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

Status
Not open for further replies.
jjcote said:
You may be right, although I'm not sure what he seems to be. He's wrong, wrong, wrong, but I can't say whether he seems to be intentionally or unintentionally wrong.

I'm quite confident that he isn't spork, though.
Click to expand...


Yes. There must be a serpent in The Garden of Eden for there to be a problem.
 
humber said:
Non-Hertzian nonsense.
Explain how the belt can induce forward thrust in a plain wheel.
Click to expand...

Well, actually it is the propeller that drives the cart forward. Belt drives wheel, wheel drives propeller, Thrust from propeller drives cart forward.

I dont know what further explanation you think is necessary, because I can't follow your delusional thinking.
 
humber said:
So why do you always suggest otherwise? Only a powered vehicle can drive its wheels independantly of the belt. The cart is powered by the belt, so it is not possible for them to turn slower without breaking traction, or faster, because the belt drives the wheels.
You cannot explain how the belt can induce forward motion in the axle.
Click to expand...

The motor powers the belt which powers the wheel which powers the propeller which powers the air with a reaction that powers the cart. Something like that, no?
 
sol invictus said:
You really want to get this on mythbusters, right? :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, but there's nothing I want bad enough to be confused for humber.

Speaking seriously though, I don't think humber is what he seems to be.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm having to agree. I just don't think it's possible for someone to think they understand physics and be so unbelievably consistently wrong on every single point.

But that just makes him a very very sad case. This would be a very peculiar way to get your jollies.
 
semper said:
The motor powers the belt which powers the wheel which powers the propeller which powers the air with a reaction that powers the cart. Something like that, no?
Click to expand...

No. The prop reacts with the air, to oppose the drag of the belt. The prop cannot produce more than it consumes.
 
spork said:
Yeah, but there's nothing I want bad enough to be confused for humber.



Yeah, I'm having to agree. I just don't think it's possible for someone to think they understand physics and be so unbelievably consistently wrong on every single point.

But that just makes him a very very sad case. This would be a very peculiar way to get your jollies.
Click to expand...

Ssssss..!
 
For everyone keen to delve into the "mysteries" of wheeled motion, I think this is a good resource;

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA1,M1

I haven't read it all btw, but if I were Humber I would randomly cut and paste anything which I suspect others to be unfamiliar with and claim that thats why YOU don't understand. In all likelihood the material will probably yield yet more entries to the "where Humber is wrong" vault.
 
humber said:
No. The prop reacts with the air, to oppose the drag of the belt. The prop cannot produce more than it consumes.
Click to expand...

Do you know the function of thrust output to power input for this unit Mr Humber? And How do YOU measure thrust power?
 
semper said:
For everyone keen to delve into the "mysteries" of wheeled motion, I think this is a good resource;

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA1,M1

I haven't read it all btw,
Click to expand...
But you are sure you are right? I see nothing to contradict my claim, and certainly nothing of how a belt can induce those forces in a wheel.

but if I were Humber I would randomly cut and paste anything which I suspect others to be unfamiliar with and claim that thats why YOU don't understand. In all likelihood the material will probably yield yet more entries to the "where Humber is wrong" vault.
Click to expand...

Keep digging.
 
semper said:
Do you know the function of thrust output to power input for this unit Mr Humber? And How do YOU measure thrust power?
Click to expand...

No need, Dempster. The power out cannot exceed the power in. The prop and wheels are directly mechanically connected, so the force from wheel and prop must be the same. The velocity of the wheel is determined by the belt, Dumpster.
 
humber said:
But you are sure you are right? I see nothing to contradict my claim, and certainly nothing of how a belt can induce those forces in a wheel.



Keep digging.
Click to expand...

Humber, if you said that a rock falls up when you release it, and somebody stood in front of you and dropped a rock on your foot, you would see nothing to contradict your claim.
 
Last edited:
humber said:
No. The prop reacts with the air, to oppose the drag of the belt. The prop cannot produce more than it consumes.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to. You see, there's this thing called a mechanical heterodyne that I've been reading about lately that multiplies energy via harmonics, causing the cart to enter a Bessel null at a multiple of the belt speed that makes the cart appear to move forward on the belt ...
 
AH!!!

I awake to the smell of fresh Coffee, blue skys and three more pages of Humbers idiocy!

(BTW, all I've done is read you reactions. Humbers on ignore it saves a lot of time!)

Humber, the occupants of the Vomit Commet are at Zero-g. It says so on the G meter.
 
humber said:
No need, Dempster. The power out cannot exceed the power in. The prop and wheels are directly mechanically connected, so the force from wheel and prop must be the same. The velocity of the wheel is determined by the belt, Dumpster.
Click to expand...

Humber once again demonstrates that he really doesn't understand the difference between force, power, momentum and kinetic energy.
 
humber said:
No need, Dempster. The power out cannot exceed the power in. The prop and wheels are directly mechanically connected, so the force from wheel and prop must be the same. The velocity of the wheel is determined by the belt, Dumpster.
Click to expand...

At last, I think you have ilucidated the most poignant part of the puzzle.

"the force from wheel and prop must be the same"

I think you have avalanched.
 
CORed said:
Humber once again demonstrates that he really doesn't understand the difference between force, power, momentum and kinetic energy.
Click to expand...


Well, he doesn't understand the difference between velocity and acceleration, so what do you expect?
 
BTW Humber, why DOES your graph of balloon speed go to 1 when balloons don't reach windspeed?
 
RossFW said:
AH!!!

I awake to the smell of fresh Coffee, blue skys and three more pages of Humbers idiocy!

(BTW, all I've done is read you reactions. Humbers on ignore it saves a lot of time!)

Humber, the occupants of the Vomit Commet are at Zero-g. It says so on the G meter.
Click to expand...

Humber never seems to sleep, and his thinking is delusional and paranoid. That is consistent with methamphetamine abuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom