The Physics Of WTC 7

[KokomoJojo]

ok the parameters
which definition : Definition of parameter (n)
Bing Dictionary
pa·ram·e·ter[ pə rámmətər ]
limiting factor: a fact or circumstance that restricts how something is done or what can be done
variable quantity determining outcome: a measurable quantity, e.g. temperature, that determines the result of a scientific experiment and can be altered to vary the result
notable characteristic: a distinguishing feature or notable characteristic

Well, you loser, your comment shows you read the definition of loser I posted.... it's a very good fit for you. At least now you're actually starting to learn proper diction. Fabulous! I've always said that anyone who functions at diminished capacity (no matter the circmstances) should nevertheless make some attempt to broaden their horizons.... Hats off to you man!

By the way, that link you posted, What are the laws of physics, goes directly to a site that says all the textbooks I ever read are wrong and that only Nikola Tesla really knew what science was, or something like that. Funny, but not realistic, unless of course one is funtioning at diminished capacity (that would be you).

I'm talking to Gamaclown right now, but I promise, I'll be sure to get back to you if/when I'm stoned and drunk (shouldn't be long at this rate) to assure a level playing field for the exchange.

pretentious and wrong.
oh by the way the diction spelling and diminished capacity shit is played out...
you asshats play that game when you're getting your ass handed to you..
wow 55 and no more mature than in high school!


oh btw you dodged the question:which definition

yes realize you went to a different school.



we understand of course which is why we demand that you quote your claims, they are nonexistant.

not getting any younger

 

[SAYIT]

What's the matter E.L.C.? Don't want to answer?

Well, that didn't take long. In answer to your question, I do want to explore it. We'd have to agree about the parameters first though (nothing complicated).... What say you?

You've already set the parameters!

In a race to ground, all naturally failing load bearing structures, to one degree or another, will prevent a load from falling as fast as a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air.... There are no known exceptions.

Here is a failing structure.



Are you telling me that no matter how much that load increases, there is no chance for that column beneath it to EVER reach zero resistance?

And you keep avoiding my other question.

When the entire roofline started to descend, does that mean explosives were simultaneously set throughout the entire structure? I mean, the ENTIRE roofline across the building descended at the same time right?

Waaay too complicated.

 

[Faun]

Check out what a real controlled demolition looks and sounds like ... Pay close attention to the explosions coming from inside the buildings, which is what brings them down, before the buildings collapse ... You can see the explosions as well as hear them ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno]Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube[/ame]

Now compare that to WTC7, which had no explosions visible in the seconds prior to collapse nor were there any heard.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN8d-Dy4Ut4]911FILES WTC 7 Collapse compilation...rare videos with audio.. - YouTube[/ame]

Also, if you notice with WTC7, a portion of the roof began collapsing into the building about 7 seconds before the rest of the building came down -- also inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

But again -- there were no explosions before the building came down. None. None were seen and none were heard. The reason? Because there were none. It was not a controlled demolition.

 

[SAYIT]

Check out what a real controlled demolition looks and sounds like ... Pay close attention to the explosions coming from inside the buildings, which is what brings them down, before the buildings collapse ... You can see the explosions as well as hear them ...

Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube

Now compare that to WTC7, which had no explosions visible in the seconds prior to collapse nor were there any heard.

911FILES WTC 7 Collapse compilation...rare videos with audio.. - YouTube

Also, if you notice with WTC7, a portion of the roof began collapsing into the building about 7 seconds before the rest of the building came down -- also inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

But again -- there were no explosions before the building came down. None. None were seen and none were heard. The reason? Because there were none. It was not a controlled demolition.

You must know you are preaching to the choir. Norms understand the silliness of the CT's claims. CTs refuse any explanation which does not conform to their particular CT.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Check out what a real controlled demolition looks and sounds like ... Pay close attention to the explosions coming from inside the buildings, which is what brings them down, before the buildings collapse ... You can see the explosions as well as hear them ...

Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube

Now compare that to WTC7, which had no explosions visible in the seconds prior to collapse nor were there any heard.

911FILES WTC 7 Collapse compilation...rare videos with audio.. - YouTube

Also, if you notice with WTC7, a portion of the roof began collapsing into the building about 7 seconds before the rest of the building came down -- also inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

But again -- there were no explosions before the building came down. None. None were seen and none were heard. The reason? Because there were none. It was not a controlled demolition.

then we agree the wtc buildings were demolished


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM"]World Trade Center on 9/11 - Sounds of Explosions - YouTube[/ame]

what a NOOB

happy landing

 

[Faun]

Check out what a real controlled demolition looks and sounds like ... Pay close attention to the explosions coming from inside the buildings, which is what brings them down, before the buildings collapse ... You can see the explosions as well as hear them ...

Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube

Now compare that to WTC7, which had no explosions visible in the seconds prior to collapse nor were there any heard.

911FILES WTC 7 Collapse compilation...rare videos with audio.. - YouTube

Also, if you notice with WTC7, a portion of the roof began collapsing into the building about 7 seconds before the rest of the building came down -- also inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

But again -- there were no explosions before the building came down. None. None were seen and none were heard. The reason? Because there were none. It was not a controlled demolition.

then we agree the wtc buildings were demolished


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM"]World Trade Center on 9/11 - Sounds of Explosions - YouTube[/ame]

what a NOOB

happy landing

What a pity for your sanity that none of those explosions can be proven to come from WTC7. And still, we have video and audio from when WTC7 actually collapsed ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN8d-Dy4Ut4]911FILES WTC 7 Collapse compilation...rare videos with audio.. - YouTube[/ame]

... No explosions seen ... No explosions heard.

None. Conclusive proof the building was not brought down in a controlled demolition.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Check out what a real controlled demolition looks and sounds like ... Pay close attention to the explosions coming from inside the buildings, which is what brings them down, before the buildings collapse ... You can see the explosions as well as hear them ...

Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube

Now compare that to WTC7, which had no explosions visible in the seconds prior to collapse nor were there any heard.

911FILES WTC 7 Collapse compilation...rare videos with audio.. - YouTube

Also, if you notice with WTC7, a portion of the roof began collapsing into the building about 7 seconds before the rest of the building came down -- also inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

But again -- there were no explosions before the building came down. None. None were seen and none were heard. The reason? Because there were none. It was not a controlled demolition.

then we agree the wtc buildings were demolished


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM"]World Trade Center on 9/11 - Sounds of Explosions - YouTube[/ame]

what a NOOB

happy landing

What a pity for your sanity that none of those explosions can be proven to come from WTC7. And still, we have video and audio from when WTC7 actually collapsed ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN8d-Dy4Ut4"]911FILES WTC 7 Collapse compilation...rare videos with audio.. - YouTube[/ame]

... No explosions seen ... No explosions heard.

None. Conclusive proof the building was not brought down in a controlled demolition.

yup another retard post LMAO

The way is works is when you edit out the sound there is nothing, or if you edit yap mouth over the top there is yap mouth.

thats the way these things work.

 

[daws101]

Well, you loser, your comment shows you read the definition of loser I posted.... it's a very good fit for you. At least now you're actually starting to learn proper diction. Fabulous! I've always said that anyone who functions at diminished capacity (no matter the circmstances) should nevertheless make some attempt to broaden their horizons.... Hats off to you man!

By the way, that link you posted, What are the laws of physics, goes directly to a site that says all the textbooks I ever read are wrong and that only Nikola Tesla really knew what science was, or something like that. Funny, but not realistic, unless of course one is funtioning at diminished capacity (that would be you).

I'm talking to Gamaclown right now, but I promise, I'll be sure to get back to you if/when I'm stoned and drunk (shouldn't be long at this rate) to assure a level playing field for the exchange.

pretentious and wrong.
oh by the way the diction spelling and diminished capacity shit is played out...
you asshats play that game when you're getting your ass handed to you..
wow 55 and no more mature than in high school!


oh btw you dodged the question:which definition

yes realize you went to a different school.



we understand of course which is why we demand that you quote your claims, they are nonexistant.

not getting any younger

more meaningless yammering.
any quotes I've made have been credited to the author unlike all the cherry picked shit you've posted.

 

[daws101]

Check out what a real controlled demolition looks and sounds like ... Pay close attention to the explosions coming from inside the buildings, which is what brings them down, before the buildings collapse ... You can see the explosions as well as hear them ...

Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube

Now compare that to WTC7, which had no explosions visible in the seconds prior to collapse nor were there any heard.

911FILES WTC 7 Collapse compilation...rare videos with audio.. - YouTube

Also, if you notice with WTC7, a portion of the roof began collapsing into the building about 7 seconds before the rest of the building came down -- also inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

But again -- there were no explosions before the building came down. None. None were seen and none were heard. The reason? Because there were none. It was not a controlled demolition.

then we agree the wtc buildings were demolished


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM"]World Trade Center on 9/11 - Sounds of Explosions - YouTube[/ame]

what a NOOB

happy landing

no shit head "WE" don't.
you're attempting to spin the wtc 7 collapse as intentional when in reality it's collateral damage.
there was no loss of life or any irreplaceable objects or files or roswell pictures..

 

[daws101]

then we agree the wtc buildings were demolished


World Trade Center on 9/11 - Sounds of Explosions - YouTube

what a NOOB

happy landing

What a pity for your sanity that none of those explosions can be proven to come from WTC7. And still, we have video and audio from when WTC7 actually collapsed ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN8d-Dy4Ut4"]911FILES WTC 7 Collapse compilation...rare videos with audio.. - YouTube[/ame]

... No explosions seen ... No explosions heard.

None. Conclusive proof the building was not brought down in a controlled demolition.

yup another retard post LMAO

The way is works is when you edit out the sound there is nothing, or if you edit yap mouth over the top there is yap mouth.

thats the way these things work.

once again you ignorance of filmmaking video and audio... just shines .
there is no proof that those tapes were doctored..

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Check out what a real controlled demolition looks and sounds like ... Pay close attention to the explosions coming from inside the buildings, which is what brings them down, before the buildings collapse ... You can see the explosions as well as hear them ...

Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube

Now compare that to WTC7, which had no explosions visible in the seconds prior to collapse nor were there any heard.

911FILES WTC 7 Collapse compilation...rare videos with audio.. - YouTube

Also, if you notice with WTC7, a portion of the roof began collapsing into the building about 7 seconds before the rest of the building came down -- also inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

But again -- there were no explosions before the building came down. None. None were seen and none were heard. The reason? Because there were none. It was not a controlled demolition.

landing
[/B]

no shit head "WE" don't.
you're attempting to spin the wtc 7 collapse as intentional when in reality it's collateral damage.
there was no loss of life or any irreplaceable objects or files or roswell pictures..

or any irreplaceable objects

Not true. NWO Kitty lost her favorite Bohemian Grove commemorative coffee cup.

 

[daws101]

landing
[/B]

no shit head "WE" don't.
you're attempting to spin the wtc 7 collapse as intentional when in reality it's collateral damage.
there was no loss of life or any irreplaceable objects or files or roswell pictures..

or any irreplaceable objects

Not true. NWO Kitty lost her favorite Bohemian Grove commemorative coffee cup.

damn! I was trying to keep that under wraps!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

two farts in a row from the agent trolls.

 

[daws101]

2 Answers

For examples of where the laws of Newton are no longer sufficient to describe reality, see the wiki page here. But we don't have to go to extremes like near-c velocities or strong gravitational fields to see that there are some situations where the laws of Newton seem to fail.

Consider an airplane taking off. You can feel yourself being pushed back into your seat, so you are experiencing a force (that is not gravity). However, you remain at rest w.r.t. the coordinate system fixed to the airplane. So the first law of Newton seems to fail: we are at rest, so there is no acceleration and yet a force is exerted on us. When the airplane is traveling at a constant speed on a constant height, however, we feel no force (except for gravity) and the first law seems OK again.

A simpler example still is that of a carousel. When we stand on the carousel we are at rest w.r.t. a coordinate system fixed to the carousel, but we do experience a force trying to push us outward. This again seems to contradict the first law of Newton.

Note that both coordinate systems where the laws seemed to fail in these examples were systems that had a non-zero acceleration themselves. The conclusion is that Newton's laws only seem to work when considered in a non-accelerating reference frames, which we call inertial frames of reference. The forces we feel when we consider a non-inertial frame of reference are called fictitious forces (because they do not arise due to a physical interaction but due to the fact that the reference frame has a finite acceleration) and the wiki page on those has the same example of the carousel that I mentioned, only worked out in more detail (here).

Inertial frames of reference have to be carefully defined. Take, for example, the frame of reference fixed to a lab on earth. When considering most everyday motions, we can use this frame as a good approximation of an inertial frame, despite the fact that the earth is rotating and therefore giving the lab a finite acceleration. However, if we want to describe motions that are a direct consequence of this finite acceleration (such as the deviation to the east of falling objects), we need to find a better frame of reference.

A good question to ask is then: do inertial frames even exist? And the answer is: yes, at least in Newtonian dynamics. I believe this still holds in special relativity but things change when we go to general relativity, though I haven't had any courses on GR yet so I can't be 100% sure.

Newton's second laws are no longer a good approximation to reality for very small systems (like atoms) where quantum mechanical effects become significant, and for certain very large systems where the effects of general relativity become significant. They are no longer a good approximation for at least two reasons:

1.The mathematical model of the physical world in which every system is considered a system of particles that move along well-defined trajectories in three-dimensional space itself breaks down (like in quantum mechanics where the state of a system is described by a vector in a certain space called a Hilbert space).

2.The predictions of Newton's second law no longer hold to sufficient precision in some systems. A famous example is that Newton's law of gravitation coupled with Newton's laws incorrectly predicts the amount which the perihelion of Mercury processes.

newtonian mechanics - Are there any exceptions to Newton's laws? - Physics Stack Exchange

 

[daws101]

two farts in a row from the agent trolls.

another insightful retort from handjob..

 

[E.L.C.]

What's the matter E.L.C.? Don't want to answer?

Well, that didn't take long. In answer to your question, I do want to explore it. We'd have to agree about the parameters first though (nothing complicated).... What say you?

You've already set the parameters!

In a race to ground, all naturally failing load bearing structures, to one degree or another, will prevent a load from falling as fast as a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air.... There are no known exceptions.

Here is a failing structure.



Are you telling me that no matter how much that load increases, there is no chance for that column beneath it to EVER reach zero resistance?

And you keep avoiding my other question.

When the entire roofline started to descend, does that mean explosives were simultaneously set throughout the entire structure? I mean, the ENTIRE roofline across the building descended at the same time right?

That's a failing structure? Because I've been checking on it over the last couple of days. It looks pretty stressed out man, but it's holding.

This is a failing structure....

....and just like the other failing structure I posted....

....in a race to ground it will not be the same fall time for the falling load as it will be for a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air.

All I'm saying is that naturally failing load bearing structures, to one degree or another, will always prevent a load from falling as fast as a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air, and that there are no known exceptions.

Obviously, any structural component can reach a point where it no longer offers any resistance to the load above it. It happens all the time, either because of overloading (above) or damage to the load bearing structural component (below).... but it can't go into free fall unless/until structural failure is complete (bifurcation), which takes time. Only after bifurcation occurs can the load go into free fall since, as long as any part the column continues to offer any resistance, some of the falling load's potential energy will continue to be used for the purpose of overcoming it, so not all of its potential energy will be converted into motion, which is the definition of free fall....

For gravitational acceleration, all the potential energy of a falling object due to gravity must be converted to motion. It's that damn Newton guy again!

 

[KokomoJojo]

2 Answers

For examples of where the laws of Newton are no longer sufficient to describe reality, see the wiki page here. But we don't have to go to extremes like near-c velocities or strong gravitational fields to see that there are some situations where the laws of Newton seem to fail.

Consider an airplane taking off. You can feel yourself being pushed back into your seat, so you are experiencing a force (that is not gravity). However, you remain at rest w.r.t. the coordinate system fixed to the airplane. So the first law of Newton seems to fail: we are at rest, so there is no acceleration and yet a force is exerted on us. When the airplane is traveling at a constant speed on a constant height, however, we feel no force (except for gravity) and the first law seems OK again.

A simpler example still is that of a carousel. When we stand on the carousel we are at rest w.r.t. a coordinate system fixed to the carousel, but we do experience a force trying to push us outward. This again seems to contradict the first law of Newton.

Note that both coordinate systems where the laws seemed to fail in these examples were systems that had a non-zero acceleration themselves. The conclusion is that Newton's laws only seem to work when considered in a non-accelerating reference frames, which we call inertial frames of reference. The forces we feel when we consider a non-inertial frame of reference are called fictitious forces (because they do not arise due to a physical interaction but due to the fact that the reference frame has a finite acceleration) and the wiki page on those has the same example of the carousel that I mentioned, only worked out in more detail (here).

Inertial frames of reference have to be carefully defined. Take, for example, the frame of reference fixed to a lab on earth. When considering most everyday motions, we can use this frame as a good approximation of an inertial frame, despite the fact that the earth is rotating and therefore giving the lab a finite acceleration. However, if we want to describe motions that are a direct consequence of this finite acceleration (such as the deviation to the east of falling objects), we need to find a better frame of reference.

A good question to ask is then: do inertial frames even exist? And the answer is: yes, at least in Newtonian dynamics. I believe this still holds in special relativity but things change when we go to general relativity, though I haven't had any courses on GR yet so I can't be 100% sure.

Newton's second laws are no longer a good approximation to reality for very small systems (like atoms) where quantum mechanical effects become significant, and for certain very large systems where the effects of general relativity become significant. They are no longer a good approximation for at least two reasons:

1.The mathematical model of the physical world in which every system is considered a system of particles that move along well-defined trajectories in three-dimensional space itself breaks down (like in quantum mechanics where the state of a system is described by a vector in a certain space called a Hilbert space).

2.The predictions of Newton's second law no longer hold to sufficient precision in some systems. A famous example is that Newton's law of gravitation coupled with Newton's laws incorrectly predicts the amount which the perihelion of Mercury processes.

newtonian mechanics - Are there any exceptions to Newton's laws? - Physics Stack Exchange

you believe the bank trust building is wtc7 too! LMAO

This has nothing to do with quantum guessing.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Well, that didn't take long. In answer to your question, I do want to explore it. We'd have to agree about the parameters first though (nothing complicated).... What say you?

You've already set the parameters!

In a race to ground, all naturally failing load bearing structures, to one degree or another, will prevent a load from falling as fast as a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air.... There are no known exceptions.

Here is a failing structure.



Are you telling me that no matter how much that load increases, there is no chance for that column beneath it to EVER reach zero resistance?

And you keep avoiding my other question.

When the entire roofline started to descend, does that mean explosives were simultaneously set throughout the entire structure? I mean, the ENTIRE roofline across the building descended at the same time right?

That's a failing structure? Because I've been checking on it over the last couple of days. It looks pretty stressed out man, but it's holding.

This is a failing structure....

....and just like the other failing structure I posted....

....in a race to ground it will not be the same fall time as a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air.

All I'm saying is that naturally failing load bearing structures, to one degree or another, will always prevent a load from falling as fast as a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air, and that there are no known exceptions.

Obviously, any structural component can reach a point where it no longer offers any resistance to the load above it. It happens all the time, either because of overloading or damage to the load bearing structural component.... but it can't go into free fall unless/until structural failure is complete (bifurcation), which takes time. Only after bifurcation occurs can the load go into free fall since, as long as any part the column continues to offer any resistance, some of the falling load's potential energy will continue to be used for the purpose of overcoming it, so not all of its potential energy will be converted into motion, which is the definition of free fall....

For gravitational acceleration, all the potential energy of a falling object due to gravity must be converted to motion. It's that damn Newton guy again!

well his whole premise is a farce from the onset. He shows his ricky retardo single column to represent this:





reality is a bitch

 

[daws101]

2 Answers

For examples of where the laws of Newton are no longer sufficient to describe reality, see the wiki page here. But we don't have to go to extremes like near-c velocities or strong gravitational fields to see that there are some situations where the laws of Newton seem to fail.

Consider an airplane taking off. You can feel yourself being pushed back into your seat, so you are experiencing a force (that is not gravity). However, you remain at rest w.r.t. the coordinate system fixed to the airplane. So the first law of Newton seems to fail: we are at rest, so there is no acceleration and yet a force is exerted on us. When the airplane is traveling at a constant speed on a constant height, however, we feel no force (except for gravity) and the first law seems OK again.

A simpler example still is that of a carousel. When we stand on the carousel we are at rest w.r.t. a coordinate system fixed to the carousel, but we do experience a force trying to push us outward. This again seems to contradict the first law of Newton.

Note that both coordinate systems where the laws seemed to fail in these examples were systems that had a non-zero acceleration themselves. The conclusion is that Newton's laws only seem to work when considered in a non-accelerating reference frames, which we call inertial frames of reference. The forces we feel when we consider a non-inertial frame of reference are called fictitious forces (because they do not arise due to a physical interaction but due to the fact that the reference frame has a finite acceleration) and the wiki page on those has the same example of the carousel that I mentioned, only worked out in more detail (here).

Inertial frames of reference have to be carefully defined. Take, for example, the frame of reference fixed to a lab on earth. When considering most everyday motions, we can use this frame as a good approximation of an inertial frame, despite the fact that the earth is rotating and therefore giving the lab a finite acceleration. However, if we want to describe motions that are a direct consequence of this finite acceleration (such as the deviation to the east of falling objects), we need to find a better frame of reference.

A good question to ask is then: do inertial frames even exist? And the answer is: yes, at least in Newtonian dynamics. I believe this still holds in special relativity but things change when we go to general relativity, though I haven't had any courses on GR yet so I can't be 100% sure.

Newton's second laws are no longer a good approximation to reality for very small systems (like atoms) where quantum mechanical effects become significant, and for certain very large systems where the effects of general relativity become significant. They are no longer a good approximation for at least two reasons:

1.The mathematical model of the physical world in which every system is considered a system of particles that move along well-defined trajectories in three-dimensional space itself breaks down (like in quantum mechanics where the state of a system is described by a vector in a certain space called a Hilbert space).

2.The predictions of Newton's second law no longer hold to sufficient precision in some systems. A famous example is that Newton's law of gravitation coupled with Newton's laws incorrectly predicts the amount which the perihelion of Mercury processes.

newtonian mechanics - Are there any exceptions to Newton's laws? - Physics Stack Exchange

you believe the bank trust building is wtc7 too! LMAO

This has nothing to do with quantum guessing.

still dodging and still wrong.

 

[KokomoJojo]

2 Answers

For examples of where the laws of Newton are no longer sufficient to describe reality, see the wiki page here. But we don't have to go to extremes like near-c velocities or strong gravitational fields to see that there are some situations where the laws of Newton seem to fail.

Consider an airplane taking off. You can feel yourself being pushed back into your seat, so you are experiencing a force (that is not gravity). However, you remain at rest w.r.t. the coordinate system fixed to the airplane. So the first law of Newton seems to fail: we are at rest, so there is no acceleration and yet a force is exerted on us. When the airplane is traveling at a constant speed on a constant height, however, we feel no force (except for gravity) and the first law seems OK again.

A simpler example still is that of a carousel. When we stand on the carousel we are at rest w.r.t. a coordinate system fixed to the carousel, but we do experience a force trying to push us outward. This again seems to contradict the first law of Newton.

Note that both coordinate systems where the laws seemed to fail in these examples were systems that had a non-zero acceleration themselves. The conclusion is that Newton's laws only seem to work when considered in a non-accelerating reference frames, which we call inertial frames of reference. The forces we feel when we consider a non-inertial frame of reference are called fictitious forces (because they do not arise due to a physical interaction but due to the fact that the reference frame has a finite acceleration) and the wiki page on those has the same example of the carousel that I mentioned, only worked out in more detail (here).

Inertial frames of reference have to be carefully defined. Take, for example, the frame of reference fixed to a lab on earth. When considering most everyday motions, we can use this frame as a good approximation of an inertial frame, despite the fact that the earth is rotating and therefore giving the lab a finite acceleration. However, if we want to describe motions that are a direct consequence of this finite acceleration (such as the deviation to the east of falling objects), we need to find a better frame of reference.

A good question to ask is then: do inertial frames even exist? And the answer is: yes, at least in Newtonian dynamics. I believe this still holds in special relativity but things change when we go to general relativity, though I haven't had any courses on GR yet so I can't be 100% sure.

Newton's second laws are no longer a good approximation to reality for very small systems (like atoms) where quantum mechanical effects become significant, and for certain very large systems where the effects of general relativity become significant. They are no longer a good approximation for at least two reasons:

1.The mathematical model of the physical world in which every system is considered a system of particles that move along well-defined trajectories in three-dimensional space itself breaks down (like in quantum mechanics where the state of a system is described by a vector in a certain space called a Hilbert space).

2.The predictions of Newton's second law no longer hold to sufficient precision in some systems. A famous example is that Newton's law of gravitation coupled with Newton's laws incorrectly predicts the amount which the perihelion of Mercury processes.

newtonian mechanics - Are there any exceptions to Newton's laws? - Physics Stack Exchange

you believe the bank trust building is wtc7 too! LMAO

This has nothing to do with quantum guessing.

still dodging and still wrong.

wrong application get a clue