list due to a personal attack.

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 09:28 PM

He is claiming people are personally attacking him now? Isn't that ironic. He is currently the sole occupant of my ignore list due to a personal attack.

That is rather ironic. I make a point of not using my ignore list. Though there are members I've been tempted add to it, I have so far restrained.

Yes, William is currently upset at my having repeatedly called him a liar.

I did a brief summary of what happened that I think is on the bottom of page two.

Basically, he deliberately edited the context of one of the Stundie nominations by omitting relevant information and changing the order of some of the posts.

I don't know why he would do this other than it seems he likes to deliberately rile people up to get his jollies, but this time he's gone too far. If he apologises and withdraws his accusations then all is forgiven. Otherwise I'll just let him run his already ruined credibility further into the ground.

I have no idea how he thought he'd get away with this either. Deliberately trying to mislead the members of a forum who, by definition, are going to check your sources is just a bad idea from the outset.

Hokulele

6th April 2007, 09:41 PM

Usually I have a fairly high tolerance for people, he is the only one I am ignoring, mostly since he seems to want to push things (as you mentioned), and I really haven't seen anything constructive from him. If he did acknowledge errors and apologize to people, I would probably change my mind. As it is, judging by the responses from people in this thread, I don't feel as though I am missing all that much.

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 10:06 PM

Yes he does like to push things.

The second irony here being that now that I am pushing for an apology he is complaining about my aggressive posting style.

Brainache

6th April 2007, 10:09 PM

Yes he does like to push things.

The second irony here being that now that I am pushing for an apology he is complaining about my aggressive posting style.

So are you saying that William Rea is a lying liar who tells lies, as well as a whingeing whiner who whinges?

Mobyseven

6th April 2007, 10:33 PM

So are you saying that William Rea is a lying liar who tells lies, as well as a whingeing whiner who whinges?

The "whinging whiner" part is required, as Truthseeker1234 has a trademark on being a "lying liar who tells lies" (just ask LossLeader).

But more to the point, I think that he knows he is in the wrong but is giving his all to trying to both retain some form of credibility while not admitting to being wrong.

Needless to say, it isn't working.

Mr.D

6th April 2007, 11:56 PM

I was hoping to enjoy an exchange of posts with you because you came across as very reasonable in the previous couple of posts we exchanged. I am afraid to say that this post has reversed that opinion which is a little sad.

I'm disappointed myself, but I cannot logically reconcile

1) Your claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2455122#post2455122) to be a civil engineer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2446961#post2446961)

with the following:

A) Your claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491103#post2491103) that Gravitational Potential Energy is a vector. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491693#post2491693) (Or having a "vectoral quality," (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496158#post2496158) which is what you backed off to - whatever that means)
B) Your claim that Thermal Energy is a vector by example of heat transfer along a linear conductor. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496328#post2496328) (Counter example: Heat the center of a metal disk. In which direction is the "vector" pointing?)
C) Your mixing "work" with "energy" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496211#post2496211) (and most notably your failure to use the term "force" which is a vector)

All of this is taught in any first semester advanced high-school physics class. This is pre-engineering stuff - so basic that there are really only two probable explanations.

Your formal education was so long ago and is so far removed from your day-to-day work as a civil engineer that you no longer remember parts of it well enough to discuss with any authority

or

You did not receive a 4-year engineering degree from an accredited institution of higher learning.

(Well, there is a third, but)

Be reassured that if I am wrong I apologise, I have a record for doing this on the forum, in fact I believe that I am probably one of a handful of people on here with the humility to do so when proven wrong.

ArmillarySphere

7th April 2007, 04:28 PM

To be fair, IIRC the energy of an object subject to a force field can be defined as the "charge" (mass, if we're speaking of gravity) times the potential function of the field. And the force is defined as the curl of that potential function, again multiplied by the "charge". So there is a way to make a vector quantity from the potential energy, but it's a lot less intuitive than you'd think.

(There are probably better ways of expressing this, but it's after midnight where I'm posting. I tried "the curl of the energy", but that isn't a meaningful physical quantity despite being fairly easily defined mathematically )

This being said, it still doesn't make either the energy, potential or charge anything but scalar quantities.

Mr.D

7th April 2007, 05:23 PM

So there is a way to make a vector quantity from the potential energy, but it's a lot less intuitive than you'd think.

The word you're looking for is gradient. (The context of this conversation is Newtonian, not GR)

"Curl" comes into play with E&M type fields. (F on a point charge 'e' is perpendicular to the plane formed by the velocity of the point charge 'v' and the electric field 'E' and proportional to the magnitude of the vectors and the sine of the angle between them)

ArmillarySphere

7th April 2007, 05:25 PM

D'oh. Guess I should stay with SR or basic QM. At least I keep that stuff fairly fresh in my head (though I don't use it for anything much)

Mr.D

7th April 2007, 05:45 PM

Odd how memory works isn't it?

In the last ten years, I've probably not used the word 'curl' in the E&M / field math sense of the word at all, whereas I've probably used it in other contexts (curly hair, or referencing the linux/unix command line program of the same name) hundreds or thousands of times.

Yet as soon as I saw your post I knew instantly what you were writing about.

For me, it makes Mr. Rea's 'vectorial quality' of Gravitational PE argument a very hard one to swallow.

gumboot

7th April 2007, 06:08 PM

If you place a cold turkey in a hot oven, in which direction is the turkey going to be heated?

Cold turkeys... how appropriate...

-Gumboot

chipmunk stew

7th April 2007, 06:37 PM

Cold turkeys... how appropriate...

-Gumboot
Admittedly, I did not choose my example arbitrarily...

Horatius

8th April 2007, 03:27 PM

The figure referred to in your quote is not Figure 2. I would appreciate if you could address figure 2 with your answer.

The terms used in the figures are all the same. There is no place in the text that he specifically addresses the details of Fig. 2, but you'll note:

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6282&d=1175726372

The terms are all consistent with the forces displayed in Figure 2. Note the terms "m(z)g" used in Figure 2. Also note the mathematically equivalent term "gm(z)" term used in the quoted passage:

F = gm(z) represents the inertia force that must be generated by acceleration or deceleration of the block of tower mass m(z) above level z of the top floor of the story.

Also note the use of the term Fc in both figures 2 and figures 3 and 4. Fc is a point on the Y axis, which axis is clearly labelled "Force". There is simply no other reasonable interpretation of Fig. 2, except that it is depicting forces.

For someone who claims to be an engineer to claim otherwise, or to claim that they could not have figured this out themselves, is simply unbelievable. It must be a deliberate attempt to mislead those who don't know how to understand such figures.

And that makes it another lie.

So, I concur: William Rea is a lying liar who lies. He lied about the context of the KT quote, and now he's lying about what the linked paper is showing.

Mr. Rea, you are a stinking liar!

And no apology will be accepted. You apologize for accidents, not for things you did with deliberate intent. From now on, all who have read this thread will know, William Rea is an honourless liar, who cannot be trusted. You have sold your reputation for a lie that lasted less than a week. I hope you're happy with that.

Liar.

Mobyseven

8th April 2007, 07:48 PM

And no apology will be accepted. You apologize for accidents, not for things you did with deliberate intent. From now on, all who have read this thread will know, William Rea is an honourless liar, who cannot be trusted. You have sold your reputation for a lie that lasted less than a week. I hope you're happy with that.

Liar.

I disagree that no apology will be accepted.

However, it must be a sincere apology for what actually occured.

Apologising for an "accident" or "mistake" will be viewed in much the same light as Computer Science graduates view those enrolled in TAFE IT.*

William, while your reputation will not return to where it was when this all began you will at least be going part way to repairing these bridges you have burnt if you own up to what you have done and accept responsibility.

If you disagree, actually go and address my argument and reasoning. Don't resort to subtle ad hominem attacks that you hope people won't notice.

And before you protest - yes, ignoring my argument and instead subtly implying that I am obsessed and unstable IS an ad hominem. Which also makes you a hypocrite.

Whiplash

8th April 2007, 08:59 PM

I'm very disappointed to see that William Rea is still crying about the stundies.

http://www.kleenex.com

JonnyFive

9th April 2007, 08:21 AM

I'm disappointed myself, but I cannot logically reconcile

1) Your claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2455122#post2455122) to be a civil engineer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2446961#post2446961)

with the following:

A) Your claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491103#post2491103) that Gravitational Potential Energy is a vector. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491693#post2491693) (Or having a "vectoral quality," (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496158#post2496158) which is what you backed off to - whatever that means)
B) Your claim that Thermal Energy is a vector by example of heat transfer along a linear conductor. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496328#post2496328) (Counter example: Heat the center of a metal disk. In which direction is the "vector" pointing?)
C) Your mixing "work" with "energy" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496211#post2496211) (and most notably your failure to use the term "force" which is a vector)

All of this is taught in any first semester advanced high-school physics class. This is pre-engineering stuff - so basic that there are really only two probable explanations.

Your formal education was so long ago and is so far removed from your day-to-day work as a civil engineer that you no longer remember parts of it well enough to discuss with any authority

or

You did not receive a 4-year engineering degree from an accredited institution of higher learning.

(Well, there is a third, but)

I am having an issue with this as well. I am not an engineer, having taken only high school and basic university physics, but those concepts do not confuse me. I find it very difficult to believe that someone with a four year engineering degree who works as an engineer is confused about such basic physics concepts.

Perhaps there is another explanation. I would like to hear it.

AZCat

9th April 2007, 08:30 AM

I am having an issue with this as well. I am not an engineer, having taken only high school and basic university physics, but those concepts do not confuse me. I find it very difficult to believe that someone with a four year engineering degree who works as an engineer is confused about such basic physics concepts.

Perhaps there is another explanation. I would like to hear it.

It is possible for someone to qualify as a Professional Engineer without having completed an accredited four year engineering program. They still have to demonstrate proficiency in the engineering sciences in a series of tests, though.

JonnyFive

9th April 2007, 08:33 AM

It is possible for someone to qualify as a Professional Engineer without having completed an accredited four year engineering program. They still have to demonstrate proficiency in the engineering sciences in a series of tests, though.

I didn't know that.

Do those tests, by any chance, involve basic physics?

Horatius

9th April 2007, 08:36 AM

I disagree that no apology will be accepted.

However, it must be a sincere apology for what actually occured.

Apologising for an "accident" or "mistake" will be viewed in much the same light as Computer Science graduates view those enrolled in TAFE IT.*

Well, that is for each of us to decide, of course.

But consider: He started out with the premise that he could "debunk" the Stundies (whatever that really means). To do this, he deliberately lied about both on his examples.

When I caught him on the forces question, he initially implied I had manufactured the quote (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491718#post2491718), then, when shown to again be wrong, implied that the quote meant something else (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496158#post2496158). These are "errors" that an engineer who had read the paper with a mind willing to understand simply could not have made, three times in a row. He lied, he knew he had lied, and he tried to smear me as a liar rather than admit it.

As for the KT quote, well, I agree with your analysis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496528#post2496528), it was a lie from the start, defended by lies, and, when trapped in a corner on that issue, he gave out his fake "I'm sorry, honest mistake" "apology".

He's shown a willingness to lie, to defend those lies with more lies, to attempt to smear other posters as liars to distract attention from his own lies, and to even lie about his willingness to admit errors (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496179#post2496179).

Even if he were to admit to everything, from first lie to last, and to promise never to do it again, how could we trust that promise? A liar will lie about never lying again, just to get off the hook.

You're free to disagree, but I'm also free to never trust his word again, and I won't.

AZCat

9th April 2007, 08:41 AM

I didn't know that.

Do those tests, by any chance, involve basic physics?

You could say that.

I can't speak for other states, although I imagine they don't depart significantly from this system, but in Arizona the first test is the Engineer In Training (EIT) Exam, which tests general engineering principles along with physics, math, chemistry, etc (all the foundational sciences). After accumulating enough work experience under the supervision of a Registered Professional Engineer you get to take one (or in the case of structural, two) more test called (strangely enough) the Professional Engineer (PE) Exam, which is discipline-specific (Arizona recognizes something like 27 different disciplines). The first exam is widely held to be the more difficult one, and is (according to what I've been told) the largest hurdle for non-degreed engineers to overcome.

I know several PEs who don't have engineering degrees. They have a different perspective on things, to say the least (especially the one with a degree in journalism) but they are still conversant with general science.

chipmunk stew

9th April 2007, 08:47 AM

Well, that is for each of us to decide, of course.

But consider: He started out with the premise that he could "debunk" the Stundies (whatever that really means). To do this, he deliberately lied about both on his examples.

When I caught him on the forces question, he initially implied I had manufactured the quote (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491718#post2491718), then, when shown to again be wrong, implied that the quote meant something else (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496158#post2496158). These are "errors" that an engineer who had read the paper with a mind willing to understand simply could not have made, three times in a row. He lied, he knew he had lied, and he tried to smear me as a liar rather than admit it.

As for the KT quote, well, I agree with your analysis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496528#post2496528), it was a lie from the start, defended by lies, and, when trapped in a corner on that issue, he gave out his fake "I'm sorry, honest mistake" "apology".

He's shown a willingness to lie, to defend those lies with more lies, to attempt to smear other posters as liars to distract attention from his own lies, and to even lie about his willingness to admit errors (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496179#post2496179).

Even if he were to admit to everything, from first lie to last, and to promise never to do it again, how could we trust that promise? A liar will lie about never lying again, just to get off the hook.

You're free to disagree, but I'm also free to never trust his word again, and I won't.
I agree with everything you said above (including never trusting his word again) except I don't think he lied about the forces question. I believe he lied about being an engineer.

Habitual liars are often cowards, too, so we may never see him again. For now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he took an Easter holiday.

JonnyFive

9th April 2007, 08:54 AM

You could say that.

I can't speak for other states, although I imagine they don't depart significantly from this system, but in Arizona the first test is the Engineer In Training (EIT) Exam, which tests general engineering principles along with physics, math, chemistry, etc (all the foundational sciences). After accumulating enough work experience under the supervision of a Registered Professional Engineer you get to take one (or in the case of structural, two) more test called (strangely enough) the Professional Engineer (PE) Exam, which is discipline-specific (Arizona recognizes something like 27 different disciplines). The first exam is widely held to be the more difficult one, and is (according to what I've been told) the largest hurdle for non-degreed engineers to overcome.

I know several PEs who don't have engineering degrees. They have a different perspective on things, to say the least (especially the one with a degree in journalism) but they are still conversant with general science.

Enlightening!

So we would expect someone that had passed through this process to have a similar level of familiarity with basic concepts of physics to a degreed engineer?

Horatius

9th April 2007, 08:55 AM

I agree with everything you said above (including never trusting his word again) except I don't think he lied about the forces question. I believe he lied about being an engineer.

Well, that may be the case. But I still find it hard to believe anyone would honestly dispute that a big "F" indicates a "Force"!

F=ma is one of the twoofer's favourite equations to misuse, after all.

chipmunk stew

9th April 2007, 09:11 AM

Well, that may be the case. But I still find it hard to believe anyone would honestly dispute that a big "F" indicates a "Force"!

F=ma is one of the twoofer's favourite equations to misuse, after all.
Heh. Yeah.

What makes me most suspect of his claim that he's an engineer was when he "corrected" my statement: "The force of gravity makes stuff fall down. Gravitational energy does not."
with: "Actually it is the work that gravitational energy does on the mass that makes stuff fall down."

I suppose it's possible that he lied both by claiming to be an engineer and by deliberately misrepresenting a diagram. I get the feeling, though, that he truly doesn't understand what energy and force mean in Newtonian terms.

JonnyFive

9th April 2007, 09:21 AM

I suppose it's possible that he lied both by claiming to be an engineer and by deliberately misrepresenting a diagram. I get the feeling, though, that he truly doesn't understand what energy and force mean in Newtonian terms.

I think you're right about this.

Horatius

9th April 2007, 09:23 AM

chipmunk stew

9th April 2007, 09:47 AM

I guess we'll all have to agree that he's both a liar, and an ignoramus, then?

Okay by me!
Of that, I have little doubt! :)

I've considered the somewhat frightening possibility that he was being truthful about being an engineer AND was being indeliberately muddle-headed about force vs. energy.

There is, after all, at least one practicing engineer (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-43%2CGGLG%3Aen&as_qdr=all&q=%22william+rea%22+%22avondale+house%22+OR+%22an+ bord%22&btnG=Search) by that name. This one works on relatively small-scale projects, and I suppose it's possible that certain basic physics concepts don't play all that big of a role in his day-to-day practical work. I suppose it's also possible that he made a career in engineering without ever having really understood some of those basic concepts. He may get by just fine merely by being familiar with local building codes.

JonnyFive

9th April 2007, 11:16 AM

I guess we'll all have to agree that he's both a liar, and an ignoramus, then?

Okay by me!

Well, we have seen evidence that he is a liar. As he is demonstrably ignorant of several key physics terms that are pertinent to this discussion (and apparently refuses to acknowledge that as well), I believe he would in fact fit the definition of an ignoramus as well.

rwguinn

9th April 2007, 11:50 AM

Of that, I have little doubt! :)

I've considered the somewhat frightening possibility that he was being truthful about being an engineer AND was being indeliberately muddle-headed about force vs. energy.

There is, after all, at least one practicing engineer (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-43%2CGGLG%3Aen&as_qdr=all&q=%22william+rea%22+%22avondale+house%22+OR+%22an+ bord%22&btnG=Search) by that name. This one works on relatively small-scale projects, and I suppose it's possible that certain basic physics concepts don't play all that big of a role in his day-to-day practical work. I suppose it's also possible that he made a career in engineering without ever having really understood some of those basic concepts. He may get by just fine merely by being familiar with local building codes.
Well, energy and motion Are out of the purview of Civil Engineers...They go to great lengths to make sure things don't move. So I guess it is possible that he hasn't dealt with them in many years.
Not likely, though, that even an engineer who has moved into sales or something would forget something so basic.
But we must remember, 1/2 of all engineers (like MD's) graduated in the bottom 1/2 of their class.

"Mechanical Engineers design weapons systems. Civil Engineers design targets."

Mobyseven

9th April 2007, 09:01 PM

Well, that is for each of us to decide, of course.

But consider: He started out with the premise that he could "debunk" the Stundies (whatever that really means). To do this, he deliberately lied about both on his examples.

When I caught him on the forces question, he initially implied I had manufactured the quote (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491718#post2491718), then, when shown to again be wrong, implied that the quote meant something else (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496158#post2496158). These are "errors" that an engineer who had read the paper with a mind willing to understand simply could not have made, three times in a row. He lied, he knew he had lied, and he tried to smear me as a liar rather than admit it.

As for the KT quote, well, I agree with your analysis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496528#post2496528), it was a lie from the start, defended by lies, and, when trapped in a corner on that issue, he gave out his fake "I'm sorry, honest mistake" "apology".

He's shown a willingness to lie, to defend those lies with more lies, to attempt to smear other posters as liars to distract attention from his own lies, and to even lie about his willingness to admit errors (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496179#post2496179).

Even if he were to admit to everything, from first lie to last, and to promise never to do it again, how could we trust that promise? A liar will lie about never lying again, just to get off the hook.

You're free to disagree, but I'm also free to never trust his word again, and I won't.

As you said - it's individual choice.

I must say that I'm quite grateful for the physical explanations posted here, as I'm not really qualified to comment much past the basic of that myself.

Linguistic analysis, however, I spent a good two years doing for my VCE (and doing quite well at it, if I do say so myself ;) ), so if people are going to take me up on that they better be darn prepared.

My feeling is not that an admission, retraction and apology will entirely redeem him. But it will at least put him in a position from where he is able to try and gain our trust again (well, mine at least). It's a long hard road, but without this first step he will never have any credibility here again.

I don't think he'll completely run away either, it doesn't seem to be his style. Though he completely ignored my analysis, so I guess I could be wrong about that too.

I hope not.

Mobyseven

9th April 2007, 09:03 PM

"Mechanical Engineers design weapons systems. Civil Engineers design targets."

That's a great quote. Where's it from?

Horatius

10th April 2007, 08:39 AM

I must say that I'm quite grateful for the physical explanations posted here, as I'm not really qualified to comment much past the basic of that myself.

Linguistic analysis, however, I spent a good two years doing for my VCE (and doing quite well at it, if I do say so myself ;) ), so if people are going to take me up on that they better be darn prepared.

That's one of the ways they try to "divide and conquer". By using two examples from different disciplines, he hopes that, the engineers will say, "He's wrong about the forces thing, but the linguistic analysis seems plausilbe", while the linguists will conclude the opposite. That's why we need all the different JREFer types to work together - we can show why all his examples are flawed.

My feeling is not that an admission, retraction and apology will entirely redeem him. But it will at least put him in a position from where he is able to try and gain our trust again (well, mine at least). It's a long hard road, but without this first step he will never have any credibility here again.

It seems to me that this is just the latest, and most blatant, example of his dishonesty. I can't recall anything he's ever said that wasn't trying to spin something to mean something else. I may just not recall his honest posts, but there's enough dishonesty to make me believe that he is fundamentally untrustworthy. It would take a lot (a LOT!) of work to ever gain my trust. And so far, he seems entirely unwilling to take even the first step you refer to, let alone all the following steps.

William Rea

10th April 2007, 09:17 AM

I'm disappointed myself, but I cannot logically reconcile
1) Your claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2455122#post2455122) to be a civil engineer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2446961#post2446961)
with the following:
A) Your claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491103#post2491103) that Gravitational Potential Energy is a vector. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491693#post2491693) (Or having a "vectoral quality," (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496158#post2496158) which is what you backed off to - whatever that means)
B) Your claim that Thermal Energy is a vector by example of heat transfer along a linear conductor. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496328#post2496328) (Counter example: Heat the center of a metal disk. In which direction is the "vector" pointing?)
C) Your mixing "work" with "energy" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496211#post2496211) (and most notably your failure to use the term "force" which is a vector)
All of this is taught in any first semester advanced high-school physics class. This is pre-engineering stuff - so basic that there are really only two probable explanations.
Your formal education was so long ago and is so far removed from your day-to-day work as a civil engineer that you no longer remember parts of it well enough to discuss with any authority
or
You did not receive a 4-year engineering degree from an accredited institution of higher learning.
(Well, there is a third, but)

1. I have never claimed to be a Civil Engineer. I have no idea why I would need to be uniquely qualified as a Civil Engineer to understand this topic.

A. I have not modified my position once. My original post on this topic can be seen at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2489948#post2489948

B. I haven't claimed that energy isn't scalar, I simply asserted that it has a sense of direction like a vector and no one as yet has shown me that it doesn't. In answer to your problem I would simplify it by taking a cross sectional view of the disc showing the direction of transfer of heat energy from the inner to outer edge.

C. I need you to clarify what you mean when you say I have mixed "work" and "energy" because I do not understand how you then extrapolate this to imply my education must be sub-standard in some way.

William Rea

10th April 2007, 09:22 AM

William Rea

10th April 2007, 09:32 AM

No, gravity is a force. Gravitational potential energy is the measure of the work done by that force. The force does work, which is measured as energy. The energy is not doing any work, it is a measure of work.

You might use the words interchangeably, but that doesn't make you right.

The force is simply a means of expressing the energy flow dynamically, it is not the primary factor in energy problems as you imply. I can describe the transfer of energy from PE to KE in energy terms simply by using conservation of energy without mentioning a single force.

With respect, I do not interchange them, I use them in context.

chipmunk stew

10th April 2007, 09:35 AM

1. I have never claimed to be a Civil Engineer.
???
The point is Beachnut, I am an Engineer.
I'm a civil engineer also, except when I get mad.
I have no idea why I would need to be uniquely qualified as a Civil Engineer to understand this topic.
No one said you NEED to be a Civil Engineer to understand this topic, but you CLAIMED to be a Civil Engineer, and it strains credibility that an engineer would NOT understand this topic.

B. I haven't claimed that energy isn't scalar, I simply asserted that it has a sense of direction like a vector and no one as yet has shown me that it doesn't. In answer to your problem I would simplify it by taking a cross sectional view of the disc showing the direction of transfer of heat energy from the inner to outer edge.
The difference between a scalar and a vector is:

a scalar has magnitude
a vector has magnitude and directionTo say that energy (a scalar) "has a sense of direction", then, is to say that it is not a scalar at all, but rather a vector.

And I have shown you that energy does not have direction, as have others.

Dave Rogers

10th April 2007, 09:45 AM

B. I haven't claimed that energy isn't scalar, I simply asserted that it has a sense of direction like a vector and no one as yet has shown me that it doesn't.

Consider the following situation.

A spherical shell of material is placed somewhere in interstellar space, sufficiently far from any other masses that the effect of gravity other than its own may be considered negligible. The object has mass, and all parts of it are therefore attracted towards its centre of mass. If the material is shattered into small particles, all will fall into the centre, converting their gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy as they fall. The entire system has spherical symmetry.

What is the direction of the gravitational potential energy?

Dave

William Rea

10th April 2007, 09:48 AM

Your metal bar example also shows a misunderstanding of the terms involved. Simply because a situation involves a direction, that doesn't mean that every term involved is also directional. If I'm in a car and I travel at 50 mph to the north, that doesn't mean that my speed is suddenly a vector. Similarly, because the temperature of a steel bar being heated tends towards equilibrium does not mean that the measure of energy involved is expressed as a vector.

I appreciate that the tone of your post is not adversarial but with respect, if you are travelling 50mph North that is exactly a vector. I think what you are trying to say is that if you are travelling 50mph then that is a scalar quantity, and I agree with that. However, I don't know of any use that that scalar quantity has to Engineers, without the direction it is meaningless. Just like saying I have 2MJ of Energy without understanding how to make it do Work by employing a device that converts the fact that if falls down or flows from hot to cold.

Likewise, you can say energy is scalar and be absolutely right by the text book answer but denying that it has a vectoral quality in that it doesn't "flow" from up to down or hot to cold (in laymen's terms) is impractical.

William Rea

10th April 2007, 09:50 AM

No one said you NEED to be a Civil Engineer to understand this topic, but you CLAIMED to be a Civil Engineer, and it strains credibility that an engineer would NOT understand this topic.

I had a little chuckle at that one. You used my joke about being a civil engineer except when I get mad as a claim on my part that I was a Civil Engineer. :)

chipmunk stew

10th April 2007, 10:21 AM

I had a little chuckle at that one. You used my joke about being a civil engineer except when I get mad as a claim on my part that I was a Civil Engineer. :)
That was a joke? I don't get it. In any case, what kind of engineer DO you claim to be?

Belz...

10th April 2007, 10:31 AM

As has been posted before in the thread, he could just as easily have been asking for a link to purchase a "normal" video. As I've stated, that does not even mean that "normal" video even refers to a magnetic media.

Why are we still even having this discussion, William? This is open and shut - WWGHA defines a 'normal video' as 'not an internet video'. Killtown then asks for a link to a video that is, by definition, not on the internet!

To be fair to killtown (woah! I need to take a shower, now), I think he was saying "Huh ? A link to a "normal" video ? Why, that's not possible." Of course. That's still a stupid thing to post, but it's not the same level of stupid, assuming I'm correct.

JonnyFive

10th April 2007, 10:33 AM

I appreciate that the tone of your post is not adversarial but with respect, if you are travelling 50mph North that is exactly a vector. I think what you are trying to say is that if you are travelling 50mph then that is a scalar quantity, and I agree with that. However, I don't know of any use that that scalar quantity has to Engineers, without the direction it is meaningless. Just like saying I have 2MJ of Energy without understanding how to make it do Work by employing a device that converts the fact that if falls down or flows from hot to cold.

You're still confused about the terms. In the example I posted, the direction is irrelevant to the speed. The speed is 50mph. The velocity is a vector quantity consisting of the 50mph and the direction. In rough terms, you could say the velocity is 50mph to the north.

If I suddenly started going 50mph to the south, my speed would be the same, but my velocity would be different.

It's not about having "vector qualities" or anything, there are words for things like "speed plus direction." In that case, it's "velocity."

Likewise, you can say energy is scalar and be absolutely right by the text book answer but denying that it has a vectoral quality in that it doesn't "flow" from up to down or hot to cold (in laymen's terms) is impractical.

You misunderstand energy. Energy moving towards equillibrium does not give it a direction that can be quantified as a vector. Another poster mentioned the bar's orientation changing, and asked if this would affect the direction of energy transfer.

Vectors need a precise, mathematically defined direction. You can't simply say "it moves in a direction, therefore it is a vector!" No, that doesn't make energy a vector, or give it a "vectoral quality" (which is a meaningless term, by the way).

By the way, stating something has a "vectoral component" or whatever is equivalent to saying it's a vector, just in a more weasel-esque way.

The force is simply a means of expressing the energy flow dynamically, it is not the primary factor in energy problems as you imply. I can describe the transfer of energy from PE to KE in energy terms simply by using conservation of energy without mentioning a single force.

With respect, I do not interchange them, I use them in context.

I didn't say anything about PE and KE transfer, I said you are mixing force and energy. Those aren't terms that describe force, they describe energy. Force is work done on an object, energy is the amount of work something can do. A term like PE or KE addresses the total work present in an aspect of a system. That energy can be released in different forms.

I implied no such thing.

I had a little chuckle at that one. You used my joke about being a civil engineer except when I get mad as a claim on my part that I was a Civil Engineer. :)

What the hell are you talking about? You at least claimed to be an engineer of some kind, if not a civil engineer (it really isn't that important):

Here, you explicitly claim to be an engineer. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2446961#post2446961)

Your joke implicitly states that you are some kind of engineer. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2455122#post2455122)

You still show a misunderstanding of simple physics concepts, or a complete inability to state your understanding in a way that anyone but you can comprehend. Your apparent lack of comprehension does not jive with your stated profession.

Unless, of course, "engineer" means something like "railroad engineer" or "hamburger flipping engineer" or something.

rwguinn

10th April 2007, 10:39 AM

That's a great quote. Where's it from?
I honestly have no idea. It is so buried in antiquity that it has become a natural law:D
I first heardit back when I was a Coop with NASA in the 1970's. I comes in handy, since I am an ME, doing F-35 Lightning II work, my youngest brother is a CE, doing bridges in Texas, and the middle brother is a ChE with Dow.
Sister teaches music...Church music...
Well, 3 out of 4 is 75%...

Belz...

10th April 2007, 10:45 AM

I had a little chuckle at that one. You used my joke about being a civil engineer except when I get mad as a claim on my part that I was a Civil Engineer. :)

How utterly convenient. So not only the "except when I get mad" was a joke, but "I'm a civil engineer" too ? Woah. You do have a wicked sense of humour, don't you ? :rolleyes:

chipmunk stew

10th April 2007, 10:54 AM

William Rea

10th April 2007, 12:29 PM

That was a joke? I don't get it. In any case, what kind of engineer DO you claim to be?

@ forum.

With respect, if I have to explain it it will lose impact but because it seems to be such a big deal with the forum I'll explain so we can move on. I was joking that when I get mad I might lose civility and hence be an uncivil engineer. I did not expect that making a joke would become a major thread topic.

It is on record on the forum as I have stated it before, I am a Mechanical Engineer but in the US sense I majored in Structures. I have worked in Industry for 20 years or so and have obtained specialist knowledge of certain areas of Metallurgy related to my work. As also stated before I didn't pursue any Post-Graduate Studies but have built my reputation as an Engineer on hard work and results which is reflected in my salary and the constant calls I get from Head Hunters to move to competitors.

I can say no more or less than what I have written above and politely suggest that if you do not accept the sincerity of it then you are wasting your time and mine exchanging posts. It seems to me that there is little point in making posts to me if you do not have any trust that I am what I say I am.

William Rea

10th April 2007, 12:41 PM

Engineers use speed all the time--when they're doing energy calculations. In KE = ½*m*v2, you can ignore the directional component of the velocity v, treating it as a scalar speed.
No it's not, because saying that energy has a "vectoral quality" is meaningless gibberish.
When a pole bent back in tension (storing PE) is released, in which direction does the PE convert to KE?

If I may elaborate on your model, assuming you are meaning the pole is a simple cantilever then it will bend around an internal neutral axis. On one side of the neutral axis there is tension and on the other is compression. Both involve storage of elastic strain energy at a microstructural level in the pole.

The PE will convert to KE in the direction that returns the pole to equilibrium.

William Rea

10th April 2007, 12:48 PM

You're still confused about the terms. In the example I posted, the direction is irrelevant to the speed. The speed is 50mph. The velocity is a vector quantity consisting of the 50mph and the direction. In rough terms, you could say the velocity is 50mph to the north.
If I suddenly started going 50mph to the south, my speed would be the same, but my velocity would be different.
It's not about having "vector qualities" or anything, there are words for things like "speed plus direction." In that case, it's "velocity."
You misunderstand energy. Energy moving towards equillibrium does not give it a direction that can be quantified as a vector. Another poster mentioned the bar's orientation changing, and asked if this would affect the direction of energy transfer.
Vectors need a precise, mathematically defined direction. You can't simply say "it moves in a direction, therefore it is a vector!" No, that doesn't make energy a vector, or give it a "vectoral quality" (which is a meaningless term, by the way).
By the way, stating something has a "vectoral component" or whatever is equivalent to saying it's a vector, just in a more weasel-esque way.
I didn't say anything about PE and KE transfer, I said you are mixing force and energy. Those aren't terms that describe force, they describe energy. Force is work done on an object, energy is the amount of work something can do. A term like PE or KE addresses the total work present in an aspect of a system. That energy can be released in different forms.
I implied no such thing.
What the hell are you talking about? You at least claimed to be an engineer of some kind, if not a civil engineer (it really isn't that important):
Here, you explicitly claim to be an engineer. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2446961#post2446961)
Your joke implicitly states that you are some kind of engineer. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2455122#post2455122)
You still show a misunderstanding of simple physics concepts, or a complete inability to state your understanding in a way that anyone but you can comprehend. Your apparent lack of comprehension does not jive with your stated profession.
Unless, of course, "engineer" means something like "railroad engineer" or "hamburger flipping engineer" or something.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to deviate from a civilised discussion and enter into personalising this and attacking me as I felt we could get somewhere between us without resorting to that. Now that you have there seems little point in any further exchanges of posts.

chipmunk stew

10th April 2007, 12:48 PM

@ forum.

With respect, if I have to explain it it will lose impact but because it seems to be such a big deal with the forum I'll explain so we can move on. I was joking that when I get mad I might lose civility and hence be an uncivil engineer. I did not expect that making a joke would become a major thread topic.

It is on record on the forum as I have stated it before, I am a Mechanical Engineer but in the US sense I majored in Structures. I have worked in Industry for 20 years or so and have obtained specialist knowledge of certain areas of Metallurgy related to my work. As also stated before I didn't pursue any Post-Graduate Studies but have built my reputation as an Engineer on hard work and results which is reflected in my salary and the constant calls I get from Head Hunters to move to competitors.

I can say no more or less than what I have written above and politely suggest that if you do not accept the sincerity of it then you are wasting your time and mine exchanging posts. It seems to me that there is little point in making posts to me if you do not have any trust that I am what I say I am.
Thanks for clearing that up. I get the joke now--I didn't catch the play on words. It probably would have worked if delivered orally.

I will take you at your word that you are a ME.

On the more pertinent topic, is it possible that when you are writing "energy" you are envisaging momentum?

William Rea

10th April 2007, 12:51 PM

William Rea

10th April 2007, 12:57 PM

Consider the following situation.

A spherical shell of material is placed somewhere in interstellar space, sufficiently far from any other masses that the effect of gravity other than its own may be considered negligible. The object has mass, and all parts of it are therefore attracted towards its centre of mass. If the material is shattered into small particles, all will fall into the centre, converting their gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy as they fall. The entire system has spherical symmetry.

What is the direction of the gravitational potential energy?

Dave

Interesting, can I just clarify that the sphere is a closed system and has spontaneously shattered with no energy or work entering the system boundaries? Can the sphere also be considered to be neutral in terms of internal stresses and any pressure differences between the inside volume and outside?

chipmunk stew

10th April 2007, 01:14 PM

If I may elaborate on your model, assuming you are meaning the pole is a simple cantilever then it will bend around an internal neutral axis. On one side of the neutral axis there is tension and on the other is compression. Both involve storage of elastic strain energy at a microstructural level in the pole.

The PE will convert to KE in the direction that returns the pole to equilibrium.
Let's complete the scenario, then. Picture this:

The bent pole, as you said, stores PE in the form of elastic energy through both compression and tension (which are themselves scalar, BTW). [edit: strike-through--I was thinking of pressure, but we're talking stress]

The tension is directed "inward" toward the center of the pole along the convex side of the arc, while the compression is directed "outward" toward the ends of the pole along the concave side of the arc.

When the pole is released, the tension "pulls in" and the compression "pushes out" as PE converts to KE.

But the potential for this system to do work is in the force at the free end of the pole, perpendicular to the pole.

In what sense, practical, theoretical, or otherwise, does it make sense to assign a "vectoral quality" to this energy?

JonnyFive

10th April 2007, 01:50 PM

I'm sorry that you felt the need to deviate from a civilised discussion and enter into personalising this and attacking me as I felt we could get somewhere between us without resorting to that. Now that you have there seems little point in any further exchanges of posts.

Contrary to your opinion, I wasn't actually attacking you. I was pointing out that your understanding of physics does not appear to coincide with your profession, and I would appreciate some kind of reconcilliation of those conflicting pieces of information.

As you have lied about other matters in this thread (or, at the least, been intellectually dishonest... if I am being charitable), I don't place a very high value on your unsupported word at this point.

I also did not say that you were, in fact, a hamburger flipping engineer, I was merely pointing out that there are other uses of the word "engineer" (the "railroad engineer" example was a genuine one, the other was a joke) that a dishonest person could play on to legitimately claim to be "an engineer," without being the sort of engineer that is at all relevant to the matter at hand.

beachnut

10th April 2007, 01:52 PM

Who has a opinion the steel beams could not be ejected?????????????????? I wonder where the 248 tons of TNT energy released by each tower went?

Edited to remove insults and gave an infraction as per the new CT specific forum rules. I am leaving the remainder of the post content that is both germane to the discussion and adds value.

HeyLeroy

10th April 2007, 02:54 PM

William Rea

10th April 2007, 03:19 PM

Hey, William Rea, how do you explain my nomination? Doesn't that kinda show the impartiality of Teh Stundies? I've done my share of debunking the Conspiracy Fantasies, but I get my lumps for a stupid post, just like the troofers.

Care to comment?

ETA: And I even got four votes.

If I get the chance I will examine your nomination to assess if it needs debunking. I won't comment upon the equality of nominations at this stage.

William Rea

10th April 2007, 04:07 PM

Let's complete the scenario, then. Picture this:
The bent pole, as you said, stores PE in the form of elastic energy through both compression and tension (which are themselves scalar, BTW). [edit: strike-through--I was thinking of pressure, but we're talking stress]
The tension is directed "inward" toward the center of the pole along the convex side of the arc, while the compression is directed "outward" toward the ends of the pole along the concave side of the arc.

When the pole is released, the tension "pulls in" and the compression "pushes out" as PE converts to KE.

But the potential for this system to do work is in the force at the free end of the pole, perpendicular to the pole.

In what sense, practical, theoretical, or otherwise, does it make sense to assign a "vectoral quality" to this energy?

It is not stress energy, it is internal strain energy.

The PE is stored in the internal strain of the microstructure of the pole very much as it is in a spring. The work done has created a new equilibrium state in the strained pole in which the work input is equal to the internal strain energy. You don't say how the pole was bent but assuming it was by a human then the energy trail for the human input is chemical energy (food intake) to kinetic energy (muscle action) to potential energy (internal strain energy).

I know where you are going with the force at the end of the tip but in energy terms until the strained pole is released it is in a new state of energy equilibrium.

William Rea

10th April 2007, 04:21 PM

Thanks for clearing that up. I get the joke now--I didn't catch the play on words. It probably would have worked if delivered orally.

I will take you at your word that you are a ME.

On the more pertinent topic, is it possible that when you are writing "energy" you are envisaging momentum?

Face to face I'm sure I would have been able to successfully signal the joking nature. I do accept and try to give latitude to people on the basis that it is difficult to translate everyday signals we use when talking face to face to flag things like "hey I'm kidding you". Rather than attacking I am now trying to either ask for clarification if I am unsure or just responding neutrally to say I am not interested in hostility.

I have questioned myself several times about whether I am very effective at communicating on forums because I seem to attract so much hostility that I feel is unwarranted. I have read back several times to check this and have come to the conclusion that it deosn't matter what I say to some people on here I will only get hostility back. Having decided that it would be more fun to actually have a civillised debate rather than just keep pressing the obvious buttons that get the obvious responses I am going to offer no fuel to the flames, until I get bored with it that is.

Could you offer more explanation of you momentum comment?

chipmunk stew

10th April 2007, 04:27 PM

It is not stress energy, it is internal strain energy.

The PE is stored in the internal strain of the microstructure of the pole very much as it is in a spring. The work done has created a new equilibrium state in the strained pole in which the work input is equal to the internal strain energy. You don't say how the pole was bent but assuming it was by a human then the energy trail for the human input is chemical energy (food intake) to kinetic energy (muscle action) to potential energy (internal strain energy).

I know where you are going with the force at the end of the tip but in energy terms until the strained pole is released it is in a new state of energy equilibrium.
"...thereby demonstrating that energy [ has / does not have ] a 'vectoral quality.'"

Please complete your response in terms of the context of the discussion.

William Rea

10th April 2007, 04:37 PM

Of that, I have little doubt! :)

I've considered the somewhat frightening possibility that he was being truthful about being an engineer AND was being indeliberately muddle-headed about force vs. energy.

There is, after all, at least one practicing engineer (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-43%2CGGLG%3Aen&as_qdr=all&q=%22william+rea%22+%22avondale+house%22+OR+%22an+ bord%22&btnG=Search) by that name. This one works on relatively small-scale projects, and I suppose it's possible that certain basic physics concepts don't play all that big of a role in his day-to-day practical work. I suppose it's also possible that he made a career in engineering without ever having really understood some of those basic concepts. He may get by just fine merely by being familiar with local building codes.

I guess I owe that William Rea an apology for being linked to my crazy posting.

William Rea = Bill Rea = liBeRal

chipmunk stew

10th April 2007, 04:37 PM

Could you offer more explanation of you momentum comment?
It occurred to me that a common conceptual error people make is confusing kinetic energy with momentum. They both are directly related to mass and velocity. I don't think that's what you're doing, though, now that I think of it, because you seem to be ascribing directionality of some sort to all types of energy.

William Rea

10th April 2007, 04:48 PM

The terms used in the figures are all the same. There is no place in the text that he specifically addresses the details of Fig. 2, but you'll note:
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6282&d=1175726372
The terms are all consistent with the forces displayed in Figure 2. Note the terms "m(z)g" used in Figure 2. Also note the mathematically equivalent term "gm(z)" term used in the quoted passage:
Also note the use of the term Fc in both figures 2 and figures 3 and 4. Fc is a point on the Y axis, which axis is clearly labelled "Force". There is simply no other reasonable interpretation of Fig. 2, except that it is depicting forces.
For someone who claims to be an engineer to claim otherwise, or to claim that they could not have figured this out themselves, is simply unbelievable. It must be a deliberate attempt to mislead those who don't know how to understand such figures.
And that makes it another lie.
So, I concur: William Rea is a lying liar who lies. He lied about the context of the KT quote, and now he's lying about what the linked paper is showing.
Mr. Rea, you are a stinking liar!
And no apology will be accepted. You apologize for accidents, not for things you did with deliberate intent. From now on, all who have read this thread will know, William Rea is an honourless liar, who cannot be trusted. You have sold your reputation for a lie that lasted less than a week. I hope you're happy with that.
Liar.

I'm sorry that you felt compelled to join the detractors instead of engaging with me. I only asked you to address your comments to figure 2 and you berated me for lying about it in a baseless manner.

Your post was extremely aggressive and with repect, I found very little honorable intent on your side in it. Since you find me so disagreeable I suggest we do not exchange any further posts.

Hopefully you will not ascribe my removal of the spaces between your posting paragraphs to some malicious intent on my part as others seem to have to my habit of putting ... in the middle of long posts when replying to save space.

gumboot

10th April 2007, 05:01 PM

Get on with the debunkings already...

-Gumboot

William Rea

10th April 2007, 05:04 PM

It occurred to me that a common conceptual error people make is confusing kinetic energy with momentum. They both are directly related to mass and velocity. I don't think that's what you're doing, though, now that I think of it, because you seem to be ascribing directionality of some sort to all types of energy.

Indeed, although once again I have been accused of malicious intent I felt that the universality of Conservation of Energy could be broadened out by introducing thermodynamic energy to show energy flow. As energy is a universal concept in all branches of engineering and science I didn't feel that it was a major leap or even an obfuscation. Maybe, I was wrong.

I now understand what you meant by momentum, thanks for the clarification.

I get the impression that it is not being comprehended that all of these theoretical situations can be analysed purely in terms of Conservation of Energy without using forces. Forces have uses but they are not essential unless you want to know the dynamics.

I still contend that whatever euphemism you use gradient or vertical there is an instinctively directional or vectorial nature to energy.

It was interesting to see how much underlying principle was understood on the forum though.

gumboot

10th April 2007, 05:05 PM

To be fair to killtown (woah! I need to take a shower, now), I think he was saying "Huh ? A link to a "normal" video ? Why, that's not possible." Of course. That's still a stupid thing to post, but it's not the same level of stupid, assuming I'm correct.

A normal person might respond in that way, but remember we're talking about Killtown. Asking for an internet link to a non internet video is precisely the sort of thing I would expect Killtown to do.

-Gumboot

William Rea

10th April 2007, 05:10 PM

It's kind of late here now so time to leave but tomorrow night I will tackle my third debunking following on from the success of the previous two in this thread.

Night Y'all.

gumboot

10th April 2007, 05:19 PM

Success? Where?

-Gumboot

hellaeon

10th April 2007, 05:44 PM

Indeed, although once again I have been accused of malicious intent I felt that the universality of Conservation of Energy could be broadened out by introducing thermodynamic energy to show energy flow. As energy is a universal concept in all branches of engineering and science I didn't feel that it was a major leap or even an obfuscation. Maybe, I was wrong.

I now understand what you meant by momentum, thanks for the clarification.

I get the impression that it is not being comprehended that all of these theoretical situations can be analysed purely in terms of Conservation of Energy without using forces. Forces have uses but they are not essential unless you want to know the dynamics.

I still contend that whatever euphemism you use gradient or vertical there is an instinctively directional or vectorial nature to energy.

It was interesting to see how much underlying principle was understood on the forum though.

Oh you scientist you. Listen to all those big words!
Isn't JREF cool, learning stuff!

chipmunk stew

10th April 2007, 06:30 PM

It's kind of late here now so time to leave but tomorrow night I will tackle my third debunking following on from the success of the previous two in this thread.
wha-! dijyoojes-! aryoo-! *sputter* *ack*

You've been demonstrably wrong this whole thread. Despite claiming to be one who can admit when he's wrong, you have made no such admission in this thread FULL of wrong. And you have the gall to call your two shining examples of intellectual dishonesty "successes"?!? I'll not be so patient with you in the future as I have been thus far.

Mobyseven

10th April 2007, 08:45 PM

No one said you NEED to be a Civil Engineer to understand this topic, but you CLAIMED to be a Civil Engineer, and it strains credibility that an engineer would NOT understand this topic.

To be fair on William, that was a pretty clever pun...I had to chuckle at it.

Mobyseven

10th April 2007, 08:56 PM

To be fair to killtown (woah! I need to take a shower, now), I think he was saying "Huh ? A link to a "normal" video ? Why, that's not possible." Of course. That's still a stupid thing to post, but it's not the same level of stupid, assuming I'm correct.

I would suggest that you're probably reading more into the context than is necessary.

Killtown's quote was unaccompanied by any non-verbal cue (an emoticon, for example) to suggest he was either joking or ridiculing WWGHA's post. On top of that, WWGHA had never suggested that Killtown try downloading said file from the net - the topic of linking to a "normal" video (a word which WWGHA also put inside quotation marks, IIRC) was raised by Killtown, in an interrogative statement that had no defining traits with which to recognise it as intentional sarcasm or irony.

On top of this, the posts following Killtown's nominated post give even more context - WWGHA actually picks up on what Killtown has said and questions as to how he could possibly post a link to a non-internet video (which is what he had previously defined a "normal" video as being). Killtown's response was not to explain his statement further, but to ignore this comment and simply decry that the videos are all faked anyway.

This quick changing of topic away from a mistake that has been pointed out is known behaviour for Killtown to engage in when someone has pointed out a very silly or obvious mistake he has made. What Killtown is not well known for is letting people who deliberately or unintentionally misinterpret his words get away unscathed.

In other words, the most likely interpretation of this for a person who is NOT known to the person doing the analysis is that they said something very silly by asking for a link to an internet video. That we know that this is likely behaviour for the participant in question simply strengthens this interpretation - it is not, however the basis for it.

Mobyseven

Mobyseven

10th April 2007, 08:58 PM

I guess I owe that William Rea an apology for being linked to my crazy posting.

William Rea = Bill Rea = liBeRal

Hehe...clever. You like word games and such?

I've recently been taking a look at the 'puzzles' section of this forum. I get the feeling you'd enjoy it too...

Mobyseven

10th April 2007, 09:09 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2496528&postcount=79

William, you appear to have completely ignored my analysis here. Admittedly, this could be because I pointed out your complete intellectual dishonestly and requested an apology, but I suppose it is possible you just missed it on your way through.

I would like you to address this, and if you cannot, I would appreciate an apology both for the fact you deliberately tried to lie about the context of the quote and a retraction of your accusation that this is an ad hominem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would then like you to answer this question:

Is gravitational potential energy a vector?

All this requires is a yes / no answer.

If your answer is yes, then you will have to explain to us all how energy can be a vector, and how you came to this discovery that will overturn most of what we know about Newtonian physics.

If your answer is no, then I would appreciate a retraction of your accusation that, "...gravitational energy, which is vertical..." is an ad hominem attack.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, as you claimed to have found, "...at least two..." ad hominem attacks in the March Stundie Finalists, I would appreciate it if you could please continue to point out ad hominem attacks that are present there.

I imagine that I am not the only one who would like to see these things addressed, but I thought I'd break it down into sections for you for ease of reference.

Peace Out

Mobyseven

Horatius

10th April 2007, 09:17 PM

I'm sorry that you felt compelled to join the detractors instead of engaging with me. I only asked you to address your comments to figure 2 and you berated me for lying about it in a baseless manner.

I did "engage" you, and you responded by misrepresenting the source you claimed supported your assertions, and then implied that I was manufacturing and/or misinterpreting the quotes I cited. The fact that you chose to cloak your insinuations in superficially polite language does not change what you did. In fact, in my opinion, that makes it worse.

And I wasn't "compelled" to join your detractors. They made good points, which I agreed with, and which confirmed my own impressions of you. And to call the accuations of you being a liar "baseless" shows you either to still be lying, or to being willfully blind to the several analyses of your claims that clearly demonstrated your lies.

Your post was extremely aggressive and with repect, I found very little honorable intent on your side in it. Since you find me so disagreeable I suggest we do not exchange any further posts.

Of coure a liar finds very little honour in others who point out his lies. That's just par for the course. Yet another example of you trying to cloak a disgusting attitude with superficial politeness. Rather than simpering about "aggressive" attitudes, why not try admitting your lies, and asking forgiveness? Why not try addressing the aforementioned analyses of your lies, and demonstrating how they might not be lies?

Why not? Because you know we're right.

And we may not "exchange" posts, but I'll be around to point out any other lies of yours I see. Because, with all due respect to Douglas Adams, when you get right down to it, the one thing I really can't stand is a liar.

Horatius

10th April 2007, 09:22 PM

...I will tackle my third debunking following on from the success of the previous two in this thread.

Can we get a vote? Is this another lie, or just an honest to bog delusion?

Dave Rogers

11th April 2007, 02:17 AM

Then, as you claimed to have found, "...at least two..." ad hominem attacks in the March Stundie Finalists, I would appreciate it if you could please continue to point out ad hominem attacks that are present there.

This is, I think, the thing I find most bizarre about this thread, notwithstanding William's attempts to defend the indefensible position that energy has a vectoral quality; the completely inappropriate use of the term ad hominem. The definition of argumentum ad hominem is an attempt to discredit someone's arguments by reference to some unrelated quality of the person making them. In the case of the Griffin quote I nominated, I made no comment whatsoever about Griffin himself, and none of the discussion since has commented on anything about Griffin that is not directly related to the five words under discussion - how could any of this be further from an argumentum ad hominem?

The nearest thing to an ad hominem in this thread, in fact, was William's initial statement of his reluctance to defend the position taken by a theologian; Griffin being a theologian is irrelevant to whether or not his statements about physics are fallacious. Although appended to an expression of support, that initial statement had much in common with an ad hominem attack on Griffin - more, in any case, than energy has in common with a vector.

Dave

JonnyFive

11th April 2007, 07:23 AM

It's kind of late here now so time to leave but tomorrow night I will tackle my third debunking following on from the success of the previous two in this thread.

What in the world are you talking about?

The only thing propping up your first "debunking" was a bald-faced lie (that you "copied" the context from the LCF). The only thing supporting your second "debunking" was a misunderstanding of basic physics that you defended to the hilt, though you were clearly mistaken.

Dave Rogers

11th April 2007, 08:13 AM

Interesting, can I just clarify that the sphere is a closed system and has spontaneously shattered with no energy or work entering the system boundaries? Can the sphere also be considered to be neutral in terms of internal stresses and any pressure differences between the inside volume and outside?

Sorry, missed that post for a while. (1) isn't relevant, I'm talking about the GPE of the static system; it's not physically realistic but you can assume some mechanism that involves negligible energy if it helps. (2), yes.

Dave

Mobyseven

11th April 2007, 08:20 AM

This is, I think, the thing I find most bizarre about this thread, notwithstanding William's attempts to defend the indefensible position that energy has a vectoral quality; the completely inappropriate use of the term ad hominem. The definition of argumentum ad hominem is an attempt to discredit someone's arguments by reference to some unrelated quality of the person making them. In the case of the Griffin quote I nominated, I made no comment whatsoever about Griffin himself, and none of the discussion since has commented on anything about Griffin that is not directly related to the five words under discussion - how could any of this be further from an argumentum ad hominem?

The nearest thing to an ad hominem in this thread, in fact, was William's initial statement of his reluctance to defend the position taken by a theologian; Griffin being a theologian is irrelevant to whether or not his statements about physics are fallacious. Although appended to an expression of support, that initial statement had much in common with an ad hominem attack on Griffin - more, in any case, than energy has in common with a vector.

Dave

Dammit!!! Why did you have to give away my surprise ending??? :mad:

I'm not kidding about this actually...I've been waiting for William to make another claim just so I could spring this one on him.

See, I figured the discussions re his first two claims had been so well examined and shown to be bunk that bringing this up would just continue discussion on topics that had really reached the end of the line (I've summarised what I, and most people are expecting from you in regards to the first two accusations in a post just above this, William).

Waiting for him to bring up a new accusation, my first question was simply going to be: "And how is that an ad hominem?"

I probably should have done that right when this all started, but I so quickly got involved in debating the original grounds for inclusion in the finals that by the time he started this new thread I didn't want to have the appearance of ignoring his arguments by presenting this issue.

I suppose I can still ask that question when he has a third attempt, but it's lost its surprise value now. Dangit!

... :mad:

Dave Rogers

11th April 2007, 08:22 AM

It's kind of late here now so time to leave but tomorrow night I will tackle my third debunking following on from the success of the previous two in this thread.

As this was post #160 in this thread, I thought it would be an appropriate point to take the measure of this success. Categorising these 160 posts, we have:

47 posts by William Rea.
1 post supporting a specific debunking.
8 posts either neutral, or supportive of the concept of the thread without comments on specific content.
104 posts opposing William Rea's arguments, including 24 specifically accusing him of lying, demanding an apology for lying or stating that his credibility is permanently damaged in the poster's opinion.

I also categorised attitudes of 26 posters in the first 160 posts:

1 poster is William Rea himself.
1 poster was supportive of a debunk.
4 posters were generally neutral in tone.
20 posters opposed William Rea's arguments.

I haven't done any cool looking pie charts, but based on the raw numbers it seems a little unclear to me what would constitute failure.

Dave

Dave Rogers

11th April 2007, 08:36 AM

Dammit!!! Why did you have to give away my surprise ending??? :mad:

Sorry, I should have posted a spoiler warning.:o

Waiting for him to bring up a new accusation, my first question was simply going to be: "And how is that an ad hominem?"

I think he's already got his answer ready, though. Check post 72 in this thread.

I will not withdraw the ad hominem accusation because to my satisfaction it is proven so you are correct that it is open and shut.

In other words, an ad hominem is anything William Rea thinks is an ad hominem.

Dave

Mobyseven

11th April 2007, 08:44 AM

As this was post #160 in this thread, I thought it would be an appropriate point to take the measure of this success. Categorising these 160 posts, we have:

47 posts by William Rea.
1 post supporting a specific debunking.
8 posts either neutral, or supportive of the concept of the thread without comments on specific content.
104 posts opposing William Rea's arguments, including 24 specifically accusing him of lying, demanding an apology for lying or stating that his credibility is permanently damaged in the poster's opinion.

I also categorised attitudes of 26 posters in the first 160 posts:

1 poster is William Rea himself.
1 poster was supportive of a debunk.
4 posters were generally neutral in tone.
20 posters opposed William Rea's arguments.

I haven't done any cool looking pie charts, but based on the raw numbers it seems a little unclear to me what would constitute failure.

Dave

It would, however, be wrong to categorise William as wrong or a liar simply because the majority of people here think so. That right there is an appeal to popularity.

William is wrong and a liar, and this has been shown in the content of the posts. The number of posts is only so great because he has yet to admit to these things.

Mobyseven

11th April 2007, 08:46 AM

Sorry, I should have posted a spoiler warning.:o

Ah, who I am kidding. You're too informative for me to stay anggry at you for too long...

I think he's already got his answer ready, though. Check post 72 in this thread.

...

In other words, an ad hominem is anything William Rea thinks is an ad hominem.

I sure hope he has a better argument than that in store. Otherwise he is going to be ripped to shreds. Well, his argument will be anyway.

chipmunk stew

11th April 2007, 08:51 AM

I sure hope he has a better argument than that in store. Otherwise he is going to be ripped to shreds. Well, his argument will be anyway.
By which you mean, his argument will be a resounding success.

Mobyseven

11th April 2007, 08:58 AM

By which you mean, his argument will be a resounding success.

You work in the Ministry of Truth as well?

Horatius

11th April 2007, 09:12 AM

I haven't done any cool looking pie charts, but based on the raw numbers it seems a little unclear to me what would constitute failure.

Dave

Every now and then, someone comes up with a line that just summarizes everything perfectly!

:)

Belz...

11th April 2007, 10:57 AM

A normal person might respond in that way, but remember we're talking about Killtown. Asking for an internet link to a non internet video is precisely the sort of thing I would expect Killtown to do.

Which is why I'm not assuming anything. I'm just pointing out that this short sentence by Killclown might actually not have been AS stupid as we thought. In fact, I've never read it that way, since it was Stundied.

Killtown's quote was unaccompanied by any non-verbal cue (an emoticon, for example) to suggest he was either joking or ridiculing WWGHA's post. On top of that, WWGHA had never suggested that Killtown try downloading said file from the net - the topic of linking to a "normal" video (a word which WWGHA also put inside quotation marks, IIRC) was raised by Killtown, in an interrogative statement that had no defining traits with which to recognise it as intentional sarcasm or irony.

That seems irrelevant :

Hypothetical poster: "If you check a NORMAL video (not an internet compression), Belz..., you'll see that your interpretation makes no sense."
Belz...: "Link to a "normal" video ? How would you want me to do that ?"
H.P.: "You can WALK, Belz..."

Leaving out the last part of my hypothetical reply would not be unexpected from an internet poster. I find it hard to believe that even Killtown would want a link to something that, by definition, cannot have one.

Mobyseven

11th April 2007, 11:45 AM

That seems irrelevant :

Hypothetical poster: "If you check a NORMAL video (not an internet compression), Belz..., you'll see that your interpretation makes no sense."
Belz...: "Link to a "normal" video ? How would you want me to do that ?"
H.P.: "You can WALK, Belz..."

Leaving out the last part of my hypothetical reply would not be unexpected from an internet poster. I find it hard to believe that even Killtown would want a link to something that, by definition, cannot have one.

Were the exchange between Killtown and WWGHA to resemble what you have posted between your hypothetical poster and yourself you would have a point.

But your exchange and the exchange that actually took place are quite different.

Most importantly, Killtown's response was not, "Link to a "normal" video ? How would you want me to do that ?" It was simply, "Link to a "normal" video?" Given that the other part of that post was simply, "Example?" it would be reasonable to assume that both parts of the post were requests. There is nothing in Killtown's post that suggests his "Link to a "normal" video?" remark is anything other than a request for a link.

Next most importantly, your hypothetical poster's reply to your statement is an unnecessary addition, as there WAS in fact a follow-up to Killtown's post. WWGHA expressed confusion at Killtown's apparent request for a link to a non-internet video. Killtown did not do anything to clarify his nominated post. There was no ridiculing of WWGHA for his ridiculous suggestion that Killtown was asking for a link to a non-internet video or any other sort of clarification.

Yes, other interpretations of Killtown's post are possible. It is entirely within the realms of possibility that everything Killtown has ever posted has simply been part of a huge practical joke and that he's having a good laugh at us taking him and his ideas as though he is being serious.

But the interpretation of Killtown's post that is far and away the most probable interpretation, in fact to a degree that I would suggest gives any other interpretation only a very, very remote probability of being correct, is that Killtown was asking for a link to a video that is by definition not on the internet.

I really don't understand why this debate is even still taking place. WWGHA defined a "normal" video as a non-internet video. Killtown then asked for a link to a non-internet video. This is BASIC linguistic analysis...

Mobyseven

11th April 2007, 11:46 AM

I find it hard to believe that even Killtown would want a link to something that, by definition, cannot have one.

Argument from incredulity.

William Rea

11th April 2007, 01:23 PM

I haven't argued the case for the original statement from a position of ignorance as you would like to think but as a Devil's Advocate.

I am trained in and used to the Newton-centric world view where Energy is essentially an abstract concept and mechanistic Forces acting upon Masses are the key outputs required.

From the opposite view point Energy is not abstract, it is tangible. It is as easy to conceptualise from an energetic point of view where forces are an incidental result of energy doing work. The direction of the resulting forces are aligned with how Energy has the ability to carry out this Work. Can you demonstrate how Gravitational Potential Energy working on a free body will spontaneously create a force that acts directly away from the two centres of mass? Of course the person who questioned the concept of vertical knew that working with Potential Energy requires a reference framework, one of the three axes that are commonly chosen to simplify the mathematics is commonly referred to as vertical.

Energy is a universal concept across many academic disciplines, doing work on a closed system will raise its Energy just as getting a closed system to do work will lower its Energy. This is true for Thermodynamics and it seems to be the general opinion that I introduced this concept to obfuscate but it was merely to show how Energy as a universal concept works.

The need for energy to move towards equilibrium makes the Potential Energy of an object Work on its mass to lower its Energy. That is the direction, the driving force. Mechanical systems are not immune from the law of Conservation of Energy so just as Energy behaves Thermodynamically so it does Mechanically.

This is why the Stundie nomination was not deserved.

I have tried to explain this in as close to layman's terms as I can so if it is not scientifically rigorous enough for you then I invite you to ask questions for further clarification rather than berate me for straying from text book science.

This is my last post on this particular nomination except where people require clarification. It has been sad for me that the journey could not have been more pleasant but it told me a lot about the forum.

William Rea

11th April 2007, 01:45 PM

Well, energy and motion Are out of the purview of Civil Engineers...They go to great lengths to make sure things don't move.

They also go to great lengths to make sure things do move so that they have toughness.

Horatius

11th April 2007, 01:54 PM

It has been sad for me that the journey could not have been more pleasant but it told me a lot about the forum.

I hope one of the things it has told you is that we won't passively accept false assertions.

William Rea

11th April 2007, 01:59 PM

I hope one of the things it has told you is that we won't passively accept false assertions.

Since I am striving to be polite I will not indulge in personalising this so, no further comment.

Horatius

11th April 2007, 02:14 PM

Since I am striving to be polite I will not indulge in personalising this so, no further comment.

Forget polite, strive to be honest.

Pipirr

11th April 2007, 02:15 PM

William Rea

11th April 2007, 02:18 PM

Forget polite, strive to be honest.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2511058#post2511058

William Rea

11th April 2007, 02:32 PM

This Killtown ‘debunking’ reminded me of what I always disliked about English Lit, namely the subjective interpretation of of somebody’s writing. If you want to know what an author really meant, just ask them! Sitting around guessing their intention doesn’t really get the debate anywhere; people can just defend whatever piece of guesswork best fits their own biases. You could just ask Killtown directly, and agree or disagree to take his answer, if one were forthcoming, as the final word.
Debunking a Stundie (or nominating one) on the basis of what you think somebody meant, from their somewhat ambiguous phrase, can lead to an unresolvable debate about meanings and intentions.
It reminded me of this exchange between Lisa Simpson and Amy Tan:
My verdict, for what it's worth:
WR didn't succesfully debunk the Killtown nomination, for reasons stated above. He can have only as much certainty of what was meant by Killtown as any of the rest of us. I think that particular nomination was too much of an 'inside joke' than anything else; a new reader of this forum may not have any understanding of what that quote represented.

My success depended not upon showing the nominated interpretation as incorrect. I only needed to show that based upon the available facts, there were alternative interpretations that were just as if not more likely. I did that with considerable ease.

I couldn't agree with you more that the only way to truthfully know would be to ask the author of the post. I would point out that this was not done prior to the quote being accepted for nomination. In addition, there is so much personal dislike of Killtown that many would not believe his evidence anyway.

At the end of the day, this nomination is a straight down the middle ad hominem. It is an attack based not upon the known facts or facts that could be obtained with further investigation. It was nominated based upon hateful intent against the original poster and the fact that the poster is considered fair game by the forum.

To anyone that denies that, prove it by contacting Killtown or withdraw the nomination.

HyJinX

11th April 2007, 02:50 PM

My success depended not upon showing the nominated interpretation as incorrect.

So you're trying to win something here? Were you successful? What did you win?

I only needed to show that based upon the available facts, there were alternative interpretations that were just as if not more likely.

According to your own personal interpretation.

I did that with considerable ease.

And yet the debate is still rolling on. You sure about this statement?

I couldn't agree with you more that the only way to truthfully know would be to ask the author of the post. I would point out that this was not done prior to the quote being accepted for nomination.

Nor was it done by you before you started your arguement.

In addition, there is so much personal dislike of Killtown that many would not believe his evidence anyway.

Speculation.

At the end of the day, this nomination is a straight down the middle ad hominem.

According to your own personal interpretation, that is.

It is an attack based not upon the known facts or facts that could be obtained with further investigation.

So find out. Go do a little investigation and then come back here to let us know if it was truly an unwarranted "attack".

It was nominated based upon hateful intent against the original poster

Now there's an unwarranted attack.

and the fact that the poster is considered fair game by the forum.

Aren't we all.

To anyone that denies that, prove it by contacting Killtown or withdraw the nomination.

We'll let you take care of this, since you're the one who has the issue.

Arkan_Wolfshade

11th April 2007, 02:56 PM

<snip>
At the end of the day, this nomination is a straight down the middle ad hominem. It is an attack based not upon the known facts or facts that could be obtained with further investigation. It was nominated based upon hateful intent against the original poster and the fact that the poster is considered fair game by the forum.

To anyone that denies that, prove it by contacting Killtown or withdraw the nomination.
That (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_hominem) is (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem) not (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) an (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem) ad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) hominem (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html) argument.

Making fun of something stupid that someone says is FUNDEMENTALLY DIFFERENT than saying that their claim is false because they said something stupid.

Horatius

11th April 2007, 03:20 PM

My success depended not upon showing the nominated interpretation as incorrect. I only needed to show that based upon the available facts, there were alternative interpretations that were just as if not more likely. I did that with considerable ease.

Your "success" depended on completely altering the context of the quote (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496528#post2496528). Winning is easy when you can just make stuff up. Winning while being truthful is slightly more challenging.

Not that you'd know that.

chipmunk stew

11th April 2007, 04:19 PM

I haven't argued the case for the original statement from a position of ignorance as you would like to think but as a Devil's Advocate.

I am trained in and used to the Newton-centric world view where Energy is essentially an abstract concept and mechanistic Forces acting upon Masses are the key outputs required.

From the opposite view point Energy is not abstract, it is tangible. It is as easy to conceptualise from an energetic point of view where forces are an incidental result of energy doing work. The direction of the resulting forces are aligned with how Energy has the ability to carry out this Work. Can you demonstrate how Gravitational Potential Energy working on a free body will spontaneously create a force that acts directly away from the two centres of mass? Of course the person who questioned the concept of vertical knew that working with Potential Energy requires a reference framework, one of the three axes that are commonly chosen to simplify the mathematics is commonly referred to as vertical.

Energy is a universal concept across many academic disciplines, doing work on a closed system will raise its Energy just as getting a closed system to do work will lower its Energy. This is true for Thermodynamics and it seems to be the general opinion that I introduced this concept to obfuscate but it was merely to show how Energy as a universal concept works.

The need for energy to move towards equilibrium makes the Potential Energy of an object Work on its mass to lower its Energy. That is the direction, the driving force. Mechanical systems are not immune from the law of Conservation of Energy so just as Energy behaves Thermodynamically so it does Mechanically.
This is gibberish. It makes no more sense from a layman's viewpoint than it does from a physicist's.

This is why the Stundie nomination was not deserved.
I'm not sure what you think the "Stundies" are, but Griffin's statement was wrong, and he used that wrong statement to wrongly question the behavior of the collapsing WTC towers--he made a wrong statement in an area that was so clearly out of his league, and with such authority, that the person who nominated it thought we'd get a chuckle from it. And we did.

I have tried to explain this in as close to layman's terms as I can so if it is not scientifically rigorous enough for you then I invite you to ask questions for further clarification rather than berate me for straying from text book science.
Layman's terms still have to be accurate. When we explain something in layman's terms, it doesn't mean we explain something according to a layman's misconceptions, it means we explain something that a layman finds counterintuitive and/or complex using descriptive examples and analogies, in everyday, familiar language. But we do so while remaining accurate, the goal being to give the layman an accurate understanding of the concept.

If a layman were to read your gibberish above, do you suppose they'd have a better understanding of the relationships among energy, work and force?

William Rea

11th April 2007, 04:32 PM

This is gibberish. It makes no more sense from a layman's viewpoint than it does from a physicist's.

Which bit specifically makes no sense? I said I would gladly offer clarification, so which areas need sharpening up and where have I made an error?

William Rea

11th April 2007, 04:55 PM

I'm not sure what you think the "Stundies" are, but Griffin's statement was wrong, and he used that wrong statement to wrongly question the behavior of the collapsing WTC towers--he made a wrong statement in an area that was so clearly out of his league, and with such authority, that the person who nominated it thought we'd get a chuckle from it. And we did.

Could be...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2448632#post2448632

Or...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2480662#post2480662

Or...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506344#post2506344

To be honest the only common definition I could find was that it was a chance to laugh at how stupid other people are, you can draw your own conclusion about the intent of the Stundies from that.

chipmunk stew

11th April 2007, 05:01 PM

Could be...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2448632#post2448632

Or...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2480662#post2480662

Or...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506344#post2506344

To be honest the only common definition I could find was that it was a chance to laugh at how stupid other people are, you can draw your own conclusion about the intent of the Stundies from that.
At truly stupid comments. You'll note that HeyLeroy had a quote nominated. Neither the person who nominated him, nor anyone else that I know of, considers him a stupid person. Quite the contrary.

William Rea

11th April 2007, 05:10 PM

At truly stupid comments. You'll note that HeyLeroy had a quote nominated. Neither the person who nominated him, nor anyone else that I know of, considers him a stupid person. Quite the contrary.

With respect, I would truely like to subscribe to your more generous interpretation, but experience tells me otherwise. :)

I digress.

chipmunk stew

11th April 2007, 06:06 PM

With respect, I would truely like to subscribe to your more generous interpretation, but experience tells me otherwise. :)

I digress.
It just so happens that stupid people (people unable or unwilling to learn and to correct their errors) generate the most stupid quotes and the stupidest stupid quotes. :)

I digress.

Mobyseven

11th April 2007, 08:54 PM

Could be...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2448632#post2448632 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2448632#post2448632)

Or...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2480662#post2480662 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2480662#post2480662)

Or...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506344#post2506344 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506344#post2506344)

To be honest the only common definition I could find was that it was a chance to laugh at how stupid other people are, you can draw your own conclusion about the intent of the Stundies from that.

You can be as arrogant as you want, but if you're going to link to not one but three of my posts, you can sure-shooting bet I'm going to respond.

I those were the only definitions of The Stundie you could find I'm a bit shocked - it has been pointed out multiple times that they are a still evolving concept. I find it very interesting that you posted (with your third link) only two of the trial rules for The Stundie when on the very first page of that thread I clearly list a number of trial rules for April...

Let me point out some things you may have missed though...

... they deal directly with stupid things said by conspiracy theorists...

So the nominations deal with the things that are said, not the people who said them. This has been broadened to include debunkers as well, as can be evidenced by the March Finalists.

Stundie nominations should 'stand alone'. Do not over-embellish introductions, but do provide comments. Do not use any blatant ad hominem attacks.

In other words, nominations must be about the actual thing being said and not the poster. Nominations must not even be accompanied by ad hominem comments.

From the third link again...

Make sure that nominations are being posted because of the arguments or claims being put forward and not simply because you dislike the person.

And in regards to any ad hominem attacks that are posted...

Be advised too that even if you do post such nominations here, they won't make it through to the final vote.

As for your second link - I don't think that posting the tongue-in-cheek in-joke ridden Stundie speech is entirely convincing as an argument. After all, it is a work of humor, not a strict definition of The Stundies.

Now, once again you seem to have missed my post from above. I'll repost it here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2496528&postcount=79

William, you appear to have completely ignored my analysis here. Admittedly, this could be because I pointed out your complete intellectual dishonestly and requested an apology, but I suppose it is possible you just missed it on your way through.

I would like you to address this, and if you cannot, I would appreciate an apology both for the fact you deliberately tried to lie about the context of the quote and a retraction of your accusation that this is an ad hominem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would then like you to answer this question:

Is gravitational potential energy a vector?

All this requires is a yes / no answer.

If your answer is yes, then you will have to explain to us all how energy can be a vector, and how you came to this discovery that will overturn most of what we know about Newtonian physics.

If your answer is no, then I would appreciate a retraction of your accusation that, "...gravitational energy, which is vertical..." is an ad hominem attack.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, as you claimed to have found, "...at least two..." ad hominem attacks in the March Stundie Finalists, I would appreciate it if you could please continue to point out ad hominem attacks that are present there.

I imagine that I am not the only one who would like to see these things addressed, but I thought I'd break it down into sections for you for ease of reference.

Peace Out

Mobyseven

Would you kindly address the issues that have been raised here?

Mr.D

11th April 2007, 09:02 PM

1. I have never claimed to be a Civil Engineer. I have no idea why I would need to be uniquely qualified as a Civil Engineer to understand this topic.

I stand corrected. I used the search engine for posts by you with "engineer" and too quickly latched on to your 'uncivil engineer' joke post. Nevertheless, the basic point stands. I have a difficult time reconciling the basic knowledge required to be any kind of engineer with the content of some of your posts.

A. I have not modified my position once.

Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2. Velocity has speed and direction.

I would say in this sense that energy has a direction

Reference post #88 above. If Gravitational Energy (remember the nomination said Gravitational Energy NOT Energy) is scalar then why is it proportional to a vectoral quantity?

I read these posts as you claiming that energy is a vector with both magnitude and direction.

I am saying that energy has a vectoral quality, specific examples being that gravitational energy can only be released in one direction which is commonly referred to as vertical, that thermal energy only flows from hot to cold.

Energy is scalar as far as the scientific and engineering community is concerned.

And I read this as backing off to saying "vectoral quality."

If I'm interpreting your posts incorrectly and you meant all along this "vectoral quality," my general point still stands. I can't reconcile the claim of being an engineer with this "energy has a directonal sense" notion.

B. I haven't claimed that energy isn't scalar, I simply asserted that it has a sense of direction like a vector and no one as yet has shown me that it doesn't.

1) Consider a wagon on a slope. If GPE "points down," and "releases vertically" why will the wagon move diagonally down the slope? There is no "horizontal component" to the GPE. Also, how does this "vertical energy" get converted into the rotational kinetic energy of the wheels? And which direction "vectorally" is that rotational KE pointing? For energy to have a "vectoral quality" and also be conserved, you'd better make those directions add up on both sides of the equation!

2) I have a AA battery on my desk. It has roughly 1000 Joules (http://forums.randi.org/http://www.evworld.com/library/energy_numbers.pdf) of chemical potential energy in it which will release when the battery is connected to an electrical circuit. In which direction is that chemical PE pointing?

3) There's an atom which is in an excited state; Namely one of its outermost electrons is in a "higher orbit" (The Bohr model is just fine here) than the ground state. In which direction is this excitation energy pointed?

4) There's a crate containing a ton of TNT explosives sitting in a field. In which direction is the chemical potential energy of the explosives pointing?

5) And while we're at it: Using conservation of energy, and without using forces forces, solve the one-dimensional perfectly elastic (no loss of energy) collision between two equal masses;

(M) --> V1 V2<-- (M)

Namely; solve for the velocity of one of the masses after the collision in terms of the mass M and the initial velocities V1 and V2.

In answer to your problem I would simplify it by taking a cross sectional view of the disc showing the direction of transfer of heat energy from the inner to outer edge.

In reference to my heating the center of a disc example, is this your claim? (I hope the ASCII art works out)
___________________
|_____<--*-->_____|

That the thermal energy in this case, which will move radially, has a "vectoral quality?" A vector cannot point in every direction (in the plane of the disk) at the same time. Alternately, if one integrates the sum of the "differential vectors" over all angles, guess what? The directions cancel out, and the thermal energy's "vectoral quality" sums to zero mangnitude.

C. I need you to clarify what you mean when you say I have mixed "work" and "energy" because I do not understand how you then extrapolate this to imply my education must be sub-standard in some way.

Actually it is the work that gravitational energy does on the mass that makes stuff fall down.

This makes no sense at all if one is using the terms "work" and "energy" in their scientific sense.

I am still willing to go through that excercise of modelling the WTC collapses, but not if we're going to have to argue like this over basic concepts and terminology.

Horatius

12th April 2007, 08:44 AM

4) There's a crate containing a ton of TNT explosives sitting in a field. In which direction is the chemical potential energy of the explosives pointing?

All of them!

In reference to my heating the center of a disc example, is this your claim? (I hope the ASCII art works out)
___________________
|_____<--*-->_____|

That the thermal energy in this case, which will move radially, has a "vectoral quality?" A vector cannot point in every direction (in the plane of the disk) at the same time. Alternately, if one integrates the sum of the "differential vectors" over all angles, guess what? The directions cancel out, and the thermal energy's "vectoral quality" sums to zero mangnitude.

Ah, nuts! Spoilsport!

I am still willing to go through that excercise of modelling the WTC collapses, but not if we're going to have to argue like this over basic concepts and terminology.

I think you'll have to wait. Mr. Rea has gone and gotten upset at us nasty people for pointing out his prevarications, and has decided that he should be the judge of what is civil discussion, and what is not. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79213)

Perhaps we could start listing the things that he considers to be "civil debate", just so we have a handle on it?

William Rea

12th April 2007, 03:14 PM

This makes no sense at all if one is using the terms "work" and "energy" in their scientific sense.

Which scientific sense do you wish to use?

Horatius

12th April 2007, 03:34 PM

Which scientific sense do you wish to use?

How about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work):

In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force. Like energy, it is a scalar quantity, with SI units of joules. Heat conduction is not considered to be a form of work, since there is no macroscopically measurable force, only microscopic forces occurring in atomic collisions. In the 1830s, the French mathematician Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis coined the term work for the product of force and distance.[1]

Positive and negative signs of work indicate whether the object exerting the force is transferring energy to some other object, or receiving it. A baseball pitcher, for example, does positive work on the ball, but the catcher does negative work on it. Work can be zero even when there is a force. The centripetal force in uniform circular motion, for example, does zero work because the kinetic energy of the moving object doesn't change. Likewise, when a book sits on a table, the table does no work on the book, because no energy is transferred into or out of the book.

When the force is constant and along the same line as the motion, the work can be calculated by multiplying the force by the distance, W = Fd (letting both F and d have positive or negative signs, according to the coordinate system chosen). When the force does not lie along the same line as the motion, this can be generalized to the scalar product of force and displacement vectors.

William Rea

12th April 2007, 05:06 PM

How about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work):

With respect, since your previous post was so disrespectful I am not inclined to answer you directly on this point. If you really wish to understand it then please read my correspondence with Mr D.

Mobyseven

12th April 2007, 05:19 PM

With respect, since your previous post was so disrespectful I am not inclined to answer you directly on this point. If you really wish to understand it then please read my correspondence with Mr D.

Wha...huh...bu...no...

Are you expecting to get a different scientific definition from Mr D., or are you just deliberately being difficult?

I notice that you are still ignoring my posts. Tell me, how does ignoring arguments strengthen your position?

Horatius

12th April 2007, 05:22 PM

With respect, since your previous post was so disrespectful I am not inclined to answer you directly on this point. If you really wish to understand it then please read my correspondence with Mr D.

Ah, I love how you use a facade of politeness to try and paint others in a bad light. What is "respectful" about manufacturing evidence and misrepresenting sources? What is "respectful" about trying to cover up your transgressions by equivocating about terms that have well-understood definitions? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work)

chipmunk stew

12th April 2007, 05:29 PM

Which scientific sense do you wish to use?
The William Rea School of Science sense. :rolleyes:

Seriously, what types do we have to choose from, William? As far as I know, there's only one "scientific sense" in which "work" and "energy" are used.

William Rea

12th April 2007, 05:33 PM

...I have a difficult time reconciling the basic knowledge required to be any kind of engineer with the content of some of your posts.
I read these posts as you claiming that energy is a vector with both magnitude and direction.
And I read this as backing off to saying "vectoral quality."
If I'm interpreting your posts incorrectly and you meant all along this "vectoral quality," my general point still stands. I can't reconcile the claim of being an engineer with this "energy has a directonal sense" notion.

If you refer to my post at...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2510944#post2510944

Where I have already addressed this issue.

I had rather hoped that someone would have spotted this by now. Since it has not been taken on board I guess I will have to be more direct. The assumption about Griffin's statement is that there is only a Newton-centric (Physics) concept of Energy based upon Work which is considered as a Force acting over a Distance. In this definition Energy is not a tangible "thing" but only exists when a Force does Work on a Mass.

In fact Energy has a direction which is towards equilibrium.

I have no problem with viewing Work as being the result of humans using mechanisms to exploit this "directionality" of energy. Heat Engines exploit the flow of thermal energy through a working substance between a Hot and Cold (High and Low Energy) gradient. Interestingly the Efficiency of Heat Engines is measured in terms of this gradient.

I plead guilty to the charge of being vague and playing around with the Physics in a Devil's Advocate manner, as I said before, it has told me a lot about the forum.

I will take the liberty of addressing your scenario's one by one so as not to get in a confused mess, which may mean you have to wait a day or two for them.

William Rea

12th April 2007, 06:08 PM

1) Consider a wagon on a slope. If GPE "points down," and "releases vertically" why will the wagon move diagonally down the slope? There is no "horizontal component" to the GPE. Also, how does this "vertical energy" get converted into the rotational kinetic energy of the wheels? And which direction "vectorally" is that rotational KE pointing? For energy to have a "vectoral quality" and also be conserved, you'd better make those directions add up on both sides of the equation!

An interesting scenario and one which I expected to arise because of the horizontal element.

For convenience I will initially start by making the Closed System around the wagon. We can develop it from there but I would like to start basic if you have no objections. I will also assume that the datum is what we would commonly term the bottom of the hill.

Energetically (assuming there are neglegible frictional losses) the slope of the hill is meaningless and would be considered simply as a mechanism to convert the Energy from GPE into a useful direction to use the Kinetic Energy output for whatever reason we choose. This would be like any other mechanical construct that involves a wedge i.e. a screw thread.

The horizontal element therefore is a red herring.

The GPE in the Closed System will work on the mass converting to Kinetic Energy just as it would if falling directly.

Because of the slope the Power Output will reduce (the reverse effect of using the slope to enable us to lift the wagon more effectively).

chipmunk stew

12th April 2007, 06:39 PM

An interesting scenario and one which I expected to arise because of the horizontal element.

For convenience I will initially start by making the Closed System around the wagon. We can develop it from there but I would like to start basic if you have no objections. I will also assume that the datum is what we would commonly term the bottom of the hill.

Energetically (assuming there are neglegible frictional losses) the slope of the hill is meaningless and would be considered simply as a mechanism to convert the Energy from GPE into a useful direction to use the Kinetic Energy output for whatever reason we choose. This would be like any other mechanical construct that involves a wedge i.e. a screw thread.

The horizontal element therefore is a red herring.

The GPE in the Closed System will work on the mass converting to Kinetic Energy just as it would if falling directly.

Because of the slope the Power Output will reduce (the reverse effect of using the slope to enable us to lift the wagon more effectively).
But in the real world, energy is lost through friction. Explain the conversion of the wagon's KE to heat/sound in terms of its "vectoral quality".

Anti-sophist

12th April 2007, 08:26 PM

I am going to wade into this vectoral energy conversation late, having seen the other thread, and having read most of this thread. Please ignore me if I'm repeating myself or others.

First, let me start with the definition of energy. It's scalar. Everyone should agree on that. Similarly, all the physical laws of nature involving energy are defined using a scalar form of energy.

While it can be said that gravitational energy can only be "released" one way, that's a highly imprecise language compared with standard physics. There is no mathematical description for "energy release" along a vector. Similarly, any such quantity as "vectoral energy" or any such equations defining the actions of "vectoral energy" very much differ what what is known as energy.

In other words, on a semantic level alone, the concept of "vectorial energy" isn't energy. This alone doesn't make it meaningless or useless, just different. And different implies that none of the laws relating to energy apply to vectoral energy.

Also, I'd like to clear up some misconceptions from William from early on (I only read his posts, so if someone else corrected him, I might have missed it).

Are you saying gravitational energy has no directional sense?

Potential or Gravitational energy = mgh where g = acceleration. Acceleration is change in Velocity with time. Change in velocity can occur either by change in speed or direction. Gravitational Energy is derived from forces occuring between the centres of mass of two objects, that is a unidirectional relationship.

This is not technically correct and leads to a slightly wrong interpretation. In the equation mgh, g and h are not vectors, but magnitudes. The equation is technically m*||g||*||h||. I use bold for vectors and non-bold for scalars.

More accurately,
GPE = m(G dot H) where the acceleration due to gravity and the "height" are vectors. The dot product of two vectors is always a scalar. This equation demonstrates that there is no direction in the GPE. Consequently, the comment about acceleration also being a change in direction is true but irrelevant in this case. The dot product projects the acceleration due to gravity to a specific vector (no idea if you followed that... in other words... because G and H are gaurenteed to be measured along the same line, the projection of one onto the other is equal to the magnitudes (no direction) multiplied).

No aspect of the vectors involved (acceleration or displacement) "survives" the dot product.

Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2. Velocity has speed and direction.
Similarly, the equation for KE contains the term 'v' but that it is -not- a velocity vector. Kinetic energy's full equation (vectors bolded) is 1/2 (V dot V), which simplifies to 1/2 ||V||*||V|| because an identical vector always points in the same direction as itself. The dot product results in a scalar quantity, demonstrating the scalar nature of energy.

I would say in this sense that energy has a direction and is therefore able to be represented vectorally.However, in that sense (the mathematical one, that is), the exact opposite is true. The directions "cancel", for lack of a better term, and the final unit has no direction.

In our world view Potential or Graviatational energy is described vectorally as acting vertically as opposed to horizontally.But gravitational energy doesn't act in any direction as demonstrated above. If you have some alternate definition of gravitational energy which preserves direction, I'd like to see it. However, your new "vectoral energy" isn't the same as gravitational potential energy, and all the laws of physics that normal GPE applies to likely won't apply to your new vectoral version.

That is not to say there isn't some physical significance to a vector-energy. It certainly has some "meaning". The only question is what equations can you use to determine it's behavior. My suspicion is that such a quantity is fairly useless, but I might be wrong. The error comes when you try to apply normal physics of energy to "vectoral energy" as the very-original-post did.

Anti-sophist

12th April 2007, 08:49 PM

Energetically (assuming there are neglegible frictional losses) the slope of the hill is meaningless and would be considered simply as a mechanism to convert the Energy from GPE into a useful direction to use the Kinetic Energy output for whatever reason we choose. This would be like any other mechanical construct that involves a wedge i.e. a screw thread.

The horizontal element therefore is a red herring.

The GPE in the Closed System will work on the mass converting to Kinetic Energy just as it would if falling directly.

This is all correct. Although you did neglect to mention that we also need to assume neglible energy loss to the rotation of the wheels of the wagon.

However, there is a keypoint in this thought experiment that you seem to be missing. At the start of your system, using vectoral-energy, you have X energy "pointing down" and at the end of your system you have X energy "pointing sideways".

Normal scalar energy is conserved such that we can say delta-E of our closed system is 0, or
Estart = Efinish, right?
We get X energy = X energy.
Great. Everything looks great.

In your vectoral-energy setup, you started with downwards energy and ended up with sideways energy. What happens if we try to conserve vectoral energy?

VEstart = VEfinish?
X to the left = X down, or,
(X,0) = (0,X), or,
Xi = Xj

In other words, "vectoral energy" is only conserved if left = down, or i=j, or x=y (or whatever your favorite coordinate system is). Vectoral energy isn't useful unless you ignore direction (hinting at the fact that energy is directionless). The problem isn't with the "vectoral energy" concept.. it's with the fact that it produces gibberish results when trying to apply normal energy concepts to it, unless you ignore direction.

This is the exact same mistake the original post made.

William Rea

13th April 2007, 05:52 AM

This is all correct. Although you did neglect to mention that we also need to assume neglible energy loss to the rotation of the wheels of the wagon.

Two good posts that I will need time to absorb before coming back to you fully.

Just as an aside, I believe I pointed out that I would initially assume any frictional losses to be neglegible and I was willing to carry on and analyse that energetically after looking at the significant factors.

Since you show good understanding of what I am alluding to I will add my thoughts now.

Because I assumed the wagon itself was a closed system then the kinetic energy of the wheels relative to the axles transforms to thermal energy which would be be output from the closed system as thermal energy. As per the slope I would consider the wheel bearings to be a mechanism that is energetically irrelevant except that it transforms the energy into a form that can cross the boundary of the closed system. In terms of friction between the wheels and the slope I would consider this the same way except that Work crosses the system boundary and is transformed into heat outside the closed system.

I would be very interested in your comments on the above.

Anti-sophist

13th April 2007, 08:39 AM

Because I assumed the wagon itself was a closed system then the kinetic energy of the wheels relative to the axles transforms to thermal energy which would be be output from the closed system as thermal energy. As per the slope I would consider the wheel bearings to be a mechanism that is energetically irrelevant except that it transforms the energy into a form that can cross the boundary of the closed system. In terms of friction between the wheels and the slope I would consider this the same way except that Work crosses the system boundary and is transformed into heat outside the closed system.

As with your original assumption, neglecting friction altogether simplifies the model immeasurably and has negligible effects on the results.

I think you misunderstood my point about another "influence" that we are also ignoring, and that is the rotational kinetic energy of the wheels. In an actual physical analysis of this system, mgh doesn't go 100% into 1/2mv^2 of the wagon, entirely. You've already mentioned friction as one other place energy goes. The other place is into the rotational kinetic energy of the wheels themselves. A wheel that is spinning has an energy of 1/2*I*w^2, or, 1/2 of the rotational inertia times the angular speed squared.

This is why in physics 101, they usually don't use wheeled objects (or a ball) in these types of mental experiments, because some of the energy goes into getting the wheels turning, not overall velocity of the wagon. In other words, a block of ice sliding on a frictionless surface versus a ball that rolls down a hill (with 0 energy loss due to friction) do not result in the same speed at the bottom, because the ball has some of it's GPE converted into rotational energy.

For the sake of discussion, and for the sake of my posts above, it's fairly safe to ignore both effects. Or, we can reword the problem to be a block of ice sliding on a frictionless slope. In either case, my original post implies that both of the secondary energies are 0. That is, I assume that all GPE goes to KE, and none goes to thermal via friction and none goes to rotational-KE of the wheels. Under that assumption, however, I posit that my post holds, and that "vectoral energy" doesn't make sense unless you 1) ignore the direction, or 2) say it's physics are wildly different from normal energy, most importantly, it is not conserved.

William Rea

13th April 2007, 09:59 AM

As with your original assumption, neglecting friction altogether simplifies the model immeasurably and has negligible effects on the results.

I think you misunderstood my point about another "influence" that we are also ignoring, and that is the rotational kinetic energy of the wheels. In an actual physical analysis of this system, mgh doesn't go 100% into 1/2mv^2 of the wagon, entirely. You've already mentioned friction as one other place energy goes. The other place is into the rotational kinetic energy of the wheels themselves. A wheel that is spinning has an energy of 1/2*I*w^2, or, 1/2 of the rotational inertia times the angular speed squared.

This is why in physics 101, they usually don't use wheeled objects (or a ball) in these types of mental experiments, because some of the energy goes into getting the wheels turning, not overall velocity of the wagon. In other words, a block of ice sliding on a frictionless surface versus a ball that rolls down a hill (with 0 energy loss due to friction) do not result in the same speed at the bottom, because the ball has some of it's GPE converted into rotational energy.

For the sake of discussion, and for the sake of my posts above, it's fairly safe to ignore both effects. Or, we can reword the problem to be a block of ice sliding on a frictionless slope. In either case, my original post implies that both of the secondary energies are 0. That is, I assume that all GPE goes to KE, and none goes to thermal via friction and none goes to rotational-KE of the wheels. Under that assumption, however, I posit that my post holds, and that "vectoral energy" doesn't make sense unless you 1) ignore the direction, or 2) say it's physics are wildly different from normal energy, most importantly, it is not conserved.

Yes, I had misunderstood, apologies for that but if I could outline my reasons for initially not completely understanding what you were putting forward.

I did not see the inertia of the wheels as being significant because in my mind the wheels were inside the closed system boundary and so the internal energy of the system would not be affected. I did not think it necessary in terms of conservation of energy to seperate them from the system since the kinetic energy that would get stored in them would release itself to propel the wagon at a later stage (flywheel).

Of course in my mind the wheels on the wagon are made from aluminium and have very narrow rims and a very small diameter so I neglected the kinetic energy in them. ;)

I am working on your other information between posts.

I hope that even though my responses do not contain any mathematics like yours that they are demonstrating that I do have a grasp of this subject. I will try to include more mathematics if you prefer to converse that way.

Belz...

13th April 2007, 10:50 AM

There is nothing in Killtown's post that suggests his "Link to a "normal" video?" remark is anything other than a request for a link.

Actually, since there is nothing in his post that implies anything else, I would say both possibilities are equally likely.

However, I don't see how Killtown could ask for a link for something that cannot possibly, by definition, have one, and still be able to speak English properly.

Argument from incredulity.

Speculation. :D

Next most importantly, your hypothetical poster's reply to your statement is an unnecessary addition, as there WAS in fact a follow-up to Killtown's post. WWGHA expressed confusion at Killtown's apparent request for a link to a non-internet video.

And I think you're using his confusion as the evidence you're looking for. Perhaps we should ask Killtown himself. He's probably weird enough to actually WANT the stundie.

It is entirely within the realms of possibility that everything Killtown has ever posted has simply been part of a huge practical joke and that he's having a good laugh at us taking him and his ideas as though he is being serious.

What is that ? An argument from godzilla-sized strawman ?

I really don't understand why this debate is even still taking place. WWGHA defined a "normal" video as a non-internet video. Killtown then asked for a link to a non-internet video. This is BASIC linguistic analysis...

Oh, but then he would've had to say "Can you provide a link to a "normal" video ?" He didn't say that, did he ?

You're trying to make something that is vague, crystal clear. Precisely what some of us are accusing CTers of doing with their fuzzy pictures.

Horatius

13th April 2007, 11:16 AM

However, I don't see how Killtown could ask for a link for something that cannot possibly, by definition, have one, and still be able to speak English properly.

Well, you have to consider the evidence (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2024967#post2024967). I put it to you that the linked paragraph shows that he is not, in fact, able to speak (or at least, hear) English properly.

rwguinn

13th April 2007, 11:42 AM

Yes, I had misunderstood, apologies for that but if I could outline my reasons for initially not completely understanding what you were putting forward.

I did not see the inertia of the wheels as being significant because in my mind the wheels were inside the closed system boundary and so the internal energy of the system would not be affected. I did not think it necessary in terms of conservation of energy to seperate them from the system since the kinetic energy that would get stored in them would release itself to propel the wagon at a later stage (flywheel).

Of course in my mind the wheels on the wagon are made from aluminium and have very narrow rims and a very small diameter so I neglected the kinetic energy in them. ;)

I am working on your other information between posts.

I hope that even though my responses do not contain any mathematics like yours that they are demonstrating that I do have a grasp of this subject. I will try to include more mathematics if you prefer to converse that way.

Think of it this way:
In a space system, a vector, by definition, has 3 components describing direction from a starting point. In a Cartisian system, these are of 3 orthogonal coordinates, referenced to the start point. In a cylindrical system, they would be radial, angle, and length. In a spherical system, they are radial, angular, and angular
In other words, a vector describes a specific direction. "Outward" may be a direction referenced to a point, but it is not specific, and in truth, defines a sphere.
High to low, when describing energy does not define a direction, but statesof energy.
A vector quantity has a very specific, 3 dimensional , quantity and direction. That is in 3 dimensions, not one. The definition of "vector" has that imbedded in it.
Is that any help?

Belz...

13th April 2007, 01:12 PM

Well, you have to consider the evidence (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2024967#post2024967). I put it to you that the linked paragraph shows that he is not, in fact, able to speak (or at least, hear) English properly.

Uh-huh. But the point is that asking for a non-internet internet link is kinda like asking for a square circle, so I find it unlikely that he's that stupid. Though past experience with truthers now means that nothing would surprise me in that department.

Horatius

13th April 2007, 01:51 PM

Uh-huh. But the point is that asking for a non-internet internet link is kinda like asking for a square circle, so I find it unlikely that he's that stupid.

Well, I think it's just as stupid as being confused about how someone would be able to barbecue when their electricity was out. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how real things really work.

William Rea

13th April 2007, 06:45 PM

As with your original assumption, neglecting friction altogether simplifies...snip...Under that assumption, however, I posit that my post holds, and that "vectoral energy" doesn't make sense unless you 1) ignore the direction, or 2) say it's physics are wildly different from normal energy, most importantly, it is not conserved.

I have used your original quote and snipped it to maintain the integrity of the links between our posts. I appreciate that you have not been adversarial in your posts so, you probably would not interpret this negatively anyway but, I'm just kicking this off with an explanation as to why I have done it so you do not interpret this as me editing your post for nefarious reasons.

I enjoyed reading your "what if" analysis of energy as a vector. The conclusion I drew from it was that the Law of Conservation of Energy means that energy cannot be a vector since a change in direction would mean a change in energy. That was neat but, I have already accepted on here that energy is scalar by definition. I will explain this further later in this post.

After reading my posts it is probably no surprise to you if I said that I find the concept of the Stundies offensive, maybe that's just me being over sensitive. In "real life" I am a concilliatory person rather than confrontational and in my daily work I try to work to the ideal that everyone has a right to make an error once in a while and that very few people intend to make an error. In that respect if we put all our mistakes on a notice board at my workplace it would cover a wall in our facility. I don't see the need to do that and I actually find that the vast majority of people are very honest and don't need to be told they have made an error if you foster a no blame culture. In summary, the concept of the Stundies is alien to me in my professional life and I believe these type of concepts lead to negative attitude reinforcement.

I also have an awful habit of throwing things into the arena with minimum explanation during Team briefings to try to generate ideas and feedback. This doesn't work on internet forums, particularly in an adversarial setting so if I remain here I will avoid doing that in future.

One noticeable thing that did happen was the case of HeyLeroy in the March Stundies. The specifics are that he is a "skeptic" that got nominated. I spotted the difference in HeyLeroy's nomination immediately because I have seen this in my workplace. The younger Engineers will have an "in joke" with their team about something daft that one of them has done but, they are laughing with each other. If I spot "laughing at" then I am sure to say something to stop it as I consider it to be bullying and unethical.

I hope that will explain to you why I felt it necessary to give Griffin the benefit of the doubt even though I would probably agree with some that he is an eccentric Theologian not educated in Science or Engineering. Mistakenly and perhaps naively I thought that others might be persuaded to see what I percieved as an injustice so I took a more positive position (inspired by the Positivist attitude of The Almond) regarding his faux pas.

If I may, I would like to return to the starting point of this thread which by necessity repeats some of my previous points but I ask you to bear with me.

Originally Posted by David Ray Griffin
...gravitational energy, which is vertical...

My statement regarding Energy as tangible and not as an "abstract concept" was in response to several people posting straight Physics definitions of Energy only in terms of its potential to do Work through a Force acting over a Distance. I think I confused things somewhat by trying to explain that Energy "tangibly" exists and is not merely something that spontaneously comes into existence when it does Work. In other words I don't consider Energy to be a "God of the gaps" to explain why Work occurs. I felt that the pure definitions ignored other fields where Energy is a concept such as Thermodynamics which I have some experience of.

Perhaps I was being to indulgent of Griffin when I tackled his isolated statement from the point of view that Energy works between potential differences. Heat engines use the energy flow between the two potentials - Hotter and Colder (abstraction recognised in the terminology). Electrical circuits use energy flow between two potentials - Higher Voltage and Lower Voltage (abstraction recognised in the terminology). Kinetic Energy flows between two potentials Higher and Lower (abstraction recognised in the terminology).

No matter which direction the energy finally ends up flowing because of mechanistic designs, it's source is a contrast between two potentials or a direction.

In the simplest and purest case I can imagine of a steel ball bearing being dropped the source Energy is derived from the change in potential and this can only happen in one direction. I don't know of any case where having fallen the steel ball will spontaneously rise to a higher potential. I must take your point on board that this is a special case where our conceptual "Energy Vector" happens to be aligned with the Acceleration and Velocity.

Hope this helps.

Anti-sophist

13th April 2007, 07:15 PM

The conclusion I drew from it was that the Law of Conservation of Energy means that energy cannot be a vector since a change in direction would mean a change in energy.

Indeed.

After reading my posts it is probably no surprise to you if I said that I find the concept of the Stundies offensiveFair enough.

Mistakenly and perhaps naively I thought that others might be persuaded to see what I percieved as an injustice so I took a more positive position (inspired by the Positivist attitude of The Almond) regarding his faux pas.
Specifically, I disagree that this is a faux pas by Griffin and instead believe he is fundamentally ignorant of the basic concepts involved. When I say something falls at "freefall speed" it's technically incorrect and what I mean is that it falls at an acceleration equal to the acceleration due to gravity. Taken alone, this is a faux pas. If the rest of my argument makes sense, you "know what I meant" and we move on.

However, if I take it one step further and say that an object was falling at "freefall speed" and fell 10 floors in 1 seconds, so in 10 seconds, it should fall 100 floors, you'd rightly say "No, that's completely wrong". My faux pas has become fundamentally wrong and based on a severe ignorance of the physics going on.

Griffin does precisely this when he tries to apply his "vectoral energy". He goes from making a simple faux pas to demonstrated fundamental ignorance of the physics being discussed.

Let me explain..

Originally Posted by David Ray Griffin
...gravitational energy, which is vertical...
He is trying to say that gravity alone cannot provide the lateral forces necessary. He leaves out his implied (and very wrong) assumption that "vectoral energy is conserved". In his mind, since GPE "points down", things need to go down, not sideways. In his mind, "vectoral energy" is conserved. "Downward pointing" energy can only result in "downward" things. As we've established fairly easily, the concept of "vectoral energy" is most certainly not conserved, therefore his entire argument is fundamentally flawed.

Even if we say, yes, the concept of vectoral energy exists, and yes GPE points down, it's completely incorrect to say that it is "conserved" and consequently cannot cause lateral "forces" or "releases" or whatever other term you want to use. It's fairly trivial, in fact, to show that "vectoral energy" can and does change direction under specific conditions. Therefore, the fact that GPE "points down" is meaningless when trying to remove gravity as the "original" source of energy for lateral movements in the tower collapse. This is exactly what Griffin is trying to do, and it's fundamentally wrong.

The real problem here isn't the concept of "vectoral energy" as much as it is trying to apply the physics of standard (scalar) energy to this "vectoral energy" concept. The ignorance isn't in saying that GPE "points down" as that is a forgivable mistake and I'd know what he meant if he was making a cogent argument. The problem is he's not making a cogent argument because he's trying to apply scalar energy laws to a made-up concept of "vectoral energy" to prove a point. His made-up concept does not follow the physical laws he's trying to apply to it.

William Rea

13th April 2007, 07:21 PM

Indeed...Snip...The real problem here isn't the concept of "vectoral energy" as much as it is trying to apply the physics of standard (scalar) energy to this "vectoral energy" concept. The ignorance isn't in saying that GPE "points down" as that is a forgivable mistake and I'd know what he meant if he was making a cogent argument. The problem is he's not making a cogent argument because he's trying to apply scalar energy laws to a made-up concept of "vectoral energy".

Snipped again.

I see your point. I think I wouldn't have had nearly as much problem with the nomination if the whole phrase had been used including the sideways ejection part and it had not been done within the framework of the Stundies.

I don't think we are actually a million miles apart here.

Thanks for the extremely patient and civil exchange, I have enjoyed it.

William Rea

13th April 2007, 07:24 PM

However, if I take it one step further and say that an object was falling at "freefall speed" and fell 10 floors in 1 seconds, so in 10 seconds, it should fall 100 floors, you'd rightly say "No, that's completely wrong". My faux pas has become fundamentally wrong and based on a severe ignorance of the physics going on.

I feel the invention of a freefall vector coming on!

Just Kidding :) .

A W Smith

13th April 2007, 07:32 PM

can someone point out to me which way is vertical in this picture?

Anti-sophist

13th April 2007, 07:47 PM

can someone point out to me which way is vertical in this picture?

All vectors on a line passing through the center of that image are vertical.

Even more precisely, all vectors in the vector space with the center of that image as the origin are vertical.

Mobyseven

13th April 2007, 09:20 PM

Actually, since there is nothing in his post that implies anything else, I would say both possibilities are equally likely.

However, I don't see how Killtown could ask for a link for something that cannot possibly, by definition, have one, and still be able to speak English properly.

Speculation. :D

And I think you're using his confusion as the evidence you're looking for. Perhaps we should ask Killtown himself. He's probably weird enough to actually WANT the stundie.

What is that ? An argument from godzilla-sized strawman ?

Oh, but then he would've had to say "Can you provide a link to a "normal" video ?" He didn't say that, did he ?

You're trying to make something that is vague, crystal clear. Precisely what some of us are accusing CTers of doing with their fuzzy pictures.

There's really not much I can say here that I haven't already addressed...I will clarify some things though:

1) Saying that you don't think that Killtown was asking for a link to a non-internet video because you don't believe Killtown would be stupid enough to ask for a link to a non-internet video is pretty much a textbook case of the argument from incredulity. Not speculation on my part.

2) My comment that the everything that Killtown has written could be a joke wasn't a strawman argument. It was a perfectly valid description of how things could be - we cannot say for certain that this is NOT the case. The example was meant to highlight the fact that when there is a far and away more probable explanation for a comment, it is perfectly valid to assume that the more probable explanation is the correct explanation.

As for why this is the more probable explanation - I've already gone over this in my previous posts to William. There doesn't seem to be anything you've brought up that I haven't already addressed in my analysis.

And as a favour, in case William has put me on ignore, could someone please quote the posts I wrote to him. He seems to think that if he ignores that he's been exposed as a liar it will go away. This is not the case.

beachnut

13th April 2007, 10:17 PM

There's really not much I can say here that I haven't already addressed...I will clarify some things though:

1) Saying that you don't think that Killtown was asking for a link to a non-internet video because you don't believe Killtown would be stupid enough to ask for a link to a non-internet video is pretty much a textbook case of the argument from incredulity. Not speculation on my part.

2) My comment that the everything that Killtown has written could be a joke wasn't a strawman argument. It was a perfectly valid description of how things could be - we cannot say for certain that this is NOT the case. The example was meant to highlight the fact that when there is a far and away more probable explanation for a comment, it is perfectly valid to assume that the more probable explanation is the correct explanation.

As for why this is the more probable explanation - I've already gone over this in my previous posts to William. There doesn't seem to be anything you've brought up that I haven't already addressed in my analysis.

And as a favour, in case William has put me on ignore, could someone please quote the posts I wrote to him. He seems to think that if he ignores that he's been exposed as a liar it will go away. This is not the case.
Killtown is one big stundie and not a very nice guy. Killtown makes up stuff about a 9/11 photo which shows the smoke from flight 93! It looks just like a aircraft smoke cloud you can find many times over on the internet from airbus accidents to B-52 accidents. Almost an exact match for how a crash smoke rising looks like.

Killtown asking for a internet link to a physical video tape would be a good studie, unless he was searching to buy the physical tape. STUNDIE nomination approved! No opinion, just facts. John Swift would agree.

Does William still post here? He likes opinions and would enjoy posting over at LC. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/

beachnut

13th April 2007, 10:27 PM

can someone point out to me which way is vertical in this picture?
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6451&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1176514431
Which system do you want?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447462057fe3f855.gif
What was your question?

Horatius

13th April 2007, 10:28 PM

And as a favour, in case William has put me on ignore, could someone please quote the posts I wrote to him. He seems to think that if he ignores that he's been exposed as a liar it will go away. This is not the case.

It won't help. He clearly doens't have me on ignore, yet he still isn't bothered by having his lies pointed out. Only the "disrespect".

Horatius

13th April 2007, 10:30 PM

Which system do you want?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447462057fe3f855.gif
What was your question?

Okay, now I'm getting dizzy!

:hypnotize

Mr.D

13th April 2007, 11:35 PM

I enjoyed reading your "what if" analysis of energy as a vector. The conclusion I drew from it was that the Law of Conservation of Energy means that energy cannot be a vector since a change in direction would mean a change in energy.

Is this an explicit admission that you were wrong?

If so, then I am satisfied. There is no need to answer any of the other questions I asked, (unless of course you wish to do so anyway).

The two main points I was trying to make by starting another thread still stand, however.

1) Unless we can agree to a common language for describing physics concepts like "energy," "moment of inertia" and such, then I am not going to return to the WTC thread where we both posted some images. I have neither the interest or the energy (hah! a little joke there) to go off on tangents like this 'energy is a scalar' every fifth post or so.

2) In my opinion, a formal education in science/engineering is irreconcilable with such things as the need to convince you that energy is a scalar and chipmunk stew needing to clarify what he meant by 'momentum' as differentiated from 'kinetic energy.' If you don't wish to post your credentials, that's fine with me - simply say so rather than becoming disproportionally offended by the question. I will simply voice the assumption that I am not the only one on this forum to feel this way - and predict that these are not the last such arguments, disagreements and miscommunications you will face here so long as you insist on using words and asserting concepts that fly in the face of well defined standard science.

TjW

14th April 2007, 09:38 AM

All vectors on a line passing through the center of that image are vertical.

Even more precisely, all vectors in the vector space with the center of that image as the origin are vertical.

What if the picture was taken from the surface of the Moon?

William Rea

14th April 2007, 05:15 PM

Is this an explicit admission that you were wrong?
...snip...so long as you insist on using words and asserting concepts that fly in the face of well defined standard science.

The full quote with the part you chose to leave out..

I enjoyed reading your "what if" analysis of energy as a vector. The conclusion I drew from it was that the Law of Conservation of Energy means that energy cannot be a vector since a change in direction would mean a change in energy. That was neat but, I have already accepted on here that energy is scalar by definition. I will explain this further later in this post.

I have stated my credentials at least three times on this forum, the last time being in this very thread...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2507410#post2507410

I cannot state any more than that since the industry I work in is extremely specialist, and any further information will compromise my anonymity.

I am not forcing you to go to any forum on here and reply to any of my posts. If you choose not to do so then I have no control over that, you are tapping the keys in front of you, not me.

Making the same post and asking the same questions over and over isn't going to change the answer, at some stage we will have to move on, I am choosing to do so. I am taking Fuelair's advice and will not be suffering fools gladly any more so, while I will not put you on ignore, I will not respond to any posts by yourself or any of the others who know who they are. All of you can take this as some kind of moral victory or vindication if it gives you that kind of pleasure, that is completely your prerogative. I personally think that says more about you than it does me.

I was always taught that asking for clarity is fundamental. If you don't understand the question then there is no point giving an answer. Apparently on here it is a Cardinal sin, go figure.

As I have also said many times on here, if you don't believe the sincerity of my posts then we have nowhere else to go. We are unable to make eye contact or see each others body language to get indicators so all we have is the trust. Without it corresponding is pointless.

Anti-sophist

14th April 2007, 05:59 PM

What if the picture was taken from the surface of the Moon?

It's fairly trivial to define a "vertical" (vertical, of course, being the direction that the object will 'fall') vector for any point in the universe as a function of it's location and the location of all the mass in the universe.

Mr.D

14th April 2007, 07:11 PM

The full quote with the part you chose to leave out..

I enjoyed reading your "what if" analysis of energy as a vector. The conclusion I drew from it was that the Law of Conservation of Energy means that energy cannot be a vector since a change in direction would mean a change in energy. That was neat but, I have already accepted on here that energy is scalar by definition. I will explain this further later in this post.

Curiously, your full quote does nothing to change my question.

Is this an explicit admission that you were wrong?

Since Mr. Rea has publicly noted that he will not be responding to my posts, I'll simply summarize the relevant parts of the thread and let any readers decide for themselves (Follow the quote links for Mr. Rea's full posts)

Gravitational Potential Energy acts and releases in a vectorial manner.

In comment to your post, I am being told that energy has no vectoral element so it appears that whilst it is apparent that everyone knows that gravitational energy makes stuff fall down this is simply not so.

I am saying that energy has a vectoral quality, specific examples being that gravitational energy can only be released in one direction which is commonly referred to as vertical

B. I haven't claimed that energy isn't scalar, I simply asserted that it has a sense of direction like a vector and no one as yet has shown me that it doesn't.

I still contend that whatever euphemism you use gradient or vertical there is an instinctively directional or vectorial nature to energy.

In fact Energy has a direction which is towards equilibrium.

And then back to ...

The conclusion I drew from it was that the Law of Conservation of Energy means that energy cannot be a vector since a change in direction would mean a change in energy.

And just for completeness...

Be reassured that if I am wrong I apologise, I have a record for doing this on the forum, in fact I believe that I am probably one of a handful of people on here with the humility to do so when proven wrong.

William Rea

15th April 2007, 05:32 AM

This ended up in the AAH thread along with some other posts and I couldn't figure if it was in there because it was missed by the Mod at the end of a string of posts. I will post it in here again in the hope that it was an Admin error to move it.

@ Thread

I have been carrying out some ongoing experiments for the last week or so which I would like to publish my initial results on the first one...

Experiment 1

A pebble of mass 0.25kg was placed on the ground in my back yard. On a twice daily basis the height of the pebble from the ground was observed for any changes that might indicate a change in the GPE state of the pebble. The pebble is 0.01m high so the measurement of the initial height hi was taken from its centre of mass at 0.005m high. The results to date are as follows...

Obs Height
hi 0.005m
1.2 0.005m
2.1 0.005m
2.2 0.005m
3.1 0.005m
3.2 0.005m
4.1 0.005m
4.2 0.005m
5.1 0.005m
5.2 0.005m
6.1 0.005m
6.2 0.005m

Obviously, it is early days yet but I would like to ask the more scientific on here if they could run this experiment concurrently with me. I am wondering if a pebble of much smaller mass might statistically be more likely to achieve greater than 0.005m height (from centre of mass). I may start to take temperature tests of the surface of the pebble to see if the heat energy of the sun might be affecting the experiment, any theories on that? I am also wondering if my measuring equipment might not be accurate enough to measure the change in height that would result from any spontaneous flow of GPE into the the pebble.

Brainache

15th April 2007, 05:37 AM

I'd love to help you there Bill, but I live on the second floor of a block of flats. So all the pebbles around here have all the GPE they need.

William Rea

15th April 2007, 06:03 AM

@ Thread

I have been carrying out some ongoing experiments for the last week or so which I would like to publish my initial results on the second one...

Experiment 2

I put a gallon drum of water in our shaded garden shed two days ago and on a daily basis measured the temperature of the water when the outside temperature was between 20 and 22 degrees C (We are having a hotter than average Spring over here). Using the Temperature of the water as a guide to a change in its thermal energy state I made the following preliminary observations.

Obs Temp (degrees C)
1.1 18.6
2.1 18.5

Early days yet but I'll keep observing.

Obviously, Mrs Rea is not scientific and thought I was mad but, she soon latched onto it when she realised money was involved and expects us now to save thousands of pounds sterling on our heating bills simply by waiting for a spontaneous increase in the thermal energy.

gumboot

15th April 2007, 07:00 AM

William Rea... what is your hypothesis for the pebble experiment? Do you expect the pebble to randomly levitate itself above the ground at some point? Or do you expect it to remain where it is?

What do you hope to learn through doing this experiment?

-Gumboot

William Rea

15th April 2007, 08:31 AM

Horatius

15th April 2007, 09:17 AM

Mobyseven

15th April 2007, 09:48 AM

William, what exactly are the purposes of your experiments?

Brainache

15th April 2007, 10:17 AM

Once again Mr W Rea attempts to take the piss.

beachnut

15th April 2007, 11:46 AM

beachnut

15th April 2007, 12:31 PM

Anti-sophist

15th April 2007, 01:30 PM

@ Anti-Sophist

If you are still lingering in this thread I would appreciate some commentary on the diagram in the attached link.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2491662#post2491662

The diagram is from a Bazant Paper presented at the 15th U.S. National Congress of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics.

As has apparently already been pointed out, the quantities in the red box appear to be forces, which are vectoral in nature. The force due to gravity is mg, where g is a vector. Therefore the force is also a vector as a scalar multiplied by a vector remains a vector. By an identical analysis we were able to determine that energy is not a vector because it consists of a scalar mulitplying the dot-product between two vectors. This quantity must be scalar.

Energy is nothing but the dot product of a force with a displacement. This always results in a scalar quantity. The physics of forces is well understood and it's interation with (scalar) energy is also well understood.

I fail to see the relevance to the discussion of the concept of "vectoral energy". Are you implying that there is some relationship between forces and "vectoral energy"? And I repeat, there's nothing inherently wrong with "vectoral energy" other then the fact that there are no useful laws of physics that govern it's behavior. Furthermore, the entire presmise of the discussion is the ignorance that it belies when one tries to use the laws governing scalar energy to "vectoral energy".