This is perhaps your most bizarre post yet. It's as if you think I've somehow admitted I was wrong or contradicted myself.
It's plenty easy to explain the performance of the cart climbing an incline. There is plenty of energy available (as has
been show) at the ground/wind interface to cause the cart to climb an incline, accelerate beyond the wind speed, or both. We show all three in our videos. If you hope to get any meaningful answers from the "physicists" that claim this is not possible, I wish you luck. I've yet to find one such physicist that understands the most basic principle of equivalence of inertial frames.
I thought I would never say this but humber is correct.
His description of the cart on the treadmill being in balance is absolutely correct.
Notice the difference there, Spork? Let me spell it out for you. No frames of reference or ground energy are needed to explain your cart remaining on the belt and traveling an incline. This puts the remainder of your ideas in doubt, and explains their rejection by academia.
You respond with this:
I read VERY little of what humber posts. While I've never seen him be right on anything at all (or even close), it stands
to reason that he'd stumble onto something right with the reams he posts here.
Yes, when JB and I go to great pains to get the cart to exactly balance on an inclined treadmill, it is in fact in balance on an inclined treadmill. That seems obvious enough to me.
If we simply place it on our treadmill at max speed and max incline, the cart simply climbs the incline and heads straight off the front of the
treadmill.
Not quite eh? Yes it quite obviously stays on the belt, and moves up it, but my explanation contradicts yours.
You talk a lot of rhetoric about others admitting being wrong, but when it's your turn that is your cowardly and adolescent response.This is why you insult all who question you, including all those 'stupid' professors. They know you are wrong, but you just won't quit.
(1) I think Prof. Whiteman is correct. You are irrational. You claim to have a recording of the phone call, so let's hear it, so that others may judge for themselves. A transcript may suffice.
(2)You said that you had accepted many challenges to your bet, but that they failed because the other party bowed out or otherwise could not agree. I asked you to provide details, but as usual you do not. Let's see those.
(3)You have made claims that some academics do agree. You post links to those who do not, so let's see some for those who do.
This is why I say not only have you contradicted yourself, but that you are afraid to admit your mistakes. I do not want such an apology of course, because I don't actually believe much of what you say.
