Physics Says That...
an object (A) that is completely destroyed upon impact with another object (B) cannot leave a cut-out shape of itself (object A) in the object (B) that destroys it.
I invite anyone to prove me wrong, using an example not related to 9/11.
But I'm sure it will be easier just to call me a drooling idiot than try to refute a point of basic physics.
I invite anyone to prove me wrong, using an example not related to 9/11.
But I'm sure it will be easier just to call me a drooling idiot than try to refute a point of basic physics.
posted by spooked at 9:10 PM
2 Comments:
I'm still waiting for the trolls to show up and explain this. :-)
Calling all trolls....
I'd be very interested to see exactly where "physics says" what you assert. Specifically which laws are involved?
None the less, I think I may have a counter-example for you.
I assume you don't intend "completely destroyed" to mean that no part of the object still exists but rather that the object which is "completely destroyed" is shattered into such a jumble of component bits and pieces that its original structure is obliterated (i.e. matter is conserved).
Take a look at the picture found here --> (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/149624main_northmoon_gal_c2_med.jpg)
You will see lots of shapes in object (B) that were created by other objects (A) which were "completely destroyed" (in the way I assume you define it) upon collision with object (B). Now I'm sure you will say that the "cut-out shape" is actually much larger than the actual object. This may well be so but I'll contend that each object (A) created a "cut-out shape" on the surface of object (B) that was later obscured by the mass of secondary debris which was created by the release of energy involved in the collision. I think that if you will consult with any specialist or read any fairly detailed textbook on the topic you will see that my assertion is well accepted in the field in question.
Regards.
Post a Comment
<< Home