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

[John Freestone]

Has it not occurred to you, John, that if a number of people learn the same error, it is not unlike one person making the same error?

Of course it has. It has also been quite clear for some time that if all those people had made a common mistake, which you had seen through, you would be able to state what it is in English, Dutch or mathematics, but no such elucidation has been forthcoming. Furthermore, I am darn sure that if it had, at least one of the educated physicists, aerodynamicists, etc., that you talk to would have said something along the lines of 'oh yeah" by now.

F1 cars do not use treadmills in this manner.

That was a bit of a guess, and was probably wrong. See how easy it is? "I was wrong".

Interestingly, the world still works the same, before and after Galileo.

But some of us learned to describe it differently. Your descriptions of it are medieval.

Also, if you had said "information theorem" to him, he may have said "Whata isa that?

Hmm. And have you explained how the information theorem pertains to a cart on a treadmill? You probably think you have.

ETA:
The drawing is a profile, not a flow. I made that clear

And if you knew how to calculate things properly with respect to different frames of reference, you'd see that the flow is in "the same direction" too according to that profile, but you haven't done one of those right yet (incidentally, your repeated struggle to do simple sums is another giveaway concerning whether everyone else has made a mistake about it for 400 years and we're about to be educated by you).

 

[humber]

Humber I'd like to see a response to this.

Here's the original feynman quote:

Yes. I challenge you to show me where I have said that was not so. How many times have I told you that equivalence is just another way of saying that the world is Newtonian? When I do that, I am told that I am a flat-earther, but not Mr Feynman?
According to you, Feynman disagrees with Einstein who says that with an accelerometer, you can tell if you are moving. That is, accelerating.

So, who is right?

James Randi would pull magic tricks on Feynman, giving only yes, no or maybe as answers to the Feynman's questions. Some tricks took Feynman weeks to work out, even knowing that the trick had been done, and with Randi's help.

 

[humber]

Yes,yes, yes, but you forget the essence of Humberism....

Newton, Dreler,Feynman, even Einstien didn't say what they said. They say what Humber SAYS they said!!

Of course. With you as spokesman, how could those gentleman be wrong?

 

[humber]

<snip>

That was a bit of a guess, and was probably wrong. See how easy it is? "I was wrong".

Maybe "guessing" is too polite a word. Some are having difficulty saying "I am wrong". But not you. Must be all that practice.

But some of us learned to describe it differently. Your descriptions of it are medieval.

Antediluvian, my liege

Hmm. And have you explained how the information theorem pertains to a cart on a treadmill? You probably think you have.

I do need you to help me think

And if you knew how to calculate things properly with respect to different frames of reference, you'd see that the flow is in "the same direction" too according to that profile, but you haven't done one of those right yet

Maybe the frames idea is redundant after all.

(incidentally, your repeated struggle to do simple sums is another giveaway concerning whether everyone else has made a mistake about it for 400 years and we're about to be educated by you).

It's not a struggle not to do something.

 

[John Freestone]

It's not! That's the point. From that position you describe, increase your velocity so that you move up the belt. The laminar flow will appear to come towards you, and though slower recede behind you.

How do you manage to do this, humber? You're investigating the flow of air in a certain scenario, and then you just change the scenario almost without noticing so that, hey presto, whatever it was you asserted comes true. Accelerate forwards enough and yes, the wind will appear to come from the front in a closed room, and even faster if it's dragged a bit by the belt. When you get to the point of going DDWFTTW, the wind is going backwards w.r.t. you. But your original scenario was imagining your feet were glued to the belt, and your task, not too difficult was to assess which way the boundary layer flow was going. You asserted that it was in the wrong direction. It isn't. To prove your point, you unglued your feet and accelerated forward on the belt.

All your proofs are of the 'heads I win; tails you lose' variety. They are simple cheats. You measure half the quantities, recalibrate, and measure the other.

I have to go now, but if you will please think about what I have said.

Ooh, a conditional. Is the game to think up endings?

...it still won't make sense?

Later, I will pose a problem to you concerning the operation of a belt-powered vehicle.
No box cars, just simple mechanics.

I'm reading that 20 hours later and haven't caught up yet with the rest of the thread. I'm just making a note. I'm not suggesting that the problem won't arrive, or hasn't already. Obviously. It could.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

According to you, Feynman disagrees with Einstein who says that with an accelerometer, you can tell if you are moving. That is, accelerating.

One of my favorite laws of the Humberverse: movement = acceleration.

JB

 

[John Freestone]

Maybe "guessing" is too polite a word. Some are having difficulty saying "I am wrong". But not you. Must be all that practice.

And surviving being sucked into props long enough to get a few things right.

Maybe the frames idea is redundant after all.

No. You even said it was right yourself, but didn't apply to treadmills for some reason. Whatever you try to apply it to, you fail every time.

It's not a struggle not to do something.

Ok, if you like, you didn't do the sums at all.

You always cut the best bits:
"If all those people had made a common mistake, you would be able to state what it is in English, Dutch or mathematics."

Convenient to ignore that bit, wasn't it? Again. If you see something we don't, just please, for god's sake, find a way to say what it is within the next thousand posts, eh?

 

[Dan O.]

You put up this challenge,Dan_O. I say I have met that challenge. I say that I can tell the difference between real and treadmill wind by the means I have described.
Do you agree?

On a sufficiently large treadmill moving at a constant velocity and a steady wind with a constant speed relative to that treadmill, you cannot tell whether the treadmill has 0 velocity relative to the earth or the wind has 0 velocity relative to the earth or if both are moving...


To help you out, we'll use a single environment. The platform is at least 20 km long and you are somewhere in the middle. There is an opaque dome over the platform and fans at either end. The fans keep the air over the platform moving at a constant 5 m/s from left to right. The entire platform, dome and fans are on a smooth vibration free track and can be moving either left or right at any constant speed up to 10 m/s.

From inside this platform, by studying the behavior of a wind powered cart, how can you tell the speed of the platform with respect to the ground?

 

[spork]

You put up this challenge,Dan_O. I say I have met that challenge. I say that I can tell the difference between real and treadmill wind by the means I have described.
Do you agree?

How could he agree with that!? You haven't even attempted to describe how you could tell the difference. You simply use "proof by absolute assertion" (which is pretty darn unconvincing). Here, I'll use your same method to prove you're wrong: "does not!"

There, I've no proved my case - do you agree?

 

[spork]

Newton, Dreler,Feynman, even Einstien didn't say what they said. They say what Humber SAYS they said!!

More importantly, no matter what they said that would support humber's argument. Even if Einstein had looked into the future to say, the cart on the treadmill is exactly the same as a cart on the road in a tailwind - and humber is completely wrong, I'm quite certain humber would explain how that supports his case.

According to you, Feynman disagrees with Einstein...

Nope. All such silly conclusions are according to YOU.

So, who is right?

Everyone but humber. These questions are getting easier.

 

[Dan O.]

"does not!"

I should use that one more often.

 

[humber]

How do you manage to do this, humber? You're investigating the flow of air in a certain scenario, and then you just change the scenario almost without noticing so that, hey presto, whatever it was you asserted comes true. Accelerate forwards enough and yes, the wind will appear to come from the front in a closed room, and even faster if it's dragged a bit by the belt. When you get to the point of going DDWFTTW, the wind is going backwards w.r.t. you. But your original scenario was imagining your feet were glued to the belt, and your task, not too difficult was to assess which way the boundary layer flow was going. You asserted that it was in the wrong direction. It isn't. To prove your point, you unglued your feet and accelerated forward on the belt.

No, that is not correct, John. Your conclusion is the same failure to recognize the nature of flow. Flow has a past and future. The treadmill is a tiny slice of time, and so does not stand scrutiny in that regard. If you were in a car, couldn't you use radar to look ahead of the car in a way that would leave you in do doubt as to which way the flows were going? Doppler radar is used to determine turbulence ahead of aircraft, you know.

"Can't tell" is not seen as a simple statement of fact, or lack of information, but a feature. Wouldn't it be possible to construct a simple air ram so that external air is forced past the observer, so as to make him think that the air is going in the direction of your choice? It's ludicrous.
I doubt that this is what Feynman had in mind.

All your proofs are of the 'heads I win; tails you lose' variety.

You have a third choice?

Ooh, a conditional. Is the game to think up endings?

...it still won't make sense?

I'm reading that 20 hours later and haven't caught up yet with the rest of the thread. I'm just making a note. I'm not suggesting that the problem won't arrive, or hasn't already. Obviously. It could.

Pregnant with expectation that you will be right.

And surviving being sucked into props long enough to get a few things right.

All this sucking, John.

No. You even said it was right yourself, but didn't apply to treadmills for some reason. Whatever you try to apply it to, you fail every time.

Maybe the 'some reason', is the reason.

Ok, if you like, you didn't do the sums at all.

As needs demand.

You always cut the best bits:
"If all those people had made a common mistake, you would be able to state what it is in English, Dutch or mathematics."
Convenient to ignore that bit, wasn't it? Again. If you see something we don't, just please, for god's sake, find a way to say what it is within the next thousand posts, eh?

QED

 

[humber]

On a sufficiently large treadmil

Let's settle for the one we've got.

l moving at a constant velocity and a steady wind with a constant speed relative to that treadmill, you cannot tell whether the treadmill has 0 velocity relative to the earth or the wind has 0 velocity relative to the earth or if both are moving...

That was not the challenge. I have met the challenge to be able to differentiate real wind from treadmill wind, something which you proclaimed was not possoble in principle, let alone in practice.
This I have done by using no more than my hand. This is within the rules of being available to the cart.

Also, I have just found my old friend, the differential Doppler radar. It's got a digital display 'n' all. Seems that I can tell.

To help you out,

To try and get out of...

we'll use a single environment. The platform is at least 20 km long and you are somewhere in the middle. There is an opaque dome over the platform and fans at either end. The fans keep the air over the platform moving at a constant 5 m/s from left to right. The entire platform, dome and fans are on a smooth vibration free track and can be moving either left or right at any constant speed up to 10 m/s.

We can test that when you build it. Seems to bear little resemblance to the treadmill. Anyhow, you say that is the principle of equivalence that guarantees this, not the construction itself. You also assume that I only have your skills to determine if a difference could be detected.

From inside this platform, by studying the behavior of a wind powered cart, how can you tell the speed of the platform with respect to the ground?

Who me?

 

[humber]

One of my favorite laws of the Humberverse: movement = acceleration.

JB

So you think that you can accelerate without moving?

 

[humber]

How could he agree with that!?

No, he can't

You haven't even attempted to describe how you could tell the difference. You simply use "proof by absolute assertion" (which is pretty darn unconvincing). Here, I'll use your same method to prove you're wrong: "does not!"

Talk to the hand, it tells all. I can tell the difference, that is clear.

You refuse to acknowledge that, yet it is patently obvious, and has being mentioned many times over the course of this thread.
The laminar flow is dragged back by the belt, in the opposite direction to the supposed tailwind. The wind that "passes by the cart" is not the laminar flow, but the relative motion of the cart through that flow.
So, who's the absolutist here?

Also, there is a distinction between not knowing there is a difference, and there actually being no difference. An argument from ignorance. What a surprise.

 

[RossFW]

So you think that you can accelerate without moving?

No, but you CAN be in motion without accelerating.

Acceleration=CHANGE of velocity.

But, then, any fool knows that.....

 

[spork]

I have met the challenge to be able to differentiate real wind from treadmill wind, something which you proclaimed was not possoble in principle, let alone in practice.
This I have done by using no more than my hand. This is within the rules of being available to the cart.

I guess you'll have to either repeat yourself or point me to the post in question. I guess when I put gibberish on fast-scroll I may miss the occassional world changing proof. Unless I missed it, I haven't seen you even offer anything remotely like a test that's even intended to tell the difference.

 

[humber]

No, but you CAN be in motion without accelerating.

Acceleration=CHANGE of velocity.

But, then, any fool knows that.....

But not perhaps a syllogism?

I deliberately made that distinction, RossFW. The difference between knowing your speed and knowing you are in motion, perhaps even relative motion. When is the penny going to drop?

Do you think that Feynman did not realise that? He is talking ( here at least) about the internal consistency of such systems.
Do you think that to someone as inquisitive as he, that "can't tell" may be a challenge rather than an assumption?

 

[humber]

I guess you'll have to either repeat yourself or point me to the post in question. I guess when I put gibberish on fast-scroll I may miss the occassional world changing proof. Unless I missed it, I haven't seen you even offer anything remotely like a test that's even intended to tell the difference.

No, you are simply denying failure. I don't need your admission, only the opinions of those reading.
I "guess" you will be able to see how well you are doing.

 

[sol invictus]

According to you, Feynman disagrees with Einstein who says that with an accelerometer, you can tell if you are moving. That is, accelerating.

As I've observed before, humber - you don't know the meaning of many terms starting with a, among them "accelerate".

It's unbelievable that you've had the gall to argue with us over thousands of posts when you don't even know the meaning of the most basic terms and concepts used in the discussion.