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

[RossFW]

What will this do?

It confirms you can't supply an Aerodynamic meaning for Negative Drag or cite an example of Cavitaion in a gas.

Thanks.

 

[RossFW]

So I see you've never flown a kite, either.

If you fly a kite in "Real" wind and let go of the string, it accelerates to wind speed, thus losing relative airflow and lift, and begins to descend. If it is high enough, it wil reach wind speed and drop vertically wrt the air aound it.

If you run with a kite (or are on a long enough tredmill) and let go of the string, EXACTLEY the same thing happens wrt the air around the kite. It will look like a decelleration from the ground, but the kite is simply changing it's velocity to windspeed (which is zero WRT the ground), an acceleration vector with exactley the same direction and magnitude as if the wind was real (excluding boundary layer effects if it's only you running, but IDENTICAL if you were on a big enough treadmill).

If you were still on the treadmill and looked back, you would see the kite getting smaller (as it's distance from you is increasing) and it following a curved path, followed by a vertical path to the ground.

EXACTLY the same thing you would see in a "REAL" wind looking at the kite after you let go of it's string.

 

[recursive prophet]

C’mon humber, I’ve been waiting over 4 hours now to read how you pull the next bunny out of your pointy hat! At mender’s suggestion I looked back on some of the pages I missed on the wind thread. (Why do people keep typing out all the letters here?) Somehow I suspect you’re ‘taking the p.iss’ as they’d say across the pond.

One of your many fans recently wrote “you can’t be this stupid.” If it’s true you are as dense as most here believe, then why is this currently the most active thread in this forum? Why have so many taken the time to refute you? I think JF is onto you though.

John Freestone: Your last post was great! Got a real belly-laugh on the fist sentence: “Wheeeeeee! Off we go! Another new tangent! What fun this is, like some weird acid-induced sci-fi B-movie! Invasion of the Non-Newtonian Fluids.” A classic! Another was: “Rubbery treadmill surfaces have different static electrical properties from tarmac? Air in a room has fewer negative ions, which is the staple diet of negative dragons?”

So tell me Obi Wan; don’t you suspect there’s quite a bit of put-on going down here? Can this guy really be smart enough to string along so many for so many pages yet be dumb enough to really not understand the counterpoints being made? Or, are we perhaps witnessing the newest fork in the road: humber physics? Why not?

Whatever. Thanks to all for an informative and entertaining read. Some very good stuff in this thread.

 

[spork]

So tell me Obi Wan; don’t you suspect there’s quite a bit of put-on going down here? Can this guy really be smart enough to string along so many for so many pages yet be dumb enough to really not understand the counterpoints being made?

I believe humber is legit. I don't think he understands basic physics any better than he lets on here on this thread. Who's up for a vote on this issue? I'll maintain the list.

So here's the question:

Does humber really understand physics more than is apparent in this thread?

And the results:

spork: nope - his confusion is legit

Feel free to weigh in. But be sure to include a yes or no for the tally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a bit of a poser, is humber as incredibly stupid as he actually seems, or is he some sort of sick troll who really gets off on all of this attention that he is getting? Either way he is a big loser, and I think it is time to quit feeding this fool. Personally, I have to agree with spork, only a true believer would keep this nonsense up for 65 pages and over 2,500 posts.

 

[mender]

Recursive, very few of us are getting strung along, unless you consider a desire to see humber through to the correct conclusion as such! I know that my personal physics world has been expanded by participating in discussions of the cart. I think that is one of many aspects that make the cart addictive, that acceptance of what is happening is only the beginning of the process. Certainly that process has been much longer and more involved than I ever imagined it would be. We all have humber to thank for a large part of that I think!

Regardless, it is as much a sociological study as it is one of physics, as mentioned quite a few times by various contributors along the way including myself. Teaching someone about how a thing works requires more thought and understanding than just agreeing that it works.

Some very clever people on here, again mentioned several times that this discussion has the highest average IQ (and entertainment quotient) of all the threads I've seen so far.

ETA: I believe that humber is presenting things as he understands them.

 

[Clive]

Re Spork's poll: Clive says: yes.

He Understands Much But Excludes Reason. I Said, Already. Treadmills Roll Over Lossy Linkages.

 

[spork]

Poll update:

Does humber really understand physics more than is apparent in this thread?

And the results:

Yes:
Clive: He Understands Much But Excludes Reason.

NO:
spork: his confusion is legit
subduction zone: only a true believer would keep this nonsense up for 65 pages and over 2,500 posts.
mender: I believe that humber is presenting things as he understands them.

 

[recursive prophet]

@Spork: Well, of course my vote is yes, but qualified. Haven’t you ever had a wild inspiration and started extrapolating on it and creating a little cognitive dissonance with those pointing to the ‘rules we learn in schools.’ I don’t think it’s all a MF. I think like many here he got involved in throwing out ideas, and developed a certain debating persona along the way that includes not admitting any mistakes while acknowledging them by shifting the discussion as JF noted. He’s doing advanced stand-up in a way. And who among us is not looking forward to his return? Seeing what segue he will next take us on? I’d like to see him expatiate on rubbery treadmill surfaces actually having different static electrical properties from tarmacs, personally. But if the mental midget could measure the giant, as the foot rule does the pyramid, I’d know what he’ll come up with next, which of course I don’t.

@mender: I fully agree with your perspective on this thread re: the IQ and entertainment value of these threads. One of the reasons I’ve just lurked, as the view numbers show many do. As a cyber-cultural anthropologist (hobby) I also agree with you and others that this is indeed a sociological study as well as that of physics. But if humber is truly presenting things as he understands them, then he is indeed worth your time educating as he seems to mentally wander down some very intriguing allies.

 

[Dan O.]

So I see you've never flown a kite, either.

If you fly a kite in "Real" wind and let go of the string, it accelerates to wind speed, thus losing relative airflow and lift, and begins to descend. If it is high enough, it wil reach wind speed and drop vertically wrt the air aound it.

That's not what happened last time I had a kite get away. If the kite is flying high enough, the lower portion of the string will be in the boundary layer and therefore present enough drag to keep the kite flying (though moving downwind at close to the speed of the wind).

If this does happen to you, I don't recommend trying to use a second kite to snag the line of the first kite that caught on a tree branch about a mile away because it will be dark by then and the police will think you are up to some nefarious deed. (Unless it was a very nice kite)

 

[Dan O.]

Does humber really understand physics more than is apparent in this thread?

A real physicist doesn't have to make things up to be entertaining. This I believe shows that humber doesn't have the background to be faking it.

PS: Don't use this poll to bash humber because that would be against the forum rules. Say what you think but be polite.

 

[RossFW]

That's not what happened last time I had a kite get away. If the kite is flying high enough, the lower portion of the string will be in the boundary layer and therefore present enough drag to keep the kite flying (though moving downwind at close to the speed of the wind).

Fair enough, though was it drag from the boundaty layer of from the string dragging on the ground?

Change the senario to the string breaking near the Kite. It removes that objection, but STILL leaves an accurate analogy that Humber won't understand or agree with!!

 

[Michael C]

Does humber really understand physics more than is apparent in this thread?

no.

 

[humber]

BTW Humber, I am sorry it has been so long since you have been outside.

Have you ever been on a treadmill? In a car? In any moving vehicle??

No one could be this stupid....

Yes. I saw a Hollywood movie where the action heroes were fighting inside a train. Inside the carriage, they behaved as if they "couldn't tell" that they were moving. The fight moved to the roof of the train, where both were quite clearly exposed to wind. Not long after that, an other train appeared along side. Seeing this, both antagonists jumped to the roof of that second train. The battle continued until one fell off due to a well aimed blow by the central character, who quipped, "must have lost his frame of reference"
Does that help you, or to explain Anubis's chagrin?

 

[humber]

Unfortunately, you refuse to be tested against the most basic problems from a physics book. What you spew here is consistently and completely contrary to what any physics text would teach.

I noticed TAD's absence. I am willing to answer any questions you may have about your treadmill, from all or any of you. Real time.

This is the sort of thing I come here for. The absurdity of the notion that you've put JJ in his place is absolutely brilliant.

He did that.

It's curious that you can't find one single sole on or off this forum that would backup any of your ridiculously contrived interpretations of physics.

Yes. Quite singular.

 

[semper]

Does humber really understand physics more than is apparent in this thread?
Yes, but not much.

I think we are all going to miss that guy.

 

[humber]

Now you need to apologize for tarnishing the college's name by associating it with this thread. While you are at it, you could send an email to their physics department to give them an opportunity to respond here.

A belated appeal to integrity on your part, but since it has now become important to you, please feel free to give them the opportunity to express their views of the treadmill.

 

[humber]

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that all the garbage you've been posting about boundary layers bears even a tenuous relationship with logic?

If that's the case, you are badly mistaken.

Back that up. Show me where it is wrong, but do stay for the reply.

 

[humber]

Humber, of course the kite is gonna behave differently in your illustrated cases, because it's not attached to the treadmill for the entire duration in your second case.

Perhaps I knew that SD. Wind on a treadmill is not like real wind.
It is not, and cannot be a frame of reference.
I mentioned that the force of treadmill wind, is related to friction to the belt, whereas the real wind's power is not related to friction to the rodd.
This is just a limiting example of that failure.
The balloon test shows another, but more subtlety.

I can't believe you've failed to understand this throughout this entire thread. You have serious learning issues.

How is it that I can generate contrary example if I don't understand the premise of the treadmill, SD?

 

[semper]

Back that up. Show me where it is wrong, but do stay for the reply.

Oh Humber, it has been backed up, it has been shown, there is no point doing it anymore. All the king's rabbits, nor all the king's Anubis can put you together again.

Just accept that you are unable to function in our world, and we can only view your's through theatrical device. If you ever need to work a problem such that it can transcend into broader reality, please give your rabbit full and proper authority, sign the power of attorney.