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

[humber]

Hey, my buddy Stan's square-wheeled bike! (Although I don't know why everybody keeps calling it a bicycle, since it's a tricycle.)

But yeah, the reason why I didn't cite that is because I have no idea whether humber is going try to come back with the idea that "ahead" and "behind" are measured relative to a line from the axle drawn perpendicular to the surface, and that gets complicated when you're dealing with a surface consisting of a series of cycloids. The elliptical wheel question tidily eliminates the issue of how you decide what's "ahead" and what's "behind".

Not that it matters, because even for a round wheel on a flat level surface, what humber is saying is rubbish.

And not that it has any relevance at all to the issue of whether operation on a treadmill is the same as operation on a road, anyway. Particularly since humber has absolutely no information about what the contact patch of spork's cart is doing, other than his bizarre assertions.

Always wrong and smug in equal amounts, jjcote. I bet that square wheel gets a lot of laughs. How amusing.

Anyway, if you park your car on an incline, but facing up it, where do you think the contact patch is? Yes, behind the axle.
When you brake, and the car suspension dips, where do you think it is then?

 

[humber]

Thank you. I prefer to digest your insanity in small bites.

I sure wish you had the lucidity to be able to bet me on this ridiculous notion that the contact patch must be behind the axle in a forward moving car. If you're willing to bet, you can go ahead and name the amount. But I will not get into a 100 page pissing match about how to orchestrate the bet. If you say yes, we're both giving the money to a 3rd party.

There you go again with the same old bluff, and in a tone as if you actually have some credibility.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm so lost, here. Can anybody fill me in, seriously, or must I either give up or read 92 pages ?

Give it up would be my advice. But if you have nothing better to do, the short synopsis is that in the DDWFTTW thread humber was making numerous inaccurate statements and would accept no evidence that he was wrong. I eventually created this split to separate such derailments so that here we can focus on trying to correct humber's view of the physical world and there we can focus on how the little cart actually works.

Most of us have given up on being able to help humber and I have since started a list (should anyone ask) to document...

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
   
   
6. "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
   
   
7. "Motion relative to the supermarket belt is also relative to the ground. Both directions yield the same KE, if viewed from belt or ground." #3053
   
   
8. "The force is approximately linearly proportional to the relative velocity of chute and wind." #2951 #3259 [post= 4400937]#3263[/post]
   
   
   [*] "For a such harmonic motion dv/dt is greatest at zero crossing." #3081
   
   
   [*] "The KE of two bodies may remain the same (relative KE = 0) but gain 1000 fold wrt another." #?
   
   
   [*] "A treadmill belt can't be a "frame of reference." #18
   
   
   [*] "Objects that have the same "velocity" have the same "frame". #26
   
   
   [*] "The KE goes with the moving body." #77
   
   
   [*] "A balloon can raise its altitude, and gain potential energy. When descending, that energy is converted to lateral velocity. " #147 #447
   
   
   [*] "If in free-fall inside an aircraft, the simple act of lifting your arm and measuring the force, will tell you that you are in a gravitational field." #3255
   
   
   [*] "If you are stationary in a gravitational field, then you will do work against that field should you raise your arm. That does not change if you jump from a table, or fall in an enclosed elevator." #3327
   
   
   [*] "Free-fall is not zero-g." #3393 #3396
   
   
   [*] "Two standard mass-sensing accelerometers, one on each end of a bar. Spun in zero-g, they would show a constant output as a result of that acceleration. In free-fall towards the Earth, each acclerometer will either be moving with gravity or against it, with each revolution. Easily detected." #3361
   
   
   [*] "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." #3441 #3459
   
   

​

Each statement has a link to the post where it was made so you can verify the authenticity and the context in which it was presented. If you wish, you can try to help humber by presenting that definitive evidence or experiment that the rest of us have failed to come up with. A number of posters have even tried to help us "believers in physics" to see the folly in our ways.

 

[humber]

You disappoint me Mr Crumbler. I suppose in your KE equation, there is never a requirement for subscript on the velocity term to indicate what it is referred to. Why then, do they insist on providing subscript functionality?

Well Simper, that's not a good answer right there.
Yes, 'they' do that. But if you like, you can make the KE going with the belt one of those squiggly things, and for against the belt, you can negate it or reverse it. It won't help though. The energy for the KE is taken from and returned to the motor, unless simply dissipated along the way.

What if you were correct? How many other engineering principles and working devices would you have to declare impossible?

I don't know, but it does make the treadmill one of them.

And Mr Humber, why are you not making a fortune from your devices? A small inexpensive mechanism for determining the gravity vector, not subject to the motion of itself or drift, would make you a squillionaire I would think.

I am a traditional Evil Master, so I live in a hollowed-out mountain. Expenses are high.
But of course, the only influence that a physical observer moving with the belt could have upon the cart, it is indeed just the gravitational attraction.

Meanwhile all the commercial and military aircraft are having to make do with the best INS money can by and conventional physics can design. It is very selfish of you not to make your invention public.

I bit like your inability to explain where the KE goes from any frame.

 

[humber]

I've noticed you never seem to care for examples that prove you wrong. By the way, he didn't offer an "analogy". He gave you a specific example (one of many) where you're just flat wrong.

No, I am afraid it is not a wheel in the same sense, but driven as I said by a fulcrum to the front of the axle. Now there is a case where the contact patch can move forward of the cart's current position. They are elliptical.
There you go.

Every claim of yours that could possibly be parsed (a small percentage to be sure) has been cleanly and fully disproven as rubbish.

Drone.

 

[humber]

Now why would we want to deny you one of your obvious pleasures, that of making as many physics blunders as you can? Go ahead, have fun!

Pure bluster. When you park a car on an incline, the contact patch is on the downhill side, to the rear of the axle. A much better offering than a good old boy perhaps doing a flying start.

The wheels and belt are synchronized so motion is impossible.

 

[spork]

There you go again with the same old bluff, and in a tone as if you actually have some credibility.

Then call my bluff - PLEASE!

No, I am afraid it is not a wheel in the same sense...

So you're saying a wheel has to be perfectly round? Then it seems the contact patch location is defined by simple geometry - not by the force on the wheel, axle, or which way the car is going.

Call my bluff. Remember, you get to name the amount.

 

[humber]

Then call my bluff - PLEASE!

Can't be bothered. I need not answer it that way.

The wheel rim and belt move in opposition, so the velocity w.r.t the ground is zero. It does not accelerate, so its KE is zero.
The cart can only advance by increasing its angular velocity w.r.t. the belt, but it cannot do so, because that is determined by the belt. It cannot move.
Bluff or bet your way out of that.

 

[spork]

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

1. 
   
   I refuse to believe humber knows better about this one now. Not until he confirms that. I don't think we can strike an item from the list just because humber's random thoughts occassionally suggest that he might no longer be suffering a given delusion. If he confirms it affirmatively, I think it should get struck.

 

[spork]

Can't be bothered. I need not answer it that way.

I see. So it looks like maybe I'm not the one that was bluffing. How 'bout that.

The belt rim and belt move in opposition, so the velocity w.r.t the ground is zero. It does not accelerate, so its KE is zero.
The cart can only advance by increasing its angular velocity w.r.t. the belt, but it cannot do so, because that is determined by the belt. It cannot move.
Bluff or bet your way out of that.

Bluff or bet my way out!? I can't even parse or respond to such nonsense.

 

[humber]

I refuse to believe humber knows better about this one now. Not until he confirms that. I don't think we can strike an item from the list just because humber's random thoughts occassionally suggest that he might no longer be suffering a given delusion. If he confirms it affirmatively, I think it should get struck.

As if it matters

 

[humber]

I see. So it looks like maybe I'm not the one that was bluffing. How 'bout that.

You are now. I need only park my car on an incline if front of your bank, to take your money.

Bluff or bet my way out!? I can't even parse or respond to such nonsense.

And again, or admitting to the inability to comprehend a few simple statements

 

[Furcifer]

Um, yah my apologies. I'll be eating my hat for a while.

I was totally convinced the pressure differential was because of the compression.

Really feel stupid now. After spork mentioned it was completely crazy I realized it can't be compressed. Against what? The wind...

Sorry fred, mender, spork, TAD, semper, JF. I got stuck on thinking something really stupid.

 

[Dan O.]

If you park your car on an incline, but facing up it, where do you think the contact patch is? Yes, behind the axle.

This is probably going on my list. But could you first define what you mean by "behind the axle". Perhaps even draw a picture for us.

 

[semper]

Um, yah my apologies. I'll be eating my hat for a while.

I was totally convinced the pressure differential was because of the compression.

Really feel stupid now. After spork mentioned it was completely crazy I realized it can't be compressed. Against what? The wind...

Sorry fred, mender, spork, TAD, semper, JF. I got stuck on thinking something really stupid.

Well now we know you really do have something positive to contribute. This could be a prototype for Humber's last post. Much appreciated.

 

[humber]

This is probably going on my list. But could you first define what you mean by "behind the axle". Perhaps even draw a picture for us.

Simple.
(1) Car parked on level ground. Contact patch directly under the axle
(2) Upend the same car, and put a support under the rear wheels. The contact patch will now move 90 degrees, but still to the rear.
Conclusion: On an incline, the contact patch will lie between those limits.
That is the case for force propelling the car forward.

ETA: It should be appreciated that not all of the rubber in contact with the road carries a significant load. That is concentrated in a patch to the rear of the axle, so driving the car forward.

 

[spork]

You are now [bluffing]. I need only park my car on an incline if front of your bank, to take your money.

No, I assure you I'm not bluffing. If it's that easy you should name the amount, and we'll put up the money.

 

[humber]

Well now we know you really do have something positive to contribute. This could be a prototype for Humber's last post. Much appreciated.

I was wondering how 3bodyproblem now thinks a venturi works.
I agree though that the momentum model is better.

 

[semper]

The energy for the KE is taken from and returned to the motor, unless simply dissipated along the way.

Is this the long sought after Energy Energy?

 

[mender]

Oh yes, goody, more humber pictures! Too bad he put anibus in the last one instead of Charlie Brown but hey, if we haven't learned to ignore humber's goof-ups by now ...

Any bets on who is going to star in this one? Fred Flintstone maybe?

3body, no problem, apology accepted, kudos for admitting it!