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?
"I did the math in my head...too late to correct or amend it."
Been there, done that.
"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."
Here is what you said..."The Upward momentum vector is overcome fairly quickly after lift is lost... less than one second. Without lift, the aircraft will fall 64 feet in the next second and 96 in the following..." Now maybe I'm misunderstanding you but it seems to me you are saying the upward momentum vector ends about one second after the stall and in the next second the aircraft will fall 64 feet. Before I'm accused of nitpicking, your assumptions here are very significant because they do not match the laws of physics which is exactly the problem you say you have with the NTSB. With regard to the rest of your post, I've already admitted I slept through physics. You have access to the same definitions, equations and Newtonian Laws that I do. Frankly, you can say momentum is equal to the square root of &*uckall for all I care. But when you start slamming me for creating new laws of physics, you get my dander up when your own statements are making Newton spin in his grave.
I will conclude by saying it is impossible to predict what TWA800 did without having all the data and resources the NTSB had. I think you can agree on that, and if you can, we can end this nightmare on a note of agreement.