Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2013, 09:51 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 09:06 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(05-07-2013 07:33 AM)I and I Wrote:  Nope, according to physics an object like a car being hurled into a building at high speeds would result in forces breaking apart the car and the part of the building it hit and debris would be scattered about.

The car would not melt into or morph into or disappear into a building. There would be an impact and the above would happen.

Actually it would depend on the materials.
If we're talking about some African straw hut house v an abrams tank, I suspect that yes there will be debre flying everywhere, but it wont be from the tank...
Drinking Beverage

Not necessarily, Muffsy. This is what a shoulder fired Javelin anti-tank missile can do to a Soviet T-72 main battle tank. The small pieces falling to the ground at the end are chunks of the 1" thick cold rolled steel armor from the tank. The explosion is a result of heating the air within the tank.




"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 10:20 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 07:33 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(02-07-2013 09:18 PM)BryanS Wrote:  It's not even possible to figure out what I & I is arguing.

According to I&I's Laws, if someone tosses a dart at a cork board, we should expect to always find a debris field of dart pieces strewn about the bar floor. This is because in the world of I&I, it is not possible for anything to be stopped by embedding into other objects which can absorb impacts through deformation of both the impacting and impacted objects.

By the way, I&I, one analyses a debris field of a collision using the concept of conservation of momentum. Yes, the laws of conservation of momentum are consistent with and derivable through the combination of the 2nd and 3rd Newtons' Laws of motion. However this is not primarily a Newton's Third Law question. And conservation of momentum has proven itself to be a fundamental concept even outside of Newtonian mechanics.

Nope, according to physics an object like a car being hurled into a building at high speeds would result in forces breaking apart the car and the part of the building it hit and debris would be scattered about.

The car would not melt into or morph into or disappear into a building. There would be an impact and the above would happen.


Have you actually studied Physics? I doubt it. A high rise like the original World Trade Center was designed to absorb impacts from the smaller sized commercial aircraft generally used around the time it was built. And the building did withstand the initial impact, just not the fire immediately afterward. Whether what you describe as the likely outcome happens depends entirely on the specifics involved--momentum of the projectile, mass of the impacted object, and the materials each consists of.

Bullet proof glass is a perfect example of materials design that allows the glass to absorb a high speed object specifically designed to pierce other objects. The fact that I can cite a specific counter-example to your assertion should cause you to reconsider your statement. But somehow I doubt it will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BryanS's post
05-07-2013, 10:34 AM
Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 10:20 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(05-07-2013 07:33 AM)I and I Wrote:  Nope, according to physics an object like a car being hurled into a building at high speeds would result in forces breaking apart the car and the part of the building it hit and debris would be scattered about.

The car would not melt into or morph into or disappear into a building. There would be an impact and the above would happen.


Have you actually studied Physics? I doubt it. A high rise like the original World Trade Center was designed to absorb impacts from the smaller sized commercial aircraft generally used around the time it was built. And the building did withstand the initial impact, just not the fire immediately afterward. Whether what you describe as the likely outcome happens depends entirely on the specifics involved--momentum of the projectile, mass of the impacted object, and the materials each consists of.

Bullet proof glass is a perfect example of materials design that allows the glass to absorb a high speed object specifically designed to pierce other objects. The fact that I can cite a specific counter-example to your assertion should cause you to reconsider your statement. But somehow I doubt it will.

There is no debris from the airplane breaking apart at all in the collision, no pieces or breaking apart from the plane. Physics says this shouldn't happen. I am referring to the impact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 10:34 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 10:20 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Have you actually studied Physics? I doubt it. A high rise like the original World Trade Center was designed to absorb impacts from the smaller sized commercial aircraft generally used around the time it was built. And the building did withstand the initial impact, just not the fire immediately afterward. Whether what you describe as the likely outcome happens depends entirely on the specifics involved--momentum of the projectile, mass of the impacted object, and the materials each consists of.

Bullet proof glass is a perfect example of materials design that allows the glass to absorb a high speed object specifically designed to pierce other objects. The fact that I can cite a specific counter-example to your assertion should cause you to reconsider your statement. But somehow I doubt it will.

Oh, you poor sheeple.

Don't you realize that all of physics is just a pre-emptive lie, planted so that people couldn't object to the "official story" when the time came... ?

WAKE UP MAN

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
05-07-2013, 10:36 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 10:34 AM)I and I Wrote:  There is no debris from the airplane breaking apart at all in the collision, no pieces or breaking apart from the plane. Physics says this shouldn't happen. I am referring to the impact.

No, you say that shouldn't happen, because your understanding of both the physics and the situation are lamentably partial.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 11:14 AM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 10:34 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(05-07-2013 10:20 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Have you actually studied Physics? I doubt it. A high rise like the original World Trade Center was designed to absorb impacts from the smaller sized commercial aircraft generally used around the time it was built. And the building did withstand the initial impact, just not the fire immediately afterward. Whether what you describe as the likely outcome happens depends entirely on the specifics involved--momentum of the projectile, mass of the impacted object, and the materials each consists of.

Bullet proof glass is a perfect example of materials design that allows the glass to absorb a high speed object specifically designed to pierce other objects. The fact that I can cite a specific counter-example to your assertion should cause you to reconsider your statement. But somehow I doubt it will.

There is no debris from the airplane breaking apart at all in the collision, no pieces or breaking apart from the plane. Physics says this shouldn't happen. I am referring to the impact.

Did you bother to read my post on this earlier?

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 12:01 PM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 10:34 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(05-07-2013 10:20 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Have you actually studied Physics? I doubt it. A high rise like the original World Trade Center was designed to absorb impacts from the smaller sized commercial aircraft generally used around the time it was built. And the building did withstand the initial impact, just not the fire immediately afterward. Whether what you describe as the likely outcome happens depends entirely on the specifics involved--momentum of the projectile, mass of the impacted object, and the materials each consists of.

Bullet proof glass is a perfect example of materials design that allows the glass to absorb a high speed object specifically designed to pierce other objects. The fact that I can cite a specific counter-example to your assertion should cause you to reconsider your statement. But somehow I doubt it will.

There is no debris from the airplane breaking apart at all in the collision, no pieces or breaking apart from the plane.
First of all, this is not actually true. Pieces of the plane did break off and were found later. Recently, there was a story that landing gear from the plane was discovered wedged between two high rise buildings:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lupi...-1.1329942




Quote:Physics says this shouldn't happen. I am referring to the impact.

No, Physics does not say this. I gave you a specific counter example of materials every lay person should be familiar with that absorbs impacts from high velocity projectiles. That should be enough to show it that collisions may result in objects sticking together, and should disprove your claim that they never stick. There is even a specific name given to this class of collisions, called "perfectly inelastic". Again, you will not find this kind of concept in a wiki page on Newton's Third Law, because momentum, not forces, are used to analyze collisions.

As I speculated would be the case, I was right that these facts would not change your mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BryanS's post
05-07-2013, 04:38 PM
Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 12:01 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(05-07-2013 10:34 AM)I and I Wrote:  There is no debris from the airplane breaking apart at all in the collision, no pieces or breaking apart from the plane.
First of all, this is not actually true. Pieces of the plane did break off and were found later. Recently, there was a story that landing gear from the plane was discovered wedged between two high rise buildings:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lupi...-1.1329942




Quote:Physics says this shouldn't happen. I am referring to the impact.

No, Physics does not say this. I gave you a specific counter example of materials every lay person should be familiar with that absorbs impacts from high velocity projectiles. That should be enough to show it that collisions may result in objects sticking together, and should disprove your claim that they never stick. There is even a specific name given to this class of collisions, called "perfectly inelastic". Again, you will not find this kind of concept in a wiki page on Newton's Third Law, because momentum, not forces, are used to analyze collisions.

As I speculated would be the case, I was right that these facts would not change your mind.

You brought up other examples of other shit. Why were they addressed to me? I am referring to a vehicle or plane slamming into a building and nothing else. That is like saying " well the basketball and wall don't break apart therefore two colliding cars shouldn't break into pieces. That is a completely stupid way of arguing against or explaining why AT IMPACT there was no plane parts breaking apart.

Look at the video of the plane going into the building, the plane doesn't break apart at all on impact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 05:52 PM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 04:38 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(05-07-2013 12:01 PM)BryanS Wrote:  First of all, this is not actually true. Pieces of the plane did break off and were found later. Recently, there was a story that landing gear from the plane was discovered wedged between two high rise buildings:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lupi...-1.1329942





No, Physics does not say this. I gave you a specific counter example of materials every lay person should be familiar with that absorbs impacts from high velocity projectiles. That should be enough to show it that collisions may result in objects sticking together, and should disprove your claim that they never stick. There is even a specific name given to this class of collisions, called "perfectly inelastic". Again, you will not find this kind of concept in a wiki page on Newton's Third Law, because momentum, not forces, are used to analyze collisions.

As I speculated would be the case, I was right that these facts would not change your mind.

You brought up other examples of other shit. Why were they addressed to me? I am referring to a vehicle or plane slamming into a building and nothing else. That is like saying " well the basketball and wall don't break apart therefore two colliding cars shouldn't break into pieces. That is a completely stupid way of arguing against or explaining why AT IMPACT there was no plane parts breaking apart.

Look at the video of the plane going into the building, the plane doesn't break apart at all on impact.


Well, now you're going full retard. My previous post showed the story of the landing gear found wedged between a couple buildings. I suppose you're going to argue that this story was planted to throw people like you off the trail of the 'real truth' of 911.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 06:55 PM
RE: Newton's third law of motion. Is it true? Is it still held true today?
(05-07-2013 04:38 PM)I and I Wrote:  You brought up other examples of other shit. Why were they addressed to me? I am referring to a vehicle or plane slamming into a building and nothing else. That is like saying " well the basketball and wall don't break apart therefore two colliding cars shouldn't break into pieces. That is a completely stupid way of arguing against or explaining why AT IMPACT there was no plane parts breaking apart.

Look at the video of the plane going into the building, the plane doesn't break apart at all on impact.

So, you... think that pieces are just going to fly off in all directions at the moment of impact, do you?

As has been mentioned quite a few times upthread, there is the concept of momentum.


Now, the actually interesting question is how you resolve your imagined (and it is so very, very, imagined) discrepancy. Is it A- the impact was from some sort of object which would not break apart; or B- the footage is fake.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: