-
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
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
And i'd like to know what that all has to do with electrical currents, as humber claims.
But then, for moving goalposts, everything is just fine for humber, as long as that way he can distract people from the actually discussed flaw's in his arguments.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
"Those basic axioms have been proven."
"Mathematics will simply be an obfuscation."
"If they pass when what the law regards as "in the same direction" there must be an instant when their relative velocities are zero."
"No, it does not have zero KE relative to you. It has zero velocity relative to you. "
Etc. etc.
Last edited:
So what are we today, Jungian or Freudian?
Interesting lack of worldliness again...
The prison library has just taken stock of some new items. One of them is by Foucault, and I am sure you know what he says about prisons! I imagine the warder will confiscate them.
No, after getting the following addmisions, even if inadvertent...
(1) For motion over the ground, KE relative to that ground is necessary
(2) Motion is relative, or relative to the ground according to circumstance
( the closing distance remark)
(3) That parked cars are indeed stationary
(4) Cars in transporters are not
(5) That any two objects i.e. even those on parallel highways, can be ascribed a magical force that binds them
...I thought that was enough.
I would be more worried about my 4-vector mathematical edifice, looking more and more like a toy on a belt. You did try the toy car and paper? No need really, most can just "see" it.
Over-inflated ideas of Godel's work. Common in university halls
Also, you failed to address my remark that is was a lemma.
From you, always a bluff.
No substance. Told you that from the start.
How else?
Last edited:
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Translation: run humber, run!!
So, humber - do you still think the relative velocity or KE between two passing cars moving at constant velocities is zero at some point?
Yes or no?
But I did get all those from only you, or do you deny that?
Yes to velocites.
Zero KE is your idea, and a pointless one. I was toying with you over that.
Last edited:
Michael C
Graduate Poster
You have? I'd like to see that. What methods did you use to create the same effect? Why not make a video of it and post it to Youtube?
Actually Christian, that was The Captain's claim.
However, there are electrical and mechanical analogues for negative resistance or drag.
How about discussing why the cart on the treadmill, is not like a toy car with a sheet of paper under it? Did you try it? You can buy these toys for less than 2 Euro.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
1) yes
2) incomprehensible
3) no
4) no
5) no
Good - so humber confirms that it believes that two cars with constant non-zero relative velocity have zero relative velocity.
I wonder which basic term it's misunderstanding this time? Any guesses?
I am going to do just that, Micheal_C.
Well, I have done other tests, but here is another.
Conditions are the same in each case. The balloons are simultaneously cut from their moorings. The observer is the same distance away in each case.
ETA:
The mooring is attached to the belt. The real wind blows left to right
In the real world, the balloons pass left to right w.r.t the observer.
On the belt, the observer passes by the "windspeed" balloons.
There is a difference, and it is arbitrarily large.
Attachments
Last edited:
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Because discussing things with you is a fruitless effort. You are obviously too stupid to even understand the most basics principles of physics, as you have repeatedly shown by your posts.
And even if one would engage in a "discussion" with you, all you do is to move goalposts, evade questions, and act even more stupid with every post.
Also, you are reluctant to get educated, fail to understand what people are saying, and refuse to admit your own errors.
Really, no sense in trying to have meaningful conversation with you. You proved your inabilities through over a thousand posts. You made yourself the laughing stock, and obviously you are happy with that.
Well, i'm happy to have a really good laugh about you, sometimes together with my friends. That's all that keeps me here. You know, it's really rare to find so much stubbornness and idiocy concentrated in posts of a single person (that is, your posts). You make every IDer, sasquatch believer, over-unity crackpot, etc. look like little childs. You are truly the master of delusion.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Calling drawings about things you don't understand a "test", and to claim to have "done" that test, is just beyond stupidity.
Fact is, you have done exactly nothing. If you would have actually conducted such a test, you would have spotted your errors. But this way it is just proof that all your "tests" and stuff and purely in your mind, and based on misconceptions of the reality. But as usual, you blatantly fail to see that.
Last edited:
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Ummm.... what is it?
Please explain, because to the rest of us "balloons pass left to right w.r.t the observer" and "observer passes the balloons right to left" sound strangely similar...
Last edited:
Michael C
Graduate Poster
Great. I look forward to seeing your demonstration on YouTube.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Hey RossFW,
even then, remember that it would involve math. And as humber told us, math is only obfuscation!
Greetings,
Chris
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
Nice drawing, I must say. And we seem to be getting closer.
In the real world, the balloons pass left to right w.r.t the observer.
On the belt, the observer passes by the "windspeed" balloons.
There is a difference, and it is arbitrarily large.
I'm going to assume that the difference you refer to is the difference in distance between the balloons as they pass by the bunny?
This difference is not arbitrarily large, as I can state the exact limits of the difference.
For a small treadmill the boundary layer does not reach up to the balloons so they will arrive at the same time. The wind driven balloons will not. The difference will then be:
[latex]\small{
$ \int_{t_{snip}}^{t_{pass}} \int_{h_1}^{h_2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial h}} V_{wind}(h,t)
dh dt [/latex]
where h1 and h2 are the heights of the balloons above the surface. Vwind is the boundary layer windspeed, and tpass is the time the first balloon passes the bunny.
In the case of an infinitely long treadmill or trolley, the boundary layer thicknesses and velocity gradients will be about equal, making the difference 0.
This calculation assumes 2D laminar horizontal flow.
Anyone, feel free correct me if I've made a mistake. I do do that.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 999
- Status