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

[humber]

Thanks Ross, I missed that one.


Where humber is wrong (continued...)

• "Free-fall is not zero-g." #3393

One flat-cat to go!
We had a cat that would wait for scraps to fall from the table...

 

[Furcifer]

Apparently he is interpreting the problem the same as everyone but you (including the person that posted it).



That's like saying "no hands" after getting someone to agree to your pissing contest.


It seems that way to you because you don't understand inertial frames.



I'm quite sure there is. Take a look at the video with the fan again. The cart starts from rest, it happens to be on a treadmill, and it's not being held down. It seems you're having a hard time accepting that wind over the surface is equivalent to the surface moving under the air.



He's clearly answered the question - and it looks like you're on the attack.

lol, childish behaviour from grown men fascinated by toys, go figure.

Talk about inertial reference frames and my understanding of them all you want, there's still no video of a cart starting from rest on a treadmill without being held in place with a fan or a hand or a turkey sandwhich!

Your obsession with a neat little toy coupled with your incessant blogging has conditioned your responses. If I had a dollar for every time you and TAD typed "inertial reference frame" on the net I'd be rich.

 

[mender]

(3} My device will work. Refute that.

Um, okay - your device won't work.

Now what?

 

[humber]

Um, okay - your device won't work.
Now what?

Refutation is not generally simple denial, so confute, then.

 

[humber]

Someone is missing a pair.

For a vehicle driven by an axle, the wheel must exhibit 'slip'. This is usually provided by flexure of the tyre. In the case of forward motion, the contact point with the road - the friction that provides the reaction to the driving force - must lie behind the axle. (You can wiikki that.)

If not, and the contact point is directly below the axle, that is indicative of no motion, because it is simply not possible in that state.
The belt moves from the front to the rear of the cart, so it is impossible for a contact patch to develop behind (to the rear) of the axle, so forward motion is not possible.
Only if the cart has a power source that is independent of the belt ( as in an R/C car for example) is motion up the belt possible at all. The cart cannot generates more power from the belt than it receives, so motion is certainly not possible.
The cart is is in a state of balance, as described many times, where a small independent source of energy (momentum) can caused the cart to creep forward as conditions vary. (see the Russian puzzle)

ETA: That's part of a general argument for powered vehicles and belts. Without presenting supporting evidence, I say:

"The existence of a belt suggests that motion is being suppressed" ( Humbertica Principia.)

That is the general case for belts of this sort;
(a) Runner's Treadmill
The runner exercises by muscle motion and cardiovascular stimulation. (Running without motion)

(b) Aerodynamic Testing
The effect of the air over the car is investigated, and may involve reproduction of the boundary layer by the use of a belt to simulate motion of the car over the road. (Interaction with moving air without vehicular motion.)'

(c) Dynamometer
The car is placed on a belt (or roller) such that the engine's power and torque can be measured and the power dissipated in a dummy load (Power-to-the-wheels without motion)

(d) An orange spinning on a belt (Rotation without motion.)

P...w...

No way out, mender.

 

[mender]

Forward motion by a driven wheel is not possible unless the contact patch with the road is to the rear of the axle. This is irrefutably so.

This one I know is wrong but I'll ask you to specify the conditions more closely to see why you think this is so. It's a minor point and not germane to the topic so I won't request this be added to your list.

 

[mender]

Refutation is not generally simple denial, so confute, then.

A case must first be provided before it can be refuted, confuted, and/or repudiated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

3bodyproblem do you even know the principles that allow the cart to go faster than the wind? Of course you cannot start it from a dead stop on a treadmill. spork and company have found that for their improved cart it still takes a wind speed of about three miles an hour for it to go faster than the wind. With the cart at rest and zero wind speed it will naturally go backwards at first. Even if the wind generated starts to spin the props it will take a period of time longer than the cart will be able to stay on the treadmill. A very long powered walkway that you find at certain airports would be able to start the cart from nothing. I am sure that there are some conveyor belts that could be used also. But the typical home treadmill is way too short to give the results that you are demanding.

 

[Dan O.]

Talk about inertial reference frames and my understanding of them all you want, there's still no video of a cart starting from rest on a treadmill without being held in place with a fan or a hand or a turkey sandwhich!

Have you looked ay YNOT's video? He started another thread for his tests here.

 

[humber]

A case must first be provided before it can be refuted, confuted, and/or repudiated.

That force balance? The one that detects 1m? My work.

 

[humber]

Have you looked ay YNOT's video? He started another thread for his tests here.

You've been at the catnip again. Ynot's table has a reaction arm. It is at the fulcrum of the wheel and prop forces. What do you expect?
ETA:
No it won't, SZ. That is 100% supposition. It cannot climb the belt in principle.

 

[RossFW]

That force balance? The one that detects 1m? My work.

You said it was commertially available. Link to where I can buy one please.

 

[spork]

Someone is missing a pair.

Sorry to hear that. Perhaps you can get a set of those plastic ones they hang from the rear bumbers of trucks.

For a vehicle driven by an axle, the wheel must exhibit 'slip'.

Wow - what nonsense!

In the case of forward motion, the contact point with the road - the friction that provides the reaction to the driving force - must lie behind the axle.

More complete nonsense. But at least this isn't the usual gibberish nonsense. This is nice clear nonsense.

If not, and the contact point is directly below the axle, that is indicative of no motion, because it is simply not possible in that state.

Pure nonsense. I can make the vehicle propel itself forward with the contact patch IN FRONT of the axle.

The belt moves from the front to the rear of the cart, so it is impossible for a contact patch to develop behind (to the rear) of the axle, so forward motion is not possible.

Every one of these sentences belongs on Dan's list.

The cart cannot generates more power from the belt than it receives, so motion is certainly not possible.

Have you honestly not read any of the analyses you keep demanding?

The cart is is in a state of balance, as described many times, where a small independent source of energy (momentum) can caused the cart to creep forward as conditions vary. (see the Russian puzzle)

This is the purest B.S. you've offered to date. You're in rare form. I can't tell if you're humb or humber.

lol, childish behaviour from grown men fascinated by toys, go figure.

Very nice. You're proven wrong, so you now call those that are right "childish" (because they're apparently fascinated by the same toy that fascinates you - only we understand how the toy works).

Your obsession with a neat little toy coupled with your incessant blogging has conditioned your responses.

I've never blogged a single word in my life. Your wrongness is truly impressive.

 

[mender]

That force balance? The one that detects 1m? My work.

Sorry, your answer is a little too cryptic. What force balance? 1m? Description please.

 

[Dan O.]

Forward motion by a driven wheel is not possible unless the contact patch with the road is to the rear of the axle. This is irrefutably so.

This one I know is wrong but I'll ask you to specify the conditions more closely to see why you think this is so. It's a minor point and not germane to the topic so I won't request this be added to your list.

If it was written by humber and involves classical physics and is wrong then it belongs on the list. There is plenty of room so we don't have to be picky.

 

[mender]

Okay, it has already been seconded by spork, so toss it into the pile!

 

[humber]

You said it was commertially available. Link to where I can buy one please.

Yes. PM me.

 

[recursive prophet]

I wrote most of this earlier and then had visitors before I could post it. I have some thoughts on the Ynot video and questions for Dan, but it can wait-don't want to interrupt the flow. Not sure I grok humber's analysis. Oh, and sorry for calling you humbert, humber. I assure you it wasn't intentional. Balloons from Del Mar, perchance?

Is Mass required for motion too? Maybe, depends what motion you are trying to describe. Your usual lack of definition and condition in statements. You really need to note the distinction between Kinematics and Kinetics.

Humber, I'm sure it is completely obvious to nearly everyone reading this that if a sufficiently long treadmill were available, the cart would self start just as it does on a "real" road in "real" wind. That Spork and JB have published a video of the outdoor events satisfies me that their cart will start on a long enough treadmill indoors. You still contend that there is a mechanical or temporal or some other fundamental difference between the two situations. Classical Physics theory as most here know it seems to be in conflict with your statements. And you cannot properly explain why.

[bolding mine]

semper: Could you provide an example for the class dummy of motion with NO mass? Also, someone mentioned the long treadmills available in certain airports. With all the attention this subject has received has no one tried this?

As to my question about the cart on a treadmill when it was turned on, I didn’t anticipate the fan, and it brought to mind more questions. Was a fan used in all the other carts on treadmills that I’ve seen? I never noticed one before the link TAD posted, and I’ve watched quite a few. What air speed did the fan produce, and what was the speed of the belt? And they turned on the fan first, then the treadmill. Wouldn't that be like a push? Is continuation addressed, and have there been any tests done on that? How are both sides so sure with so many variables in play? Couldn’t a gust of wind also serve the same purpose as pushing the cart or pressing down while holding it against a moving belt? Sorry if this have been covered. I’ve got it on my wetware HD, but the RAM does decline daily. It scares me this world is run by people my age.

Do you know how tiresome your imaginary "balance mechanism" is? I think you could really use a balance mechanism.

spork: I truly wish you could have heard how hard and long I laughed reading the above. You are second only to John in inducing guffaws, and standing out in this crowd ain’t easy. If only I had the time to put together a ‘best of’ as a comic aside. This thread has the highest level of humor I’ve ever encountered online.

 

[humber]

Sorry to hear that. Perhaps you can get a set of those plastic ones they hang from the rear bumbers of trucks.

So that's why you chase trucks.

Wow - what nonsense!

Funny things wheels. To generate force, one bit has to move a bit faster than another bit. You can wikki that. It is otherwise common sense, though. If the patch is to the rear;forwards, in the middle;stationary, to the front;backwards.

More complete nonsense. But at least this isn't the usual gibberish nonsense. This is nice clear nonsense.

Clear as a close shave.

Pure nonsense. I can make the vehicle propel itself forward with the contact patch IN FRONT of the axle.

No, actually, the belt would do that, so driving the cart down the belt, but the balance mechanism opposes that action ( it works in both directions; it's a balance), so keeping the cart motionless. It reacts against the air to do that.
ETA:
In front? How does the cart drive itself to get there?

Every one of these sentences belongs on Dan's list.

That's already getting a list to starboard. May capsize.

Have you honestly not read any of the analyses you keep demanding?

Like this, you mean?

This is the purest B.S. you've offered to date. You're in rare form. I can't tell if you're humb or humber.

That's telling me.

 

[semper]

semper: Could you provide an example for the class dummy of motion with NO mass?

Well, I don't want to mention massless particles. But really I was aiming at an acknowledgment that we can describe motion without mass being relevant. The description of motion involves the necessary geometric mathematical tools which can solve a whole range of problems and is necessary for further work where mass and forces are relevant. So when the Humber states that there can be no motion without force, it is as if he expects every problem in motion to require a common separate reference (but he cannot provide it). However, many problems require only the independent references of at least two objects with respect to eachother, to get useful information. Since most of the debate here is due to Humber's unusual (or usual for uneducated or stupid people) methods of describing and interpreting motion, I thought it an interesting question.