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

[Christian Klippel]

Who's in?

Hello RossFW,

i would be in if i could transfer money internationally easy. Since i'm Germany, and only have a minimal type of account, transferring that small amount to you and then back here would almost eat it up completely. International wire-transfers are expensive over here. Heck, it costs already 10 Euro to directly cash in some money on someone's else's account inside Germany, if you don't go account-to-account but cash-to-account.

Lemme check some options this weekend, maybe a friend can help me out there.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[humber]

These two statements:-

And this one:-

are mutually exclusive. Only one can be true. Which one is it?

Close RossFW, but no cigar. One is my statement, and the other an inference from yours.
Now that you are on logical course, we can assume the Sun not to be a mutual property, but a common one. That presents the opportunity to remove it, and concentrate only on the difference between the carts.

 

[humber]

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.

OK, still not right. Please show him the treadmill video, perhaps #7
If the cart can travel back from the belt to stationary, that is another matter. I expect that he thinks that is the case. As I have said, belts are not roads.

However, if the vehicle has its own power source and actually moves relative to the belt, it will move relative to the ground at the same time, at least on this planet. That is different from the treadmill. These distinctions are not made, because none you seem to appreciate their significance.

Explain that the cart is placed by hand. Ask about the belt boundary layer and its direction. Then ask him if this is the equivalent of a cart at windspeed and evidence that it will get there.
I know at least one engineer who believes in over-energy, so I am not sure what the point is,
but then again, H'ethetheth, I don't offer third-hand evidence.

 

[RossFW]

I say it has no KE from any frame, because has no motion.

Direct quote from you.

So which is correct?

 

[spork]

Heard the news? Speed of light is absolute.

Heard the news? Speed isn't velocity.

 

[humber]

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?

Not me, but by all means get him here. I am not afraid to support my case in front of him, without the prospect of financial reward. These money things go nowhere, and I don't see why I should bother to help you get out of supporting the repeated chant that you make against me. i.e. I know nothing about physics. So let's leave it at that.
Back to the cart and treadmill that you seem to support and avoid with equal measure, RossFW.

 

[humber]

Heard the news? Speed isn't velocity.

Typical faux physics "accuracy"

Speed is a scalar. That still means the speed is absolute.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Just for the fun of it ....

1446 posts in this thread, 3116 in the original one, totaling a mere 4562 posts. And humber still fails to understand something as simple as inertial frames of reference. Admitted, not all the posts where about humbers non existent knowledge of physics, but i would say, the lions share was.

Man, that's what i call reluctant to learn anything.

 

[H'ethetheth]

OK, still not right. Please show him the treadmill video, perhaps #7
If the cart can travel back from the belt to stationary, that is another matter. I expect that he thinks that is the case. As I have said, belts are not roads.

However, if the vehicle has its own power source and actually moves relative to the belt, it will move relative to the ground at the same time, at least on this planet. That is different from the treadmill. These distinctions are not made, because none you seem to appreciate their significance.

Explain that the cart is placed by hand. Ask about the belt boundary layer and its direction. Then ask him if this is the equivalent of a cart at windspeed and evidence that it will get there.
I know at least one engineer who believes in over-energy, so I am not sure what the point is,
but then again, H'ethetheth, I don't offer third-hand evidence.

Okay, seriously, this has to stop. The lab that I work in is a biomechanics lab. My supervisor specialises in swimming and flying aimals, like hummingbirds, swifts, zebrafish, and even maple seeds.
In this room alone there are two test setups (very much like wind tunnels) that would not produce scientifically valid results if equal relative velocities did not imply identical dynamics. In the next room there is a vertical wind tunnel for flow the maple seeds, and the workshop is working on a laminar flow water tunnel for small fish that I designed during my internship here. I know what equivalence does.
In other words, I can tell you, with a high level of confidence, that you have no clue about relative motion. I don't doubt your honesty, I just can't imagine what the hell is going on in your head, other than that you seem to be incapable of accepting that you can be wrong.

Do with this information what you will, I'll be over at the milling machine, because my head needs some machining to get rid of the pain. Have a great weekend!

 

[humber]

Direct quote from you.

So which is correct?

That one. I need not accept your interpretation of frame. My reference is the ground, and I have repeatedly made the clear.

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.

You say all objects have KE relative to the Sun. That is a common background that can be excluded, to leave the ground as reference.
see alos locality; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

So carry on.

 

[Michael C]

Not me, but by all means get him here. I am not afraid to support my case in front of him, without the prospect of financial reward.

No, Humber, RossFW is not proposing any possibility of financial reward for you, nor for anybody else on this thread. The only person to make money out of the deal would be Mr Drela, or whoever else who might be chosen as expert to clear up the misunderstandings on this thread. He would gain $1000, which would be paid by whoever was wrong: you, or the others. Whoever is right, in the eyes of the expert, would lose or gain nothing. That sounds like a fair deal to me.

It's clear that we can't just ask Mark Drela to come here and sift through thousands of posts without offering to pay him something. You say that you're not afraid to support your case in front of him: show us that you mean it. You only lose your money if he says that you're wrong.

 

[Dan O.]

We then ask Mark (or whomwever) to review this thread and the DDWFTTW thread.

I don't think $1000 is sufficient to compensate anyone for such torture.

We give him a series of contentions you have clearly made

That is where your plan fails.

, and ask him to confirm their validity, or reject them and give a grief explaination of why they're wrong.

That typo could have been intentional.

Who's in?

I'm still waiting for humber to pay up on the last wager he welched on.

 

[humber]

Okay, seriously, this has to stop. The lab that I work in is a biomechanics lab. My supervisor specialises in swimming and flying aimals, like hummingbirds, swifts, zebrafish, and even maple seeds.
In this room alone there are two test setups (very much like wind tunnels) that would not produce scientifically valid results if equal relative velocities did not imply identical dynamics. In the next room there is a vertical wind tunnel for flow the maple seeds, and the workshop is working on a laminar flow water tunnel for small fish that I designed during my internship here. I know what equivalence does.
In other words, I can tell you, with a high level of confidence, that you have no clue about relative motion. I don't doubt your honesty, I just can't imagine what the hell is going on in your head, other than that you seem to be incapable of accepting that you can be wrong.

Do with this information what you will, I'll be over at the milling machine, because my head needs some machining to get rid of the pain. Have a great weekend!

If you want to play that game, H'ethetheth, I have enough resources to ace you. I choose not to. I do not like appeals to authority. Too much like religion for me.
Similar is not enough. This treadmill. The principle of relative velocities does not necessarily allow the road to power the wind, nor to make one of them zero in the process. Everything is relative to zero, H'ethetheth !

ETA;
Your attempts do not seem frank, H'ethetheth. Relative velocities, what is there not to understand? Childishly simple. Perhaps there is more to it than that.

 

[CORed]

My reference is the ground, and I have repeatedly made the clear.

Which ground? The ground where you're standing, or the ground the other side of the world which is moving several hundred miles per hour relative to the ground where you're standing?

Oops! I forgot, the earth doesn't rotate in the Humberverse.

 

[humber]

I don't think $1000 is sufficient to compensate anyone for such torture.

Abu Ghraib can use your advice.

That is where your plan fails.

Like your attempts to deny my balance claim. Seems to be quite in agreement with the general solution supplied by the puzzle. Yes, even that it is unstable if the correct level of friction is not present. I see no reason to listen to you.

That typo could have been intentional.

Yes, a target commensurate with your skills.

I'm still waiting for humber to pay up on the last wager he welched on.

You lost. You lost the laminar flow too.

ETA; I still have your schoolyard taunt of Welcher! Welcher! Welcher!, ringing in my ears. Keeps me awake. I can't eat.

 

[RossFW]

My reference is the ground, and I have repeatedly made the clear.

You are quite entitled to call the ground A reference. You cannot (Though you have repeatedly done so) say because something has zero KE WRT ONE reference, it has zero KE to ALL references. (That's what saying it has Zero KE in all frames means, in case you didn't understand your own statement).

 

[CORed]

If you want to play that game, H'ethetheth, I have enough resources to ace you. I choose not to. I do not like appeals to authority. Too much like religion for me.
Similar is not enough. This treadmill. The principle of relative velocities does not necessarily allow the road to power the wind, nor to make one of them zero in the process. Everything is relative to zero, H'ethetheth !

ETA;
Your attempts do not seem frank, H'ethetheth. Relative velocities, what is there not to understand? Childishly simple. Perhaps there is more to it than that.

And yet, you have demonstrated repeatedly, for over a month in hundreds of posts, that you do not understand the concept of relative velocities.

 

[humber]

Which ground? The ground where you're standing, or the ground the other side of the world which is moving several hundred miles per hour relative to the ground where you're standing?

Oops! I forgot, the earth doesn't rotate in the Humberverse.

The one on which you do not have your feet planted. The one that you don't have to travel to, like, you know, the other the side of the planet to get to.
It is funny to see you defend such an idea. "Most people think that the ground really is the ground. But I know better". A Secret of the Ages, sold to you by a a snake oil salesman.

 

[humber]

And yet, you have demonstrated repeatedly, for over a month in hundreds of posts, that you do not understand the concept of relative velocities.

Perhaps your bank statement shows debits as a 'minus'. Write a deposit slip with a minus. Well, that's like a withdrawal, but "relatively" it's a deposit. The banks always fall for that one! That is rather the extent of your knowledge on the subject, as that is all you seem capable of saying.

 

[John Freestone]

I hope Ross doesn't mind, but I'll reply to both posts...

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.

Irrelevant. You asked what was the difference in velocity between two stationary carts. Invent a fourth and push it sideways...anywhere you like.

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?

You ALREADY ANSWERED THAT in the affirmative earlier! This answer is almost right. We need fuel only to do work, to accelerate objects or, in this case, mostly to overcome friction.

I think that our dependency on fossil fuels says that it does come from somewhere. If not who needs a treadmill motor?

Acceleration and overcoming friction. Force causes acceleration, not movement. Your two carts, once you've put them where you want them, have no acceleration. The treamill motor overcomes friction mainly, after accelerating the belt. If there were no friction, it could just do the acceleration bit and then shut down.

BTW. I do know a lot of words, but only some have meaning to me. Embarrassment is not one of them.

Clearly.


In response to me:

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?

The one consuming fuel, the car in motion, does so only to overcome friction. I'll post the statements again that this was your reply to: "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." See, you keep imagining that something moving has to be accelerating, and that is just wrong. That was my reply to your earlier anti-Newtonian position "What distinguishes a parked car, from a moving car. Many things or course, but it is the acceleration that is the most obvious." Check out some first-year physics and try again.

I have quickly established that you have no chance of doing that.

If you could feel embarrassment, the emptiness of that victory would be excruciating. That's why everyone is amazed. You actually think that just plodding on and refusing to 'lose' means something positive, like you're going to stick this on your CV.

My definition of vehicular motion is the one adopted by the police. They don't take kindly to the "relative to the Sun" argument.

I imagine that the police are very well aware of the difference bewteen motion and acceleration, especially those who attend RTAs and analyse what was happening at the time of the accident. I'm fairly sure they'd not make this mistake: "What distinguishes a parked car from a moving car? The acceleration."

It is the same, whether you think so or not.

The two scenarios: 1. What's the difference between a parked car and a moving car?...(acceleration, apparently)... and 2. I put a cart on a treadmill next to one suspended. You're saying these are the same. Or was that one of the instances when you got confused, couldn't read properly, or didn't have the patience?

I am afraid it does. That is why hammers work.
(And why you earlier said "hit by a truck")

Our (the rest of the world's) description works just fine, thanks, without KE having to belong to bodies.

Tell that to your supplier.

My supplier admits that energy is not created in powerstations.

Two more characters than necessary on that last word, John.

Pathetic. Disguised scatalogical references to you too. Never mind that you're a walking repository of the stuff. Repository? Is that the right prefix? Suppose so.

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.

I think what you're refering to is called the music of the spheres. Those who haven't got the humility or patience to learn anything at all are destined to look very stupid.