>> ^bareboards2:

Surely that is timeshifted? @ant, you are the expert. Isn't that sped up?


Nope. It doesn't look like it.

>> ^bareboards2:
Surely that is timeshifted? @ant, you are the expert. Isn't that sped up?


Could just be that ants are the fucking boss!

Surely that is timeshifted? @ant, you are the expert. Isn't that sped up?

Wow! Thanks for the Etch a sketch link especially! How detailed.... Ya, way too much time on their hands... When I was first starting digital painting I watched these tutorials that I thought were in real time. They really discouraged me until I realized they were sped up sometimes 10x!!! I'm so naive...*sigh*

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^jwray:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?


17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).
Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.

I find your answer lacking. 17.4 degrees C for what amount of iron dropped in a vacuum? Saying 17.4 degrees C "for iron" is tantamount to telling me you looked it up on wikipedia. As a statement of fact, it makes no sense! It depends on so many things - shape, the amount, what it lands on.. I have a suspicion you have an idea of what you're talking about, but you'll need to do better than that kind of comment.
And don't forget that only the very top bits are falling 800 m, it falls less and less the further down you go, and the fall is so complex, collisions taking place, things landing on other things, bouncing off things, slowed down, sped up, who knows what's going on in the middle?
It's still looking suspicious that your statement that the GPE of the falling shit will somehow shoot huge temperatures up to even huger temperatures.


You'll have troubles looking up temperature in any scientific literature because the real measure that matters in energy. Temperature is just a measure of how much energy a particular object is storing in the form of heat. Jwray's very valid point is simply that a skyscraper is storing an utterly enormous amount of energy in the form of gravity. If even a small portion of that energy is converted to heat, which a collapse is guaranteed to do, it will raise temperatures of whatever material absorbs that heat. If it is concentrated enough it could melt whatever is heated up. The point is simply that the collapse turned more than enough energy into the form of heat to melt a good mass of steel, the question is only how that energy was distributed through the wreckage. Odds are in a random collapse it will be distributed fairly broadly, meaning less temperature increase per mass, but the already very hot steel may not have needed that much either.

All said, it is absolutely hard to say. Meaning it's hard to rule out the collapse and simmering fires within the wreckage couldn't have melted some steel over time. Hard say that would be expected either. The more complex an event is the harder it is to predict.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?


17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).
Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.


I find your answer lacking. 17.4 degrees C for what amount of iron dropped in a vacuum? Saying 17.4 degrees C "for iron" is tantamount to telling me you looked it up on wikipedia. As a statement of fact, it makes no sense! It depends on so many things - shape, the amount, what it lands on.. I have a suspicion you have an idea of what you're talking about, but you'll need to do better than that kind of comment.

And don't forget that only the very top bits are falling 800 m, it falls less and less the further down you go, and the fall is so complex, collisions taking place, things landing on other things, bouncing off things, slowed down, sped up, who knows what's going on in the middle?

It's still looking suspicious that your statement that the GPE of the falling shit will somehow shoot huge temperatures up to even huger temperatures.

That is fricken insane stuff... just insane! (Also quite interesting how you adjust to his sped up speaking quite quickly and stop noticing it)

juses christ use a pc , and save some paper and your wrists from RSI

good point about education made in the video and its a nice idea , the sped up and overly fast editing is slightly over done in my opinion and to me comes across as the person in the video trying to come across as interlectual or that its important that people think of them as interlectual , which is dum.


other than that , i like the idea and presentation , visual mathematics is gr8 , and the presenting of things in this context is origonal. allso I cannot state strong enoughf how shitly math is tought in school ( or was in my school ) and the way school dulls and saps all interest out of evan the most intresting of things.

man, if only there was like a speaker attached, so you could get like a beeping sound as it sped up.

You know what really irks me? It's a small thing, something many wouldn't notice, but I HATE it when clips from TV shows are sped up. I don't know whether they do it to make the files smaller or because the encoder was incompetent, but when the voices are higher in pitch than they should be... I can't pay attention to a single line of dialogue. I'm completely removed from the experience. Ugh.

>> ^ant:

OK, explain why this is happening please!

Its probably just leftover kinetic energy, plus the fact that snow and ice has a very effective cushioning effect on bullets, it stops the bullet without any damage to it. I've seen 7.62 mm bullets fired by MG-3 (similar to the german ww2 MG-42 machine gun) stopping just by gently gracing the snow 1-2 meters, and they just lay there on the fine snow as if they stopped in mid-air, matrix-style. In addition bullets are given a bit of a spin out of the barrel, but in this video it was probably sped up by the kinetic energy. Essentially, it looks like the same effect you get when dropping a lid or something on the floor,and it goes on forever making noise and settling down while spinning.

As a kid a dog charged me on a bike once.. stupid thing wanted to joust me. I complied. I sped up (going downhill), aimed, and kicked it once dead center square on it's chest below the head. It flew in the air, flipped a few times and landed on it's back. The bastard never chased me again. Ah.. good memories.

I like dog's by the way. Just not asshole dogs.

The footage has definitely been sped up. *Timeshift. >> ^Payback:

It is speeded up if it's not fake. They don't orbit that fast. Also, it's not long enough to make a decent inspection.

Hahaha I got that...>> ^Throbbin:

Your a hero of the grammar!>> ^JiggaJonson:
Are you asking about the sentence in quotations? Yes it's correct grammatically.
Most people understand that you need a "noun and a verb" in every sentence. It's a bit more helpful to think of what you need in a sentence as a subject and a predicate in my opinion. The reason for this is that, while it's true that nouns and verbs are usually present in a sentence, frequently words that would usually function as verbs can be used as nouns and vice versa because you have to consider all other words that modify those words. For example:
Running = something that you do
but, when it's modified by another word like "his" to form a sentence like
"His running sped up."
^In this case, the word "running" is actually the subject of the sentence. So, you could say, because the word "running" is performing the functions of a noun, and is being modified by the predicate or the action in this sentence, running is a noun.
Now for the sentence above, the subject is being modified a lot
values is the simple subject modified by 'of the figure of merit shown (mdn (min, max))'
then you have your predicate, the Be verb 'are'
The subject and the predicate for the meatier part of the sentence is all good, one subject and one predicate and no out of place modifiers.
The only tricky part of understanding this sentence is the list at the end. All the "n=whatever" listed here would fall into a category of what's called the predicate nominative or in other words, whet the predicate, or word functioning as a verb, is naming.
You probably see these frequently and don't realize it: "When the plot to kidnap Westy is discovered, Gwiz will be a suspect." For each case, if the verb descibes a state of being, like 'am' as in 'I am,' look for what that state is. So for the aforementioned sentence, 'plot' is being modified by 'is' and the state of being in that case is 'discovered.' For the second part (abbreviated) "Gwiz" mod by "will" state of being is "suspect."
Alllll of that being said, the list at the end is all a part of that same predicate nominative (albeit a long one) and the individual groups of values are separated by semicolons correctly. The reason semicolons are used as opposed to commas is because semicolons function as a sort of 'trump' for a regular comma. In the case of this list, commas are used frequently to separate smaller segments of the number values. Because of this comma use, semicolons are needed to keep things from getting confusing.
Here's an example:
I've traveled to London, England; Paris, France; and Rome, Italy.
as opposed to
I've traveled to London, England, Paris, France, and Rome, Italy.
^and that probably doesn't look incorrect but that's only because you know of the cities I listed here. If I were to pluck out some countries/cities from a dense part of Africa like this:
I've traveled to Libreville, Gabon, Parakou, Benin, Lome, Togo, and Cuassola, Angola.
^Here it becomes difficult to categorize the city/country name because of their unfamiliarity.
But if you get some help from semicolons...
I've traveled to Libreville, Gabon; Parakou, Benin; Lome, Togo; and Cuassola, Angola.
It's much easier to categorize everything, as is the way with the correctly punctuated sentence you presented.
For more on semicolon use I strongly suggest you check out this link http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon . It's both hilarious and informative.
Finally, I asked at the beginning of this post "Are you asking about the sentence in quotations?" because what you said "I hate this sentence is it right" is not correct. You need a comma to separate the independent clauses "I hate this sentence," and "is it right."
Corrected: I hate this sentence, is it right?
Grammar Nazi awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!

Your a hero of the grammar!>> ^JiggaJonson:

Are you asking about the sentence in quotations? Yes it's correct grammatically.
Most people understand that you need a "noun and a verb" in every sentence. It's a bit more helpful to think of what you need in a sentence as a subject and a predicate in my opinion. The reason for this is that, while it's true that nouns and verbs are usually present in a sentence, frequently words that would usually function as verbs can be used as nouns and vice versa because you have to consider all other words that modify those words. For example:
Running = something that you do
but, when it's modified by another word like "his" to form a sentence like
"His running sped up."
^In this case, the word "running" is actually the subject of the sentence. So, you could say, because the word "running" is performing the functions of a noun, and is being modified by the predicate or the action in this sentence, running is a noun.
Now for the sentence above, the subject is being modified a lot
values is the simple subject modified by 'of the figure of merit shown (mdn (min, max))'
then you have your predicate, the Be verb 'are'
The subject and the predicate for the meatier part of the sentence is all good, one subject and one predicate and no out of place modifiers.
The only tricky part of understanding this sentence is the list at the end. All the "n=whatever" listed here would fall into a category of what's called the predicate nominative or in other words, whet the predicate, or word functioning as a verb, is naming.
You probably see these frequently and don't realize it: "When the plot to kidnap Westy is discovered, Gwiz will be a suspect." For each case, if the verb descibes a state of being, like 'am' as in 'I am,' look for what that state is. So for the aforementioned sentence, 'plot' is being modified by 'is' and the state of being in that case is 'discovered.' For the second part (abbreviated) "Gwiz" mod by "will" state of being is "suspect."
Alllll of that being said, the list at the end is all a part of that same predicate nominative (albeit a long one) and the individual groups of values are separated by semicolons correctly. The reason semicolons are used as opposed to commas is because semicolons function as a sort of 'trump' for a regular comma. In the case of this list, commas are used frequently to separate smaller segments of the number values. Because of this comma use, semicolons are needed to keep things from getting confusing.
Here's an example:
I've traveled to London, England; Paris, France; and Rome, Italy.
as opposed to
I've traveled to London, England, Paris, France, and Rome, Italy.
^and that probably doesn't look incorrect but that's only because you know of the cities I listed here. If I were to pluck out some countries/cities from a dense part of Africa like this:
I've traveled to Libreville, Gabon, Parakou, Benin, Lome, Togo, and Cuassola, Angola.
^Here it becomes difficult to categorize the city/country name because of their unfamiliarity.
But if you get some help from semicolons...
I've traveled to Libreville, Gabon; Parakou, Benin; Lome, Togo; and Cuassola, Angola.
It's much easier to categorize everything, as is the way with the correctly punctuated sentence you presented.
For more on semicolon use I strongly suggest you check out this link http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon . It's both hilarious and informative.
Finally, I asked at the beginning of this post "Are you asking about the sentence in quotations?" because what you said "I hate this sentence is it right" is not correct. You need a comma to separate the independent clauses "I hate this sentence," and "is it right."
Corrected: I hate this sentence, is it right?
Grammar Nazi awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!