Run away. Arby's afterwards?
Pehaps you will meet on or two of the 100% of academics who don't agree with you.
Last edited:
Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)
- Thread starter Dan O.
- Start date
- Status
Run away. Arby's afterwards?
Pehaps you will meet on or two of the 100% of academics who don't agree with you.
Michael C
Graduate Poster
Why only post that here on this strange nonsense thread? I've posted the link on the Down Wind Faster Than The Wind thread, where I hope that some smart people will help me in understanding some details.
Michael C
Graduate Poster
For the present, all that Humber seems to have done is a). Maybe Humber would like to give his considered opinion of the analysis presented in the linked PDF?
What I said was that there was an extremely small chance that I would talk to him about this, because he's a busy man and this is a matter of relative unimportance. (I'm baffled as to why I'm wasting my time on it). However, he has posted a PDF of a nice analysis of DDWFTTW of his own volition, and the equations in it are independent of whether the ground is still and the air is moving, or if the air is still and the ground is moving (e.g. a treadmill). What we are wondering is, what is your opinion of the PDF?
My argument with Spork concerns the treadmill. I have made that clear. If you are too obtuse to accept that, then I cannot suggest otherwise.
I have several times stated that I can build a faster than wind cart, based upon orthodox engineering. Too bad if that bothers you.
So the pdf.
If you like. Where does it mention that the treadmill is valid?
That equivalence involved?
The model is true only if the specified conditions are met. Wait for it....including wheelspin, just as I claimed.
Anyway, the derivation has both wind and water power. So big deal. I will see where the wind cart claim goes. Need to study it.
He seems to be a bit inconsistent in his definitions, though.
A sea of momentum, yes. I have used that expression.
Do you still think the linked papers support your case, orare you going to just forget to say do?
Only after you were cornered, did the probability dwindle. Not busy enough to get a "hi" shout out fron you though?
Nervermind. I would prefer it if you argued for yourself. This pdf is more solid, so it can be examined. Published of free will, so it is valid to question Dr Drela about it.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
I initially thought it would be a simple process to enumerate the errors. But when processing humber's posts, I find it is difficult to isolate where humber says anything let alone understand what it says.
I've started a couple of sub-topics on specific errors. If you have any additions to make to these, please keep the post title intact (with Re: added) so all the related posts can be quickly found by a search. Please keep these sub-topics specific to the single issue.
If you find any other errors that appear to violate classical physics (in any JREF post) go ahead and add them here in the same format. This doesn't have to be just about humber.
I've started a couple of sub-topics on specific errors. If you have any additions to make to these, please keep the post title intact (with Re: added) so all the related posts can be quickly found by a search. Please keep these sub-topics specific to the single issue.
If you find any other errors that appear to violate classical physics (in any JREF post) go ahead and add them here in the same format. This doesn't have to be just about humber.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
do!
lest we forget
Somebody should inform humber that momentum and velocity don't have the same units.
Not understanding the question is a standard technique used by those wishing to evade the answer. I can try another language if that helps.
Was the question regarding the papers you linked to, not clear?
That waterspeed is not one thing? That the means of measurment is critical?
That the result is statistical. It has frequency distribution for example?
That sediment is not a boat?
Shouldn't the cart posts be on the other thread?
You can't categorize everything, Dan_O. Not all things are kinematic.
They do not. Have you read them?
Velocity argument is yours. I say it is simplistic. The difference between momentum and velocity is clear. I have said that, but you have such a short memory. However, I manage to remember everything that all of you think.
I know each and every one of your claims. I mostly understand the questions, but ask for clarification when I don't. I do not cite false support, or liken boats to circuses.
There is just me, yet I can do that from train or airport lounge, against all of you. When concerned into admitting a mistake or inconsistency, you back away, and start a new line, or repeat an old one.
It is not even my idea. I don't care about DWFTTW very much.
Maybe the fact that he is considered an expert in his field means that it is you who is inconsistent concerning definitions, not him. A sane person would accept that and try to learn from it.
Did you understand this question, posed to you a few times:
How fast will a balloon move, if the wind is, say, 10 m/s?
We say 10 m/s. What do you say?
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
Here is an absolute gem of a humberism that everyone else seems to have missed.
Now, over a very short distance (a few feet, maybe) this can be true, but it's not how rivers actually work. Certainly, the bed of a river can be uphill for a some distance, but in that case, the water pools behind the high point of the uphill portion. That pool, depending on the size of the low area can be anything from a slightly wider or deeper and slower piece of river to Lake Superior. The surface of the water in the pool is going to be level, if the pool is big enough, but the water (the upper part, anyway) will still be moving, although if the pool is a large lake, the current can be so slow as to be imperceptible.
Now, over a very short distance (a few feet, maybe) this can be true, but it's not how rivers actually work. Certainly, the bed of a river can be uphill for a some distance, but in that case, the water pools behind the high point of the uphill portion. That pool, depending on the size of the low area can be anything from a slightly wider or deeper and slower piece of river to Lake Superior. The surface of the water in the pool is going to be level, if the pool is big enough, but the water (the upper part, anyway) will still be moving, although if the pool is a large lake, the current can be so slow as to be imperceptible.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
Poor Humber, the only person in the world who really understands physics, against all of us poor deluded souls. He doesn't even really care about it, yet he makes hundreds of posts trying to correct all of our misconceptions.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Yes, another language would help. Try English. Mathematics would be even better.
Nothing you write is clear.
In your universe, does a boat need to have the same frequency distribution as the water in order to say it is traveling at the same speed as the water?
Now, where did that come from? All we know is that humber said it so it must not be true.
In certain regions accustom to intermittent flooding, sediments carried by the water will settle out to form mud flats. As these flats dry they can crack and curl. When the area floods again, some of these curled dry layers of sediment can temporarily float on the surface of the water forming sediment boats.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
It's amazing... you say something very stupid about a topic you claim to know about (that someone "proved the axioms" of arithmetic) - something which is impossible by definition, oxymoronic, senseless, that makes it obvious you don't understand the meaning of the terms you're using - and then when confronted, instead of admitting your error you insult me.
What are you trying to accomplish? You've attained negative credibility - so much so that when you (rarely) slip and say something that's true, people tend to disagree with you just because you said it.
I think you're a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger.
- Status