Let's look at YOUR quote from another thread over at the Science Chat Forum.
You're actually trying to use my theories to show an exception to Newtons laws? What a nut! You can look at my quotes and animations all you want, but like I said, I'm just an anonymous internet guy like you. Tearing down my theories won't get you the exception to Newtons laws you're looking for (and very badly need in order for your story to work).
Why not just admit you can't find one?
Let's break that down shall we?
More "Three Card Monte"?
No thanks!
So you admit that a buckling column could indeed contain a period of free fall after bifurcation, but fail to apply this to a structure?! What the fuck man! This PROVES that your lack of knowledge regarding structures is in play here.
I'm not admitting anything, there's nothing for me to admit.... clown. I said it seemed "
likely" and that it "
may" shorten the fall time. Even if that happened, it wouldn't reach the ground at the same time as the control on the right. Anyway, you keep trying to focus on me as if maybe one of my ideas will prove Newton wrong.... Focussing on me won't help you. It doesn't matter what either of us say. It's about what
Newton said.
Answer the
question....
How can a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process?
So which will it be....
Newtonian physics on the left, or
dawsian physics on the right? I'll stick with the Newton guy.... you guys
suck!