Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)
- Thread starter Dan O.
- Start date
- Status
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
What's the problem? Don't you believe him, or don't you believe me?
Look humber, I asked him how he would model a car in a tailwind the magnitude of its own speed, and using 'only' a wind tunnel and a treadmill. He told me to leave off the wind tunnel and go with the treadmill. He also told me that the boundary layer would be too small and there would be less turbulence than outside, and finally, that a larger treadmill would be closer to identical.
You'll just have to take en engineer's word for it; I don't want to be responsible for dragging him into this. He still has so much to live for!
Last edited:
Let's try it this way....
I'm skydiving, and my parachute fails. I fall to NEARLY the ground, but my fall is broken 1ft off the grond by.....A cart on a treadmill!!!
NOW, as the cart has no KE in any frame of reference, including mine, this won't hurt a bit and I'll walk away, right????
PREDICTION:- Humber will say something equivelent too "You have KE relative to IT, IT doesn't have KE relative to YOU"
I'm skydiving, and my parachute fails. I fall to NEARLY the ground, but my fall is broken 1ft off the grond by.....A cart on a treadmill!!!
NOW, as the cart has no KE in any frame of reference, including mine, this won't hurt a bit and I'll walk away, right????
PREDICTION:- Humber will say something equivelent too "You have KE relative to IT, IT doesn't have KE relative to YOU"
Yes RossFW. That is true of every object on the surface of the planet. What distinguishes a parked car, from a moving car. Many things or course, but it is the acceleration that is the most obvious. You can't win this Ross FW.
Take two carts. Place one on the treadmill as normal. Now, another next to it, but suspended so the wheels do not touch the belt. What is the difference?
They are both influenced by the moon and stars in equal amounts, so there must be a local difference for the one said to be in motion. There certainly is for a real one in motion. Where is that KE? How is it generated, and where is it "relative" too, if it is not in the cart?
No other examples. No talk of what I don't know. No text books. No reiteration of the original premise, but proof by reason.
This very example, RossFW, nothing else.
Nope. Treadmill and cart.
John Freestone
Graduate Poster
One represents a cart on a surface traveling at wind speed. The other represents a cart suspended beneath a Balloon which, of course, is also traveling at wind speed.
So the cart and every other object on the surface of the earth, whether traveling relative to the Earths surface or not, has motion and therefore KE relative to the Sun. KE doesn't have to "COME FROM" anywhere. It is a relative value and is present any time relative velocity is present.
So you were- and here's another term to add to your extensive vocabulary- WRONG!!
John Freestone
Graduate Poster
Shades of H'ethetheth's encounter above, methinks. Put the screws somewhere safe now.How can I tell that? My veracity is constantly questioned, H'ethetheth. I did not say you were lying, just that he may not think what you believe he thinks. This is so common. I get written reports that completely contradict the original idea, just through word of mouth transfer. The questioner hears what he wants to hear, and stops there. That is one reason why as a species, we screw up so often
That is not the same thing at all, H'ethetheth. I dont think that he is saying it is the "same as" being at that speed. He is perhaps talking like Drela. It has some limited value. I thought the same.
Earlier on, I thought perhaps they were working up a model from the boundary flow of the belt. Later, when I pressed for details, I discovered that "the math" consisted of nothing more than subtracting the wind velocity.
Baby talk!.
From your reply, I see no support for the equivalence of KE, or of actual travel, or how it may get there or the power required. Unless I miss my mark, he will have assumed that it is "understood" they are to be excluded.
No, I can imagine that. But you could contact him and ask him if he agrees with the full "equivalence", if only for your own benefit.
Well, you can show you are mad of sterner stuff by accepting my challenge, despite that. Aslo, I tend to ignore questions, where the author has already made my mind up for me. It suggests that they expect no other answer.
John Freestone
Graduate Poster
Oh, go on then, I'll have a bash at this bit of rocket surgery...
I'm sorry if this is heretical. To think, physicists have all been practising heresy for half a century. "Well she looks like a witch!"
KE relative to the sun, yes, agreed.
No. Wrong again. The clue was in the question - one is moving. The moving one could have no acceleration either. With a stretch of the imagination, the 'parked' one might have acceleration, if it were the precise moment it was hit by a truck.
You've established that only you can win. You don't need to keep repeating it.
One is on a treadmill, the other suspended.
Nobody has said that one of them is in motion, unless they said it was relative to something else. But since you just put them here, no-one else has had time to comment yet. You just assume that they have different velocities, or that someone else will say they have. Besides, you began asking about a parked car and a moving car, which do have different velocities, but suddenly have started building a scenario with two carts having the same velocity.
I presume you've changed tack now, and this doesn't apply to either of those in the earlier sentences.
It is - if you insist on imagining it to be somewhere - in the relative motion between two objects (cart and whatever) and their mass. It doesn't belong to an object, as you have been told.
It is not generated. Energy is not generated (despite what they say in power stations!). It is relative to anywhere you like.
Done
Difficult, but done.
Done.
Done, only mine was more turgid.
I'm sorry if this is heretical. To think, physicists have all been practising heresy for half a century. "Well she looks like a witch!"
I though of that. So I suspended that second cart from the treadmill frame. A third cart actually attached to a balloon, behaved quite differently. I could readily push it much faster than windspeed.
If that is true, then the velocity is relative to the Sun. That applies to all objects on he planet. Otherwise, I wonder why we would need fuel to move our cars?
I think that our dependency on fossil fuels says that it does come from somewhere. If not who needs a treadmill motor?
Next attempt, please.
BTW. I do know a lot of words, but only some have meaning to me. Embarrassment is not one of them.
First steps.
No John. One will consume fuel, the other not. That will happen if the Sun is there or not. Right? Or does you speedometer have a scale for day and night?
I have quickly established that you have no chance of doing that.
My definition of vehicular motion is the one adopted by the police. They don't take kindly to the "relative to the Sun" argument.
It is the same, whether you think so or not. Tacking only encourages faster than wind speeding.
I am afraid it does. That is why hammers work.
(And why you earlier said "hit by a truck")
Tell that to your supplier.
Two more characters than necessary on that last word, John.
[/QUOTE]
It is interesting to note that you have exhumed the pre-scientific idea of "the energy of the spheres". Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it, in both senses of the word.
OK Hummer, money where your mouth is time.
Here's what I propose:- We will offer a mutually accepted referee (I propose Mark Drella) $1000 US for a couple of hours work.
I will put up $200 and would ask JohnF, Spork, Heth and Christian to do the same.
You match it with $1000
We transfer the full $2000 to his account.
We then ask Mark (or whomwever) to review this thread and the DDWFTTW thread.
We give him a series of contentions you have clearly made, and ask him to confirm their validity, or reject them and give a grief explaination of why they're wrong.
If EVEN ONE of these contentions is held to be true, he returns your $1000
If not, he returns ours.
Who's in?
Here's what I propose:- We will offer a mutually accepted referee (I propose Mark Drella) $1000 US for a couple of hours work.
I will put up $200 and would ask JohnF, Spork, Heth and Christian to do the same.
You match it with $1000
We transfer the full $2000 to his account.
We then ask Mark (or whomwever) to review this thread and the DDWFTTW thread.
We give him a series of contentions you have clearly made, and ask him to confirm their validity, or reject them and give a grief explaination of why they're wrong.
If EVEN ONE of these contentions is held to be true, he returns your $1000
If not, he returns ours.
Who's in?
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Given your massive amount of inconsistent ramblings that have no relation to reality, your constant moving of goalposts and continued evasion of questions that you have been asked, it is pretty clear that in fact none of the words you know have any meaning to you. And if they have, it would be some meaning that exists purely in your fantasy. Not the meaning that everyone else has of them.
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
Since he's right behind me that's not difficult.
He says the dynamics are identical. All relative velocities, forces and therefore accelerations are identical (given a large enough treadmill).
In short: Equal relative velocities = Equal dynamics.
- Status