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

[humber]

Guys, it really is time to call it quits.

I would call it quitting.

 

[humber]

Mhhhh, i smell "fitting the experiment" here. Anyone else got that smell in his/her nose?

When you know what that actually means, then you will see it is the contrary of that.

 

[humber]

Here's an interesting conversation. Its origins are lost in the mists of time now, and who knows whether it will be picked up again. Michael_C may be having a rest or working. Brian M seems to have left it, or may still be deep in contemplation. The Zen Master Himself has been silent on the matter since it was put to him.

That is a lot of trouble. I never seem to trawl through your posts.
You may choose. Wheels, no wheels, 10 wheels. Upsidedown.
The only exclusion is the case of a car actually in motion, as understood by say, the police.
Just state why one is moving, or said to be moving, and why the other(s) are not. Even giving you freedom of choice, is not enough. Clear now?

 

[spork]

No nonsense, please.

Uber irony alert!

 

[humber]

Uber irony alert!

Coruscating.

ETA:
You wanted an answer to this.

Without the poetry or rhetoric, perhaps you can tell us what we should expect to see in the real wind, on the treadmill, and how they'd differ.
D'OH!!! There I go again asking questions that suggest I might expect a responsive answer.

More irony. No, what that means is that if you introduce blue smoke such that it colours the "laminar" flow coming from behind the traveling or fixed belt observer, and then simultaneously red smoke from the other end of the belt, so as to colour the "laminar flow" attributed to the belt, then you should realise that this has no equivalent in a real wind.
That is the test that says that belt and real winds are not the same. It is quite easy to visualize, I think. You may change the colors.

 

[John Freestone]

So now we have:

A car parked on a moving belt is exactly the same as a car parked on the road in the wind.

But you agree that the only apparent difference, is that on one case the wheels spin, and in another they do not?

N.B. You say in one case they spin, the other not.

In which case do the wheels spin?

N.B. You are challenged to say in which case they spin.

Micheal_C, this is not Zen. I can simply ask you to nominate one case, of your choice, leaving the other to become the complement. That would still leave you to explain the difference. When you reject the absolute, the difference becomes that absolute by default.

N.B. You duck the question, asking Michael to say which. The Zen trick. Even more insulting by starting with "This is not Zen".

No, this is not Zen: I asked you a simple question: in which case do the wheels spin? Please give a simple answer: is it the car parked on the belt, or the car parked on the road?

N.B. You are asked again.

Why do you do that Micheal_C? All the information that you need it there.
You decide. On the floor on jacks, what ever.

Does putting the car on the belt make it move at windspeed, and what is the difference between any other form of car and wheel spinning combination?
No nonsense, please.

N.B. You push the question away again. Even more insulting by asking others for 'no nonsense'.

Humber - come on, answer the question. If the difference is that a car parked on one of those scenarios has its wheels spinning - no nonsense, please - in which scenario is it?

Or did 'No nonsense, please." just mean, "Don't press me on this issue, because I'm bluffing/have no idea what I'm talking about/am lying."?

N.B. You are asked again, with a specific suggestion that your failure to answer may be because you are bluffing and talking nonsense.

That is a lot of trouble. I never seem to trawl through your posts.
You may choose. Wheels, no wheels, 10 wheels. Upsidedown.
The only exclusion is the case of a car actually in motion, as understood by say, the police.
Just state why one is moving, or said to be moving, and why the other(s) are not. Even giving you freedom of choice, is not enough. Clear now?

N.B. You fail to answer again.

Yes, I think it is fairly clear now. Thank you. It was worth trawling through your posts. There's no law against it.

However, because I'm a bit slow, please now answer the question, or admit that you were bluffing. I will take a failure to answer the question (say, within a couple of days) as an admittance. It's now one of three choices. Just say ROAD, TREADMILL, or [anything else / nothing]. I look forward to resolving the issue.

 

[humber]

So now we have:

Take two Relativit-ease and lay down.

ETA:
Why don't you find the original question, rather than Brian_M's answer?

(1) A car in the driveway has a moving belt under the car but not turning the wheels
(2) A second car has a wider belt, that goes under the wheels and sets them spinning.
One is said to be at beltspeed (2) and the other (1) not. Please explain.

 

[sol invictus]

I have made the point that this implies that any object anywhere traveling at the same speed as the cart, can be said to be in the same frame as the cart.

Correct.

Actually no, that is not "correct" - it's not even wrong.

An object cannot not be "in the same frame" as another - all objects are in all frames. Some are at rest in a given frame and some are moving, but they're all there in all of them.

 

[spork]

One is said to be at beltspeed (2) and the other (1) not. Please explain.

And therein lies the problem. There are only two groups to consider - you and the rest of the world.

For the rest of the world no explanation is required. For you no explanation will do.

Ironically, the rest of the world understands this.

 

[humber]

Actually no, that is not "correct" - it's not even wrong.

An object cannot not be "in the same frame" as another - all objects are in all frames. Some are at rest in a given frame and some are moving, but they're all there in all of them.

That leaves you as the odd one out.

ETA:
In reality, yes, but that is not the basis of the treadmill.
That would leave me no choice but to conclude that the cart has no motion w.r.t the ground and therefore no motion in the other frames.

 

[humber]

And therein lies the problem. There are only two groups to consider - you and the rest of the world.

For the rest of the world no explanation is required. For you no explanation will do.

Ironically, the rest of the world understands this.

Define "rest of the world". Still, the rest of the world may find the colored smoke quite intuitive.

 

[spork]

Define "rest of the world".

It's not zen as you say. "rest of the world" is people that are not you.

Still, the rest of the world may find the colored smoke quite intuitive.

It won't matter until you can tell us what to expect to see in each case, and how they should differ. I will actually do the colored smoke test and post the video if you will make an intelligible claim as to how the two will differ.

 

[John Freestone]

Take two Relativit-ease and lay down.

ETA:
Why don't you find the original question, rather than Brian_M's answer?

(1) A car in the driveway has a moving belt under the car but not turning the wheels
(2) A second car has a wider belt, that goes under the wheels and sets them spinning.
One is said to be at beltspeed (2) and the other (1) not. Please explain.

Result! The third option, an admittance that you were bluffing. Cheers.

I feel like a slomo celebration to savour the moment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0-TbUUXDtM
Busted!

 

[RossFW]

That would leave me no choice but to conclude that the cart has no motion w.r.t the ground and therefore no motion in the other frames.

Quoted because it's just so,well, so HUMBER!!!

Humber, you realise that if I walk past the cart while it is motionless relative to the ground, and therefore has a relative velocity to me,that the cart is in motion relative to MY frame of reference?

No, sorry, of course you don't.....

 

[Christian Klippel]

I feel like a slomo celebration to savour the moment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0-TbUUXDtM
Busted!

Awwww, poor kitty

But then, how can this be possible? time isn't frozen, i see no oranges, and nothing is slipping anyways! And heck, where is the torsion spring in all of that?

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: And i see no flywheel at all. It must be a trick that this stuff is moving!

 

[humber]

It's not zen as you say. "rest of the world" is people that are not you.

The rest of the world seems to be able tgo support your ideas better than you.

It won't matter until you can tell us what to expect to see in each case, and how they should differ. I will actually do the colored smoke test and post the video if you will make an intelligible claim as to how the two will differ.

[/QUOTE]
No video required. Your inability to answer to such a simple question, is Wide Screen Cinema.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Ironically, the rest of the world understands this.

Hi spork,

well, i would say: Humber for president!
(you remember the movie "Idiocracy", do you?)

Greetings,

Chris

 

[humber]

Quoted because it's just so,well, so HUMBER!!!

Humber, you realise that if I walk past the cart while it is motionless relative to the ground, and therefore has a relative velocity to me,that the cart is in motion relative to MY frame of reference?

No, sorry, of course you don't.....

That means nothing, RossFW
The treadmill has no ground equivalent. This means that the belt is not the road, but the Earth. This is because the windspeed status must be forced upon the observer. That means the belt is also a privileged and unique perspective. If not then the treadmill collapses to the real world equivalent of a real treadmill, with different objects at different velocities in the same frame. Either way, no motion.

 

[humber]

Result! The third option, an admittance that you were bluffing. Cheers.

If you say so.

 

[John Freestone]

That means nothing, RossFW
The treadmill has no ground equivalent. This means that the belt is not the road, but the Earth. This is because the windspeed status must be forced upon the observer. That means the belt is also a privileged and unique perspective. If not then the treadmill collapses to the real world equivalent of a real treadmill, with different objects at different velocities in the same frame. Either way, no motion.

Has anyone noticed how humber's coefficient of nonsense is converging exponentially towards humb's?