Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[Jack by the hedge]

Wind farms. The wind regains energy as it passes from one turbine to the other, by means that cannot be explained by motion of the ground.

What do you imagine this actually means? If you would care to describe the process by which "the wind regains energy as it passes from one turbine to the other" in the reference frame where the ground is static, the same process can be described in any other reference frame you like.

I fondly imagine, for example, that your description would include the air which interacts with the turbine being slowed, but then turbulence and eddies dispersing this slowed air so that the loss of speed is rapidly spread through a large body of air, so the loss of speed is soon barely detectable.

From the frame of reference of the wind, the turbine moves backwards through the still air, and the air which interacts with it is accelerated backwards but turbulence and eddies rapidly disperse this moving air so that the backwards drift is rapidly spread through a large volume of air so its gaining motion is soon barely detectable.

 

[humber]

What do you imagine this actually means? If you would care to describe the process by which "the wind regains energy as it passes from one turbine to the other" in the reference frame where the ground is static, the same process can be described in any other reference frame you like.

Bombast.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Person power.
Wind power.
None of the latter on the TM. The road powers the cart. Unplug it, and see how well it runs without the electric motor driving it. What a joke...kitchen sink physics.

You're not making sense. As usual. A person walking along or standing still in a wind is exactly analogous to a person walking along or standing still on a treadmill. A cart being blown along by the wind is exactly analogous to a cart on a treadmill being restrained from travelling with the belt by the wind. It's exactly the same physics, viewed from a different vantage point.

Do you really think you're making a useful point with that "unplug it and see how well it runs" stuff? If you unplug the fan that's creating artificial wind, you'd see how exactly analogous that is.

 

[3point14]

Bombast.

I don't think it was bombastic at all. In fact, I think it was quite appropriate response given the apparent inability of the correspondent to comprehend the subject being discussed.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Bombast.

Handwaving is no substitute for having a valid argument. You have no valid argument. You are absolutely dead flat wrong about some very simple physics. Inertial frames of reference are not magic, not contentious and not difficult to grasp. This is absolutely basic Newtonian mechanics. Instead of jumping up and down on an aircraft carrier why don't you read a basic introduction? Since you love to copy/paste Wikipedia, you could make a start by actually reading its description.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

So this means ddwfttw hasn't been proven beyond doubt also, right?

Exactly. That's why they use the word "reasonable" doubt in our court system -- there is always someone who will doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Perhaps you should learn what the term "beyond a doubt" means.

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

He said spork claimed the energy came from the TM motor, which he clearly did.

Here is what prof *actually* said (note underlined):

Spork has already agreed the energy to do that is coming from the treadmill and not the wind.

Spork has NEVER said that the energy is not coming from the wind -- in fact he has ALWAYS said the opposite.

You FAIL again, but thanks for playing.

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Hmm. A confession, jbt?

This of course coming from the only one between the two of us who has misrepresented themselves posting and tried to pass themselves off as someone else.

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

The reason I brought this up is because supporters of the different theories all claim to be right, and each group says their conclusions are based on fundamental physics. Sound familiar?

It sounds VERY familiar and my point remains exactly the same - once it's been done and repeateably tested, arguing for the opposite result is just silly.

Reality matters (in the real world, not your world).

JB

 

[sol invictus]

This thread moves too fast for me.... or maybe I move too fast for it?

Odd to you perhaps, not to me. But try to be a bit more specific, please. I am not talking about a moving earth mass, like a landslide here, but the moving earth! That is a significant difference since the gravitational force of the earth moves everything along with it. If something is to move independently of the moving earth, it must have a source of energy other than the earth itself, something like a wind or an engine. The earth is not going to assist something in moving with respect to the earth itself.

The earth certainly can help something move "faster" than it. A good example is a sailboat - as I hope you are aware, standard sailboats (and sail-powered iceboats and land carts) can exceed the speed of the wind, both in absolute terms and even along the direction of the wind (not by sailing directly downwind faster than the wind, but by tacking).

That would be impossible if it weren't for the existence of the earth and the boat's contact with the ground or water, since a sail immersed in air and uncoupled to anything else (like a balloon) can only move at the speed of the air mass it is immersed in. Sailing faster than the wind works through a kind of leverage, and it's very very similar to how the cart works.

Once again, please don't say the ground, when you mean the entire earth. The ground may be a conveyor belt and that is the entire point; the road cannot be a conveyor belt because it is the earth itself and they are not the same.

According to the laws of physics, only relative velocities are physical. Therefore there is no difference between a large moving conveyer belt and stationary air and a large stationary conveyer belt and moving air. It's not just that the differences are small - there is literally no difference at all. Only relative velocities are real; absolute velocity is completely meaningless.

 

[humber]

Here is what prof *actually* said (note underlined):



Spork has NEVER said that the energy is not coming from the wind -- in fact he has ALWAYS said the opposite.

You FAIL again, but thanks for playing.

JB

It was clearly a mistake, and one borne of actually thinking that the wheels drive the cart, which is what he does think. The energy from the wind idea is a smoke screen begged borrowed and stolen to cover that fact.

 

[humber]

It sounds VERY familiar and my point remains exactly the same - once it's been done and repeateably tested, arguing for the opposite result is just silly.

Reality matters (in the real world, not your world).

JB

You have no evidence, whatsoever.
RP's point is that nothing can be proven from arguing about principles.
The validity or not of Galilean Relativity, says absolutely nothing about your cart working or not.

 

[humber]

This thread moves too fast for me.... or maybe I move too fast for it?



The earth certainly can help something move "faster" than it. A good example is a sailboat - as I hope you are aware, standard sailboats (and sail-powered iceboats and land carts) can exceed the speed of the wind, both in absolute terms and even along the direction of the wind (not by sailing directly downwind faster than the wind, but by tacking).

Yes. That is called "moving relative to the wind". The fastest vehicles are those with the least possible connection to the ground. The lower the friction, the better.
There are plans to launch space vehicles using the solar wind. No ground there.

That would be impossible if it weren't for the existence of the earth and the boat's contact with the ground or water, since a sail immersed in air and uncoupled to anything else (like a balloon) can only move at the speed of the air mass it is immersed in. Sailing faster than the wind works through a kind of leverage, and it's very very similar to how the cart works.

That is to confuse energy and force. All of the energy comes from the wind, with the ground providing opposing forces, both for the lift and drag forces. None drive the boat in any way. The TM has a power source as the ground, whereas in reality none exists.

According to the laws of physics, only relative velocities are physical. Therefore there is no difference between a large moving conveyer belt and stationary air and a large stationary conveyer belt and moving air. It's not just that the differences are small - there is literally no difference at all.

There certainly is, because a belt is not a "velocity", but a belt.
Wind can move in 3 dimensions, but a belt in one dimension, so the differences are huge.

Only relative velocities are real; absolute velocity is completely meaningless.

And if there were? If NASA were to say that space was indeed absolute, the cart would change in what way?

 

[humber]

This of course coming from the only one between the two of us who has misrepresented themselves posting and tried to pass themselves off as someone else.

JB

And Sporks remains the only one to post a PM as a sorry means of defending his case, due to lack of choice.

 

[humber]

Handwaving is no substitute for having a valid argument. You have no valid argument. You are absolutely dead flat wrong about some very simple physics. Inertial frames of reference are not magic, not contentious and not difficult to grasp. This is absolutely basic Newtonian mechanics. Instead of jumping up and down on an aircraft carrier why don't you read a basic introduction? Since you love to copy/paste Wikipedia, you could make a start by actually reading its description.

Why bother? I leave you at the starting gate, wiki or not.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Therefore there is no difference between a large moving conveyer belt and stationary air and a large stationary conveyer belt and moving air. It's not just that the differences are small - there is literally no difference at all.

There certainly is, because a belt is not a "velocity", but a belt.
Wind can move in 3 dimensions, but a belt in one dimension, so the differences are huge.

I think you missed the point entirely. Sol's point was not that a belt is the same as the wind. Perhaps it would help if it were laid out differently:

there is no difference between;

a) a large moving conveyer belt and stationary air and
b) a large stationary conveyer belt and moving air.
​

Any clearer now?

 

[3point14]

Yes. That is called "moving relative to the wind". The fastest vehicles are those with the least possible connection to the ground. The lower the friction, the better.
There are plans to launch space vehicles using the solar wind. No ground there.


That is to confuse energy and force. All of the energy comes from the wind, with the ground providing opposing forces, both for the lift and drag forces. None drive the boat in any way. The TM has a power source as the ground, whereas in reality none exists.



There certainly is, because a belt is not a "velocity", but a belt.
Wind can move in 3 dimensions, but a belt in one dimension, so the differences are huge.


And if there were? If NASA were to say that space was indeed absolute, the cart would change in what way?

You really don't understand this at all, do you.

That's okay, lots of people cleverer than you didn't get it the first time, don't be so down on yourself. Keep studying, keep thinking about it and one day it will just go 'ping' (like a lightbulb).

Start with learning a little about inertial frames and go from there. Do make sure you understand each section before you move on to the next, I think that's perhaps been your problem until now.

Keep on with the study and, above all, keep an open mind, you'll get it in the end!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why bother? I leave you at the starting gate, wiki or not.

You certainly have a knack of leaving everyone else standing agape as you gallop off, full pelt, in the wrong direction.

 

[windgrins]

Humber, A riddle for you and your proposition:

That is to confuse energy and force. All of the energy comes from the wind, with the ground providing opposing forces, both for the lift and drag forces. None drive the boat in any way. The TM has a power source as the ground, whereas in reality none exists. ?

Energy can be stored by pressurizing a gas in a cylinder. If I put a piston and cylinder with a gas in it between the two faces of a clamp-face a and b. One side of the clamp is attached to the earth, the other to a threaded screw attached to the earth. Now I don't tell you which side of the clamp is attached to earth and which side is attached to the threaded screw and I put pressure on the piston with the clamp. I can certainly rig my clamp so that both jaws move equally as I apply the pressure so no difference there.

Which is it Humber-Clamp face a or b putting the energy into compressing the gas in the cylinder? They both have the same pressure on each face by definition so which one is the energy coming from?

 

[profpangloss]

Please could you give a reply to my question?

First of all, show me a frame of reference where the air is at rest, outside in the real world. Winds don’t move over the ground in response to the motion of the earth’s surface as happens on a treadmill. If you think they do, how would you explain the tornados that just tore through much of the South? Was the surface of the earth spinning wildly around in many different places, causing those wind funnels? You see, you can take these batty reference frame transformations too far, and arrive at all sorts of incorrect conclusions. You may as well stand on your head and call the floor the ceiling, and now your head is touching it. Little kiddies do that sort of thing and we think it’s cute. When grown men do that sort of thing, we call them crackpots.

As I said in response to another poster, you can say a sail cart or a wind turbine is powered by the ground, if it makes you feel somehow superior to say such a thing. But the reality is the planet earth is a large rock with a mass of about 6 x 10^24 kg, more than one million times the mass of the entire atmosphere. Due to gravitational attraction, the atmosphere moves with the planet, with the exception of local disturbances mostly due to temperature differentials and these are what we call winds. The winds are for the most part unpredictable, changing velocity and direction pretty much with a mind of their own, while this big rock we call the earth stays rock solid under our feet, regardless of how it moves through space. Objects sit still on the surface of this big rock due to gravitational attraction and friction with the surface, and it requires energy to move them. It is ridiculous to say that the energy to move them against the friction and gravitational attraction comes from the earth itself, the very thing that is holding things in place! It is ridiculous to say that a road, fixed on the earth’s surface, is going to power something to move along that road, because it most certainly does not do that!

Once again, if you want to act that that little boy, standing on his head and saying his head is now on the ceiling, go right ahead and do so. But you will probably find more than a few people laughing at you.

The kinematic energy for the sail cart is coming from that thing that is filling those sails, the wind and not from the ground. Changing the reference frame does not change reality, only your perception of reality. If your claim for DDWFTTW rests on a change in perception, as it appears it does, then it rests on nothing but nonsense and is probably not even worth discussing.

If you want to continue, then show me some mathematics to support this claim.