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

[John Freestone]

The Humber likes sarcasm, John. It's funny.

Ok. Can do.

The windspeeds that you want are the same as mine.

I can't put it better than that, so I'll just repeat it: the windspeeds that you want are the same as mine.

Add the apparent observer view to mine, to get yours, then subtract them again to get the correct answer.

I didn't have an apparent observer, I had a hypothetical one. But I don't think it matters: I can save time, due to that wonderful symmetry between adding a number and then taking it away again, due to the associative property of addition in number theory, etc., etc., and just consider your results. They are right, certainly, if you adjust them by adding my results and then subtracting the ones you got. Or just use mine.

Do you see why I don't answer the question?

You would blow our tiny minds and half a millennium of wrong science?

I think Sol_invictus should give it a go. Should be fun not to see the "gaps filled" but the attempts to patch up the holes in the treadmill.

The treadmills must be getting very worn by now, true, but nothing compared to your threadbare theories. There's just a crackle and a smell of burning from those now, with a little smoke from the future. Sol can't be expected to fill in the gaps in that mess. It's your mess.

 

[humber]

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.

No. The fish in that example, is swimming against the current. The obstacle, perhaps a flat stone, is just ahead of its nose. Perhaps they gain some lift from that.
They may not need to do so, but fish are economical and take advantage of what is available to them.
Fish are not so careless at to add to their opponents' claims by acknowledging that flow (energy) can be reflected to keep something in place within that flow. Like the contra-rotating gears of a cart on a belt.

 

[John Freestone]

It's logically impossible for something to be travelling faster than itself from it's own perspective.

I'm just being pedantic, but it's also impossible from any other perspective! (Just in case anyone was wondering!)

 

[RossFW]

but when the plane flies, the wind next to its wings and fuselage goes forwards w.r.t. it - so faster than the plane.

Wow!! Are the accountants at work going to be P122ED they've been waisting all that money on Jet Fuel!! We could have just put parachutes out in the reverse flow and been pulled around the world bu HUMBERMOTION (TM, Pat Pending)

Now the NEXT piece of Humidiocy (don't you LOVE developing a new language!!) was the whole Boat- Bow wave blah.

Again, there was plenty of blather about varying flows at different depths, but he really does think that a boat moving at the same speed as a constant flow of water still, somehow, throws a bow wave, right?

 

[humber]

OK, here's that exchange in full:

Originally Posted by H'ethetheth View Post
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.

Originally Posted by humber View Post
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 !

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

Not now, no, but you added a lot of bias and left your integrity behind.

(1) The remainder I can ignore. The message is clear. I do not like appeals to authority, and can readily gain more than those indicated by H'ethetheth,but I do not do so.

(2) In response, I did directly challenge his authority. The claims for his fish experiment, and my inability to grasp the trivial idea of equivalence. Not only is your objection wrong, petty and impotent, but redundant.

(3) Perhaps H'ethetheth can speak for himself. I don't think he needs you to do that Michael_C.

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.

At it happens there are.
Only when the quote is linked, but not after it has been through your hands. Links or numbers, and any preceding posts that may be of context.

 

[humber]

Wow!! Are the accountants at work going to be P122ED they've been waisting all that money on Jet Fuel!! We could have just put parachutes out in the reverse flow and been pulled around the world bu HUMBERMOTION (TM, Pat Pending)

Now the NEXT piece of Humidiocy (don't you LOVE developing a new language!!) was the whole Boat- Bow wave blah.

Again, there was plenty of blather about varying flows at different depths, but he really does think that a boat moving at the same speed as a constant flow of water still, somehow, throws a bow wave, right?

You may want to check the author of that quote in #1764 RossFW.
Also, it's 'flys' not 'flies'

 

[humber]

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

It does not need to overcome friction. For one thing, you tell me there is no force at windspeed, but then a cart balancing on a belt yet not moving, has no motion related friction to overcome.

 

[humber]

Ok. Can do.

Originally Posted by humber View Post
The Humber likes sarcasm, John. It's funny.

Let me know when you start, John.

 

[John Freestone]

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

Don't take it personally, but they're avoiding you.

Nice fish-mill idea, by the way, H'eth. Something like that could be used to test DDwaterFTTwater machines (if, you know, motion was relative).

 

[Christian Klippel]

It does not need to overcome friction. For one thing, you tell me there is no force at windspeed, but then a cart balancing on a belt yet not moving, has no motion related friction to overcome.

What a stupid comment.

Do you really want to tell us that there is a) no rolling friction, b) no friction in the bearing and c) no friction in the gears?

Really, humber, with such comments you make yourself the laughing stock here. But then, you are just that for the most of us already.

Edit: Oh, and lets not forget the losses at the prop. You know, that prop that generates the thrust to keep the cart in place.

 

[humber]

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")

Why tell everybody? Surely that is contrary to the idea.

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.

Lonely Planet.

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?

Only four ways to my reckoning. The laminar flow is just another one. I raised it months ago. It is difficult to deny, because it is supported by your ideas of the relative motion, you say I do not understand. But I do, which is why I found it.

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?

Laminar flow is a type of boundary behavior. My argument and calculations are correct, RossFW, and you know it. It is not possible to try and undermine them, without being inconsistent, is it?

 

[humber]

What a stupid comment.

Do you really want to tell us that there is a) no rolling friction, b) no friction in the bearing and c) no friction in the gears?

Really, humber, with such comments you make yourself the laughing stock here. But then, you are just that for the most of us already.

Edit: Oh, and lets not forget the losses at the prop. You know, that prop that generates the thrust to keep the cart in place.

I say that it is negligible, Christian. Of course their is some friction, I have said so many times, but there is little to be overcome in the sense that the cart is driving itself against the belt. It is not, it is just staying in place.

What do the following have in common, Christain. (yes, some have belts);

BMW/F1
A runner's treadmill
An automotive power dyno
An orange spinning on a belt
A cyclist on an exercise bike in a gym
A power station.

 

[humber]

Don't take it personally, but they're avoiding you.

Have you started yet?
It's amazing what fish do when they think nobody is watching.
They also hate clumsy observers.

Nice fish-mill idea, by the way, H'eth. Something like that could be used to test DDwaterFTTwater machines (if, you know, motion was relative).

Yes, it's a lot more like the treadmill should be.

 

[Christian Klippel]

I say that it is negligible

No, you didn't. You said:

It does not need to overcome friction. For one thing, you tell me there is no force at windspeed, but then a cart balancing on a belt yet not moving, has no motion related friction to overcome.

That is clearly "no friction". No matter how you try to wiggle out, you said it has no friction. But then, you said a lot of false things in the past, and tried to wiggle out later.

And no, i am not going to answer any questions of yours anymore. For one, you won't understand the answers anyway. And then, you would just twist what was said to support your agenda. Heck, you don't even know what you yourself said. You attention span seems to be less than a minute. So there is really no sense in answering anything you ask.

Combine that with your constant refusal to show the proof you promised us long ago, your refusal to state what your expertise or educational level is, and a lot more things that you should have done/said by now. Instead, you tap-dance around the issue, bend reality to fit your twisted views.

Play along alone, i am instead continuing to point out your nonsense whenever i see it. Like it or not. Like the above quote. One could say you are constantly lying, judging from your posts.

 

[RossFW]

This message is hidden because humber is on your ignore list.

Oh, this is Bliss!!

Now, can anyone even fathom what his wrong contention was when he seemed to equate velocity with acceleration?

 

[humber]

OK

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

Neither am I, but it only bothers me, if I am lying.

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

OK

I'm sure you're right, except no one here claims even the existence of a "treadmill "zero machine"", whatever you mean by that.

Then they do not know exactly what the treadmill is. If they did..

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.

I know, but that is not the same as the treadmill. I have answered that in that other post.
You say that you can make comparisons with the treadmill. You say I do not understand, on the basis of your authority and experience.

I find that example to be quite erroneous. There are many more disparities than I previously gave. Fish are self-powered, they do not derive their energy from the flow, and so forth.

Next example, please.

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.

Science is not majority rule.
I would add that your response to my pneumatic boundary generator, if only hypothetical, demonstrates a lack of understanding that many would consider to be independent of education, H'ethetheth.

 

[humber]

No, you didn't. You said:

That is clearly "no friction". No matter how you try to wiggle out, you said it has no friction. But then, you said a lot of false things in the past, and tried to wiggle out later.

No friction to be overcome. None that would be an obstacle, or require significant power, or work.

And no, i am not going to answer any questions of yours anymore. For one, you won't understand the answers anyway. And then, you would just twist what was said to support your agenda. Heck, you don't even know what you yourself said. You attention span seems to be less than a minute. So there is really no sense in answering anything you ask.

Sometimes you answer if you think you are right, but when I point out errors, you stop.
I remember that, and what I say.

Combine that with your constant refusal to show the proof you promised us long ago, your refusal to state what your expertise or educational level is, and a lot more things that you should have done/said by now. Instead, you tap-dance around the issue, bend reality to fit your twisted views.

There is more than enough. Even a morsel seems to cause indigestion. What more do you want? I have more, if you like.

Play along alone, i am instead continuing to point out your nonsense whenever i see it. Like it or not. Like the above quote. One could say you are constantly lying, judging from your posts.

So you say. Petty differences over words, Christian.

 

[John Freestone]

My argument and calculations are correct, RossFW, and you know it. It is not possible to try and undermine them, without being inconsistent, is it?

I'll borrow that reply to RossFW to introduce my next attempt to reach an understanding, without being inconsistent, if possible. I hope you will oblige me by responding to it.

You said that the observer's experience of the winds is not relevant (trees in forest, etc.), and you rejected my discussion, calculations and diagram (or at least you have not yet filled in any other velocities as I asked, and suggested that Sol did it instead).

So, to try to get some clarification of your objection:

1. I thought you said that if I were moving backwards on a treadmill at 10 m/s, I would feel a 10 m/s wind at height from the back (on the back of my head), and a 6 m/s wind at some lower position, which I nominally called 'knee height' [ETA: oops, from the front]. Did I misunderstand that?

2. Do you contend that it is the windspeeds relative to the room that are important to a body's motion on the treadmill (I ask this because you say that the observer isn't relevant, but you were clearly working out some windspeeds)?

3. Would you be so kind as to pretend that the observer's experience is relevant for the purposes of the following. Obviously, someone with your self-confessed knowledge of mechanics, air-flow, fish, etc., would be able to do that, even if just to humour some doddering fool who doesn't understand that it's all irrelevant, yes? Please, then, would you look at the pair of scenarios as per my diagram below, and tell me what the observer would "experience" (i.e. measure with a little anemometer held at each height). It's probably quite well described now, but for clarity, the picture on the left is for a 10 m/s wind blowing over a surface, on which the observer stands still. The different speeds are due to the gradient of speed from the ground, where the air is slowed completely to standstill (I am well informed), and certainly is very slow close to it, but are chosen fairly arbitrarily, I admit. The double-headed arrows on the right are level with each arrow on the left. I left them double-headed, because it is not for the likes of me to say which way the 'flow' goes over a treadmill. Oh yes, and that's for the observer moving exactly at the same speed as the belt he is standing on, moving as shown, at 10 m/s right to left. The 'room' has still air, which we understand may be caused to be changed by the belt moving through it.

So, if you agree to give me this lesson, for which I would be most grateful, I would expect that your instruction would come in the form of a set of numbers, with a direction for each, representing the positions a - h, respectively. I think we can forget the "m/s" as that's what they all are, isn't it? I have put the arrows behind the observer's back, but just so that they don't obscure him. If from his front, of course, you can just imagine the arrow pointing to the left and in front of him instead.

For example, you might say:

a) 10 Right (which I will take as from left to right), or "10 Back" (which I will take to mean the wind hits the back of the observer), and then, b)... etc.

If there's any required information I've left out, or anything else you need to clarify first about this, don't hesitate to discuss it. Thanks.

 

[mender]

What do the following have in common?

Understanding a problem when written
Proposing a test to investigate the problem
Observing events and interpreting those events correctly
Making diagrams of those events and/or the original problem
Doing simple arithmetic about those events and/or the original problem
Understanding physics about those events and/or the original problem
Answering point blank questions about those events and/or the original problem

Anyone?

 

[Christian Klippel]

No friction to be overcome.

If it wouldn't overcome the friction, it would move with the belt and not stay where it is.

None that would be an obstacle, or require significant power, or work.

That's still more than no friction.

Sometimes you answer if you think you are right, but when I point out errors, you stop.
I remember that, and what I say.

Don't like your own medicine? Too bad.

There is more than enough. Even a morsel seems to cause indigestion. What more do you want? I have more, if you like.

No doubt that you have more. In fact, you are full of it.

So you say. Petty differences over words, Christian.

Words have meanings. Fuzzy usage of words = fuzzy meanings. How does that fit with someone who claims to know everything better? Be precise in what you say, so people can get a precise idea of what you mean. But then, it's pretty clear that you fuzz your words deliberately. Just so to give you an out and later claim "uh, but that was not what i meant". This and the other thread is full of such fuzzy postings and wiggling of yours. For everyone to see. So, no matter how hard you try to twist and wiggle, everyone can check the facts of what you posted.