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

[RossFW]

Nomination, Dan

In 3132, Humner makes statements which can be paraphrased as such:-

"An accelerometer in a spacecraft in orbit, or a body in frrfall will measure a positive acceleration, as both objects are accelerating."

I second your pending list items, by the way.

 

[humber]

Right,

So if you asked a licensed, commercial Balloon pilot something like "How is it propelled laterally" and he said "It simply goes at wind speed", you'd chucle in your beard and think "Well I know more about balloons than HIM!!".

It really does speak volumes.

That answers your question.

By the way, I agree it would be theoretically possible to have some form of angled plane on a balloon, and by using the relative airflow in the vertical as the balloon ascended and decsended, have some very limited form of propultion.

Then you will agree that the velocity gained from ascension due to gravity, can be vectorially added to any lateral velocity gained from the wind.

But the balloon that flew over your house didn't, and I've never seen one that does.

I think that one was following a slipstream, but not being a magician, I have no idea how fast it was traveling w.r.t to that stream. The wind was still in my frame of reference.
Because of the location of my house, and its balcony, I can see them quite closely. In fact, I feel they are breaking regulations by flying so low.

 

[humber]

That might be a swell explanation if there were such a difference - but there's not.

For the record, you believe in skyhooks.

Well, that's hard to say. I suspect no one else could see the balloon humber "saw" (like a lot of things humber sees I suspect).

It is "hard to say", but you will do so anyway.

 

[semper]

That is the static force in both cases. If you simplfy the situation as I think you are suggesting, then the answer is 200lbs

Oh Humber, Humber Humber Humber. Your answers to the problems of parachute drag and ballooning flight are those of a hopeless git. You do yourself such a disservice. Presumably you do have some knowledge in some areas of science, but you seem to have no way of transferring whatever that may be into different real situations, even ones that are particularly well known.

Yes, balloons can translate horizontally wrt the air they are in. It can be done by using either, and non-symmetrical envelope to utilize circulation effects (lift) from the airspeed gained from vertical movement (wrt air) or circulation can be achieved by asymmetric venting of air from the envelope. However these are not the normal mode of balloon flight and particularly not what you likely witnessed when the balloon flew by that "still" morning. Much more likely was that the air close to the ground was still (wrt the land), but at balloon height it was moving (wrt the land) at balloon speed. Perhaps you were experiencing a boundary layer, gradient effect, but given your prejudicial thought modes, you couldn't figure out that reality.

On the parachute (or just about any similar sized object in similar airspeed) drag problem, you completely fail. Have a look at the Shapiro Fluid Mechanics films I linked to earlier, and do try to pay attention. You would be amazed how much better it is to use reality to solve reality problems. It means the results can be used over and over across a range of different problems and general theories can be determined which hold across a variety of phenomenon. Try it Humber, you may just like it.

 

[mender]

For that you need specific data. It seems that is not easy find. There is such information available balloons, and the support of the meteorological book, so in that case, the difference may be calculated, otherwise the "correct" answer would be the on that is assumed by you. No?

No. The correct answer is the one that is predicted by physics. It is easy to get the right answer using physics. I suspect that you are waiting for me to tell you and then you will either deny it or say that I "knew" the answer before hand. You don't need specific data - or should I say anyone else doesn't. You apparently need the answer.

It depends on the design of the parachute. What if the parachute were enormous? The increase of 100lbs would make little difference. A parachute that is 'just so' for 100lbs may simply collapse under 200lbs.

There is simply the general case, Mender. Terminal velocity will be achieved when drag and drive are in balance. When the force of gravity is no longer adequate to accelerate the object against the forces of drag against it.

And here I thought I made it simple enough.

The parachute with the 100 lb parachutist didn't float away in the wind, so it wasn't too big. The parachute didn't rip or "collapse" when used by the 200 lb parachutist, so the second parachutist didn't plummet to his/her death.

Either answer the questions or ask how they can be answered.

Again, I am surprised at your lack of answers. Where are those amazing math skills of yours, humber? Still running in circles?

 

[semper]

Another possibility that comes to mind about your balloon sighting Mr Humber,is that it had just descended from a level where there was significant wind, and was in the process of slowing down wrt the air at the lower level. It should be remembered that a large multi-person carrying balloon would have a mass of several tonnes. Did you happen to see if the pilot's scarf was blowing in the wind Mr Humber? Do you often note balloon pilot's scarves blowing in the wind?

 

[mender]

Yes. Even changing the attitude of the balloon can redirect some of that energy in a lateral direction. The lateral speed may approach that of the vertical speed, due to falling within a gravitational field.

So what is the glide ratio of a balloon, humber?

 

[humber]

Oh Humber, Humber Humber Humber. Your answers to the problems of parachute drag and ballooning flight are those of a hopeless git. You do yourself such a disservice. Presumably you do have some knowledge in some areas of science, but you seem to have no way of transferring whatever that may be into different real situations, even ones that are particularly well known.
Yes, balloons can translate horizontally wrt the air they are in. It can be done by using either, and non-symmetrical envelope to utilize circulation effects (lift) from the airspeed gained from vertical movement (wrt air) or circulation can be achieved by asymmetric venting of air from the envelope.

One of many possibilities. Well done for noticing that so late.

However these are not the normal mode of balloon flight and particularly not what you likely witnessed when the balloon flew by that "still" morning. Much more likely was that the air close to the ground was still (wrt the land), but at balloon height it was moving (wrt the land) at balloon speed. Perhaps you were experiencing a boundary layer, gradient effect, but given your prejudicial thought modes, you couldn't figure out that reality.

I did not say it had anything to do with the balloon I saw, but you seem to think that you can. Yes said it was a slipstream. The rest you just made up, so that you could make an anodyne remark, as usual.

On the parachute (or just about any similar sized object in similar airspeed) drag problem, you completely fail. Have a look at the Shapiro Fluid Mechanics films I linked to earlier, and do try to pay attention. You would be amazed how much better it is to use reality to solve reality problems. It means the results can be used over and over across a range of different problems and general theories can be determined which hold across a variety of phenomenon. Try it Humber, you may just like it.

Boring to the end.

 

[humber]

So what is the glide ratio of a balloon, humber?

Don't know. It is possible, and that is all that is needed.

 

[spork]

Boring to the end.

Yes, facts can be boring and predictable. Much more exciting to make it up as you go along.


Just 85 more posts to go until you've achieved 2000 posts of wrong. Counting down...

 

[humber]

No. The correct answer is the one that is predicted by physics. It is easy to get the right answer using physics. I suspect that you are waiting for me to tell you and then you will either deny it or say that I "knew" the answer before hand. You don't need specific data - or should I say anyone else doesn't. You apparently need the answer.



And here I thought I made it simple enough.

The parachute with the 100 lb parachutist didn't float away in the wind, so it wasn't too big. The parachute didn't rip or "collapse" when used by the 200 lb parachutist, so the second parachutist didn't plummet to his/her death.

Either answer the questions or ask how they can be answered.

Again, I am surprised at your lack of answers. Where are those amazing math skills of yours, humber? Still running in circles?

You work it out then, Mender.

 

[mender]

You work it out then, Mender.

Coward.

 

[humber]

Yes, facts can be boring and predictable. Much more exciting to make it up as you go along.


Just 85 more posts to go until you've achieved 2000 posts of wrong. Counting down...

The constant drone of an incompetent Armchair General.

 

[humber]

Coward.

Worrying at the same dry bone, Mender, will not put flesh on it.

 

[semper]

One of many possibilities. Well done for noticing that so late.

I did not say it had anything to do with the balloon I saw, but you seem to think that you can. Yes said it was a slipstream. The rest you just made up, so that you could make an anodyne remark, as usual.

Boring to the end.

Just get on with your homework Humber;

http://web.mit.edu/hml/ncfmf.html

Fluid Dynamics of Drag Part I
Fluid Dynamics of Drag Part II
Fluid Dynamics of Drag Part III
Fluid Dynamics of Drag Part IV

If you watch these, and try to understand them, you will be well on your way to having some clue about what is going on around you. They are really entertaining too, even though they represent the truth in a truthful way.

 

[humber]

Just get on with your homework Humber;

http://web.mit.edu/hml/ncfmf.html

Fluid Dynamics of Drag Part I
Fluid Dynamics of Drag Part II
Fluid Dynamics of Drag Part III
Fluid Dynamics of Drag Part IV

If you watch these, and try to understand them, you will be well on your way to having some clue about what is going on around you. They are really entertaining too, even though they represent the truth in a truthful way.

Not interested.

 

[mender]

Worrying at the same dry bone, Mender, will not put flesh on it.

Sigh. Back to the avoidance routine again, humber? Maybe you could flesh out your reasons for not being able to answer these two simple questions. Probably not, there are no reasons, just excuses, and weak ones at that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not interested.

humber is not interested in being right, he has way too much fun being wrong.

 

[mender]

Not interested.

Oh good, a new language, too!

Humberspeak:

Not interested = can't figure it out

 

[semper]

Oh good, a new language, too!

Humberspeak:

Not interested = can't figure it out

No, he just doesn't care for or about knowledge. Having difficulty understanding the world about him, yet he shuns any means by which it can be explained. It is a selfish and belligerent attitude, but ok provided he never has to do anything which would materially affect someone else.