• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Down wind faster than the wind

humber said:
For the child within...


I've read your blog.


I said, I've read your blog.


No need. Frames concept BS.


I am quite sure you are not qualified to speak for physicists. Objects are not said to increase their KE or velocity when moving towards zero velocity.


No, that is not so. Like a sophomore with a head full of Kafka.



In your view of physics, you are like a young boy who finds a Playboy magazine. He likes the pictures of the naked ladies, but he doesn't know why.
Click to expand...
I guess I've got my answer, and it's "ignore the question and waffle" again. How nice you've read my blog. Since I don't mention physics there, if the remark has any meaning, I have no idea what.

"Frames concept BS". Tomorrow should be fun then.

I seem to speak for quite a few physicists. I bet you'd be hard pressed to find one who agrees with you. However, numbers don't make a theory right, and that wasn't my game. I would have liked to discuss the issues, which, if they're consistent, we should be able to explain to each other clearly. That's why I reminded you of several problems I have with your view, and asked you to clarify your position. I'm still no nearer to understanding what 'real wind' is supposed to mean, or whether you think a passenger would be sucked into the prop, or whether there's a difference between the zero kinetic energy (as I imagine you would call it) for a body at rest (as I imagine you'd call it) at the North Pole and one at rest at the equator.

A sophomore with a head full of Kafka? It seems the metamorphoses of relative motion are too Kafkaesque for you, yet you're somehow unable or unwilling to say what the objection is, other than that Earth is big and heavy and therefore the 'boss', changing to a different frame is possible, but pointless, and other irrelevant nonsense that actually supports my case, not yours.

Changing frame is possible! Yes! Pointless? The point is not having to chase a cart across a carpark in a blustery wind! Like sticking a plane in a wind tunnel is useful for saving the lives of quite a lot of test pilots! If there wasn't some basic equivalence there, there would be no point. We'd just do a few sums and a sketch, build them, get in and take off.

Sure, there are physical complications - limits of scale and so on, which slightly compromise the equivalence in practice - but that's not what you've been on about. I approached those and dismissed them in this case to my satisfaction. Your criticism of frames is fundamental. You say, "Frames concept BS". Roll on tomorrow then, when you earn your Nobel. It will be exciting to tell my grandchildren that I had conversations with the genius who overturned 350 years of understanding in mechanics, even if I have to admit that I thought he was a complete plonker at the time. Hey, that's how geniuses appear sometimes. How was I to know, a complete innocent like me?

Concerning my innocence (liking the pictures) - I am actually re-learning a lot of this stuff from about 40 years ago when my father, a mechanical engineer, used to instruct me on everything from algebra to zeplins. At the age of eight I could have given a pretty good account of the internal combustion engine, jet engines, power stations, planetary motion, aerofoils, hovercraft, sailing theory, calculus, conic sections, electrics, harmonics, optics, the autogyro, etc., and we used to build and fly model planes and make all sorts of stuff out of mechano. Not bragging, just replying to your suggestion that I'm regurgitating poorly understood ideas that are new to me.
 
Humber says the wheels are not slipping but the cart is "hovering".
Click to expand...
WHO CARES IF THE WHEELS ARE SLIPPING?

If somebody builds a DDWFTTW cart that works while the wheels slip, or while the cart levitates, or while it sends secret telepathic messages to Terry, great, they get extra credit!

There is actually one circumstance in the videos where they slip, and that's due to a consequence of making the cart simple. It's really designed to work only at cruising speed, and in the outdoor video where it starts from a dead stop, the wheels slip at the very beginning. This is like building a powerful car that has only top gear, and the only way to start it is to floor it, pop the clutch, and spin the tires.

(Although I am a bit curious about which direction humber thinks the wheels are slipping.)
 
Alternatively, a strobe light would show the relationship between the lines without the need for slo mo. I don't recall the wheel size, but if the circumference were, say, 4 inches, that would translate to 2640 RPM at 10 mph, so a strobe set to 44 flashes per second would flash once with each revolution.
 
Modified said:
Nope, tried that. Humber says the wheels are not slipping but the cart is "hovering". At least, when you offer that sort of solution that's what he says.
Click to expand...
Im not quite following this, he is now say the wheels are in a 1:1 relationship with the track, i.e. not slipping? "Hovering" means going the same speed as the surface being hovered over, that is not the case here.
 
jjcote said:
WHO CARES IF THE WHEELS ARE SLIPPING?

If somebody builds a DDWFTTW cart that works while the wheels slip, or while the cart levitates, or while it sends secret telepathic messages to Terry, great, they get extra credit!

There is actually one circumstance in the videos where they slip, and that's due to a consequence of making the cart simple. It's really designed to work only at cruising speed, and in the outdoor video where it starts from a dead stop, the wheels slip at the very beginning. This is like building a powerful car that has only top gear, and the only way to start it is to floor it, pop the clutch, and spin the tires.

(Although I am a bit curious about which direction humber thinks the wheels are slipping.)
Click to expand...
I thought he was claiming wheel slippage was somehow causing performance on the treadmill, something that is easily tested. He even claimed that adding weight to prevent wheel slippage would result in a degradation in performance, so I don't understand why he is denying this claim now. Thin Air was ready to do a test, but Humber couldn't say how much weight should be added, no point doing a test without that, however much weight he added, Humber could say it was the wrong weight.
 
jjcote said:
WHO CARES IF THE WHEELS ARE SLIPPING?

If somebody builds a DDWFTTW cart that works while the wheels slip, or while the cart levitates, or while it sends secret telepathic messages to Terry, great, they get extra credit!

There is actually one circumstance in the videos where they slip, and that's due to a consequence of making the cart simple. It's really designed to work only at cruising speed, and in the outdoor video where it starts from a dead stop, the wheels slip at the very beginning. This is like building a powerful car that has only top gear, and the only way to start it is to floor it, pop the clutch, and spin the tires.

(Although I am a bit curious about which direction humber thinks the wheels are slipping.)
Click to expand...
Hi jj. Looks like you're approaching the event horizon of the humberverse now, from the shouting. :) Don't worry, it gets fun again later.
 
Marcus said:
I thought he was claiming wheel slippage was somehow causing performance on the treadmill, something that is easily tested. He even claimed that adding weight to prevent wheel slippage would result in a degradation in performance, so I don't understand why he is denying this claim now. Thin Air was ready to do a test, but Humber couldn't say how much weight should be added, no point doing a test without that, however much weight he added, Humber could say it was the wrong weight.
Click to expand...

I thought the same, until I made the same suggestion that you did and humber responded that "it's not about the wheels slipping". Then a few posts later he claimed that non-slipping wheels would be evidence that the cart is not "hovering". Then he stated that those positions are not inconsistent. He still has not given us a clear explanation of what he means by "hovering", or any way to detect or measure it. The only way to prevent hovering, it seems, is to add an unspecified amount of weight to the cart above the drive wheels.
 
Has anybody been compiling a list of the questions that humber has forgotten to answer? You could number the list and repost it every page or so as a gentle reminder. It may save jj and the others that will follow some frustration if they can quickly see what ground we haven't already covered.
 
How about we start with a list of questions that he has answered consistently - the same way that is (figured I'd better clarify that a little).
 
Dan O. said:
Has anybody been compiling a list of the questions that humber has forgotten to answer? You could number the list and repost it every page or so as a gentle reminder. It may save jj and the others that will follow some frustration if they can quickly see what ground we haven't already covered.
Click to expand...


I don't think there is any area that hasn't been covered. Some pretty bright folks have been thumping this melon for a while now. JJ is clearly a sharp guy taking a logical path - but that's what will trip him up. humber is completely logic-proof.

I'm just enjoying the insanity. But I'll admit this - there's something I haven't yet figured out about humber. He knows some big words, and sometimes uses them correctly. Does he actually have some form of intelligence in an area far removed from physics, or is he in fact an entire class of psychology students that are performing sublte experiments on the rest of us by posting inconsistent and inane theories about "physics"? We may never know.
 
sol invictus said:
Non-zero acceleration can increase, decrease, or leave unchanged KE and velocity. That's the most basic Newtonian dynamics, and you will find thousands of references on the web and in physics texts that confirm that.
Click to expand...
Name on of those cases that apply to an object w.r.t. ground.



You're wrong. That's basic Newtonian dynamics, and you will find thousands of references on the web and in physics texts that confirm that (I've personally given you links to about four).[/QUOTE]

Yes, you missed the point on all occasions, so I didn't even look at them.
 
Last edited:
jjcote said:
WHO CARES IF THE WHEELS ARE SLIPPING?

If somebody builds a DDWFTTW cart that works while the wheels slip, or while the cart levitates, or while it sends secret telepathic messages to Terry, great, they get extra credit!
Click to expand...
I am sure Terry would understand

There is actually one circumstance in the videos where they slip, and that's due to a consequence of making the cart simple. It's really designed to work only at cruising speed, and in the outdoor video where it starts from a dead stop, the wheels slip at the very beginning. This is like building a powerful car that has only top gear, and the only way to start it is to floor it, pop the clutch, and spin the tires.
Click to expand...
No.

(Although I am a bit curious about which direction humber thinks the wheels are slipping.)[/QUOTE]

That you don't care that they are slipping, shows that you do not care about controlling your variables within an experiment, or appreciate the effect that may have.
 
John Freestone said:
I guess I've got my answer, and it's "ignore the question and waffle" again. How nice you've read my blog. Since I don't mention physics there, if the remark has any meaning, I have no idea what.

"Frames concept BS". Tomorrow should be fun then.

I seem to speak for quite a few physicists. I bet you'd be hard pressed to find one who agrees with you. However, numbers don't make a theory right, and that wasn't my game. I would have liked to discuss the issues, which, if they're consistent, we should be able to explain to each other clearly. That's why I reminded you of several problems I have with your view, and asked you to clarify your position. I'm still no nearer to understanding what 'real wind' is supposed to mean, or whether you think a passenger would be sucked into the prop, or whether there's a difference between the zero kinetic energy (as I imagine you would call it) for a body at rest (as I imagine you'd call it) at the North Pole and one at rest at the equator.

A sophomore with a head full of Kafka? It seems the metamorphoses of relative motion are too Kafkaesque for you, yet you're somehow unable or unwilling to say what the objection is, other than that Earth is big and heavy and therefore the 'boss', changing to a different frame is possible, but pointless, and other irrelevant nonsense that actually supports my case, not yours.

Changing frame is possible! Yes! Pointless? The point is not having to chase a cart across a carpark in a blustery wind! Like sticking a plane in a wind tunnel is useful for saving the lives of quite a lot of test pilots! If there wasn't some basic equivalence there, there would be no point. We'd just do a few sums and a sketch, build them, get in and take off.

Sure, there are physical complications - limits of scale and so on, which slightly compromise the equivalence in practice - but that's not what you've been on about. I approached those and dismissed them in this case to my satisfaction. Your criticism of frames is fundamental. You say, "Frames concept BS". Roll on tomorrow then, when you earn your Nobel. It will be exciting to tell my grandchildren that I had conversations with the genius who overturned 350 years of understanding in mechanics, even if I have to admit that I thought he was a complete plonker at the time. Hey, that's how geniuses appear sometimes. How was I to know, a complete innocent like me?

Concerning my innocence (liking the pictures) - I am actually re-learning a lot of this stuff from about 40 years ago when my father, a mechanical engineer, used to instruct me on everything from algebra to zeplins. At the age of eight I could have given a pretty good account of the internal combustion engine, jet engines, power stations, planetary motion, aerofoils, hovercraft, sailing theory, calculus, conic sections, electrics, harmonics, optics, the autogyro, etc., and we used to build and fly model planes and make all sorts of stuff out of mechano. Not bragging, just replying to your suggestion that I'm regurgitating poorly understood ideas that are new to me.
Click to expand...

No answer will ever satisfy you. Even is I answer one of your inquires in a simple ans direct manner, I still get the same trivial and juvenile response.
I tried, but now you are back on "fast scroll".
 
humber said:
An object that travel w.r.t ground but has no KE.
Click to expand...

Yep - trivial. Basic kinematics.

An free object, with a recorded application of linear force so undergoing acceleration, yet does not gain KE or velocity.
Click to expand...

"gain velocity" is nonsensical. Do you gain location when you move from one place to another? But change that to "increase speed" (or "change speed"), then yes, again trivially (well, depending on exactly what you mean by "linear"). It's one of the first things you learn in high school physics courses.
 
Last edited:
Modified said:
I thought the same, until I made the same suggestion that you did and humber responded that "it's not about the wheels slipping". Then a few posts later he claimed that non-slipping wheels would be evidence that the cart is not "hovering". Then he stated that those positions are not inconsistent. He still has not given us a clear explanation of what he means by "hovering", or any way to detect or measure it. The only way to prevent hovering, it seems, is to add an unspecified amount of weight to the cart above the drive wheels.
Click to expand...

How much friction do you need to make sure that you do not slip on your footpath? If you can tell me how much is needed to avoid that at my house, I will tell you how much weight is needed to make the cart good to the belt.


The point being of course that is an uncontrolled variable, so HTF do I know?
You can see the variability from on video to the next.
Observe:
1)Spork does not know.
2)You do not know
3)You still seem to think that going bakc down the belt could happen.
4) Wheels slipping only play a part in on of the limiting cases.
5) Notice that when you hear a new word or even brand label, that you hear or see it more often afterwords? Ideas are like that. That's why Spork said "hovering" because the more it is repeated by your own efforts, the more you become attuned to seeing it. You all use my metaphors. Why not "struggling against the belt", "driving against the wind".
 
sol invictus said:
Yep - trivial. Basic kinematics.
Click to expand...

No, name an object. No Wikki time, name that object


"gain velocity" is nonsensical. Do you gain location when you move from one place to another? But change that to "increase speed" (or "change speed"), then yes, again trivially. It's one of the first things you learn in high school physics courses.
Click to expand...

What of circular motion then? That does both, or just the one.
 
Last edited:
spork said:
I don't think there is any area that hasn't been covered. Some pretty bright folks have been thumping this melon for a while now. JJ is clearly a sharp guy taking a logical path - but that's what will trip him up. humber is completely logic-proof.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we can test that. Either of you willing to get Prof Dela's opniion on the treadfmill?

I'm just enjoying the insanity.
Click to expand...
Too easy

But I'll admit this - there's something I haven't yet figured out about humber. He knows some big words, and sometimes uses them correctly.
Click to expand...
Some are small words.

Does he actually have some form of intelligence in an area far removed from physics, or is he in fact an entire class of psychology students that are performing sublte experiments on the rest of us by posting inconsistent and inane theories about "physics"? We may never know.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
Keep guessing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom