Topic: Truther physics

[D^2]

A couple nights ago I debated a truther on reddit about the "controlled demolition" hypothesis. He linked me to this explanation. The parade of misconceptions is truly a sight to behold.

I'm teaching a course in calculus-based Newtonian physics starting next week. I'm gonna try to think of a way of incorporating this into the curriculum, to see if my students can spot the errors too.

http://i.imgur.com/10bTo.jpg

[drizz]

The real title got cut off the image, it was supposed to be

"I missed the first day of
Physics 101"

[Chew]

That is a great idea. Kinda like those controversial "If Bubba the Pimp has 5 Ho's working for him" test questions but in Twoofer Style!

If you wish to add more ridicule to your lesson plan I suggest perusing the Stundie Award threads at the JREF. Maybe throw some of the more egregious quotes into a powerpoint.

[Beη]

Yeah, that would be an interesting question for an intro physics course.  This is one of those cases where the author is the in the dangerous grey area of knowing just enough physics to start making arguments, but not enough to actually understand why the arguments don't work.  Similar to some of those in the perpetual motion crowd or the guy who thinks the earth isn't rotating.

For that reason, arguments like this may seem pretty convincing to the average person who's not going to pay attention to important details like constant acceleration.

[AngleWyrm]

A couple nights ago I debated a truther on reddit about the "controlled demolition" hypothesis. He linked me to this explanation. The parade of misconceptions is truly a sight to behold.

I'm teaching a course in calculus-based Newtonian physics starting next week. I'm gonna try to think of a way of incorporating this into the curriculum, to see if my students can spot the errors too.

I would caution against this action, because the motivation could be interpreted as a derogatory Ad Hominem pronouncement that Truthers are stupid, therefore what they believe is also stupid.

Two points against doing so: First is that the mindset of a conspiracy theorist is distrust of authority, so any argument that authority is right and they are just stupid will not be productive. And second, it breeds a sort of elitism that doesn't promote sharing knowledge, but instead weaponizes knowledge against unbelievers.

[ting-bu-dong]

A couple nights ago I debated a truther on reddit about the "controlled demolition" hypothesis. He linked me to this explanation. The parade of misconceptions is truly a sight to behold.

I'm teaching a course in calculus-based Newtonian physics starting next week. I'm gonna try to think of a way of incorporating this into the curriculum, to see if my students can spot the errors too.

I would caution against this action, because the motivation could be interpreted as a derogatory Ad Hominem pronouncement that Truthers are stupid, therefore what they believe is also stupid.

Two points against doing so: First is that the mindset of a conspiracy theorist is distrust of authority, so any argument that authority is right and they are just stupid will not be productive. And second, it breeds a sort of elitism that doesn't promote sharing knowledge, but instead weaponizes knowledge against unbelievers.

This wouldn't be aimed towards truthers but towards physics students. I have been in physics classes that have applied course material to debunk things like perpetual motion as an exercise. It's just important to leave out the politics completely and frame it as 'here is why this is junk physics' rather than 'here is why truthers are ridiculous'. Debunking claims is the opposite of an elitist approach because in order to debunk something you need to engage with it.

[IrishJazz]

I think it is an interesting question, if not a particularly deep one.   The answer, it seems to me, is that the force is not directed against the building as a whole, but against individual lower levels, which collapsed in sequence and "recruited" as part of the downward-pushing mass. 

[Beη]

I think it is an interesting question, if not a particularly deep one.   The answer, it seems to me, is that the force is not directed against the building as a whole, but against individual lower levels, which collapsed in sequence and "recruited" as part of the downward-pushing mass.

Yeah, it is an interesting question.  I had to think about it for a bit.  I think the main issue is simply that the car/truck example and building example are very different systems and so can't be directly compared.  For example, the building as a whole experiences a constant gravitational force in the direction it is collapsing, the car/truck system does not.  The building has a relatively uniform density with plenty of "crumple points" (floors), where as the semi has a nice solid engine in the front which is colliding with a basically hollow small car (in the photos).

A very important point is that material's strength does not scale with size.  I recently watched a video (if I find it I'll post it) where a person modeled the building with 7 or 8 stacked paint cans, dropping the top one from a few inches onto the bottom ones, "recreating" the same scenario outlined in the image.  Unsurprisingly, the paint cans did not "collapse".  He scaled the size of the building properly, but not the material's strength.  I see this all the time, when people try to recreate the collapse scenario using small scale models.  In this case, I have no idea how the material strength and construction of automobiles compares to that of buildings.

[D^2]

This wouldn't be aimed towards truthers but towards physics students. I have been in physics classes that have applied course material to debunk things like perpetual motion as an exercise. It's just important to leave out the politics completely and frame it as 'here is why this is junk physics' rather than 'here is why truthers are ridiculous'. Debunking claims is the opposite of an elitist approach because in order to debunk something you need to engage with it.

This is exactly my intention. Much of my job involves addressing misconceptions about the natural world, and I believe that students who are given the task of identifying and assessing other people's misconceptions will have a better ability to identify and assess their own. That's the hope, anyway.

Here's another example of something I would give to my students to critique.

By the way, the guy who created the "truther physics" image came forward on reddit. He's a civil engineering student!

I think I understand the point he was trying to make in the image, poorly-worded as it is. He's troubled by the fact that the upper section of the tower isn't crushed simultaneously with the lower section, since by Newton's Third Law there should be equal forces in both directions. In short, his model is too simplistic.  Between the upper and lower sections there is a layer of compacted rubble which is accelerating downward at a rate lower than g, therefore the normal forces on either side of this layer are not equal-- the crushing force exerted upward on the upper section is less than the force exerted downward on the lower section. This can be shown with a free-body diagram and Newton's Second Law.

[Beη]

Here's another example of something I would give to my students to critique.

Nice.  How does one manage to write a treatise on physics without understanding that

(click to show/hide)

dv/dt =/= average acceleration?

By the way, the guy who created the "truther physics" image came forward on reddit. He's a civil engineering student!

 

[Chew]

I recently watched a video (if I find it I'll post it) where a person modeled the building with 7 or 8 stacked paint cans, dropping the top one from a few inches onto the bottom ones, "recreating" the same scenario outlined in the image.

I had posted it in the dinosaurs were too heavy thread:

Model Replica of the WTC on 9/11 - Part 1 of 2

He scaled the size of the building properly, but not the material's strength.

In addition, to accurately model the collapse you also have to scale gravitational force.

[Beη]

I had posted it in the dinosaurs were too heavy thread:

Yes!  That's the one, thanks.