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

[humber]

You're talking in complete gibberish, Humber. There is no "real" source of power versus "non real". There is no 50% hit when you transfer power from one object to another. Absolutely everything you have said has been wrong. Complete and total rubbish. A con. A lie.

You are not an engineer.

 

[humber]

Don't bother humber with facts. They get in the way of his metaphors.

...but a fantasist.

 

[Furcifer]

Lifts the wheels. Shows that wind is not equivalent

Oh my.

 

[spork]

[the boundary layer] Lifts the wheels.

I think this may be a new winner. Shear brilliance. But humber please explain for those of us that were absent that day in our aero training exactly how the boundary layer lifts the wheels.

 

[Dan O.]

On page 1, post #2 humber wrote:

Do items flowing in a river reach riverspeed? Why not? If you have a power boat, don't you need constant force and energy to maintain riverspeed?

This is item #1 in the list of where humber was wrong. He appears to have conceded this point so we can strike item #1 (until humber makes the same error again).

Where humber is wrong

1. "You need constant force and energy to maintain riverspeed."

From post #7, I'll nominate:

KE is indeed "positive" wrt ground. It is not so on the treadmill.

Does anyone concur that this can go in the list? Does anyone object? Has humber conceded this point yet?

 

[mender]

C'mon guys, keep up! Humber went through this quite a while ago; hopping, skipping, hovering, lifting, anything that reduces friction apparently causes the cart to accelerate forward on the treadmill.

 

[Dan O.]

Another nomination for Where humber is wrong...

The KE of two bodies may remain the same (relative KE = 0) but gain 1000 fold wrt another.

But as usual, it's difficult to actually discern what humber is trying to say. Gain 1000 fold would technically mean times 2¹⁰⁰⁰+1. But that is still 0. Maybe there is a better quote for this point.

 

[mender]

That does not matter so much. It is only an approximation for this esample.
It is not correct to assume that the rolling resistance is linear. There will be drag with the air and that is at least V^2.
The principle still applies.

Poo-pooing something is not allowed. You must address the issue and show an argument, not just deny it.

An appropriate range for an approximation doesn't include exponential differences. You're really reaching on this, humber.

Read more carefully and do some research into the difference between rolling resistance and aero drag.

What principle?

 

[Dan O.]

And another nominations for Where humber is wrong from post 18...

A treadmill belt can't be a "frame of reference".

 

[Dan O.]

Nomination for Where humber is wrong (courtesy of post #26)...

Objects that have the same "velocity" have the same "frame".

ETA: Again, this is not technically incorrect since all objects can be considered to be in the same reference frame but it shows that humber has an incorrect concept of what reference frames are.

 

[mender]

Not drag, force. The load, the skater, I assigned a square law.
You never learn.

Are you talking to yourself, humber? Perhaps you should check back to your post about this. You at least were correct in using the term "force" for both your equations then. Now it seems that you are trying to change the only part that you got right other than using the square law for the skater. That would be "negative progress".

"Drag is not a force."

The list is long, Dan, and items are added faster than they are stroked out.

 

[Dan O.]

Maybe this belongs under a separate title. Perhaps:

Some more of humbers wrong doings​

Again, sorry. I am working on it!

If I can get a second on any of these nominations and there are no calls for further discussion, I'll add them to the list. These don't need to be in order so feel free to jump back to anywhere in this thread to dig up more nominations.

 

[Dan O.]

Where humber is wrong:
"Drag is not a force."

The list is long, Dan, and items are added faster than they are stroked out.

Humber is pretty broken up in that post. I'll need to see the original context it was used in or a reaffirmation.

When the list gets so long that it threatens to impact the server we can abbreviate it.

 

[Dan O.]

Nomimation for Where humber is wrong:

The KE goes with the moving body.

There are two objects traveling at 10m/s, one is solid, the other hollow. From the ground, the solid object has 100E9 J of KE and the other 0,01J of KE. You say their relative KE is zero. Please explain where the KE is.

 

[Clive]

I'm almost certain that linear in v regime never applies to cart-sized objects in air. The calculation I mentioned is very simple, and I don't see how it can be far wrong under reasonable conditions.

I'm just "winging it" with this thought, but how about a "vehicle" expressly designed to have the lowest possible aerodynamic drag while sliding over (say) a flat ice sheet in a straight line (after being pushed to start it moving). I'm imagining something that might not be much more than a thin sheet of a suitable material shaped into something like an inverted "U", with the leading and trailing edges honed to a fine edge, etc.

Could this be a new sport for the next Winter Olympics? The competitor kneels, bracing both feet against a wall behind them with the sled on the ice in front of them and then launches it with one push... "human spring" style... with the aim being to achieve maximum distance.

 

[John Freestone]

Yes, so what size, speed and speed range were you referring to Humber? Either way, I think you have terminally disgraced yourself.

I've got my wind cart on order from Willard Wigan.

 

[John Freestone]

Another nomination for Where humber is wrong...

The KE of two bodies may remain the same (relative KE = 0 in your terms) but gain 1000 fold wrt another

But as usual, it's difficult to actually discern what humber is trying to say. Gain 1000 fold would technically mean times 2¹⁰⁰⁰+1. But that is still 0. Maybe there is a better quote for this point.

Indeed it is difficult to discern what humber is trying (not) to say. I read this statement as one of the times when he bows to classicism, myself: that bodies A and B can maintain zero KE relative to each other, but gain an arbitrary amount of it w.r.t. C (another body). I think you read it as "...wrt one another".

The fact that it was an incorrect or irrelevant response to the point made previously is another matter.

Personally, I don't want to trawl through all his mistakes a second time anyway, but I am looking forward to the compendium, the Visitor's Guide to the Humberverse, or the Principia Humbermatica.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm just "winging it" with this thought, but how about a "vehicle" expressly designed to have the lowest possible aerodynamic drag while sliding over (say) a flat ice sheet in a straight line (after being pushed to start it moving). I'm imagining something that might not be much more than a thin sheet of a suitable material shaped into something like an inverted "U", with the leading and trailing edges honed to a fine edge, etc.

Well, I looked at the numbers and did a very rough estimate in my head, and I got a micron - only objects less than a micron across would experience linear in v drag forces when moving at meter/s speeds. Or a meter-sized object moving at a micron per second.

The point is that to be in that regime you need the viscous force (the "stickyness") applied by air to be greater than the inertial force (the force just from pushing air out of the way as you move). So since air isn't very viscous either you need to be really, really small, or moving really, really slowly.

 

[GregLondon]

Except that this new metaphor has nothing to do with the maximum power theorem, which leavest the fact that MPT has nothing to do with treadmills and objects in motion, and you have no idea what you're talking about..

Of course, but not phase shift, that allows for all the energy to be stored. There is of course an R/C time constant.

Bwhahwaahwhwahawhwa!

two dozen words and volumes of gibberish.

you weren't talking about phase shifting to store energy, you were talking about how the MPT says of the power from a "real" source, only half of that power can make it into the object the power is being transferred to. Which, of course, has nothing to do with phase shifting or energy storage. And which is all electrical stuff and has absolutely nothing to do with a treadmill transferring power to a propeller cart. So much rubbish and so little time.

By all means, do tell everyone where the propeller cart on a treadmill has the physical equivalent of a capacitor.

No, wait, here's a better one. Tell everyone where the power from the treadmill goes through a "phase shift" when it is transferred to the propeller cart.

You sound like a guy selling an antigravity device, humber. It's all a bunch of nonsensical gibberish. It's all a con.

 

[John Freestone]

Wrong again. The force of the wind on the chute or balloon is proportional to the difference is wind ans object velocities. There is opposing drag of the chute itelf, so that limits the velocity, even without a load.


Not drag, force. References have been given.

....OTOH, this one is amazing. We went through all those weeks of discussing balloons and boats and dead fish, and still he thinks that drag is something different from a force, and has the force of the wind on the chute, presumably acclerating it downwind, and still there's this drag slowing it down, which was why a balloon couldn't reach windspeed.

During that discussion, and having repeatedly told him that drag was a force and the only force applying to the free-floating hot-air balloon, and him being taken by the hand and shown the equations that proved that balloons go at windspeed, can even go slightly faster or slower as the windspeed changes around them, for instance as they ascend or descend, and tend to go at the mean speed, he then acknowledged that they went faster than the wind, but never agreed that they reached windspeed, even citing 'mean windspeed' as different from 'windspeed'. I pointed out the stupidity of this position - which was simply due to his refusal to be corrected - and here we are again..."drag, not force".

What is drag, humber, and where are the references that say it's something different from a force? Shall we check with NASA again, or are they wrong to think that there is just one thing acting laterally on a free-floating body, rather than your two: "force" helping it move; "drag" slowing it down?

Even now, after all this, you still have the idea that objects have some kind of "coupling" to an absolute position in the universe, and require a constance force to maintain motion, like they're being forced to travel through the aether. Even if the only force applied to them is that they are being dragged by a fluid, you still fail to equate that with "drag".

If a body is in motion through the air, it slows down due to drag between it and the air. If the air happens to be still (which is even then just a relative term, as has been explained endlessly), then the body slows down to a stop (wr.t. the same frame). If the air is going at some velocity w.r.t. the ground or any other frame, the body approaches, due to drag, that exact same velocity w.r.t. the same frame.

THAT IS WHAT THE DRAG DOES. IT DRAGS AT A BODY TO GIVE BOTH THE MOLECULES OF THE FLUID AND THE MOLECULES OF THE BODY THE SAME VELOCITY GIVEN ENOUGH TIME. IT IS SO UTTERLY SIMPLE THAT YOU ARE SHOWING YOURSELF UP THE MORE YOU REFUTE IT.

I'd better not explain that point again, had I? This deliberate obtuseness infuriates me. You absolutely know you're wrong. You can't provide any other force - this mysterious "drag" that acts in the opposite direction of the "force" that's accelerating a balloon! It's just pathetic attention-seeking behaviour to keep pretending there is one, that you know about, but nobody else, including NASA, could understand!

ETA: Whether the relationship is proportional, a square, a cube or an inverse banana hardly makes much difference if you imagine unreal forces and don't recognise WHAT drag is!