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

[mender]

I am not making any mistakes, Mender.
That I can find as many exceptions as I wish, is a failure of the treadmill.

That you keep trying to find exceptions rather than understand the truth is a failure of your integrity.

 

[recursive prophet]

OooooK. Good catch, sol elatus. I’m impressed. And here I was thinking you’d lost your sense of humor. Humb and humber indeed, and I saw the 2 as 1 back when humb first appeared. That spork could be all 3 seems quite plausible to me, but somewhere in this medley some real genius has been manifested.

@Dan: I think with sockpuppetry you have to take intent and results into account. Also, how can you possibly stop it when well done? Even a novice could get a friend to log on as say ‘humb,’ then just send him the comments to be posted. There are[i/] 2 users, each with one account, so would that be a violation of site rules?

Look at all the detailed explanations humber has elicited. I think part of why this thread has so many views is because of all the interesting facts that are revealed in showing how and why humbers assertions are wrong. So whether humb, humber, and spork are 3 separate people or 1, some delightful learning as entertainment has been the result so what harm was done?

@Sporkber: I let it slide as my opinion was qualified, but I meant in the sense that he throws some real physics in with his parodies. Change my vote to ‘certain this guy knows a LOT about physics and is using it to see how long he keep some very bright people assiduously refuting his faux conjectures. I still can’t believe how well he’s pulled it off!

So ask yourself; could he really be that stupid/ignorant and keep a virtual cadre of very bright and knowledgeable people engaged over such a long period of time? John came closest-IMHO-to nailing his technique with his ‘ask Lizzie’ post, while CORed gave the most succinct rebuttal/synopsis here. Yet he continues, and if you’re honest you’d be disappointed if he stopped.

@Mender: I still think you’re wrong. His concept of physics isn’t a parody but an accurate digital caricature on way too many levels. I suspect his last sentence holds the key: “That I can find as many exceptions as I wish, is a failure of the treadmill.” This alone leaves him a lot of wiggle room, but I think he intends to go much further in a similar direction.

@hum-humber: I am in awe of you dude. Keep those insights coming! I think you’ve pulled something off here of epic proportions, be you an undiscovered genius about to revolutionize physics or a world class prankster. The Carlos Castaneda of aerodynamics? A Yaqui way of maths? ( And for those who think Carlos never proved any of his magic was real, remember he did turn all the dons of the UCLA anthropology department into jackasses)

 

[mender]

Change my vote to ‘certain this guy knows a LOT about physics and is using it to see how long he keep some very bright people assiduously refuting his faux conjectures.

Nope, have to disagree, he is honest in his portrayal of an intelligent person that can't switch points of view without mixing them up and obviously is suffering residual effects from the loss of his kite while at the tender age of eight. He really doesn't understand why everyone keeps insisting that he's wrong. It's not a facade.

 

[humber]

Hey, check it out, gang! humber actually answered a question! Good show! You're making progress! Let's see how he did:

I surmised that you thought you had a loaded pistol, when you unnecessarily asked for direct answers to your questions. But you see....

Wrong! Same time to the ground.

No, the wind will provide lift to keep the balloon aloft. For an aeronautical engineer, you do seem to see little potential for your science.
Fail.

Wrong! Well, the statement could be considered true, but it isn't what I asked. I asked which will be the greatest distance from its owner. The Nebraska kite will travel further as seen by an observer stationary on the ground, but that will be matched by the distance that the bicycle travels in Kansas.

No, the cyclist can increase the distance indefinitely. He is not on a belt, but on the ground, and can travel relative to the balloon after it hits the ground. That's a problem for you. If there is no string, the balloon will stay in place on the ground, but move away from the observer when on the belt.
The wind will carry the balloon. Heavier than air balloons can 'fly', I am afraid.
Fail.

(And yes, they were kites, not balloons. If they were balloons that were on strings well above the kids' heads, then they would presumably float upward when released, which is an entirely different situation.)

Well, I will certainly need to check your assumptions there, jjcote, but it's worse for you. Kites are aircraft. They do not need string to fly.
All that is necessary is to provide a reactive force to the wind (helps it do work by better matching the load, keeps it stable) by adding something to the string, such as a mass, or even drag. It's the same idea as a string of course, but most kite fliers want to keep their kites. I did draw a tails on some of the kites. They may do.
Fail.

That is quite true. But not at all relevant to the question that I asked, which was only about what happens before the kites hit the ground.

Yes, I know, but that denies you saying anything about the treadmill. perhaps we sometime we will get around to interstate ballooning.
I did think your example was pointless, which is why I didn't mention the first example I gave. The two tethered balloons? They are lighter than air, but of different masses. I should have mentioned that detail, I suppose.
Fail.

Overall: Fail.
So there you go. Kites and balloons alike, will show a definite difference.
I wonder how small gliders may behave?

Anybody know what this means?
Or this?

Surely you don't need help?

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

I think I'm swinging towards the prophets point of view.

I just can't imagine anyone being as consistently wrong as Humber based on ignorance alone -- it has taken effort and education to be that wrong.

JB

 

[humber]

I think I'm swinging towards the prophets point of view.

I just can't imagine anyone being as consistently wrong as Humber based on ignorance alone -- it has taken effort and education to be that wrong.

JB

Yes. Your sudden interest was perplexing. While I was pondering that, I wondered how the treadmill would fare if the object were propelled by differential pressure, or moved in a direction opposite to the wind? Or if the observers were to travel?
I still can't help thinking that still air is perhaps quite different from moving air.

 

[RossFW]

Whilst agreeing that Humber is wrong, I'm not sure I agree entirely with the above statement "in the absence of any type of vertical current, "Gliding" necessarily involves the loss of height". I suppose it depends on your definition of 'gliding' but one of the interesting things to have become apparent lately in the world of gliding is that it is perfectly feasible to stay aloft using only horizontal gradient difference (see 'dynamic soaring'). In fact it is the same sort of energy difference extraction as this whole topic is really about. Please don't tell Humber, I'd hate to introduce yet another concept for him to be completely unable to comprehend using his flawed thinking methods.

Semper,

In another thread I actually gave someone else a very complete description of Dynamic Soaring. But it involves a VERTICAL shear layer, that is different winds at different heights, so I would have said it fits the descrption as, if not a vertical current, a vertical phenomena.

It was spoken about it this threads, Humber mentioned something about it being Waves, and we left him to that delusion.

 

[Tunny]

(1) The belt observer will see it ( motion w.r.t to the balloon), unless you think that the balloon becomes invisible when released.

He will see no motion while the KITE (not balloon!) is tethered, and he will see it moving AWAY from him when released, exactly as in the "real wind" scenario.

(2) The balloon observer will see if for the same reason. (otion w.r.t to the belt observer)
(This must be true, if for no other reason than the air is common to belt and balloon)

The KITE will see no motion while tethered to the kite-flyer, and will see the kite-flyer moving AWAY from it when released, exactly as in the "real wind" scenario.

The treadmill observer can see both the balloon and the observer, so he will see that motion as relative motion between observer and balloon, giving the same result as in (1) and (2).

Not sure what you mean here, but a "ground" observer would see the kite fall essentially straight down (subject to the vagaries of turbulence, etc.) while the kite-flyer moved farther away on the treadmill, thus increasing the kite-flyer's distance from the kite, exactly as in the "real wind" scenario.

It is not necessary to define the motion as towards the observer, but that the (relative) difference is smaller or larger.

The distance from the kite-flyer to the kite after release is larger, in every case. The kite is tethered to him initially (i.e., not moving closer or farther, but kept at a constant distance), then when released, that distance increases until the kite hits the belt.

the real wind is a continuous source of energy that can provide lift, and the force to drive the balloon along with it

It can drive it horizontally, yes, and even temporarily provide lift until the kite reaches wind speed, but there's that tricky gravity thing going on.

A test using a device that relied solely on aerodynamic lift would show an even greater difference, I suspect.

I'm open to your proposal for such a test.

Earlier, I had been assured that all wind-borne objects would reach windspeed, but now it is doubted that even a balloon will stay aloft, at any speed.

As everyone here but you realizes, it is for precisely that reason that the KITE cannot stay aloft indefinitely. Lift can only be provided while there is relative motion of the air with respect to the kite. As the kite is carried away with the wind, its velocity relative to the surrounding air falls to zero (i.e., it approaches wind speed), and there is no longer any lift that can be provided, so gravity wins. That acceleration to wind speed exactly mirrors the deceleration of the belt-drawn kite to motionlessness with respect to the "still air". As this occurs, the "wind-driven" kite loses altitude in precisely the same fashion that the belt kite does in still air (no big surprise, since it is travelling at the same speed as the surrounding air, which is therefore "still" from the kite's perspective.)

I have long since abandoned hope of you understanding this, no matter how clearly it is explained, but I do find the exercise somewhat helpful. I still anxiously await your demonstration of an untethered, heavier-than-air object that can be kept aloft indefinitely in a horizontal wind.


Tunny

 

[humber]

And there it is.

Education means knowing there is so much more to teach. Wisdom is realizing this.

Reader's Digest?

 

[humber]

Hi Humber, first let me apologize for all the nasty things you have done to physics. The thing is, I am coming along in trying to understand "real" wind, but I have a problem. There is no wind, and I have a sailboat. I really need to cross the river and it is too dangerous to swim because there is a strong current. Some people have told me that its ok, I will still be able to sail across. But Humber, can I trust this "artificial" current created wind? Please Humber, please let me know how to recognize the real wind. If I use the artificial stuff, will the other side of the river become artificial too?

The problem there semper, is that you had to make the real artificial, by the use of "artificial". It's not "real", but real, you see.

 

[humber]

He will see no motion while the KITE (not balloon!) is tethered, and he will see it moving AWAY from him when released, exactly as in the "real wind" scenario.
[/QUOTE[
No, the average veloicty, kit or balloon will be in the direction of the observer. It will definitely continue in the direction that is is going at release.
That is a fact.

The KITE will see no motion while tethered to the kite-flyer, and will see the kite-flyer moving AWAY from it when released, exactly as in the "real wind" scenario.

Balloon or kite. No slower than the real wind. There is motion towards the observer while there is KE. There is no motion towards a wind observer at all.
That is a fact.

Not sure what you mean here, but a "ground" observer would see the kite fall essentially straight down (subject to the vagaries of turbulence, etc.) while the kite-flyer moved farther away on the treadmill, thus increasing the kite-flyer's distance from the kite, exactly as in the "real wind" scenario.

Balloon or kite, there is motion towards the observer while there is KE. There is no motion at all towards a wind observer.
That is a fact.

The distance from the kite-flyer to the kite after release is larger, in every case. The kite is tethered to him initially (i.e., not moving closer or farther, but kept at a constant distance), then when released, that distance increases until the kite hits the belt.

Balloon or kite, there is motion towards the observer while there is KE. There is no motion at all towards a wind observer.
That is a fact.

It can drive it horizontally, yes, and even temporarily provide lift until the kite reaches wind speed, but there's that tricky gravity thing going on.

Kites are aircraft and can fly. Balloons can be lighter than air.

I'm open to your proposal for such a test.
As everyone here but you realizes, it is for precisely that reason that the KITE cannot stay aloft indefinitely.

Windk Kites can stay aloft longer than on the treadmill. They can be made to fly without stings.

Lift can only be provided while there is relative motion of the air with respect to the kite.

That's called wind.

As the kite is carried away with the wind, its velocity relative to the surrounding air falls to zero (i.e., it approaches wind speed), and there is no longer any lift that can be provided, so gravity wins.

The kite can travel less than windspeed.
So aircraft fall out of the sky at windpeed?

That acceleration to wind speed exactly mirrors

the deceleration of the belt-drawn kite to motionlessness with respect to the "still air".

I thought you said there was no motion towards the observer.
The acceleration is proportional to the wind velocity and force, wheres the balloon's deceleration is not, because that is motion through still air.
Anyway, you now have to agree that there is a difference in the observations.

As this occurs, the "wind-driven" kite loses altitude in precisely the same fashion that the belt kite does in still air (no big surprise, since it is travelling at the same speed as the surrounding air, which is therefore "still" from the kite's perspective.)

Not the same, and also contradicts your first remarks.

I have long since abandoned hope of you understanding this, no matter how clearly it is explained, but I do find the exercise somewhat helpful. I still anxiously await your demonstration of an untethered, heavier-than-air object that can be kept aloft indefinitely in a horizontal wind.

This post is wrong, and inconsistent.
No need; make them lighter than air. I have already posted that test.

 

[Furcifer]

Reader's Digest?

Oooh, wrong again.

Popular Science.

You should pick up a copy.

 

[Furcifer]

I still can't help thinking that still air is perhaps quite different from moving air.

Unless you're standing on a treadmill

Do you remember what your point is anymore?

 

[jjcote]

So aircraft fall out of the sky at windpeed?

Absolutely!

 

[jjcote]

Assuming no thermals, can a glider stay in the air over a flat landscape for longer on a calm day or a windy day? And on the windy day, does it matter which direction the glider flies?

By the way, while you're thinking about that, I have another question, about this mysterious lift that you claim affects balloons when it's windy: some balloons (some weather balloons in particular) are spherical. Does this lift that you speak of affect them?

 

[recursive prophet]

humberesque cognitive dissonance:

Doctor, Doctor I can’t feel my legs!
That's because we cut your arms off.

@humber: For your calander-1/26/09/0300 GMT--member clearly stated that he thought you were intelligent. Please note. Also...from another--

“It's curious that you can't find one single sole on or off this forum that would backup any of your ridiculously contrived interpretations of physics.”

Something fishy about this claim humb. I believe you. Can’t imagine why you didn't respond to this calumny, such a lureing bait. Throw back bottom feeders, do we?

C'mon humber; tell 'em the truth! The real answer, to treadmills with bunnies propelled by differential pressure, moving in a direction opposite to the wind; gliders on calm or windy days, perpetual lift, and EVERYTHING….IS…42.

 

[CORed]

My guess is cup holders.

Yes, but the cup holders worked by Humber physics, so the liquid in the cups kept spilling out and heading for the back of the plane at 600 miles per hour.

 

[CORed]

So aircraft fall out of the sky at windpeed?

Yes they do (helicopters and autogyros excepted). Now you can make 200 posts claiming that fixed wing aircraft can fly at zero airspeed, Humber. This should be funny.

ETA: Actually an autogyro will not maintain altitude at zero airspeed (windspeed), but will descend slowly. A fixed wing aircraft will fall like a brick, of course.

 

[Dan O.]

@Dan: I think with sockpuppetry you have to take intent and results into account.

I can assure you that the management here don't take intent and results into account when it comes to socks. They even suspended a former moderator for starting a humorous thread as a sock that had no harmful intent or effect.

Also, how can you possibly stop it when well done? Even a novice could get a friend to log on as say ‘humb,’ then just send him the comments to be posted. There are[i/] 2 users, each with one account, so would that be a violation of site rules?

If you want to continue this topic, bring it up in the Forum Management forum where you will get an authoritative answer. The only case I can recall where a third party sock was sanctioned involved the first party being previously banned (and that may have been hypothetical).

So ask yourself; could he really be that stupid/ignorant and keep a virtual cadre of very bright and knowledgeable people engaged over such a long period of time?

Absolutely. Even amateur scientists will naturally try to study phenomenon that are outside the limits of what is normally encountered.

What usually happens with these encounters is the source of the errors is determined to be the poster himself. This fact is repeatedly pointed out and that is followed by the poster responding in kind. The thread is eventually closed by the moderators and all participants are sent to their respective corners to cool off.

The original thread from which this thread was split was saved from that fate by the split which removed any necessity to actually correct the flaws and thus the investigation can continue indefinitely.

 

[mender]

C'mon humber; tell 'em the truth! The real answer, to treadmills with bunnies propelled by differential pressure, moving in a direction opposite to the wind; gliders on calm or windy days, perpetual lift, and EVERYTHING….IS…42.

Yes, still 42, even though humber would insist that since the 4 is heavier than the 2 when the numbers are black (though somewhat iridescent and very attractive in turquoise), the number 42 has a tendency to move faster down an easterly facing slope and so will spiral when confronted by instantaneous temporal events, which humber sees as an alternate quantum state and tries to tell everybody that he has received a qutrit from Anubis indicating a disturbance in the force, causing his kite to fail prematurely and plummet to the treadmill from which it came.