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

[John Freestone]

I wrote "drag, not force". a short for 'driving force, not drag'. Some things are contextual,

...and wrong even in context.

 

[humber]

Now we have Greg London sucked into Humber's abyss exactly the same as everyone else but yet feeling superior about it.

LOL. Humber without Greg could never be so entertaining.

JB

I was thinking about that personal rivalry at the time. My enemy's enemy and all that, but I wonder who is really laughing.

 

[humber]

If it is being said that everything is Relative, why not just look at the substructure that brings such relativistic events about in the first place.

[qimg]http://www.outersecrets.com/real/image/00001.gif[/qimg]​

All objects within Space-Time are in constant motion with a magnitude of motion known as "c".

The only thing that can be done is change the direction of that travel across the open environment known as Space-Time.

Turn that point of view into equations, via the Pythagorean theorem, you will end up with the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation and the Time Dilation equation.

[qimg]http://www.outersecrets.com/real/image/0000222.gif[/qimg]

On the drawing above, I have set up STANDARD REFERENCE UNITS, with each being related to " c ".​

Take note that the object begins to extend across Time if in motion across Space as well, rather than all motion being directed across Time alone. Thus clocks located at the ends of the object are no longer synchronized. Take this into account, along with the other two equations, and you create transformation equations that turn out to be identical to those known as the Lorentz Transformation equations.

x' = ( x - vt ) / SQRT( 1- v2 / c2 )

y' = y

z' = z

t' = ( t - v / c2 * x ) / SQRT( 1- v2 / c2 )

Thus by understanding how ones measurement instruments change depending upon ones velocity across Space, one understands that all 4 dimensional laws are still being followed no matter ones velocity across Space is, and due to the measurement instruments changing in a 4 dimensional manner, everything still checks out to be OK.

Or one may choose to stick to mere 3 dimensional thinking such that one can go in never ending circular arguments.

You may not change "Space" in the process.

 

[RossFW]

If we published the list without the context it would make as much sense as scientology. You can create post links using the [post=]...[/post] tags as in...

Where humber is wrong (nominations)

"KE = 0 is a mathematical possibility, but has no meaning." #79

"Treadmill wind, is not like real wind." #85

"The boat will reach a finite speed, lower than the water. This speed is the solution to the simultaneous equations of the forces driving the boat, and that of drag. The air will reduce that speed, but even in a vacuum, waterspeed will not be reached." #136
​

This last one is a definite keeper. It's one of the rare times where humber is absolutely clear about what he is saying and still absolutely wrong.

Geez, Dan, I'm getting Homework?

No sweat, I'll get the relevant posts (though I'm spoilt for choice!!) tomorrow!

 

[humber]

humber may very well know he's wrong. The thing is he can't figure out the physics to get it right. So instead he settles for infuriating people who do know the right answer, so he can feel superior to them in some way.

I must say you hide sense of superiority well. How is it going with your teenage-love opus, "Physics for the Layman".

the thing to remember is that Humber wants you to get infuriated.

Perhaps you are a sock-tucker or sock-puppet, whatever.

If you take him serious, seriously you'll try to corret him on his mistakes, try to teach him the right way. He'll continue to exhibit complete obtuseness. You'll get frustrated and infuriated. And Humber will feel superior, feeding right into what he wants.

I follow my teacher in sackcloth and ashes, beyond the Yaqui way of knowing.

The only reaction I can see that doesn't feed into his trolling is to either ignore him or to not buy into his act at all, not get suckered into trying to educate someone who isn't interested in learning, not get upset, but call him the liar that he is, call him on his con.

That's called 'doing nothing'. You can have a good time with along with JB 'getting sucked in to the abyss,' if that's the latest euphemism.

three thousand posts on this thread and a couple thousand posts on the original thread? I think its pretty clear that humber isn't trying to learn or teach, he's here to lie and troll and get the reaction that he wants to get. Being obtuse gets people infuriated, which is exactly what humber wants.

I means you are pedestrian. Mind the truck.

 

[RossFW]

I was thinking about that personal rivalry at the time. My enemy's enemy and all that, but I wonder who is really laughing.

Maybe Dude,

But trust me, nobody here is in disagreement about who is being laughed AT!!

 

[humber]

...and wrong even in context.

Eat the box John, it contains more.

 

[John Freestone]

And not engaging his nonsense and simply calling it what it is, nonsense, is at least an accurate portrayal of what he's saying.

Ok. But another way to look at it is that it is wrong, and that to demonstrate that it is wrong requires a proper explanation of why. Not a better way to look at it, just another way.

Isn't that just saying your approach is better than mine?

Mine is better for me. Yours is better for you.

Humber is driven by something other than science.

Yes. I believe so.

Humber isn't going to get it. I'm basing that off of thousands of his posts and not a single bit of progress can be shown in his understanding. What are you basing your assertion that there is "some chance" of educating him? What evidence is there? It isn't empirical. THe list of things humber has said that were correct is empty.

Is that your version of science: you have no empirical evidence of something, so there is 'no chance'? It's not mine. Look, Greg, I don't know if humber is learning or not. I don't know if he is capable of learning or not. I hypothesize about these things, that he is capable and he is learning. You are the one who is making a definitive statement, and you are the one who began criticising people who aren't acting in accordance with that assessment.

If you find it entertaining, that's fine. If you're learning things, that's great. I learned some stuff trying to talk with humber myself. Thing is, I could have learned the same stuff from people who actually understood the cart.

Yes. And so? Doesn't that support my point?

But I will assert that humber isn't going to learn anything by anyone's lessons here.

Assert away.

ANd I base that off of the evidence of thousands of posts by him and not a single bit of progress is shown in his understanding during that time.

If he's a liar, and if he is one of those people who refuses to admit fault, is he going to give you any evidence that he's learning things? I was in class with someone once who was just like humber, day after day for years. He pretended he knew much more than anyone about almost everything. He never said he was learning anything or had learned anything. He denied he had. He taught us as far as he was concerned, except that we were too thick to be taught anything. He had special insight into everything. Nevertheless, he went from being unable to do certain things to being able to do them, evidenced by passing his exams. Suddenly, when it was an examiner he was facing, he regurgitated all the knowledge he'd been soaking up on the quiet, pretty well.

That isn't me trying to be "superior" to someone who thinks they can teach humber something, anymore than me writing up a document about the propeller cart is trying to be superior to people who don't understand the cart.

I wasn't the one who said you were being superior. In fact, I was sharing my feeling that you were making a bit of a mistake, one that I think most of us make here, and which I have been guilty of myself.

If you're talking with humber for the entertainment value, or because you might learn something you hadn't thought of yourself, go for it. But if you're holding out some hope that you can educate humber or that he will learn something from you, I have seen no empirical evidence to support that notion.

I'm not bothered.

And from a game theory point of view, either humber is faking it or he isn't. If he is faking it, he's just trolling for reactions. If he isn't faking it and truly wants to learn, then you still have no impircal evidence to show that he CAN learn. but at the same time you say "thanks to humber and his idiocy. And he's brought out my own sense of humour more than usual, at his expense".

I'm not bothered. It doesn't matter. My game theory is it's only a game I can lose if I buy into that rubbish in the first place. From my perspective, I've learned, I've had fun, I've been funny, humber has been irritating and entertaining. If you stopped trying to win a game, you'd stop being pwnd.

So, if someone thinks humber is really and honestly trying to learn, then they shouldn't be mocking him, putting his gibberish into quote lines for further mocking, and laughing at his expense.

I guess. I don't think that. If he's trying to learn, it's not honestly, its deviously and arrogantly, making a mockery of thousands of years of science because he wants the goods without dealing with his ego.

The way people are behaving towards humber, I think makes it clear that absolutely no one thinks humber is trying to learn here.

I don't know what other people think.

WHich means people think that either humber actually believes he is correct and therefore humber deserves to be mocked, or humber knows he is making up garbage and is trolling for a reaction.

I don't know if someone deserves to be mocked or not. I'm an egg. I also don't know whether it's better to ignore a troll or respond. I'm an egg. You're the one with all the evidence and doing all the thinking and coming to all the conclusions.

All I've done is reach the logical conclusion that everyone else is indirectly pointing to: everything humber has said is wrong, humber will never learn anything, and the only reason he continues posting is in all likelihood because he is trolling, because he gets something out of the response, not because he is trying to learn something from people here.

My bolding. Fine. He gets something out of the response. Then carry on responding to him and giving him what he wants. That's a nice thing to do for someone, isn't it? Do we have to be nasty to humber? What I don't get is if you don't want him to get what he wants, then surely the best thing to do is to starve the beggar out, so why do you keep responding?

It seems fine to me that you made your criticism or view known, and others made it known that they see it differently. However, I'm getting a bit sick of your insistence that you have come to the logical conclusion and are dealing with it right, when even your own action doesn't seem to fit with that conclusion. Can't we come to our own, or none?

 

[humber]

Maybe Dude,

But trust me, nobody here is in disagreement about who is being laughed AT!!

Yes, Captain, that's right. Quantas have a good general record, but suffer a rather disproportionate number of small accidents. I suspect that pilots often confuse slower with backwards. Computers don't.

 

[humber]

I think the real value in this list is that it brings to light the "best of humber" for those of us that only have time for the patented humber fast-scroll.

Oh, Dear. If they realise that if the air is not moving, the may wake up to the truth. There goes my job at NASA....again.

"The Best of Humber". Phone now, and get free, the unforgettable "Owned by Humber"

That fast-scroll patent would be as valuable as all 25 that you claim.

 

[humber]

So seconded...

"Drag is not a force"

But a yearning.

 

[sol invictus]

Or one may choose to stick to mere 3 dimensional thinking such that one can go in never ending circular arguments.

Nonsense. Special relativity has absolutely no relevance to this. Set c=infinity, and humber is just as wrong.

All that's needed here are Newton's equations, which already imply the necessary relativistic principle (which is called Gallilean relativity for a reason).

 

[humber]

Bwhahwaahwhwahawhwa!

two dozen words and volumes of gibberish.

You really need to stop claiming that you are an electronics engineer. That is actually fraudulent. To wit:
Vc = E(1 - e-t/r) r = RC.
Yes, Greg, and RC time constant.

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.

That is correct. One element is reactive and stores energy, while the other is the source, and in this case dissipative. That is a consequence of the need to do work.
If entirely reactive, all energy may be transferred without loss, but it's a absolute downer, Greg London, because no work can be done in the process.

I did not introduce the inductance, that was a mistake by someone else, and you repeated it.
BTW, that means that you have no understanding at all, of SMPS, let alone electronics in general.

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.

Spoken like a qualified engineer; 'electrical stuff'.
You do seem to find the time to write rubbish, Greg.

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

You got that wrong of course, but here is a start. The idea of mechanical capacitance or inductance is beyond your understanding.
The use of load resistors in MPT is nominal. They are a two-port device, that may take on any mathematical function that in combination, may be difficult to solve directly. Numerical solutions, often iterative, can be applied to the network, and so live happily with our nice, cheap computers. See?

Some think about propellers for you.
Not complete, but I really couldn't be bothered to do your research again.
http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/qprop/motorprop.pdf

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.

That is your misunderstanding. Do not impute your readers with your ignorance. So it's "tell me"
A small lesson just for you. It doesn't. It is essentially a real load.

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

You sound like a preacher caught with a neighbor's wife, Greg.

 

[humber]

Nonsense. Special relativity has absolutely no relevance to this. Set c=infinity, and humber is just as wrong.

All that's needed here are Newton's equations, which already imply the necessary relativistic principle (which is called Gallilean relativity for a reason).

I do believe the idea was to say that the instrumentation would be free of the effects of velocity. Of course, that applies to non-relativistic frames, as you aver.
I was saying I agreed, but that in changing velocity, one may not change "space". That is, one may not make the road the wind, without considering the consequences.
I imagine the next topic will be "Affine Spaces and the Supermarket Trolley"

 

[humber]

Does the context make it better? Here are some nominations, anyway. It's not just about being wrong, there are so many different ways to be wrong:

I thank you for the opportunity to show you the error of your ways, Michael_C.

Zen: "When there is no wind, the belt has no meaning." #1089

A belt is a belt. Only a Zen neophyte would ask if it has wind when looking from still air.

A rare moment of doubt: "The problem of the orange bothers me. When I move it either with the belt, or against the belt, it seems to gain KE w.r.t. the belt and ground by equal amounts." #1105

Irony, actually.
Yes. When a normal object is rolled along a belt, be it an orange or a packet of biscuits on the belt of the supermarket checkout, it gains KE when moving with or against the belt.
This is not the case with the treadmill, where objects appear not to be able to move down the belt, yet move towards zero KE when in motion in the other direction. I think that last claim is special pleading in order to save a model from failure. What do you think, Michael_C?

Struggling to understand: "The cart's frame is tenuous, because it would seem that it is both in the belt and windspeed frames." #1214

Yes again. It would seem that the "windspeed" view from the cart, is identical to to the belt, save for motion of the observer, but not the cart.
Again, this is like the view from the treadmill side, which appears to be the same as "windspeed". I think that "windspeed" is but a label.

Assertion = Evidence: "Windspeed is the same "frame" as being still on the ground in still air. This too I have claimed. This is evidence." #2738

Yes. The boundary layers are a physical fact that cannot be ascribed a metaphorical label, such as "windspeed". Hence the commotion to deny what is said to be trivial.
This exposes that "windspeed" is indeed the motion-free still air condition.

 

[recursive prophet]

@humber: From actresses talking to Bishops to preachers and neighbors wives, you continue to crack me up. I likely represent other lurkers on this thread, who are also very grateful for all the interesting insights your comments have engendered. I now regret-as always-abandoning my lurk default. It initiated a segue I had neither intended nor welcomed.

If you could direct me to some articles on ‘negative drag’ I would greatly appreciate it. I tried to find the theory on it published way back by Otto Lilienthal after his brother Gustav died, but could only find references to it. Do you use ‘real wind’ in the same way they do ‘natural wind?’ From what I’ve learned using Google scholar, it looks like some biologist have observed negative drag in certain flying insects.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NcGWXoDw7c8C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=Otto+lilienthal+negative+drag&source=web&ots=BqxDLnQQeq&sig=xHlhfxAL_zVdP0ymczZiSWW7f_o&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/192/1/179

But trust me, nobody here is in disagreement about who is being laughed AT!!

Please don’t put me on your 'hit list' for mentioning this Ross, but I think you’re forgetting there are a few of us on spork’s poll that apparently disagree, and a few others unsure. What I find most amusing is that I'll still be laughing no matter how this all plays out.

I find it hard to understand why some have expressed a desire to have this thread locked. Nobody is forced to read what humber writes, so if you really find it so irritating don't try to impose your viewpoint on those who truly enjoy reading it; just say no. For me it's a great diversion from following the market, which is not only painful but costly these days. 'Negative drag' is about the only hope I can imagine for making the economy rise at this point, so if it's impossible we're all doomed!

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

I don't know exactly where you and Spork decided that I said I was superior to everyone here, but it's a strawman of your own making.

Nope, it's not a strawman, it's taken from your own words as to how everyone but you is "pwned" by Humber -- in this context that's the very definition of "superior". Clearly as you can see from others responses I'm not the only one to notice this.

.... all you've done is managed to have the pot call the kettle call the frying pan black, since you both are coming in and trying to assert your own brand of superiority.

in short: check your mirror.

The only point I'm feeling superior on here is a lack of hyprocrisy -- I don't belittle others for getting suckered by Humber while getting suckered by Humber.

We went through this with you on BoingBoing -- blathering on to everyone about how much better you were than others on the thread while you were just blatently, laughably and demonstrably wrong. An apology is great but along with a sincere one comes an obligation to at least attempt to avoid the same behavior -- but here you go again.

No on on this thread is "pwned" by Humber any more than you are -- he's good at it ... get over it.

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

You are the one who is making a definitive statement, and you are the one who began criticising people who aren't acting in accordance with that assessment.

What he said.

Best quote of the day #1:

If you stopped trying to win a game, you'd stop being pwnd.

Best quote of the day #2:

However, I'm getting a bit sick of your insistence that you have come to the logical conclusion and are dealing with it right, when even your own action doesn't seem to fit with that conclusion.

-
-
I find this thread absolutely enertaining. I could never put in as much effort has some with Humber, but I've been the benificiary so I'm grateful to both sides for the fun.

He's stone cold crazy, but he's creative, witty, has good writing skills and he's got great patience and isn't an 'escalator' -- if you poke him he pokes back (as he should be able to) but always within relative reason.

A lot of fun this humber guy.

JB

 

[GregLondon]

We went through this with you on BoingBoing

Ah, so there it is.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Ah, so there it is.

History is an interesting thing: an apology doesn't change it, it only alters how it is viewed.

History repeating itself is pretty similar ... only in reverse.

JB