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

[humber]

What is "observer's inferred motion"? Is it the same as observer's experienced motion? How will that differ from observer's direct measurement? Do you mean observer-sitting-by-side-of-treadmill's direct measurement? Do you not think it is possible for us to perform a similar experiment (given a long enough treadmill) and have an actual observer measure those windspeeds at a-h? Can you not imagine such a scenario, just as a thought experiment, and help me, from your esteemed position of knowing the correct answers, by telling me what they would be, if such a thought-experiment person used a thought-experiment anemometer to measure the thought-experiment winds?

I was hoping to go on to more advanced topics, but if I can't get my head round this one (as you said, I got the wrong answers)...oh, please, humber, humour me and tell me what the observer going backwards would measure at a-h?

You are including the motion of the observer relative to the road, his perceived view.. His apparent motion. You also use this to make the flows, and that is an error. The observer has no place in the argument.
I have given a full description of this, in at least three different ways. All claims to the contrary have been refuted. They are wrong.
It is not necessary to consider more than one position is those flows, because they are, or should be the same in each case, and the mass flow must be the same, so that means no escape. The flow is not attached to the cart, so the observer's perception view is of no consequence, and instruments are blind to it.
Two opposing flows cannot emulate one single flow, over all possible combinations. End of story.

 

[humber]

Um.. let me give it a shot. They are all things that humber can't do? I am waiting for him to fill in the blanks on Johns illustration, should be interesting.

Knock yourself out. Try answering the question that I posed. A lot of time spent on Mender's spurious output, but not upon defending your treadmill.

ETA:
I do not need to readdress red herrings already dismissed.

 

[spork]

Just a quick summary for those that have humber on ignore:

He continues to be the single most arrogant, and single most ignorant, contributor I've ever seen.

He continues to try to teach us all physics even though he is the ONLY one here that refuses to answer a few basic questions from a physics text.

 

[spacediver]

No. I can do that on my head. The problem is not there SD. 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.

You may be right, and we may all indeed be making errors on a fundamental level of first principles.

But we still do not believe that you're capable of correctly answering a few high school level physics questions.

At least if you were able to prove us wrong there, our minds might be opened a bit more to resolving any issues we have on a more fundamental level.

So you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by spending a few minutes answering these questions.

Are you confident you could answer them correctly?

 

[humber]

Just a quick summary for those that have humber on ignore:

He continues to be the single most arrogant, and single most ignorant, contributor I've ever seen.

He continues to try to teach us all physics even though he is the ONLY one here that refuses to answer a few basic questions from a physics text.

A General speaks from behind the lines.

 

[humber]

You may be right, and we may all indeed be making errors on a fundamental level of first principles.

But we still do not believe that you're capable of correctly answering a few high school level physics questions.

At least if you were able to prove us wrong there, our minds might be opened a bit more to resolving any issues we have on a more fundamental level.

So you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by spending a few minutes answering these questions.

Are you confident you could answer them correctly?

There is not one single line of mathematics in your fundamental error. No need for it. When I do introduce even simple arithmetic, you all fail. I even went to the trouble of parsing to a child's level. I don't think I need answer to any of you. We have tertiary educated people here, who believe in magic.
Don't bother to ask again, please, SD.
EAT:
You do not see the point. It does not matter who I am. I support everything I say, and you should be able to deny me that on that basis. If you do not understand now, how will that help if I do highschool physics for you? NOT AT ALL. It's a red herring, and I am not taking the bait.

Spork thinks he can pick me up on my vocabulary, on the basis the his understanding is better than mine. What a joke. Same for maths tests.

 

[spork]

At least if you were able to prove us wrong there, our minds might be opened a bit more to resolving any issues we have on a more fundamental level.

So you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by spending a few minutes answering these questions.

Are you confident you could answer them correctly?

To which humber evades a direct answer (as always). But he does offer this:

Don't bother to ask again, please, SD.

So, since humber failed to answer the question, I'll put it to him again. How about it humber? Why can't you put your superior intellect to work on a few high school level physics problems?

 

[humber]

To which humber evades a direct answer (as always). But he does offer this:

No sale

So, since humber failed to answer the question, I'll put it to him again. How about it humber? Why can't you put your superior intellect to work on a few high school level physics problems?

No sale.

 

[spacediver]

You do not see the point. It does not matter who I am. I support everything I say, and you should be able to deny me that on that basis. If you do not understand now, how will that help if I do highschool physics for you? NOT AT ALL. It's a red herring, and I am not taking the bait.

it's not a red herring because by answering the questions correctly you could prove us wrong on our claim that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Your stubborn refusal to comply with this test leads me to believe that you are frightened of taking such a test.

 

[humber]

it's not a red herring because by answering the questions correctly you could prove us wrong on our claim that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Your stubborn refusal to comply with this test leads me to believe that you are frightened of taking such a test.

Like I have been frightened to produce graphs and numerous drawings. To tackle Drela's* paper, to directly an unequivocally challenge a supposed expert regards equivalence of models and include information about fish that I know he can readily check amongst his colleagues in the biophysics lab, like I solved an almost identical problem from that Russian book, sigh unseen. Like I told you about the balance, within that machine, the balloon equations...
I tell you what, I will let you know when I need your approval SD.

I am not going to do it, OK. I decide that.

*Try that, and we may talk.

 

[John Freestone]

Hello Professor humber. I was just about to post a reply to SZ's post, and then thought I'd check to see if you had answered yet, and how. Here's what I was composing:

Um.. let me give it a shot. They are all things that humber can't do? I am waiting for him to fill in the blanks on Johns illustration, should be interesting.

Yes, but I seem to have misunderstood humber, when I posted my original sketch with 10 ---> and <--- 6 lower down and lots of question-marks.

I'm a bit dumb I think. He said that the boundary layer flow is going the wrong way on the treadmill, and we discussed some examples with jjcote, and then he introduced a paddle and I got even more confused then.

It could be that I've just fooled myself, and the numbers would be all the same, and he was right, of course, because the boundary layer flow is going the other way w.r.t. the room. So he could just tell me that they'd be the same as in the left hand drawing, and that would clear it up for me nicely. The world including Newton and humber would be right. He seems a little reticent on the matter, however.

Anyway, he's probably right whatever. See, I thought he'd said at one point that the flow goes the other way w.r.t. THE BELT or a person on the belt moving with the belt, but I can't find that. So even if he says "They are all the same, John. What did you think, that you'd trick me with that stupidly simple question, eight velocities to copy from left side to right?", I can't say that it would be inconsistent with anything specific that he's said.

As we have seen many times before, and now see here, however, when pushed for a specific answer that supports what seems to have been his contention, his language changes. It becomes even more sloppy, more creative, more metaphorical, more ambiguous...and introduces new (mostly wrongly used) scientific terms as red herrings.

I might yet find a direct "right to left w.r.t. the person going backwards" statement, but I haven't yet. If anyone sees it, please do quote it. I think the paddle calculations were an attempt to confuse the issue so that the frame of reference could be switched with less fuss. That seems to leave me without a specific statement. My trap is doomed to fail.

If I find it, or he does believe that that is the truth, then I'm not quite sure how he'd answer this. It seems we could go back to something very similar to my original, with the 10---> and <---6, and puzzle over the missing parts again. What is rather odd is that I did spell that out pretty clearly, that I thought he believed that the lower portion would go right to left and blow on the person's knees, and his diagrams do suggest that, but he didn't confirm or deny it.




:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So, which was it?

You are including the motion of the observer relative to the road, his perceived view.. His apparent motion. You also use this to make the flows, and that is an error. The observer has no place in the argument.
I have given a full description of this, in at least three different ways. All claims to the contrary have been refuted. They are wrong.
It is not necessary to consider more than one position is those flows, because they are, or should be the same in each case, and the mass flow must be the same, so that means no escape. The flow is not attached to the cart, so the observer's perception view is of no consequence, and instruments are blind to it.
Two opposing flows cannot emulate one single flow, over all possible combinations. End of story.

So, just nonsense prose again. You don't know, I take it. If you knew, it would be easier to say than tell me that you've given a full explanation 3 times already. You are demonstrating a failure to answer simple questions, aren't you, humber?

Could a person be placed on a moving walkway or treadmill and be taken along with it, facing backwards, at all? Is that where I'm going wrong? I asked all the different possible areas of confusion separately, and you did not answer any of them in anything like an intelligible way, did you?

It is obvious that we can measure windspeeds with an anemometer, put people on treadmills going 10 m/s, and we can stand still in a 10 m/s wind over the ground. If you can't describe simply, in intelligible English, what speeds the air would be going at relative to a person (i.e. one holding an anemometer and measuring them), then I suspect (I'm just beginning to suspect) you're not really quite as good at all this aerodynamics stuff as you have been telling us. Two opposing flows cannot emulate one single flow over all possible combinations! There aren't two opposing freekking flows!

Come on, just for me, pretty please. Just one of those figures, if all of them are too contentious to reveal to the world. Let's say, where the wind is 1 m/s over the stationary land. Will that height position for the man on the belt going backwards at 10 m/s give a measured windspeed of 1 m/s, just the same, left to right? If it's so simple it's confusing you, just imagine the whole thing is in a box-car flying inside an elevator, hung from a hot-air balloon.

 

[spacediver]

the difference between what you've done and what the test will do is that in the test, we have an answer list, so we already know what the right answer is.

So if you get the answers wrong, you won't be able to try and argue your way out of it as you've done in the past with all the things you just mentioned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

humber's refusal to do even high school level physics shows that he cannot do even that. Also he makes ridiculous claims about the wind on the treadmill and when John posts a simple illustration that would allow us to see what is inside his head he refuses to do it with another humberism.

 

[John Freestone]

Like I have been frightened to produce graphs and numerous drawings. To tackle Drela's* paper, to directly an unequivocally challenge a supposed expert regards equivalence of models and include information about fish that I know he can readily check amongst his colleagues in the biophysics lab, like I solved an almost identical problem from that Russian book, sigh unseen. Like I told you about the balance, within that machine, the balloon equations...
I tell you what, I will let you know when I need your approval SD.

I am not going to do it, OK. I decide that.

*Try that, and we may talk.

You're ignoring the obvious problem with that list of achievements.

 

[humber]

humber's refusal to do even high school level physics shows that he cannot do even that. Also he makes ridiculous claims about the wind on the treadmill and when John posts a simple illustration that would allow us to see what is inside his head he refuses to do it with another humberism.

You will be staggered at the depth of your error SZ.
No sale, I will not be led.

 

[Christian Klippel]

the difference between what you've done and what the test will do is that in the test, we have an answer list, so we already know what the right answer is.

So if you get the answers wrong, you won't be able to try and argue your way out of it as you've done in the past with all the things you just mentioned.

Hello spacediver,

how true. It would indeed clearly show that he has no clue about the things he talks, besides knowing the words, but not their meaning. It would also expose the lies he spouts about the many physicists that support his claims, that he has good knowledge of things, that we are all wrong, etc.

Guess thats the usual problem with this kind of people. They are unable to come clean when proven wrong, let alone to say "i'm sorry, i was wrong". Instead, they wiggle and twist and dig their hole deeper and deeper just to keep up the facade.

I really hope that i never get into a situation where my life depends on some humberphysics. Like, he being involved in building a plane. Or even cleaning it, for that matter.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[humber]

the difference between what you've done and what the test will do is that in the test, we have an answer list, so we already know what the right answer is.

So if you get the answers wrong, you won't be able to try and argue your way out of it as you've done in the past with all the things you just mentioned.

No sale, I will not be led. Live in ignorance if you wish. I have given enough information, for anyone with adequate intelligence to see what is actually an incandescent error
You insistence on "math" shows that all of you, do not have the insight or native intuition to see that error.

You need to be shown. Take it or leave it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You will be staggered at the depth of your error SZ.
No sale, I will not be led.

It is easy to make claims on the internet, I can claim that I can make a brick fly around my room by the power of my mind only. Since you are not here you cannot "prove me wrong". If you can do simple high school physics the only acceptable proof on a forum like this is to perform it. Otherwise your claim along with my flying brick claim are both just as valid.

 

[humber]

Hello Professor humber. I was just about to post a reply to SZ's post, and then thought I'd check to see if you had answered yet, and how. Here's what I was composing:

Decomposing ,surely?

All answered in the three examples. I made on edit, a mistake of arithmetic, and I corrected that myself, but otherwise all is 100% sound.

All your remarks have been dealt with. There were, and are no errors.
It is blindingly obvious that the flow is moving with the belt. This is because the belt powers the "wind", whereas a road does not power the real wind, and even then, it is going the wrong way, because without air flow to represent the wind, it cannot stay on the belt, let alone travel.
It is fundamentally flawed. This boundary example is rock-solid proof of that claim. No more games.
[/QUOTE]

 

[CORed]

Actually, it's due to a change in impedance caused by the presence of an obstruction.



For a short time. It is also possible to stay in place, with only but the occasional dip. What do you know, a change of scene, and it's foot-in-mouth time again. Woeful.

The question is only raised because CORed confuses his opinion of what happens, with what actually happens, and confabulates situations to save himself from facing facts that he does not like.

* as any whitewater kayaker knows, a.k.a. not you.

No, humber confabulating situations to save yourself from facing facts that you do not like is what you do. Apparently you have never seen a river, or perhaps you have only seen placid flatwater rivers. The current does reverse downstream of obstructions.

The bank eddies that Sol Invictus mentions are also something I'm very familiar with. AFAIK, impedance is an electrical term. I've never heard of it being applied to river currents. Can somebody who know more than I do about hydrodynamics (i.e not humber) confirm for me that humber has mis-applied the term "impedance". I certainly trust Sol Invictus' explanation more than humber's, as he has been correct about everything that I do know about so far, whereas humber has shown in post after post that he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.