You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Bazant's progressive collapse math is bogus. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-05-09 04:48 AM
Original message
Bazant's progressive collapse math is bogus.
Advertisements [?]
I'm rescuing this subthread from a parent thread that got locked for reasons having nothing to do with this content.

The topic is Dr. Bazant's conclusion in a Journal of Engineering Mechanics article, Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions that claims to demonstrate that progressive collapse was inevitable once collapse was initiated.

Here is the discussion we were having in that subthread:

Bazant's math is bogus. Anybody can learn to construct equations that don't conform to reality.

Discussion of Mechanics of ProgressiveCollapse: Learning from World TradeCenter and Building Demolitions byZdene˘k P. Baant and Mathieu VerdureMarch 2007, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 308319.DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308)James R. Gourley11B.S. Chemical Engineering; Attorney, Carstens & Cahoon, LLP, Dallas,TX 75240. E-mail: -snip- The first problem with the original paper is that throughout it,the collapse is assumed to occur in two phases. As a result, allequations that purport to model the collapse are developed separatelyfor the first phase and for the second phase. In the firstphase, which the paper calls crush-down phase, the section of thetower above the aircraft impact zone (called Part C in the originalpaper; see Fig. 2 of the original paper) remains essentially intactas it progressively crushes down through the entire section of thetower structure below the impact zone called Part A in the originalpaper; see Fig. 2. The second phase, called the crush-up phase,starts when the entire lower structure of each tower (Part A) hasbeen completely destroyed by the upper part (Part C), and Part Callegedly impacts the dense pile of debris created during thecrush-down phase at high speed, thereby destroying Part C fromthe bottom up. Initially, this two-phase collapse mode may seemplausible, but after careful examination, it is clear that this twophasecollapse scenario is scientifically implausible, which callsinto question the veracity of all equations developed in the originalpaper. The paper appears to justify this collapse mode by making akey assumption that the authors do not support with any explanationor analysis. This key assumption, which is one of what theauthors call reasonable . . . simplifying hypotheses is that, duringthe building collapse, (e)nergy is dissipated only at thecrushing front (this implies that the blocks in Fig. 2 may betreated as rigid, i.e., the deformations of the blocks away from thecrushing front may be neglected . . .) In other words, the paperassumes that Part C of each tower is treated as a rigid block whileit crushes down through and destroys the lower structure. Althoughthis assumption may have had the intended effect of simplifyingthe papers collapse analysis, it also rendered the collapseanalysis at odds with the reality of the physics at work during thecollapse. It should be noted here that no lateral forces are consideredin this discussion in accordance with another simplifyingassumption made by the paper, namely, that the only displacementsare vertical (p. 312 of the paper). This simplifying assumptionis flawed (e.g., steel members and dust were spreadacross a wide area surrounding the location where the towersstood) but is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Once you realize that Bazant's math is based on gross simplifications, all persuasive power is sucked out of it (if you're paying attention). I don't claim that progressive collapse would not have occurred. I do claim that Bazant has not proved that it would.

Bolo Boffin
That's amusing - quoting Gourley's paper to refute Bazant.

You should know that Gourley's paper was only published so Bazant could demonstrate the gross simplifications presented by Gourley and other 9/11 CD advocates. Bazant ends his response with a recommendation that the writer take a class in basic structural engineering before trying to contribute to the subject further. JEM printed that. OUCH.

Please stop failing all over the place.

Here is visual proof that Bazant and his equations are wrong.

The top Part C of the tower (as Bazant refers to it) did not remain intact as a rigid block. The frames in this video are the proof:

  1. First look at frame 6:03:00 and note the height of the intact Part C by measuring the height of the corner that is toward us. The distance you are looking for is from the very top of the corner of Part C down to the apparent bottom of Part C at the collapse zone.1 This is the height of the top Part C that has started to move as an intact unit at collapse initiation.
  2. Now look at frame 13:06:15 and note the distance from the top of Part C down that same corner. See if you can fit an intact Part C that is the same size as it was at collapse initiation before you run out of space at the intact lower Part A. You cannot.

The original Part C that we saw moving together as a unit at initiation cannot fit in the remaining space 7 seconds later. Crush-up has clearly occurred, causing the top Part C to be crushed to a size significantly smaller than it was at initiation. Bazant claimed that his equations demonstrate that the top Part C would remain intact as a rigid block and that crush-up would not occur. He and his equations are clearly wrong.

1 The collapse zone can be determined in frame 6:03:00 by the point at which the corner has an obtuse angle due to the lean of the top Part C. I copied the frame into a photo editor and drew a straight line that I could line up with the lower part of the corner to determine where the angle occurs and therefore where both the collapse zone and the bottom of Part C are. I concluded that it occurs just above the point where the corner of the bottom intact building (Part A) becomes obscured by smoke. You may also need to alternate between watching the video in motion a number of times and watching it frame by frame to interpret where the top Part C is at each point and where the collapse initiation zone is.

More visual proof that Bazant's equations are wrong.

Bazant's equations assume that all the mass of Part A is incrementally added to that of Part C as the collapse works its way down.

Clearly from the video you can see, if it weren't already obvious, that some of the mass of Part A and/or Part C is ejected horizontally out of play and cannot be part of the mass that is crushing Part A. In addition, the horizontal momentum represents energy that Bazant erroneously counted in the downward force in his equations.

Further, you can see that portions of Part A remain standing after the collapse zone has passed well below them. In frame 17:08:15 you can see columns still standing when the collapse zone has moved quite a ways below them. There is also a significant chunk of structure that remains well above the collapse zone in frames 21:10:15 through 24:12:00 and then drops out of view.

All of the mass that was ejected horizontally out of play and all of the mass that remained standing above the progressing collapse zone represent undeniable error in Bazant's equations. This mass cannot be part of the mass that is (allegedly) crushing Part A as Bazant's formulas assume. All of the horizontal momentum represents energy that Bazant erroneously counted as part of the crushing force.

Rather than taking a conservative position on each of these points in order to demonstrate his assertion, Bazant does the opposite: he errs obviously in a direction that overstates his case. He goes so far as to assume that all the mass and all the momentum will count in his favor, a grossly false assumption. He therefore leaves us (and him) not knowing whether his assertion is true or not. Is the sum of his errors, a sum that obviously subtracts from his case, enough to have flipped the result he was going to get from collapse=false (if he had properly accounted for the mass and momentum) to collapse=true? No one knows, including Bazant. But what we do know for sure is that his equations are wrong.

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -Bazant's progressive collapse math is bogus. eomer  Nov-05-09 04:48 AM   #0 
  - Gourley is an idiot.  AZCat   Nov-05-09 06:12 AM   #1 
  - Gourley described his JEM publishing experience  procopia   Nov-05-09 07:25 AM   #2 
  - He was given just enough rope. n/t  Bolo Boffin   Nov-05-09 08:31 AM   #3 
     - So JEM provides "rope"???  procopia   Nov-05-09 09:25 AM   #4 
        - JEM's motivation  Bolo Boffin   Nov-05-09 09:53 AM   #5 
           - This is its motivation  procopia   Nov-05-09 10:19 AM   #9 
  - LOL.  Bolo Boffin   Nov-05-09 09:56 AM   #6 
  - I don't see eomer calling you out here  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-05-09 11:23 AM   #11 
     - What need did eomer have to repost my response to him?  Bolo Boffin   Nov-05-09 11:55 AM   #16 
     - shrug  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-05-09 12:07 PM   #18 
     - you're so veddy veddy important.  Algorem   Nov-06-09 07:11 PM   #45 
     - Oh  BeFree   Nov-07-09 08:22 AM   #61 
  - Bazant is a tool  whatchamacallit   Nov-05-09 10:12 AM   #7 
  - lol  Bolo Boffin   Nov-05-09 10:18 AM   #8 
     - Smells like bias-laced idol worship in here  whatchamacallit   Nov-05-09 10:21 AM   #10 
     - lol  Bolo Boffin   Nov-05-09 11:53 AM   #14 
     - Being a tool has nothing to do with one's credentials.  procopia   Nov-05-09 11:49 AM   #13 
        - Just letting the people know the person you're smearing. n/t  Bolo Boffin   Nov-05-09 11:53 AM   #15 
           - No one has questioned his credentials.  procopia   Nov-05-09 11:59 AM   #17 
  - Link to previous discussion --->  AZCat   Nov-05-09 11:39 AM   #12 
  - thanks, I guess I missed this back in October '08  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-05-09 12:11 PM   #19 
     - Neither do I.  AZCat   Nov-05-09 03:33 PM   #23 
  - That reminds me...  William Seger   Nov-05-09 12:39 PM   #20 
  - Thanks, that really an eye opener.  thepeopleunited   Nov-05-09 12:46 PM   #21 
  - "Bogus" is too kind a word to use for the "truth movement's" lame attempts to refute Bazant  William Seger   Nov-05-09 12:59 PM   #22 
  - The ignorance it BURNS!!!  Realityhack   Nov-05-09 03:39 PM   #24 
     - Meaningless ad hominem fallacy.  thepeopleunited   Nov-05-09 04:54 PM   #25 
        - Of course we know something about you  William Seger   Nov-05-09 06:32 PM   #26 
        - Who is "we"?  thepeopleunited   Nov-05-09 06:42 PM   #27 
           - "basic courtesy"?  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-05-09 06:47 PM   #28 
              - I believe you're trying to change the subject.  thepeopleunited   Nov-05-09 07:10 PM   #29 
                 - I'm responding to your posts  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-05-09 07:13 PM   #30 
                    - The substantive point is that Bazant is lying.  thepeopleunited   Nov-05-09 07:21 PM   #31 
                       - OK, I can hardly believe that you believe all that  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-05-09 07:44 PM   #32 
                          - But you have no trouble believing  procopia   Nov-06-09 10:27 AM   #33 
                             - Insanity  whatchamacallit   Nov-06-09 11:26 AM   #34 
                             - seriously?  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-06-09 11:26 AM   #35 
                                - Seriously!  whatchamacallit   Nov-06-09 11:44 AM   #36 
                                   - funny, that  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-06-09 12:11 PM   #37 
                                   - Simple answer: You are wrong.  William Seger   Nov-06-09 11:42 PM   #53 
                                      - You OCT myna birds only seem to know what you are talking about  whatchamacallit   Nov-07-09 07:15 AM   #54 
                                         - LOL, you're a trip, whatcha  William Seger   Nov-07-09 09:44 AM   #62 
                                            - This?  procopia   Nov-07-09 10:04 AM   #63 
                                               - "hardly resembles what we witnessed on 9/11"  William Seger   Nov-07-09 11:20 AM   #71 
                                                  - No, it doesn't resemble the WTC tower collapses--  procopia   Nov-07-09 11:29 AM   #73 
                                                  - It totally collapsed...  William Seger   Nov-07-09 02:54 PM   #74 
                                                  - Except for the part that didn't,  procopia   Nov-09-09 08:24 PM   #123 
                                                  - do you realize how wildly you're misrepresenting that NIST letter?  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-09-09 09:11 PM   #124 
                                                  - Thanks for providing the context...  procopia   Nov-10-09 06:10 AM   #125 
                                                  - I stand by my statements, and you offered no substantive response  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 06:57 AM   #126 
                                                  - Does "not able" mean "can't"?  procopia   Nov-10-09 07:46 AM   #128 
                                                  - do you really not get it?  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 08:07 AM   #129 
                                                  - Do you not?  procopia   Nov-10-09 08:36 AM   #132 
                                                  - you still refuse to answer my simple question  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 09:11 AM   #133 
                                                  - Your question is irrelevant  procopia   Nov-10-09 09:45 AM   #134 
                                                  - no, it's crucial to understanding NIST's meaning  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 10:07 AM   #135 
                                                  - I don't have to "figure out" what the sentence means  procopia   Nov-10-09 02:16 PM   #147 
                                                  - you don't need to know what NIST meant in order to know what NIST meant?  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 02:30 PM   #150 
                                                  - I know what the fricking sentence means, OK?  procopia   Nov-10-09 02:41 PM   #152 
                                                  - no, you don't  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 03:02 PM   #153 
                                                  - Why would you think  procopia   Nov-10-09 03:15 PM   #154 
                                                  - "because of the magnitude of the deflections and the numbers of failures occurring"  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 03:44 PM   #155 
                                                  - NIST admits it is unable to explain the total WTC collapse  procopia   Nov-10-09 04:18 PM   #156 
                                                  - because the stated objective is much too complex for computer modeling  Bolo Boffin   Nov-10-09 04:24 PM   #157 
                                                  - NIST neither modeled nor explained the total collapse  procopia   Nov-10-09 04:31 PM   #158 
                                                  - because such a task was impossible as they explained. n/t  Bolo Boffin   Nov-10-09 04:44 PM   #161 
                                                  - Impossible to explain? nt  procopia   Nov-10-09 05:00 PM   #162 
                                                  - No, impossible to model and thus produce the kind of explanation you've set up as the goalpost.  Bolo Boffin   Nov-10-09 05:28 PM   #163 
                                                  - do you ever find yourself getting really annoyed with other posters?  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 04:41 PM   #160 
                                                  - with apologies to Gary Larson:  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 10:31 AM   #137 
                                                  - You totally misrepresented NIST's admission  procopia   Nov-10-09 01:05 PM   #139 
                                                  - riiiiight, I totally misrepresented it by quoting it in context  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 01:13 PM   #140 
                                                  - You left out this part:  procopia   Nov-10-09 01:41 PM   #143 
                                                  - OK, you've veered into self-parody n/t  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 01:56 PM   #146 
                                                  - OK, so you included the admission, even though  procopia   Nov-10-09 02:26 PM   #148 
                                                  - oh, brother n/t  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 02:29 PM   #149 
                                                  - I know it was difficult for you  procopia   Nov-10-09 02:32 PM   #151 
                                                  - as I mentioned previously, you've veered into self-parody n/t  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 04:39 PM   #159 
                                                  - There's really no point in engaging posters like this.  AZCat   Nov-10-09 06:38 PM   #164 
                                                  - well, it also sears the cluelessness into my memory, perhaps  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 06:52 PM   #165 
                                                  - It is difficult, because they mostly claim to value the pursuit of knowledge.  AZCat   Nov-10-09 06:59 PM   #166 
                                                  - haha  procopia   Nov-10-09 07:56 PM   #168 
                                                  - Maybe you learned something then.  procopia   Nov-10-09 08:10 PM   #170 
                                                  - since "full" and "total" are meaningless, that makes perfect se-- oh, wait  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 08:32 PM   #172 
                                                  - Actually  procopia   Nov-10-09 09:03 PM   #173 
                                                  - actually  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-10-09 09:25 PM   #174 
                                                  - Actually, there is no reason to believe it means anything other than what it says  procopia   Nov-11-09 06:07 AM   #178 
                                                  - you're flat-out wrong  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-11-09 07:11 AM   #180 
                                                  - Speaking of veering...  procopia   Nov-11-09 08:00 AM   #181 
                                                  - this precisely supports my point that you complained about below  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-11-09 08:34 AM   #187 
                                                  - No, it isn't.  AZCat   Nov-10-09 07:13 AM   #127 
                                                  - Wrong, and wrong again  William Seger   Nov-11-09 12:07 AM   #176 
                                                  - there are interesting moments  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-11-09 08:00 AM   #182 
                                                  - Interesting moments, like when you misquote me?  procopia   Nov-11-09 08:14 AM   #183 
                                                  - that isn't quoting you at all  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-11-09 08:19 AM   #184 
                                                  - You didn't "paraphrase"  procopia   Nov-11-09 08:32 AM   #186 
                                                  - this is just another unsupported assertion on your part  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-11-09 09:01 AM   #188 
        - Unfortunately you are as poor at logic as you are at physics.  Realityhack   Nov-07-09 07:57 AM   #57 
  - Still photo proof  procopia   Nov-06-09 01:47 PM   #38 
  - You and eomer are making the same mistake as Tony Szamboti. n/t  Bolo Boffin   Nov-06-09 02:00 PM   #39 
     - Bazant's mistake (one of them)  procopia   Nov-06-09 03:24 PM   #41 
        - You do not understand Bazant's paper. n/t  Bolo Boffin   Nov-06-09 03:30 PM   #42 
           - Explain it to me then.  procopia   Nov-06-09 05:51 PM   #43 
              - Bazant/Zhou is not an exact modeling of the WTC towers' collapse. It's a limiting case.  Bolo Boffin   Nov-06-09 06:31 PM   #44 
                 - Then probably NIST shouldn't have used it as a basis  procopia   Nov-06-09 07:45 PM   #46 
                 - You continue to misunderstand Bazant's report. n/t  Bolo Boffin   Nov-06-09 10:04 PM   #47 
                    - Oh I understand it  procopia   Nov-06-09 10:20 PM   #48 
                       - No, and your continued mangling of it demonstrates that amply.  Bolo Boffin   Nov-06-09 10:41 PM   #49 
                       - No one could mangle it more than Bazant himself  procopia   Nov-06-09 10:50 PM   #50 
                          - No. n/t  Bolo Boffin   Nov-06-09 11:18 PM   #52 
                       - Really? If you really understand it but still disagree with it...  William Seger   Nov-06-09 10:52 PM   #51 
                          - I've already stated my reason  procopia   Nov-07-09 08:03 AM   #58 
                             - (Post #66 applies to you, too.)  William Seger   Nov-07-09 11:26 AM   #72 
                 - Bazant assumes the worst case, not best.  eomer   Nov-07-09 08:20 AM   #60 
                    - Good examples...  William Seger   Nov-07-09 10:46 AM   #66 
                       - Is this a joke?  thepeopleunited   Nov-07-09 04:06 PM   #75 
                       - LOL  William Seger   Nov-07-09 06:43 PM   #76 
                          - I'm glad you're laughing.  thepeopleunited   Nov-08-09 07:51 AM   #77 
                             - Pardon me if I don't depend on your overwhelming engineering experience...  AZCat   Nov-08-09 10:46 AM   #79 
                                - "Credentials are somewhat irrelevant"  thepeopleunited   Nov-08-09 10:53 AM   #80 
                                   - but so are unilateral declarations of competence  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-08-09 10:59 AM   #81 
                                      - Exactly.  AZCat   Nov-08-09 11:01 AM   #82 
                                         - You have an agenda, I have experience.  thepeopleunited   Nov-08-09 11:02 AM   #83 
                                            - What "experience" do you have...  SDuderstadt   Nov-08-09 11:06 AM   #84 
                                            - He already told us...  AZCat   Nov-08-09 11:07 AM   #86 
                                               - Professional experience too, on high-rise steel frame projects.  thepeopleunited   Nov-08-09 11:09 AM   #87 
                                               - I seriously doubt that, dude...  SDuderstadt   Nov-08-09 11:13 AM   #89 
                                               - Uh-huh.  AZCat   Nov-08-09 11:14 AM   #92 
                                               - Likewise. n/t  thepeopleunited   Nov-08-09 11:18 AM   #94 
                                               - Except I haven't been basing my arguments...  AZCat   Nov-08-09 11:21 AM   #97 
                                               - What arguments?  thepeopleunited   Nov-08-09 11:25 AM   #101 
                                               - That hasn't been the basis of any of my arguments.  AZCat   Nov-08-09 11:27 AM   #103 
                                            - That's really quite amusing.  AZCat   Nov-08-09 11:07 AM   #85 
                                               - I'm not the one bragging.  thepeopleunited   Nov-08-09 11:12 AM   #88 
                                                  - Actually, yes - you were.  AZCat   Nov-08-09 11:13 AM   #90 
                                                  - Incorrect. I don't brag about my experience  thepeopleunited   Nov-08-09 11:17 AM   #93 
                                                  - Now it's just pathetic.  AZCat   Nov-08-09 11:20 AM   #95 
                                                  - Dude...  SDuderstadt   Nov-08-09 11:22 AM   #98 
                                                  - Notice he doesn't describe what KIND of experience that was. n/t  AZCat   Nov-08-09 11:23 AM   #99 
                                                  - Exactly....  SDuderstadt   Nov-08-09 11:25 AM   #102 
                                                  - naw, that could be true  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-08-09 11:29 AM   #104 
                                                  - Some sense - yes...  AZCat   Nov-08-09 11:33 AM   #105 
                                                  - certainly it can't  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-08-09 11:41 AM   #106 
                                                  - I call bullshit...  SDuderstadt   Nov-08-09 11:14 AM   #91 
                                                  - You call lots of things I've noticed.  thepeopleunited   Nov-08-09 11:20 AM   #96 
                                                  - I call bullshit when I see it...  SDuderstadt   Nov-08-09 11:24 AM   #100 
                       - Address my subtantive point.  eomer   Nov-08-09 09:03 AM   #78 
                          - That's easy  William Seger   Nov-08-09 01:32 PM   #107 
                          - No, it's not easy.  eomer   Nov-09-09 10:13 AM   #109 
                          - Utter nonsense  William Seger   Nov-09-09 01:02 PM   #116 
                             - Conceded that Bazant does reflect some ejection from Part A.  eomer   Nov-10-09 08:31 AM   #131 
                                - Nonsense. Mass can ONLY be ejected from part B  William Seger   Nov-10-09 08:13 PM   #171 
                                   - Semantics.  eomer   Nov-11-09 05:44 AM   #177 
                                      - More nonsense  William Seger   Nov-11-09 08:25 AM   #185 
                                         - Bazant insists that Part C remains intact.  eomer   Nov-11-09 12:24 PM   #196 
                          - Please allow an actuary to assist all you amazing engineers.  eomer   Nov-09-09 10:54 AM   #110 
                          - And to state it more correctly,  eomer   Nov-09-09 12:11 PM   #113 
                             - Could you do a force diagram of what you're proposing here?  Bolo Boffin   Nov-09-09 12:53 PM   #115 
                             - No, it's too complex.  eomer   Nov-10-09 10:25 AM   #136 
                                - How amusing. n/t  Bolo Boffin   Nov-10-09 12:57 PM   #138 
                                   - You disagree? You think it can be reduced to a simple diagram at a single instant of time? n/t  eomer   Nov-10-09 01:18 PM   #141 
                                      - Force diagrams are a standard way of getting your mind around a problem.  Bolo Boffin   Nov-10-09 01:27 PM   #142 
                                         - Utterly worthless in this case.  eomer   Nov-10-09 01:49 PM   #144 
                                            - No, much too revealing in this case.  Bolo Boffin   Nov-10-09 01:55 PM   #145 
                                            - Your suggestions makes no sense to me.  eomer   Nov-10-09 07:53 PM   #167 
                                            - You guys are SO predictable.  Bolo Boffin   Nov-10-09 08:00 PM   #169 
                             - WTF? That's exactly what Bazant has done.  William Seger   Nov-09-09 01:10 PM   #118 
                                - No, you missed the distinction I'm making.  eomer   Nov-10-09 08:12 AM   #130 
                                   - Please throw that red herring back, it's under the legal limit  William Seger   Nov-10-09 10:18 PM   #175 
                                      - I'm not the one sidestepping -- Bazant is.  eomer   Nov-11-09 06:34 AM   #179 
                                         - You're wrong about what Bazant calculated, and you are the one trying to use magic  William Seger   Nov-11-09 09:52 AM   #189 
                                            - I think you lose some people at "the falling mass"  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-11-09 11:39 AM   #190 
                                            - That speaks for me.  eomer   Nov-11-09 11:58 AM   #192 
                                            - no, wait, we need to curse at each other for 10 or 20 posts...  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-11-09 12:08 PM   #193 
                                            - I know.  eomer   Nov-11-09 12:15 PM   #195 
                                            - What On The Other Hand is describing is a common misperception.  Bolo Boffin   Nov-11-09 12:08 PM   #194 
                                            - well, here's what interests me  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-11-09 12:31 PM   #197 
                                            - Oops, reading it again I find I may disagree.  eomer   Nov-11-09 01:28 PM   #198 
                                            - Which weighs more...  William Seger   Nov-11-09 06:00 PM   #199 
                                            - Bazant's primary argument  eomer   Nov-11-09 06:24 PM   #200 
                                            - Last time for this  William Seger   Nov-11-09 06:53 PM   #202 
                                            - No, it is you who does not understand Bazant's calculations.  eomer   Nov-11-09 09:31 PM   #205 
                                            - As near as I can tell, you haven't understood a single word I've said to you  William Seger   Nov-12-09 01:56 AM   #207 
                                            - No, I've understood your words. Let me try to rephrase my point more in the way you think of it.  eomer   Nov-12-09 03:08 AM   #208 
                                            - well, it makes sense to me  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-11-09 08:40 PM   #203 
                                            - You miss my point.  eomer   Nov-11-09 11:56 AM   #191 
                                               - No, I have answered that point more than once, and you've just ignored what I said  William Seger   Nov-11-09 06:27 PM   #201 
                                               - My OP discussed my visual evidence but here it is again, packaged better.  eomer   Nov-11-09 08:55 PM   #204 
                                               - 2002  Bolo Boffin   Nov-11-09 09:32 PM   #206 
                          - Goalposts on the move  whatchamacallit   Nov-09-09 11:34 AM   #112 
                             - Not surprising  William Seger   Nov-09-09 01:07 PM   #117 
                                - heh, maybe so... (nt)  whatchamacallit   Nov-09-09 03:13 PM   #119 
                          - Relying on disparity between Bazant Zhou's model and visual evidence is your flaw. n/t  Bolo Boffin   Nov-08-09 01:34 PM   #108 
                             - Why rely on real visual evidence when you have totally theoretical numbers?  whatchamacallit   Nov-09-09 11:27 AM   #111 
                                - You also have misunderstood the purpose of Bazant Zhou.  Bolo Boffin   Nov-09-09 12:50 PM   #114 
                                   - You missionaries are doing a great job of proselytizing  whatchamacallit   Nov-09-09 04:08 PM   #120 
                                      - comparing his post to yours  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-09-09 04:35 PM   #121 
                                         - Our side has better and more sophisticated...  SDuderstadt   Nov-09-09 04:46 PM   #122 
  - Entertaining thread.  RUMMYisFROSTED   Nov-06-09 02:59 PM   #40 
  - This thread is a perfect example of why non-engineers / physicists / etc. are not...  Realityhack   Nov-07-09 07:47 AM   #55 
     - I forget, what is your field of expertise, hack?  whatchamacallit   Nov-07-09 07:53 AM   #56 
     - Credentials are somewhat irrelevant.  AZCat   Nov-07-09 10:35 AM   #65 
        - We agree AZ  whatchamacallit   Nov-07-09 10:59 AM   #67 
           - I was talking about something similar with my girlfriend last night.  AZCat   Nov-07-09 11:03 AM   #68 
              - You are wise (nt)  whatchamacallit   Nov-07-09 11:10 AM   #69 
                 - I make lots of mistakes.  AZCat   Nov-07-09 11:14 AM   #70 
     - The purpose of the paper,  procopia   Nov-07-09 08:12 AM   #59 
     - Bazant's slip is showing.  eomer   Nov-07-09 10:24 AM   #64 
        - well said-- the Bazant refutation is a joke  spooked911   Nov-06-11 06:29 PM   #209 
        - ROFL  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-07-11 06:22 AM   #210 
        - Like a Zombi  ryan_cats   Nov-07-11 08:57 AM   #211 
        - Just found it the other day. Sorry I missed it when it first came around.  spooked911   Nov-16-11 10:27 AM   #214 
           - fair enough -- but there is a big problem in the OP  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-16-11 07:47 PM   #215 
              - That's a gross simplification of my argument.  eomer   Nov-20-11 06:48 AM   #216 
                 - well, you stuck around and offered better arguments  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-20-11 08:01 AM   #217 
                    - Here is the blog entry by Krugman that I was remembering:  eomer   Nov-20-11 01:32 PM   #218 
                       - I don't think the analogy is very close  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-20-11 07:49 PM   #219 
                          - Yes, that was as far as I intended the analogy to go.  eomer   Nov-21-11 04:32 AM   #220 
                             - wait, hang on a second  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-21-11 08:30 AM   #221 
        - I agree spooked  zappaman   Nov-07-11 04:10 PM   #213 
           - science isn't stupid but apparently Bazant thinks we are stupid  spooked911   Nov-24-11 08:33 AM   #222 
              - Depending on who you mean by "we"...  William Seger   Nov-24-11 12:44 PM   #223 
        - Reminds me of a Nikola Tesla quote  deconstruct911   Nov-07-11 03:33 PM   #212 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC