Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[D'rok]

That is quite interesting from a man who does not like stereotypes.

Spork posted my PM for no other reason than to get back at me. Sheer malice. Recursive Prophet told me that when he spoke to Spork on the phone, he said he was not like he is on the forum, so I gave Spork the benefit of the doubt, and put that bit about alexia to pander to his preconceived ideas.

But I am a cynic, and thought that perhaps he simply turns Mr Nice guy on when it suits him.
If he was as RP had described him, then he would not have posted that email. He failed.

There isn't actually any shame in having a condition like alexia, you know.

 

[jduffy77]

The cart is a sham. A failed up wind cart, pushed through a sham trial.
Riddled with holes, bad experimental control and bias.
I can even turn it into a PM machine and you still support it.
That says more than anything else said.

Actually you tried to turn it into a PM machine and could not because you kept forgetting that wind does not stop blowing because you wish it did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The cart is a sham. A failed up wind cart, pushed through a sham trial.
Riddled with holes, bad experimental control and bias.
I can even turn it into a PM machine and you still support it.
That says more than anything else said.

Keep repeating that lie, you might believe it some day. To anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature it won't do any good.

 

[D'rok]

Well done. Elvis and The Moon landing on one post. Hitler for the trifecta.

I dunno what you think about Elvis, but a few pages back you did say that, mathematically speaking, rockets can't work in space. I guess that means no moon landing, eh?

 

[3point14]

Uh-huh.

Okay, what does that mean? 'Uh-huh'? Does that come with a shake or a nod of the head? or a smile? Help me out here, that 'Uh-huh' means nothing, so I'm going to need you to put a little bit of context into that 'Uh-huh'

The trial says I am right.

No, that's not what I asked. I didn't ask what would prove you right. I asked what would prove you wrong. Tell me what would prove you wrong. I'm betting you won't. If you don't, I shan't respond again. Sorry.

No, that is a dormitory trope. I think that there is a perhaps a coincidence. You can't do math?



Mini-Popper.

I really don't understand any of this. If you'd like me to respond to it, then you're really going to have to expand. Of course you won't, and you certainly won't tell me what practical demonstration would prove you wrong, so we shan't speak on the topic again and I will lean back and bask in the expansive glow of my rightness.

Have a good day.

 

[humber]

Okay, what does that mean? 'Uh-huh'? Does that come with a shake or a nod of the head? or a smile? Help me out here, that 'Uh-huh' means nothing, so I'm going to need you to put a little bit of context into that 'Uh-huh'

It's shorthand.

No, that's not what I asked. I didn't ask what would prove you right. I asked what would prove you wrong. Tell me what would prove you wrong. I'm betting you won't. If you don't, I shan't respond again. Sorry.

Well, that can't be done by demonstrating something that does not work.

I really don't understand any of this. If you'd like me to respond to it, then you're really going to have to expand. Of course you won't,

Then you will see your expectation met.

 

[humber]

Keep repeating that lie, you might believe it some day. To anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature it won't do any good.

So, you say, but your assurance of your position, is contradicted by your need to constantly defend it. It's a phony.

 

[CORed]

I certainly agree with you 100%, although in this case it is worth noting that Humber doesn't really take refuge in math. He has never posted any coherent math which argued against the cart at all.

Back when the discussion was about the validity of treadmill tests, humber posted a lot of incoherent math. He made several attempts to show that the cart on a treadmill in still air wasn't equivalent to the cart on the stationary road with the wind blowing. For some reason, when changing frames of reference, he just couldn't get a handle on the idea that he add to add the same value to all velocities. He'd neglect to do that for some value, then say, "See, it's different! The treadmill's not equivalent."

So I find it quite ironic that he blathers about "math" when he's incapable of applying it correctly himself.

 

[CORed]

The cart is a sham. A failed up wind cart, pushed through a sham trial.
Riddled with holes, bad experimental control and bias.
I can even turn it into a PM machine and you still support it.
That says more than anything else said.

In humber's world a cart designed to go dowind that does exactly what it's designed to do is a "failed upwind cart".

Note that the cart is not a PM machine, nor has it ever been claimed to be a PM machine except by humber.

Humber has repeatedly demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of basic physics, including failure to understand simple Gallilean relativity, claiming that a balloon drifting with the wind moves slower than the wind due to drag (what drag?) and insisting that kinetic energy is absolute. In short, he is either a remarkably persistent troll, or remarkably persistent in defending his ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you say, but your assurance of your position, is contradicted by your need to constantly defend it. It's a phony.

Nice try, but you are projecting again. No one posts more nonsense on this topic than you do. You can be baited into making incredibly idiotic claims about physics by making you try to analyze the carts. Remember the acceleration of a ball at the top of its arc? And who could forget how you ran away from the debate on treadmill equivalence when it was obvious that you were about to lose.

Pull the other one humber, it has bells on.

 

[humber]

Back when the discussion was about the validity of treadmill tests, humber posted a lot of incoherent math. He made several attempts to show that the cart on a treadmill in still air wasn't equivalent to the cart on the stationary road with the wind blowing. For some reason, when changing frames of reference, he just couldn't get a handle on the idea that he add to add the same value to all velocities. He'd neglect to do that for some value, then say, "See, it's different! The treadmill's not equivalent."

So I find it quite ironic that he blathers about "math" when he's incapable of applying it correctly himself.

Oh, want to prove that? I take comfort in the fact that you may not agree but many mathematically proficient people do.

Dr. Paul J. Camp Physics Department Spelman College: I'm happy to be quoted by name on this issue by anyone who wishes to do so. The treadmill/non-treadmill issue is entirely one of reference frames and physical law is not dependent on reference frame choice. . . I believe it is not just a different reference frame but in fact a different experiment but that doesn't matter. Personally, I would just bag it.

Just because Galileo may be right, does not mean that you are.

 

[humber]

Nice try, but you are projecting again. No one posts more nonsense on this topic than you do. You can be baited into making incredibly idiotic claims about physics by making you try to analyze the carts. Remember the acceleration of a ball at the top of its arc? And who could forget how you ran away from the debate on treadmill equivalence when it was obvious that you were about to lose.

Pull the other one humber, it has bells on.

I will reply on the other channel.

 

[Modified]

No, that's not what I asked. I didn't ask what would prove you right. I asked what would prove you wrong. Tell me what would prove you wrong. I'm betting you won't. If you don't, I shan't respond again. Sorry.

As I said before, I don't think he's capable of admitting to being wrong. I met someone like that once - a girlfriends grandfather. He claimed that the thumping sound outside my car could not be a flat tire, and continued to claim it wasn't flat even when we were staring directly at the clearly flat tire, and told me I was changing the tire for no reason.

 

[humber]

As I said before, I don't think he's capable of admitting to being wrong.

Gather around the well, ye villagers. Come hear the tales of mystery.

I met someone like that once - a girlfriends grandfather.

Oh, an anecdote.

He claimed that the thumping sound outside my car could not be a flat tire, and continued to claim it wasn't flat even when we were staring directly at the clearly flat tire, and told me I was changing the tire for no reason.

Maybe it wasn't flat.

Well, that load of old rope has not dented anything.
It is in black and white, the you all supported my proposal for a cart that was driven by its brakes.
That one goes in the book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

humber, deferring to Camp on the one aspect of the cart that he did not understand does not credit your argument in any way. If you do refer to him you should also include the fact that he said your perpetual motion claims have no basis in reality. And lastly if the treadmill is not valid, why did you run away from the yes/no questions I was asking you? I am sure you remember, that was the one where you would have had to admit that the cart on the treadmill was the equivalent of the cart on the road at wind speed.

 

[jduffy77]

humber, deferring to Camp on the one aspect of the cart that he did not understand does not credit your argument in any way. If you do refer to him you should also include the fact that he said your perpetual motion claims have no basis in reality. And lastly if the treadmill is not valid, why did you run away from the yes/no questions I was asking you? I am sure you remember, that was the one where you would have had to admit that the cart on the treadmill was the equivalent of the cart on the road at wind speed.

I know Spork said he believed that Camp still could not understand the TM equivalence even after it was explained to him but it is incredible to me that Humber holds up Camp's email as supporting his craziness. Camp comes down firmly on the side of ddwfttw is completely possible. Even his reference to the TM is simply saying if we are talking about it because of the ddw cart, let's stop. There is no need. The cart works.

ETA: In fact on the basis of his email alone, you could not really say Camp was wrong. It is funny that in Humber's quote he correctly states that the "treadmill/non-treadmill issue is entirely one of reference frames and physical law is not dependent on reference frame" which neatly sums up why they are equivalent. He then goes on to say that it is a different experiment which is obviously true as far as it goes. So without other conversation (which I understand did take place) he said nothing wrong. Why Humber uses that quote all the time is beyond me.

 

[humber]

humber, deferring to Camp on the one aspect of the cart that he did not understand does not credit your argument in any way. If you do refer to him you should also include the fact that he said your perpetual motion claims have no basis in reality. And lastly if the treadmill is not valid, why did you run away from the yes/no questions I was asking you? I am sure you remember, that was the one where you would have had to admit that the cart on the treadmill was the equivalent of the cart on the road at wind speed.

Yeah. Dr Camp is wrong too.
Hilarious. You start out the he just doesn't get it, but a salesman knows all.

There is not text book support for any of the claims made for the cart. Nothing.

The latest claim of "distance through the air" and that electical model, are recently acquired.
None of you noticed that was slipped in. I am called a liar when I say that one came from Steve Smith, but there is no evidence of Spork mentioning it prior to that. And you won't find any.
I exchanged emails with Smith, and it comes from him.

 

[humber]

I know Spork said he believed that Camp still could not understand the TM equivalence even after it was explained to him but it is incredible to me that Humber holds up Camp's email as supporting his craziness. Camp comes down firmly on the side of ddwfttw is completely possible. Even his reference to the TM is simply saying if we are talking about it because of the ddw cart, let's stop. There is no need. The cart works.

ETA: In fact on the basis of his email alone, you could not really say Camp was wrong. It is funny that in Humber's quote he correctly states that the "treadmill/non-treadmill issue is entirely one of reference frames and physical law is not dependent on reference frame" which neatly sums up why they are equivalent. He then goes on to say that it is a different experiment which is obviously true as far as it goes. So without other conversation (which I understand did take place) he said nothing wrong. Why Humber uses that quote all the time is beyond me.

He said...Bag it!

I sold you a cart that goes faster when the brakes are applied.
That really does damage you credibility beyond redemption.

 

[CORed]

Oh, want to prove that? I take comfort in the fact that you may not agree but many mathematically proficient people do.

Dr. Paul J. Camp Physics Department Spelman College: I'm happy to be quoted by name on this issue by anyone who wishes to do so. The treadmill/non-treadmill issue is entirely one of reference frames and physical law is not dependent on reference frame choice. . . I believe it is not just a different reference frame but in fact a different experiment but that doesn't matter. Personally, I would just bag it.

Just because Galileo may be right, does not mean that you are.

I did prove it, in the other thread. The part of the quote before the ellipsis would seem to support the position that the treadmill is a valid test of the cart. It's hard to tell what the last part means without whatever was left out. I suspect you are quote mining a letter that in fact does not support your position. You can prove me wrong by posting what you left out.

 

[CORed]

humber, deferring to Camp on the one aspect of the cart that he did not understand does not credit your argument in any way. If you do refer to him you should also include the fact that he said your perpetual motion claims have no basis in reality. And lastly if the treadmill is not valid, why did you run away from the yes/no questions I was asking you? I am sure you remember, that was the one where you would have had to admit that the cart on the treadmill was the equivalent of the cart on the road at wind speed.

Looks like my suspicion that humber is quote mining Camp is correct. Of course, that's just us carteers conspiring to keep humber from defending Truth Justice, and the humberverse.