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

[GregLondon]

History repeating itself is pretty similar

Yes, I've noticed a similar pattern as well.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

JB

Agreed. Plus there's the irony of the subsequent posts.

This doesn't negate any other your other posts, it just means we see your posturing. Just like the rest of us

The old one finger pointing means 3 others pointing back at you.

Evryone has an ignore button.

 

[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.

Remember this, JB?

Greg, meet Humber. Humber, meet Greg.

You two will get along famously.

JB

Marriage is imminent.

As you were.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Marriage is imminent.

LOL -- Stormy romance, huh Humber.

JB

 

[Michael C]

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?

I think that we could add that quote to the list of "best (or is it worst?) of humber": you explain your nonsense with even more nonsense. You appear to see a magical difference between a supermarket belt and a treadmill. The KE of an object depends on your chosen frame of reference; if the object changes velocity, this can mean either an increase or a decrease in its KE, depending on the frame of reference. If you choose one solid object, it's always possible to find a frame of reference where that object has zero KE: just choose a frame moving at the same velocity as the object. As soon as the object changes velocity, it will gain KE relative to the chosen frame.

But I won't waste any more time trying to explain frames of reference. Instead, here are the physics problems for today:

1. What value does an accelerometer show in an elevator, stationary at the surface of the earth?

2. What value does an accelerometer show in an elevator in free fall at the surface of the earth? The elevator is falling in a vacuum: its fall is not being slowed down by any mechanical friction or air drag.

3. What value does an accelerometer show in an unpowered spaceship orbiting the earth?

4. What value does an accelerometer show in an unpowered spaceship floating in outer space, far away from the gravitational influences of any stars?

 

[humber]

The old one finger pointing means 3 others pointing back at you.

Is that absolute or relative finger-pointing?

 

[semper]

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

Yeah, this thread would be nothing without Humber. If he ever came around to the truth, or at least logic and internally consistent analysis, he would lose all his value.

 

[semper]

But really Humber, come on, be a sport, please state your laws of motion. It is too hard to glean them from your general postings. I want to see them clean and shiny, standing on their own.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

But really Humber, come on, be a sport, please state your laws of motion. It is too hard to glean them from your general postings. I want to see them clean and shiny, standing on their own.

Motion is denied.

JB

 

[recursive prophet]

Motion is denied.

JB

One of your best retorts ever JB. Kudos! It may well earn you a citation in Principia Humberticus.

 

[Dan O.]

Does the context make it better?

The context is for reference if the claim is contested. For instance, If humber were to claim that he never said "Drag is not a force", we may want to revisit that post to look at what he was saying. But since I don't have a reference for that one I'll put it back on the nominations list.

Here are some nominations, anyway. It's not just about being wrong, there are so many different ways to be wrong:

I'll second those. And I even like the color

Where humber is wrong

1. "You need constant force and energy to maintain riverspeed." #2
   
   
2. Zen: "When there is no wind, the belt has no meaning." #1089
   
   
3. 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
   
   
4. Struggling to understand: "The cart's frame is tenuous, because it would seem that it is both in the belt and windspeed frames." #1214
   
   
5. 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[/QUOTE]
   

 

[mender]

If the force from a parachute is linear with velocity, then that is simply;
Power (available) = force* distance/time = force * velocity.

Then how about this, Dan?

 

[humber]

I think that we could add that quote to the list of "best (or is it worst?) of humber": you explain your nonsense with even more nonsense. You appear to see a magical difference between a supermarket belt and a treadmill. The KE of an object depends on your chosen frame of reference; if the object changes velocity, this can mean either an increase or a decrease in its KE, depending on the frame of reference. If you choose one solid object, it's always possible to find a frame of reference where that object has zero KE: just choose a frame moving at the same velocity as the object. As soon as the object changes velocity, it will gain KE relative to the chosen frame.

No. Motion relative to the supermarket belt is also relative to the ground.
Both directions yield the same KE, if viewed from belt or ground.
By "choosing and object", I can ascribe zero KE for any object anywhere, that is traveling at the same velocity relative to the ground. That is equally true of any object traveling at the same velocity w.r.t the belt, the difference being that if viewed from the belt, they have zero KE. They would because they also have zero velocity w.r.t each other. And?

But I won't waste any more time trying to explain frames of reference. Instead, here are the physics problems for today:

1. What value does an accelerometer show in an elevator, stationary at the surface of the earth?

It will show, amongst other things, the acceleration due to the Earth's orbit around the Sun, and the near constant acceleration due to the rotation of the planet. Perhaps you mean a relative accelerometer. Let's say a not-quite accurate-zero, then.

2. What value does an accelerometer show in an elevator in free fall at the surface of the earth? The elevator is falling in a vacuum: its fall is not being slowed down by any mechanical friction or air drag.

Acceleration due to gravity,g.

3. What value does an accelerometer show in an unpowered spaceship orbiting the earth?

It shows the acceleration due to its orbit, otherwise it falls out of orbit.

4. What value does an accelerometer show in an unpowered spaceship floating in outer space, far away from the gravitational influences of any stars?

It is spinning?

 

[mender]

Both directions yield the same KE, if viewed from belt or ground.

And this one, Dan?

By "choosing an object", I can ascribe zero KE for any object anywhere, that is traveling at the same velocity relative to the ground. That is equally true of any object traveling at the same velocity w.r.t the belt, the difference being that if viewed from the belt, they have zero KE. They would because they also have zero velocity w.r.t each other. And?

The "and" is the most important part of your post, yet it shows that you don't understand the significance. It amazes me that you can say both of these quotes in the same post without seeing the conflict.

So which of these two different concepts do you believe, humber? I really hope you make the right choice.

 

[mender]

It will show, amongst other things, the acceleration due to the Earth's orbit around the Sun, and the near constant acceleration due to the rotation of the planet. Perhaps you mean a relative accelerometer. Let's say a not-quite accurate-zero, then.

All I have is a relative accelerometer, humber. If you have plans for an absolute accelerometer like the one you apparently own, I'd love to get them from you. Could you loan me your accelerometer for some testing too?

Or is this another way to get out of answering a line of questions that leads to a conclusion that you disagree with?

I'm not afraid to answer the questions though:

1) 1 g.
2) 0 g.
3) 0 g.
4) 0 g.

 

[humber]

The context is for reference if the claim is contested. For instance, If humber were to claim that he never said "Drag is not a force", we may want to revisit that post to look at what he was saying. But since I don't have a reference for that one I'll put it back on the nominations list.

I do not contest the context of;
'Drag is not a force, but a yearning'

I'll second those. And I even like the color

Where humber is wrong

1. "You need constant force and energy to maintain riverspeed." #2

1. 
   
   It has been observed that rivers can be used to power electrical generators. A canoe moving with the river, also has such magical powers, because of its kinetic energy. Gets it from the river, I understand.
   If the water has KE, and is moving, do you think that there may be force there, at all, perhaps just little bit may be you know.
   
   

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

   That is also correct. A vehicle traveling on the road into a headwind, will see the air pass under it. That "boundary" is modified both by the road's surface, and by the vehicle as it passes over that road.
   The belt attempts to recreate that situation, but cannot do so unless there is also a wind passing under the car, as in the real case. The belt alone, is not a valid model.
   

   [*] 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

   
   Albeit wistfully, I explained that. The "from the belt argument" is false.
   
   

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

   
   Done that. The supermarket example supports it. I expanded upon that in my last post to Michael_C.
   
   

   [*] 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

   
   Ditto.Where is that roadside?
   

Nice colours.
Perhaps you would like to comment?

 

[humber]

All I have is a relative accelerometer, humber. If you have plans for an absolute accelerometer like the one you apparently own, I'd love to get them from you. Could you loan me your accelerometer for some testing too?

Google "absolute accelerometers"

Or is this another way to get out of answering a line of questions that leads to a conclusion that you disagree with?

You should first check your facts, Mender.

I'm not afraid to answer the questions though:

Brave fellow.


1) 1 g. Relative, yes. If calibrated that way and upon the type of accelerometer.

2) 0 g. No, that is wrong, and contradicts your own idea. The velocity of the elevator may not be known, but it is accelerating due to gravity. As it in not being slowed, that is 1g if close to the surface. ETA It The force is there if the accelerometer says so or not. There is a difference between the gravitational force, and acceleration due to that force.

3) 0 g. An object in "circular" motion is constantly accelerating. Objects orbit, by accelerating so as to defeat their trajectory to the ground.

4) 0 g. Not if spinning. A relative accelerometer will show that.

 

[humber]

But really Humber, come on, be a sport, please state your laws of motion. It is too hard to glean them from your general postings. I want to see them clean and shiny, standing on their own.

See Newton

 

[mender]

Thanks, humber, I was wrong about the existence of "absolute accelerometers". I did google absolute accelerometers and read a couple of the articles. They were basically saying the same as in this one:

http://www.wbabin.net/yuri/keilman5.pdf

from what I could see. In other words, an absolute accelerometer measures a change in relative position and calculates an acceleration rate based on that. I didn't realize that would be considered an accelerometer. I mistakenly thought an accelerometer was an instrument that took direct measurements of acceleration. At least that's what I use for testing race cars at the track (when allowed). Oh well, I live and learn.

Maybe Michael can clarify that "accelerometer" in the context of his questions referred to the more common "relative accelerometer". The values that I gave are the ones that a relative accelerometer would show.

 

[semper]

Perhaps you mean a relative accelerometer.

It is spinning?

Ok, since you want to talk about an "Absolute Accelerometer" I will need more background information. Could you assist me please?

I suppose that absolute acceleration is the rate of change of absolute velocity wrt time. Is that correct?
And absolute velocity is the rate of change of absolute displacement wrt time. Correct?
Could you tell how you define absolute displacement? This may help me understand. Is it all about the start of the universe? Could you tell me where it started. Is it getting bigger, will it continue to grow forever? What does time mean anyway? Now you are starting to get somewhere Mr Humber.