- Joined
- Mar 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,903
- Reaction score
- 630
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I say yes.
First, some disclaimers.
(Important points bolded for A.D.D. readers.)
1) This topic is in the CT section because its relevance is to 9/11, particularly the modeling of progressive collapse in an attempt to better understand the physical principles behind it.
2) The topic is VERY narrow and specific, unlike the vague thread topic which spawned this discussion; it will be very easy to judge what is and isn't on-topic. I don't report posts as a philosophical principle, but that doesn't mean a moderator won't take action of their own initiative.
3) The subject is important to at least two people on this forum and is intended to settle a years-long dispute spanning more than one forum. It may be of no interest to anyone else, but all are obviously welcome to participate if desired.
4) If the one other person who SHOULD be interested in this declines to participate, my interest will immediately go to zero, because it will be a no-contest concession that I'm right and have been all along. Anyone who indulges in unsupported one-liner jabs for years ought be able to spend a few words defending their position.
5) I have little confidence that anyone here will be savvy enough to be swayed by technical arguments, based on historical interaction in this subforum. I have no illusions of winning a popularity contest based solely on ideological bias.
6) and this is important: this thread is NOT the place to debate the validity of the 1D model in question for academic or simulation purposes, it's ONLY to discuss whether it's valid to utilize massless connections/supports with THAT model. I know this model doesn't simulate the towers, that's not the issue.
----------------------------------------------
The premise is simple: I say massless connections are valid to use within the model (to be specified) because the difference in results between connections with and without mass isn't significant. I further claim that using massless connections greatly simplifies the problem and is orders of magnitude less expensive computationally. Taken together, these are the reason massless connections are preferred when operating within this model.
Anyone who believes that use of massless connections is absurd and worthy of mockery will finally have a dedicated platform to elucidate why they feel this is the case. If there is no contention, I won't bother arguing the point and this thread can die. One or more posts will be made later (when I have time) explaining the nature of the model itself, so readers (if any!) can become familiar with the context.
First, some disclaimers.
(Important points bolded for A.D.D. readers.)
1) This topic is in the CT section because its relevance is to 9/11, particularly the modeling of progressive collapse in an attempt to better understand the physical principles behind it.
2) The topic is VERY narrow and specific, unlike the vague thread topic which spawned this discussion; it will be very easy to judge what is and isn't on-topic. I don't report posts as a philosophical principle, but that doesn't mean a moderator won't take action of their own initiative.
3) The subject is important to at least two people on this forum and is intended to settle a years-long dispute spanning more than one forum. It may be of no interest to anyone else, but all are obviously welcome to participate if desired.
4) If the one other person who SHOULD be interested in this declines to participate, my interest will immediately go to zero, because it will be a no-contest concession that I'm right and have been all along. Anyone who indulges in unsupported one-liner jabs for years ought be able to spend a few words defending their position.
5) I have little confidence that anyone here will be savvy enough to be swayed by technical arguments, based on historical interaction in this subforum. I have no illusions of winning a popularity contest based solely on ideological bias.
6) and this is important: this thread is NOT the place to debate the validity of the 1D model in question for academic or simulation purposes, it's ONLY to discuss whether it's valid to utilize massless connections/supports with THAT model. I know this model doesn't simulate the towers, that's not the issue.
----------------------------------------------
The premise is simple: I say massless connections are valid to use within the model (to be specified) because the difference in results between connections with and without mass isn't significant. I further claim that using massless connections greatly simplifies the problem and is orders of magnitude less expensive computationally. Taken together, these are the reason massless connections are preferred when operating within this model.
Anyone who believes that use of massless connections is absurd and worthy of mockery will finally have a dedicated platform to elucidate why they feel this is the case. If there is no contention, I won't bother arguing the point and this thread can die. One or more posts will be made later (when I have time) explaining the nature of the model itself, so readers (if any!) can become familiar with the context.
Last edited: