Pool of Skittles

[Khamsin]

Before we get too involved in the physics major battle, do either of you find anything wrong with the results of my analysis on the previous page from your standpoints?

Namely the comparison to soil analysis, and that a person walking across would probably only sink in a couple inches (for the actual numbers and assumptions used in the computation, see the previous page).

[Neosutra]

Before we get too involved in the physics major battle, do either of you find anything wrong with the results of my analysis on the previous page from your standpoints?

Namely the comparison to soil analysis, and that a person walking across would probably only sink in a couple inches (for the actual numbers and assumptions used in the computation, see the previous page).

No, you had a solid premis, I just disagree with some of the assumptions you make. Same principle but I think you will fall more then a few inches pretty fast, then very slowly after that as you struggle, like a ball pit.

[Kaylia]

Oh, and I forgot to back up my argument with "I HAS A DEGREEZ". So... I has a degreez (in civil engineering) with four years experience and a professional license in the State of Washington.

Beat that!

He went there first! Don't blame me

About your post at the bottom of the other page, it could probably be used to describe the situation. Major differences is that skittles compression isn't constant, and there is a lot less friction because of their spherical ellipsoid nature (and yummy sugar coating that doesnt stick). The result would still be similar tho.

1. This is the internet, 5 minutes on google/wiki will answer that question, even w/o a degree, and is nothing more then a fickle attempt from a sad individual to disprove physical concepts they dont understand by attacking the person whom stated them.

Easier said than done in 5min. Someone without any base in physics wont be able to get it right either

Set up the Lagrangian equations of motion for the double pendulum. For simplicity, assume m1 = m2 = m as will as ?1 = ?2 = ?.
T = .5m(x1^2 + y1^2) + .5m(x2^2+y2^2)
Where U = mg(y1+y2).
Where x1 = sing(theta1), y1 = -cos(theta1), x2 = (sin(theta1) +sin(theta2)), y2 = -(cos(theta1) +cost(theta2));

You say it's easy, but you get it wrong... This isnt even the correct equation for a double pendulum, and my question had spring in it. T equation is the one you got wrong btw.

You better get it right next time after saying it's easy since it can be found on wiki. I didnt ask double pendulum because it's easy to find on the net.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7...rangienag5.jpg

But to humor you:

Get it right first, humor me after.

[Khamsin]

Before we get too involved in the physics major battle, do either of you find anything wrong with the results of my analysis on the previous page from your standpoints?

Namely the comparison to soil analysis, and that a person walking across would probably only sink in a couple inches (for the actual numbers and assumptions used in the computation, see the previous page).

No, you had a solid premis, I just disagree with some of the assumptions you make. Same principle but I think you will fall more then a few inches pretty fast, then very slowly after that as you struggle, like a ball pit.

You could do "geotechnical" analysis of a ball pit, too, and find that you'd sink further in that due to the difference in density and air voids. The main factors that separate one type of soil from another are the void ratio (and density), aggregate size, and (if a clay or silt), the plasticity. A ball pit is much less dense than a pool of skittles, so while a similar effect will be seen there, it'll be to a much different degree than with the skittles and you could sink in all the way.

On the other hand, the USCS system for soils only goes as large as a couple inch aggregate size, which is still pretty huge but nowhere near as huge as a ball pit ball. Plus, aggregate tends to have jagged edges which interlock for better strength compared to ball pit balls (or skittles for that matter). As for skittles, they'd probably pass a 3/8" sieve and fit into the soil classification system, however a skittle and a piece of aggregate are probably different enough in their physical properties that calculating bearing capacity as if it were a soil is probably a bit off, but I'd like to think the results would be in the right ballpark. It just depends on using an appropriate density, internal friction angle, and shear stress which I just pulled out of my ass.

[Kaylia]

and shear stress which I just pulled out of my ass

To Neo
If the skittles were 1 feet wide, would you sink?

[Remyo]

me and jesus walked across my pool of skittles.

[Kaylia]

me and jesus walked across my pool of skittles.

I made the Jesus joke already on first page, you're 4 pages late!

[Blarg]

me and jesus walked across my pool of skittles.

I made the Jesus joke already on first page, you're 4 pages late!

It's the second coming of Jesus jokes duh

[Kaylia]

It's the second coming of Jesus jokes duh

Ok, you can get your cookies for this one

[Remyo]

me and jesus walked across my pool of skittles.

I made the Jesus joke already on first page, you're 4 pages late!

no you asked a question, I'm answering you. pics incoming.

[Tricen]

If you stood idle in a pool of skittle you would sink some but eventually stop. You could get to the bottom if you tried which is kind of obvious. The way I see it, when you put pressure on them, they will rise some and since there is a wall to push off of, they would like... Come up and over onto themselves to make room for whatever displacement. But you'd have to be moving to do that, so if you just stood there you'd sink some but that's about it.

[Groovebox]

Scrooge McDuck went swimming in his money pit all the time.

[Neosutra]

Your now arguing the equation for a double pendulum..

Jesus, i feel like im in a religious argument here.

Think what you like Kaylia, I dont think Im going to gain anything but a headache from talking with you. Good luck with your degree.

Edit: and you started the degree nonsense with your "im doing a degree in physics", which I lol'd at. Dont act like i was the pompass ass attempting to validate a silly argument (its a silly argument on everyones part, not just yours) via credentials lol.

[Remyo]

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5297/93813320zc3.jpg

[Neosutra]

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5297/93813320zc3.jpg

I LOLd.

[Kaylia]

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5297/93813320zc3.jpg

Need to define the relation between Batman and Jesus using array and entropy.

[Tricen]

Your now arguing the equation for a double pendulum..

Jesus, i feel like im in a religious argument here.

Think what you like Kaylia, I dont think Im going to gain anything but a headache from talking with you. Good luck with your degree.

Edit: and you started the degree nonsense with your "im doing a degree in physics", which I lol'd at. Dont act like i was the pompass ass attempting to validate a silly argument (its a silly argument on everyones part, not just yours) via credentials lol.

You're

[Kaylia]

Your now arguing the equation for a double pendulum..

Jesus, i feel like im in a religious argument here.

Think what you like Kaylia, I dont think Im going to gain anything but a headache from talking with you. Good luck with your degree.

Edit: and you started the degree nonsense with your "im doing a degree in physics", which I lol'd at. Dont act like i was the pompass ass attempting to validate a silly argument (its a silly argument on everyones part, not just yours) via credentials lol.

What you said
T = .5m(x1^2 + y1^2) + .5m(x2^2+y2^2)

The real kinetic formula of a double pendulme
T= ½m( (dx1/dt)² + (dy1/dt)²) + ½m((dx2/dt)² + (dy2/dt)²)
Or T = ½mv² (the one you used in college)

Where x1, x2, y1,y2 are the one you defined earlier

Look like you took formula directly from wikipedia, but ignored what the dot on top of the "x" meant and posted it to make it look like you knew what you were talking about.

You failled at copy pasting a simple problem, that wasn't even the one I asked you to answer, which is a bit more complex and doesnt have any solution on the net (at least, none that can be found easily)

[edit]You accused me of not knowing my college physics. Seem like a logical reply to indicate you my current level of study to invalidate your attack.

[Headspace]

I think it would be uncomfortable to walk on skittles.

[Tricen]

But delicious, none the less.