Down wind faster than the wind
- Thread starter my_wan
- Start date
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Entertainment? If not that, I don't know what that purpose might be.
I no longer think you are serious. I think you are now doing the troll thing.
I LOVE IT. That's a classic idea. And while I very much doubt it (or anything) would ever convince nummer, I'll do it if he tells me such results
WOULD convince him.
Frankly, I'd love to take his money, but I can hardly imagine he's dumb enough to put it up. So I'll probably have to settle for trying to prove him wrong - for free.
Two things I'm certain of:
- IF he were to actually put up the money - he'd lose
- WHEN he lost - he'd argue with all 10 judges and tell them they need to take a high school physics class.
If one were to take such a step, the the answer is no, not even wrong.
Firstly, this is a cart that lives in this world. The frames of reference are not separate worlds. Also, I note all of you seem to confuse mathematical frameworks, conceptual frameworks with the others. You are mixing post-modernist ideas, with physics. They have hijacked these words
It's too bizarre to answer the questions. You vcan toy with any number of variants. No difference.
The objects in the room relative to the belt. Ok if you get onto the belt, the indeed the world will wizz by. At least two mistakes
1. The relationship between the two remains the same
2. There is a viscous coupling called air, between them.
3. Wind blown vehicles, cannot be tested in a vacuum
Not all questions can have a binary outcome.
This one does. All 10 judges are going to award me your $100K
Not trolling. This should have ended, but this is one of the problems.
Alties refuse to yield. They cause a lot of problems. Perhaps skepticism is not so important to you. Dependant upon experience, I imagine
You know Spork. You are going to get into trouble here. I may just let you.
I have just replied to modified, and if these ideas are the basis of your theories, then I would be certainly be taking candy from a baby. They are not of this world, that is not a good thing.
Understand this. I am not this George guy.
Do you want to test my e-mail ?
Remember Mr Watson? He started with smot, then went on to medical quackery, and then alternative energy.
Modified
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 6,985
This may be your misunderstanding. The relationship remains the same because the vehicle is moving with respect to the belt, and the belt acts like an infinitely long surface, just like the hole in the trailer in my example. The relationship with one point on the belt surface changes constantly, and that point leaves the reference frame of the belt surface when it hits the curve at end of the belt.
Last edited:
Modified
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 6,985
So you would answer "no" to both questions, but you disagree with the conclusion? Please just specify which of these you agree to, using my example and two questions:
The answer to question one is "yes".
The answer to question two is "yes".
The answer to both questions is "yes".
The answer to both questions is "no", but that does not imply that the reference frames are equivalent. If this is the case, which step do you have a problem with?
You know Spork. You are going to get into trouble here. I may just let you.
I have just replied to modified, and if these ideas are the basis of your theories, then I would be certainly be taking candy from a baby. They are not of this world, that is not a good thing.
I am not this George guy.
Do you want to test my e-mail so that you can be sure?
Remember Mr Watson? He started with smot, then went on to medical quackery, and then alternative energy. Getting the idea?
Last edited:
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Equivalence doctrine suggests otherwise, but okay.
You could solve the problem by ending it yourself.
I assume you mean Spork. I don't see why he should yield given that he is clearly, demonstrable correct.
Clearly a problem for you, not so much for anyone else. You seem to be the only person left in the thread that doesn't understand this.
No, this is artifice. Concepts are not real. You have the temerity to say this is where I am wrong. This is so befuddled that yes or no is inappropriate.
Perhaps you have noted that the real cart does not work well.
Question:
The model in the video, that's the one you are discussing and claimed greater than windspeed for?
How did you measure it?
If I lose the $100K it will be worth it to me. I will have learned something truly astounding about the physics of our universe. Please don't worry about taking advantage of me - I'm not worried about taking advantage of you. Let's get our cash into a COMMON escrow acct.
Have it your way. The only people to tell you are right, are yourselves.
Did you read the my description of the other cart?
This is what is happening to your cart. it is different but not so much.
Spork seems keen. Do you realise what you must supply.
I need not use this method. Proving you are wrong will be easy.
Understand, it must be practical. It must fully explain the phenomenon, over and above what would be considered standard. This is a practical claim. It must be quantitative.
Real masses etc.
This is what is happening to your cart. it is different but not so much.
Spork seems keen. Do you realise what you must supply.
I need not use this method. Proving you are wrong will be easy.
Understand, it must be practical. It must fully explain the phenomenon, over and above what would be considered standard. This is a practical claim. It must be quantitative.
Real masses etc.
No. The vehicle is NOT moving. A belt is not a real road.
OK. All the explanations I have read, are wrong. They are so very wrong.
A moving road is not a simulator. If you put your car on the dynamo, and travel at an indicated 10mph. You are stationary. The attached rotating masses, are of no consequence.
There is no wind flow, for example. This is not trivial. It is not in a box.
When the cart is on the treadmill it is not on a simulator.
To construct a real world equivalent, you would need to redirect the airflow, back over the prop, so that it will standstill.
It will work no better than with no fan at all.
It will never get to the point that you are using. It first has to start from windspeed. To get beyond the point where the motive and drag forces are
equal, will require over-energy.
Do you think that at windspeed, there is no turbulence, or wake?
But even that is wrong.
It has no torque, because the balance point, that is where the drag and motive forces equate, cannot be broken. You have lifted over this point, to get to winspeed. But there is no torque.
To get more, will require drag, which will pull it back to where it should be.
I should add that you have made the trolley almost massless.
The frames are the same because there is no relative ACCELERATION.
You forgot that without that there can be no motivating force.
Last edited:
No - I have no idea what you're talking about. But that's becoming a familiar feeling for me.
No - I have no idea what you're talking about. But that's becoming a familiar feeling for me.
I understood that. Time for us to get our money in a joint escrow account.
Excellent. In that case the 10 judges should be happy to award you my $100K. Let's get this started.
You're not going to get out of this by pretending to be bat-***** crazy. Put your money where your humongous mouth is.
Last edited:
Modified
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 6,985
You have not answered my question. There are no pure concepts involved, these are all things that can really be done. You can cut a hole in the bottom of an enclosed trailer.
a) From inside the trailer, there is no way to tell if the trailer is moving at a constant speed and the surface under the hole is stationary, or if the trailer is not moving and the surface under the hole is the top of a moving treadmill. If you disagree, why?
b) For someone riding in a vehicle with eyes closed and ears covered, there is no way to tell if you are riding on the road in the hole of such a moving trailer, or if you are riding on the open road downwind in a wind going at the same speed. If you disagree, why?
Of course b is not strictly true, since the walls of the trailer will have some effect on the air. If you put up a big sail, you might start a swirling wind inside that would not be the same on the open road. This effect can be eliminated by using a large enough trailer. The DWFTTW vehicle on a treadmill suffers from the same problem, but the average room is large enough and the test vehicle small enough that it shouldn't matter. If it would make you feel better, the treadmill could be placed in the center of a gymnasium, or some other large indoor space.