Yes, gravity would be pulling the mass down at 9.8 m/s^2, but the resistance the mass has to overcome, has slowed it to 64% of that acceleration, now look to how much that resistance needs to be, and that is 36% of the weight of the upper mass, now do you see? as to where the 64% figure comes from, its from analysis of the videos & timing from the event itself, the falling stuff outside the tower is obviously falling at 9.8 m/s^2 and the wavefront of destruction following it is seen to be descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity.
And the force applied by the falling mass is much greater than the dynamic load bearing capacity of the building below, which is why it slows down the falling mass but cannot stop it. You will notice that the strongest part of the building, the hat trusses, slow it down the most. There is nothing that is unusual about this.
Answer a simple question. If the CONSTANT gravitational acceleration on an unimpeded object is 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP], then what does that same object falling at 6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] instead of 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] tell you?
You really don't get the 36% do you? also how is it defined at all as to exactly what part the hat truss plays in all of the interaction of stuff?
And I keep asking you the same thing over and over. You continually ignore it. According to your math above, in order to make an object fall at certain percentage of g, all I have to do is design something to resist the INVERSE of that percentage of g as percentage of the total weight. So, in order to stop a descending 16 lb bowling ball (dropped from 30 feet in the air) dead in it's tracks (0% of g, not moving), all I need to do is calculate for 16 lbs of impact force right?
You are confusing the case of STOPPING the ball with slowing it down, if you had designed a structure that resists 36% of the balls weight and then dropped the ball on it what would happen is the ball would slow to 64% of the acceleration of gravity. if you wanted to stop the ball, you would have to of course take into account the energy involved, that is KE of the ball. Now have I made it perfectly clear?
So let's put your understanding to the test yet again. According to you, an object at a certain acceleration rate of g will ALWAYS apply the same inverse of that percentage as the percentage of the total weight of the object to an object below. Thus, using our 16 lb bowling ball: 64% of g = 36% of the 16 lbs being applied to an object below. 70% of g = 30% of the 16 lbs being applied to an object below. And so on. So explain this. If that same 16 lb. bowling ball was dropped from various heights on a scale and was unimpeded (falling at 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]), one would expect the impact on said scale to always be 16lbs right? According to you. So the following is how you understand things. 1. 16 lb bowling ball at rest registers 16 lbs as it sits on the scale 2. 16 lb bowling ball dropped from 5 feet at 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] onto the scale registers 16 lbs when it impacts the scale 3. 16 lb bowling ball dropped from 20 feet at 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] onto the scale registers 16 lbs when it impacts the scale 4. 16 lb bowling ball dropped from 100 feet at 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] onto the scale registers 16 lbs when it impacts the scale Is that how you understand things to be?
I'm using your math genericBob. You think that in order to slow an object to a certain percentage of g, you have to apply the inverse percentage expressed as that percentage of the total object's weight as resistance. Thus, to slow an object to 64% of g, you have to apply resistance equal to the inverse of that percentage of the total objects weight. Which you state as 36% of the objects weight to slow it down to 64% of g. Using your math, this means that to slow an object to 70% of g, I would have to apply resistance equal to 30% of the objects total weight. To get an object to slow to 90% of g, I would have to apply resistance equal to 10% of the objects total weight. Is this correct genericBob?
is there anybody else here, reading this and getting the same sort of total confusion from "Gamolon's" posts he is obviously stuck on the bowling ball hitting the scale & breaking it bit, and can not see the difference between stopping an object and slowing it down.
Picture this, you drop a bowling ball into a swimming pool and the ball ( while in air accelerates at aprox 9.8 m/s^2 ) now upon hitting the water, it encounters resistance and is then descending at something less than 9.8 m/s^2. so far so good, now if you drop the bowling ball onto a scale, and break the scale you have stopped the ball, and in stopping the ball, it expressed the energy that it had. KE = M*V
Tell me something genericBob. Let's say the ball slowed to 6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] when it entered the water and descended at that rate until it came to rest on the pool floor. What was the acceleration rate of the entire scenario? What percentage of g would that be?
A simple yes or no will do. For an object to attain 64% of g, 34% of the object's weight must be applied as resistance For an object to attain 70% of g, 30% of the object's weight must be applied as resistance For an object to attain 90% of g, 10% of the object's weight must be applied as resistance Is this correct? Yes or no?
and the fact that you continue to ask the question(s) that you are asking, speaks volumes, will you think for a moment on what has been presented so far and say that you have not received your answer(s)? We get the fundamental physics here, why are you working so hard at it? its a given that when the upper mass was descending at 64% of gravity it was only pressing down upon the rest of the tower structure 36% of its weight, and if you want to argue otherwise, please bring your argument and we can discuss it.
You're right! It does speak volumes. I am trying to clarify something you have stated and you continually dodge the question. Now, according to this statement... Is the following correct? The fact that you would rather write a paragraph to try and switch the subject instead of answering a simple "yes" or "no" is in itself "quite telling".
One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Lying about how they died certainly isn't respectful.
anybody who can read, can see what is going on here, I refuse to jump through hoops & spoon feed you answers to bits that are so obvious its scary! Do you think there is some special woo that causes the upper mass falling at 64% of gravity to impress more than 36% of its weight upon the bit below? & WHY?
