Down wind faster than the wind

[humber]

Hey humber - do Spork and JB have to say "woo woo woo" to get it to levitate like that?

Well, playing with your train set makes a change for you.

 

[CyCrow]

As opposed to proving your case.

Let's call it peer review.

// CyCrow

 

[humber]

Twice is not the same as two completely different answers.

Choose one, then.

 

[humber]

Let's call it peer review.

// CyCrow

You are failing your review.

 

[humber]

I think you are all missing the point. The whole basis of the claim that the treadmill is a frame of reference, and the cart is at windspeed rests upon this test.
I say making sure the cart is in good contact with the belt, will bring the frame of reference crashing into the real Humberworld, where a treadmill, is a treadmill.
Spork tells you that he balances the cart, through selection of wheels and what not, so it is dependent upon friction, or simply 'balance'. Can you think of a real world equivalent where two realities are dependent upon such trifles?

 

[fredriks]

Choose one, then.

That is probably the main law in humberian physics.

humbers first law: "Argue" for all possibilities.

The first law is so good because you have always "argued" for the result in the experiment so humberian physics is always correct.

 

[Clive]

Humber,

One of your earlier objections to Spork's video and related explanations from various people, is that using a reference frame that is moving at the same velocity as the belt as it moves backwards under that cart is invalid or wrong in some way. I want to try to understand your objection(s) to that scenario more clearly.

You've also noted that the cart has no kinetic energy when on the treadmill (and is not moving relative to the ground). As I understand your argument, this is because you see the cart's velocity as zero in that situation (relative to the ground that the treadmill is resting on). As far as I can see, this is one of your main objections to the use of the treadmill as opposed to doing the testing along an actual road, and in a "real wind".

Here's an alternative arrangement to fix the problems that I understand you see with the treadmill as used by Spork.

Imagine there is a flatbed truck driving at 10 mph directly downwind, in a real wind blowing at 10 mph wind and on a level smooth road. So this means the truck and the surrounding air are moving together (except for some local effects around the truck wheels and so on). There is a treadmill being carried on the back of that truck. This treadmill is the same type as used in Spork's videos and is also positioned so the top section of the belt is moving directly backwards at 10mph (as measured relative to the deck of the truck).

In other words, the top section of the belt will be moving backwards precisely in sync with the surface of the road beneath the truck, and there will also be no apparent wind noticed by people at rest on the back of the truck. Just to be clear, when talking about the "apparent wind" in my last sentence I mean the effect of the large scale real wind that the truck is driving in (as noticed by people and objects on the truck) and not any laminar flow that may exist very near to the actual belt of the treadmill because of its movement through the air.

Hopefully you can see that in this scenario a cart placed on the treadmill and allowed to run (in the same way as is done in the videos) is also actually moving forward compared to the real road surface at exactly the same speed as when compared to the working section of the treadmill belt. (That part of the belt and the road surface are both moving backwards relative to the truck, and at exactly the same speed.)

1. Do you think this could be a better arrangement than that shown in the existing treadmill videos? If not, can you please explain why not. If you do see it as being better, then do you any other objections?

2. As you see it, will this cart have more, or less, or the same kinetic energy (not counting any energy stored by rotating components) than one running on top of a treadmill on the ground? What would you need to know in order to calculate the actual value of the kinetic energy and do you need to specify a reference frame?

3. Would you agree that using a reference frame moving at the same speed as the working part of the treadmill belt is also matching the apparent motion of the ground (as seen from the truck)?

Thanks.

 

[fredriks]

I say making sure the cart is in good contact with the belt,

I would say we can decide if this is true if the wheels roll with the same speed as the belt.

The problem is that this is not a test the claim in humberian physics. My university didn't have any classes in humberian physics so I have no idea how to determine if the cart is in contact with the belt or not.

I have also no idea whatsoever why this should be different on a road in a wind or an the treadmill.

Spork tells you that he balances the cart, through selection of wheels and what not, so it is dependent upon friction, or simply 'balance'. Can you think of a real world equivalent where two realities are dependent upon such trifles?

Lets see, a real world applications where the result depends on the actuall friction and where it might be necessary to minimize the friction or maybe even change gearing or wheel size.

No cant think about anything at all. A bike would for example obviously work equally well with 1 inch tires and no bearings in the hubs.

 

[sol invictus]

I think you are all missing the point. The whole basis of the claim that the treadmill is a frame of reference, and the cart is at windspeed rests upon this test.

In the spirit of the season, all I can say is "bah humber".

One of the really entertaining things about this thread is that humber still hasn't acquired even a basic understanding of the opposing point of view.

Now, one might object that we (every other poster in the thread, that is) also have no understanding of humber's point of view, which is true... but the difference is that there are many of us, we are capable of communicating in English, we have overwhelming experimental evidence, we don't contradict ourselves with every post, and there are literally thousands of references available on Newtonian physics.... whereas there are precisely zero on hwoomberian physics.

 

[Michael C]

With the help of some of Terry's friends, I've made a new video. It's called "Under the ruler 2: the ground moves". I hope you enjoy it.

 

[Dan O.]

Very good demonstration Michael. I think most preschoolers would understand that.

Someone should ask humber to post a link to his definition of "frame of reference" I can't seem to find it in the 2 million references that Google finds.

 

[humber]

In the spirit of the season, all I can say is "bah humber".

One of the really entertaining things about this thread is that humber still hasn't acquired even a basic understanding of the opposing point of view.

Now, one might object that we (every other poster in the thread, that is) also have no understanding of humber's point of view, which is true... but the difference is that there are many of us, we are capable of communicating in English, we have overwhelming experimental evidence, we don't contradict ourselves with every post, and there are literally thousands of references available on Newtonian physics.... whereas there are precisely zero on hwoomberian physics.

You didn't address the question. Most of the so-called contradictions are simply efforts to play for time, or the result of the rather large number id metaphors and similes needed to get across a simple point. Did I say 'levitate'? If so that was careless, but my initial explanation of it being adhered to the belt by "vestigial friction" still stands,

But you contradict yourself, every time you assert that the treadmill is the framework I should adopt. I say the "equivalence" tells me that nothing changes according to the view of the observer, so mine is good as yours, but the don't agree. That's not right.

You misunderstand when I say the ground IS the reference. You can say there is no absolute reference, but that does not preclude the idea that one may be more accurate than the other. If I were to accept the treadmill as a frame, then I could still say it is artificial, and subject to errors and compromises.
My treadmill breaks no laws of physics, and conserves KE. What you have in your translation is unreal image. An artificial world, where objects accelerate to zero KE and zero V. Momentum rules. The huge mass and gravity of the Earth make it the boss. To change from that, is possible, but pointless.

 

[John Freestone]

In particular I've taped a couple of 9V batteries to the bottom of the gear case motor to improve the traction performance. With improved traction 18 volts the cart works BETTER.

There's your answer, right there!

It is not possible to clearly see the drive wheel, that is the important wheel.

Hmmm. Poor eyesight?

The cart goes no faster than it appears to.

If you can see it.

I can predict how your little toy works just by looking at it.

Except for the drive wheel, which you can't see, and that's the important one. I wonder which one of the three is the drive wheel. Maybe that's why you can't count the drive wheels properly: they're so hard to see.

Do the test as described.

Do you mean the description that goes: discern how much weight over the drive wheels would be enough to slow the cart down enough to go backwards and fall off the treadmill when without it it would advance (after all, it's your cart, don't ask me about the toy I can predict the behaviour of just by looking at it); apply that amount of weight and see what happens next? That test?

I don't think we know how much mass would be required to overcome the levitational force produced when 5 ounces of wheeled cart gets swept up by rolling across a treadmill's incredible laminar wind. That's what we need you to help us with. Clearly a couple of tons will do it, a feather probably not. Somewhere between those, we can get those darn floating wheels back on the tread...if we can see them.

To think I said you couldn't understand different inertial frames because of a lack of imagination!

Or did you mean the other test, replace the treadmill with a fishtank?

 

[humber]

I would say we can decide if this is true if the wheels roll with the same speed as the belt.

The problem is that this is not a test the claim in humberian physics. My university didn't have any classes in humberian physics so I have no idea how to determine if the cart is in contact with the belt or not.

I have also no idea whatsoever why this should be different on a road in a wind or an the treadmill.

Perhaps you wandered into the Post Modernism lectures.
The velocity of the wheels is not important. The absolute instantaneous values of the propeller's output, the wheel velocity , the friction are not important. They can vary considerably over time. The propeller, like it or not, stores momentum. It stores the integral. In effect, that 'averages' the input. If you don't agree, and the cart must respond instantly to all changes, that would require massive acceleration just to "correct" for a small movement. Clearly no workable.
The surface of the road should be modeled the treadmill. Does the cart blow about and slide against the tarmac in the street video.?
You are still not seeing the wood for the trees.

 

[fredriks]

I am curious if you had anything except post modernism lectures. You say absolutely nothing that make sense in a lot of words.

Can you show me a good book about the basics in humberian physics?

 

[spork]

Put the cart on a treadmill and it obviously levitates above the treadmill due to quarks and other QM particles jumping from the belt to the treadmill. It not only levitates but the jumping particles also make the wheels rotated in a non slip fashion. The levitation cart clearly has no friction so it stays in the same place. It might also advance on the treadmill when the quarks are really happy.

I think that must be right. Because our claim that it's just a simple brainteaser showing that a wind powered cart can go directly downwind faster than the wind clearly violates all sorts of physical laws.

 

[spork]

Can't be. That's the same video. It still slips, like it's on ice.

I did everything I could to faithfully execute your experimental protocol. Please tell me specifically where I deviate from your clear instructions.

 

[CORed]

Not sliding, the wheels need not slip to do that!
In practice, there will be much greater friction than is seen in the demos. This is unrealistically low. Only because the cart is a minimizing balance, can such low friction support the cart where it is.

Silly me. I always thought that minimizing friction was the whole idea behind wheels and wheel bearings.

See, if you put a 5 pound lead weight on the cart, or "lubricate" the wheel bearings with molasses, the cart won't work. In the "real world", by which Humber means his fantasy world, wheels that actually work properly are unavailable, so your test is "unrealistic".

If you make the cart less efficient, it won't work. I think Humber accidentally got something right.

 

[humber]

Humber,

One of your earlier objections to Spork's video and related explanations from various people, is that using a reference frame that is moving at the same velocity as the belt as it moves backwards under that cart is invalid or wrong in some way. I want to try to understand your objection(s) to that scenario more clearly.

Yes. The velocities are simply subtracted to create a new reference. This of itself is quite OK. The "principle of equivalence" is ubiquitous. It says you have no choice but to accept the matter, that is the way things are. It therefore seems rather redundant to argue for another "frame". But the first action is not of changing "frames" but changing the datum point from which measurement are taken, that's all. If you do that at home with a tape measure, then you expect no change because of it. To do so on the treadmill, and make a new velocity datum, is not possible without consequences, such as no KE and having the wind force related to the friction with the belt. The treadmill has a number of coincidences with what it claims to be. Some you see, the missing not.
I say that in the real world, momentum cannot be dispensed with. It is a property of that object. It gives the figurative "wants to continue" notion. If you suddenly stop a small mass,( e.g. elastic collision with a big mass) it will try to keep going, and this will result in it flying off in the opposite direction. So, if the treadmill "stops" the moving cart, its reaction should be to conserve its momentum by traveling at beltspeed ( same KE, opposite direction). Now, I have played a trick on you there. I have used some mathematical ideas, and demonstrated that the treadmill should respond accordingly. But that is a coincidence, like some of the ideas that support it. It is not a frame of reference, at all.

You've also noted that the cart has no kinetic energy when on the treadmill (and is not moving relative to the ground). As I understand your argument, this is because you see the cart's velocity as zero in that situation (relative to the ground that the treadmill is resting on). As far as I can see, this is one of your main objections to the use of the treadmill as opposed to doing the testing along an actual road, and in a "real wind".

Two issues there. My objection to real wind testing is that accuracy is a problem. There are too many to address in this post. Windtunnels are definitely OK.

Here's an alternative arrangement to fix the problems that I understand you see with the treadmill as used by Spork.

Imagine there is a flatbed truck driving at 10 mph directly downwind, in a real wind blowing at 10 mph wind and on a level smooth road. So this means the truck and the surrounding air are moving together (except for some local effects around the truck wheels and so on). There is a treadmill being carried on the back of that truck. This treadmill is the same type as used in Spork's videos and is also positioned so the top section of the belt is moving directly backwards at 10mph (as measured relative to the deck of the truck).

Yes, smooth road. Won't any acceleration or bumps in the road (also acceleration) immediately tell you which frame you are "really" in, but inside a box? If my treadmill in a van turns out to plain old real, may be the treadmill is a plain old treadmill? It is a model partially constructed from correct modeling and partly from misapplied ideas of frames, (or woo).
No, this sort of testing avoids all the problems, by wishing them away.

In other words, the top section of the belt will be moving backwards precisely in sync with the surface of the road beneath the truck, and there will also be no apparent wind noticed by people at rest on the back of the truck. Just to be clear, when talking about the "apparent wind" in my last sentence I mean the effect of the large scale real wind that the truck is driving in (as noticed by people and objects on the truck) and not any laminar flow that may exist very near to the actual belt of the treadmill because of its movement through the air.

Yes, but isolated, the external world may as well not exist. It has all been placed "outside the frame", but only because it is entirely ignored.

Hopefully you can see that in this scenario a cart placed on the treadmill and allowed to run (in the same way as is done in the videos) is also actually moving forward compared to the real road surface at exactly the same speed as when compared to the working section of the treadmill belt. (That part of the belt and the road surface are both moving backwards relative to the truck, and at exactly the same speed.)

Yes, everything is good... but meaningless. That is built upon the wrong idea of frames of reference. The above is actually a model, that says or tests nothing. It cannot fail.

1. Do you think
this could be a better arrangement than that shown in the existing treadmill videos? If not, can you please explain why not. If you do see it as being better, then do you any other objections?

The treadmill has nothing to do with frames, and even less to do with windtravel. When some critics have said that it proves the wheels turn, they are right. It is what you see. The rest is metaphorical.

2. As you see it, will this cart have more, or less, or the same kinetic energy (not counting any energy stored by rotating components) than one running on top of a treadmill on the ground? What would you need to know in order to calculate the actual value of the kinetic energy and do you need to specify a reference frame?

I think I am to add all of the other influences, such as the Earth? Well OK, but that is only a redundant exercise, all objects are in the same field. The Earth is massive, and has a huge gravitational field. Object are "relative" but mutually coupled to the Earth's mass and gravity.
It is not so that you cannot tell if the Earth is in motion. The Earth is tiny compared to the Sun, though the force between them is the same, so the Earth is accelerated more, so you know which is orbiting which. Absolute acceleration is meaningful. Objects are discernible.

3. Would you agree that using a reference frame moving at the same speed as the working part of the treadmill belt is also matching the apparent motion of the ground (as seen from the truck)?

Thanks.

Well, no. The whole idea of "velocity matching" is well...wrong.
The wind on the treadmill is notional, it is only there while the observer on it
fixed to it is moving. That is not the same as wind, and demonstrably so.
I can do that if you like, but drawings are better.

 

[John Freestone]

I think Humber accidentally got something right.

He gets loads of stuff right:

The cart goes no faster than it appears to.

True.

Most of the so-called contradictions are simply efforts to play for time

True, although "so-called" could be misunderstood as meaning that they're not contradictions.

A car on ice, spinning its wheels, has similar properties.

True (well, similarish).