Replies

"Is that what has your panties in a wad???
Ah yes. In one last ditch effort to preserve face claim you don't know what the question was in the first place. Then, rephrase your simple statement to more closely fit reality. Unfortunately, you screwed that up too. Momemtum is composed of mass (inertia) and velocity which is NOT "stored energy". But keep trying. You are getting very close to admiting you were wrong. And what about your claim momentum is also equal to kinetic energy?

Next topic. I will first point out the errors of the math you have offered. Then I will explain how your flawed assumptions make your arguments moot.
1. Small point, but since you started the whole definitions thing, 16 ft per sec per sec is not the upward momentum of the motorcycle. 16ft per second is its upward velocity.
2. Smaller point, but momentum is not measured in feet per second per second. That would be acceleration.
3. Bigger point...the highest altitude above the surface of the ramp he will reach is 4 feet. Not 8 feet. Use this equation: h=rt-1/2at^2, where h = height, r = rate, t = time and a = acceleration. Plugging in the appropriate values gives you the following:
h = 16ft/sec*.5sec - 1/2(32ft/sec^2)(.5sec)(.5sec)
h = 4ft above ramp height, or 20 feet above ground.
So what does that prove...it proves that even the great Swordmaker can make calculation errors. But lets forget that for now and transition to TWA 800. In your initial post you concluded that TWA 800's upward momentum vector would be overcome by gravity in less than 1 second. I think later you revised that to about 1 second. Then you said that in the next second, TWA 800 would fall 64 feet. Using the same calculations you just provided for the motorcycle, TWA 800 would have only climbed a maximum of 17 feet above its initial altitude of 13,800ft, and then fallen 47 feet below its initial altitude about 1 second later. Apply that to Evel, and he would be digging a trench well before any landing ramp positioned based on the laws of physics. As I said previously, Evel would not be pleased.

Now, lets look at reality...as you have said, it took 3 seconds for the wings to stall after the initiating event. The NTSB has applied the data given to it by Boeing and calculated that at the time of the stall, the pitch of TWA 800 was 30 degrees nose high and its airspeed was 260KCAS. Remember that it reached that pitch during 3 seconds of increasing vertical velocity caused by an up to 2.7g climb. If you assume it was in a 30 degree climb when it stalled, it would have peaked about 800ft above its stall altitude, which was the IE altitude plus 3 seconds of climb before the wings stalled. Even if you assumed the rate of climb remained 33 ft per sec during those 3 seconds, you now have a climb of 900ft. Considerably more than the 100-200 feet you assume, and closing on the 1200-2200ft the NTSB assumes. How do you account for the other 300-1200ft. Well, we don't actually know the rate of climb after the FDR shutdown. The NTSB used data provided by Boeing, and several computers to calculate and simulate the flightpath of a crumbling aircraft. We used some very raw assumptions and a calculator. I imagine there are several factors not included in our raw assumptions that are included in the data the NTSB used.

Rokke... i have been answering YOUR questions for a long time... and have gotten tired.

I admit that on calculating the motorcycle scenario I erred. In all honesty, at the time I posted that we were preparing to go to a wedding and my wife was pressuring me to GO. I did the math in my head and forgot to apply the 1/2 (brain fart). I did realize I had done it on the way to the wedding... but too late to correct or amend it. Same reason for the minor errors 1 & 2. Of course I make mistakes. My apologies.

You are right... Evel would NOT be pleased. Or even breathing. :(

In your initial post you concluded that TWA 800's upward momentum vector would be overcome by gravity in less than 1 second. I think later you revised that to about 1 second.

Yes. 1.02 seconds. At that point it would reach zero upward motion and be at the peak of its arc.

Then you said that in the next second, TWA 800 would fall 64 feet.

No, I said in the next second it would only fall 32 feet. in the 3rd second it would fall 64 feet below its initial 13,800 feet.

For the rest, I do not believe the NTSB figures. Nor, as I have said before, that I really think there was any 3 seconds before stall... I think it happened much faster. Finally, all of your calculations that get you close to the NTSB climb figure ignore totally any drag. In addition, merely changing the angle of attack of a stalled aircraft does not change that massive forward momentum into vertical momentum or even 30 degree above level flight momentum in such a short time of applied force. Neither the NTSB nor the CIA scenarios have provided ANY explanation of what kept the aircraft with an unbalanced force applied forward of its center of gravity from continuing to flip over instead of just pitching up. Was it the tail? Was it fuselage drag? Was it the tooth fairy?

I agree we are using raw assumptions and hand held calculators (or our farting heads ;)) but all we are asking for is for NTSB to RELEASE the data they used so it can be checked.

You have still not answered my question as to how that light got lit if the velocity*mass of that ball was not some form of stored energy.

Keep in mind Rok, that even velocity and Momentum are totally relative concepts... as I pointed out in my scenario about my monitor. Velocity can only be truly measured or even noticed from some other point of view with an unequal velocity than the object having that velocity. Since velocity is relative, then Momentum is also relative (as Momentum has a velocity aspect).

In the real world we INCREASE momentum by putting energy into it... applying a force to the object to accelerate it. By doing so, we in crease the Momentum carried by that mass.

Strangely, if we just concern ourselves with the mass itself, ignoring the surrounding world, there is NOTHING about the mass that, in any way, has changed. There is NOTHING measurably different about it. Isolated, the volume, the dimensions, the total mass... and even its inertia, are all the same as they were BEFORE we made it move. Yet, when we again have it interact with another object at relative rest (i.e., the same relative velocity and momentum in the same vector as our mass originally possessed BEFORE we made it move), we can extract exactly the same amount of energy we put into it to make it move when we stop it! This is conservation of momentum... and energy.

Logically, the energy that we put in and can later take out, must exist somewhere between those two events. Where is it? There literally is no sign of it IN the mass. The quality of mass we call inertia has not changed, it still requires the same force to impart the same velocity increase or decrease. The mass itself has changed not one whit... except that it is moving relative to its state of motion before the energy was applied.

While our mass is moving, and not interacting with any other object, that energy it carries has to be stored in some form... unless and until it interacts with another object, that energy can only be considered potential. When we can observe the object from another object at a DIFFERENT STATE of motion we call that potential KINETIC ENERGY because we can see it has velocity. We do not know how MUCH energy is there as we have no knowledge of how much mass carries it unless it somehow interacts with a known mass and we can observe the motion changes it imparts to the known mass and how its motion is changed by that interaction.

If this energy was not "stored" in the velocity and momentum of the mass, where was it?