Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)

[RossFW]

Definitely not lacking in meaning, Captain.
There is no answer, because there is no question.

OK- Here are the questions-

1) Use the term Negative drag in a meaningful sentence pertaining to Aerodynamics

2) Cite an example of the term Cavitation being used regards the action of gasses alone.

 

[Brian-M]

Oh I forgot. Beltspeed is what makes the wind on the belt, so how do you add it
again? No, you don't of course.

There is also the big question:
(1) If it's subtracted that makes the speed zero.
(2) If added that makes it twice winspeed.

Pawned.

I told you once.

To look at the wind (or anything) relative to the velocity of an object on the belt (or anywhere), you just subtract the object's velocity from all velocities.

From the perspective of a ground-based observer...

Wind = 0
Ground = 0
Belt = -10
Inert object or person (on belt) = -10

From the perspective of the object, subtract the object's velocity from everything (including itself)...

Wind = 0 - (-10) = 10
Ground = 0 - (-10) = 10
Belt = -10 - (-10) = 0
Inert object or person (on belt) = -10 - (-10) = 0

Mr Vibrating: I told you once.

Man: No you haven't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I have.

Man: When?

Mr Vibrating: Just now.

Man: No you didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: You didn't

Mr Vibrating: I did!

Man: You didn't!

Mr Vibrating: I'm telling you I did!

Man: You did not!!

Mr Vibrating: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

(Argument Clinic)

 

[Brian-M]

Then the cart will not get to windspeed because that requires a conservation-busting transfer of 100%

Back to this again? Are you going to go back to claiming that balloons cannot travel at windspeed too?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have seen all sorts of bad debating techniques, but humber is the first I have seen who might be the first to successfully win a debate by arguing from idiocy by his sheer doggedness. It is a new technique that cannot be found here:
http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=324134

 

[RossFW]

You might be right Sub.

I think we all seee how futile this has become.

How about this guys,

Yes Humber, you are right about EVERYTHING.

Thankyou, and goodbye!

 

[GregLondon]

A simple example. A 1kg mass dropped on the floor, may have the same kinetic/potential energy equivalence of the same weight being raised to the same height, but not for the system. Picking up a weight is not like dropping a weight, but 'backwards'. They are not the same actions.

Well, humber, I learned a few things about the prop cart that I didn't know before. Had to stretch my mind a bit, think about it from a power perspective, and think about it from inertial frames perspective, and think about boundary layers, and a couple of other different points of view.

But last bunch of posts, I haven't been forced to look at the cart from a new angle. So the incentive seems to have gone away there.

And this last bit tells me that you clearly aren't going to learn anything, so that incentive is gone.

So, I think its time to scale back my part of this conversation.

THe weird thing is I'm still not entirely sure if you're really someone like spork, just posing under another alias, or if you're really just confused. It's too bad you're so into the anonymity, cause getting to know people is half the fun. I'm pretty sure you're not employed, or if you are you're working in some non-technical and non-engineering field. I'd guess you're the sole employee of your own company. Doing what, exactly, I'm not sure, but operating on the marginal edges of technology, but in some manner where the results are subjective. Some kind of semi-scientific, pseudo-science area. Do you sell equipment for measuring and tracking biorythyms, by chance? Manufacture and sell turboencabulators, maybe?

Even stranger, you could either be honestly trying to understand this or you might get that you don't understand this and don't care and simply get satisfaction out of the reaction you've gotten on these threads. That's probably the weirdest thing of all. Based solely on what I've seen of your behaviour, you could be a pseudonym for someone who actually understands the cart, or you could be honestly trying to understand the cart but simply can't, or you could be someone who knows they're in over their head and only posts to get the reaction you get. i can't honestly tell.

And since you're holding everything about yourself close to the chest, we'll never know.

Best case, if you're truly trying to understand, then I get that I can't help you. If you're one of the other options (either someone posing or somene here just for the reaction they cause) then I really don't want to contribute to that, so I'll be scaling back my involvement in thsi conversation for now.

Some folks seem to be interacting with you strictly for the entertainment value, and that's unfortunate. Best case, you truly are tryign to understand the concepts and simply can't, in which case making fun of you isn't something I'd want to contribute to. Worst case, you're basically trolling, and so any reaction for you is a good reaction.

I'm going to assume best case, if for no other reason than it's no skin off my nose to give you the benefit of the doubt. But even then, we've not made any progress, and I've not learned anything new for a while. so maybe its time to scale back a bit, at least for a while.

Best of luck to you.

 

[RossFW]

I think you've missed the most obvious option, Greg.

His is not trying to understand, he honestly thinks he DOES understand, and that everyone else is wrong.

Plus, he's a Whacko!!

 

[spork]

Well, I guess this has now degenerated to a very simple utter lack of understanding. Seems to me that this is tantamount to 2 + 2 = 2, would you concur, spork?

I'd have to agree. Like many, I've given up more than once, and then found myself pulled back into it as if there was some hope of making progress. I think when humber refused to take a stance on my assertion that 2 + 2 = 4 I realized there was no hope of helping him, or even understanding what or who he is.

As to Greg London's question regarding whether humber might be someone like spork - I'll try not to take that as an insult. I will say this - humber sure as hell isn't me, and he sure as hell isn't someone "like" me. But I suppose there is a diminishingly small chance that he's someone that does understand and simply gets a perverse thrill at playing the fool. Perhaps he has the scientific equivalent of Münchausen syndrome.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Thanks for the offer Cristian, but I am a shadowy character, and an enigma.
I don't eat.

Don't be shy, humber. You are less than an enigma, to anyone. If you don't eat, the better. Will save me some bucks. But still you are free to eat as much as you want, or can.

And really, some hands-on experience on real-world physics, especially on inertial frames of reference, can't hurt, can it?

Are you shy of reality? Maybe you can teach me some physical laws by hand-on experience? but be aware, while our mains frequency is only 50Hz compared to 60Hz in other countries, we still have twice the voltage here. Oh, and before i forget. We also have three-phase power in almost every home here. That should make a really good lesson about things being relative. In this case, one phase relative to another, giving a whopping 380 volts!

Maybe we can discuss where all that KE-converted-to-electrical-equivalent goes, because, i mean, it's still only 230 volts per phase, you know ...

 

[Christian Klippel]

OMG! He's channeling the spirit of Edward Current!
(Except without the religious slant.)

Hello Brian-M,

you definitely made my day today. And hey, just replace "religion" with "humberphysics" and you surely will get the same.

I'd want more of that! While the result of that video, if taken literally, is quite stupid (but hey, thats what satire is meant to be), it is way more fun than than what humber has to show. Simply because humber takes his nonsense for real, which clearly isn't.

Ahh, talking to humber is just like this. Too bad that we don't get money for arguing. We would be rich by now, just by humber alone.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[jjcote]

All view are equivalent. If instead of being a dedicated observer, I watch as if it were a movie, and in the real world, I would perhaps see the sequence from the top, (the wind) 10...9,8,4,0,. left to right. From the treadmill side, movie mode, I would see from the top 0...4,8,9,10, but moving right to left. Later moving the observer, cannot change that.relationship.

Well, humber's last bunch of drivel about what he thinks a boundary layer looks like appears to be pretty contradictory to when he chose diagram A on my multiple choice offering. Not surprising -- consistency is not his long suit. What I have gleaned is that, despite the fact that he picked A, his belief seems to be that D is the right choice (see the numbers that he lists above). Or maybe not, it's hard to tell based on the inconsistent location of the ellipsis in his list. In any case, if that were the case, it would be an interesting difference, but it's wrong. The correct answers, by the way, are A for the windspeed observer, and G for the beltspeed observer (which is identical to the "ground" view for the outdoor case).

I'll leave you with a final thought, humber. There are planets like Jupiter that have no surface, but that have much greater gravity than Earth does. They just get thicker and thicker on the way down, and maybe transition gradually to a liquid if you go deep enough. There is no fixed ground reference on such a planet. How does humberphysics work in a place like that? How do you know whether something has KE?

 

[Christian Klippel]

I have seen all sorts of bad debating techniques, but humber is the first I have seen who might be the first to successfully win a debate by arguing from idiocy by his sheer doggedness. It is a new technique that cannot be found here:
http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=324134

Hello Subduction Zone,

i guess the red-headlined stuff is humber, while the the others the ones below the green one?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

Perhaps he has the scientific equivalent of Münchausen syndrome.

Hey spork,

there just isn't any cannonball big enough to carry that humber. So i would argue that Münchhausen it out of the equation. Are my 5 minutes up now?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[mender]

Closest I’ve seen you come to tipping your hand humber, so I decided to take this opportunity to thank you for some top rate entertainment. Been lurking here since they split this off last month, and think it’s hilarious so few seem to grok your tongue-in-key mastery. Do carry on, and kudos.

If you think this is entertaining, you should start reading at the beginning of the thread it was split off from. After all, you need to know the history of humbre's physics to fully appreciate the scope of his lunacy mastery. Unfortunately, his broad brush strokes have reduced his wiggle room considerably, but he seems to think that having his own corner and a pointy hat makes him the king.

 

[mender]

The correct answers, by the way, are A for the windspeed observer, and G for the beltspeed observer (which is identical to the "ground" view for the outdoor case).

I guess I passed that part of the test then.

So that's two questions that humbre has failed on so far. Who has the next question?

 

[Christian Klippel]

...but he seems to think that having his own corner and a pointy hat hair makes him the king.

Fixed that for you, mender.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[John Freestone]

Yes, it's at 4:15 on this video.
"There, I've run rings around you logically."
"Ohhh... Intercourse the penguin."

Thanks Brian. We got there already, but you can't know that without trailing further on. I love the bit: "Penguins don't come from next door, they come from the Antarctic.
BURMA! ....
....
.... (long pause) ....
....
....
Why did you say Burma?
I panicked."

How about this guys,

Yes Humber, you are right about EVERYTHING.

Thankyou, and goodbye!

Yes, except the thing I've been hanging out for is a clear contradiction, such that his humberphysics regarding the treadmill cannot be true as well as its contradiction, although I am weary enough of his ways now to know that I will probably only approach this position closely enough to satisfy me (and maybe others...read on and enjoy...); the humberverse may include a humberlogic different from ours, such that two contradictory statements can both be true as long as they were both uttered by humber.

That's why I was so persistent in asking my questions regarding his diagram of the boundary layer. I think jjcote noticed, and maybe RossFW.

Statement 1.

If the layer is say, 100mm and has a linear profile, what moves at 10mm above the ground, moves at that same speed 90mm above the belt, but in the opposite direction.

This, to orthodox science, is effectively correct. I posted a table of the full boundary layer according to that scheme:

HEIGHT      OUTSIDE       INSIDE
120           10 >          0
110           10 >          0
100           10 >          0  ____theoretical 'beginning' of boundary layer
 90            9 >        < 1
 80            8 >        < 2
 70            7 >        < 3
 60            6 >        < 4  ----------- Case in your diagram
 50            5 >        < 5
 40            4 >        < 6
 30            3 >        < 7
 20            2 >        < 8
 10            1 >        < 9
 _0_           0          <10

Interlude
This I am posting again, just because I want to enjoy the soothing lineament of it after banging my head against this immovable wall for so long (I don't actually remember who he was addressing at the time):

No. I posted the paddle before that. Get in the queue/line. A smart guy like you does not need to see to work it out, otherwise I will have to ask you to conduct your ladder test.
There have been no useful responses to the paddle, let alone refutation.
So, Mr Aero.You tell me why it's wrong. Use any method you like, but be prepared to defend it to the end. A solution one way or the other.

Ah. Lovely.

Statement 2. (I'll leave the full post, but have emphasised the important bit if you want to cut down on your drivel intake and get to the meat of the humberism - with especial thanks to jjcote for joining in this pincer movement on the enemy position! It was in fact jjcote's original scenario, I think.)

It is corrected, though you may be it may just be possible that you are wrong? One small step for jjcote, one giant step for this thread.

Both the real wind cases are incorrect. The difference between the flows of 10m/s and 6m/s, is 4m/s at standstill. This must remain the case at windspeed because it is a simple translation;
10ms + 10ms = 20m/s
6m/s + 10m/s =16m/s
Difference = 4m/s
This is analogous to two parallel belts of 10m/s and 6m/s; the difference being 4m/s. The motion of the cart observer w.r.t the ground is also 10m/s at windspeed, so that is the same as an observer walking on the ground parallel to the belts at that same speed. That will not change ratio of the belt speeds for the observer, so once again, the answer is 4m/s. The absolute value is not all that important, but that difference will be constant for all observer velocities. This is is not the case on the treadmill. (This problem can be solved directly using superposition.)

That is enough, but the treadmill windspeed is certainly wrong. The belt-flow is with the belt at 10m/s. The fastest moving air is at the belt surface, and slowest at the still air, which is the opposite of real wind. (The belt surface is the road surface.)
The speed of the belt-flow is therefore ( 10m/s - 4m/s) and like the wind 4m/s slower than the fastest component, and so an effective 6m/s in the direction of the belt. Referenced to still air that is 6m/s back with the belt.

The paddle averages the force of the entire flow, as stated, so from that point of view, it is also 6m/s in the direction of the belt.
Pitot tubes will confirm the above result (and the reversal of the flow's profile).

So, the fast bits of air near the top in 'real wind' become the same speed fast bits of air at the bottom over the treadmill, but also the 6 m/s 'real wind' boundary layer becomes the same speed in the other direction over the belt, it's hard to imagine how to have both of these at the same time. Could humber have been wrong about one of them, or could they somehow both be true? Could the gradient have squashed up somewhere, so that the 60 --> is still opposite the <-- 60, but the 90s and the 10s have reversed position? He hasn't specifically acknowledged the correctness of my table. Could air suddenly have changed its characteristics by being stopped and having a moving belt put under it?

Of course, we all know that his diagram was wrong, and that Statement 1 is his own refutation of the paddle. It now remains only to see whether he will choose one or the other, try to make them fit somehow (probably by saying that I've misinterpreted the statements), ignore this blatant self-contradiction, waffle about the well-known antialiasing effect at windspeed and different aerodynamic aspect ratios...?

Finally, let me just make this point utterly clear. Ages ago, some of us noted that it was unfortunate that 6 m/s was chosen arbitrarily as the nominal velocity of "the boundary layer" (there of course being all velocities between the full windspeed and zero), because in this case it was near to half the windspeed, and made its incorrect reversal easy to miss or misunderstand. Now, had we chosen 9 m/s as a different example of boundary layer velocity, humber would now have to choose, on changing to the treadmill scenario: should the speed near the top now become the same speed lower down, with the direction reversed, and hence it can't be 9, and must be 1 m/s at this level; or should "the boundary layer" windspeed maintain the same difference between itself and "the fastest component", and hence be 9 m/s?

And as we argued endlessly, the +6 should have become a -4, not a -6. This corrects the flaw in the paddle's differential to, as we stated 0--4 = 4 (w.r.t. the ground). There, I've run rings round you logically.

However, I see that since then he is still "refusing to understand" how to calculate velocities from a different frame. I think he needs a different kind of boost first.

QED²/2

 

[Michael C]

I have seen all sorts of bad debating techniques, but humber is the first I have seen who might be the first to successfully win a debate by arguing from idiocy by his sheer doggedness. It is a new technique that cannot be found here:
http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=324134

Argumentum ad nauseam

 

[humber]

Give it up Humber.

troll (COMPUTING)
verb
to leave an intentionally annoying message on a part of the Internet in order to get attention or cause trouble:
His hobby is trolling for newbies.

troll
noun
A well-constructed troll will provoke irate or confused responses from flamers and newbies.

troll
/tr<schwa>Ul, trQl/ n.1LME. [Sw. (Da. trold) f. ON, of unkn. origin. Cf. Da. trylla, trylde, Sw. trolla bewitch, charm, ON trolldómr witchcraft.] Orig. (rare),

a witch, a sorceress. Now (in Scandinavian mythology), a member of a race of grotesque dwarfs (or, formerly, giants) usu. dwelling in caves or under bridges.

The blinkered see what they want to see.

 

[humber]

Back to this again? Are you going to go back to claiming that balloons cannot travel at windspeed too?

They are lighter than air, have low mass and low drag, yet will not get windspeed in a steady homogeneous flow.
Refute that, Brian_M, are you arguing in your spare time?