• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

Status
Not open for further replies.
jadebox said:
Gee, I'm trying to understand how the cart works and how to explain it to others. You're just trying to be an ass.

-- Roger
Click to expand...

I think after 4000 posts in this thread alone they feel like they have explained it. In other words, your persistence in trying to improve on what they feel has already been done is a bit grating. At least that's the impression I get.

Really, if you want someone to understand I would point them to the Wired article. It is a good introduction to the problem and the solution. I'm sure if I read through more of the online threads Spork and TAD have more technical explanations out there, but the Wired article is the best place for a layman to start.

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/04/features/faster
 
Dr. Keith said:
In other words, your persistence in trying to improve on what they feel has already been done is a bit grating.
Click to expand...

Not really (though I understand why you might think that).

What's grating is when people who don't understand the vehicle and can't use terms consistently claim that they have a better way to explain it.

There have been many folk (MichaelC, A.T., Myriad, etc, etc) who have added to and improved the explanations -- we are grateful for that, not grated by it.

JB
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
Really, if you want someone to understand I would point them to the Wired article. It is a good introduction to the problem and the solution. I'm sure if I read through more of the online threads Spork and TAD have more technical explanations out there, but the Wired article is the best place for a layman to start.

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/04/features/faster
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I recall seeing a link to it before, but haven't read it yet. I will.

-- Roger
 
jadebox said:
Hmmm .... has anyone ever seen humber and ThinAirDesigns in the same room at the same time? :)
Click to expand...
No, but when spork and jb give a presentation-like at Stanford-there is only one chair on the stage and at some point spork drinks a glass of water while jb is talking. It's a real crowd pleaser. :p

@ynot: It has been suggested by several in this very forum that spork and Humber might be the same person. One of them was sol invictus, but can't recall the others. Intriguing hypothesis though. Sherlock creates his own Dr. Moriarty and the reader is left wondering which is which. ;)
 
Last edited:
ThinAirDesigns said:
Not really (though I understand why you might think that).

What's grating is when people who don't understand the vehicle and can't use terms consistently claim that they have a better way to explain it.

There have been many folk (MichaelC, A.T., Myriad, etc, etc) who have added to and improved the explanations -- we are grateful for that, not grated by it.

JB
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was a bit hasty in my characterization. I can certainly see the distinction.

And I'm just happy Windgrins didn't make your list of helpful posters. So, perky all the time. :D
 
Dr. Keith said:
Yeah, I was a bit hasty in my characterization. I can certainly see the distinction.
Click to expand...

No problem.

We've seen the pattern hundreds (if not thousands of times) across scores of forums over the last several years: People think they understand it, clearly don't, tell us we're explaining it wrong and then proceed to explain incorrectly how it works.

The old timers to the topic know that no one explanation is the 'light bulb' for everyone. What works for one simply confuses another.

People see what is a 'new' explanation to them and they say to us "his explanation is waay better than yours" without realized that we have given *that very explanation* scores of times, perhaps even originated it, and realize that it only works for some.

New explanations are not grating. New *incorrect* explanations are, especially when accompanied by a "my explanation is better than yours" attitude.

JB
 
windgrins said:
We would have to ask Ynot if either or both explanations were more or less helpful to the question he asked.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but even that's not relevant until he understands the true answer. If he were to say "the air cushion explanation" really helped me - it wouldn't be much of an endorsement.

Dr. Keith said:
No doubt. But for now he appears to be willing to learn, and my wisdom is not as deep as yours. I just recently gave up on humber, after all.
Click to expand...

RCP always "appears" to be willing to learn. Hang out here for a while.


Dr. Keith said:
I think after 4000 posts in this thread alone they feel like they have explained it. In other words, your persistence in trying to improve on what they feel has already been done is a bit grating. At least that's the impression I get.
Click to expand...

JB already said it, but it bears repeating. Lots of people have joined in with lots of good insights and explanations. Michael's kinematic carts and videos are famous, as well as the animations by A.T. and others. Help is always welcome.

But it is FAR too common for folks to tell us "you're explaining it all wrong", "you're just trying to obfuscate", "here's how it really works (followed by a completely wrong explanation)", and "this is a 'better' way to describe it".

If there's one thing I've learned here, there is no such thing as a "better" description - only a better description for a particular individual.

And despite the common claim, we don't mind people that disagree with us. We mind people that lie and/or insult us.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
It's a good article.

RP, have you read it?
Click to expand...
Of course I have. Posted there also on one of their Wired articles. I believe there were 3 in all. And if you check on jb's blog you'll see I was the second person to sign on as a follower. I've seen the Discovery video, looked at all by spork33 on YT many times. (Did you see the one of spork palming a basketball after Humber said he had dainty hands? One of my favorites.) I've read everything on the hundreds of pages here, at RDF, and TR.

There's a lot you haven't seen though, Doc. Some of it might even make you wonder a bit about what's going on. You know who George Burdell is, right? I can see possibilities for that crew with 2 very different plot lines. A well orchestrated hoax to show how gullible physicists can be, or one of keeping a topic going by creating adversaries. Note that neither spork or jb posted any of the links I requested to back up spork's claim about sites where there were 20 deniers against just them. Every discussion I've seen has been like here, where the vast majority agree with them. :cool:
 
spork said:
But it is FAR too common for folks to tell us "you're explaining it all wrong", "you're just trying to obfuscate", "here's how it really works (followed by a completely wrong explanation)", and "this is a 'better' way to describe it".
Click to expand...

Wow ... the rest of us must look really small from up there ..... :-)

-- Roger
 
recursive prophet said:
Note that neither spork or jb posted any of the links I requested to back up spork's claim about sites where there were 20 deniers against just them.
Click to expand...

We don't do a lot of things that guys like humber and RCP ask us to do. It's not productive as RCP won't remember it tomorrow anyway.

Every discussion I've seen has been like here, where the vast majority agree with them.
Click to expand...

You're a relative newbie RCP. There was a time before there was an 'army of carters' (to borrow a humber term).

Still to this day though, if you pick a forum (even a science forum) and ask the question, the vast majority of folk who are new to the problem will immediately answer incorrectly and dig in their heels. Search the "Sailing Anarchy" forum if you want to see an example of us swimming against a massive tide. It was hilarious.

JB
 
jadebox said:
Wow ... the rest of us must look really small from up there ..... :-)

-- Roger
Click to expand...

It's not that you look "small", it's that you have decided that you have a better way to explain how the device works and have taken that position even though you don't understand how the device works. It's not hard to figure that it won't end well with you taking that position.

All of our explanations are correct and some of yours are not - nothing more, nothing less.

JB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom