Inertia is a bitch, huh?

>> ^budzos:

They're not actually moving that fast (there is no spoon). There are no laws of physics for them to violate.
>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
While that was an awesome scene and pretty revolutionary for it's time, I always thought that given you've just seen the agent has reflexes quick enough to dodge bullets, wouldn't saying "dodge this" give it more than enough time to take the gun off Trinity?
I know, rule of cool and all, but still..

Lets go even farther and take into account inertia and momentum etc. If the agent and neo can move that fast shouldn't they be subject to some form of physical law that says if you move fast enough to become a blur your energy should be dissipated in some form ?
The whole thing is full of odd holes, but all in all its a neat movie.




INDEED !

They're not actually moving that fast (there is no spoon). There are no laws of physics for them to violate.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
While that was an awesome scene and pretty revolutionary for it's time, I always thought that given you've just seen the agent has reflexes quick enough to dodge bullets, wouldn't saying "dodge this" give it more than enough time to take the gun off Trinity?
I know, rule of cool and all, but still..

Lets go even farther and take into account inertia and momentum etc. If the agent and neo can move that fast shouldn't they be subject to some form of physical law that says if you move fast enough to become a blur your energy should be dissipated in some form ?
The whole thing is full of odd holes, but all in all its a neat movie.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

While that was an awesome scene and pretty revolutionary for it's time, I always thought that given you've just seen the agent has reflexes quick enough to dodge bullets, wouldn't saying "dodge this" give it more than enough time to take the gun off Trinity?
I know, rule of cool and all, but still..


Lets go even farther and take into account inertia and momentum etc. If the agent and neo can move that fast shouldn't they be subject to some form of physical law that says if you move fast enough to become a blur your energy should be dissipated in some form ?

The whole thing is full of odd holes, but all in all its a neat movie.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

I swear that cockpit is pivoting incorrectly..


Remember that this is simulating the pilot's head inside the cockpit. As such, the cockpit pivot is inertially correct for roll and yaw. Pitch seems a little odd, but remember that the pilot is sitting above the central axis of the craft, so he'll be moved not only by the pitch of the craft, but also by his inertia with relation to the craft. If you look at flight sims like IL-2, you can see the same cockpit pivots.

Ummm....that, or a pair of testicles.

>> ^deathcow:

so inertia is the secret !!!!

>> ^deathcow:

so inertia is the secret !!!!


Prisoners of inertia, you might even say.

so inertia is the secret !!!!

PS if anyone is looking to dupe this.... this was originally posted but was discarded when he found out that Whealdon had died.

It went from being an amazing bit of fire and gravity and inertia to something else entirely.

>> ^Enzoblue:

>> ^Ornthoron:
A little cold water for everyone:
If these results turn out to be solid, it will not necessarily conflict with Einstein's theory of relativity. Relativity can accomodate these particles if they have negative mass.

Negative mass doesn't even make sense to me. You either have mass or you don't. You can't really really really not have mass all you want, but it doesn't make you negative. Please explain.


Sorry, I miswrote. I meant to say imaginary mass, just like tachyons. It's the mass squared that is negative.

To a physicist, mass is just a number describing a certain property of particles, namely their inertia and gravitational attraction. To date, all observed particles either have real positive mass or are massless, but that does not mean that some other value (negative or even complex) is theoretically impossible. The Standard Model of particle physics is far from complete, and there are extensions to it that include Lorentz symmetry breaking and thus can accomodate faster than light neutrinos.

I am assuming that time is somewhat meaningless, actually. I assume that time had a beginning when the Universe was created and will have an end when the Universe is destroyed, and after that existence will be eternal. I think a Creator is far more plausible than an arbitrary process that mimics one. For one, there is no impetus for anything to happen in eternity. It wasn't caused so there is no inertia for anything to happen; it is infinitely stable. Why should a well ordered temporal Universe that creates beings that ask these questions spontaneously arise from an eternal continuim?

Our dating methods are far from infallable. Scientists have dated rocks they knew the age of (within decades) and yielded ages of millions and billions of years. Archaelogists have found human fossils and tools in rocks that were supposedely hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils don't have date tags on them, and there is this circular logic of using the rocks to date the fossils and the fossils to date the rocks. I could give you hundreds of examples of flaws with dating methodology. There is quite a bit of evidence supporting a young earth and a young Universe.

I think you're assuming that the truth cannot be known, or if it could, it isn't accessible. In my experience, it can be known, and absolutely at that. Empirical proof for a spiritual creation does not or could not technically exist. God can never be empirically proven because He is a Spirit, and more than that, exists outside of space and time. That doesn't mean there isn't any evidence, it just means that you can't put God in a testtube and derive a result.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
Your assuming time is a real element of existence and not an element of minds. In addition, a "Being" is not the only logical necessary/essential element of the starting point of existence. If anything, a "Being" has more baggage to explain than an arbitrary set of meta rules governing all things that exist. Hawking had an explanation close to this, though, like most scientists, his philosophy missed the mark ever so slightly (100% claims to materialistic causes don't have concrete foundation).
The big bang, however, has certain problematic elements to most religions creation explanations, mainly the element of their self contained explanations of the passage of set amounts of time. A 14 billion (or so, it keeps changing!) year old universe is way off the mark for most of the creation events we have from the larger religions. Even if the big bang isn't entirely accurate, if the time window for the universe is even marginally accurate, the 10k year old earth proposition seems highly dubious. There is some wiggle room, but it mostly seems like an equivocation of the actual text of Genesis.
In closing, it isn't any more certain that the cause of all things is an "eternal being" anymore than it is an "eternal formula". It also isn't certain that; time is a real thing, events are causally linked, or that a human can making any intelligible claims to the way "Noumenon" MUST exist. </lunch break rant>

>> ^imstellar28:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/guymontage" title="member since July 18th, 2009" class="profilelink">guymontage
Who said you have to be an engineer? What I said is I very much doubt anyone in this thread is qualified to comment on the consequences of a plane hitting a skyscraper. To think you can just waltz in here and quote "Inertia" because you heard it in 8th grade science class is just ridiculous.
What argument is rcyhan making? The guy in the experiment started with the hypothesis "thermite can cut steel" and then conducted an experiment and proved that yes, it can cut steel. What is not scientific about that? As far as I understand it, that is the exact implementation of the scientific method. The fact that the conclusion is "widely known" (rychans words) has no bearing on this video. Clearly, it is not "widely known" if a mainstream television show is conducting experiments and concludes that thermite can not, in fact, cut steel.
Everyone on the internet thinks they are an expert, but who in this thread even has a college degree much less one in civil engineering? Even if someone has a degree in civil engineering who has the experience with skyscrapers or even the particular design of this tower? It's retarded to think anyone here is anything even resembling an expert on the physics of this particular situation.


He claims much more than "Thermite can cut steel". He implies that there are widespread media biases or conspiracies. He implies that the official explanation for the WTC collapse is wrong and that his experiments support this claim. If he narrowly tailored his claims I would have no problem with this video. It has fun explosions, after all.

>> ^imstellar28:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/guymontage" title="member since July 18th, 2009" class="profilelink">guymontage
Who said you have to be an engineer? What I said is I very much doubt anyone in this thread is qualified to comment on the consequences of a plane hitting a skyscraper. To think you can just waltz in here and quote "Inertia" because you heard it in 8th grade science class is just ridiculous.
What argument is rcyhan making? The guy in the experiment started with the hypothesis "thermite can cut steel" and then conducted an experiment and proved that yes, it can cut steel. What is not scientific about that? As far as I understand it, that is the exact implementation of the scientific method. The fact that the conclusion is "widely known" (rychans words) has no bearing on this video. Clearly, it is not "widely known" if a mainstream television show is conducting experiments and concludes that thermite can not, in fact, cut steel.
Everyone on the internet thinks they are an expert, but who in this thread even has a college degree much less one in civil engineering? Even if someone has a degree in civil engineering who has the experience with skyscrapers or even the particular design of this tower? It's retarded to think anyone here is anything even resembling an expert on the physics of this particular situation.


My physics went up to a minor on my undergraduate degree. Even in high school though the potential energy of millions of tonnes of concrete at a certain height is already taught. That is more energy than any bomb or load of jet fuel anyone can get their hands on, and it's all rigged to unload itself straight down.

The truther that are idiots are the ones insisting that the planes weren't the cause of the collapse. If you distrust and loath the government enough to believe they were behind the attacks, if you are a rational, scientific person you will conclude that the government organized the plane crashes to take out the towers. All the insistence that was merely a cover for explosives already planted inside is insanity. If the government wanted to commit the act, they would just plant the explosives and set them off. It wouldn't have even been the first time terrorists tried to use explosives to collapse the buildings. The ONLY thing adding the planes into the mix would do is make it infinitely more prone to failure and discovery.

Then you have the unscientific beliefs that people trumpet as reasons they believe the towers were rigged beforehand:
-Jet fuel can't melt steel! Meanwhile commercial steel furnaces are widely sold that are designed to do exactly that.
-The buildings collapsed at near free fall speed, no resistance! Go see the explosives free building demolition video here on the sift. Same speed of collapse, with just the upper supports pulled out by some cranes outside.
-Everyone knows the planes couldn't have been enough to collapse the buildings! Meanwhile, 10's of thousands of engineers the world over didn't bat an eye at the finding that the fires could cause the collapse. That's a lot of professionals in on the conspiracy.
-Blocking investigation of the real story! Meanwhile google scholar is filled with endless numbers of publicly available journal articles that speak to every loony idea the conspiracy crowd can throw out there.

If you believe the government worked with someone to crash planes into the towers that's one thing. If you believe the whole idea that the planes couldn't possibly have caused the collapse and the government must have wired it with explosives before hand, you believe something idiotic and need your head shaken.

@guymontage

Who said you have to be an engineer? What I said is I very much doubt anyone in this thread is qualified to comment on the consequences of a plane hitting a skyscraper. To think you can just waltz in here and quote "Inertia" because you heard it in 8th grade science class is just ridiculous.

What argument is rcyhan making? The guy in the experiment started with the hypothesis "thermite can cut steel" and then conducted an experiment and proved that yes, it can cut steel. What is not scientific about that? As far as I understand it, that is the exact implementation of the scientific method. The fact that the conclusion is "widely known" (rychans words) has no bearing on this video. Clearly, it is not "widely known" if a mainstream television show is conducting experiments and concludes that thermite can not, in fact, cut steel.

Everyone on the internet thinks they are an expert, but who in this thread even has a college degree much less one in civil engineering? Even if someone has a degree in civil engineering who has the experience with skyscrapers or even the particular design of this tower? It's retarded to think anyone here is anything even resembling an expert on the physics of this particular situation.

>> ^kceaton1:

The buildings simply obeyed Newtonian mechanics. First you have inertia.

You make an excellent point, and I doff my hat to you. Thanks for clearing that up for me.