-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)
- Thread starter Dan O.
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Know one that is different? You picked me up on "axiom" and got that wrong, if only because of context. I can argue that it is a lemma.As I've observed before, humber - you don't know the meaning of many terms starting with a, among them "accelerate".
I don't have time for punctiliousness. That is usually the sign of the bluffer and evader, because those who want to understand, do understand. It's a marker that the latter use to identify the former.
Think I can't tell your wind?
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.
You were notable by your absence.
ETA:
A bit of a Wikki, and a rummage around n-cafe, should bring me up to speed on the other guff.
Last edited:
NOBODY expept you says that moving is the same as accelerating. What part of the word "Change" don't you understand???
No, you did that for me.
What part of "your treadmill is not a frame of reference and has several obvious failures" do you not understand?
What part of "your treadmill is not a frame of reference and has several obvious failures" do you not understand?
The part where you "Exlpained" it, whilst showing a woeful ignorance of basic Physics.
Please confirm you think an object with a constant velocity can be "Accelerating"
Last edited:
The part where you "Exlpained" it, whilst showing a woeful ignorance of basic Physics.
ETA:
Please confirm you think an object with a constant velocity can be "Accelerating"
An object that is accelerating, increases its velocity
This does not mean that an object of known or unknown velocity is accelerating.
Hint Elephants are grey, but not all grey things are elephants.
There was no confusion, save for yours.
OK RossFW. Want to play?
You show me how I cannot tell the difference between treadmill and real winds. I set the agenda. Go.
Last edited:
Einstein said you measur distance with a ruler and time with a clock.
You measure windspeed with an anenometer.
Moving downwind at the speed of the wind, an anenometer will read zero.
Standing still air it will also read zero.
The relative airflows are identical.
QED
You measure windspeed with an anenometer.
Moving downwind at the speed of the wind, an anenometer will read zero.
Standing still air it will also read zero.
The relative airflows are identical.
QED
Einstein said you measur distance with a ruler and time with a clock.
You measure windspeed with an anenometer.
Moving downwind at the speed of the wind, an anenometer will read zero.
Standing still air it will also read zero.
The relative airflows are identical.
QED
You are not qualified to speak for Einstein.
If need be. my Doppler Radar can tell you all those details and contradict you. But the challenge was to tell the difference. Another is that the force of the real wind, is not proportional to local gravity.
Se if you can measure that with a ruler.
Last edited:
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.
In other words, you have no method of telling the difference between "real wind" and "treadmill wind" and you never even suggested such a method. Thanks for the confirmation.
OK RossFW. Want to play?
You show me how I cannot tell the difference between treadmill and real winds.
That's F'ING brilliant logic even for humber!!! Yo' humber, please show me how I cannot teletransport.
No. Failure.
Well, no arguing with well reasoned logic like that now, is there?
All objects blown by the wind, reach windspeed.
Actually, just saw this one!! That includes hot air balloons of course, Humber?
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
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.
My favorite was, when discussing jumping in the boxcar, he suddenly threw in "adiabatic".
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
You are not qualified to speak for Einstein.
If need be. my Doppler Radar can tell you all those details and contradict you. But the challenge was to tell the difference. Another is that the force of the real wind, is not proportional to local gravity.
Se if you can measure that with a ruler.
News flash humber: The wind on the treadmill is not proportional to local gravity either.
I don't think you actually know what Doppler radar is.
You are not qualified to speak for Einstein.
That would have to be the single most ridiculous statement I've read. ever. He was a scientist, not a saviour, and he understood a thing or two about relative frames of reference.
my Doppler Radar can tell you all those details and contradict you.
I use a doppler radar every day. It tells me the differnce beween the RELATIVE speed of my aircraft and airmasses ahead of me. It is in motin at the same velocity as my aircraft (as it is bolted to the nose) but has no idea if it is at 0kts or 1000kts relative to the earths surface unless i tilt it down so it directky reflects off it.
Another is that the force of the real wind, is not proportional to local gravity.
NO IDEA what that is supposed to mean, but gravity works straight down towards the earths centre and has no relevance to horizontal airflows.
Sorry. Finished. It's been explained to you. You won't listen.
ETA:- Noted you still haven't had the guts to say what your (mis-) understanding of acceleration is.
ETAA:- He just editted one of his earlier posts to make it look like he answered the question on acceleration, but still got it wrong. Try "Change" rather than "Increase".
Last edited:
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
An object that is accelerating, increases its velocity
Not necessarily. An object that is accelerating changes its velocity. The velocity could be increasing, decreasing, or the object could be moving in a curved path.
In other words, you have no method of telling the difference between "real wind" and "treadmill wind" and you never even suggested such a method. Thanks for the confirmation.
I don't need your confirmation.
That's F'ING brilliant logic even for humber!!! Yo' humber, please show me how I cannot teletransport.
Do it now.
Not necessarily. An object that is accelerating changes its velocity. The velocity could be increasing, decreasing, or the object could be moving in a curved path.
Yes, it could be, but I can't tell.
Moving in a curved path requires acceleration. For circular motion, it is constant.
spacediver
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 141
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?
If you do agree with the feynman quote, then you must acknowledge that in a moving boxcar, a hobo cannot infer anything about velocity or direction of movement by tossing an object up into the air and watching where it lands.
According to you, Feynman disagrees with Einstein who says that with an accelerometer, you can tell if you are moving. That is, accelerating.
When did I say that Feynamn disagrees with Einstein? I simply pasted a quote from feynman and asked whether you agreed with it. When did I ever make a claim about feynman disagreeing with einstein?
Why do you keep putting thoughts into my head?
Last edited:
It seem to me you are right.That would have to be the single most ridiculous statement I've read. ever. He was a scientist, not a saviour, and he understood a thing or two about relative frames of reference.
I use a doppler radar every day. It tells me the differnce beween the RELATIVE speed of my aircraft and airmasses ahead of me. It is in motin at the same velocity as my aircraft (as it is bolted to the nose) but has no idea if it is at 0kts or 1000kts relative to the earths surface unless i tilt it down so it directky reflects off it.
You mean that you are the end user of the product.
There are more than one type of radar system. Ask the police.
Gravity affects the friction to he belt. The friction determines the force available to the "tailwind" generated by object on the belt is being dragged through the air. Oddly, the laminar flow is not affected in this way.NO IDEA what that is supposed to mean, but gravity works straight down towards the earths centre and has no relevance to horizontal airflows.
As expected.Sorry. Finished. It's been explained to you. You won't listen.
ETA:- Noted you still haven't had the guts to say what your (mis-) understanding of acceleration is.
Not perfect I am sure, but adequate for you.
ETAA:- He just editted one of his earlier posts to make it look like he answered the question on acceleration, but still got it wrong. Try "Change" rather than "Increase".
I did not edit 'increase' to 'change'. I went around your obvious attempt that is all.
You assume that Feynman goes out of his way to state the obvious, Spacediver. Perhaps his hobo and boxcar are not the same as yours. He also worked on information, and the question as to whether any calculation could be made without energy. Perhaps that influenced his understanding.If you do agree with the feynman quote, then you must acknowledge that in a moving boxcar, a hobo cannot infer anything about velocity or direction of movement by tossing an object up into the air and watching where it lands.
When did I say that Feynamn disagrees with Einstein? I simply pasted a quote from feynman and asked whether you agreed with it. When did I ever make a claim about feynman disagreeing with einstein?
Here is the quote:
"If we substitute this transformation of coordinates into Newton's Laws we find that these laws transform to the same laws in the primed system; that is, the laws of Newton are of the same form in a moving system as in a stationary system, and therefore it is impossible to tell, by making mechanical experiments, whether the system is moving or not."...
The principle of relativity has been used in mechanics for a long time. It was employed by various people, in particular Huygens, to obtain the rules for the collision of billiard balls, in much the same way as we used it in Chapter 10 to discuss the conservation of momentum."
If it moves in a circle is it moving? That implies acceleration, and Einstein says that can be detected. Good grief Spacediver. The way you evade, tells me that you do understand what I mean!
Yes, "it's just something you simply pasted..." . That is the problem. These are "soundbites" not the complete idea. Do you think that Huygens knew of relativity or General Relativity?
I'm Svengali.Why do you keep putting thoughts into my head?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.