Another "Truther" incapable of understanding Real-World Physics

(Hat tip to Orion for bringing this to my attention)

We have yet another example of a “truther” with no understanding of physics as evidenced by this YouTube video.

 

At 58 seconds, the “truther” uses the kamikaze bugs that splatter on our windshields in an attempt to “prove” the conspiracy theory.  Last time I checked, a bug was just a tad softer than an airplane, not to mention a bit less massive.  Also, anyone who drives has occasionally had rocks, or even little pebbles fly out from a dump truck.  Perhaps she would care to explain how even the tiniest little pebble flying out of the dump truck and hitting our windshield at just the right speed and angle can cause enough damage to your windshield that you have to replace it?

As we know from the comparison of the WTC and the Pentagon- not to mention from common sense- different materials will react differently to the same thing.

At 1 minute and 21 seconds, she wants to know who’s going to win if a fast moving bug smacks into the windshield of a parked car?

Here’s a suggestion for her:  A much better comparison would be a car and a brick wall, and the car has a mass of 1000 kilograms.  Again, any physics book will tell you that, 1: Kinetic energy is equal to one-half the mass times the velocity squared, written as KE = ½ mv2 (measured in joules) and force, per Newton’s 2nd Law is force = mass times acceleration, written as F = ma (measured in Newtons). Now while the brick wall obviously has mass, it has NO KINETIC ENERGY and NO FORCE due to the fact that a brick wall CANNOT MOVE. No motion means no acceleration, so in the case of the brick wall, the answer to both equations is zero.

Idle  the car up to a brick wall, say  at about 0.2 m/s (about ½ MPH), and nothing will happen, as the car isn’t going all that fast. The kinetic energy would be ½ (1000kg) (0..2 m/s)2, which equals 20 joules. Not really a whole lot of kinetic energy. In order to get the force, you need to find the acceleration, which isn’t that hard as acceleration is the change in velocity over time. So, let’s say it takes the car 10 seconds to go from its initial position to the brick wall.  Assuming the car’s initial velocity is 0, the acceleration of the car would be 0.2 – 0/10 = 0.02 m/s2.  The force of the car would be (1000 kg) (0.02 m/s2), which is 20  Newtons.

Now take that same car, assume the initial velocity is still zero and it still takes the car 10 seconds to go from its starting point to the brick wall, but this time the car is doing  33 m/s (about 75 MPH). This time, the car’s kinetic energy = ½ (1000kg)(33 m/s)2 = 544,500 joules. Acceleration would be 33 m/s -0 / 10 = 3.3 m/s2, so force would be 1000kg (3.3 m/s2), which is 3300 Newtons.  Notice the large difference in kinetic energy and force of the car-  this time around, the car will plow through the brick wall.  I know because I’ve seen it happen.

At 2 min 10 sec, she claims that an airplane is essentially a coke can.

The main question I have is this:  When was the last time you saw a coke can slam into a skyscraper at 500 MPH?

As we see here, the vast majority of soda cans in the U.S are aluminum, meaning the material of the coke can is nothing BUT aluminum As we see here, airplanes are made of aluminum ALLOYS, steel, fiberglass, and occasionally titanium.  Oh, and aluminum and aluminum alloys are NOT the same thing: Aluminum is ONE metal; an alloy consists of TWO OR MORE METALS (source).

Finally, how does she explain the fact that water, which is liquid, traveling with sufficient velocity, can knock over solid buildings, such as in the case of a tsunami?  Remember, that while a tsunami tends to go unnoticed in the open sea, once it hits shallow waters, the tsunami is essentially a huge wall of water moving at high speed, which means it'[s a pretty good idea to get out of its way. Oh, and let’s not forget that hurricanes and tornadoes, which are made up of air, are both quite capable of ripping solid buildings to shreds.

I wonder how she’s enjoying Egypt seeing as how, like most “truthers,” she’s clearly in denial.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: