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

[humber]

I keep having this humorous image of Humber "retiring" from the space program after providing NASA with his analysis of why it would be impossible for two spacecraft to dock in orbit.

"What about the KE?? My god, those things mass many thousands of kilograms, and they're each traveling at 27000 kph! When they touch, blammo, it's game over!"

Tunny

Tiny particles can blast big holes in the external skin.
BTW. Who is your writer? Comedy gold.

 

[humber]

Name two.

A smart guy like you Captain, should be able to work it out from this. Over.

http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/analogy.html
or
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v5637t5826h38h23/
http://www.waset.org/pwaset/v30/v30-55.pdf
Same for hydraulics, rheology, solids, foams, acoustics....

 

[humber]

... has been reduced to...

Wow! What happened to all the other stuff you mentioned earlier? Where's the "no significant KE from any frame" and "cart 'balance'" stuff? Does their omission from this new list mean you have withdrawn those earlier claims? (That would be sensible in my opinion, but you should tell us so we know, and you did say you would.)

In any case, it's not up to me to refute your crazy (but occasionally amusing) fantasies. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." (Actually, even a tiny shred of proof would be a start in your case.) You are the (very) odd one out here. It's up to you make some kind of coherent arguments to support your various claims. Instead you have demonstrated an uncanny ability to string words together in more or less meaningless sentences for a couple of months on end, but not much else.

Anyway, let's look briefly at at the first item on your new list:

"1, Paddle wheel. (No)"

What is that paddle wheel all about? In my view it is a completely unnecessary complication (introduced by you of course). It seems to be a only a very roundabout way to describe the difference in velocity for two "layers" in the air above the treadmill belt and road. Why not just subtract one "1-dimensional velocity" (using signs for direction) from the other? You have to do that anyway to determine what your paddle is going to do! This all relates to your claim that the behaviour of some part of the boundary layer above the treadmill belt relative to the non-boundary layer air higher above that would be significantly different to what would be seen in the "equivalent" road scenario. (Same wind, surface type, etc.) Something (never clearly described) was "going the wrong way" according to you.

The ball is in your court on this, and has been for a long time. John Freestone presented you with several straightforward questions about the issue, and I (and probably others) put similar questions to you before that. We had to do that because nobody could understand any of your garbled attempts to explain yourself before that. You've made no serious attempt to respond to John's questions, or the earlier ones. Why? It seems pretty obvious to me - you can't answer without looking like a complete idiot. You have to either persevere with your original fantasy in the face of the results from a thought experiment that a five year could probably follow, or shoot yourself in the foot by suddenly agreeing with what everybody else has been telling you all along. In other words, that the flows above the belt and above the road, relative to the road or belt respectively, are essentially identical in all cases.

So, if you "seriously" want to resolve the boundary layer question (hah-hah), then respond to those questions. In the absence of any coherent and logical response, I will continue to observe that you are apparently incoherent and illogical (and increasingly non-responsive also).

Let's get that first one out of the way before wasting any more time on the others.

No, you tell me why the paddle is wrong.

 

[humber]

Whatever.

You're a compete and utter waste of time, and more importantly you've ceased entertaining me for the moment, so I'm done.

I would say you are.

As I have claimed, when the question is not text book or formatted for easy assimilation, you flounder.

No answer = failure.
Trite, obvious solution = failure

 

[RossFW]

Yep,

Looked at you links, not a "Negative Drag" as a term in Aerodynamics amongst them.

Perhaps I could put it this way- Drag is the sum all forces in the opposite direction to motion.

What, then, do you define "Negative drag" (as a term appliable to Aerodynamics) as?

And we haven't said "Over" since the '40s.

 

[RossFW]

No answer = failure.

That about sums up "Cavitation in gasses" then, doesn't it!

 

[mender]

The power is generated by the action of the wind on the prop. That is 100% of what is available.

No, this is the limit of your ability to understand. Maybe if you spent more time reading about physics and less time looking up words in your thesaurus you might be able to change that.

 

[RossFW]

He is revealing his ethos, though. he believes that if he argues and argues, blusters and blusters, until we all just give up he's "Won".

Remaining ignorant-great prize!

 

[mender]

As I have claimed, when the question is not text book or formatted for easy assimilation, you flounder.

No answer = failure.
Trite, obvious solution = failure

Yes, you sure did flounder, didn't you, humbre. And you got it wrong.

Wrong answer = failure.
Unable to comprehend = failure.
Too arrogant to learn = failure.

 

[mender]

He is revealing his ethos, though. he believes that if he argues and argues, blusters and blusters, until we all just give up he's "Won".

Remaining ignorant-great prize!

Apparently that's exactly what he's after. He's welcome to it.

 

[jjcote]

No, you tell me why the paddle is wrong.

Well, that's easy. Because you didn't actually build one. If you had, you would have seen that it doesn't behave the way that you seem to think that it will. When you brought it up, several people pointed out the errors in your description and explained what it will actually do. But since you've asserted that it will behave in a certain way, I guess that's how it will behave in the humberverse. Meanwhile, the ball is on your court to tell us why the ladder with toilet paper hanging from each rung is wrong. (It's hard to imagine how it could be wrong, since none of us has said what it will do, I don't think, but we want to know what you believe it will do.) Planted vertically in the ground in a wind, or mounted vertically on a treadmill in still air, what direction will each piece of tissue get blown?

 

[Dan O.]

Anyway, let's look briefly at at the first item on your new list:

"1, Paddle wheel. (No)"

I seem to recall humber making some imagined claim involving a paddle wheel but he never clarified what he was saying. If he would actually state clearly what he thinks the paddle wheel will do and how it will be different between real wind and the effective wind of a treadmill reference, we could produce a video showing once again that humber is wrong.

I presume humber is still following this thread so I'll present a simple scenario using the paddle wheel and no numbers (since we already know humber can't do math). In the unlikely event that humber responds with a clear claim, I expect it will be quoted (with loud gasps) so I'm not going to even bother taking humber off ignore.


In the first scenario, we are flying in a hot air balloon high enough above the flat ground (this must be Kansas) to be in free flowing air. The paddle wheel is suspended by its axle on two strings so that it can rotate freely about the axle and kept parallel to the ground and perpendicular to our direction of motion over the ground. As we lower the paddle wheel starting in the free flowing air down to just above the ground level, describe the action of the paddle wheel.

In the second scenario, there is no wind and we are suspended (possibly in a hot air balloon) high enough above a large moving treadmill to be in still air. The paddle wheel is again suspended by its axle on two strings so that it can rotate freely about the axle and kept parallel to the treadmill surface and perpendicular to the direction of motion of the treadmill surface. As we lower the paddle wheel starting in the still air down to just above the treadmill surface, describe the action of the paddle wheel.

 

[spork]

WOW - you do one day of real work and this thread grows by three pages. Sadly I had to put everyone on fast scroll and simply search on spork to see if there are questions or complaints to address (I take the compliments and adoration as read )

Yes. Spork's silence is golden

Yes, I can certainly see how reason is your enemy.

 

[humber]

No, this is the limit of your ability to understand. Maybe if you spent more time reading about physics and less time looking up words in your thesaurus you might be able to change that.

The definitions are provided because every claim of my misuse of my words has been false. They are from a dictionary, not a thesaurus, ( another careless error) and there to save you the embarrassment of being wrong. That bothers all you, as none of you ( save once by John) have responded with an apology when I have posted the correct definition. That's why.

 

[humber]

Yep,

Looked at you links, not a "Negative Drag" as a term in Aerodynamics amongst them.

Perhaps I could put it this way- Drag is the sum all forces in the opposite direction to motion.

What, then, do you define "Negative drag" (as a term appliable to Aerodynamics) as?

And we haven't said "Over" since the '40s.

Negative drag may have a positive absolute coefficient, but a negative incremental coefficient. There may or may not be hysteresis.
Don't crash the plane, Captain. Over is as dated as your knowledge, then

 

[humber]

Have Humber given a single argument or explanation for any thing he has claimed?

I only find him saing things like, that is true, that is wrong, you don't understand that, I am correct etc.

Your problem is called selective comprehension.

 

[RossFW]

Negative drag may have a positive absolute coefficient, but a negative incremental coefficient. There may or may not be hysteresis.
Don't crash the plane, Captain. Over is as dated as your knowledge, then

Oh Good! More big words that have nothing to do with the subject!!

Kindly supply one example of the application of "Negative drag' to aerodynamics???

And, of course, "Cavitation in gas" is LONG gone!!

 

[RossFW]

They are from a dictionary, not a thesaurus,

LOL. Note, NOT a physics textbook!!!

 

[humber]

Ah Mr Humber, though you were not explicit, by the fact you responded and are still posting, I think it is wonderful, our first agreement!

Go figure.

You do not believe it would be fine for the outcome of your body to crash a car into another one, even with the precaution of being mid-air and not "grounded". I know it was a trivial and banal contrivance of an experiment, I didn't mean to insult our intelligence, just wanted to establish a baseline. I was a little confused about your velocity and kinetic energy principles. I think I see now what you were getting at, since perhaps just after the collision, there may be no kinetic energy or velocity of either car with respect to each-other if we set things up well, but then (for metal cars at least) they would fail to pass each-other, silly test!

Your confusion Semper, is that you cannot see the wood for the trees.
However, your question and remarks are not silly, but asinine. So please, carry on!

Perhaps I could entertain you with a better experiment. Would you be willing to try this one? I will be "driving" a large SUV. You will be "riding" a motorcycle. We will be doing 150mph as read on our respective speedometers, but don't worry, with respect to the room we are in, we will be stationary.

Silly and arch tone, Semper. Entertain?

It will be a rather large room though, and the entire floor will be the belt surface of a very massive and powerful treadmill.

You won't need much power. Why?

Now, you are "riding" just next to me, say 1 meter to my left. Would you want your helmet on? Is there any chance of something going wrong?

Is it the law? Have I been drinking?

If, perhaps I sneeze and inadvertently swerve left, surely with only a meter separating us I would not collide with you at a great rate.

That's dangerous enough, so it would be best that I ride the bike.
(1) Experienced riders/drivers know what will happen if they are idiotic enough to let their autonomous sneeze reaction override to control of their vehicles.
(2) When swerving to the left, which way are the motorbike handle bars turned? When you know that and why, you may find that "collision rate" on a treadmill and real road, may not what you assume.

And anyway, neither vehicle has kinetic energy wrt the earth, apart from the rotating stuff,....

That is correct. A vehicle stationary w.r.t the ground has no KE (except for that in the rotating stuff, which will exceed the KE of the sprung mass in this case, and may do on a real motorcycle.)

...but we'd just use our brakes to get rid of that, wouldn't we? What techniques could we use to analyse and try to predict if this is safe?

The only KE will be in the wheels. If you apply the brakes, that energy will accelerate the vehicles backwards forwards w.r.t the belt.
Odds are, you will be thrown off the belt.

Can we do this Mr Humber, please?

A wheeled vehicle powered only by the belt will not make progress along that belt. If you run the engines, you will travel w.r.t. the belt. That would mean KE w.r.t the ground, so it is the first case. Good luck riding the bike, semper.

 

[humber]

Yes, you sure did flounder, didn't you, humbre. And you got it wrong.

Wrong answer = failure.
Unable to comprehend = failure.
Too arrogant to learn = failure.

You are a mechanic, Mender?
Take a look at The Captain's "analysis" of me, and note where he slurs my supposed occupation and skills.

"Humber is a rudimentally educated person, later trained in a technical trade (I'm thinking electrician) with a keen interest in Physics, but without the basic grounding to comprehend basic concepts.

Nice. Do I do that to you?