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

[Michael C]

Humber: NO we do NOT agree that in one case the wheels spin. The wheels do not spin in EITHER case.

But Humber won't say in which case he thinks the wheels spin. He hasn't yet replied to this simple question. I cannot resist the temptation of throwing back at him what he said to Spork. In fact, I think he was talking to himself:

Your inability to answer to such a simple question, is Wide Screen Cinema.

Yes indeed. Humber, please don't give any stupid "Zen" answers. According to you, in which case do the wheels of the parked car spin? On the road, or on the treadmill?

 

[humber]

Ask Bryan-M what he meant. I don't know either.
I have no idea why you are all harping on about this question. Not relevant.
Parked if Iused it, obviously meant "standing in the street" or "in the driveway"
What else?

How about this?
Why do you think that turning the wheels of a stationary car, is like the car is moving?
(1) Turning = rotating
(2) Stationary means not moving w.r.t the ground.

 

[Clive]

Speed of belt under the cart: -10 (nose to prop)
Speed of air past the cart: 10 (prop to nose)
<snip>
Now that is OK. That is a cart in 10mph tailwind.

Thank you humber for responding. However, I think this is very wrong for several reasons. For a cart on a road going downwind at the same speed as the wind, there is no significant difference in velocity (above molecular level!) between the air and the non-rotating parts of the body of the cart. But in your wind tunnel set up for the same situation, the air is moving past the cart at 10 mph! There is also a 20 mph difference between the surface of the belt and the air a reasonable height above it (i.e. not the boundary layer) in your model, yet in the "real world" this difference is just 10 mph. At the same time you will see that the set-up I gave (obviously the same as spork and JB's treadmill test) all those relative velocities work out correctly.

Newtons' second law says "F = ma". Do you agree that this law is applicable and correct for what we've generally been talking about in these threads? Those three variables (F, m and a) do not change when you use different inertial frames of reference to describe a particular set of objects interacting. That is essentially why we can use the treadmill as a valid test. Newton's laws still hold in a frame of reference that is moving at the same velocity as the belt (like a person standing on the belt with feet "glued to it"). Not only do the laws still hold, all the velocities and positions and masses and times and accelerations will be identical to those measured for a cart travelling downwind in a "real wind" over the ordinary ground if things are set up correctly (and the frame of reference used for the "real world" is at rest relative to the ground).

The wind and belt are not actually related. If the car were to move in a vacuum, that would not change the way the road passes under the car.
If the wind blows, that does not change it either. The belt is set to move in the opposite direction to travel, but the wind can be either way.

If you replace the air with a vacuum, a bunch of very important things do change. Most important for the cart, the propeller is no longer generating thrust. Of course there is also no drag. But the cart still has friction and so it will now start to slow down (negative acceleration).

I can't understand why it is believed that turning the wheels equates with motion of the vehicle. The wheels are turning, but there is no motion of the vehicle. That means nothing. Like a fairground amusement.
Yes, books will say this and that about equivalency, but I defy anyone to give me an example where it allows for motion without displacement. That's simply not possible. You can't have linear travel, without covering ground.
The remaining problems are largely due to the effects of trying to support that. A windless windtunnel. No way.

The books are correct. You car can be said to be at rest when it is parked beside your house. Or it can be said to be moving (along with the road and your house and many other things). It all depends on which frame of reference you wish to use. Most of us get very used to thinking and using a frame of reference that is at rest with respect to "the ground". But there is nothing special about that when it comes to the laws of physics. Just expand your horizons a bit, and now see that your car is parked on a spinning world. Now is your car at rest? Of course not. You've just mentally switched frames of reference. You can do it with the cart also on the treadmill also. As long as all of one set of calculations are done using the same frame of reference (or alternatively that appropriate transformations are done to convert things like velocity as seen in one frame, to the correct value in another) then it will all work out beautifully.

Of course, "we can take a horse to water, but we can't make him drink". If you steadfastly refuse to accept, or perhaps just have some kind of mental block that stops you from grasping the concept, then there's probably not much more to be done. If you are trolling, you've done a wonderful job. Are you trolling? I have to say that (on balance) that has been my opinion for quite a long time! Yet it's not clear enough to stop me treating you as possibly genuine at least some of the time. Anyway, if you are not a troll, then it does seem that you have some kind of mental block of some kind, and perhaps the harder we others try to push around or through it, the worse it gets.

 

[spacediver]

Ask Bryan-M what he meant. I don't know either.
I have no idea why you are all harping on about this question. Not relevant.
Parked if Iused it, obviously meant "standing in the street" or "in the driveway"
What else?

He was asking about the difference between a parked car on a street, and a parked car on a treadmill. You claimed that the wheels on the car parked on the treadmill would spin.

Also, you need to figure out how to use quote tags correctly!

How about this?
Why do you think that turning the wheels of a stationary car, is like the car is moving?

Humber, I have no idea what you're asking here. Be precise. i'm trying to visualize your question but it's so ambiguous I'm just gonna wait for you to finally ask a clear question. You seriously need to work on your clarity.

I ask this without meaning offense: Is english your first language?


Are you talking about a car on ice or something, where the wheels are spinning but the car is not moving with respect to the ice?

 

[H'ethetheth]

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.

You're right of course, yes.

 

[humber]

For an observer standing still on the belt (in other words, at rest in a frame of reference that is moving at the same velocity as the belt), the car is observed to be moving in both cases.

Observation has got nothing to do with this problem, Clive, but it is certainly the cause of it. Objects do what they do, even if there is nobody watching. The car will not experience acceleration, so it will not be displaced, so there is no motion. That is that. Observer stuff is not appropriate.

We know that the Earth goes around the Sun, because the acceleration is indicative of a much smaller mass than the Sun. So the Earth must be orbiting the Sun, and not the other way around.

Similarly, the car and observer can be separated by the same means. The rate of acceleration will tell which is moving and which is not. If you take the car as a mass and put it on the belt, so it goes with the belt, you can monitor its acceleration. Do the same for an observer. That information can be used to identify which of the two objects is moving. For all the purposes of this forum, and the Newtonian world, acceleration is an absolute.

There is no way that the observer can get on the belt and to speed, yet not experience acceleration. Declaring "steady state" will not do, nor is it needed.

Depending on the actual direction of the belt movement and your position and orientation on it, you may see the car moving directly towards you and finally impacting your shins in a very painful fashion. If the air is not moving relative to the car body while this is going on, then you will also feel a it headwind.

Yes.

In other words, from a frame of reference that is moving with the belt, the car is seen to be moving (and so also your house and the road and trees beside it and so on). We have put ourselves into a different frame of reference, where positions of things are now measured relative to some origin that is moving at the same velocity as the belt.

Yes, but it is you not the car that is moving. 100% guaranteed identification. When I said this much, much, earlier, out came Einstein and the hobo or similar. No connection whatsoever. I can measure and identify which is moving on the belt or w.r.t the ground or both. No problem at all.

The origin of our x-y-z coordinate system could be co-located with an X marked on the belt between our feet for example. Velocities of all objects in this reference frame are determine from the rate of change of their position with time (position measured in the same reference frame). Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time.

Yes.

Of course, you can also use a frame of reference that is at rest with respect to the road the car is parked on if you wish. For an observer at rest in that reference frame, the car appears to be at rest. Thus the car can be said to be moving in one reference frame, but at rest in another. The actual values of its position and velocity (and thus also kinetic energy) in each of those different frames of reference will also generally be different. Yet the results of predictions based using on Newtonian mechanics will be the same. The forces will be the same. Mass hasn't changed. Time hasn't changed. And acceleration doesn't change. Try it!

The question is if it is possible to tell if the observer on the belt is moving.
or the cart is moving. Yes. No problem. If both are at a constant velocity, then that is no a problem either, because one will be moving so there will be displacement. But again, so what?


Real World.
If I put a car on the road and drive it, an accelerometer will tell me that I have been accelerated, while a ruler will tell me I have been displaced.
Cast iron, 100%

Treadmill
Put that same car on a working treadmill, and I will get zero in each case.
Cast iron 100%. (This is because a vehicle powered by the belt cannot move with the belt in a meaningful way, it may move a bit dependent on belt friction)

The important bit
Displacement w.r.t the belt is not important at all.
The reason is that the belt, in windtunnels, is a model of the road surface, and not anything else. Thid idea has been taken to make road, but that is wrong.
The belt is artificially derived, from assumed travel, but the cart is real.
That is the real test object, and there is no doubt that gravity will tell you that it is real, so it's datum is ground.

The datum is the ground not the belt.The value of the belt is easy to assess. Add another one at 90 degrees, one on the roof, a pink one underneath the black one, one under the seat. One on the front wheels going South, another on the left side, going North. No real connection to travel at all. It's a belt.
One of them, if correctly built and placed, may give you a simulation of the boundary layer.

The BMW/F1 is the same. The datum is the ground, and in the wind tunnel, the cars velocity is zero, which is why it does not leave the building.
That's it. The belt is not a road, but the real ground is. The belt is an entirely artificial construct, that has nothing to do with motion of the vehicle. It may spin the wheels, but will simulate the road surface even the wheels are not on the same belt, or even turning.

There is no doubt that the the real ground, is the ground that you stand on, when next to the treadmill. That is what you see.
Windspeed, is a figment. All the odd effects that you see, -KE, no KE, and so forth, are the result of trying to support that notion.

If I have not convinced anyone that he cart is a balance, then it is quite easy to show that a car or any wheeled vehicle driven by the belt, cannot have any useful motion.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

In the Humberverse, the ground is the absolute reference for all.

(Of course he can never explain how he can tell which is the 'real' ground to reference, but that's just a minor detail)

JB

 

[humber]

He was asking about the difference between a parked car on a street, and a parked car on a treadmill. You claimed that the wheels on the car parked on the treadmill would spin.

Whatever I said, that was not what I meant. I was asking why rotating wheels can be said to imply the car is moving.

Also, you need to figure out how to use quote tags correctly!

Yes, I hate them.

Humber, I have no idea what you're asking here. Be precise. i'm trying to visualize your question but it's so ambiguous I'm just gonna wait for you to finally ask a clear question. You seriously need to work on your clarity.

I ask this without meaning offense: Is english your first language?

No offense. I did mention that I am slightly alexic, ( I run over words). I also move from PC to PC, so things get mixed up, and I don't always have the time or patience to read or edit. I am also tired of making the same points. Under normal circumstances, this matter would have been long over.

Are you talking about a car on ice or something, where the wheels are spinning but the car is not moving with respect to the ice?

Honestly, total confusion. I don't understand each and every word that all of you write, and I have to fend many. The treadmill is weird.

I would rather drop this point, whatever it was. I have not knowingly suggested that a parked car would spin its wheels.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Because all things have experienced acceleration, humber's so-called test is meaningless. Any single thing can be said to be in motion. Any single thing can also be said to be motionless. It all depends on what your reference is.

 

[humber]

In the Humberverse, the ground is the absolute reference for all.
(Of course he can never explain how he can tell which is the 'real' ground to reference, but that's just a minor detail)

You should not ask me to. You accept that all views are valid.
JB

It's called gravity and commonsense.
Your logic is flawed. If there is no absolute reference, then I am at liberty to choose one, and you may not tell me otherwise.

 

[humb]

no no no no no no no nooo nooooooooooooooooo
NO!
A thousand times no!
Feyman was not a hobo! He did not even eat Ho-Hos. Or moon pies, though the moon is clearly in motion. Glue a belt to the inside of your tongue, and it will not turn your wheels. BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE WHEELS! What would you trade your legs in for, Tom? A mermaid tail? If you park a sledge on a balloon, the acceleration will turn the skates in the wrong direction. Aaaah! Why are these Russians and Greeks in my pantry, eating my Ho-Hos? When the F1 car goes over a jump in the wind tunnel, do you think it lands back on the chalk mark? Why does Michael Schumacher never get a ticket? The doppler radar will have KE, even if you drop it on your foot. Think about that, huh? Huh? Do you think a rocket is not moving, just because the observer is jumping up and down? I have demonstrated time and again that it is no, and yet not a one will attempt to refute me. Not to mention that if you put a treadmill under your bed, you won't wake up in Timbuktu in the morning, no matter how hard you dream about it. The Euler force is pointing entirely in the wrong direction. When spork boils in oil, we can use the smoke to test which way the air is turning around the wheels. It's friction! Friction! Fiction! That's what makes the cart hover! Of course it doesn't move, if it did, then it would be accelerating, and that energy can't come from nowhere! It can't even come from the frame. spork is notional! The cart is an illusion! humber and I are in the same "frame", does that make the rest of you insane? Negative insane? Without motion, there can be no Ho-Hos. Without displacement, there can be no placement. Yin and Yang! Pickles and ice cream! The Old Man and the Sea, who moved neither at waterspeed nor windspeed. Does a fish not have a wake? How else could he eat smaller fish? While sleeping? And now the bats are back!! Aaaah! Where's my flit gun? Where's my foil hat? Where's my bag of glue? Noooooooooo!!!!!!!

 

[humber]

Because all things have experienced acceleration, humber's so-called test is meaningless. Any single thing can be said to be in motion. Any single thing can also be said to be motionless. It all depends on what your reference is.

No, with acceleration comes velocity, which begets displacement. Unavoidable for the case of unrestricted linear motion. That correlation can ensure I know which is which.

 

[Modified]

What if the car is on its side?

On the belt, you mean? Then it's equivalent to placing the car on its side on the road. If you are worried about the "transition" that happens when you place the car on the belt, as you usually are, then that would be equivalent to moving the car to wind speed through some mechanism and lowering it to the road while at that speed.

You keep making the same type of errors over and over. You make up non-equivalent scenarios in the two situations and treat them as equivalent and you compare quantities in the two situations that don't don't have the same relation to cart speed (or air speed, or surface speed) in each.

 

[spork]

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

O.K. let's expose humber for the 11,397th time this week:

What question? You talk about my inability to answer a simple question. Give me the question. You haven't formed one. Hint: it should be a complete sentence with a subject and everything - and it should end with a question mark. Point me to that post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well as I said on another thread here, I just showed the youtube videos to my real life rocket scientist brother. It bothered him deeply and he declared it to be a internet hoax. He even had a little bit of a humberism going since he did not want to admit the inertial frame of reference equivalence of the treadmill since he knew that then that the cart was moving faster than the wind. Oh well, I hate to admit it but there might be a little bit of humber in all of us. How else could humb channel humber so perfectly?

 

[humber]

Thank you humber for responding. However, I think this is very wrong for several reasons. For a cart on a road going downwind at the same speed as the wind, there is no significant difference in velocity (above molecular level!) between the air and the non-rotating parts of the body of the cart. But in your wind tunnel set up for the same situation, the air is moving past the cart at 10 mph!

No problem, Clive. Yes, the cart is not moving, so that is indeed the case. That is the problem, Clive. It is not possible to simulate that condition while not moving. It ends up in the absurdity that still air is the same as the windspeed air. To do that test, requires actual motion in a downwind. The treadmill is invalid for that reason too.

There is also a 20 mph difference between the surface of the belt and the air a reasonable height above it (i.e. not the boundary layer) in your model, yet in the "real world" this difference is just 10 mph. At the same time you will see that the set-up I gave (obviously the same as spork and JB's treadmill test) all those relative velocities work out correctly.

Only in the spurious case of windspeed travel.

Newtons' second law says "F = ma". Do you agree that this law is applicable and correct for what we've generally been talking about in these threads?

Yes, of course.

Those three variables (F, m and a) do not change when you use different inertial frames of reference to describe a particular set of objects interacting. That is essentially why we can use the treadmill as a valid test.

It does operate like that (how else), but only in full from the ground reference.

Newton's laws still hold in a frame of reference that is moving at the same velocity as the belt (like a person standing on the belt with feet "glued to it"). Not only do the laws still hold, all the velocities and positions and masses and times and accelerations will be identical to those measured for a cart travelling downwind in a "real wind" over the ordinary ground if things are set up correctly (and the frame of reference used for the "real world" is at rest relative to the ground).

Tell me about it! Yes, I know! Fitting that into the ideas that surround the treadmill, always seems to produce a straw man. That is usually enough to deny me my claim that those conditions do not hold.
If they did hold, I could hardly attack the treadmill, because then it would work!

If you replace the air with a vacuum, a bunch of very important things do change. Most important for the cart, the propeller is no longer generating thrust. Of course there is also no drag. But the cart still has friction and so it will now start to slow down (negative acceleration).

I meant that it would represent that state. It is the limiting case, but of course the real air is still there to see that does not happen.

The books are correct.

I have no quarrel with the ideas of physics. None. It is how they are applied, and I take issue with the liberty has been taken in interpretation.
Specifically, I have asked for evidence for motion without displacement,(?!)
or support for the idea that a vehicle at rest can be said to be moving.
Real motion over the ground without KE? These are error of course, and an insult to Mr Newton, but fended off or ignored. That happens quite easily when you are the only naysayer.
The notion of frames has become inflated. To me, the idea means that there are a lot of things moving about at different velocities, within the same frame
Views are equivalent. I hope so. No cause or reason to question that.
If two objects are at the same velocity, then they have a relative velocity of zero? Yes, OK. So what?

You car can be said to be at rest when it is parked beside your house. Or it can be said to be moving (along with the road and your house and many other things). It all depends on which frame of reference you wish to use.

Yes, but that is simply the way things are. If your car is not moving w.r.t your house, I don't think there is a "frame" that can change that relationship.
You may find a third common view (perhaps from a plane or another car), but those relationships already existed anyway. It seems pointless to make that distinction other than tacit.

Most of us get very used to thinking and using a frame of reference that is at rest with respect to "the ground". But there is nothing special about that when it comes to the laws of physics.

No, gravity makes it 'special'. But I take your point in that all frames will be equally affected, but then again, there will be a definite bias towards the Earth. Its mass alone makes it perhaps the default reference, if not the absolute. There is no chance of escape from gravity.

Just expand your horizons a bit, and now see that your car is parked on a spinning world. Now is your car at rest? Of course not. You've just mentally switched frames of reference.

And if you were in geostationary orbit? Yes, I know.
That is true, but the important, practical and dominating feature, is that is parked, and in gravitational and fictional contact with the ground. It would be, it's a car.

You can do it with the cart also on the treadmill also. As long as all of one set of calculations are done using the same frame of reference (or alternatively that appropriate transformations are done to convert things like velocity as seen in one frame, to the correct value in another) then it will all work out beautifully.

Should do yes, but they do not. That is the point. The frames do not add up. The argument for zero KE from the belt, is in fact, false. There is no KE from any frame that is the equivalent of a 150g cart at 10mph.

Of course, "we can take a horse to water, but we can't make him drink". If you steadfastly refuse to accept, or perhaps just have some kind of mental block that stops you from grasping the concept, then there's probably not much more to be done. If you are trolling, you've done a wonderful job. Are you trolling? I have to say that (on balance) that has been my opinion for
quite a long time

I do not have any disagreement with what you have said except for those just mentioned. The assumption is that "everybody" else has a good understanding, not only of frames, but of science in general. I notice a lot that they have missed, and I care if something is true or not. That is the difference.
Effort has been expended to make it look like that is everything but my motive.

Yet it's not clear enough to stop me treating you as possibly genuine at least some of the time. Anyway, if you are not a troll, then it does seem that you have some kind of mental block of some kind, and perhaps the harder we others try to push around or through it, the worse it gets.

No, the block is not mine. If you look you will see that I have made the same claims many times. Zero KE is a trivially true fact. Equivalence is the way the world is. Why these rather inert notions have pride of place, is the problem. The treadmill relies a great deal on that emphasis. It did not take long to see that.

I do think differently, so that makes it hard to work with some of the ideas, or to be understood. Some ideas are quite wrong.
Electrical analogues, a mainstay of modern engineering, are treated as foreign. I say "velocity develops across friction" only to fall upon deaf ears. The idea that the wind has information is also not understood. I can say those to any number of people, and have them understood without hesitation.
The treadmill is so obviously wrong!!

 

[Clive]

Thanks humber! A very nicely formatted post, and most or all sentences were able to be read without too much additional noise from typos and so forth. Also, no hanging [QUOTE] and [/QUOTE] tags. I appreciate your efforts in that regard, although it's a pity that much of the content still has the same old problems (in my opinion of course). Still, it's all good fun isn't it?

Objects do what they do, even if there is nobody watching.

Are you sure? How can we tell?

The car will not experience acceleration, so it will not be displaced, so there is no motion. That is that. Observer stuff is not appropriate.

We know that the Earth goes around the Sun, because the acceleration is indicative of a much smaller mass than the Sun. So the Earth must be orbiting the Sun, and not the other way around.

Great, you acknowledge the Earth is moving. Surely that means your parked car is also moving? When did it experience the acceleration that took it from being at rest to moving? If you claim your car was always moving, then I will claim that mine was always moving also. I'm sure we can agree to avoid any reliance on any form of Prime Mover!

Similarly, the car and observer can be separated by the same means. The rate of acceleration will tell which is moving and which is not. If you take the car as a mass and put it on the belt, so it goes with the belt, you can monitor its acceleration. Do the same for an observer. That information can be used to identify which of the two objects is moving. For all the purposes of this forum, and the Newtonian world, acceleration is an absolute.

Something can be moving without accelerating Humber. You may want to argue that all moving things started at rest (w.r.t. "ground"???) at some stage in the past and then had to be accelerated by something else at some later time. Are you trying to tell me you can tell what is "moving" and what is not only by examining it's entire history of accelerations since... umm.... Newton came up with his laws? No. I guess it must have been earlier, perhaps even before there were observers!

Real World.
If I put a car on the road and drive it, an accelerometer will tell me that I have been accelerated, while a ruler will tell me I have been displaced.
Cast iron, 100%

Where are you measuring from to get displacement? Why did you choose that particular place? Can I choose I different place please? By the way, the accelerometer measures acceleration, which is the rate of change in velocity. Just because you notice some acceleration doesn't mean it wasn't moving to start with.

Treadmill
Put that same car on a working treadmill, and I will get zero in each case.
Cast iron 100%. (This is because a vehicle powered by the belt cannot move with the belt in a meaningful way, it may move a bit dependent on belt friction)

I choose to measure displacement from the "X" marked in the belt. I don't get zero displacement or velocity. In fact I get the same as what I get for the car on the road with my "X" on the road if that is an appropriate distance and direction from the car initially.

The important bit
Displacement w.r.t the belt is not important at all.

Actually, no. Displacement w.r.t the origin of whichever inertial reference frame you choose to use is arguably the most important thing!

That is the real test object, and there is no doubt that gravity will tell you that it is real, so it's datum is ground.

What if I want to do some similar test in deep space? Who or what will tell me what is real there? What if I ask NASA to take a treadmill and cart to the moon so we can test your scenario of the cart running on the treadmill in a vacuum? Do I have to use moon ground there? Or Earth ground? Why?

The datum is the ground not the belt.

Who said? Why? Perhaps now is the time for you tackle my post #2744 in the original thread!

The value of the belt is easy to assess. Add another one at 90 degrees, one on the roof, a pink one underneath the black one, one under the seat. One on the front wheels going South, another on the left side, going North. No real connection to travel at all. It's a belt.
One of them, if correctly built and placed, may give you a simulation of the boundary layer.

And if you use a reference frame at rest to any particular one of these many coloured belts, then Newtons laws will predict the same outcome for any particular interaction between some set of objects "out there". Do you want me to work through a simple example to show you? Or will the mathematics be "all good but meaningless"?

There is no doubt that the the real ground, is the ground that you stand on, when next to the treadmill. That is what you see.
Windspeed, is a figment. All the odd effects that you see, -KE, no KE, and so forth, are the result of trying to support that notion.

I thought you said observers have nothing to do with this? Now you try to tell me the "real ground" is the ground that you're standing on and you can just "see" this somehow.

Please also show me how anybody can get negative KE. Show me the numbers I need to put in the formula. I guess I'll need mass, and velocity (as a vector). I know all of this stuff has come up before, and your errors were pointed out to you then as well. Have you not learned anything at all? Perhaps you have heard of "Clive Wearing"? (Not me by the way!) Check out Google or youtube. He has a interesting problem with his memory!

If I have not convinced anyone that he cart is a balance, then it is quite easy to show that a car or any wheeled vehicle driven by the belt, cannot have any useful motion.

Honestly humber, I don't think you have convinced anybody of anything. You have given some of us a reason to revisit some stuff we haven't thought about for a long time so thanks for that. You make a good teacher albeit in a very back-to-front kind of way! And you've also been quite funny, although possibly that was accidental some of the time. The end result was the same though so keep it coming!

PS: You forgot to confirm if you were or weren't a troll. Was that because you still trying to maintain your claim to have never knowingly misled anybody on these forums?

 

[humber]

On the belt, you mean?

I think that the belt has no part in this matter, Modified. I was asking if the car were on its side or roof, would it be valid to drive the wheels with belt?
For me, there is no connection between that belt and implied motion.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now the cart is not moving on the treadmill:

No problem, Clive. Yes, the cart is not moving, so that is indeed the case.

Why are its wheels spinning then humber? And if it is not moving why is it not rotating around the treadmill with the belt?

 

[humber]

Well as I said on another thread here, I just showed the youtube videos to my real life rocket scientist brother. It bothered him deeply and he declared it to be a internet hoax. He even had a little bit of a humberism going since he did not want to admit the inertial frame of reference equivalence of the treadmill since he knew that then that the cart was moving faster than the wind. Oh well, I hate to admit it but there might be a little bit of humber in all of us. How else could humb channel humber so perfectly?

Maybe if you explain it fully, he may be more alarmed that you think.