Does that mean you AREN'T????
I believe the Earth goes around the Moon. Those professor guys don't agree, but they just don't get it.
Does that mean you AREN'T????
Thanks. I hadn't laughed out loud today until I read that. You were getting quite good there until the scenario melted into another. Forget hobos for the time you're discussing boats. You were trying to explain ducks in a row to me, I thought. Anyway, yes, we can think of the water, all of it, as an 'immobile mass' for the purpose of the thought experiment. Obviously, it has the potential to swirl and eddy - the molecules are only loosly held together - should some other force disturb its relative immobility w.r.t. the boat. It seems that somehow, having described this fairly accurately, you don't believe it all moves as a mass, at zero velocity w.r.t. the boat. If there were ducks, either in rows or arranged some other way, not paddling or flapping their wings, they'd move with the 'immobile mass'.If there is no motion between the boat and water, then that applies to that immediately attached to the hull. That in turn has no motion relative to the next bit, and so forth. The water must be one immobile mass ( at least w.r.t the boat, whatever that means). You have made the hobo's interior, real.
Just clever enough to be right, although 'frozen' is misleading. [ETA: Oops - I missed you saying "all objects move at windspeed because a balloon does" - it's hard to keep up with your rubbish because there's so much of it and I develop a kind of impossible-blindness after all this time. Who the hell said everything moves at windspeed?]It's staggering in its scope. A-B =0.
How clever is it to tell you that all is frozen at windspeed? That all objects travel at windspeed because a balloon does?
So? If I have a pig that is enough like a piano, I could play the blues on it.John, they are lighter than air objects. If you build a cart with the required characteristics, you will actually have a balloon.
(helicentrist) Surely that is just a nominal centre, the sun, RossFW? I realise that you probably know that, and I have just spotted this out of context, but it might be useful to explain a bit more.Does that mean you AREN'T????
Yes. Hurrah for humber! Hurrah for Galilean Relativity! If A is going round B, then B is going round A.I believe the Earth goes around the Moon. Those professor guys don't agree, but they just don't get it.
In real wind, the propeller drives the wheels.
I don't get this thread at all. I understand that people argued with humber when he was derailing other treads but over 1000 posts in his own thread arguing complete nonsense like the following quote. What the reason to argue with someone that definitely don't want to learn, having a discussion and don't have a clue about the basic concepts that he is using.
Humber, you show for probably the 1000 time that you don't have a clue about the meaning of reference frame.
For me, it's pure entertainment, and a kind of morbid fascination.
I believe the Earth goes around the Moon. Those professor guys don't agree, but they just don't get it.
Just a minor correction. Where you say "laminar flow" you should say "boundary layer". Laminar flow is simply the opposite of turbulent flow.It's quite easy to show you how you are wrong. (The trouble is convincing you to accept the explanation.)
Take an observer, standing on the road with his palms facing forward and the wind at his back.
The wind is blowing at 10mph.
He lowers his hand to a height where, due to laminar flow, the wind on the back of his hand is only 7mph.
Now he moves forwards at 8mph.
He is still travelling at 2mph slower than the wind, but his hand is moving at 1mph faster than the laminar flow.
Consequently, he feels a 1mph headwind against the palm of his hand. That's how he can feel wind against the palm of his hand. He may be travelling slower than the wind, but he is travelling faster than the laminar flow.
If Stephen Hawking were to roll his little wheelchair up to humber's front door and tell him that, having read this entire thread, he felt compelled to announce that the operation of the cart on the treadmill is exactly the same as on the road, that this is a perfect way to test a DDWFTTW cart, that DDWFTTW works, and that the treadmill videos are incontrovertible proof of this, then humber would immediately turn to us and say, "See? Hawking supports me completely! The treadmill is completely wrong, and backwards!".A few weeks ago, I found in a book of Russian physics problems, a very similar example. If the first issue date is correct, this problem is at least 27 years old!
Note that is supports my contention that the cart is dependent upon friction, and that it is unstable! ("system Q!"). It also is uses "hovering".
What amazes me is how much my feelings change, and with them I change my mind. Sometimes I see how trollish the responses are from him, or someone reminds me how endless it is, or how the whole thread is dedicated to the infamy of humber, and I get angry and decide I should stop posting and ignore him. Then he might suddenly appear to be on the brink of understanding, or post something reasonably close to reality, and it seems worth pushing on a bit. Or, much more often, his mistakes and irrelevant tangents actually raise interesting points, and I want to explore them, or explaining why his mistakes are mistakes seems useful to other people who may have less knoweldge of physics than I do.Hello CORed,
sorry to disagree, but it ceased to be any fun quite some time ago. All he writes is just plain rubbish. It got constantly worse, with an all-time low from him just a few posts ago. While i usually would doubt that it can get on a lower lever, knowing humber by know i wouldn't be surprised if his next rambling makes even less sense. But then, at one point we would reach the negative on the fun-scale.
But then, everyone has a different taste and different needs, so go ahead
Greetings,
Chris
Yes. Hurrah for humber! Hurrah for Galilean Relativity! If A is going round B, then B is going round A.
From the inertial frame of the moon, the earth does indeed 'orbit' it, just as from the earth frame, the sun 'orbits' us.
No. That is his mistake, not mine. Next!...and when spacediver poses a well-formed question, your answer is just as irrelevant to physics as your questions
Christian makes an appearance, and you forget that to pose him this brilliant observation:
It wasn't worth quoting the whole thing; I'll paraphrase: "...Freeze time. Now look, there's no wind, and the cart is continuously the same distance away from you. You said it would move, so you're wrong."
You're starting to make a habit of proving your wrong velocities by freezing time. I wonder if that's because velocities don't exist when you do that. Velocity = distance (in a particular direction) divided by time.
Freeze the motion of your hands over the keyboard. Now, see how much less nonsense you're typing? 100%, isn't it?
Yes. Hurrah for humber! Hurrah for Galilean Relativity! If A is going round B, then B is going round A.
Or, much more often, his mistakes and irrelevant tangents actually raise interesting points, and I want to explore them, or explaining why his mistakes are mistakes seems useful to other people who may have less knoweldge of physics than I do.
Just in case you were serious about that (in a thread full of so much garbage it's hard to be sure), that's not true. Galilean relativity says that inertial frames are equivalent - but orbiting objects are accelerating.
Damn, I can't sneak anything past you two.The moon does not define an inertial frame, since it is (like the earth) accelerating. For experiments with the DDWFTTW cart, a region at the surface of the earth can be considered to be an inertial frame, since the acceleration of the earth is so slight that it won't make any difference at the level of accuracy required for such experiments.
When analysing the orbit of the moon around the earth, it's best to consider moon and earth as a pair of bodies rotating around a common centre of mass.
What's the physics crank equivalent of Poe's Law?
Just a minor correction. Where you say "laminar flow" you should say "boundary layer". Laminar flow is simply the opposite of turbulent flow.
I say this mostly to be pedantic, but also because the boundary layers we are discussing here are decidedly not laminar.
I'm not sure if who made the mistake first, but it would help if we're all discussing the same things.