Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[humber]

Classic stuff. Absolutely classic.

Good retort. How about some math to back it up?
And I have made carts that climb the belt, no prop.
It's easy when you know, rather than believe.

 

[D'rok]

Good retort. How about some math to back it up?

I need math to back up my appreciation of your epic post?

 

[D'rok]

And I have made carts that climb the belt, no prop.

Let's see 'em.

 

[humber]

I need math to back up my appreciation of your epic post?

No, refute it. The TM is a gimmick, packaged as a Galilean Wonder.
So logical

The relative wind at windspeed is zero
The relative wind in a room is zero.
All things with zero relative wind are at windspeed.

Balloons are red
Ferraris are red
Balloons are Ferraris.

Add a spinning prop to fool the Medieval Villagers.

 

[ridgerunner]

Why do you guys keep feeding the troll?

 

[Llyricist]

Why do you guys keep feeding the troll?

Because he keeps coming up with hilariously absurd statements.

 

[humber]

Why do you guys keep feeding the troll?

Oh...there's trouble in the village.... a troll.
He bringeth knowledge from afar.

 

[D'rok]

No, refute it. The TM is a gimmick, packaged as a Galilean Wonder.
So logical

The relative wind at windspeed is zero

Yes.

The relative wind in a room is zero.

There is no wind in a room. However, there is a treadmill.

All things with zero relative wind are at windspeed.

Now you're getting it. Just stop expressing it in the form of an invalid syllogism and you'll be fine.

 

[humber]

There would be justification if you had a coherent theory and the evidence to support it even if it were wrong. But there is nothing but a miscellany supported by a bogus trial.
That trial says nothing, and you theory is PM, and the TM a trinket.
Authorities are approved or dismissed according to taste. And you are support all of that?

 

[phunk]

The only thing here that is incoherent is your understanding of what is going on.

 

[humber]

Yes.
There is no wind in a room. However, there is a treadmill.
Now you're getting it. Just stop expressing it in the form of an invalid syllogism and you'll be fine.

Right. The logic of the TM is a false syllogism.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Wait, so he's still claiming that cart at velocity X, wind at velocity X, ground at velocity 0 is different than cart at velocity 0, wind at velocity 0, ground at velocity -X?
Can he really not do a basic velocity transform? What does he think is different between the two scenarios?

 

[D'rok]

Right. The logic of the TM is a false syllogism.

Nope.

If there is no relative wind from an object's frame of reference, that object is travelling at windpseed.
There is no relative wind from the cart's frame of reference when travelling at beltspeed on the belt in the opposite direction of the belt.
Therefore, the cart so travelling at beltspeed is also travelling at windspeed.

 

[D'rok]

Wait, so he's still claiming that cart at velocity X, wind at velocity X, ground at velocity 0 is different than cart at velocity 0, wind at velocity 0, ground at velocity -X?

Yes.

Can he really not do a basic velocity transform?

No.

What does he think is different between the two scenarios?

No one really knows for sure.

 

[A.T.]

Good point. I was giving humber the benefit of the doubt, though he really doesn't deserve it.

Well, maybe what happened was:

guy: Look at my new microwave oven

humber: What? You believe in over-unity?

guy: Ahm... what?

humber: Where is the energy coming from?

guy: From the wall plug, I guess...

humber: Yeah right! The magical "wall energy".

guy: But it works fine. Look, it heated up my food....

humber: That was poor experimental control. I knew you would make that typical beginner error.

guy: Hmmm... tastes good

humber: You are fooling yourself, just to avoid admitting, that you fell for that microwave mumbo jumbo...

and so on...

 

[A.T.]

Real life demonstrations are preferred for physical situations.
Lets see some from all the participants.

Just stick around. Humber regularly makes idiotic claims like the reel-stuff, that people then disprove with simple experiments.

You can also make some experiments to check this humberthesis:
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=1189476#post1189476

Nope. The total compression remains the same, but is divided between the two scales. Load cell or spring, each scale reads half of it. The result in terms of normal force is the same, but the deflection is not. Jumping up and down on a trampoline, is not like doing the same on the ground.

 

[CORed]

Solely for entertainment purposes, I'll take a stab at deconstructing this wall o' nonsense.

What about a cart on the table? It has zero velocity relative to the air, but I don't think you would say it was at wind speed. Rest the chassis on some books or whatever, and spin the wheels using an electric drill. Now it is at windspeed? All the TM does is to spin the wheels and prop.

Well, you could say it's at windspeed, but since the neither the table nor the air are moving, the windspeed would be zero, so it's kind of pointless.

No. It is not a Galilean Equivalent. Just because that theory is right, does not mean the TM is right. Read up on it. Mechanical equivalence is also a prerequisite. You may be surprised to find that Galileo had some ideas that are now considered to be odd. It is not used much in machines, and is now a matter of philosophy and Relativity.

"It is not generally appreciated, but Galileo made it plain that the reason for the correspondences of observations (in a stationary versus moving shipboard cabin) hinged on the fact that everything in the ship's cabin, especially the air, was moving with the observers.
Regarding these tests Galileo does not mention unaccelerated motion in a straight line. On the First Day discussions he makes it plain that he cannot abide the idea of motion in a straight line. (Straight line travel, according to Salvatius, would soon put the traveler into outer space with no place to go.) It may be said, tongue-in-cheek, that Galileo preferred circular arguments. [Elliptical orbits and oblate spheroids hadn't been invented yet.]"

Irrelevant nonsense.

It is not possible to actually construct a new reality, the TM is a model, not the "same thing".

So near, and yet so far. Yes, of course it's a model, Captain Obvious. For the purpose of analyzing a DDWFTW cart, it's a damn good model.

No. The belt is the road. That is; the planet's surface. Imagine that from outer space. The claim becomes that the spinning Earth is driving the cart. That is, it is "dragging it backwards" through the air to create a "virtual tailwind". Nonsense.

The atmosphere moves with the planet. Wind is independent motion of the air, like local stirring. If not, all places would see the same wind as the planet moved under the atmosphere.

For the love of FSM, humber, we're not using the treadmill to model the entire freakin' planet, we're using it model a small piece of the surface of the planet, with the wind blowing. Treadmill moves/air stationary, equivalent to air moves/surface of the earth stationary. As we all know (though I may be assuming too much in humber's case) the earth is a big sphere (approximately) that rotates, but for most day-to-day purposes, including this discussion, we can get away with assuming that the earth's flat and stationary.

The TM is a simple machine.
Imagine that a simple wheeled cart is put on the belt. There is good friction, so a drag force of 1N, and the belt drags the cart down the belt. Perhaps over 1/10 second it moves 10mm, and gains KE in the direction of the belt.

But, if the wheel turns, all of the work is done on the wheel, and none on the cart. All of the KE is stored angularly in the rotating components.

Well sure, if your cart has magical, zero-friction bearings. In the real world, the cart's going to accelerate in the direction of the belt, as the rotational KE of the wheels gets converted to translational KE of the cart. How quickly it accelerates will depend on the mass of the wheel and the amount of friction in the bearings. That's using the frame of reference of the actual ground.

It has no KE down the belt.
That is largely how it works. The prop provides a stabilising force.

The propeller generates aerodynamic thrust. It also takes power from the belt, via the wheels.

The rest is rather complex detail over short time scales, but the overall effect is that the cart gains no linear KE, and operates at a very low power level, resulting in low friction to the belt. It essentially slides on the belt.

This is a rather amazing exercise in delusional thinking. The stored rotational KE model proposed by humber can only slow the acceleration of the cart in the direction of motion of the belt. Even with magical frictionless bearings, it could only allow the cart to remain stationary; it cannot account for the observed motion of the cart opposite the direction of the belt, not can it account for the observed ability of the cart to hold its position on an inclined belt. Epic fail.

There are several means of doing the same thing and they bear no resemblance to a prop cart.

Only in the humberverse.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=21614&stc=1&d=1301505921[/qimg]

Buy a simple cart like this. Put it in your pocket and experiment at the supermarket checkout.

When the police or paramedics show up, go quietly with them; they will take you to a nice place where they can give you some medicine to make the voices in your head stop.

It takes nothing to stop it moving with the belt.

Nothing except holding it with your hand, or rigging the wheels to drive a propeller.

Here is mine. Cost 1 Euro. I already knew the answer, but I tested it to see what I may have missed, and to try to explain it on the forum. None of the Carteers bothered to repeat the test.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=21615&stc=1&d=1301506578[/qimg]

Once again, confronted with the evil cart on the evil treadmill, humber's thin facade of knowledge crumbles, and he starts spewing ridiculous, impossible nonsense.

 

[phunk]

You can also make some experiments to check this humberthesis:
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=1189476#post1189476

Now that's just funny. So if you stack to bathroom scales, they will each tell you half your weight?

 

[A.T.]

Now that's just funny. So if you stack to bathroom scales, they will each tell you half your weight?

Actually humbers super spring theory opens even greater possibilities:

 

[CORed]

Now that's just funny. So if you stack to bathroom scales, they will each tell you half your weight?

Pretty amazing isn't it? He has obviously been exposed to enough physics to know a lot of the words, but he has managed to entirely avoid understanding even the most basic concepts.