mnottertail
Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004 Status: offline
|
NO, it doesnt. If you are too far beyond medication today, go back to playing in your shit. You know that the intent of structural components below it, means in the context things that support it in a way that will not let gravity take its course. There is no other alternative conclusion, gravity exists in the presence of structural components and exists in the presence of the opposite situation. One situation prevents you from fawwing down go boom, the other situation 'and there is no third....' you faww down go boom unimpeded. There may be a mix of those situations, and that is commonly how it happens and I quote: It is "impossible" for a natural collapse to freefall. There are no exceptions, however there are variants where one could set up another. Such as a natural collapse tips over the edge and then freefalls to the ground. That would still be a natural collapse but would have both variants. The bolded part is essentially correct, that prior is untutored asswipe, but there is no causation in physical law that says it cannot come straight down and must displace catastrophically sideways, and I have dismissed that out of hand with my example of a barn and you falling off a building. This is going nowhere, is where it is going. You see, this is not a digital world it is absolutely analog, gravity is continuous. We measure digitally. So, The causation and intensity of different variables will at digital times cause one event (of if you will, law) to take the precedence over another, but in actuality is it continuously fading in and out as water flowing not as digital drips. Go ahead. Natural, unnatural (I dont give a fuck, it really neither adds or detracts from the argument) the supporting components that defeat the will of gravity (this includes physics laws as well, inertia, air resistance, friction, the fact that the voids in the collapsing building are filling with debris, the fact that more weight is disconnected from the underlying supporting components 'below'....change the equation continuously, and thats why there is calculus as a separate branch of mathematics from good old arithmetic. But go ahead, make a supportable argument based on physical laws, that are known since newton, and not some inferred and poorly done (and very inaccurate strangleberry physics software from a poorly digitized picture off of youtube by some clown). Or by interpreting convienience into something someone said off the top of their head under pressure ad hoc. Just keep it in something that is prima facie discernable from natural law (physics).
< Message edited by mnottertail -- 8/16/2011 3:36:38 PM >
_____________________________
Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30
|