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

[humber]

Thanks Brian.
<snip>

Hopelessly flawed, beyond comment.

 

[humber]

Well, humber's last bunch of drivel about what he thinks a boundary layer looks like appears to be pretty contradictory to when he chose diagram A on my multiple choice offering. Not surprising -- consistency is not his long suit. What I have gleaned is that, despite the fact that he picked A, his belief seems to be that D is the right choice (see the numbers that he lists above). Or maybe not, it's hard to tell based on the inconsistent location of the ellipsis in his list. In any case, if that were the case, it would be an interesting difference, but it's wrong. The correct answers, by the way, are A for the windspeed observer, and G for the beltspeed observer (which is identical to the "ground" view for the outdoor
case).

No, my argument is entirely consistent and you know it. I have exposed your lack of understanding and knowledge of your own field, and now you want to try and shift the blame to me.

I'll leave you with a final thought, humber. There are planets like Jupiter that have no surface, but that have much greater gravity than Earth does. They just get thicker and thicker on the way down, and maybe transition gradually to a liquid if you go deep enough. There is no fixed ground reference on such a planet. How does humberphysics work in a place like that? How do you know whether something has KE?

Where you can live in the reflected glory of being on of Drela's former students, but nothing else.

 

[humber]

OK- Here are the questions-

1) Use the term Negative drag in a meaningful sentence pertaining to Aerodynamics

2) Cite an example of the term Cavitation being used regards the action of gasses alone.

I think you will pursue this point until you run out of fuel, Captain

 

[jjcote]

Where you can live in the reflected glory of being on of Drela's former students, but nothing else.

Just to be clear, I was never a student of Mark Drela. I first met him when we were both undergraduates, and we later worked together.

 

[humber]

I guess I passed that part of the test then.

So that's two questions that humbre has failed on so far. Who has the next question?

That solution will be useful when the observer has two heads. One in the cart and one on the belt. Should they compare notes, they will find that they agree withe the paddle.

 

[John Freestone]

Hmmm. I put two statements of yours together, one based on your flawed understanding and the other, dragged out of you after endless simplifications of the situation in discussion, and finally four attempts to get you to answer a couple of simple questions, clearly contradicting the first. Your response:

Hopelessly flawed, beyond comment.

I'll remind you of your statements again:

Statement 1. If the layer is say, 100mm and has a linear profile, what moves at 10mm above the ground, moves at that same speed 90mm above the belt, but in the opposite direction.

Statement 2. Referenced to still air that is 6m/s back with the belt.

(Statement 2 is not completely unambiguous in that form, but it is certain from everything you have said that it represents the 'belt-flow' referred to in your diagrams and endlessly discussed as the opposite flow at the same height as the 6 m/s flow over the stationary ground. I'll find a few more of them if you like.)

So you can't tell me why the 6 -> turns into a <- 6, yet the 9s and 1s are swapped in their vertical location?

My pointing out that those are mutually exclusive conditions is "hopelessly flawed"?

If they are not contradictory, you need a reason why the gradient is squished up in one area and stretched out in another. Do you understand? Let's put it diagramatically again:

10 >     becomes   < 10
 9 >     becomes   <  1
 .
 .                           this gradient of 3 has become a difference of 5
 .
 6 >     becomes   <  6
 .
 .                           this gradient of 5 has become a difference of 3
 .
 1 >     becomes   <  9

Go on then, clever hans, what's happened to the properties of air such that the gradient (which we supposed was linear) has now stretched in one area and compressed in another?

 

[humber]

Hmmm. I put two statements of yours together, one based on your flawed understanding and the other,
dragged out of you after endless simplifications of the situation in discussion, and finally four attempts to get you to answer a couple of simple questions, clearly contradicting the first. Your response:
I'll remind you of your statements again:

Statement 1. If the layer is say, 100mm and has a linear profile, what moves at 10mm above the ground, moves at that same speed 90mm above the belt, but in the opposite direction.

Statement 2. Referenced to still air that is 6m/s back with the belt.

(Statement 2 is not completely unambiguous in that form, but it is certain from everything you have said that it represents the 'belt-flow' referred to in your diagrams and endlessly discussed as the opposite flow at the same height as the 6 m/s flow over the stationary ground. I'll find a few more of them if you like.)

So you can't tell me why the 6 -> turns into a <- 6, yet the 9s and 1s are swapped in their vertical location?

My pointing out that those are mutually exclusive conditions is "hopelessly flawed"?

If they are not contradictory, you need a reason why the gradient is squished up in one area and stretched out in another. Do you understand? Let's put it diagramatically again:

10 >     becomes   < 10
 9 >     becomes   <  1
 .
 .                           this gradient of 3 has become a difference of 5
 .
 6 >     becomes   < 6
 .
 .                           this gradient of 5 has become a difference of 3
 .
 1 >     becomes   < 9

I have also said "apart from some numerical coincidences"
Because of this you ignore:
(1) Different profiles
(2) Flow are in the opposite direction.

If I follow your reasoning, and the flow adjacent to the road is turbulent, why is the layer near the "windspeed" air not turbulent, rather than close to the belt?

Go on then, clever hans, what's happened to the properties of air such that the gradient (which we supposed was linear) has now stretched in one area and compressed in another?

Clever Hans responded to the subtle cues of the trainer...
I made the effort to make the obvious even simpler, not for you to pick apart.

 

[jjcote]

[EDIT: Took out the first thing that I said here, because it was not really accurate.]

If I follow your reasoning, and the flow adjacent to the road is turbulent, why is the layer near the "windspeed" air not turbulent, rather than close to the belt?

Let the record show that it was humber who brought up the notion of turbulence in the boundary layer (which, ironically, he was earlier referring to as "laminar flow"). Nobody has said anything about turbulence. I guess we need to add that term to the list.

 

[CORed]

[EDIT: Took out the first thing that I said here, because it was not really accurate.]


Let the record show that it was humber who brought up the notion of turbulence in the boundary layer (which, ironically, he was earlier referring to as "laminar flow"). Nobody has said anything about turbulence. I guess we need to add that term to the list.

Well, most likely he doesn't know what either "turbulence" or "laminar flow" actually mean.

 

[CORed]

I have also said "apart from some numerical coincidences"
Because of this you ignore:
(1) Different profiles
(2) Flow are in the opposite direction.

If I follow your reasoning, and the flow adjacent to the road is turbulent, why is the layer near the "windspeed" air not turbulent, rather than close to the belt?



Clever Hans responded to the subtle cues of the trainer...
I made the effort to make the obvious even simpler, not for you to pick apart.

The boundary layer on the treadmill is fundamentally different from the boundary layer on te "real" road and the "real" wind, because Humber says it is, not withstanding the fact that he can show neither experimental evidence, or any plausible physical mechanism for this to be true. Some delusions seem to die hard.

 

[humber]

[EDIT: Took out the first thing that I said here, because it was not really accurate.]


Let the record show that it was humber who brought up the notion of turbulence in the boundary layer (which, ironically, he was earlier referring to as "laminar flow"). Nobody has said anything about turbulence. I guess we need to add that term to the list.

The other remarks are accurate, as this post demonstrates. Let me remind you that you did not yourself raise the matter of turbulence and it's position within the boundary, and that your own drawings are simplifications, suggesting stratified flow.
Solution G cannot be correct, or even a perspective, because not only does it reverse the profile, but suggests that the influence of the belt, that is the force of the belt, increases with distance from that belt. Magic.

 

[fredriks]

Solution G cannot be correct, or even a perspective, because not only does it reverse the profile, but suggests that the influence of the belt, that is the force of the belt, increases with distance from that belt. Magic.

O my dear. Put you bunny on the belt and ask her about the wind at different heights according to her (i.e. not relative to the Andromeda galaxy or the milk car driving in Bombay but simple the wind the bunny sees relative to herself)

 

[humber]

O my dear. Put you bunny on the belt and ask her about the wind at different heights according to her (i.e. not relative to the Andromeda galaxy or the milk car driving in Bombay but simple the wind the bunny sees relative to herself)

Ask the bunny;
1. Where does the force come from to drive top layer?
2. How does that separate the existing flow from the belt?

G is (perhaps) the profile generated by the motion of the observer w.r.t the air above the belt.
A is like the paper held in video #7. If that strip were hung from a pole and attached to the belt, which way would it go?
The same way. Must be true. The fastest possible air, is closest to the belt. It does no stop being so, just because you happen to be on the belt.

 

[fredriks]

Ask the bunny;
1. Where does the force come from to drive top layer?
2. How does that separate the existing flow from the belt?

Cant the bunny ask humber if he can't read a physics book before trying to write about physics on the internet?

Drive the top level?
Separate the flow?

The bunny is simply sitting on a moving belt and measuring the wind with an anemometer.

 

[humber]

Cant the bunny ask humber if he can't read a physics book before trying to write about physics on the internet?

Drive the top level?
Separate the flow?

The bunny is simply sitting on a moving belt and measuring the wind with an anemometer.

I would still like you to tell my how the paper will not follow profile A. The fastest possible air, is right next to the belt .That is a fact.

You appear to have disconnected the belt from the air. In your version, the paper is dragged through the air by the belt, but as if there were a gap between it and the belt. That is not physically possible.
An observer who does not physically interact with the air (i.e. not dragged by the belt), will see profile A both when going with the belt, or at "windspeed".

 

[CORed]

Ask the bunny;
1. Where does the force come from to drive top layer?
2. How does that separate the existing flow from the belt?

G is (perhaps) the profile generated by the motion of the observer w.r.t the air above the belt.
A is like the paper held in video #7. If that strip were hung from a pole and attached to the belt, which way would it go?
The same way. Must be true. The fastest possible air, is closest to the belt. It does no stop being so, just because you happen to be on the belt.

Poor Humber. Every time somebody tries to get him to think about things in a frame of reference other than the ground, he gets all confused. Of course, he's pretty confused even when the frame of reference is the ground.

 

[humber]

Poor Humber. Every time somebody tries to get him to think about things in a frame of reference other than the ground, he gets all confused. Of course, he's pretty confused even when the frame of reference is the ground.

Did I mention the gound?
The logic is sound. It is in accordance with what a physics book will tell you. The confusion is not mine.

 

[fredriks]

Humber, the bunny sits on the belt and measure the wind. Everyone above the age of 5 is going to understand that the bunny are going to measure the slowest wind speed close to the belt.

I know that you don't understand this and/or are playing really stupid.

 

[mender]

Solution G cannot be correct, or even a perspective, because not only does it reverse the profile, but suggests that the influence of the belt, that is the force of the belt, increases with distance from that belt. Magic.

Magic to you, humbre. Normal to the rest of the world when discussing frames of reference. All the information is there, but you have to get it straightened out for yourself.

If you would quit fooling around with words and stop throwing your attitude around, there is a good possibility that someone here can clear this up for you. A honest effort on your part is needed before that happens though. Asking coherent questions, listening and considering what others are telling you, and going through each step carefully will very likely get you on the same page as everyone else. Your choice.

 

[RossFW]

I think you will pursue this point until you run out of fuel, Captain

I'll take that as a:-

1) Can't

2) Can't either

Anfd I'm quite satisfied with that!!