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

[Christian Klippel]

What do these following things 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?

Hi mender,

the need to have a clue and some knowledge of the matter at hand, i would say. If the result is expected to be the right one, of course.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: Updated to reflect mender's actual post.

 

[John Freestone]

OK, sanity is restored, Humber is on my ignore list.

You're gonna miss the best bits. I reckon you'll last 24 hours tops.

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:-

Oh yeah, that's right, RossFW, you just go ahead; put your fingers in your ears and go la la la. You won't learn anything that way!

 

[mender]

Thanks, Chris, you are of course correct. I was a little slow in editing because I wanted to make sure I wasn't being ambiguous or leaving out steps (probably did anyway), so your quote shows my first pass at this. I don't think my editing would change your response but wanted to let you know about it.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Thanks, Chris, you are of course correct. I was a little slow in editing because I wanted to make sure I wasn't being ambiguous or leaving out steps (probably did anyway), so your quote shows my first pass at this. I don't think my editing would change your response but wanted to let you know about it.

Hello mender,

sorry for being too fast.
Fixed it to avoid confusion.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[RossFW]

You're gonna miss the best bits. I reckon you'll last 24 hours tops.

No, actually, It's working great. I can still glean what crappola he's spreading whilst not having to wade through his garbage, because you fine gentlemen quote all his most relevent tripe.

For instance, I take it he's telling Christian that the cart on the treadmill has no friction (or NEGLIGIBLE or SOME depending on how his meds are going), while the same cart, with the same wheels rotating at the same speed powering the same prop-drive and with the same relative air-flow (and therefore the same aerodynamic drag) takes MORE power on the road because it's MOVING, and this is somehow equivalent to ACCELERATING (Remind me again, a body with a constant velocity has WHAT magnitude of acceleration?).

Now let's talk about how balloon pilots can somehow fly up-wind!!!!

 

[Dan O.]

Oh, this is Bliss!!

There is another flag that you can set in your preferences to get rid of that message so there will just be gaps in the post numberings.

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

My first thought was that he was referring to the Twin Paradox. I don't want to discuss the ramifications of there being a humber twin.

 

[jjcote]

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?

I can't decide. Is it "the scientific method", or "things that humber apparently can't do"?

 

[CORed]

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.

Wrong as usual Humber. There actually is an area of reversed current downstream of a rock. Fish hang out in places like this so they don't have to expend a lot of energy swimming against the current. Fish (trout anyway), tend to hang out near boundary layers between slow current and fast. They do this because their food (aquatic nymphs and larvae, primarily) is more plentiful in the faster water. By staying behind a rock, at the edge of a bank eddy, or at the head of a pool, they can watch the current for drifting insects, and move out into the current when something comes by, without expending the energy they would have to if they stayed in the fast water.

How do I know this? I'm a fly fisherman.

 

[John Freestone]

There is another flag that you can set in your preferences to get rid of that message so there will just be gaps in the post numberings.

That reminds me, does anyone know if I can get a threaded view of conversations, like indented first-lines or something to follow the flow of replies? I looked several times, but can't see how to do it.

 

[humber]

Oh, this is Bliss!!

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

You have an unusual definition of 'ignore'.

 

[sol invictus]

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.

Are you going to answer John's question this time, humber?

 

[humber]

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?

Try answering the question.

 

[Christian Klippel]

That reminds me, does anyone know if I can get a threaded view of conversations, like indented first-lines or something to follow the flow of replies? I looked several times, but can't see how to do it.

Hello John,

i think that this forum software can't do that, or if, it isn't configured to do so. There is only a "quote" button, and a "reply" button. The latter is just a quick-reply and places you in the quick-reply box at the end of the page, so there is no direct connection to the post one replies to. The quote button embeds the message, but i don't think that it keeps track of a "reply order" either when it is used, it just appears as a regular message. Would be even harder to keep track if multi-quotes are used.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[CORed]

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?

Oh! Me! Me! I know!

Things Humber can't do.

 

[sol invictus]

You are all making grievous errors of first principles of science let alone physics.
No questions, correctly answered or otherwise, will help either of us because if for no other reason, they assume that you already accept that fundamental knowledge.

A qualified engineers (working for an independent contracting supplier) made such a blunder; one that beggars belief, and apparently operated by magic.

Before I had completed giving the description of the problem to an optics engineer, he threw his head back, burying his face in his hands.

Was his face on the back of his head?

Based on his bizarre prose I think the prison library must be pretty heavy on the 18th century English literature - and that's where humber first learned to read and write. I guess there aren't a lot of physics books in there....

 

[humber]

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

It needs friction to stay on the belt, no matter what.

That's still more than no friction.

And a cent is fortune?

Don't like your own medicine? Too bad.

Placebo

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

That makes you vacuous, then

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.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Calling me a liar, avoids you having to face the fact that you are wrong.
A move of desperation.

 

[fredriks]

Ok, I wrote something that should be completely obvious for every one that has seen a river but humber disagrees (as expected)

No. The fish in that example, is swimming against the current.

Read my response before you answer next time. I wrote that the current is less and that it can actually be in the other direction behind an obstacle. Your response is just nonsense.

The obstacle, perhaps a flat stone, is just ahead of its nose. Perhaps they gain some lift from that.

Or maybe it is because the flow is changed due to the obstacle. Why should a fish have lift by the way.

They may not need to do so, but fish are economical and take advantage of what is available to them.

Yes, of course and the relevance to my post is?

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.

Go to the nearest river and look at the flow. The flow behind a big rock is simple reversed. The forces depends on the flow.

Like the contra-rotating gears of a cart on a belt.

??????

 

[humber]

My first thought was that he was referring to the Twin Paradox. I don't want to discuss the ramifications of there being a humber twin.

Of course, something to aggrandize you. Not the banal truth of ignorance on your part.

 

[humber]

Are you going to answer John's question this time, humber?

No, you do it. I want to take it apart.

 

[humber]

Was his face on the back of his head?

Based on his bizarre prose I think the prison library must be pretty heavy on the 18th century English literature - and that's where humber first learned to read and write. I guess there aren't a lot of physics books in there....

No, unlike you, he was not admiring himself in the mirror, nor was he backing away when challenged, nor is he two-faced.
I think 'Harry Potter' is suitable literature for you.