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

[humber]

Once humber catches on to Newtonian physics, it won't be any fun anymore!

And in both cases, the bodies are staying in motion or at rest because the forces are balanced. If you remove both forces (no fair trying to remove only one!), the object doesn't accelerate.

Mender,
(1) The only other common factor is that neither is being accelerated.
(2) No, wrong way around. If you remove the driving force, it slows. The other is a resultant force, so cannot be removed.

Maybe it would be easier to think about what would happen out in space. As long as one force is applied to an object, the object will accelerate.

The body provides a reaction to the applied force only during acceleration. There is no drag force to slow it when that stops.
Like I said, apples and oranges again. If you want to just say " I believe" then please do so. I never argue with the religious. One learns nothing from them.

 

[humber]

Every once in a while you have to read some humber just to recalibrate your sense of the absurd. When you do, you're sure to find gems like this:



I've got to figure out how to add more favorite quotes to my signature!

Don't strain yourself, your past your due date.
Find an example of sustained velocity w.r.t the ground, that does not require force. You won't.

 

[humber]

I wish I could take the credit, but actually I was only quoting a certain Mr. Newton.
In your post you used quite understandable english (not typical of you) and made it clear, that you don't accept newtons first law to be valid.

Could it be your attention span? Let's see.

Same challenge I made to Spork.
Find an example of sustained velocity w.r.t the ground, that does not require force. You won't. just like all the other challenges

Drag = Resistance, hmmm.... I do see the analogue. The hot air balloons are very colourful. And there are coloured stripes also in resistors. The colour stripes tell us how many Ohms of resistance that component provides. YES! The colours of hot air balloons must tell us how much drag there is!

Sometimes ignorance is bliss, but mostly it's painful.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/echeeve1/Ref/Analogs/ElectricalMechanicalAnalogs.html

I still disagree with you. And it takes lots of effort to put it that mildly.

I know some will not change. Fact of life.

 

[huh34]

There seems to be some confusion about this.

There is only one confusion, but it is quite massive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know humber's statement that caused the eyepop will not show up here, but he was actually right. The earth will accelerate towards the falling skydiver! Granted it will be an extremely small acceleration, but it is there in theory. In fact if you have an infinitely accurate clock you can measure the fact that a brick will actually fall faster than a sponge when dropped separately (and in a vacuum). But to notice any difference you must have over 20 decimals of accuracy for this difference to show up ( I think one person did the calculation and found the difference for a typical sponge/brick difference to show up in the 24th decimal place, I didn't have a calculator or program that would go that far so I didn't even bother with the calculation).

I know humber's physics is not up to it but in a totally steady state perfect stream or wind an object in it will asymptotically approach the speed of the medium. In the real world wind speed and water speed vary. There is also what is called a "margin of error"' in any measurement. Once the speed of the boat or balloon is within the margin of error of the speed of the medium you can say it is going at that speed.

 

[humber]

I think you are grossly underestimating the depth of Humbers misunderstanding of basic physics. Fairly early in the DDWFTW thread, he was insisting that the propeller on the cart on the treadmill was generating not thrust but drag.

I have solid proof (not mine) that this is the case.

I think in Humberian physics, drag is any force that opposes motion with respect to the one absolute frame of reference, "the ground" and given the current discussion, I think he must believe that drag is present any time there is motion with respect to "the ground".

Waste of space.

Then again, it's tough to tell what Humber really believes, as it changes any time he gets backed into a corner he can't extricate himself from.

Bad grammar.

ETA: I should say any time he realizes he's been backed into a corner he can't extricate himself from, as he his just about always backed into such a corner. Every once in awhile, as with the claim that wheel slippage would improve the performance of the cart on the treadmill, he actually somehow manages to realize he is wrong, and then threatens to put anyone who mentions it on "fastscroll".

You are holding on to old remarks like an alcoholic holds on to any empty wine bottle.
I have not changed my slippage view, it is one of many modes that the device can adopt.

 

[humber]

Anyone that has read Alice knows that you have to run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place.

Like a cart on treadmill, but Lewis Carroll had more imagination.

 

[Clive]

I miss humb. Also, waiting for humberer to chime in.

I suspect many here are now horribly addicted to the whole silly game - even though I'm not really sure what the game is any more! Sometimes I think I hear echoes of Monty Python's dead parrot sketch, or the one where customers pay to have an argument. But in any case I'm definitely going to feel rather lost when the final curtain comes down on whatever it is.

Humber, you deserve a round of applause one way or the other. If you're not just trolling for your own amusement, then I have to give you top marks for persistence at least. As far as I can see you've posted something like 800 times to this and the original thread so far. To achieve this without driving everybody away and while simultaneously managing to apparently not really let anybody grok what you're on about is quite an achievement - even if completely accidental! But what are the chances of that?

Anyway, just for fun, let me assume that you're on the level, you truly believe what you've said in all these posts (minus some typos, accidental ambiguities, and similar errors that all of us make from time to time) and that you're genuinely interested in reaching some kind of common agreement or understanding as opposed to just playing endless shell games with some version of the truth. What do you think is the best way to resolve the persistent differences of opinion about how all this stuff works even in a simplified Newtonian world? What is your motivation for continuing to post to this thread?

 

[Subduction Zone]

sol invictus I still am having trouble believing that a magnetic field will store momentum I don't think that your comparison to light is inappropriate since the EM field in light is constantly changing from an electric field to a magnetic one and back again. Also the momentum of a photon can be found by multiplying its relativistic mass times the speed of light. Your coil that collapsed was a steady state type field. It has been a long time since I took my physics and even a little EE so I have forgotten how to calculate the field forces in an inductor. I also tried Googling this topic but had no joy. Do you have any more detailed links on this topic? Thank you in advance.

 

[humber]

I suspect many here are now horribly addicted to the whole silly game - even though I'm not really sure what the game is any more! Sometimes I think I hear echoes of Monty Python's dead parrot sketch, or the one where customers pay to have an argument. But in any case I'm definitely going to feel rather lost when the final curtain comes down on whatever it is.

Humber, you deserve a round of applause one way or the other. If you're not just trolling for your own amusement, then I have to give you top marks for persistence at least. As far as I can see you've posted something like 800 times to this and the original thread so far. To achieve this without driving everybody away and while simultaneously managing to apparently not really let anybody grok what you're on about is quite an achievement - even if completely accidental! But what are the chances of that?

Anyway, just for fun, let me assume that you're on the level, you truly believe what you've said in all these posts (minus some typos, accidental ambiguities, and similar errors that all of us make from time to time) and that you're genuinely interested in reaching some kind of common agreement or understanding as opposed to just playing endless shell games with some version of the truth. What do you think is the best way to resolve the persistent differences of opinion about how all this stuff works even in a simplified Newtonian world? What is your motivation for continuing to post to this thread?

I'll get back you, Clive. I have evidence of what I say is correct.

I once spent 6 months telling a manufacturer that there design was impossible. No amount of calculation or even demonstration could convince them. Later that year and 750,000 real British pounds later, they agreed. There was a paper trail of my notes and calculations that go the manager the boot, but who did that help?

 

[huh34]

Find an example of sustained velocity w.r.t the ground, that does not require force. You won't. just like all the other challenges

We found sticks, barrels and canoes in water. We found hot air balloons in air and even provided with a link to an independent document describing these. And ofcourse my favorite, the dead fish (in the water, not in the air). If the challenge is to find something that you agree with, that is mission impossible.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss, but mostly it's painful.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/echeeve1/Ref/Analogs/ElectricalMechanicalAnalogs.html

Yes, that link describes the correct analogies, where resistance is analogous to FRICTION. There is nothing there about drag that was in your incorrect analogue.

At low velocities the friction is independent of the relative surface velocity. At higher velocities the coefficent of friction decreases.

The drag is never independent of the relative velocity, quite the opposite.

So the analogue you provided was total ******** and the link you provided was completely correct.

I know some will not change. Fact of life.

That is true. I myself have in the original forum been wrong quite a few times. Evens spork has admitted being wrong at least once. I wonder who are you referring to or do you speak of experience.

 

[spork]

It is also true from the third law that the earth is accelerated towards the skydiver...

This is why when I skydive I'm very careful to get out of the way at the last moment. You can't imagine how big that thing looks when it's coming at you at 120 mph.

 

[humber]

Subduction Zone. Your opinion please

(1) Do you think that an object the is at wind or waterspeed can travel with less force than the water itself, say one meter away?

(2) Do you think is is possible to travel at sutained velocity wrt the grround, without force?

(3) Do you agree with Sol_invictus' interpretation of Rayleigh equation.


Thanks.

The core was destroyed by mechanical energy stored in the core and windings. That's what makes transformers hum.
Ferrite cores can literally explode.
ETA:
There will be the magnetic storage E = 1/2 *I^2 *L, but this discharge is usually limited by the current path of the ensuing arc plume. I saw a ground cable come unattached on a much smaller transformer than this. The cable snaked about with ferocity, and burnt a hole through the wall.

 

[spork]

Don't strain yourself, your past your due date.
Find an example of sustained velocity w.r.t the ground, that does not require force. You won't.

Pick a galaxy - any galaxy.

 

[humber]

This is why when I skydive I'm very careful to get out of the way at the last moment. You can't imagine how big that thing looks when it's coming at you at 120 mph.

You would miss the ground, again

Wikki for Dummies:-
"According to Newton's 3rd Law, the Earth itself experiences an equal and opposite force to that acting on the falling object, meaning that the Earth also accelerates towards the object"

 

[spork]

to humber: What do you think is the best way to resolve the persistent differences of opinion about how all this stuff works

Simple - the rest of the world must change their minds - every few minutes.

I'll get back you, Clive.

This is humber's favorite lie. I'm pretty sure he has never once gotten back to any of us when we pose questions that require further modifications of humberian space.

I once spent 6 months telling a manufacturer that there design was impossible...

Could other people see this manufacturer?

Evens spork has admitted being wrong at least once.

I'm not sure how to take that - so I'll take it as a compliment.

 

[spacediver]

"
The skydiver does move the Earth, but only very tiny bit. Don't worry though, you won't feel a thing.

My bad, you're actually correct here. I never really thought newton's third law was relevant to mutual gravitational attraction, but it seems I was wrong.

So you seem to have a good grasp of the third law, but you've made some startlingly inaccurate statements with respect to the first and second laws.

Lemme probe that mind of yours with the following question.

A rocketship is floating in space, motionless with respect to an observer stationed nearby.

The rocket fires its engines for a few seconds, and the force accelerates the rocket. When the rocket reaches 50 m/s, the engines turn off.

Here's the question for you:

What happens to the motion of the rocket, with respect to the observer, after the engines are turned off? (remember, there is no drag, since we're assuming a perfect vacuum).

 

[spork]

A rocketship is floating in space, motionless with respect to an observer stationed nearby.

The rocket fires its engines for a few seconds, and the force accelerates the rocket. When the rocket reaches 50 m/s, the engines turn off.

Here's the question for you:

What happens to the motion of the rocket, with respect to the observer, after the engines are turned off? (remember, there is no drag, since we're assuming a perfect vacuum).

We need to start a contest. When people pose questions like this, we need a place for us to all post our predictions as to what happens in the humberverse. The guy with the closest guess gets bragging rights - and the fear that he might be just a little humberlike.

 

[humber]

Pick a galaxy - any galaxy.

Try closer to home like this planet. Off you go.

 

[sol invictus]

sol invictus I still am having trouble believing that a magnetic field will store momentum

A magnetic field alone (i.e. zero electric field) stores only energy, not momentum. But that's not a frame-invariant statement - boosts turn magnetic fields into magnetic plus electric fields, and energy into energy plus momentum.

I don't think that your comparison to light is inappropriate since the EM field in light is constantly changing from an electric field to a magnetic one and back again.

Not exactly - but anyway, so what? It proves that EM fields carry momentum. Maybe you wanted a static field configuration? That's possible too.

Also the momentum of a photon can be found by multiplying its relativistic mass times the speed of light.

No need to talk about photons. We don't need to bring quantum mechanics into this - just think about a classical beam of light.

Your coil that collapsed was a steady state type field. It has been a long time since I took my physics and even a little EE so I have forgotten how to calculate the field forces in an inductor. I also tried Googling this topic but had no joy. Do you have any more detailed links on this topic? Thank you in advance.

You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector or here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994AmJPh..62...33J . This is a moderately advanced topic in E&M, so you're going to have to dig a little.