citrusmirakel  - 2007-06-30
Okay, that's neat, but I feel I'm missing something.
Why was this done? What did it prove?
|
gmol - 2007-06-30 Well the point of these simulations is that you are modeling reality as about as finely as you can given finite computing resources. Integrating the equations of motions (and throwing in some approximations to get some efficiency), you get a pretty complete picture of what's happening.
I remember reading in the headlines that these simulations showed that the building still collapses, even though their simulation doesn't take the heat of the explosion into account; suggesting that burning jet fuel melting steel columns is not what caused the the towers to collapse (I was always a little skeptical given no one had done simulations then, it had a bit of a meme feel to it). Apparently, even if the planes were filled with water, we would've had a very similar outcome...
They don't seem to really talk about that conclusion in the video though....
Simulations like these (at any scale) always have some pretty standard potential sources of error, how well you have sampled (i.e. do the buildings collapse over every reasonable perturbation of angle and speed of the aircraft?), integration error and not what effect some of your approximations have...
But models like these can do a good job of predicting observations, suggesting that there is some element of truth in them
|
gmol - 2007-06-30 Ack I take that back, the simulation doesn't technically show that the building collapses, it does show that the core columns are severely damaged in during the interval of the collision...suggesting that the columns were broken before jet fuel had time to burn them.
|
smoothbrain - 2007-06-30 I honestly only posted it because it's neat, as far as the whole debunking the conspiracy theories - they don't really need debunking because they're ridiculous
|
petep - 2007-06-30
what accent is that?
|
|
Maxville - 2007-06-30
NEVAR FORGET!!11!!
Honestly, I don't give a shit anymore.
|
jihadbaby - 2007-06-30
Never forget that 9/11 was why we went to Iraq to Kick Ass and Chew Bubble Gum, and in Iraq there is no bubble gum... But there is a lot of ass... albeit poor, and scrawny...
|
jrr - 2007-06-30
Five fucking stars to counteract all the inevitable truther dipshits. As for "why"? Hell, they're still making computer models of the Hyatt disaster to learn more about why things fall down and how to improve engineering to keep them up.
|
|
|
Caminante Nocturno - 2007-06-30
We're going to have a lot of explaining to do to our descendants.
|
fluffy - 2007-06-30
This video is actually more about how they produced the animation (with technical details only of interest to computer graphics folks like me) than about what the animation conveys. Ostensibly some of this video will be used in a later video with a better voiceover that actually explains what's being shown in layman terms and not using things like "a distant hither plane" (i.e. "a cut-away view").
The video is useful, but only the first part of the explanation is, and that's why it loses a star.
|
smoothbrain - 2007-06-30 It's part of a lecture to a room full of engineers, and I don't think you need to know what he's talking about to see what's happening.
|
Big Beef Burritos Supreme - 2007-06-30 Smoothy, he's not using very technical language.
I'm so impressed it's unbelievable -- some nice physics simulation here.
|
|
Xiphias - 2007-07-01
It is, in fact, a sales pitch for the modeling and animation system. And it's a good pitch - they're doing some impressive simulations here.
|
Cube - 2007-07-03
Isn't it sort of morbid to use 9/11 to sell computer software?
|
Jeff Fries - 2007-12-06
Back, and to the left
Back
and to the left
|
| Register or login To Post a Comment |
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
Facebook