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

[humber]

What?! No, I want to hear about your authority on the matter, because you claim you can ace mine.

"Ace" is your word.

If you dare me to ask a colleague, then yes, I need a colleague.

I don't. I also asked that you do so for your own benefit. Slight appeal to hurt sensibilities, or underlying moral indignation.
Show him Video #7, then tell him that you think the cart is "just like it is at winspeed"

Okay, the water tunnel for fish I designed is a fish wheel flow tank. A guy named Bainbridge (1958 and about the paper) came up with the idea in the 1950's and we found out about that halfway through the design process. It's basically an annular fish tank that spins while keeping the fish in place. I can think of at least two ways it's like the treadmill, but you're going to tell me it isn't, so go ahead.
I'm not sure the paper is freely accessible, but the article about it should be. If not, I'll post a picture of my own version.

Best to make sure they are accessible before posting, I think.
No problem. I will take look. All welcome to try. None will be treadmill "zero machines."

Sorry, authority does not work that way. Authority means that it matters what ass arguments are pulled from. I want to know how your authority puts mine to shame, since you assurred me it would, and I'm honestly curious.

You contradicted yourself within the first sentence, there, H'ethetheth.
I accept any challenge for comparison to the treadmill. I am not an aerodynamics engineer, but I can certainly challenge your authority in this case, and succeed.

 

[humber]

You cannot "deny" the quiz. You can "decline" to participate. Only in the bizarre world of humber do you get to deny things such as this. This is similar to the way you tell us "the treadmill is wrong". Do you not realize that in our language such a statement has no meaning?

deny /dI"nVI/ v.t. Also <unknown>denay.ME. [OFr. deni- tonic stem of deneier, denoier, later (also mod.) dénier, f. L denegare, f. de- DE- 1 + negare say no, refuse.]
1 Contradict (a statement or allegation); declare to be untrue or untenable. ME.
2 Logic. Assert the contradictory of (a proposition). LME. 3 Refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine etc.); refuse to admit the existence or reality of. LME.
4 Refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; disown, disavow, repudiate. LME.
5 Withhold (a thing requested, claimed, or desired); refuse to give or grant. (Foll. by to a person, or w. indirect obj.) LME.b Refuse access to (a person sought). M17.
6 Refuse the request or demand of (a person). Formerly also, reject (a candidate). LME.<unknown>b Refuse admittance to (a visitor). L16–M18.
7 Refuse to be or do. obs. exc Sc.LME 8 Refuse permission to or for; forbid (to do, the doing of). Now rare. LME. <unknown>
9 Refuse to take or accept. LME–E18.
10 refl. Refrain from the gratification of desire; be abstinent. LME. 1 H. FIELDING Jones could not deny the charge.W. CRUISE I beg leave to deny this to be law.S. BELLOW My client denies that he struck him.R. P. JHABVALA We have, I can’t deny, had a lot of trouble with him. 3 ROBERT BURTON Many deny Witches at all.G. BERKELEY They who deny the Freedom and Immortality of the soul in effect deny its being. 4 R. L. STEVENSON A man must not deny his manifest abilities, for that is to evade his obligations. 5 I. D’ISRAELI All the consolations of fame were denied him during his life.V. NABOKOV To bring that coffee to her, and then deny it until she had done her morning duty.fig.: J. BUTLER The known course of human things..denies to virtue its full scope. b R. B. SHERIDAN He is..in the house, though the servants are ordered to deny him. 6 T. HARDY Don’t refuse me,..I shall think it hard if you deny me. 8 SHAKES. Tit. A. One thing more, That womanhood denies my tongue to tell. 10 W. S. MAUGHAM My mother..denied herself so that I shouldn’t go hungry. denyingly adv. in a way that denies or refuses LME.

That makes perfect sense. You've been arguing with us for 50 pages about how you understand physics, and we don't. But you're "not interested" in spending 15 minutes to show us that you're right and we're wrong.
Nope, I just don't buy it. If you spend another 15 minutes on this thread we'll all know that "not interested" is pure B.S. "not willing" is clearly more accurate. I'd say that reflects your fear that you'd do poorly - but that gives you too much credit. You know from the start that you're just plain unable to answer a single question of physics, no matter how basic.

Take your pick.

 

[Michael C]

What?! No, I want to hear about your authority on the matter, because you claim you can ace mine.

"Ace" is your word.

So who said they had enough resources to "ace" H'ethetheth?

Let's see:

If you want to play that game, H'ethetheth, I have enough resources to ace you.

 

[humber]

So who said they had enough resources to "ace" H'ethetheth?

Let's see:

The context was, Michael-C, " I have enough resources, to find more or as many authoritaties in support of my claims than does he". I can "ace" him on that.

Not ace him per se.

So, I will do that instead. So I set the challenge how he sees it, and to come up with models for comparison , that he says are valid equivalents to the treadmill.

 

[Clive]

Maybe Clive, if your posts didn't contain so much "see humber you've gone and made a mistake again", then you may better see where you are wrong.

Maybe Humber, if your posts didn't contain so many outright errors, so much repetitious and meaningless dribble, and so much blatant evasion, then you may better maintain whatever delusion or illusion you're after (and the rest of us wouldn't have to keep repeating "see humber you've gone and made a mistake again").

I thought your act was kind of funny to start with (and even quite convincing at times), but now it's running out of steam and getting too obvious and predictable. You probably need to let "humber" learn something every now and then, and to also get a few more things right. Just a few - don't overdo it! That would be more realistic, and your audience could believe in the character more easily. He's just too thick at the moment. Your earlier and more creative BS was good, but the standard has slipped lately. If you can reverse that trend then you may still keep some of the audience for a little longer, but if you can't then it may be best to get out while you've still got at least some of the people fooled some of the time.

In my opinion, the main problem with "humber" at the moment is that nobody could actually be that consistently stupid and wrong about so many things without actually making an effort to do so. He needs to be a little more natural and relaxed to be more believable. Kind of like "Intelligent Design" in reverse. Dumb down your language a bit also. That doesn't quite fit.

Or... could you actually be like that for real??

Hah, bet that had you going for a sec... of course I don't believe that, not for one moment. Hmm... there could be other explanations I suppose but the rules probably prohibit me getting into that area.

A lot of talk, but no refutation. No solid arithmetic rebuttal, just more "observer" loaded rhetoric?

If you're talking about yourself, then that's about the most accurate thing you've said for a long time!

 

[humber]

Maybe Humber, if your posts didn't contain so many outright errors, so much repetitious and meaningless dribble, and so much blatant evasion, then you may better maintain whatever delusion or illusion you're after (and the rest of us wouldn't have to keep repeating "see humber you've gone and made a mistake again").

I have refuted your claim.You need to check your work, not mine, Clive.
That is what I meant.
The flows are going opposite to each other. That is a fact.

I thought your act was kind of funny to start with (and even quite convincing at times), but now it's running out of steam and getting too obvious and predictable. You probably need to let "humber" learn something every now and then, and to also get a few more things right. Just a few - don't overdo it! That would be more realistic, and your audience could believe in the character more easily. He's just too thick at the moment. Your earlier and more creative BS was good, but the standard has slipped lately. If you can reverse that trend then you may still keep some of the audience for a little longer, but if you can't then it may be best to get out while you've still got at least some of the people fooled some of the time.

Hyperbole, Clive.

In my opinion, the main problem with "humber" at the moment is that nobody could actually be that consistently stupid and wrong about so many things without actually making an effort to do so. He needs to be a little more natural and relaxed to be more believable. Kind of like "Intelligent Design" in reverse. Dumb down your language a bit also. That doesn't quite fit.

You omitted 'could be right'

Or... could you actually be like that for real??
Hah, bet that had you going for a sec... of course I don't believe that, not for one moment. Hmm... there could be other explanations I suppose but the rules probably prohibit me getting into that area.
If you're talking about yourself, then that's about the most accurate thing you've said for a long time!

Denial by imputation.

 

[fredriks]

Humber is this your claim of the boundary layer over the treadmill.
All speeds as seen from an observer on the ground besides the treadmill.

1. The belt moves to the left with speed 10 m/s.
2. An air particle very very close to the belt move the right with 10 m/s.
3. An air particle a little higher up moves with 5 m/s to the right.
4. An air particle far above the belt don't move at all.

Is this the correct understanding of a boundary layer above a treadmill in the humberverse?

 

[H'ethetheth]

"Ace" is your word.

Nope:

If you want to play that game, H'ethetheth, I have enough resources to ace you.

I don't. I also asked that you do so for your own benefit.

Nope:

I bet you don't tell your qualified aeronautical colleagues that you believe the treadmill is a wind tunnel. I am sure of that.

Slight appeal to hurt sensibilities, or underlying moral indignation.

You're right that my sensibilities are slightly hurt. I'm not used to be implied as a liar.

Show him Video #7, then tell him that you think the cart is "just like it is at winspeed"

No, because the answer for the cart is the same as for the F1 car. The fact that you may believe otherwise changes nothing about that.

Best to make sure they are accessible before posting, I think.

Sorry, if I knew a way to check that from within this network, I would. The journal subscription works with IP recognition, I think.

No problem. I will take look. All welcome to try. None will be treadmill "zero machines."

I'm sure you're right, except no one here claims even the existence of a "treadmill "zero machine"", whatever you mean by that.
Also, it's not a complicated machine. Just imagine a circular channel that rotates, like a classical hamster treadmill. The fish are stationary in the channel.

You contradicted yourself within the first sentence, there, H'ethetheth.
I accept any challenge for comparison to the treadmill. I am not an aerodynamics engineer, but I can certainly challenge your authority in this case, and succeed.

Fair enough. However, your admitted lack of education on the subject and the fact that almost everyone disagree with you might give you pause to think. I'm sure it hasn't so far, though, and I'm pretty sure it won't.

 

[Michael C]

The context was, Michael-C, " I have enough resources, to find more or as many authoritaties in support of my claims than does he". I can "ace" him on that.

Not ace him per se.

Wow, you're good at directly denying your own words. First of all, H'ethetheth was also clearly referring to "acing" the authorities he presented, not "acing" himself:

What?! No, I want to hear about your authority on the matter, because you claim you can ace mine.

(my bolding)

Second, you told H'ethetheth that:

"Ace" is your word.

That's simply not true. It was you that brought up the word "ace".

 

[humber]

What?! No, I want to hear about your authority on the matter, because you claim you can ace mine.


If you dare me to ask a colleague, then yes, I need a colleague.

Okay, the water tunnel for fish I designed is a fish wheel flow tank. A guy named Bainbridge (1958 and about the paper) came up with the idea in the 1950's and we found out about that halfway through the design process. It's basically an annular fish tank that spins while keeping the fish in place. I can think of at least two ways it's like the treadmill, but you're going to tell me it isn't, so go ahead.
I'm not sure the paper is freely accessible, but the article about it should be. If not, I'll post a picture of my own version.

Sorry, authority does not work that way. Authority means that it matters what ass arguments are pulled from. I want to know how your authority puts mine to shame, since you assurred me it would, and I'm honestly curious.

ETA;
The fish are subjected to the medium flowing over them.Their motion is suppressed w.r.t he ground, but they swim against that medium.
The treadmill has no flowing media independent of its own motion.
The analogy is wrong. The cart stays in position on the belt, because it balances, but there is no motion.
Fish do something like this in the wild. Both up and downstream. They can remain in statics w.r.t those flows. They use local mechanisms, exploiting vortices, which they generate by twisting and moving their tails and bodies, though exactly how is not yet fully explained. However, the energy consumed is low.
I noticed that river fish, tend to prefer a position behind some obstacle on the river bed. Perhaps that too plays a part.

There is actual motion in Brainbridge's device, but of of course being circular the average is zero.
This experimenter exploits this to his advantage, by moving the camera so the fish appears still, but it is not still. He is interested in studying how fish swim, not how they do nothing, H'ethetheth.
This is rather like Platt's idea. You were saying?

 

[humber]

Wow, you're good at directly denying your own words. First of all, H'ethetheth was also clearly referring to "acing" the authorities he presented, not "acing" himself:

(my bolding)

Second, you told H'ethetheth that:

That's simply not true. It was you that brought up the word "ace".

Notice 3 things;
(1) You do not post my usage in context, even though I pointed it out in the previous post. I used it first in that context. I am quite sure, I did not personally challenge H'ethetheth's authority.

(2) You reject my use for H'ethetheth's subsequent, misuse.
(3) I used "Ace" not 'ace'. That means the use is not literal.

Are you a choir boy Micheal_C?

ETA: In the future, please quote all post numbers, so I won't have to trawl to find your mistakes.

 

[RossFW]

This just get's better-

It is a "scientific mystery" how a fish, swiming at Xm/s, stays staionary in water flowing at -Xm/s.

And we though Humber knew everything!!

Begining to agree with you, clive. NOONE could actually be this stupid!!


Humber, the cart does not "Do nothing". The Cart overcomes the friction caused by it's wheels turning on the treadmill. It does this by generating thrust through the propellor. Why else doesn't it move in the same direction as the treadmill? After all, it's not a magic orange!!

 

[Christian Klippel]

Sorry, if I knew a way to check that from within this network, I would. The journal subscription works with IP recognition, I think.

Don't worry, H'ethetheth. They are fully accessible from here, so i doubt that someone else will have a problem.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[humber]

This just get's better-

It is a "scientific mystery" how a fish, swiming at Xm/s, stays staionary in water flowing at -Xm/s.

And we though Humber knew everything!!

Begining to agree with you, clive. NOONE could actually be this stupid!!

Denial by exaggeration. It is not a "mystery," just not completely understood. A bit of extra information, nothing to do with the matter at hand

However, the remainder demonstrates that is not like a treadmill at all.

ETA:

Humber, the cart does not "Do nothing". The Cart overcomes the friction caused by it's wheels turning on the treadmill. It does this by generating thrust through the propellor. Why else doesn't it move in the same direction as the treadmill? After all, it's not a magic orange!

No. it overcomes nothing, RossFW. It says in place by balancing the drag of the belt, with the prop's output.
That is minimal energy. Like the fish, just enough to keep where it is. It does not struggle against the river (or belt) , like a salmon going upstream to spawn. That effort is enough to kill most of them.
You think it's magic that oranges spin on a belt. They do. Sometimes, where there is a wide belt, and that is narrowed by guides on the side so as to funnel them to a narrower belt, they can be seen spinning in place a few cm's from those guides. Why? Perhaps when the belt is crowded, they get held in place by other fruit. They may also become polished or scuffed in some way as well. When all the other fruit moves away, they (some) are left behind. Presto, magic fruit.

What do these have in common, RossFW?
BMW/F1 tunnel
A runner's treadmill (normal usage)
A dyno. (i.e. engine power-at-wheels measurement)
An orange spinning on a belt.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Don't worry, H'ethetheth. They are fully accessible from here, so i doubt that someone else will have a problem.

Greetings,

Chris

Great! Thanks for checking.

 

[fredriks]

I noticed that river fish, tend to prefer a position behind some obstacle on the river bed. Perhaps that too plays a part.

I wonder why they do that? Can it be that the flow is slower and maybe reversed behind an obstacle? No that is to easy and make sense so it must be wrong.

 

[RossFW]

And the rest of my post? How does the cart overcome friction?

 

[Michael C]

Notice 3 things;
(1) You do not post my usage in context, even though I pointed it out in the previous post. I used it first in that context. I am quite sure, I did not personally challenge H'ethetheth's authority.

OK, here's that exchange in full:

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.

Those were the complete posts: nothing added, nothing taken away.

(2) You reject my use for H'ethetheth's subsequent, misuse.

No, he correctly re-stated your claim.

(3) I used "Ace" not 'ace'. That means the use is not literal.

Aha: you said "Ace" so everyone should know that you didn't actually mean it? Apart from the fact that that's nonsense, it's not even true. Look at the quote above. I haven't edited it (go and check if you want). Where do you use "Ace" and not 'ace'?

ETA: In the future, please quote all post numbers, so I won't have to trawl to find your mistakes.

As it happens, there weren't any mistakes in what I just quoted. There's no need to trawl through the thread to find the original posts. Click on the little arrow after the name: it'll take you directly to the passage that was quoted.

 

[RossFW]

OK, sanity is restored, Humber is on my ignore list. (the best part was the note to the right which said "Humber has not made any friends")


Anyone like to join me? It has been an informative thread, mainly (no, exclusively) through reading the refutations and, basically, realizing that the world is basically OPPOSITE to the Humberverse.

What I'd like to do is examine some of his more warped thoughts, whilst wallowing in the bliss of not having to read his answers:-

Let's start with this- Did he at any stage seem to get the idea of relative motion, and how an object at windspeed is indistinguishable from one at rest in still air? We had a lot of discussion about boundary layers (and I DID note, he started using that word in preference to "Laminar Flow", though without commenting or attributing the fact that he had learned a more accurate term), but at no time did he retract the fact that he just didn't GET the relationship between the cart on the treadmill and one in "Real Wind" at wind speed, right?

 

[John Freestone]

Darn, foiled again.

I hope you kept a did-pun expression when you said that.

You're right! I tried travelling at a different velicity to myself AND IT WORKED!. I can't tell you how pleased I am. I'm quite literally beside myself with glee.

Velicitations!

Now to the boundary layer....

The belt is turning such that it's surface is passing a stationary observer (wrt the earths surface)right to left. It will cause a boundary layer that will ALSO pass right to left. On the surface, the air will move at belt speed. At any point ABOVE the surface, it will STILL move right to left, but at a speed slower than the belt. Right to left at a speed lower than the belt means left to right wrt the surface of the belt.

Gosh, it's really quite simple when you put it like that!

Just like John (and everyone else!!) has been trying to tell you.

So blindingly obvious, it's amazing you can even TRY and argue it!

Ah, but he's adjusting for the motion (of something), perhaps a couple of times, and then subtracting the number he first thought of. He's done it several times now and his answers are "consistent" (he probably means the corrected ones with the yellow highlight).

If it were not so, the air would be traveling FASTER than the belt, and we'd have invented perpetual motion.

No wonder you have so much time to post, the Humberverse produces it's own energy!!!!

Yes. As far as I can make out, any object (stationary w.r.t. the earth) with wind blowing over it, has a smooth gradient of consistent windspeeds from surface to maximum at a distance from it. Throw the same object, or drive it with a motor, through stationary air, and the boundary layer is reversed. I'm not sure why they use windtunnels to test planes and such, because that would clearly be a smooth gradient, but when the plane flies, the wind next to its wings and fuselage goes forwards w.r.t. it - so faster than the plane.

This may help to clarify why in the humberverse motion without force is impossible. When we chuck something, it continues to move through the air because it's propelled by that reversed boundary layer going faster than it. Unless that slows it down. It's definitely one of them. Or neither.