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

[CORed]

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.

So what happened between then and now? Stroke? Head trauma?

 

[humber]

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.

I doubt your capacity to judge, considering that Bainbridge's example could not be more inappropriate. Not even close!

However, I would be interested in knowing why, rather than the religiously blunt reaction of someone presented with an idea that goes beyond them. Be prepared if you respond.

 

[humber]

So what happened between then and now. Stroke? Head trauma?

Trite, but not arch. (some small words for you)

 

[CORed]

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.

I think you flipped a sign again, and said "right" when you meant "wrong"

 

[jjcote]

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.

Hard to figure out what that means, because although it follows the rules of English syntax, beyond that it's just muddle. (What does power the real wind, by the way?)

Let's simplify the question of the "a-h" windspeeds. Forget the speed, just tell us the direction at each level. Finding this to be misleading because of the perspective that it's viewed from? Fine, pick any perspective you like, tell us what it is, and tell us the direction of the airflow at each level. This is a question. If you feel that we have the wrong answer, then you have to tell us what the right answer is, not just claim that the question is wrong.

 

[humber]

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...

....'as you understand' it perhaps. Average walking pace is 4.6km/hr for women, and 5.6km/hr for men. Speed walking is around 8.5km/hr. Hardly a frightening difference. Bicycles must be hell.

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.

Yes, they are quite fun. In Hong Kong, there are a series of them that make their way up the hillside.

 

[CORed]

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.

I can make a brick fly around my room by the power of my mind only. Of course, I consider my body to be an extension of my mind, so my arm and hand may be involved. However, I generally refrain from doing this, because it tends to break things.

 

[Christian Klippel]

An impedance mismatch causes reflections in transmission lines for example and has a mechanical counterpart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_impedance

Clearly you have only seen the word "mechanical" and again jumped to a wrong conclusion. From that very article:

"Mechanical impedance is a measure of how much a structure resists motion when subjected to a given force. It relates forces with velocities acting on a mechanical system."

A rock in a river is not a structure. It is not a mechanical system. And it doesn't involve frequencies. Same for the river.

Again, you fail miserably. But thats nothing new at all.

 

[CORed]

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.

He seems to have latched onto the boundary layer thing with a death grip, though, which is pretty silly, because even if he was right, it would in no way invalidate the treadmill as a model for the performance of the cart near windspeed. He seems to think that by showing any difference, no matter how small between the treadmill and the "real" wind, he can invalidate the whole thing. He's wrong that there's a difference, and he's wrong that it invalidates the model, even if there were a difference. So what if the boundary layer is different (it isn't), if the propeller is seeing the same wind on the treadmill and the "real wind? Does he think that the boundary layer, which is magically somehow moving faster than the belt, is pushing the wheels? Now that's "wrong and backwards".

He keeps promising a devastating refutation of the treadmill model, and I think in his mind, he has done so several times, yet all of us poor ignorant folks are too dense to see it.

 

[humber]

Hard to figure out what that means, because although it follows the rules of English syntax, beyond that it's just muddle. (What does power the real wind, by the way?)

Humber wrote:

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.

Let me solve this tricky syntactical conundrum for you .

It is blindingly obvious that the flow is moving with the belt....

Even a layman should appreciate that the boundary layer is viscously attached to the belt, so will flow with the belt.

....This is because the belt powers the "wind", whereas a road does not power the real wind...

The boundary layer is associated with the belt, because the belt is the only source of power for the treadmill "winds". However, it is not the case that roads power the wind or boundary layer in the external world ( a.k.a nature, the environment).

....and even then, it is going the wrong way...

The belt-generated boundary layer, is in the opposite direction to that found in the external world ( a.k.a nature, the environment).
In the external world, the boundary layer flows in the direction of what is often called 'the wind', whereas on the treadmill it flows opposite to that expected direction.

....because without air flow to represent the wind, it cannot stay on the belt, let alone travel.

This suggests that the cart is actually traveling the wrong way and should be traveling with the belt, in which case, the boundary layer would be in the appropriate direction.
However, this would result in the cart simply traveling with the belt as expected of a can of beans, perhaps. (Not very noteworthy.)
Without airflow to represent a tailwind, the cart cannot travel with that belt beyond that limited manner. It is therefore a matter of necessity to the windspeed claim, that the cart be set against the travel of the belt.
(It looks more impressive, but that is all.)

Let's simplify the question of the "a-h" windspeeds. Forget the speed, just tell us the direction at each level. Finding this to be misleading because of the perspective that it's viewed from? Fine, pick any perspective you like, tell us what it is, and tell us the direction of the airflow at each level. This is a question. If you feel that we have the wrong answer, then you have to tell us what the right answer is, not just claim that the question is wrong.

Is that not clear? You want maths for that? Walk before running.

(1)In nature, the boundary layer flows in the direction of the wind, but slower.

(2)On the treadmill, the tailwind is said to flow up the belt, to drive the rear ofthe cart. The boundary layer, moves with the belt, and so in the opposite direction of the tailwind.

(3) It is not possible to reconcile this situation in a manner that makes them equivalent.

(4) The "layers" do not matter, because of that eclipsing error.

Patently obvious. 10 seconds though for me, if not immediate.

 

[Christian Klippel]

(1)In nature, the boundary layer flows in the direction of the wind, but slower.

Which makes it flow in the opposite direction of the wind, in the reference frame of that wind.

(2)On the treadmill, the tailwind is said to flow up the belt, to drive the rear ofthe cart.
The boundary layer, moves with the belt, and so in the opposite direction of the tailwind.

Which is what it does in the "real wind" as well, as seen from the ref. frame of that wind.

(3) It is not possible to reconcile this situation in a manner that makes them equivalent.

But only for you. Everyone else gets it right.

(4) The "layers" do not matter, because of that eclipsing error.

There is no error, let alone an eclipsing one.

Patently obvious. 10 seconds though for me, if not immediate.

Yes, you got it immediately wrong. As usual. But that's all about it.

 

[humber]

Clearly you have only seen the word "mechanical" and again jumped to a wrong conclusion. From that very article:

"Mechanical impedance is a measure of how much a structure resists motion when subjected to a given force. It relates forces with velocities acting on a mechanical system."

A rock in a river is not a structure. It is not a mechanical system. And it doesn't involve frequencies. Same for the river.

Again, you fail miserably. But thats nothing new at all.

Sorry Christian, but you know very little. That very reference shows that it is an impedance, a complex frequency dependent impedance, (Z)
These effects are present in flows. Standing waves in water, air?
Also acoustics, again. How do you think a Helmholtz resonator works?

 

[humber]

Which makes it flow in the opposite direction of the wind, in the reference frame of that wind.

Wrong, but you would have to do the same on the belt or have boundary layers faster than the wind?

Which is what it does in the "real wind" as well, as seen from the ref. frame of that wind.

Same as above.

But only for you. Everyone else gets it right.

No, they don't. It was a complete surprise.

There is no error, let alone an eclipsing one.

Simple denial is not going to work

 

[CORed]

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?

There are some fairly long moving walkways at Denver International Airport, but they are on the concourses, so you have to go through security to get to them, which means you need a boarding pass, and I have a feeling the TSA folks might take a dim view if I were to try to take an anemometer, a smoke generator and a propeller cart through. There is a train out to the concourses, so you could do the hobo experiment there, too, though the other passengers might wonder what all the jumping around is about.

 

[humber]

He seems to have latched onto the boundary layer thing with a death grip, ".

He keeps promising a devastating refutation of the treadmill model, and I think in his mind, he has done so several times, yet all of us poor ignorant folks are too dense to see it.

It is no trivial. It shows that the treadmill is invalid, you see. Not the boundary layer perse, that does not matter so much, but what it means. You have made a big mistake, and this is the alarm bell, but I suspect you will ignore it.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Some ASCII art to visualize it, just for you humber.

Real wind over road, as seen in the ref.frame of the road:

  >>>>>>>>>>    Wind, 10km/h rel. to observer
  >>            Boundary layer flow, 2km/h
 |----------    Road
 +--Observer stationary on the ground

Difference Wind vs. boundary: 8km/h

Real wind over road, as seen in the ref.frame of someone moving at 5km/h:

       >>>>>            Wind, 5km/h rel. to observer
    <<<                 Boundary layer flow, 3km/h opposite
      |----------       Road
      ^--Observer at 5km/h

Difference Wind vs. boundary: 8km/h

Real wind over road, as seen in the ref.frame of the wind:

                         Wind, 0km/h rel. to observer
<<<<<<<<                 Boundary layer flow, 8km/h opposite
       |----------       Road
       ^--Observer at 10 mk/h windspeed

Difference Wind vs. boundary: 8km/h

Is it really that hard to grasp, humber?

 

[humber]

There are some fairly long moving walkways at Denver International Airport, but they are on the concourses, so you have to go through security to get to them, which means you need a boarding pass, and I have a feeling the TSA folks might take a dim view if I were to try to take an anemometer, a smoke generator and a propeller cart through. There is a train out to the concourses, so you could do the hobo experiment there, too, though the other passengers might wonder what all the jumping around is about.

Yes, they do. They seem always to be behind the security checks. The staff have nothing better to do than look for terrorists under the beds, or bother people doing innocuous experiments. Supermarket staff can be a problem, but they have no authority, but the belts are short.

 

[humber]

Some ASCII art to visualize it, just for you humber.

Real wind over road, as seen in the ref.frame of the road:

  >>>>>>>>>>    Wind, 10km/h rel. to observer
  >>            Boundary layer flow, 2km/h
 |----------    Road
 +--Observer stationary on the ground

Difference Wind vs. boundary: 8km/h

Real wind over road, as seen in the ref.frame of someone moving at 5km/h:

       >>>>>            Wind, 5km/h rel. to observer
    <<<                 Boundary layer flow, 3km/h opposite
      |----------       Road
      ^--Observer at 5km/h

Difference Wind vs. boundary: 8km/h

Real wind over road, as seen in the ref.frame of the wind:

                         Wind, 0km/h rel. to observer
<<<<<<<<                 Boundary layer flow, 8km/h opposite
       |----------       Road
       ^--Observer at windspeed

Difference Wind vs. boundary: 8km/h

Is it really that hard to grasp, humber?

Easy, but wrong.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Sorry Christian, but you know very little. That very reference shows that it is an impedance, a complex frequency dependent impedance, (Z)

I'm sure you can tell us what mechanical structure a rock is, can you? And how a flow consists of complex frequencies, can you?

These effects are present in flows. Standing waves in water, air?
Also acoustics, again. How do you think a Helmholtz resonator works?

Ah, i see. Again you are moving the goalpost and switch the topic. No one talked about acoustics, let alone a Helmholtz resonator. But then, it's your usually way of the "look, there is elvis!" strategy, just to try to distract others from pointing out your obvious errors.

 

[D'rok]

Some ASCII art to visualize it, just for you humber.

Real wind over road, as seen in the ref.frame of the road:

  >>>>>>>>>>    Wind, 10km/h rel. to observer
  >>            Boundary layer flow, 2km/h
 |----------    Road
 +--Observer stationary on the ground

Difference Wind vs. boundary: 8km/h

Real wind over road, as seen in the ref.frame of someone moving at 5km/h:

       >>>>>            Wind, 5km/h rel. to observer
    <<<                 Boundary layer flow, 3km/h opposite
      |----------       Road
      ^--Observer at 5km/h

Difference Wind vs. boundary: 8km/h

Real wind over road, as seen in the ref.frame of the wind:

                         Wind, 0km/h rel. to observer
<<<<<<<<                 Boundary layer flow, 8km/h opposite
       |----------       Road
       ^--Observer at 10 mk/h windspeed

Difference Wind vs. boundary: 8km/h

Is it really that hard to grasp, humber?

Lurking Arts grad here...

That was very helpful. Thanks.