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

[CORed]

The cart is getting thrust by pushing more air (mass) out the back of the prop than it takes in the front of the prop. This is a differential in mass occuring over time. You've set the velocity of the wind as constant, it's a scalar quantity, big deal!

Wow! Apparently propellers manufacture air from nothing. I had know idea they had such magical properties. This could revolutionize the space program. No need to haul those heavy tanks full of liquid oxygen. Just bring along some propellers, and you can make all the air you need.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

3BodyProblem:

The cart is getting thrust by pushing more air (mass) out the back of the prop than it takes in the front of the prop. This is a differential in mass occuring over time.

--

--

Wow! Apparently propellers manufacture air from nothing. I had know idea they had such magical properties. This could revolutionize the space program. No need to haul those heavy tanks full of liquid oxygen. Just bring along some propellers, and you can make all the air you need.

Well CORed, we should just feel so grateful for folks like 3Body who can come on here and explain the finer points of propeller operation. He/she can do this of course while telling us all how ignorant we all are.

JB

 

[Marcus]

We could make this a contest. Go through the list of "Where humber is wrong"^tm and add the minimum number of words to make each statement correct.

Can we see the whole list please? I've lost track.

3bp is so clueless that his posts don't have the entertainment value for the lurkers like myself that Humbers do, onto ignore for him.

 

[mender]

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.

My suggestions make up about a third of the list! Yay me!

 

[Dan O.]

Can we see the whole list please? I've lost track.

The list is a work in progress. Start here and search for humber. Some of the more easily recognizable wrongness has been collected in the short list I just posted. But there is a big gap between pages 12 and about 70 that still needs to be sifted through and sometimes the wrongness isn't immediately recognized on first reading.

 

[mender]

Who's doing the search, Dan?

You're right, lots of material still waiting to be listed, also in the original thread. For one we haven't included "loss of friction will propel the cart forward" - doesn't jive with humber's current contention that the cart can't move does it? Is there a list of humber reversals? Even if there isn't, that one stands alone as an example of over-unity (or is that over-nutty?).

 

[humber]

Hey, that's Humber Plan D! No fair cutting in like that!

Actually, since I deal with tires and suspension and all that complex stuff for a living, I don't have any problems understanding it.

There is evidence to the contrary. Mender.

I also have a cart that I can place on a treadmill, start the treadmill and run it up to break even speed, measuring how much drag the cart presents during that time. It's really quite informative; you should try it some time. You might also realize how hard it is to get a steady state condition.

That cannot happen unless the wheels are slipping against the belt. It is capable only of one speed. The wheels can only go slower thant the belt, but not fqaster, so they must be slipping.
The "try it yourself" taunt is more like an advertiser's strap-line than evidence. You are mistake in your assessment of whet is happening.

"The belt, propeller and wheels are synchronized, so no motion is possible." Another very false statement by humber.

No, it is correct. It must be true. They are effectively equal and opposite.

In fact, the hard part is getting the cart to stay in one place (fore and aft that is).

It is also hard to keep a car in one place when on ice.

It's either moving forward or backward unless you get the incline of the treadmill just right, the speed setting just right (which is hard because the controls aren't very consistent) and the rear wheel (front wheel in mine, I run the prop at the front) from shimmying a little. I've had to repair the driveshaft several times now because of the cart doing the "impossible" and moving up the ramp and striking the prop against the treadmill.

Yes, it is unstable. A number of influences, such as gravity will cause it to travel in one direction or another. Like a pair of scales, a small amount may tip them one way or the other. I don't know why you are offering this information, Mender, because not only does it support my case, but suggests that even if so, the cart is unlikely to get to windspeed unless conditions are perfect.

That's the difference; I can test real things. You can't. You really need to. But you're right, I don't understand why you are always so far behind on these things when all you have to do is listen to those who have done the testing for a change.

Many devices that "work" have turned out to be falsehoods.
That last remark shows that you do not have the understanding to otherwise defend your case. You can't bluff me, but you can fool yourself, and that is exactly what is happening.

 

[RossFW]

You can't bluff teach me, but you can fool prove it to yourself, and that is exactly what is happening.

Fixed that for you.

Still waiting on the PM

And the Video......

 

[humber]

BRILLIANT quote! One of my favorite movies. Much needed diversion from the headache of humberitude.

A lot of hyperbole bout inertial references, and a wheel fools you, but not Barney. That's why you like that film. One day, you hope to be just like him.

Oh really!? You know what they race in the humberverse?

Running circles around you.

This is one of my favorite humber techniques. Falsify the real world data (i.e. "it hovers", "it is simply doing nothing", "the cart does not move"), and then offer a completely bizarre conclusion devined from your fabricated data (i.e. "there is no load").

Too bad. That's not new. I have mentioned all these earlier, but I simply introduced another factor. The cart is going nowwhere, it has bo KE, there is no aerodymic load, the friction is low, there is no load.
That you do not understand how a wheel works, is a gift. How more basic can it be?
You followed jjcote like a puppy, with his square and elliptical gimmicks, because you do not see the difference between his example and a wheel.
You then ask "I suppose wheels must be perfectly round" Ha!.

I'm sure that for you popcorn is complicated.

You are sure of nothing. Don't dribble down your bib while eating it though.

This is like some sort of avante garde performance art. He even gets wrong wrong.

So you say. But you run every time you have to explain yourself. You hope that others will exhaust me, so you can late come back to make your usual schoolyard victory speech. Like this one, but I owned you again.
But this time it's the wheel! You don't understand the wheel! You failed to notice that the belt can only drive the wheel at one fixed speed. Your treadmill is a joke.

And now for a selection of quotes that are just too far out there to even comment on...

Go ahead laughing boy. The jokes's well and truly on you.

 

[spork]

It is capable only of one speed.

And yet our carts on the treadmill and ynot's cart on the turntable have been shown to go both faster and slower than the wind at various wind speeds.

The wheels can only go slower thant the belt, but not fqaster, so they must be slipping.

Wrong.

The "try it yourself" taunt is more like an advertiser's strap-line than evidence. You are mistake in your assessment of whet is happening.

And you'd rather spend months posting for almost 100 pages, fabricating "evidence" out of thin air, than to simply make or buy a cart to prove us wrong. The only explanation for that is that you know even your powers of confusion are not strong enough to "deny" the evidence in your own hands.

Yes, it is unstable.

What happened to the "balance mechanism"!?

The cart cannot move. It can't go faster or slower than the wind. It hovers, it hops, it balances... but now it's unstable!?

A number of influences, such as gravity will cause it to travel in one direction or another. Like a pair of scales, a small amount may tip them one way or the other.

All hail - the balance mechanism is no more!

I don't know why you are offering this information, Mender, because not only does it support my case...

Yes, I've noticed that all evidence that contradicts your "case" seems to "support" your case.

 

[humber]

Fixed that for you.

Still waiting on the PM

And the Video......

Wait as long as you like, but do it in the lounge. The though of you flying passengers is worrying.
Like the information on negative viscosity, the accelerometer will be of no use to you. You will not understand how to use it.

 

[spork]

I give you the best of humber:

you run every time you have to explain yourself.
You hope that others will exhaust me, so you can late come back to make your usual schoolyard victory speech.
I owned you again.
You don't understand the wheel!
You failed to notice that the belt can only drive the wheel at one fixed speed.
Your treadmill is a joke.

 

[spork]

The though of you flying passengers is worrying.

The thought of you moving freely about society is worrying. I hope and suspect this is not the case.

 

[humber]

And yet our carts on the treadmill and ynot's cart on the turntable have been shown to go both faster and slower than the wind at various wind speeds.

Repetition of your mistakes, only highlights them

Wrong.

As if that carried any weight.

And you'd rather spend months posting for almost 100 pages, fabricating "evidence" out of thin air, than to simply make or buy a cart to prove us wrong. The only explanation for that is that you know even your powers of confusion are not strong enough to "deny" the evidence in your own hands.

I know more than you do. That's the difference.

The cart cannot move. It can't go faster or slower than the wind. It hovers, it hops, it balances... but now it's unstable!?

Keep trying. You can't defeat the fact that the wheel is incapable of moving faster than the belt, and if it does not, its velocity is zero.
Your treadmill is a joke.
They are all part of the same mechanism, but you cant' see it, because as I have told you many times, you do not understand how it works.
You have fallen for your own mistakes, because only your opinion means anything to you.

Yes, I've noticed that all evidence that contradicts your "case" seems to "support" your case.

You notice nothing, drone.

 

[humber]

The thought of you moving freely about society is worrying. I hope and suspect this is not the case.

You're grounded.

All of them true. I like the highlighted best.

you run every time you have to explain yourself.
You hope that others will exhaust me, so you can late come back to make your usual schoolyard victory speech.

I owned you again.
You don't understand the wheel!
You failed to notice that the belt can only drive the wheel at one fixed speed.
Your treadmill is a joke.

 

[humber]

Ha! You are all failing. Fooled by the wheel and a toy on a belt.
Go ahead, make a list to please the Court Jester, then perhaps a little dance to keep him amused betwenn Flintstone's movies.

 

[spork]

I know more than you do.

You know less than my two hermit crabs - and this is a 95 page thread DEDICATED to that fact. You must be very proud.

There are literally thousands of posts here explaining just how wrong your "understanding" of physics is - and expressing utter amazement at your bizarre claims.

Can you find even ONE such post about my lack of understanding - that you didn't write?

 

[humber]

You know less than my two hermit crabs - and this is a 95 page thread DEDICATED to that fact. You must be very proud.

Hermit crabs are quite successful creatures. You must disappoint them.

There are literally thousands of posts here explaining just how wrong your "understanding" of physics is - and expressing utter amazement at your bizarre claims.

They have all proven to be false.
I will take the example of the elliptical wheel. The process by which such a vehicle moves, is more like that of walking than of a round wheel. When walking, you place a leg ahead you, and move over your foot, rather as a fulcrum. During this process, your body moves up and down in the gravitational field, and some of this energy is returned by various means. An elliptical wheel is much the same, but of course, less sophisticated.
As I said, as you walk, much of your mass is raised and lowered, and this is a major loss of the system. Wheels eliminate that motion, which is why cycling is so efficient.

The car on the hill is another. It is hill climbing, so it is likely that the tyre pressure is low, so it will readily be deformed. However, the majority of the load must be on the downhill side of the axle, if it is to make progress up the hill.
Also, there is no reference by which to make an accurate assessment.
This could be one photograph of many taken in rapid succession, or a single frame from a video. Perhaps the car is actually bouncing, and the wheel heavily loaded, or the opposite. It would be difficult to be sure

It is a car photographer's wet-dream, not evidence.

Can you find even ONE such post about my lack of understanding - that you didn't write?

There are two simple cases, that you have just directly supported. They do question your understanding, and your ability to assess evidence.

Want more?
OK, Sporksta. You start with any item from Dan_0's list, and see if you can hold your side. I predict failure to be imminent.

 

[mender]

The car on the hill is another. It is hill climbing, so it is likely that the tyre pressure is low, so it will readily be deformed. However, the majority of the load must be on the downhill side of the axle, if it is to make progress up the hill.
Also, there is no reference by which to make an accurate assessment.
This could be one photograph of many taken in rapid succession, or a single frame from a video. Perhaps the car is actually bouncing, and the wheel heavily loaded, or the opposite. It would be difficult to be sure

Perhpas the lack of dust around the parked jeep will give you a clue - perhaps not. It's difficult to be sure.

And aren't you suffering from sleep deprivation?

 

[humber]

Perhpas the lack of dust around the parked jeep will give you a clue - perhaps not. It's difficult to be sure.

Are you suggesting that the car is static? That could also be the case.
It's a photo. An instant in time.
That not withstanding, I do not need to even consider it. The force to drive a vehicle forward, comes from behind the axle. Newton says so, but he did not have a hill climbing buggy, so I expect that he is wrong.

The original BMW shot of the car on a belt in front of the windtunnel? That was done in a studio.

And aren't you suffering from sleep deprivation?

Do you think think what you see in the movies to be real?
Still, ahead of Spork again, Mender.