Down wind faster than the wind

[spork]

You are a liar. You have no academics support.

Every half way competent engineer or scientist in any remotely related field will know this to be true. I only asked you to find one looney ward-mate to take up your side.

Humber is right, the treadmill is nothing but a red herring.

And there you go. Well done!

 

[humber]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
"Thus kinetic energy is a relative measure and no object can be said to have a unique kinetic energy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance
"Correspondingly the kinetic energy of an object, and even the change of the kinetic energy due to a change in velocity, depends on the inertial frame of reference."

http://elmuseet.net.dynamicweb.dk/Default.aspx?ID=618
"For example, a seated passenger in a moving airplane has zero kinetic energy relative to the airplane, but non-zero kinetic energy relative to the earth."

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-187425.html
"You can only talk about gaining or losing kinetic energy relative to a particular inertial frame, it's not an absolute concept."

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Physics-1358/Kinetic-enrgy-absolute-frame.htm
"The kinetic energy of a moving object is NOT absolute. It is, in fact, dependent on the speed of the observer relative to the object being measured."[/QUOTE]

A string of tautologies that show that you have missed the point.

(1) Incorrect interpretation. A mathematical tool. A figment that we use to describe. Mathematics describes, it does not make the universe. for all our purposes, matter does. KE is stored energy.
A stick of dynamite has energy. If you accelerate it, it gains more. Still goes bang otherwise, at any speed.

Sometimes one of convenience:
"absolute momentum—(Also called absolute linear momentum.) The (linear) momentum of a particle as measured in an absolute coordinate system; hence, in meteorology, the sum of the (vector) momentum of the particle relative to the earth and the (vector) momentum of the particle due to the earth's rotation."

(2) These links do no support the idea that the treadmill is a frame of reference. Not even a whiff.
(3) I can adopt your stance and still show the treadmill to be wrong.

 

[humber]

Every half way competent engineer or scientist in any remotely related field will know this to be true. I only asked you to find one looney ward-mate to take up your side.

True Scotsman sighted!
Strangely, I find that an unsatisfactory answer to the question of academic support.

And there you go. Well done!

So, now your turn. Names and URLs of recognized academics who support your claim that the treadmill represents a cart at windspeed.

 

[humber]

Good night, sweet Humber.

No, I am afraid not. Do you think that I cannot Wikki ?
So, I already know that's what you think to be true.
There are many such examples where the mathematics taken literally, leads to naive mistakes. It's a language. Is uses symbols ans metaphors, so that our evolved brains can get to grips with it. An asteroid traveling through space, has no place for your opinion as to what is relative.

 

[Modified]

Humber has at least gone from being wishy-washy to being completely clear in some ways about his misunderstanding of basic physics. There is no need to discuss systems containing multiple moving parts with someone who does not understand that KE is a relative measurement.

 

[Dan O.]

Stop using personal attacks. Attack the argument, not the arguer

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

Gaspode, you are right about not making personal attacks. But Attack the argument makes no sense in the case of a troll that has not put forth one argument but only spouts nonsense. The moderators have been unable to define troll in the past. Perhaps if you studied a pure example, you would learn a thing or two about troll identification.

 

[humber]

Humber has at least gone from being wishy-washy to being completely clear in some ways about his misunderstanding of basic physics. There is no need to discuss systems containing multiple moving parts with someone who does not understand that KE is a relative measurement.

Your response seems inappropriately tepid, Modifed.
I fully understand what you are trying to tell me, but none of it explains the errors in the treadmill. The wikki strom means nothing. I can be right or wrong on that, and still find errors in the treadmill.
If a mass is accelerated, then it will gain KE. You may choose your form of expression. It may be "absolute" within the objects local frame, or relative to another. If you throw three coins on the ground, do they form a triangle because of Pythagoras' theorem?
However, there is a relative change in all frames. The observation that they are relative, is true, but trivially so.

As a suggested, try moving a stick of dynamite so that its stored energy becomes zero. This is what you tell me the cart does.
No matter what you all say, if I perform a test from the belt that falsifies your claim, you have a problem. I can show that my observer on the ground is correct. It is correct if you take an absolute or relative view. Must be, that's what the theory implies.
In my world, I do not need to wonder how I am windspeed when standing before the treadmill, but not when I leave the room.

 

[humber]

Gaspode, you are right about not making personal attacks. But Attack the argument makes no sense in the case of a troll that has not put forth one argument but only spouts nonsense. The moderators have been unable to define troll in the past. Perhaps if you studied a pure example, you would learn a thing or two about troll identification.

I am not so sure. I think that I quite trashed your criticisms of my use of an accelerometer and GPS. When that happens, you stop.

Should there be a definition of a troll, should there not be one for those that advance a claim, but hope there will be no rebuttal? To use this forum as advertising? I have made my intentions clear. I have answered all relevant questions. If I see a stupid insult, I will react.
Some personal remarks are necessary. Spork bases his claim on himself. He discredits others. He only demonstrates what is useful to him. Why should I not try to discredit him?

 

[spork]

Gaspode, you are right about not making personal attacks. But Attack the argument makes no sense in the case of a troll that has not put forth one argument but only spouts nonsense. The moderators have been unable to define troll in the past. Perhaps if you studied a pure example, you would learn a thing or two about troll identification.

I couldn't have said it better myself. There is literally no argument to attack.

I fully understand what you are trying to tell me, but none of it explains the errors in the treadmill.

You clearly don't understand a thing he's saying, and it can't explain non-existent errors.

I can be right or wrong on that, and still find errors in the treadmill.

Please try to at least use sentences that have meaning.

If a mass is accelerated, then it will gain KE.

OR lose it.

If you throw three coins on the ground, do they form a triangle because of Pythagoras' theorem?

Do you have even the faintest clue what you're talking about?

As a suggested, try moving a stick of dynamite so that its stored energy becomes zero. This is what you tell me the cart does.

You display a level of misunderstanding that I never thought possible even for you.

No matter what you all say, if I perform a test from the belt that falsifies your claim, you have a problem.

Exactly right!!! So how about telling us about such a test. It's laughable that you'd talk about "performing" a test (particularly when you told us you could not and would not do so). You won't even TELL us about such a test. Of course this is not surprising since no such test can exist.

 

[Gaspode]

At the risk of derailing this thread, I'll respond to this just once. Any further discussion of trolls will be split to Forum Management.

Gaspode, you are right about not making personal attacks. But Attack the argument makes no sense in the case of a troll that has not put forth one argument but only spouts nonsense. The moderators have been unable to define troll in the past. Perhaps if you studied a pure example, you would learn a thing or two about troll identification.

Yes, there's no agreed definition of a troll, or at least one that can be defined in the Membership Agreement. The issue of trolls has been discussed in Forum Management ad nauseam.

Regardless, personal attacks are not allowed. There is always the option of not responding.

 

[spork]

I am not so sure. I think that I quite trashed your criticisms of my use of an accelerometer and GPS.

The notion that you "trashed" anything other than physics itself is laughable.

Should there be a definition of a troll, should there not be one for those that advance a claim, but hope there will be no rebuttal?

On the contrary - a rebuttal would be great. Then we could have an interesting conversation. All you've offered is complete non-sensical statements that don't even stand on their own, much less form an actual rebuttal.

To use this forum as advertising?

Advertising!? What would we be advertising - sanity?

I have made my intentions clear. I have answered all relevant questions.

You have never answered a single question. The record is in black and white. People can look for your "answers" themselves. They will find none.

Spork bases his claim on himself.

My claims are based on sound physical principles. Everyone on this forum except for you and tsig understand that. You should look into this field yourself.

 

[tsig]

The other troll enters the thread...

Thanks for that reasoned, rational response.

 

[humber]

The notion that you "trashed" anything other than physics itself is laughable.

You offered nothing. You said so yourself. However, I did hold my claim.

On the contrary - a rebuttal would be great. Then we could have an interesting conversation. All you've offered is complete non-sensical statements that don't even stand on their own, much less form an actual rebuttal.

Then tell me why my ground based view is incorrect. Where is fails a test.
By normal standards, you were checkmated when you admitted to fitting your experiment. Woah, that's fatal.

Advertising!? What would we be advertising - sanity?

You.

You have never answered a single question. The record is in black and white. People can look for your "answers" themselves. They will find none.

No, I am sure the balance is in my favor. I even make drawings. You have a long list of evaded questions. Nobody who has addressed my politely, has not received the same in return. My answers are not favorable to you, that's the difference. You also remove unflattering You Tube comments, I notice.

My claims are based on sound physical principles. Everyone on this forum except for you and tsig understand that. You should look into this field yourself.

Nonsense. The treadmill has no connection to the prospect of windspeed travel. Equivalence plays no part.

 

[spork]

By normal standards, you were checkmated when you admitted to fitting your experiment. Woah, that's fatal.

That would indeed be bad if there were a hint of truth to it.

My answers are not favorable to you

Your answers are simply gibberish. And everyone but tsig seems to know this.

You also remove unflattering You Tube comments, I notice.

My policy on YouTube comments is simple... if someone posts a concern or criticism I will respond to it. If they come back with more on the same topic I delete it and refer them to these threads for a discussion. I don't intend to allow anyone to pollute the comments section of my videos as you've polluted this thread.

If someone posts gibberish that can't even be parsed to make any sense at all I simply delete it.

Nonsense. The treadmill has no connection to the prospect of windspeed travel. Equivalence plays no part.

It's statements like this that lead me to believe you might actually believe the nonsense you post. Otherwise you'd try to gradually distance yourself from such silliness while never admitting you were wrong.

 

[humber]

That would indeed be bad if there were a hint of truth to it.

I am afraid you admitted to modifying the cart until you archived the desired result. Your evidence breaks all the rules. The treadmill presumes its outcome. If has inexplicable human intervention. The observer is expected to accept forced conditions that support the outcome...

Your answers are simply gibberish. And everyone but tsig seems to know this.

And academia.

My policy on YouTube comments is simple... if someone posts a concern or criticism I will respond to it. If they come back with more on the same topic I delete it and refer them to these threads for a discussion. I don't intend to allow anyone to pollute the comments section of my videos as you've polluted this thread.

Yes, censorship.

If someone posts gibberish that can't even be parsed to make any sense at all I simply delete it.

While flattering gibberish abounds.

It's statements like this that lead me to believe you might actually believe the nonsense you post. Otherwise you'd try to gradually distance yourself from such silliness while never admitting you were wrong.

It's nonsense you consistently fail to refute. Try knocking down my ground based view.

 

[tsig]

The notion that you "trashed" anything other than physics itself is laughable.




On the contrary - a rebuttal would be great. Then we could have an interesting conversation. All you've offered is complete non-sensical statements that don't even stand on their own, much less form an actual rebuttal.



Advertising!? What would we be advertising - sanity?




You have never answered a single question. The record is in black and white. People can look for your "answers" themselves. They will find none.



My claims are based on sound physical principles. Everyone on this forum except for you and tsig understand that. You should look into this field yourself.

Once more you go for the personal attack.

 

[Dan O.]

Per Gaspode's request, all further discussion or trolls, trolling and troll-like behavior shall be split to this thread in forum management.

 

[spork]

I am afraid you admitted to modifying the cart until you archived the desired result.

You always make baseless claims, but you never simply provide a post number. This is because your claims are simply lies.

It's nonsense you consistently fail to refute. Try knocking down my ground based view.

A ground based view is just fine. What you fail to recognize is that ANY inertial frame is just fine. What you also fail to recognize is that the cart DOES exactly what is claimed. Your 70 pages of faulty nonsense incomprehensible theories can't change physical reality.

We have built and demonstrated this cart. We have provided plans, parts lists, build instructions, and even built a number of carts for people that requested them. Rather than spend $40 to see for yourself, you'd rather attempt to debate it with a whole lot of people that have seen it for themselves and understand it completely.

 

[humber]

You always make baseless claims, but you never simply provide a post number. This is because your claims are simply lies.

It was in #1980
"Yes, when JB and I go to great pains to get the cart to exactly balance on an inclined treadmill, it is in fact in balance on an inclined treadmill. That seems obvious enough to me." There was a later post about selecting wheels and so forth.
Yes, that is why the cart stays where it is. It balances on the belt.

A ground based view is just fine. What you fail to recognize is that ANY inertial frame is just fine. What you also fail to recognize is that the cart DOES exactly what is claimed. Your 70 pages of faulty nonsense incomprehensible theories can't change physical reality.

A roadside observer sees a windspeed car moving from left to right. The cart has KE and velocity relative to that observer. I now move to the cart using a car. From this vantage, I see the cart as stationary and a relative KE of 0.
I now want to 'hold' the cart so that is appears stationary before the roadside observer, so I simultaneously slow the wind and cart, until both are stationary. All observers agree that the cart, wind and car are stationary, and have zero KE wrt to ground. This is the correct interpretation of transference between frames in this case.
The next move, is to take the cart and put it on a moving belt that moves right to left. It is now simply asserted that the cart is at windspeed. The argument is supported by the 'equivalent' view of the belt, but this has no meaning, because it has no physical counterpart in the model that is used to derive the stationary result, (other than a random treadmill) nor does it have any connection with real wind performance. It has no connection with windspeed travel at all, but added after the fact.
Also, this is an artificial reference, producing an image to the 'left' of stationary wrt ground. This means that all objects on that belt, accelerate from -beltspeed to zero, finally resulting in zero KE wrt ground. A possible physical counterpart is an artificial road, moving right to left wrt to a roadside (ground) observer, in still air, but not in wind I have previously shown this graphically in #1846.

However, the cart is never seen to move back with the belt, because manual manipulation places it as what is simply called 'windspeed'. The cart remains not at windspeed, but near zero wrt to ground. As I claim, and you confirm, the cart remains on the belt due to the balance mechanism inherent to the cart. Any object capable of overcoming what force it has to the belt, can act in a similar manner. I have mentioned that I have seen oranges remain stationary while spinning on a moving belt. The means are different, but the result is the same.

The model has many flaws, but I will stick to the KE. If as before I travel with the cart, but the cart moves sideways towards the car, the relative KE is no longer zero. That force should be the same at the treadmill, but the videos show that this force to be unrealistically low. Also, the cart does not display the dynamic response that would be expected of a 6oz cart traveling at perhaps 10mph.
It seems to me that this view creates a lot of problems regarding velocity and KE, whereas my interpretation does not. As you say, any inertial frame is fine, so mine is as valid as yours, but it is easy to demonstrate that your model is inconsistent in many ways and breaks Newtonian law, which is said to hold across all frames. This must mean that is is your frame of reference that is false.

We have built and demonstrated this cart. We have provided plans, parts lists, build instructions, and even built a number of carts for people that requested them. Rather than spend $40 to see for yourself, you'd rather attempt to debate it with a whole lot of people that have seen it for themselves and understand it completely.

The treadmill is not the cart.

 

[Clive]

The treadmill is not the cart.

Could half the earth be a treadmill Humber? I am still waiting for your response to my post #2744 on p69 (not to mention my two earlier attempts to get your viewpoint on the same scenario).