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

[humber]

I just want to be clear on this, humber. You are saying that there isn't enough information for you to answer my first question? I'm only asking a question to see if you can do some math like you say you can. Providing a proof of the amount of force available is futile if you can't follow along.

The question assumes the calculation. There is no independent data that can falsify that conclusion. As you suggest, a simple arithmetic exercise.

My technique is better expressed as attempt an explanation only for you either to ignore it because you don't understand it, or flatly and without any logical (to people in the real world) reason, deny that it has any relevance because it doesn't talk about KE.

Well maybe, Mender, but not like this.
I understand enough to anticipate the answer from the first line, Mender.

Easy: look up Newton's first law.
Har-har, "assume no air drag". The BMW team is testing the movement of air over their cars. When they want to include the effects of the tires turning, they start the treadmill. Obviously they know a lot more about what they are doing and what they are testing than you do.

That will not be useful. The real load on the tires is much higher than that.
Rolling and load resistance are complicated, and variable.
They use 2 or 3 sets in an F1 race.

Here's the question again. If you can;t get an answer using the information provided, you won't be able to follow my proof, as it requires a working knowledge of numbers and such.

Mender... really. I can run rings around your math skills.
I oppose its general use, because it is so often a bluff, and it leaves out those without the necessary skills. In this forum 100% bluff, and entirely cookbook examples.
The proof is important, Mender, because even a calculator can add up.
There are countless internet applets to do any calculation, but the reasoning, is not wikkiable.

"I will ask you to consider the following scenario that makes use of normal physics. Remember that the ground is considered to be flat and smooth.

A fishing reel with lots of line is attached by a scale to the ground. The other end of the fishing line is attached to a sail cart. The sail cart with a fishing line attached to it is released in a 10 mph wind. It reaches 9 mph, losing 1 mph because of rolling resistance.

The simplest but entirely incorrect assumption, is to make that 1mph/"unit of drag"?

You apply the brake on the fishing reel to slow the cart down to 8 mph and read the amount of pull (force) on the scale. Let's say it reads 100 grams. Based on these numbers, what is the rolling resistance of the cart when it is traveling at 9 mph in a 10 mph wind?

The entirely wrong the answer you seek may be:
So drum roll.......one unit of drag = 100grms.?
Is that what you mean?

Terrible, Mender.
(1)You are trying to plot a velocity/force profile, based on two data points, and on the assumption that you already know it. Not logical.
You still no not know the correct answer, because you do not know that load line.
(2) When under braking load, the "rolling resistance" becomes a loaded resistance.

Now you slow the cart to 6 mph. What is the reading on the scale now?"
Just for the record, and before I post the answers and without anyone else posting answers, does anyone else feel that there isn't enough information to answer the questions?

No, it is not 300gram .

 

[humber]

We'll add "Drag" and "Thrust" to the "Doesn't understand" pile then!!

That makes it double for you Captain. Negative drag is not the "opposite" of thrust.

 

[RossFW]

humber, I notice you stopped responding to our little discussion. Do you still think the relative velocity and/or KE between two passing cars moving at constant velocities goes to zero at some point, or have you understood your mistake?

Sol,

I think you'll find silence is Humeresque for "I know I'm wrong, and can't even think of blather to cover my error. "

So, yes he has!!

 

[humber]

Go to this link. Input 104 inch diameter prop, 22 inch pitch and 100 rpm.

http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/4223215501/staticthrust.htm

You're welcome, humber.

Clive, I replied to your PM.

It was indeed a request for the data, but to Greg. To make a point, Mender.
Now if you can find one that fit on the cart...
I would be more worried that my space cart looks like a toy on top of a sheet of paper.

 

[RossFW]

That makes it double for you Captain. Negative drag is not the "opposite" of thrust.

No, POSITIVE drag (well, just drag. There IS no positive or negative drag) is the opposite of thrust.

But only by definition and common usage throughout the world.

So I know that doesn't include you....

So now "Negative and Positive" need to be added....

 

[humber]

You mean by reducing pressure, you can't turn gas into ... gas?

JB

No, but to a less dense gas...than you.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I know what you're saying, but I don't think humber knows what a hyperbola is, let alone that it would be the distance in this case. But it probably is true that many of humber's arise from failing to understand the difference between scalars and vectors.

That, and the instinctive need to prioritize reference frames.
And his difficulties in assuming another vantage point.
And his overpowering inability to admit mistakes.

humber, I notice you stopped responding to our little discussion. Do you still think the relative velocity and/or KE between two passing cars moving at constant velocities goes to zero at some point, or have you understood your mistake?

I was thinking about this. My conclusion was that he may have been thinking about the radial velocity component, or perhaps that he thought we were. But then, maybe not.

 

[RossFW]

No, but to a less dense gas...than you.

Still waiting on the citation....

 

[sol invictus]

I was thinking about this. My conclusion was that he may have been thinking about the radial velocity component, or perhaps that he thought we were. But then, maybe not.

That's what Dan had in mind too - hence the hyperbola. But this is all way over humber's head...

 

[humber]

This thread has developed into an exploration of Humber's perception of the validity of classical physics, and no matter how much he writes, no-one can get any more understanding of his theories.
It would help If he would respond to particular questions. I'd love to know if he finds his methods work in practice, for him. That is, if he has a practical problem involving physical objects in the conventional physical world, involving other people outside (who could validate that they experience the same world), can he work out and predict the outcome of events. It seems to most of us that it would be very dangerous to get involved, since the force and mass interactions could affect our bodies, limbs etc.
Are there some basic experiments we could agree on which involve the use of our bodies rather than only external objects like carts etc, which would give us real motivation to be correct? Would Humber survive, could we tell?
I'd like him to predict this one and explain why. If two cars accelerate toward eachother then maintain a constant velocity, then launch off a ramp into the air, and collide mid air, will they get damaged before hitting the ground? Would Humber try this?

You are afraid of ghosts of your own making, Semper. My methods do work well, in fact, very well.

In my work, I notice that the more reliance there is on detail and unknown variables or resort to vague phenomenon, the more likley it is that I am dealing with someone who has poor understanding.

The treadmill can be dismissed in minutes by simple logic, yet the topic extends to Einstein and "inertial frames". It is a domestic device, like a vacuum cleaner, but hangs upon metaphors. It is quite obviously a cart spinning on a belt. I can, and have, recreated the same effect by other methods. A sheet of paper, with a weight at attached, makes a short, but useful treadmill. It is no more than a toy.
TAD's technical knowledge is woeful.

 

[RossFW]

In my work, I notice that the more reliance there is on detail and unknown variables or resort to vague phenomenon, the more likley it is that I am dealing with someone who has poor understanding.

Wow- I had no idea that changing light-bulbs in public convieniences had such relience on advanced physics....

 

[humber]

No, POSITIVE drag (well, just drag. There IS no positive or negative drag) is the opposite of thrust.

One has a positive incremental resistance the other negative. The absolute value can be quite the opposite of what you suggest, Captain.

But only by definition and common usage throughout the world.

Your definitions are common, though unworldly.

So I know that doesn't include you....

again

So now "Negative and Positive" need to be added....

Oh, I forgot, Captain. You are a "topsiturvian". Slower is backwards and so forth. So go ahead, add 'em up.

 

[H'ethetheth]

That's what Dan had in mind too - hence the hyperbola. But this is all way over humber's head...

Ah, of course, yes. Thanks.

 

[humber]

Wow- I had no idea that changing light-bulbs in public convieniences had such relience on advanced physics....

What you do in public conveniences is illegal in many countries, Captain.

 

[RossFW]

One has a positive incremental resistance the other negative. The absolute value can be quite the opposite of what you suggest, Captain.

And there I was thinking we were talking about aerodynamics. Yes, physical objects act JUST like electrical currents (in YOUR universe!!)

 

[humber]

That, and the instinctive need to prioritize reference frames.
And his difficulties in assuming another vantage point.
And his overpowering inability to admit mistakes.

I was thinking about this. My conclusion was that he may have been thinking about the radial velocity component, or perhaps that he thought we were. But then, maybe not.

I drew weary of it. KE land is such a silly place.
It doesn't matter is the point is solid or not, because it highlights the vapidity of the idea, and how little thought has been put in to it.
It is yet another demonstration that a simple daily occurrence, such as two cars passing, can have you all straining at the bit to find the nearest post-hoc patch, and then shoot yourselves in the foot, by inadvertently exposing another weakness elsewhere.
That's why.

 

[Christian Klippel]

by inadvertently exposing another weakness elsewhere.
That's why.

Yes, your weakness. Not elsewhere, but here. That's why we are all pretty sure that you have no clue at all.

 

[humber]

And there I was thinking we were talking about aerodynamics. Yes, physical objects act JUST like electrical currents (in YOUR universe!!)

No, all over the world, Captain. You need to get out more.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...og=normal&id=IJGNAI000006000002000089000001&i

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5812/620

Most physical phenomenon, in fact. Yes "real aero" drag too.

Ooops! I said 'drag', and so close after mentioning public conveniences too...

 

[H'ethetheth]

You are afraid of ghosts of your own making, Semper. My methods do work well, in fact, very well.

But to what end? That's what I'd like to know.

In my work, I notice that the more reliance there is on detail and unknown variables or resort to vague phenomenon,...

...vague phenomena such as reference frames, coordinate transformations and relative motion? Yes, it would be really helpful if someone would find a way to quantify those things somehow.

The treadmill can be dismissed in minutes by simple logic, yet the topic extends to Einstein and "inertial frames". It is a domestic device, like a vacuum cleaner, but hangs upon metaphors. It is quite obviously a cart spinning on a belt. I can, and have, recreated the same effect by other methods. A sheet of paper, with a weight at attached, makes a short, but useful treadmill. It is no more than a toy.
TAD's technical knowledge is woeful.

Say humber, all silliness aside. I'd like to talk about your trolley for a bit.
I agree that it is a good equivalent test for the cart. Could you sketch the boundary layer velocity gradient at the trolley's surface for me?

 

[sol invictus]

I drew weary of it.

Interesting slip.

KE land is such a silly place.
It doesn't matter is the point is solid or not, because it highlights the vapidity of the idea, and how little thought has been put in to it.
It is yet another demonstration that a simple daily occurrence, such as two cars passing, can have you all straining at the bit to find the nearest post-hoc patch, and then shoot yourselves in the foot, by inadvertently exposing another weakness elsewhere.
That's why.

Translation: It finally became clear even to me that I was wrong in such a stupid and transparent way that I couldn't hide it anymore, so now I'm going to ignore it and move on to getting something else wrong instead.