3 ms·

Just out of curiosity, the 'result' from that Wolfram computation: 4.807 * 10^8 kgm^2/s^2. What is that in relation to the speed of free fall of that floor? Is

Just out of curiosity, the 'result' from that Wolfram computation: 4.807 * 10^8 kgm^2/s^2. What is that in relation to the speed of free fall of that floor? Is that roughly half? - i.e. in total free fall, you would expect that the floor would fall at 9.8 * 10^8 kgm^2/s^2? Thanks!

ars 14y ago
There is no real connection. Gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. Not 9.8 * 10^8!!! And the result is kg m^2/s^2 not m/s^2. The result assumes a free fall at 1 g. I multiply it by g in order to accomplish that. (It's on earth, it can't really fall slower. If you want it to fall slower, the only thing it can do is fall, hit something and stop, then fall again - but that has 0 impact on the energy released! The energy released does not care if the building hit something and stopped momentarily in the processes.) I know the result looks superficially like the units for gravitational acceleration but it's not, it's also multiplied by kg * m. i.e. I multiply gravity by mass and by how far it fell. The end result is the units for energy. If you look up Joule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule you'll see that it is defined that way. There is a reason they push so hard to make sure you do the units correctly in Physics - you can gain a lot of insight into what you are calculating if you manipulate them properly.
- marcamillion 14y ago
  Ok that sounds good. So, in concluding...what would you say - based on your analysis here - about the assertion that this may have been caused by a 'controlled demolition'. If you can just summarize your findings here, into a succinct statement that would be greatly appreciated :) E.g. "The theories don't make sense, because as we saw here....X, Y & Z." or "The theories DO make sense, because Z, Y & X".

3 ms·

Just out of curiosity, the 'result' from that Wolfram computation: 4.807 * 10^8 kgm^2/s^2. What is that in relation to the speed of free fall of that floor? Is

by marcamillion 14y ago

ars 14y ago
There is no real connection. Gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. Not 9.8 * 10^8!!! And the result is kg m^2/s^2 not m/s^2. The result assumes a free fall at 1 g. I multiply it by g in order to accomplish that. (It's on earth, it can't really fall slower. If you want it to fall slower, the only thing it can do is fall, hit something and stop, then fall again - but that has 0 impact on the energy released! The energy released does not care if the building hit something and stopped momentarily in the processes.) I know the result looks superficially like the units for gravitational acceleration but it's not, it's also multiplied by kg * m. i.e. I multiply gravity by mass and by how far it fell. The end result is the units for energy. If you look up Joule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule you'll see that it is defined that way. There is a reason they push so hard to make sure you do the units correctly in Physics - you can gain a lot of insight into what you are calculating if you manipulate them properly.
- marcamillion 14y ago
  Ok that sounds good. So, in concluding...what would you say - based on your analysis here - about the assertion that this may have been caused by a 'controlled demolition'. If you can just summarize your findings here, into a succinct statement that would be greatly appreciated :) E.g. "The theories don't make sense, because as we saw here....X, Y & Z." or "The theories DO make sense, because Z, Y & X".