http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/06/cellphones-cant.html

A microwave can range between 500-1000 watts and is specifically designed to transfer as much energy as possible onto a target. It still takes minutes to make a kernel pop. These cell phones are making it happen in about 5 seconds using antennas. They would practically have to be alien death rays for that to be possible.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The supernerd hasn't taken the amplitude increase that occurs between waves of the same frequency into account. The amplitude increase can be as much as ten-fold for most standing wave (harmonic) solutions...

I'm pretty certain that this video is geniune... which is a bit scary

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
Choggie's insightful analysis aside, a supernerd at http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=423337 has already applied the science required to debunk it - "Popcorn pops because the water in it turns to steam and a kernel is about 14% water. So, if we assume a kernel of popcorn weighs 1 gram, it has 0.13 grams of water. Heat that water from 30�C to 100�C would take:

(0.14g)*(100�C-3 to turn the water to steam requires he latent heat of vaporization, which is 2259J/g.

2259J*0.14g= 316J for a total of 316J 41J = 357J.

Wattage = Joules/seconds. If it took about 5 seconds to turn the water in the popcorn kernel to steam, then the wattage required was:

357J/5sec = 71W assuming all power from the cell phone transmitter went into the kernel.

Cell phones typically have 0.75W-1W transmitters in them. With a 1W transmitter, it would take,

334J/1W = 334secs, if all power is transfered to the kernel.

Conclusion: since the corn is popping in 5 seconds... completely fake.

edit - as pointed out, corn kernels weigh about 0.25g and there are 4 phones which could be up to 2W each. Therefore, the energy hitting the corn could be 16 times greater. But the other assumption (that all the power is focussed into the water content of just 1 kernel) is most likely wrong by a factor of 100 or more." - NOBODY PANIC

Galileo? Seriously?


In reply to this comment by Irishman:
"The Catholic church gets bashed on a lot and I'm never sure why."


The vatican staying silent about the holocaust during WWII,

Still teaching even today that HIV can pass through condoms in AIDS stricken Africa,

Covering up child abuse allegations, for example that of Father John Geoghan, accused of sexually molesting over 100 boys in the Archdiocese of Boston,

The persecution of Galileo, the inventor of the telescope,

The infamous brutal and violating interrogations directed at the suppresion of heresy,

In fact hundreds of years of years of persection, deceit, lies and social control; much of which can be levelled at any religion in the world. Take your pick.

The vatican's position on evolution does not explicity say that evolution is the most likely creation theory, only that "faith and scientific findings regarding the evolution of man's material body are not in conflict, though man is regarded as a 'special creation', and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origins."

This is always worth saying: Science is a METHOD, not a position.

Then why do you wish such ill on those that protest an evil organization, that you have no association with?

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
As I said before Kommie, I'm an eschatologist, not a scientologist.

In reply to this comment by QuadraPixel:
Wow, now that's a little harsh, but not when it comes from a SCIENTOLOGIST.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Busted-for-Interbulating-a-scientology-party
http://www.videosift.com/video/Cult-of-Scientology-takes-over-Clearwater-Police-Dept

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Personally I'd like to see every single person in that video joining a suicide death cult as soon as possible.

Wow, now that's a little harsh, but not when it comes from a SCIENTOLOGIST.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Busted-for-Interbulating-a-scientology-party
http://www.videosift.com/video/Cult-of-Scientology-takes-over-Clearwater-Police-Dept

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Personally I'd like to see every single person in that video joining a suicide death cult as soon as possible.

HELLO SCIENTOLOGIST!

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Personally I'd like to see every single person in that video joining a suicide death cult as soon as possible.

too funny. that was perfect

q

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
"Test audiences liked him and didn't want to see him die, so the studio added the scene of him surfacing."

There's all you need to know about the bible right there.

Ok. It will take me a little time to reply. I am working on some data analysis, but I have started my reply.

Did my explanation make sense to you?

By the way, you do know about Steven Jones, right? He is not a credible scientific source.

"When you calculate total mass, the value of the mass you are using should already take into account its inertia."

Huh? Inertia is not a part of a force equation.

If we are talking about rotating objects, then there is an analog to force called moment of intertia, it's symbol is I and for three dimensional rotating objects it is a tensor. That is neither here nor there.

I am not sure how much your analogy makes sense. But I will play with it-

If you knocked out the last 8 inches of your house, in say an imprecise way. Do you think it wouldn't collapsed? I mean it would depend on how you did it, but, I think, in this case the equation is pretty clear.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
This isn't right surely, what you are saying would mean that I would only have to knock out about 8 inches of my house for the entire thing to collapse into rubble. There isn't enough time for the falling part to gather enough inertia and therefore total mass.

Yes, absolutely the impulse is practically negiglible from the start. We are talking about 12 stories falling into one. Let alone that fact the superstructure is not made up of independent parts. All things considered, it is not only reasonable to discover that the towers fell at an acceleration close to gravity, it is expected.

I should remark that the estimates for the collapse are just that, and more than likely a lower bound. Realistically, the collapse probably started many seconds before the visual or seismic data could have measured.

The 11 seconds is obtained for the seismic data. If you can find me a citation which proves otherwise I'd like to see it.

I am not sure my equation needs anything. I mean if the speed was faster the acceleration of gravity then it would need something.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).



In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance...

This isn't right surely, what you are saying would mean that I would only have to knock out about 8 inches of my house for the entire thing to collapse into rubble. There isn't enough time for the falling part to gather enough inertia and therefore total mass.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
When you calculate total mass, the value of the mass you are using should already take into account its inertia.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance fallen by the taller building was 416.97 metres.

g at sea level is 9.81m/s

t (time taken for collapse) is 10 seconds from the seismic records and video footage.

416.97 metres will take 9.22 seconds to fall in a vacuum. The taller tower collapsed in 10 seconds.

That means that the 80 lower floors offered less than one second of resistance; this is not including air resistance.

That leaves less that one second for the amount of inertia to build up, not the 11 seconds that I think your equation needs. But correct me if I am wrong.



In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Yes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Go to 6. There is the answer.

Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-

The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.

Or an easier way to see it,

F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse

Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.

Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.

This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.

Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.

My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.

There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.

A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.

If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.

I cleaned up my grammar and stuff on the original page.

When you calculate total mass, the value of the mass you are using should already take into account its inertia.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The total distance fallen by the taller building was 416.97 metres.

g at sea level is 9.81m/s

t (time taken for collapse) is 10 seconds from the seismic records and video footage.

416.97 metres will take 9.22 seconds to fall in a vacuum. The taller tower collapsed in 10 seconds.

That means that the 80 lower floors offered less than one second of resistance; this is not including air resistance.

That leaves less that one second for the amount of inertia to build up, not the 11 seconds that I think your equation needs. But correct me if I am wrong.



In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Yes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Go to 6. There is the answer.

Right, so let me know if I lose you, and I will try to make it more clear-

The basic idea is that as the mass collapsed the initial collapsing floors collapsed at a total acceleration less than gravity at STP. At the floors collapsed onto each other their total momentum increased.

Or an easier way to see it,

F= (M+dm)*a = (M+dm)*g_STP-Fimpulse

Here I represented the force downward as an increasing quantity and Fimpulse as the force due to the collision of the total mass at time t-1 to time t. So, as the mass falls it gains more mass, until eventually the total force of the mass falling can be approximated F~(M+dm)g_STP.

Not that more mass falls at a faster rate, rather as more mass falls the effect of the other forces becomes negligible.

This means that for the most part the acceleration can be effectively described by something in freefall, and hence g_STP~a.

Note Fimpulse is a constant as a function of time.
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I back Choggie's comments.

My own thoughts,
The thermite theory addressed the problem of the freefall speed of the tower's collapse.

There is still no official or third party theory that addresses that problem.

A freefall speed of collapse explicity implies no resistance, and that is impossible for 3 of the buildings that collapsed at freefall speed unless they were demolished.

If someone can explain how the freefall collapses were caused by the fire, then they will have solved the riddle.