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

[John Freestone]

That's good, linking three separate references together like that!

From the absolute master chef of the current pun, I take that as a great compliment...too great, as it turns out, because I thought there were only two references!

But humber anticipated your post:

"Your lordship, arrest my butt".

What, you mean he's psychic as well?

 

[spork]

Yes, that too. What you mean is that you cannot accept that someone may know more than you, even in your own field. I am not an electronics engineer.

humber, you clearly don't know more than anyone in any field.

You guys are being pwned by Humber.

Either way, he's pwning you.

Those who are poking Humber to see what crazy thing he'll say next, to get quotes out of him to make fun of, are being pwned by Humber.

Whether Humber knows more than he lets on or not, he is pwning you.

Once again you have it ALL figured out. As long as you continue to participate in this thread it is YOU that is being "pwned" by humber.

Remember what I said about insults?

 

[Dan O.]

Dan,

I think this thread might have run it's course.

Yes, Classical Physics has been valdiated, by numerous well written, argued and proven explanations. The fact that one person doesn't get it doesn't detract from that.

Time for the padlock, I feel....

There is a downside to locking this thread. Perhaps you haven't thought of it.

 

[spork]

There is a downside to locking this thread. Perhaps you haven't thought of it.

I'm not suggesting the thread be locked, but what's the downside?

 

[CORed]

My brother was right. There really are those that think planes cannot fly without wind.

Instant ETA:
Only where the glider is shaped like a brick.

Humber, you've managed to out-stupid yourself on this one. A very impressive feat, in it's own pathetic way.

 

[CORed]

I'm not suggesting the thread be locked, but what's the downside?

The downside is that Humber will likely derail other threads with his nonsense.

 

[humber]

humber, you clearly don't know more than anyone in any field.

Drone
BTW: Adding 'clearly' to your banalities, in the hope of lending the impression of erudition, fails.

Once again you have it ALL figured out. As long as you continue to participate in this thread it is YOU that is being "pwned" by humber.
Remember what I said about insults?

Yes. The rather easily-won 'owned by humber'.

 

[humber]

I'm not suggesting the thread be locked, but what's the downside?

I can think of one.

 

[Clive]

I can think of one.

Anything to do with "real wind"?

 

[Zeuzzz]

I haven't been following this thread admittedly, but has classical physics been overturned yet? If so they better get on with it, the Nobel prize is coming up soon.

 

[humber]

As with your claimed device that maintains its position indefinitely on a treadmill by supposedly exploiting the friction of the treadmill surface itself, if you can demonstrate a working model of such a kite, I can guarantee to raise you millions of dollars in investment capital to develop and market it. The applications in the venue advertising business alone would be worth a fortune.

The balancing cart is a simple fact, Myriad. I can't force you to accept that.

I presume though, that you agree that a kite on a string can remain aloft in wind?
The kite is tethered, so there will be a force on the string, equal to that generated by the wind upon the kite, so the kite will be stationary w.r.t the ground.
If that force, that reaction, were replaced with another, then the kite would be none the wiser, and continue to do as it was.
If that force were provided by a drogue; itself free and powered by the wind, then in principle, the kite would remain aloft, but stationary. That is possible in wind, but not at all on the treadmill. Change that balance of forces and the kite will move. That is the connection to the basket of a balloon, and the idea of load matching, amongst others.
It is not difficult to fins more exemptions.

To be specific, the device must maintain its altitude and hold a steady ground position in a steady wind, under ordinary wind conditions (without requiring some special wind shear conditions) without a tether to the ground, at a minimum altitude of 500 feet AGL, without the "cable" connecting the "basket" being longer than 100 feet, and without a motor.

That may be possible, but I don't need to consider that. The treadmill cannot behave like the wind in many significant ways.
Drop a leaf in wind, and it blows away, do so on the treadmill, and it falls to the belt. It flutters to the ground, whereas in the wind, it may not, and even gain lift. You can Google that, to see how much there is to that topic alone.
To equate the belt and wind, is simplistic.

N.B.: Something similar to what you describe would be possible by exploiting wind speed differences at different altitudes, if the "basket" becomes a drogue chute in the slower air at a lower altitude (instead of a mere weight, which would not work under any conditions). But that would require either unusual wind shear conditions, a long kite-to-drogue tether, and/or operating close to the ground, any of which would make the device no more useful than an ordinary tethered kite or balloon. Also that would be too obvious to be patentable. Hence the conditions in the previous paragraph.

No need to be that complicated. Relies on force that is independent of the ground. Possible in wind, but not on the treadmill.

The notions that support the treadmill are an over-extended metaphor of relative motion, but even that is brought to ground, by the reliance on the
'absolute" belt. It contradicts itself, let alone reason.

BTW: Patents are not necessarily based upon originality, utility or feasibility ( more lax now than ever). Their primary function is to provide provenance, not of the above attributes, should there be any subsequent commercial exploitation.

 

[humber]

Anything to do with "real wind"?

Don't know. Are there winds that are not real? Perhaps there are winds that have different characteristics.

 

[humber]

I haven't been following this thread admittedly, but has classical physics been overturned yet? If so they better get on with it, the Nobel prize is coming up soon.

Is there one for the most borrowed and pretentious set of end signatures?

 

[humber]

Now that there has been a begrudging admission that momentum may power a cart to windspeed, do you think that may be part of the reason why meteorological balloons can travel close to the wind? The book on that topic, posted in this thread, emphasizes the role that acceleration plays in that achievement.

 

[RossFW]

A bit like I did, really.

No, you didn't

 

[Clive]

Don't know. Are there winds that are not real? Perhaps there are winds that have different characteristics.

Don't know? If you don't know Humber, who does? You're the one who's been harping on for thousands of posts about how the "real wind" situation is significantly different from (for example) the wind felt by the belt of the treadmill. It's your terminology.

So, here's my request for the third time.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a "wind" to be "real" according to you?

 

[Furcifer]

That is possible in wind, but not at all on the treadmill.

No. Change the incline and the cart will remain stationary.

Drop a leaf in wind, and it blows away, do so on the treadmill, and it falls to the belt. It flutters to the ground, whereas in the wind, it may not, and even gain lift.

No. Change the belt orientation get the same movement.

To equate the belt and wind, is simplistic.

Now you're catching on!

Relies on force that is independent of the ground. Possible in wind, but not on the treadmill.

No. Change the belt surface get the same results.

1 out of 4 ain't bad humber.

 

[humber]

No. Change the incline and the cart will remain stationary.

A change in balance, due to gravity. Next.

No. Change the belt orientation get the same movement.

Perhaps the leaf would get blown from the road, to the roadside. If the belt is the road, where is the roadside?
You completely missed the point, of course.

Now you're catching on!

One for me.

No. Change the belt surface get the same results.

That's why you never see aircraft anywhere near roadworks.

1 out of 4 ain't bad humber.

Gratefully accepted.

 

[humber]

Don't know? If you don't know Humber, who does? You're the one who's been harping on for thousands of posts about how the "real wind" situation is significantly different from (for example) the wind felt by the belt of the treadmill. It's your terminology.

So, here's my request for the third time.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a "wind" to be "real" according to you?

Could be that it is independent, Clive.
Like the artificial wind of a wind tunnel, that is not found at the end of the garden path, Clive.

 

[humber]

No, you didn't

Our ETA is whenever the fuel runs out, Captain