Physics test in less than 3 hours so I'm just gonna comment on this.
The trusses did NOT have to fail simultaneously for the building to collapse as it did. The trusses failed one at a time over the course of the burning process. When enough of them had failed, there were not enough trusses left to keep the outer skeleton from bowing outward/inward, and that's when the whole thing went kerplop. So yeah - wrong about that one.
No. If you believe something else happened, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. But U4IK ST8 offers NOTHING in the way of solid evidence to support any of his claims.
His argument is "Well, how do YOU know they used small bolts. That would be stupid. I'm sure they wouldn't have done that."
THAT is the kind of thing that makes him stupid. What he is trying to do there is use his [nonexistant] knowledge of how HE would build something based on his [uneducated] thoughts on skyscraper construction to rebuff an argument that I made knowing full well HOW the building was built as well as well as having at least a basic understanding of materials and processes involved in the construction of anything.
So, the stupid part comes from the fact that he's... being stupid. You can't argue against facts unless you can present... "counter-facts" which he doesn't do. He provides "counter-guesses."
All his sources and photos are taken from those conspiracy sites. When I was looking for my photos, I went to Google and tried to find the best photos I could that were on neither side of the fence. You can't offer all your evidence from ONE source...
...if I did that on my college essays, my professor would call me... stupid?
Lol. Alright there. You go ahead and believe what you KNOW is right based on proof that we KNOW is wrong.
It really is pointless isn't it. I dunno how anyone else feels, but the fact that you can't make some people understand just makes we want to strangle something right now.
We should get Bill Gates to pay for the building of another WTC and then crash two aircraft into them in exactly the same spot and just lay everything to rest once and for all.
Last edited by Stang70Fastback, .
Lol, I've got a math quiz in two hours and a physics test in 6 so I'll be on here very little throughout the day as well. I will say, though, that a computer generated image should not be discounted just because it's computer generated. If that were the case all of modern science would be useless. It's still a diagram of how the structure was built.
We're in the same boat. I have SO MUCH WORK TO DO for Aero, and yet I'm drawn back here all the time, even though I keep promising myself I'll ignore this thread. Glad to know that SOMEONE sees the logic in my posts... I was starting to think maybe I didn't know what logic was.
Last edited by Stang70Fastback, .
Ok, you still don't KNOW how these building were built apparently. You can't base your knowledge of the building design on one or two pictures you see. I fail to believe that Wikipedia, the History Channel, the Discover Channel, etc... all completely got the wrong design blueprints to these buildings. People on that site are simply saying that it LOOKS like the I-Beams were the main support - but they don't KNOW. They're basing their assumptions on a few admittedly poor, blurry pictures.
A case in point would be your supposed "evidence" in that other post of yours that you linked to. THOSE BEAMS ARE THE TRUSSES! You are not supporting your argument there!
*sigh* I actually have answered a lot of these points already, you just seem to ignore them. This video references a test done on a "typical" steel building. THE WTC WAS NOT A TYPICAL STEEL BUILDING. THE FLOORS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY I-BEAMS. EVEN IF THEY WERE, THE TRUSSES HOLDING THE OUTSIDE WALLS WOULD HAVE STILL FAILED.
I don't understand. I've explained ALL OF THIS in my previous posts, yet you blindly insist that no-one is answering your questions. That video SHOWS how steel can sag in a normal fire. With a normal I-Beam construction, that's not a big problem. The problem for the WTC, as I've stated before, is that the sagging I-Beams placed an un-planned-for force on the bolts holding them in place, which is what triggered the collapse.
That's simply ridiculous. The buildings that "fell over" fell over because the bottom of the structure failed. Small buildings like that are a lot more likely to remain in one piece under a collapse (the ratio of the thickness of the walls to their overall size is a lot greater) so they don't actually break apart. When that happens, the only possible way for it to fall is to topple over. The WTC was much larger, so when the top 20 floors started falling, it was a lot less likely that the building would stay together, so it simply got pulverized. Looking at the videos of the WTC collapsing, it should be intuitive to you that that would be the natural falling motion of the building. If you really believe that the top should have just fallen off to the side, then you simply don't have an intuitive train of thought when it comes to objects and physics.
Video 1: Unless that guy has been in the presence of another building collapse, I'm going to say that he probably just never heard a building fall down. Just because he was there does not make him an expert in building collapse noises. A lot of strange things happen when a building collapses. (He also kind of seems like not the brightest guy in the world too...)
Video 2: Dunno about the walkie-talkie countdown thing. Again, anything having to do with WTC 7 is out of my jurisdiction. I will say that it wouldn't have sounded like floors collapsing anyway (remember, WTC 7 was a solid steel boxed building) but IDK. I only know about the two towers.
Video 3: He doesn't do much explaining. Was he IN the elevator with the guy when the explosion occurred? Or did the elevator explode and he went in to help the other guy? Did this happen before or after the towers were struck? If it was just after, it could simply have been an elevator falling (many of them did). Here's another quote from an eyewitness (maybe the same guy at a later date?):
"What happened was: I was in the basement....all of a sudden we heard a loud bang and the elevators blew open...some guy was burnt up. So I dragged him out, his skin was hangin' off. So, I dragged him outta the parkin' lot...this is what was left on him."
Sounds a lot less like an explosion and a lot more like a falling elevator. And besides, an explosion small enough to not kill those guys is probably NOT strong enough to destroy the building. The building didn't collapse from the bottom anyway.
Again, dunno about WTC 7, but I did watch that video. The fact that CNN reported that WTC 7 had collapsed or was in the process of collapsing can just as easily be attributed to an error in communications. We all know how long it takes to confirm things in the media, such as an airplane crash. You'd think it would be easy for someone who is THERE to just say either YES, the plane has crashed, or NO there was no crash. But it's always a lot more complicated. How can the reporter be reporting that fact while she can still SEE the building standing? Maybe she just doesn't know which building it is!
The video also asks how the media can even consider reporting this without double-checking since it would be the first collapse of a steel-structure building due to fire. I'm gonna chalk that one up to the fact that people in the media are not engineers and don't know what the construction of WTC 7 is, much less the statistics of steel-framed building collapses.
To quote the first video you posted: "People who've worked with steel (welders), have just never seen the level of destruction and the level of deformation of this material in their lives." My answer to that is, well, have any of them ever worked at the site of a 110 story building collapse triggered by an airplane impact? No. This is an entirely different scenario. Who knows what a building MUCH bigger and of MUCH different construction that those before it will do when it collapses? Surprising things happen all the time.
There are anomalies in EVERYTHING that goes on in our world. When scientists see something they've never seen before that can't be explained by physics, they don't throw their hands up and exclaim, "Well golly gee whiz! This doesn't make sense! Maybe god DOES exist and evolution and all of science is a sham!" No! They hunker down and do a crap-load of research and down the road (sometimes not for centuries) someone finally comes up with the explanation as to why it occurred and all is well again!
As for the "meteorite," I don't know. It could easily be another odd result of the building collapse. All that falling kinetic energy had to go somewhere, and it all went into the ground. I could definitely believe that all this stuff was fused together in the moments after the collapse.
Last edited by Stang70Fastback, .
IDK, but I don't see what they were trying to accomplish by reinforcing the building short of PURPOSELY arousing suspicion.
I'm sorry, but that, to me, seems like a ridiculous explanation. Short of putting up a 6" thick solid steel plate wall in front of the pentagon, there is no way they were going to protect a building from a speeding aircraft of that size. So why would they have reinforced it? To "minimize" the damage?! That's millions of dollars for a pointless endeavor. If they were willing to let them crash an airplane into that building, I'm sure they wouldn't have cared if it penetrated through one extra ring.
Well, I attribute the ejections of dust to the massive ejections of air that would have occurred during the collapse. The same effect you see in sinking ships - which can be powerful enough to blow-out the hull of a ship. The debris falling could easily be explained as debris ejected by these... ejections. That's one explanation. Obviously there are others, but you can't tell me that this one doesn't fully explain it...?
Yeah, I know that second picture sucks. I was looking for a better one for more than 15 minutes, but I couldn't find one.
Anyway, what I really want to find, is a video I saw ONCE, and never found again. It was video of the tower as it started to collapse. The video was zoomed in on one side of the building so that it filled the whole screen. When the building collapsed, the first thing that happened, and it was really eerie and chilling to watch, is that the entire outer skeletal structure snaps outward from one side to the other. The theoretical explanation for this those failed trusses leading to a loss of integrity of the structure. There is no sign of a series of explosions or anything, the beams simply bend outward and snap. It's a really great video which depicts what I am trying to explain happened. I really, truly wish I could find it but I never could. I'll have another go and see if I can find it.
Anyway, what I really want to find, is a video I saw ONCE, and never found again. It was video of the tower as it started to collapse. The video was zoomed in on one side of the building so that it filled the whole screen. When the building collapsed, the first thing that happened, and it was really eerie and chilling to watch, is that the entire outer skeletal structure snaps outward from one side to the other. The theoretical explanation for this those failed trusses leading to a loss of integrity of the structure. There is no sign of a series of explosions or anything, the beams simply bend outward and snap. It's a really great video which depicts what I am trying to explain happened. I really, truly wish I could find it but I never could. I'll have another go and see if I can find it.
I'll be honest, I have no idea about WTC 7 really. I never really looked into it (so I don't know how it was built, where it was hit, IF it was hit, etc... so anything having to do with that building, you've got me.
I should probably clarify that what I meant was that 25% of the exterior columns AT THE AREA OF IMPACT were compromised. So in other words the upper 20 floors only had 75% of the support they would normally have gotten from the outer skeleton.
You are correct sir. However, even after some of the initial fire burned out, MUCH of the building at that level remained engulfed in flames.
Actually, it's a very good comparison. A building also has to be very small and light for a variety of reasons: Cost (one large bolt is not much more expensive than one small bolt, but a million large bolts ARE a lot more expensive) is just one reason. And yes, skyscrapers ALSO have to be light, just like an airplane, so weight has a lot to do with it. Besides, why use a big bolt when a small bolt will more than adequately satisfy the design requirements.
And what does it matter WHY they used small bolts?! The point is they DID, and that's why it collapsed. Don't try and tell me that this whole conspiracy started 40 years ago in the design phase of the building...
Again, with regards to WTC 7, I don't know much about it, so I won't make any judgements.
Anyway, back to the trusses. First off, the reason I know so much about the WTC is because, a) my dad knows someone who was one of the cheif architects of the project, so he knows quite a bit about them, and b) i've watched quite a few history channel videos which detail the construction of the buildings.
Anyway, I realize Wikipedia is a terrible source, but the photo illustrates the design pretty well:
Trusses 1
Trusses 2
The fact is that there were many I-beams involved in the construction, but the trusses provided the main support. I could just as easily claim that the concrete was what supported the floors and then point you to a picture where they are pouring the concrete floors and say "SEE! CONCRETE! THAT'S THE SUPPORT!"
And even so, let's pretend that the floors are supported by I-beams alone, and that the trusses ONLY SERVED to hold the outer skeleton in place. When the trusses failed, the outer skeleton would have failed ANYWAY, and then the I-Beams would have failed and the structure would have collapsed regardless. The trusses failing are not the POINT of failure, the outer walls buckling are what started the collapse.
The steel didn't have to melt the metal to collapse the structure. I forget what the exact temps are, but at a temperature NOWHERE near its melting point, steel looses a fair portion of it's structural integrity (at a molecular level, obviously.) Even the TINIEST big of sag in the support trusses was all that was needed to shear the bolts holding the whole thing together.
Because they were build in en ENTIRELY different fashion than the WTC towers. The twin towers had an exoskeleton and a core. These buildings were just a network of pillars and beams. It's much harder to destroy something built that way. (e.g. it's easier to crush an empty cardboard box than it is to crush one of those wine-bottle boxes with the criss-crossing cardboard... thingies.)
I didn't say 25% of the WHOLE TOWER, I said 25% of the OUTER SKELETON - which it did. Take a look. The plane gouged out a significant portion of the wall on one side of the building, and quite a bit of the opposite side. Give or take, it's pretty close to that much of the outer wall that's been compromised.
Don't know the guy's NAME if that's what you want, but in the end, it was decided by someone - or some people - not to apply the protective coating, which was included by the original architects.
As I stated above, steel looses a lot of it's strength way before the melting point. That's all it needed.
Actually, yes - small bolts are all that are needed. Take a look at an airplane being put together. When they attach the wings on some aircraft - they are held on by nothing more than two bolts the width of two of your fingers put together - with maybe a third for redundancy. If they designed everything to be MUCH stronger than it needed to be, the building would weight 10x as much. These small bolts can support MUCH more than the weight of the floors in a horizontal direction, and also a decent amount of vertical flex. However, you have to remember that when the whole building sways in the wind, the entire thing moves one way or the other. When the trusses were melting and sagging, they were pulling the structure together, presenting more than just "swaying forces" that the architects and engineers planned for. You say "I'm sure that the engineers..." but that statement is an assumption on your part. I actually KNOW how the towers were built, so what I'm saying is a fact.
Uhmmm - actually the trusses were what supported most of the floor. Take a look at the schematics. The "FINAL LOARD BEARING POINTS" would technically be the outer shell or the central core - as these are what the trusses transferred their load to. So theoretically the structure SHOULD be able to support every floor without these trusses. However, what happens when the trusses collapse is the outer wall of the building looses ALL its integrity. I'll use the previous example. Stand on a coke can. It can easily support your weight, but when you just tap the side, it collapses, because it has no horizontal structural integrity. The trusses were responsible for holding the outer skeleton upright and keeping it from flexing in and out. When the trusses failed, the outer wall was allowed to peel away, and when that happened the FINAL LOAD BEARING POINT no longer existed and the structure collapsed.
I've shown plenty of my own sources in the first 3/4 of this thread - I just don't feel like digging through everything again. Why can't a 4-inch-thick concrete floor be crushed by 80 inches worth of concrete above it? That's like asking how a car can be crushed when 20 cars are dropped on it.
Remember that the outer shell of a jet engine is designed to contain the massive explosion of energy that occurs in the event of a blade-out failure (when one of the compressor blades comes loose.) Those blades carry an INCREDIBLE amount of energy. I'm not saying that could prove why the engine punched through the Pentagon (since in this case, the design is to contain forces pushing out from inside the engine, not pushing from the front of the engine to the back) but it's definitely some extremely strong stuff.
Last edited by Stang70Fastback, .
I'd like to know the structural engineers you talked to who stated that the top 20 floors falling would not have the energy to crush the rest of the building if the building stood perfectly fine before.
Because they should be fired...
...no - scratch that - they should be ARRESTED for impersonating someone who has spend YEARS taking classes/passing tests/spending money getting certified to do one of the more difficult jobs in the world.
Your sources are plainly and simply wrong. Period. There is no, "They have valid opinions" argument here. Their supposed "facts" can be completely proven wrong with a few simple equations.
If someone told me that 3+2 = 6 and I came on here telling you that, you'd say, NO 3+2 = 5! That's math - that's how it is! There's no possible WAY it can be 6! It's the same situation here. What you have heard from supposed "experts" is plainly WRONG. There is no other way to state it other than that.
Last edited by Stang70Fastback, .
Damn. I wish I'd caught this thread when it started up again so I could be as involved as I was last time...
...anyway, I've skimmed the first few pages, and all I can say at this point is that U4IK ST8 is an idiot (or never had the opportunity to attend school).
U4IK ST8 - I can't reread everything here, but with regards to ANYTHING having to do with the structures themselves (the collapse of the buildings and why it happened, etc...) ask me anything you want about things that don't make sense to you and I'll give you a logical explanation that supports the fact that this was a terrorist attack, and not a well-planned demolition project, as you seem to believe. Everything I've seen from my skimming so far leads me to believe that you have no fundamental understanding of any type of physics whatsoever. Ask away - I'll explain anything you want.
...anyway, I've skimmed the first few pages, and all I can say at this point is that U4IK ST8 is an idiot (or never had the opportunity to attend school).
U4IK ST8 - I can't reread everything here, but with regards to ANYTHING having to do with the structures themselves (the collapse of the buildings and why it happened, etc...) ask me anything you want about things that don't make sense to you and I'll give you a logical explanation that supports the fact that this was a terrorist attack, and not a well-planned demolition project, as you seem to believe. Everything I've seen from my skimming so far leads me to believe that you have no fundamental understanding of any type of physics whatsoever. Ask away - I'll explain anything you want.
Last edited by Stang70Fastback, .
Yeah dude, like Jakg said, don't bother with DX10 or any other fancy schmantsy tech right now. AGP = old = not worth buying expensive parts.
What you're looking at is good.
What you're looking at is good.
Sure. I know this sounds loopy, but it could be that both components (GPU and PSU) are faulty. The odds are slim, but both cards not working isn't a good sign. That or both the GPU and the Mobo (the AGP slot might be whack). At this point I think you need to just start swapping parts. A good place to start is to remove EVERYTHING except the PSU, Mobo GPU and one stick of RAM and see if it boots past the post screen. If that works, add HDDs and other things ONE at a time and see where you hit the snag.
If that doesn't work, you might be better off mixing parts with another computer until you can isolate where the problem is coming from. Sucks.
Here's what I know:
1. Stripes, and other sorts of artifacts on the screen are usually the sign of a bad graphics card, as you have indeed determined.
2. A computer turning on but not doing anything (e.g. no video output or response form keyboard or anything) CAN be the sign of a bad PSU. The reason I know this is because just two weeks ago a friend turned her desktop off, and next time she went to use it, she had the exact same problem. Turned out the PSU was faulty, so I replaced it and it's been running fine now.
1+2 = It is a POSSIBILITY that perhaps the PSU is bad, and as a result, plugging in the less-power-hungry 9600GT means the dying PSU now puts out enough power to run the computer. However, you get artifacts and stuff because the GFX card is still being undervolted. The more power-hungry X800XL on the other hand draws enough power to completely cripple the system on startup.
Were I in your situation, I'd try a different power supply in your PC. If that doesn't solve the problem, at least try your X800XL in HIS computer to make sure that it's functioning correctly.
But the PSU is definitely the culprit here.
1. Stripes, and other sorts of artifacts on the screen are usually the sign of a bad graphics card, as you have indeed determined.
2. A computer turning on but not doing anything (e.g. no video output or response form keyboard or anything) CAN be the sign of a bad PSU. The reason I know this is because just two weeks ago a friend turned her desktop off, and next time she went to use it, she had the exact same problem. Turned out the PSU was faulty, so I replaced it and it's been running fine now.
1+2 = It is a POSSIBILITY that perhaps the PSU is bad, and as a result, plugging in the less-power-hungry 9600GT means the dying PSU now puts out enough power to run the computer. However, you get artifacts and stuff because the GFX card is still being undervolted. The more power-hungry X800XL on the other hand draws enough power to completely cripple the system on startup.
Were I in your situation, I'd try a different power supply in your PC. If that doesn't solve the problem, at least try your X800XL in HIS computer to make sure that it's functioning correctly.
But the PSU is definitely the culprit here.
How useful is the trackpad on that thing. I know it's not as efficient as a mouse, but it it at all useful or just completely annoying and difficult.
Just remember, you want to try and keep positive pressure in the case. This means that, if anything, there should be more air blowing in than out. The main benefit to this is that if you properly filter the fans blowing into the case (screen-door mesh, for example) then you can be sure that very little dust will get into the system (positive pressure means air and dust won't be sucked in around the 5.25" drive bays, the PCI slots, etc...)
Ughhh...
<pointlessrant>
So I've spent my entire summer working, trying to earn some $$$. By the time I finish working at my job (next week) I will have earned about $2500.
So far, I've paid Subaru $1800 for work that needed to be done to my 213,000 mile car. Not exactly cheap, but the work was necessary and it fixed some things that had been issues for YEARS and made a huge difference in how the car drove, so I was happy nonetheless. I had hoped to save the rest of the money for college stuff, but that didn't end up working out.
Two days ago, I decided to go to a self-serve car wash because they were having a "$3.75 for 45 minutes of use" special. My car was literally covered in mud from some off-roading last weekend, so I decided to take advantage of it. Whilst in the bay, I pulled up my wipers in the front to clean them off, but I stupidly forgot to put them down. When I went to use the sprayer, the hose swung around and lightly knocked both wipers back down. BOTH of them, however, flipped as they fell so that instead of landing on the rubber, they landed on the metal side. The driver's side wiper has a wind deflector to push the blade onto the windshield I guess, and that snapped off and went sailing (not a big deal - it's probably a $20 part.) The other one hit the windshield and cracked it - so that's $400 right there. So basically by the time I go back to college, I will not have ANY money to show for all my summer work. Sucks.
PLUS just now, we had some Blue-Crab for dinner that my brother caught and brought back from the Hamptons (Long Island Shore.) An hour later we realize my dad (who's eaten seafood all his life - just not Blue Crab I guess) is having an allergic reaction - and he had SEVEN of them. He insists on driving, but I want to make sure he gets there okay, so I follow in my car in case he ends up having to stay the night or something. Halfway there, a deer bolts out in front of me and I slam on the brakes, and hit it at about 35 MPH. You could have been Michael Schumacher and it would not have made a difference. It pretty much came out of the bushes at full tilt, and even though I reacted RIGHT away with hard brakes, the car barely finished nosing down when I hit it (ABS screeching.)
You're probably expecting me to tell you about all the damage I have now (I know people who've hit them at 50 and totaled their cars) but all I have to show for it is some dried deer drool on my bumper. It'll take more than a lousy deer to take down this car!
Nonetheless, not a great series of events... and nothing sucks more than working a really, truly boring and annoying job all summer and not being able to spend it on anything other than necessary repairs to your car (which isn't a BAD thing, but I still wish I could have spend a LITTLE of my hard-earned cash on something else for ME, if ya know what I mean.)
</pointlessrant>
So I've spent my entire summer working, trying to earn some $$$. By the time I finish working at my job (next week) I will have earned about $2500.
So far, I've paid Subaru $1800 for work that needed to be done to my 213,000 mile car. Not exactly cheap, but the work was necessary and it fixed some things that had been issues for YEARS and made a huge difference in how the car drove, so I was happy nonetheless. I had hoped to save the rest of the money for college stuff, but that didn't end up working out.
Two days ago, I decided to go to a self-serve car wash because they were having a "$3.75 for 45 minutes of use" special. My car was literally covered in mud from some off-roading last weekend, so I decided to take advantage of it. Whilst in the bay, I pulled up my wipers in the front to clean them off, but I stupidly forgot to put them down. When I went to use the sprayer, the hose swung around and lightly knocked both wipers back down. BOTH of them, however, flipped as they fell so that instead of landing on the rubber, they landed on the metal side. The driver's side wiper has a wind deflector to push the blade onto the windshield I guess, and that snapped off and went sailing (not a big deal - it's probably a $20 part.) The other one hit the windshield and cracked it - so that's $400 right there. So basically by the time I go back to college, I will not have ANY money to show for all my summer work. Sucks.
PLUS just now, we had some Blue-Crab for dinner that my brother caught and brought back from the Hamptons (Long Island Shore.) An hour later we realize my dad (who's eaten seafood all his life - just not Blue Crab I guess) is having an allergic reaction - and he had SEVEN of them. He insists on driving, but I want to make sure he gets there okay, so I follow in my car in case he ends up having to stay the night or something. Halfway there, a deer bolts out in front of me and I slam on the brakes, and hit it at about 35 MPH. You could have been Michael Schumacher and it would not have made a difference. It pretty much came out of the bushes at full tilt, and even though I reacted RIGHT away with hard brakes, the car barely finished nosing down when I hit it (ABS screeching.)
You're probably expecting me to tell you about all the damage I have now (I know people who've hit them at 50 and totaled their cars) but all I have to show for it is some dried deer drool on my bumper. It'll take more than a lousy deer to take down this car!
Nonetheless, not a great series of events... and nothing sucks more than working a really, truly boring and annoying job all summer and not being able to spend it on anything other than necessary repairs to your car (which isn't a BAD thing, but I still wish I could have spend a LITTLE of my hard-earned cash on something else for ME, if ya know what I mean.)
</pointlessrant>
Lerts, you are my idol.
With regards to your last post, I'd just explain to my dad that the reason for my existence was to shorten the lives of as many republicans as possible, thereby saving the United States from certain impending doom, and re-establishing vampires as saviors of the free world.
With regards to your last post, I'd just explain to my dad that the reason for my existence was to shorten the lives of as many republicans as possible, thereby saving the United States from certain impending doom, and re-establishing vampires as saviors of the free world.
No it isn't because IT WON'T WORK.
It won't amaze anyone because IT WON'T WORK.
You won't sell any because IT WON'T WORK.
You need to take a physics class. Water always tends to occupy the lowest point, you said that yourself. However it is doing so CONSTANTLY as you tip the cross. When you tip the cross at a 30 degree angle, water will be filling the lowest point throughout the entire motion. There is no LOWER POINT for the water to return to that would stand the cross upright again! Plus, all you're doing is allowing the water to move farther to the side it is leaning towards if it flows into one of the sideways arms, which will only ENSURE that the umbrella falls over. A simple cylinder filled with water would most likely provide more stability. Hell, a simple cylinder filled with anything would work better.
Lol - w00t for Nokia Presenter!!!
Lol, that reminds me of that funny thing about dark: "Light bulbs don't emit light, they suck dark. That's why when they are full, and stop working, you can see dark on them."
OK, I feel really bad about everyone bashing you when it's apparent that either no-one ever taught you this stuff, or you made the silly mistake of not attending school, so here's a quick summary:
Gravity - All objects in the universe have mass (e.g. they are made up of STUFF) and the more mass they have, the more of a pull they exert on objects around them. Think of gravity as magnetism (it ISN'T, but just to explain) the bigger the magnet, the stronger of a pull it has on other smaller magnets.
The earth exerts a huge gravitational pull on all objects at it's surface (and beyond - such as the moon) and pulls them all toward it's center. This is what holds us to the earth's surface, along with all the water and the atmosphere.
Inertia - "An object in motion tends to stay in motion." The famous phrase that you MUST have heard somewhere, even if you don't understand what it means. Simply put, a car traveling at 50 MPH is hard to stop because it has INERTIA. Without inertia, MAYBE what you described would happen. Inertia is what makes your car keep moving after you let off the gas pedal.
Now, inertia means that whatever direction something is traveling in, it tends to want to KEEP moving that way (why a car will eventually lose grip if you take a turn too fast - it wants to keep going straight, and inertia eventually overcomes the frictional grip of the tire if you turn too fast.) As the Earth spins, the objects at it's surface are constantly changing direction. Instead of friction keeping us on the earth's surface, however, GRAVITY does. If the earth were to slowly spin faster, we'd all feel lighter and lighter until we eventually were flung into space. That's because in order to be held to earth's surface, we'd have to change direction FASTER if it was spinning faster, and just like a car taking a turn, there's a point at which inertia would overcome gravity.
Your theory stated that as soon as gravity was "turned off" we'd all stop DEAD in space, and the earth would slam into us. However, since we ALL have inertia (including the Earth) we'd all continue through space at the same speed we were going when gravity was turned off. The only thing that would happen would be that inertia would also mean we'd all lift off from the Earth's surface.
Just remember, it's not LACK of gravity that would make us float into the air. It's the effects of inertia that would allow us to do so. Gravity just overcomes inertia near the earth's surface.
Hope that helps! (Maybe... that probably just got you more confused.)
Gravity - All objects in the universe have mass (e.g. they are made up of STUFF) and the more mass they have, the more of a pull they exert on objects around them. Think of gravity as magnetism (it ISN'T, but just to explain) the bigger the magnet, the stronger of a pull it has on other smaller magnets.
The earth exerts a huge gravitational pull on all objects at it's surface (and beyond - such as the moon) and pulls them all toward it's center. This is what holds us to the earth's surface, along with all the water and the atmosphere.
Inertia - "An object in motion tends to stay in motion." The famous phrase that you MUST have heard somewhere, even if you don't understand what it means. Simply put, a car traveling at 50 MPH is hard to stop because it has INERTIA. Without inertia, MAYBE what you described would happen. Inertia is what makes your car keep moving after you let off the gas pedal.
Now, inertia means that whatever direction something is traveling in, it tends to want to KEEP moving that way (why a car will eventually lose grip if you take a turn too fast - it wants to keep going straight, and inertia eventually overcomes the frictional grip of the tire if you turn too fast.) As the Earth spins, the objects at it's surface are constantly changing direction. Instead of friction keeping us on the earth's surface, however, GRAVITY does. If the earth were to slowly spin faster, we'd all feel lighter and lighter until we eventually were flung into space. That's because in order to be held to earth's surface, we'd have to change direction FASTER if it was spinning faster, and just like a car taking a turn, there's a point at which inertia would overcome gravity.
Your theory stated that as soon as gravity was "turned off" we'd all stop DEAD in space, and the earth would slam into us. However, since we ALL have inertia (including the Earth) we'd all continue through space at the same speed we were going when gravity was turned off. The only thing that would happen would be that inertia would also mean we'd all lift off from the Earth's surface.
Just remember, it's not LACK of gravity that would make us float into the air. It's the effects of inertia that would allow us to do so. Gravity just overcomes inertia near the earth's surface.
Hope that helps! (Maybe... that probably just got you more confused.)
Last edited by Stang70Fastback, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG