• 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)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks :)

Passing cars don't have the same velocity by definition. Velocity is a vector quantity, remember? You're confusing vectors with vector magnitudes.

Yes I know, H'ethetheth, but all discussions assume nor more than 2D rectilinear motion. For cars on the road "speed" is good enough, I think.

Maintaining "zero KE" between two objects, means they must travel exactly alike, in all directions and degrees of freedom. Interaction between one of those objects and something else, means that they no will longer have zero KE
w.r.t each other. In effect, they are the same object until that moment.

An object has "zero KE" w.r.t itself. Arguing for zero KE between objects is a reiteration of that. True, but trivially so.
 
Bear in mind this is two months and hundreds of posts of trying to explain his mis-comceptions to him.

Hi RossFW,

hundreds? you forgot a zero in that number! Over 5000 posts in both threads combined, in fact. And most of them about humber's misunderstanding of simple physics.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Last edited:
And in the catagory of incomprehensible Humber-speak, the winner IS.......

Maintaining "zero KE" between two objects, means they must travel exactly alike, in all directions and degrees of freedom. Interaction between one of those objects and something else, means that they no will longer have zero KE
w.r.t each other. In effect, they are the same object until that moment.

An object has "zero KE" w.r.t itself. Arguing for zero KE between objects is a reiteration of that. True, but trivially so.
 
Yes I know, H'ethetheth, but all discussions assume nor more than 2D rectilinear motion. For cars on the road "speed" is good enough, I think.
Then why did you ask the question like that? It's not as if anyone else has confused these things in this thread.
Oh, and what is the difference between "apparent velocity" and velocity? You mentioned the former in that same post.
 
Last edited:
and what is the difference between "apparent velocity" and velocity? You mentioned the former in that same post.

You've forgotten that Humber has very kindly chosen the surface of the earth as the universal frame of reference for all of us. THAT is REAL velocity, everything else is "APPARENT" (and the Venuvians are P1SSED about it!!)
 
If two cars are at the same velocity, they have the zero KE w.r.t each other? So two passing cars will at some point have zero KE. For how long?

What a ridiculously stupid thing to say (after all this especially).

Evidently we can add "velocity" to the list of words humber doesn't know the meaning of.
 
Hello, Greg. The treadmill is the basis of the windspeed claim and offered as evidence,

But you don't need a treadmill to prove or disprove the theory of how the cart works or that it works, right? Someone here must have posted the "parachute pulling a yoyo" drawing already, I assume. It's on page 9 of my document. Other folks have made their own drawings of it.

You can build it with two paper plates, an empty soda can, some string, and some tape. And then pull on the string and watch the yoyo move faster than teh string. And there's no treadmill involved.


but I say the treadmill itself is false,

there may be minor differences in the exact airflow between on-the-ground and on-the-treadmill.


and therefore can say nothing either way about the cart. That is easily dismissed from a physical point of view, but its claims are supported by ideas that are metaphorical. That makes it difficult to knock down.

models are useful for simplifying reality. They throw out some aspects of reality so that our computers or our small scale model or our test case remains managable. And while a model may not be exactly the same as reality, they can produced results that are useful in the real world.


That cart itself is a 'simple' Newtonian device,

The cart is a "simple machine". Basically, its a block and tackle. See page 13 of my document. If you want to break it down into smaller simple machines, the propeller is a "screw", there's a "wheel and axle", and the right-angle gear box are basically two "screws" working together. But the overall effect of all the different gear ratios from air to prop, prop to shaft, shaft to gearbox, gearbox to axle, axle to wheel, wheel to ground, is that the cart acts like a block and tackle.

The difference is that most block and tackles are designed to reduce the amount of force you need to move an object by increasing the amount of distance you need to exert that force. you might have a block and tackle set up to hoist a 1000 pound weight. And at the end of the rope you're holding, you only have to exert 20 pounds fo force. But to move the weight 1 meter, you'd have to reel in 50 meters of rope.

work = force * distance
1000 lb * 1meter = 20 lb * 50 meter.
THe work you put in is the work you get out.

The cart sets up the block and tackle not to reduce the force needed by increasing the distance you pull the rope, but instead to reduce teh distance you need to pull the rope by increasing the amount of force you need to exert on the rope.

With the parachute-pulling-a-yoyo, the wind pushes on the parachute and moves it 5 meters, and the parachute pulls on the rope wrapped around the yoyo axle, moving the yoyo 10 meters. To do this, the cart has to cut the force from the wind in half by the time it acts on the yoyo. If the wind exerts 10 newtons of force, the cart only has 5 newtons of force to work with to overcome friction and to accelerate the cart via f=ma.

and nothing to do with "frames of reference".

You don't need to understand inertial frames to get that the cart can go DDFTTW. THe parachute pulling a yoyo idea is one way to see how a vehicle can go DDFTTW without a treadmill.

I think DDFTTW is perhaps possible,

It is.

but this approach looks to me like it would need to break a few physical laws on the way.

Well, the thing about using a video to prove something is that videos can be faked. Magicians use slight of hand to make you think something happened that actually didn't. I read an article about scientists versus charlatans somewhere and it was saying that your average scientist isn't good at catching charlatans because the scientist will believe their eyes when combined with the narrative from the charlatan and conclude exactly what the charlatan wants them to conclude. The article went on to say that catching charlatans is actually its own specialization in science.

And of course, pretty much everyone's interoduction to the DDFTTW idea is from a video clip on youtube, with someone attempting to demonstrate a cart. Good science isn't just a visual demo by some anonymous guy on the internet. And a high dose of skepticism is called for.

But if you set aside the video demonstrations (cause video can be faked) and you set aside the issue with the treadmill (because the treadmill isn't needed to build a cart or understand how it works) and instead look at the theory of the cart, as a simple machine, a block and tackle, you should be able to see that its possible to pull on a rope at 5 meters per second and have some other object move at 10 meters per second, and do so by reducing the force exerted.
 
You've forgotten that Humber has very kindly chosen the surface of the earth as the universal frame of reference for all of us. THAT is REAL velocity, everything else is "APPARENT" (and the Venuvians are P1SSED about it!!)
I know he appears to believe that, but I'm not sure if he realizes that he does. I did ask him how fast the earth is, for instance, to which he replied this:
You can choose the velocity of the earth, if you wish.
 
And in the catagory of incomprehensible Humber-speak, the winner IS.......

Perhaps you would like to make a cabin shout-out on that, Captain.
If you can define KE it so that it escapes my definition, I would be interested in hearing it. Over.
 
Then why did you ask the question like that? It's not as if anyone else has confused these things in this thread.
Oh, and what is the difference between "apparent velocity" and velocity? You mentioned the former in that same post.

A drop in the bucket, but can you please give a definition of zero KE that does not imply what I said? Two objects can be at the same velocity, but one is spinning. Do they have zero KE?

Apparent velocity has many definitions, but I use it in the sense of vision. The effect of something slower, but moving backwards, is a result of our vision and subsequent processing. It is no more valid to use your eyes to determine relative velocities, than it is to say that "things get smaller" with distance. In fact, you are seeing the object subtend a smaller angle.
Taking an 'aerial view' of two vehicles at different velocities, makes the distinction clear.

It is possible to experience the sensation of moving backwards on an airport travel belt, by walking quickly and steadily along it, but allowing your eyes to relax (as needed to see those 3d posters). If there are walls close by that catch your peripheral vision, you may well see and feel that you are going backwards.
 
If you can define KE it so that it escapes my definition, I would be interested in hearing it. Over.

KE=1/2M*V^2, velocity being the rate of change of distance between any two objects.

next?
 
What a ridiculously stupid thing to say (after all this especially).
Evidently we can add "velocity" to the list of words humber doesn't know the meaning of.

Yes. Velocity is a vector. Wow!. The subject was cars. Perhaps you can correct the police, should they give you a "speeding" ticket.

Yes, but is it "Real" or "Apparent" velocity he doesn't understand?? :covereyes
You do now.
 
Yes. Velocity is a vector. Wow!. The subject was cars. Perhaps you can correct the police, should they give you a "speeding" ticket.

No, the "incredibly stupid" thing he was referring to was this:
If two cars are at the same velocity, they have the zero KE w.r.t each other? So two passing cars will at some point have zero KE. For how long?
How can two cars with the same velocity pass one another? They're not moving relative to one another, by definition. You're going out of your way to misunderstand and mangle things, and it's really getting old.

Tunny
 
Tunny,

No, he has a DIFFERENT mangled idea. He thinks, for some reason, that if two cars with a relative velocity pass one another (though in the Humberverse, only ONE is doing the passing as velocity is absolute) they have zero velocity and therefore zero KE as they pass each other.

It's actually one of his less delusional notions, so just roll with it for now.....
 
A drop in the bucket, but can you please give a definition of zero KE that does not imply what I said?
Yes.

[latex]$V_1-V_2 = 0\n$[/latex]

[latex]$ E_{kinetic} = \frac{1}{2} m (V_1-V_2)\cdot (V_1-V_2) = 0$[/latex]

Two objects can be at the same velocity, but one is spinning. Do they have zero KE?
Yes, with respect to eachother. However, if you regard individual parts of both masses, then these parts do have KE relative to eachother.

Apparent velocity has many definitions, but I use it in the sense of vision. The effect of something slower, but moving backwards, is a result of our vision and subsequent processing. It is no more valid to use your eyes to determine relative velocities, than it is to say that "things get smaller" with distance. In fact, you are seeing the object subtend a smaller angle.
Taking an 'aerial view' of two vehicles at different velocities, makes the distinction clear.
I'll stick with vectors though, if you don't mind.
 
But you don't need a treadmill to prove or disprove the theory of how the cart works or that it works, right? Someone here must have posted the "parachute pulling a yoyo" drawing already, I assume. It's on page 9 of my document. Other folks have made their own drawings of it.
You are right, I don't need a treadmill. The parachute yo-yo will not work any better than the same object without the 'gearing'.

You can build it with two paper plates, an empty soda can, some string, and some tape. And then pull on the string and watch the yoyo move faster than teh string. And there's no treadmill involved.
Yes, of course. The ancient canard of the cotton reel. No power gain, though.

there may be minor differences in the exact airflow between on-the-ground and on-the-treadmill.
There is no airflow that accurately represents the wind. No relationship to wind travel at all.

models are useful for simplifying reality.
But not to oversimplify it.

They throw out some aspects of reality...
...but not the baby with the bathwater. Physical models are also real.

so that our computers or our small scale model or our test case remains managable. And while a model may not be exactly the same as reality, they can produced results that are useful in the real world.
Yes, computer models are abstracted to information.

The cart is a "simple machine". Basically, its a block and tackle. See page 13 of my document. If you want to break it down into smaller simple machines, the propeller is a "screw", there's a "wheel and axle", and the right-angle gear box are basically two "screws" working together. But the overall effect of all the different gear ratios from air to prop, prop to shaft, shaft to gearbox, gearbox to axle, axle to wheel, wheel to ground, is that the cart acts like a block and tackle.
The propeller is not a screw. It exchanges momentum with the air that strikes it. It rotates because rotary motion is useful in many applications and allows for reciprocation. Sails are otherwise, but the same basic idea.
If the remainder means the propeller drives the wheels through a gearbox, then yes.

The difference is that most block and tackles are designed to reduce the amount of force you need to move an object by increasing the amount of distance you need to exert that force. you might have a block and tackle set up to hoist a 1000 pound weight. And at the end of the rope you're holding, you only have to exert 20 pounds fo force. But to move the weight 1 meter, you'd have to reel in 50 meters of rope.
Can be either or both. The amount of work is the same, but spread over time.
Power =work/time. All the others interpretations boil down to that.
That's why they are used. Human power is limited, but that can be deployed over a longer time. Motor horsepower is limited, but a little late to work is OK.

work = force * distance
1000 lb * 1meter = 20 lb * 50 meter.
THe work you put in is the work you get out.
Yes.

The cart sets up the block and tackle not to reduce the force needed by increasing the distance you pull the rope, but instead to reduce teh distance you need to pull the rope by increasing the amount of force you need to exert on the rope.
Why would you think that is is only the force that is important? Why not increase that in exchange for perhaps less velocity?

With the parachute-pulling-a-yoyo, the wind pushes on the parachute and moves it 5 meters, and the parachute pulls on the rope wrapped around the yoyo axle, moving the yoyo 10 meters. To do this, the cart has to cut the force from the wind in half by the time it acts on the yoyo. If the wind exerts 10 newtons of force, the cart only has 5 newtons of force to work with to overcome friction and to accelerate the cart via f=ma.
Power is limited by the chute. The gearing will change the way that is deployed. Longer or shorter acceleration times, perhaps.

You don't need to understand inertial frames to get that the cart can go DDFTTW.
Or otherwise.

THe parachute pulling a yoyo idea is one way to see how a vehicle can go DDFTTW without a treadmill.
No, the yo-yo will not work. The treadmill is still false, even if it were to do so.

Well asserted.

Well, the thing about using a video to prove something is that videos can be faked. Magicians use slight of hand to make you think something happened that actually didn't. I read an article about scientists versus charlatans somewhere and it was saying that your average scientist isn't good at catching charlatans because the scientist will believe their eyes when combined with the narrative from the charlatan and conclude exactly what the charlatan wants them to conclude. The article went on to say that catching charlatans is actually its own specialization in science.
Yes. I know that. This is the James Randi Forum.
Some people are Charlatans. Some are (titular) scientists,some are not. The trick is to separate them from the remainder, not to generalise about them.

And of course, pretty much everyone's interoduction to the DDFTTW idea is from a video clip on youtube, with someone attempting to demonstrate a cart. Good science isn't just a visual demo by some anonymous guy on the internet. And a high dose of skepticism is called for.
Yes.
It looks fast, but then, that is to be expected. Wind is powerful.

But if you set aside the video demonstrations (cause video can be faked) and you set aside the issue with the treadmill (because the treadmill isn't needed to build a cart or understand how it works) and instead look at the theory of the cart, as a simple machine, a block and tackle, you should be able to see that its possible to pull on a rope at 5 meters per second and have some other object move at 10 meters per second, and do so by reducing the force exerted.
Videos are not time-continuous, but sampled. There are many artifacts, and built around our vision.
I have seen the videos, and know what they represent.

The analogy of the block and tackle is taken to breaking point.

ETA:
This thread is "about the treadmill" or "inertial frames".
 
Last edited:
Yes.

[latex]$V_1-V_2 = 0\n$[/latex]

[latex]$ E_{kinetic} = \frac{1}{2} m (V_1-V_2)\cdot (V_1-V_2) = 0$[/latex]
That is a simplified equation. Yes.
But what I mean? What is the significance? Yes, A- B =0.

Yes, with respect to eachother. However, if you regard individual parts of both masses, then these parts do have KE relative to eachother.
Let's say you are on an object in space. You get out your saw and cut it in half. Being space, it will stay there. That is the nature of zero KE objects.
The argument is not supportable if one is spinning, because only the notional centre of mass can be said to have the same velocity. All other degrees of freedom do not.

I'll stick with vectors though, if you don't mind.
You should.
 
Tunny,

No, he has a DIFFERENT mangled idea. He thinks, for some reason, that if two cars with a relative velocity pass one another (though in the Humberverse, only ONE is doing the passing as velocity is absolute) they have zero velocity and therefore zero KE as they pass each other.

It's actually one of his less delusional notions, so just roll with it for now.....

If the cars pass each other they have a non-zero relative velocity. If they have a non-zero relative velocity they can't both have zero velocity in any frame, therefore at least one of them has non-zero KE in any frame.

I think there's a problem with the phrase "less delusional".... it's like "less completely wrong".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom