Here's the thing...

[wildbilln864]

Newton’s Laws apply to the external forces acting between interacting bodies in closed systems. Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to the internal forces causing an open-structured body to collapse in on itself. :hi:
Don't you agree?

[wildbilln864]

1. and...

Newton's 3rd Law applies to bouncing billiard balls not the interiors of collapsing buildings.

[LARED]

3. Why would it not apply to the interior of collapsing buildings? nt

[wildbilln864]

4. so you think it would? nt

[LARED]

6. Yes nt

[wildbilln864]

8. Thank you.

And you believe that law always applies in every case?

[LARED]

11. Every case?

Every case of what?

Is there some point you are trying to mske? If yes please state it.

[LARED]

2. Newton's third law simply put states;

"for every force there is a equal and opposite reaction."

What this has to do with your post is a mystery. What do you mean by internal forces?

Please explain.

[wildbilln864]

7. yes. I've posted that same quote here to William and others...nt

[LARED]

9. What quotes, posted where, and what does this have to

do with your post?

[wildbilln864]

10. The quote you placed in post #2...

""for every force there is a equal and opposite reaction.""

I am just agreeing with you Lared.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. we're all waiting breathlessly

for the part where you conclude that Newton's Third Law dictates that the towers were leveled by explosives.

Well, actually, I'm going to bed. Good luck with that.

[wildbilln864]

14. don't try to put words in my mouth.

yes you should go to bed obviously.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. I just have a hard time understanding

why you would choose to play games with the events of 9/11. If you have something to say, why not say it? Is that too much to hope for?

[William Seger]

30. The game is called Gotcha

... and wildbill is just borrowing it from some of the "scholars for 9/11 truth." He was just trying to get us to agree that Greening's statement was incorrect without revealing that Greening said it, so that perhaps we'd also appear to agree with the, um, "logic" as summed up like this on one blog:

Either Greening is attempting to deceive for his own purposes or he is unable to understand the principles involved in Newton's third law. Either way his publications must be regarded as untrustworthy. It also follows that the work of Bazant must be regarded in a similar fashion, as they were co-authors in a particularly controversial paper.

http://gravity32.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/23/2721099-frank-greening-and-newtons-third-law-of-motion

I can think of at least one other "or" in the first sentence, which disqualifies the "must" in the second sentence. And the phrase "it also follows" in the last sentence is apparently used in a non-standard way, since I usually expect that phrase to introduce a logical conclusion. The only thing I can see that the statement about Bazant "follows" is the period at the end of the sentence before it.

But this particular game of Gotcha may well backfire on wildbill and the "scholars," since I do believe that Chandler is misunderstanding Newton's 3rd law, regardless of Greening's statement, and Chandler is the one who is attempting to prove something with that apparent misunderstanding. Greening's criticism of Chandler's argument may fail, but that doesn't imply that Chandler is right. We'll have to see how the game plays out, but your question about why wildbill is playing games with us is a good one. Got an answer, wildbill?

[AZCat]

33. It's sad that the "truth movement" is reduced to employing tactics like this...

to score "points" with its followers. Cherry-picking evidence and manipulating photos and video wasn't enough, I guess. Now they have to try to eliminate the "opposition" by claiming that an incorrect statement can be cause to reject someone's entire body of work, and the bodies of work of those who have written papers with that person. If that were the case, there would be no "truth movement" in the first place, since none of their publications could be considered trustworthy.

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. thanks

Yes, it seems* that a commonsensical paraphrase of Greening's meaning would be, 'Newton's Third Law doesn't prove what you think it proves.' (If Greening actually argued that Newton's Third Law is suspended within collapsing buildings, I have to think that his detractors would document in excruciating detail that he actually argued that.)

Of course, even if I assume for the sake of argument that Greening did say that Newton's Third Law is suspended within collapsing buildings, that's still a long way from telling me anything new about how the buildings collapsed.

*ETA: I say "seems" because relying on this very partial account of who wrote what, I can only infer what Greening meant based on other arguments I've seen about this topic.

[William Seger]

47. Link to quote

It's from an email exchange between Greening and various "scholars," which Greening posted here; http://the911forum.freeforums.org/newton-s-3rd-law-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-1-t153.html

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. ah, like so:

As we all know, Newton's 3rd Law states that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. From this universal Law Mr. Chandler concludes that there must have been no net force acting between the lower (stationary) section of WTC 1 and the upper descending block because the lower section must (always) provide an equal and opposite reaction force to any downward accelerating force. However, because there was indeed an observed uniform downward acceleration of the upper block, Chandler argues that there was (obviously!) no resistance offered by the lower section of WTC 1, only some mysterious force that made the upper block move downwards with a uniform acceleration of 64 % of g.

I would say that Chandler's slight of hand is the implied notion that Newton's 3rd Law is universally applicable, even to a collapsing building. The fact is that when a building is collapsing by multiple floor failures the reaction force obviously fails to balance the downward force because the yield strength of the failing columns is being exceeded.

Think of it this way: suppose I place a concrete block on a tall cardboard box, and let's say that the box can just support the concrete block. Now I pour some water over the cardboard box making it all wet and soggy. Pretty soon my little construct will collapse as the cardboard box looses strength and is no longer able to support the weight of the concrete block.

Have I violated any of Newton's Laws? I don't think so!

(And all the rest is there, so one can see the "open-structured body" business in context as well.) It's quite clear that Greening isn't arguing for the suspension of Newton's Third Law, only against Chandler's application of it.

However, I don't think "this particular game of Gotcha" will backfire on its perpetrators, because it is so obviously a sideshow. I suppose it might attract more attention to Chandler's arguments so that people see what is wrong with them, but I wouldn't expect that. Oh well.

Thanks for the helpful link.

ETA: I know the stress of arguing with fringe theorists when (1) there is little prospect of convincing anyone and (2) any misstatement is likely to become fodder for the... umm, fog machine. (A mixed metaphor, but at least it isn't gross.)

[LARED]

13. Well that's just dandy

I don't suppose actually explaining your point would be to much to ask

[wildbilln864]

16. No it's not.

My point is that I disagree with these statements: "Newton's 3rd Law applies to bouncing billiard balls not the interiors of collapsing buildings".
I think it always applies.

and: "Newton’s Laws apply to the external forces acting between interacting bodies in closed systems. Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to the internal forces causing an open-structured body to collapse in on itself."
I wondered who agreed with them.

[LARED]

18. Ok, that great

It would be interesting to see who agrees with those statements

[wildbilln864]

19. thank you. nt

[jberryhill]

5. Newton's laws have nothing to do with "closed" or "open" systems

...since those terms are relevant in the context of thermodynamics, which is a subject that has nothing to do with the laws of mechanics.

[William Seger]

15. Snark bait

No, I don't agree. I'm not sure what Greening was trying to get at, but as stated, I don't believe it's correct.

Why do you ask?

[wildbilln864]

17. No not snark bait...

I want to know who agreed with Greening.

[William Seger]

20. And what did you learn? (n/t)

[wildbilln864]

21. the question is...

what did "you" learn!?

[William Seger]

22. From this thread?

I learned that you are devious.

[wildbilln864]

23. oh?

paranoid much?

[William Seger]

25. Not so much

... just being observant.

[wildbilln864]

24. no I didn't mean the thread

I mean did we learn anything about Frank Greening?

[William Seger]

27. Ummmm, don't think so

Everyone makes mistakes, and in this case I think it's really just a mistake in semantics. I've been reading through that exchange between Greening and Legge, Chandler, etc., and I think I see now what Greening was getting at. I still don't agree with the statement that Newton's 3rd law "doesn't apply." Instead, I think the problem is that Chandler is misapplying it -- it doesn't apply the way Chandler thinks it does.

In dynamics, forces are classified as either contact or non-contact. Gravity and magnetism are non-contact forces, because they act on bodies that don't need to touch each other, whereas contact forces involve one body applying force on another by touching or rubbing against it. (We're talking physics here; get you mind out of the gutter.) The reason that's important is that the "action" and "reaction" in Newton's 3rd law, in addition to being equal and opposite, are always of the same type. For example, if a brick is sitting on a table, the reaction to the force of the gravity pulling down on the brick is not the force of the table pushing up on the brick, even though those happen to be equal and opposite. That's a common misapplication of Newton's 3rd law, but in fact the reaction to the force of gravity pulling down on the brick is the brick pulling up on the Earth! However, the table is in the way of the two getting any closer together, which causes a contact force between the brick and the table: the brick pushes down on the table and the table pushes back up on the brick, equally. If the table is capable of reacting upward with a force equal to the weight of the brick without collapsing, then there is equilibrium, i.e. nothing moves as a result of the forces. So, the upward reaction to the contact force is indeed equal and opposite to the downward non-contact force of gravity, but it is not the reaction to it which Newton's 3rd law addresses.

The reason that distinction matters is this: If we drop the brick onto the table, the situation is different. The non-contact downward force of gravity doesn't change -- it's still just equal to the brick's weight -- but the contact force is now an impulse force, due to momentum, which is greater than the brick's weight. So, right off the bat, we're talking about the table resisting some percentage of the impulse force, not some percentage of the brick's weight, so the resulting affect on the brick's acceleration isn't quite so simple as Chandler's simple ratio. I believe the error in Chandler's logic is to analyze a dynamic situation as if it were quasi-static.

So that's what I think, wildbill: Greening was wrong with his wording but Chandler is wrong in his understanding of Newton's 3rd law.

If you think I'm wrong, tell me why.

[wildbilln864]

29. you think it's just a mistake in semantics...

and you think Chandler is wrong because otherwise you'd have to admit you're wrong.
Thanks for your opinion though.

[William Seger]

31. No, I explained in detail why I think Chandler is wrong

Sorry you didn't understand it, but that wasn't really the intent, since that could hardly be expected. Yes, I do believe Chandler is definitely wrong in his understanding of Newton's 3rd law, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Greening -- except for the irony.

[wildbilln864]

Oh I do understand. You think Chandler is wrong and defend Greening...

who twice said Newton's third law didn't apply in the collapses! It's not semantics, it's either a misunderstanding of the basic physics or it's just deliberate deceit. I think it's the latter.

"FG: So, to recap: Newton’s Laws apply to the external forces acting between interacting bodies in closed systems. Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to the internal forces causing an open-structured body to collapse in on itself."

[William Seger]

34. Nope. If you understood what I said about the 3rd law...

... you can say that Greening's statement is wrong, but you couldn't accuse Greening of "deliberate deceit." What he was getting at appears to be valid -- that Chandler is wrong to apply static analysis to a dynamic situation -- but the reason Greening gave is not stated accurately. Which is to say, I believe Greening could restate his argument in a way that would show why Chandler is wrong. Where is this "deceit" you're suspecting?

My guess is that you have exactly zero comprehension of the entire issue. Prove me wrong by responding to what I wrote in #27 a way that at least shows you understand what I wrote. It isn't really all that complicated.

[AZCat]

35. I think you said it rather well, actually.

If you don't mind, I might link to it in the future as a lucid, concise explanation of a concept that seems to be missed by a lot of "truthers". IIRC Tony Szamboti also had trouble with the concept.

[wildbilln864]

36. No he can't. He would do so if he could but you see he failed.

"Which is to say, I believe Greening could restate his argument in a way that would show why Chandler is wrong."

[William Seger]

39. What I see that YOU have failed

... to respond to my request to explain where you see any deceit, and also my request for you to explain where my criticism of Chandler's argument is in error. However, I don't buy your faulty logic of "if wildbill could, then he would," either, so I'll wait patiently for your response and hope for the best...
:eyes:

[wildbilln864]

41. I said he either doesn't understand it or he must be deliberately deceptive.

It's my opinion. Maybe he isn't being deceptive. Maybe he just doesn't really understand basic laws of physics. I wouldn't expect that from Greening. So what other excuses could there be?
I'm not concerned with your criticism of Chandler. He has the credentials! Where are yours?

[AZCat]

42. Hypocrisy, thy name is wildbill.

If William Seger needs credentials in order to be able to criticize Chandler, maybe we should see your credentials before you start threads like this one criticizing Greening.

Or maybe the whole "credentials" thing is a way for you to avoid addressing the substance of William Seger's criticism. Typical.

[wildbilln864]

37. Greening:

"FG: "I would say that Chandler's slight of hand is the implied notion that Newton's 3rd Law is universally applicable, even to a collapsing building."

[AZCat]

38. I guess it's too much to ask for an actual link to the source of your quote. n/t

[wildbilln864]

40. Nope! Not semantics.

The man is clearly saying, "...the implied notion that Newton's 3rd Law is universally applicable, even to a collapsing building."
So he means he doesn't believe it applies to collapsing buildings. :popcorn:

[William Seger]

43. "he doesn't believe it applies to collapsing buildings"

I don't believe it applies to collapsing buildings the way Chandler applied it, either, and I'm still patiently waiting for you to explain where I went wrong. But you've already weighed in with your opinion of what the point of all this is -- which apparently has nothing whatsoever to do with physics -- but since you can't seem to justify your accusation that Greening is being deliberately deceitful, well... thank you for your illogical opinion.

[wildbilln864]

44. you say...

"I don't believe it applies to collapsing buildings the way Chandler applied it, either,..." Nice try.

But Greening states it doesn't apply at all.
"FG: "Newton's 3rd Law applies to bouncing billiard balls not the interiors of collapsing buildings"."

[William Seger]

45. "Nice try"?

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for your little game.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.