Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[humber]

I have to confess I haven't seen the beatings because I'm not keeping up with the thread very well at all. But I'll take your word for it. And to put it in perspective, try and imagine enduring humber for a couple of years. Now try and imagine that you are the focus of his lies and hatred. I hope you can see why I would have long since lost all patience with him.

I still owe you a review of your long post. My apologies for the delay.

"long lost patience"? That is funny.

 

[humber]

Ah yes; we all await the unveiling of Humdinger's Cart.*

* The test results are said to be either positive or negative with equal probability until Booger comes out from behind the couch and actually tests his cart. Without a test, no one can say for sure that his cart doesn't work.**

** In the unlikely event that a test actually does occur, see the HidingBooger Uncertainty Principle, Humberphysics Vol. 1, pg.495.

You really do try too hard to find the sawdust.
You and Spork can bang on all you like, but that TM time-bomb is armed and ticking. What I know of the TM, and how you managed to not see it, is a source of delight, bemusement and amusement. Keep posting your theories about it. Hilarious

 

[3point14]

Actually it isn't difficult to come up with insults, but hard to get them past the moderators.
KE is relative, but am 100% sure that does not mean what you think it does.
For all practical intent,you may as well say that it is true, but irrelevant.
A bit like the fact that if there are 3 stones on the ground, they form a triangle.
But, from that you could talk of Euclid and Pythagoras etc.
Similarly relative KE is another TAD wonder, like "absolute motion" and a result of the Emperor having no clothes.

This is the final piece of evidence I need to state, beyond reasonable doubt, that you really don't have a clue what you're on about. You know a few buzzwords, the names of some superb historical scientists and how a few equations are supposed to look, but you really don't get it at all, do you?


I'm willing to bet that you have no qualifications. Have you done post-graduate (or even undergraduate) work in this (or any other scientific) field? do you, the assembled company wants to know, have any letters after your name? From reputable educational establishments, I hasten to add.

You don't, do you?

 

[quarky]

As a small time inventor myself, I have had many people, mostly in construction trades, tell me that something I was suggesting couldn't be done. If it what something I cared much about, I would go ahead and build it. After that, when they could see it; touch it; examine it...the debate was over. Some admiration was often expressed.

I can't imagine the frustration of having some of them continue to argue against the item and its concept after the fact.
Hence, I am empathetic to the occasional short fuses here, especially considering how long it has gone on. Still, I wish it would stop, and we could get back to some fascinating physics.

 

[quarky]

Double post. Oops.

 

[CORed]

You really do try too hard to find the sawdust.
You and Spork can bang on all you like, but that TM time-bomb is armed and ticking. What I know of the TM, and how you managed to not see it, is a source of delight, bemusement and amusement. Keep posting your theories about it. Hilarious

I said this before, but it was a whole lot of pages back. I think the reality is that humber thinks he knows how to make a cart that will move against the belt without a propeller. He's tried it, and it almost works. Any day now, he thinks he'll find the tweak that really makes it work. Of course, there is no tweak that will make it really work, so he just keeps claiming he's already made it work.

 

[mender]

You really do try too hard to find the sawdust.
You and Spork can bang on all you like, but that TM time-bomb is armed and ticking. What I know of the TM, and how you managed to not see it, is a source of delight, bemusement and amusement. Keep posting your theories about it. Hilarious

If there really was any substance behind your verbosity, you'd be able to come up with something (anything!) that had a wink of truth to it; you haven't. You've only shown yourself to be a mirror of reality: an image only, reversed, tracking movement but having no existence.

Example: "What I know of the TM, and how you managed to not see it, is a source of delight, bemusement and amusement. Keep posting your theories about it. Hilarious."

A perfect reflection of what has been said countless times about you. Please do keep posting your theories, as that's the entertainment (and fertilizer) that keeps this topic alive.

 

[mender]

I said this before, but it was a whole lot of pages back. I think the reality is that humber thinks he knows how to make a cart that will move against the belt without a propeller. He's tried it, and it almost works. Any day now, he thinks he'll find the tweak that really makes it work. Of course, there is no tweak that will make it really work, so he just keeps claiming he's already made it work.

And if he ever succeeds, we can revel in the fact that we were there for the ringing in of the new era of scientific discovery.

 

[temporalillusion]

Actually it isn't difficult to come up with insults, but hard to get them past the moderators.

Ah ok, that tells me something else about you then as well.

KE is relative, but am 100% sure that does not mean what you think it does.
For all practical intent,you may as well say that it is true, but irrelevant.

See, after avoiding the question for pages that wasn't so hard was it? That's all I needed to know.

Forgive me though if I don't put any stock in what you are 100% sure of given that you didn't even know how an airplane generates lift and your answer to this question.

Carry on, reading what you think passes for convincing arguments is an interesting glimpse into another person's mind.

 

[mender]

Yo mender. I know I had a link to John's "Retard Tennis" somewhere, but couldn't find it. Thanks for posting it. You might remember when spork also did so on that thread I started here on the Ivanpah runs, and said it was a must read. He's reposted it at TR several times.

Still can't find "A Day at the Humber Olympics". I'll try some other searches.

 

[humber]

This is the final piece of evidence I need to state, beyond reasonable doubt, that you really don't have a clue what you're on about. You know a few buzzwords, the names of some superb historical scientists and how a few equations are supposed to look, but you really don't get it at all, do you?


I'm willing to bet that you have no qualifications. Have you done post-graduate (or even undergraduate) work in this (or any other scientific) field? do you, the assembled company wants to know, have any letters after your name? From reputable educational establishments, I hasten to add.

You don't, do you?

Oh, quite a lot, but that is not relevant, and you seen Spork's, have you?
Not claimed, but proven?
I do understand frames of reference, and that tells me you don't.

 

[humber]

I said this before, but it was a whole lot of pages back. I think the reality is that humber thinks he knows how to make a cart that will move against the belt without a propeller. He's tried it, and it almost works. Any day now, he thinks he'll find the tweak that really makes it work. Of course, there is no tweak that will make it really work, so he just keeps claiming he's already made it work.

Oh, I have anticipated that objection, even though it does work, by showing that the prop cart operates by the same means, but not so efficiently; and how many clues were missed. A subtitle of "doh" is in use.

ETA:
What if you saw it now? Would that make you think the cart did not work?
If the answer is no, and I can expect that, do you now see why when and how is critical?

 

[3point14]

Oh, quite a lot, but that is not relevant, and you seen Spork's, have you?

Not claimed, but proven?

So that's a 'no', then?

If not, then I'm not asking you to prove it, just to tell me what your qualifications are and from which educational establishment they were attained.

I do understand frames of reference, and that tells me you don't.

No, you don't. You've proved it time and again that you really, really don't. the fact that you think you do just makes you lack of comprehension even more complete.

 

[humber]

Still can't find "A Day at the Humber Olympics". I'll try some other searches.

The TM. Like an alchemist seeing gold in sulphur (sulfur) .

 

[humber]

So that's a 'no', then?

If not, then I'm not asking you to prove it, just to tell me what your qualifications are and from which educational establishment they were attained.

And why should I tell you that? You many assume what you may, but I can see without you telling me about yours, and Spork's his, that means nothing.
And Spork has already posted a PM and every email address he thinks is mine.

No, you don't. You've proved it time and again that you really, really don't. the fact that you think you do just makes you lack of comprehension even more complete.

Referring to KE in an inertial frame is totally redundant. Unless there is acceleration, that KE will never change, or be exchanged, so may as well not be there. Applies to all energy exchange too. The wind can't transfer momentum without acceleration one way or the other.
When it does, your inertial frame goes, and all that you claimed from it.
Inertial frames and relative KE, are the simplest of all the other models. That is all. A Tellytubby version, that leaves out all that the others include.

I asked you would you change your mind?

 

[humber]

If there really was any substance behind your verbosity, you'd be able to come up with something (anything!) that had a wink of truth to it; you haven't. You've only shown yourself to be a mirror of reality: an image only, reversed, tracking movement but having no existence.

Dangerous, when mirroring someone else, and after paying $40 for the opportunity.

Example: "What I know of the TM, and how you managed to not see it, is a source of delight, bemusement and amusement. Keep posting your theories about it. Hilarious."
A perfect reflection of what has been said countless times about you. Please do keep posting your theories, as that's the entertainment (and fertilizer) that keeps this topic alive.

Have you tried phosphorous?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I do understand frames of reference, and that tells me you don't.

It's hard to set much store by that claim. Unfortunately, one of the very first things I gleaned from your posts was that you appear to find frames of reference almost entirely bewildering.

 

[3point14]

And why should I tell you that? You many assume what you may, but I can see without you telling me about yours, and Spork's his, that means nothing.
And Spork has already posted a PM and every email address he thinks is mine.

Oh, I'll tell you mine - I don't have any. There. Job done.

Your turn.

Referring to KE in an inertial frame is totally redundant. Unless there is acceleration, that KE will never change, or be exchanged, so may as well not be there. Applies to all energy exchange too. The wind can't transfer momentum without acceleration one way or the other.
When it does, your inertial frame goes, and all that you claimed from it.

Oh no, you doin't get to use the sciencey type language without laying down your credentials first. Tell me what your degree is in and where you got it, then I'll decipher your sciencey language. I may need help, as I'm an ignoramus without qualifications, but I can find help if I need it, I assure you.

I asked you would you change your mind?

(ETA: Where? I missed it)

Actually, yes. If you held some sort of postgrad qualification in aerodynamics or a smilar field and had published papers that had survived rigorous peer review, then I'd sit down and try and find the holes in the thought experiments that you have so often failed to point out.

So, what did you study, what did you get and where did you get it, Humber?

 

[humber]

It's hard to set much store by that claim. Unfortunately, one of the very first things I gleaned from your posts was that you appear to find frames of reference almost entirely bewildering.

Trivial and irrelevant. Not so in some applications, that's for sure.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The wind can't transfer momentum without acceleration one way or the other.
When it does, your inertial frame goes, and all that you claimed from it.

This is an interesting claim. Can you expand on what you think it means?

ETA The second sentence, that is. The first is entirely clear, thanks.