None of you have managed to tell me I am wrong. All models from Hetheth's lab will not be the treadmill. How do I know? Because the treadmill is not a model of anything,. A practical joke, made serious.
Once again, take it or leave it.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)
- Thread starter Dan O.
- Start date
- Status
None of you have managed to tell me I am wrong. All models from Hetheth's lab will not be the treadmill. How do I know? Because the treadmill is not a model of anything,. A practical joke, made serious.
Once again, take it or leave it.
Interesting, Mike.
As I have said, he HAS actually learned a few things, but wouldn't in a milloion years admit he was ever wrong about anything.
As I mentioned, he started using "Boundary Layer" instead of "Laminar Flow" (Which, of course, simply means non-turbulent. A Boundary layer might be Laminar (Though in this case it probably isn't), but a Laminar flow doesen't even need ot be near a surface, and he dropped "Adiabatic" PDQ when he couldn't even find a nonsense reason why it was relevant.
He also actually stopped with the Force=velocity=acceleration nonsense, and instead just started using vague terms like "The cart has no meaning, the treadmill is not a road" so I DO think he knew he'd been called on those. It seems to be a case of:-
1) Have the obvious nonsense shown and proved wrong
2) Bluster away with a bunch of fillibuster that it showed no such thing
3) Quietly drop the nonsensical stuff and replace it with NEW nonsensical stuff.
Hell, he even got the concept of the kite moving wrt the medium right, though JUST COULDN'T QUITE make the leap to seeing the cart is exactly the same thing.
As I have said, he HAS actually learned a few things, but wouldn't in a milloion years admit he was ever wrong about anything.
As I mentioned, he started using "Boundary Layer" instead of "Laminar Flow" (Which, of course, simply means non-turbulent. A Boundary layer might be Laminar (Though in this case it probably isn't), but a Laminar flow doesen't even need ot be near a surface, and he dropped "Adiabatic" PDQ when he couldn't even find a nonsense reason why it was relevant.
He also actually stopped with the Force=velocity=acceleration nonsense, and instead just started using vague terms like "The cart has no meaning, the treadmill is not a road" so I DO think he knew he'd been called on those. It seems to be a case of:-
1) Have the obvious nonsense shown and proved wrong
2) Bluster away with a bunch of fillibuster that it showed no such thing
3) Quietly drop the nonsensical stuff and replace it with NEW nonsensical stuff.
Hell, he even got the concept of the kite moving wrt the medium right, though JUST COULDN'T QUITE make the leap to seeing the cart is exactly the same thing.
None of you have managed to tell me I am wrong. All models from Hetheth's lab will not be the treadmill. How do I know? Because the treadmill is not a model of anything,. A practical joke, made serious.
Your insistence shows infexiblity of mind.
You do not seem to appreciate, that I could simply Wikki the answers, or use one of the 2d simulators that abound.
Once again, take it or leave it.
You a re failing the test in spades RossFW. You posed questions (hamburg) that were knocked down in an instant. I took nop longer than it did to type it, yet you still insist that you are right.
Breathtaking arrogance!
Last edited:
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Ignoring your wrong understanding of physics isn't really a bad thing to do. You should try it one day.
Wrong. All you have given are inconsistent, meaningless ramblings full of errors and often lies. Of course, "adequate intelligence" is relative. Someone with a rather really low level of intelligence would think your ramblings are correct. Even worse, when pointed out your errors, you twist things around and make it even worse. Every time.
I guess you wanted to say "naive intuition" instead. Because that is what you show. Naive understanding of things. Your insistence on refusing to answer simple, clear questions where the answers are know (aka high school physics questions) just shows that you are afraid to be put to a test. You think you are superior to the rest rest of the world, while in reality you are just plain wrong.
Then come on, show it to us, take the test. You ramble on about how good your knowledge is, but all you do is getting worse each time you come up with something that you think is an answer. That leaves no other conclusion than that your knowledge is inferior. Your posts prove just that.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Incomprehensible. Do you or do you not agree that an anemometer carried by someone standing on a moving belt, as in John's figure, would read as I said? If not, what will it read?
That's a direct and simple question - answer it or look like a fool yet again.
Another word you don't know the meaning of. You're building up quite a list...
Last edited:
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Hi CORed,
well, impedance is a term not only used in electrical engineering.
See here for what it can mean.
However, none of that relates to what humber thinks it relates to. As usual, he uses big words but has little knowledge of their meaning.
Greetings,
Chris
Subduction Zone
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 999
And my brick is still flying around the room. Ooops, almost took my own head off there.
Michael C
Graduate Poster
If I were in Paris, I could go to the Gare Montparnasse where there is a high-speed moving walkway. It's 185 metres long: that's a nice long treadmill. It used to go at 12km/h (about 7mph), but people found it too scary so the speed was reduced to 9 km/h. I don't know if 9km/h would be enough for a DDWFTTW cart, but it would certainly be enough to measure some wind speeds. Does anyone lives near a place with such a walkway?
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
I have never seen the term impedance used like that outside the humberverse. Impedance is the coefficient in the linear response to a driving force or voltage at fixed frequency (e.g. V = I Z, where Z is the impedance). That makes no sense at all for a fluid flow around an obstacle - the relevant equation there is non-linear and doesn't depend on a frequency.
Yes, of course, as you have said ,quite ,yes.
No, but there is no hope of you learning anything.
Irrelevant and petty. Makes no difference. I know what adiabatic means, and why it is relevant, but you don't
Newton says they come in a pack of three, at least for linear motion.
Force yields Acceleration, Velocity and Displacement. A good enough definition for toy cart. All magically missing from the treadmilll.
Inappropriate use of filibuster.
No, not like you. You even got internal flack for that, and you didn't respond.
Yes, I need deep insight to see that, or immutable self-belief, that overcomes all reason. Impervious to fact, let alone reason.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Only worth it if humber answers the question, which he won't.
An impedance mismatch causes reflections in transmission lines for example and has a mechanical counterpart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_impedance
Subduction Zone
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 999
spork's light weight cart needs a wind of a little over 3mph if I remember correctly so even the slower speed should still work. If that treadmill has closed sides you might have a shallower velocity gradient than you would normally have and the "wind speed" at the level of the cart may be significantly lower than 7 mph.
Actually, the speed was not the problem, but getting on and off. A solution exists where the walkway can slow at each end, yet keep the same average velocity, but being French, they thought they knew better.
I think that is better for you.
I don't have to. The paddle is good enough, and I have previously stated that pitot tubes would work. It is mathematically impossible to maintain a constant difference between the wind and boundary flows on the belt, so John's solution is but one combination where perhaps it looks like it works, whereas I have provided the general solution.
That you don't know.
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
Sorry humber, you were right. I see I did respond to your boundary layer injection idea. My response was:
Which is, I must admit, perhaps the more appropriate response.
Which is, I must admit, perhaps the more appropriate response.
Even when I am right, I am wrong . Funny. I always manage to guess the right thing. You are hopelessly stuck in mental rut.
'Big words' makes you sound like you are 12, but I knew most of the words I use, well before then.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
I don't see any of those that relate to river currents, so I wasn't too badly wrong.
Michael C
Graduate Poster
Wrong: there are indeed acceleration and deceleration zones at the ends of the Montparnasse walkway. As I understood it, the problem was more with being scared by the visual sensation of seeing the rest of the world whizz by so fast. Maybe people even felt too much wind...
It's fun to use. I always do so if I'm passing by there and the fast walkway is going in the right direction: there is only one fast walkway, between two slower ones. The slower ones always go in opposite directions while the direction of the fast one is changed depending on which way the majority of commuters is moving.
- Status