Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)

[spork]

I find it immensely entertaining that every single scrap of evidence and every expert outside of this forum supports humber claims completely, and every single person that has the opportunity to respond (with one very notable and sad exception) disagrees with humber completely.

Regarding that one person that agrees with humber, can you imagine how embarrassed he'd be if he knew what company he was in!?

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.

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic? If there's anything in the paper you don't understand I have no doubt you could easily with only the slightest help. I'm happy to help where I can.

You are amusement while I wait in airports.

I wondered where you went to get out of the cold.

 

[humber]

It's been confirmed by satellite data to be just 12 meters short of 1000 over a distance of 200 NM. But of course, you are using a perverted definitions of "uphill".

No uphill is uphill. The water's potential energy is increased as it flows downstream. Generally, that is not the case.
I was thinking about that stream. The water shears, and forms waves that do not seem to decay. It brought to mind that they were perhaps behaving something like a soliton, but they are extremely rare, but perhaps they take on some of that attribut.? Why are solitons so rare?
Also, rivers can from permanent contra-rotating flows.

 

[jjcote]

There's a stream in Wales that contradicts that. The water runs like a sheet over a flat, hard sedimentary bed. There is no pooling.

Cool. What's it called?

 

[humber]

I find it immensely entertaining that every single scrap of evidence and every expert outside of this forum supports humber claims completely, and every single person that has the opportunity to respond (with one very notable and sad exception) disagrees with humber completely.

Keep searching in vain for academics who will support your treadmill. After all the cart is actually not your idea. It's at least 60 years old. Not quite Galileon, but you can see him from there.

I wondered where you went to get out of the cold.

Sometimes, at some airports, it's summer.

 

[humber]

Cool. What's it called?

Don't know. It's a stream. I never thought I would need the reference.
Actually, I think there's a bit of the Colorado that does the same thing.

 

[Brian-M]

Humber...

Since you seem to think that heating the air in a hot-air balloon somehow affects the balloon's velocity, let's assume that we're talking about a hydrogen (or helium) balloon, such as a zeppelin.


If the balloon is unpowered, and moving through still air, the balloon will slow down due to drag, and eventually come to a complete stop.

The balloon will be stationary; no difference between velocity of the the air and the balloon. The balloon is stationary, and the air is stationary too.

But what if you look down at the ground, and notice that the ground is moving?

Sure, there might be some turbulance in the air near the ground, but up where the balloon is, nothing is changed. The air remains still, and the balloon remains still. The fact that the ground is moving has no effect at all on the balloon.

And what of someone on the ground? From their perspective they are standing still, the ground isn't moving, but the air is moving and the balloon is moving along with it.

So who is correct?
Is the person in the balloon, who thinks the air is still and the ground is moving?
Or the person on the ground who thinks the ground is still, and the air is moving?

The answer is: They both are.

The laws of physics are symmetrical. It makes no difference which is moving and which is still; in fact, the distinction is essentially meaningless.

From the balloonist's perspective the balloon is sitting still, and there is no wind, even if from his perspective the earth is rolling along below him, like a planet-sized treadmill.

But if you're right, and a balloon can't travel at windspeed, then that means that the balloon sitting in still air will be slowly dragged through the air in the same direction as the ground is moving (relative to the air).

Can you describe any plausable mechanism that would cause the balloon to move like this? What force would prevent the balloon from slowing down to a stop (relative to the air)? After all, the drag from wind resistance is acting to stop the balloon from moving (relative to the air).

 

[spork]

Drela moves rather quickly from one idea to the other, interconnecting each with expressions like "should hold" and "if sufficient". There are a lot of 'n' factors that may have a wide range. "Fudge factors" is one term used for this sort of thing. It seems rather speculative to me.

I said that he is inconsistent.

Yes, this Drela fellow doesn't really know his stuff. What he needs is to spend some time with humber!

To make a cart that exceeds windspeed, if only on average, is not difficult in variable wind....

You keep telling us how easy it would be to make, and that you have actually made carts such as ours as a child. But somehow you've never demonstrated making even a cogent argument. I doubt very seriously that you could make ice given a freezer, and ice-tray and all the necessary ingredients.

Yes, I did say I would provide support, but backed away because of some of the intervening posts. The problem is that evidence does not seem to matter.

It makes me sad that you don't understand irony.

Spork's defense of his ideas is nothing more than the usual adolescent BS.

I pride myself in maintaining good impedence match with my audience.

I need a knockout blow. That means visual evidence, because it seems that so many of you are impervious to reason, or equivocate over meaning. This is the standard ploy. Take a look at the Homeopathy thread.
So, I have a plan. It's underway, I assure you.

You have failed to even tell me where you stand on my claim the 2 + 2 = 4. But you have a plan!?

 

[mender]

Brian-M, your explanation reminds me of when I would take up a private plane in the winter up here (Canada). The air was so calm and the flight was so smooth it felt and looked like the ground was moving, not the airplane.

Of course, I could easily tell when I was flying west instead of east because of the massive reduction in KE that resulted.

I wonder how many planes traveling at 1000 mph due west ever find themselves trapped in that zero KE state and can shut off the engines and coast, like humber says happens. Maybe he could go up to the cockpit of the one he is traveling in and ask the pilots what they do when that happens.

 

[Christian Klippel]

It makes me sad that you don't understand irony.

Hello spork,

it makes me even more sad that he now tries to blame the others for his constant failure to come up with proof of his assertions. maybe he finally recognized he can't back up his ridiculous claims and now tries to blame the others to give himself an out.

Also note is this gem from him, when asked about the uphill floating river's name:

Don't know. It's a stream. I never thought I would need the reference.
Actually, I think there's a bit of the Colorado that does the same thing.

And that from someone who always demands proof and references from others. Just to discredit them afterwards, of course. For someone who claims to be so pedantic about facts, it really is a poor performance to not even remember that name while he supposedly remembers that there is such a river. One would guess that he at least checks the facts behind his own statements. But then, nothing surprises me anymore about him.

He really doesn't like his own medicine. As i said many times: talk about hypocrisy.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[humber]

Humber...

Since you seem to think that heating the air in a hot-air balloon somehow affects the balloon's velocity, let's assume that we're talking about a hydrogen (or helium) balloon, such as a zeppelin.

If the balloon is unpowered, and moving through still air, the balloon will slow down due to drag, and eventually come to a complete stop.

The balloon will be stationary; no difference between velocity of the the air and the balloon. The balloon is stationary, and the air is stationary too.

But what if you look down at the ground, and notice that the ground is moving?

Sure, there might be some turbulance in the air near the ground, but up where the balloon is, nothing is changed. The air remains still, and the balloon remains still. The fact that the ground is moving has no effect at all on the balloon.

And what of someone on the ground? From their perspective they are standing still, the ground isn't moving, but the air is moving and the balloon is moving along with it.

So who is correct?
Is the person in the balloon, who thinks the air is still and the ground is moving?
Or the person on the ground who thinks the ground is still, and the air is moving?

The answer is: They both are.

Well, you are indeed a glutton for the same punishment, Brian_M.
My genuine answer is; So what?

The laws of physics are symmetrical. It makes no difference which is moving and which is still; in fact, the distinction is essentially meaningless.

Here we go again. Yes, that is correct. However, it is NOT maintained on the treadmill.

From the balloonist's perspective the balloon is sitting still, and there is no wind, even if from his perspective the earth is rolling along below him, like a planet-sized treadmill.

OK. I take the idea, but not the wording. To say it's like something is not valid. You can say that it appears to you that the ground is passing under you. Not a trivial point when making a model.

But if you're right, and a balloon can't travel at windspeed, then that means that the balloon sitting in still air will be slowly dragged through the air in the same direction as the ground is moving (relative to the air).

You are assuming the conclusion. If the conditions you suggest are correct, then the balloon would not be dragged back.

Can you describe any plausable mechanism that would cause the balloon to move like this? What force would prevent the balloon from slowing down to a stop (relative to the air)? After all, the drag from wind resistance is acting to stop the balloon from moving (relative to the air).

The balloon will not get there, so there can be no plausible mechanism.
The closest answer I can give you is to say that if the balloon were held at windspeed, then it would indeed be dragged back, but to below windspeed.
This is because the force driving the balloon, the downstream wind, is not enough over come the drag of the balloon through that medium.

There is the 'downwind' drag, propelling the balloon, but there is also the opposing drag of the balloon through the air. It's not a free ride. The air ahead of the balloon is going to oppose the motion.
There is a turbulent wake in front of the balloon, just like there is an equivalent trail behind an object being dragged through a still medium. It's the wake of the medium over the balloon.

Large diameter objects such as a balloon, have a big area to offer to the wind, and so gather a lot of force. They have a smooth profile, so the turbulence ahead is relatively low. That means that the ratio of the driving and retarding forces is high, so the balloon can approach windspeed.

The opposing drag can never be zero, so true windspeed, in a constant homogeneous medium can never be achieved. With real world objects, you have to be careful about jumping to conclusions. If the balloon spins, that will unbalance the drag force, creating a shear force. If it has gained momentum by falling, then that must be considered too. These details matter.
I will say it again. This is the 21st Century, don't expect to find a pot of gold.
Wind is complicated, hot air balloons have been designed to exploit the conditions, to become refined. However, even they do not work in all winds. What do you expect? Weather balloons collapse in high winds...

It's a huge and erroneous step to conclude that not only all, but even some objects, can behave the same as a balloon. Balloons are like bubbles, they are perhaps unique. Sediment is in a class of its own, and so are canoes, which are different from barges. I am afraid that it is useless to argue from example.

 

[humber]

Yes, this Drela fellow doesn't really know his stuff. What he needs is to spend some time with humber!

Yes, you have just displayed your full understanding of the paper.

You keep telling us how easy it would be to make, and that you have actually made carts such as ours as a child. But somehow you've never demonstrated making even a cogent argument. I doubt very seriously that you could make ice given a freezer, and ice-tray and all the necessary ingredients.

I am not the only one to have made such a claim. I think was once a toy.
I wonderwhat a patents search would reveal. I may look. Dutch children make windcarts. It's a tradition.
Moreover, we have it from you that the idea predated Bauer. Other than that, did I mention that it is blindingly obvious.

It makes me sad that you don't understand irony.

Yeah, right.

I pride myself in maintaining good impedence match with my audience.

You are proud of your impotence?

You have failed to even tell me where you stand on my claim the 2 + 2 = 4. But you have a plan!?

That's right. I did.

 

[humber]

He really doesn't like his own medicine. As i said many times: talk about hypocrisy.

Chris

I know, I know. It's shocking. Dr Drela using the word 'hover' and referring slipping wheels 'n' all.

 

[Gaspode]

Everyone, please remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Christian Klippel]

I know, I know. It's shocking. Dr Drela using the word 'hover' and referring slipping wheels 'n' all.

Yes, he does. But not in a way you are using these words when it comes to the cart. But it's no surprise that you twist things to suit your views.

How's your proof coming forward? Or are you still blaming us for your inability to come up with something plausible?

 

[humber]

Yes, he does. But not in a way you using these words when it comes to the cart. But it's no surprise that you twist things to suit your views.

How's your proof coming forward? Or are you still blaming us for your inability to come with something plausible?

It seems to me that you interpret those words so as to be concordant with your view.

I was thinking though, about that stream. Well, your are right, I can't provide a reference, but I was wondering if I proposed a situation where a river may behave as I said, would you be able to help me clear up any mistakes that I may make?

That's a bit hard I think, so perhaps you can help me with a simpler problem.
I put a rock in the river, and it did not travel at waterspeed as expected.
I realised that perhaps only buoyant objects may do this. Yes, of course. I exclaimed. But then I began to wonder if the transition from river bed to waterspeed may not be sudden. If the object were a little buoyant, may it not be simply dragged slowly along the bed? If it floated, say, 1cm above the bed would that mean it would suddenly jump to waterspeed?
Then I noticed something else. It appears that different objects, even though they are they same height above the bed, seem to travel at different speeds.
This makes me doubt that all objects get to waterspeed, even if time were allowed for acceleration. What do you think?

 

[humber]

Thanks for your response humber. I like magic also. I don't think you are deceiving me any longer but I'll watch the show anyway!


I hear you...

Thanks.

My interpretation of this sentence is that you are not speaking for others, and that therefore the "mixed opinions" are yours.

Yes. About Drela's ideas, too.

I've never seen any explanation that I could properly understand for why you have such strong views on the treadmill. I think this applies to other people also. If you wish to convince us, then I really think you need to detail your views on this again in a complete and unambiguous way, possibly even including the basic principles and assumptions you are working with if there seems to be any possibility of confusion in that regard.

Would that were possible. It is difficult to overcome the language barrier.
Take for example free fall in air. At terminal velocity, the forces are in balance, so it is said that there is no force upon the object. That is absurd.
Gravity is acting upon the object, which is why there is the other force.
Balance is not elimination.
So, if I say that the treadmill is wrong because there is no force, then that will fall on deaf ears. I have to find other means.

You've also indicated that my scenario (#2744!) of essentially using half the world as a large treadmill is somehow wrong but have chosen not to explain why.

I did say that I found the scenario confusing, and ambiguous. I appreciate that you tried go be explicit. however, I came to the conclusion that what you were proposing was a variant on the treadmill idea. I should say, that if there is a real wind at all, then your claim may stand, but not if the wind falls to zero.

I also don't think you ever really replied properly to JJcote about his scenario of the cart being tested on an aircraft carrier in the fog - maybe that one ran aground. You didn't think that having the treadmill running on a moving truck in a real wind made any difference when it comes to the validity of using a treadmill. So what exactly is the common issue you've identified with all these scenarios (and others that I may have missed)? In other words, what has to be "removed" or "added" to make any or all of these scenarios acceptable to you? Or are you saying they all have different problems?

I remember agreeing to a condition, but I didn't see a response. Perhaps I missed it.
Those are experiments that have nothing to do with the treadmill. I mean that whatever outcome you get from them, the treadmill is not like that. More specifically, not the treadmill and cart.
The other treadmill-in-a-van experiments, are proof that you can carry a treadmill in a van.

That is clear. In other words, you are saying that for all intents and purposes, essentially nothing that anybody has written or presented to you in any other way so far has led you to make any change to the way you understand "physics" (in the context of the relevant threads in these forums).

Yes, that is correct. No, I have not fully digested Drela's stuff yet, but I think that he is being speculative.

Like John earlier, I couldn't quite work out what you were trying to convey in this part of your response. You have already confirmed that as far as you are concerned, nothing presented to you so far in these threads has exposed any errors in your knowledge or understanding of the relevant physics. You are entitled to that view obviously. However, given that I am also sure you are wrong with your complete rejection that a cart on a treadmill in still air can validly be used as substitute for the cart rolling downwind on the ground at around wind speed, I am left struggling to understand your viewpoint. If however, you had admitted to finding some area of your knowledge and understanding was in fact wrong to start with, and that you'd had to change your views in that respect, then I think I would have felt that there was a little more hope of somehow breaking the impasse. So I'm simply trying to get a handle on how confident you are about your knowledge and views, how open you might be to the possibility of seeing things a different way, and so on. At best, all very subjective though!

It is strange. But I am 100% sure about the treadmill. To me, it is so obvious.
It surprises me that you cannot see that.
ETA: I have seen the other post, Clive...

 

[spork]

humber, I would think one of your many areas of expertise would be statistics. So can you tell me how it is that every single person other than you on this site (and several others) just happens to be wrong? I mean the odds of that seem pretty slim. Surely you have a perfectly lucid and logical explanation.

It is strange. But I am 100% sure about the treadmill. To me, it is so obvious.

And yet you can't suggest a single way to test that "theory" of yours!?


And you still can't decide where you stand on my claim that 2 + 2 = 4

 

[Christian Klippel]

It seems to me that you interpret those words so as to be concordant with your view.

Please, stop projecting the things you constantly do onto others. Mind you, many have told you by now that you do, so you should really think about it: Is it all the others that do what you complain about, or is it you that does what you complain about others doing instead? That is, projecting. In this case, accusing others to twist stuff to make it fit their view, while instead it is you who constantly does that.

I was thinking though, about that stream. Well, your are right, I can't provide a reference, but I was wondering if I proposed a situation where a river may behave as I said, would you be able to help me clear up any mistakes that I may make?

Too bad that you can't provide a reference. It doesn't matter what you propose to make stuff suit your thinking. Back it up with proof and references, as you demand from others. People have tried to help you to recon your errors many times, but you always reject that and insist that your view is the only correct one. Therefore, i'm not going to try to help you anymore, because you refuse to be helped anyways.

That's a bit hard I think, so perhaps you can help me with a simpler problem.

Again putting yourself above everyone else, or what do you mean by "That's a bit hard I think"? You don't mean that you think i'm too dumb to follow your examples, do you?

I put a rock in the river, and it did not travel at waterspeed as expected.
I realised that perhaps only buoyant objects may do this. Yes, of course. I exclaimed. But then I began to wonder if the transition from river bed to waterspeed may not be sudden. If the object were a little buoyant, may it not be simply dragged slowly along the bed? If it floated, say, 1cm above the bed would that mean it would suddenly jump to waterspeed?

As others have told you many times by now, and what they have backed up with independent links: No, it would not "suddenly jump to waterspeed". That, again, is you trying to twist what people have said. It will, instead, slowly accelerate to waterspeed, if it is buoyant in the water, no matter at what level. 1cm, 10 cm, 100 cm above the ground. It will get to the speed that the stream has at that depth.

Then I noticed something else. It appears that different objects, even though they are they same height above the bed, seem to travel at different speeds.
This makes me doubt that all objects get to waterspeed, even if time were allowed for acceleration. What do you think?

Again, many people have told you already that objects that differ in size, shape and weight, which are floating in the water, will accelerate at different speeds, but their final speed will be the same: for all practical purposes the speed of the stream. Heavier, more streamlined objects take longer to accelerate to the final speed, lighter and more draggy objects accelerate faster.

Really, stop twisting what others have said, try to understand what was said, and if you are going to counter it, back it up with references and proof as you demand from others. And always keep in mind that when you are alone in defending your position, while the majority tells you that you are wrong, it really, really might be that you are indeed just wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seriously humber does show many of the signs of methamphetamine abuse. When he posts he can type out an amazing volume of garbage. Like meth users he is absolutely sure of himself even in the face of tons of evidence supplied by others. He likes to use words that he does not quite understand the meaning of, and when his error is pointed out we can refer back to his absolute confidence in himself. He promises to provide proof for his side, but then when he never does he weasels out by saying he does not need to since he is obviously right. I am tired of humber, we need more humb!!

 

[Christian Klippel]

It is strange. But I am 100% sure about the treadmill. To me, it is so obvious.
It surprises me that you cannot see that.

And it surprises me that you still don't get it.

The only reference frame that is of interest for the cart is the one that goes with the cart. The frame that goes with any observer is completely irrelevant, unless that person is sitting in the cart. The cart only cares about the ground and the (moving) air in it's own frame of reference. It just doesn't care about the frames of bystanders. These frames are completely unimportant to it. For that very reason it always has 0 KE, because the only reference frame of interest is attached to it, moving with it, so that the cart is always at standstill in that frame.

You can not go and mix parts of reference frames to make up your "it's not right" stanza. You have to stick to the one that is relevant. It does not matter what KE it might have in some frame that is not related to it's function.

Is that really so hard to understand? And remember: back up you claims if you deny these facts. If you can't, don't try a denial at all.

Edit: To clear it up a bit, the above is meant for the treadmill vs. outdoors comparsion, and why the treadmill is indeed a perfectly equivalent situation to an outside test.