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

[humber]

Go ahead. I've given you two references, one a detailed exposition of the theory and the other a paper containing measurements on a real (and fully navigable by small boat, according to their description) river.

None of them support your claim that objects move at the speed of the river.
ETA: Another "paper", living organisms called water weeds, suggest that there are other possibilities.

In response, you just make unsubstantiated claims. We know what those are worth.

You made the claims. You jumped in assuming that I did not know what you think you know.

You gave no reasoning that indicates that. You're wrong.

My reasoning is sound. I know thing or two about flow.
I can show you an oil densitometer that is in used on oil platforms. I designed it. I could show you one, but then you would probably tell me that the helicopter won't fly so that you can avoid being seen as wrong.

No, it confirms it. You didn't read it.

I scanned it, and assessed its relevance.
It does not support your claim of waterspeed travel, or deny my claim that generally, the fastest water is below the surface. Now you also have to worry that stratification may invalidate your claim of winsdpeed travel for the cart. I mentioned that some time ago, but then you said "nonsense".

No, I'm proving that what you said was false. Do you now accept that you were wrong?

No. You are trying to float a straw man to defend a claim I did not make. You have not given one reference that shows that boats travel at waterspeed due to the flow of the water alone. Got that?

ETA: I missed this
Quote Sol_invictus:

Totally wrong. Drag (from the water) only acts if the boat is moving at a different speed than the water it's floating in. Air resistance is the only thing that might make it float slower than the river flows.

Air has drag, but water not. Or is it the other way around?

 

[jjcote]

Back to the rubber surface in the foggy dark, if that's acceptable, then is it okay if the fog lifts somewhat and we see that the rubber surface has been laid down on the deck of an aircraft carrier? It's still foggy, so we can't see down to the water or the drydock or whatever, but we still feel the 10 m/s breeze. Is that okay for testing a cart that purportedly goes DDWFTTW, or do you now need to see more of the surroundings?

 

[humb]

Humb, I'd like to hear your response to my post #2744 (on page 69).

Earth has been essentially replaced with a giant billiard ball, thus having a perfectly flat surface (insofar as we use the term "flat" on earth), but it still has essentially the same size, mass, and gravity, as the earth, plus an atmosphere that is similar in terms of composition and so on. Let's say the rest of universe is completely empty. No sun, no stars. (But we'll allow ourselves torches or similar so we can see what we're doing!)

We've also arranged so the southern hemisphere can rotate independently of the northern hemisphere - as if the earth had been cleanly sliced in two through the equator and then the two halves put back together again with a frictionless interface between them. You can imagine a long shaft running through the north and south poles and thus joining the two halves if that helps but shouldn't really be necessary! We also have things set up so the southern hemisphere is rotating (from west to east) slightly faster than the northern half so that a person standing just south of the equator and looking north will see the northern hemisphere apparently moving right to left (east to west) at 10 mph, even though the northern hemisphere is still rotating at the usual earth rate - something close to 1000 mph at the equator if my quick calculation is correct.

In addition we have a perfectly smooth and constant speed air flow moving around the globe from "west to east", at exactly the same speed as the southern hemisphere at the equator but also sufficiently far to the north and south of this also for the purposes of any cart testing we may want to do in that area. So this air flow is like a belt around the earth's equator and it's speed matches the speed of the ground in the southern hemisphere in the equatorial regions.

An artifice of your fertile imagination. Such a bearing cannot be constructed, and there is not the energy to change the rotation of the planet in this way. Momentum would be conserved, but then what of energy? Would the north push the south, or the south the north? And where would you stand to make the push? If there were a river running around this equator, what would the speed be, and how would the water part ways past the canoe? Like humber, who I have not met, I have also had many pirate adventures and I know which end my paddle is buttered on!

Independent hemispheres? Pshaw! Vive la revolution!

We happen not live on a massive rotating black hole and so there is no detectable frame-dragging on Earth.

Hardly! The Lense-Thirring effect is only one part in a few trillion, but the mass of the earth is nearly 6x10e24 kg, still a trillion trillion times that of a few-ounces propeller cart or a treadmill or a straw man! Your frame is dragging through the mud! The calculations are correct, and just because it is true does not make it so!

 

[Clive]

Such a bearing cannot be constructed, and there is not the energy to change the rotation of the planet in this way. Momentum would be conserved, but then what of energy? Would the north push the south, or the south the north? And where would you stand to make the push?

How disappointing. For a moment I thought humber had finally answered me, but now I see it is only humb and that all you have done is deny the scenario is possible. What I asked about concerned two people with identical carts on the surface of this hypothetical version of earth and how that situation was significantly different from the treadmill scenario when it comes to testing carts and what can be said about which surface is moving, which is not, where the "real wind" is and so on. You haven't made even the slightest attempt to respond to any of that. My conclusion is that you have no sensible argument to make. I wonder if humber can do better?

 

[Reality Check]

Hardly! The Lense-Thirring effect is only one part in a few trillion, but the mass of the earth is nearly 6x10e24 kg, still a trillion trillion times that of a few-ounces propeller cart or a treadmill or a straw man! Your frame is dragging through the mud! The calculations are correct, and just because it is true does not make it so!

Can you give a citation for your assumption that the "one part in a few trillion" effect scales with mass?
What calculations and how do they include frame-dragging?

ETA: I just had a thought: If frame-dragging is such a powerful force (effects of trillions per 1 part) as you have calculated then how come scientists have not yet measured it here on Earth? We should be able to see it in everyday life, e.g. someone walking against the roation of the Earth will age differently to someone walking with the rotation of the Earth. The Lense-Thirring effect is only one of the effects - there is also linear frame dragging and static mass increase.

 

[spacediver]

Ok Humber, in all seriousness, can you look at the following figure, and answer the questions.

Forget about treadmills, beans, oranges. Just focus on this specific scenario.

Here we have a surface with two objects, A and B.


Object A is moving rightwards at 10 metres per second (relative to the ground). Object B is not moving relative to the ground.

In this idealized scenario, there is no friction, no wind, etc.

Now here are the questions I would like you to answer, so I can better understand you.

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS CONCISELY AND CLEARLY

1) What is the velocity of A relative to the ground?
2) What is the velocity of A relative to B?
3) What is the Kinetic Energy of A relative to B?

For the third question, please show calculations.

 

[jjcote]

I'm curious, humber:

If I'm floating in an inner tube down a large river, and the river is flowing from north to south at 5 mph, and there is also a breeze blowing from north to south at 5 mph, will my inner tube go 5 mph?

In a 5 mph breeze, will soap bubbles move with the wind at 5 mph?

 

[sol invictus]

None of them support your claim that objects move at the speed of the river.

Nor did I say they did. They simply show that you were - and are - completely wrong in your claims about the flow of rivers, just like everything else.

No. You are trying to float a straw man to defend a claim I did not make. You have not given one reference that shows that boats travel at waterspeed due to the flow of the water alone. Got that?

That's going to be hard. Know why? Because it's so totally freaking obvious to everyone but an utter fool that no one every bothers to write it down.

Why don't you find something which claims they move slower?

Air has drag, but water not. Or is it the other way around?

Air exerts drag if you're moving with respect to it. Water exerts drag if you're moving with respect to it. That's why something immersed in water moves at the speed of the water, absent another force. That's why something floating in air moves at the speed of the air, absent another force. It's so completely obvious I can't believe I even need to say it.

 

[Clive]

I called on my inner hummer to attempt an answer in Humber's (hopefully temporary) absence.

If I'm floating in an inner tube down a large river, and the river is flowing from north to south at 5 mph, and there is also a breeze blowing from north to south at 5 mph, will my inner tube go 5 mph?

Trivial. The coriolis force excludes the possibility of a river running from north to south except on the equator so this can only be a model. Is the tube rotating? Clearly there is more KE in the part of the tube going downstream than the opposite side. Conservation of energy means this energy is transferred through the water. That must produce vortices and other turbulence that (overall) opposes the motion of the tube in order to preserve momentum. Your river is not real. Garbage in, garbage out.

So, your inner tube looks more to me like a cartoon straw man bent into tube shape. Is there an aircraft carrier circling inside your inner tube? Perhaps the river is also on the deck of an even larger aircraft carrier? Would you rather go to Australia or by boat? In my adventures on Australian rivers, I never observed an inner tube that went at the speed of the water and the air simultaneously. Watch out for crocodiles!

You must remember that the earth's mass overwhelms all other "frames" and ground based observations always prevail. Stand on the bank of the river and fixate your gaze on a point in mid-river. The opposite bank will be observed to flow up-river (relative to your focus). How fast is your tube flowing now?

You also never gave the initial conditions which are critical to proper understanding. If the tube was at rest to start with then the water flowing past must be slowed and disturbed. Similarly with the air. The net force on the tube is complex and chaotic and it will never achieve 5 mph steady-state. Instead it may oscillate around that value as momentum is transferred between water and tube.

As you can see, everything is good, but meaningless. Try to keep up. My point stands.

On the other hand I, for one, agree that in your cartoon model, the tube and the wind and the river could all move at precisely the same speed if we assume it was always thus (and also assuming there is no aircraft carrier coming up river at the same time).

 

[Peristarkawan]

I haven't read the original thread, nor am I willing to click through that monstrosity, and so I would appreciate an explanation of how humber thinks that kinetic energy and inertial frames of reference should work.

Taking things to extremes often helps. The International Space Station orbits at an average velocity of around 7,700 m/s. The equatorial speed of the Earth's rotation is about 500 m/s, so if we assume for ease of computation that the station orbits directly above the equator*, its velocity relative to the equatorial surface is about 7,200 m/s. A 70-kg astronaut aboard the ISS would then have a K.E. relative to the surface of 1.84 billion Joules, while the K.E. of the station itself is a staggering 5.96 trillion Joules. What are the implications of this for the astronaut?

*This assumption isn't even close to being true, but it can easily be shown that this is still the average relative velocity, when taken over a full orbit of the space station.

 

[John Freestone]

The discussion in the parent thread was about inertial frames of reference and whether the cart on the treadmill is a valid representation of the cart on a road. I have fixed the tags to reflect that.

It was a good idea, not least to be able to put better tags.

In the parent thread, this discussion was leading to bad tempers because it was detracting from what the majority of the participants wanted to discuss. I hope that here it can be properly debated without getting personal.

I'll try.

I specifically left cart and treadmill out of the OP for this split so as not to limit the discussion here to the one case. This thread may go it's own way.

Great.

I don't know if an earlier post of mine will arrive here from the parent thread, so I'll post it again (developed a bit). It's a thought experiment, The 1000 Mile-an-hour Treadmill....oh, and I get to The Billion Joule Bullet later.

Imagine you're in a fixed position in space w.r.t. the earth, i.e. somewhere on a line between the centre of the earth and a distant star, and directly above the equator. You therefore watch the earth rotating below you in its eastward progression. Now you focus on a part of Africa right on the equator, where there happens to be an easterly wind blowing at the incredible speed that just matches the earth's rotation. An 'easterly' of course, blows from east to west, so it is in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation, which means that the air itself stays right there under your own position, motionless with respect to you, while the earth spins under it.

Now, to anyone standing on the ground, or testing a cart there, there's an easterly blowing at the ridiculous speed of just over 1000 mph. That is because anyone living on earth has always lived their lives at whatever speed the ground is moving at. We don't even notice that we change our speed as we move between latitudes, but we do.

Normally, most of the air in the atmosphere travels with the earth's surface, more or less, which we call a 'still day', but it is not still air. What we mean is that it is still with respect to the ground. However, to our new position in space, which is obviously as still as we've ever been, the still air of a nice day would "in fact" be keeping pace with the ground, moving east at over 1000 miles per hour at the equator. I say, "in fact", because even this is a view that would only be true according to our current location in space.

Anyway, in our scenario, we're not imagining a 'still day', but that easterly wind going in the opposite direction to the earth's rotation. Now, no-one on the ground would have any doubts at all that there was a 1000 mph easterly blowing. If someone tested a cart that went directly downwind in it, they'd be happy to report that it was a genuine 1000 mph wind, and the ground wasn't moving, if they could hear themselves speak.

So what is the problem with being in a room with a treadmill moving under "still air" to test a similar cart? We need to recognise that none of these things are in fact stationary. At a temperate latitude, we can expect that the room, the air in it, the treadmill and all the land is moving east at about 500 miles an hour. Does that cause us concern? If we did the experiment outside on that ground in a 10 mph wind, are we concerned that all of it is going east at 500 mph? The speed of sound, Mach 1, is about 740 mph, incidentally.

Do we even know how fast we are rotating round the sun? It is actually about 66,600 miles per hour. That's fairly fast, but the solar system is also traveling round in the galaxy, about 447,000 mph. The group of galaxies we're in is also racing through space, and, compared to the background radiation from the Big Bang (assuming that can even be considered to give a fixed origin), we are moving at about 1.34 million mph.

Thankfully, for most of our earth-scale problems, we can just consider a nominally stationary position, and measure things from that. We do this for position, for velocity and for kinetic energy. But it is not just a helpful bit of simplification the maths allows: in the things that happen in the real world, only the relative velocities and energies are important. This is not the only consideration at larger scales or very fine measurements, but for carts and whether they can move faster than the wind, it's all we need.

It's a good job that kinetic energy is relative, not an absolute property of a body, or every bullet would impact its target with something in the region of a billion Joules, by my estimation, even if you just picked one up and threw it at someone.

Some data on how fast we're moving: http://calgary.rasc.ca/howfast.htm

 

[John Freestone]

I haven't read the original thread, nor am I willing to click through that monstrosity, and so I would appreciate an explanation of how humber thinks that kinetic energy and inertial frames of reference should work.

I don't think anyone knows. His explanations of physics are difficult for the novice to grasp, both because they change over time and because he often imparts them through what seem to be parables (or the ramblings of the intoxicated, perhaps).

I believe Christian Klippel intends to compile a guide to the humberverse if you wish to study the subject further. This will contain many marvels, no doubt, including the way the force on an object accelerated by the wind increases to its maximum as the object reaches near windspeed, the way a simple watch (and many other household objects) can be used to measure 'absolute velocity', and how pilots of carts going at windspeed should be careful not to fall out and get sucked into the propeller. I imagine Chris will be kept busy with later editions to reflect the changes in the laws.

 

[Clive]

I have no problem with the scientific precept of "equivalent frmes of reference". I have said that the precept is misused to support the idea that the treadmill is a frame of reference equivalent to that of a cart traveling at wind speed.
My over-arching claim is that this is nonsense.

Humber, if you are serious about trying to resolve the ongoing differences of opinions, then I think there really has to be some "back-to-basics" discussion (from both sides). I say this because it seems pretty clear that often a lot of people don't understand what you are trying to say, and perhaps the opposite is true also. You may already understand everything I'm about to say, but in the interests of trying to establish and confirm some level of common understanding let me now spell out how I see it.

My understanding of a frame of reference is NOT (in the strictest sense) a physical object but rather an imaginary but well defined coordinate system (including a clock). In that "frame" we use those coordinates and that clock to determine position, velocity, and so on. An inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that isn't accelerating (and that includes not rotating). In other words, an object that is not subject to a net force is seen to have a constant velocity in an inertial frame of reference. When an inertial frame is used with Newtonian mechanics (which I believe most or all of us agree is essentially all that is required to discuss the cart going downwind to a reasonable degree of accuracy), we are using a single frame of reference at a time and using that for all the measurements of position and time and other derived values such as velocity and acceleration. We can optionally also use other frames of reference but if we do that we can't always directly compare values from one frame to another in any generally sensible way, and we therefore need be careful to specify which frame is being used if there is any chance of confusion. Finally, with Newtonian mechanics as our basis, all clocks are assumed to run at the same rate regardless of the frame of reference being used.

So, using this general approach, we choose a suitable (hopefully also convenient) frame of reference, make the appropriate measurements and then use Newton's laws and so on (via mathematical calculations) to predict what will happen in certain circumstances and so on. Yes, strictly speaking there are possibly no true inertial frames of reference, but once again we can hopefully agree that things like the curvature of the earths surface, it's rotation and so on, are not likely to be significant issues when it comes to predicting the cart's performance. We all understand that in the real world things are often more complicated than in some simplified model that we may choose to use. This, plus other similar factors, all combine to mean that the predicted results from the formulas are almost certainly not an *exact* representation of "reality". But if reasonable assumptions are made to start with, then we expect the discrepancies to be relatively small, and so the predictions to still be "useful".

Given all this, we can choose the origin of our frame of reference to be moving at the same speed and in the same direction as the top surface of the treadmill belt. In that case it is quite easy to verify that we will measure the various speeds and so on as being identical to what we would measure if the cart was in fact rolling along the ground at windspeed (in a "real wind") and the frame of reference used was instead at rest relative to the ground (and was also aligned in the appropriate way). In this way those two frames of reference produce exactly the same measurements and therefore generate the same predictions.

We can also choose our frame of reference to be at rest relative to the body of the treadmill. Note the treadmill itself is not actually *the* frame of reference. When someone refers to the treadmill as a frame of reference (or similar) to me that's a kind of shorthand for a notional coordinate system that is at rest when compared to the body of the treadmill and aligned in some sensible and agreed fashion. This will in fact produce the same values for velocity and so on as a frame of reference that is moving at the same speed as the "real wind" for a case where the cart is rolling over the ground instead of on a treadmill.

In any of these (close enough to "inertial") frames of reference , we can then do the various calculations of velocity and kinetic energy and momentum, etc., etc. and we "know" that the results of that will be correct, at least in the same sense that we believe "Newtonian mechanics" to be correct.

Now, my training in physics is not much beyond high school level, so perhaps I've not been 100% clear or accurate in what I've said above, but hopefully I'm at least "close", and I'll invite others to make appropriate corrections if they believe I've made important errors or omissions.

Questions:
1. What exactly do you see as being wrong or invalid with this approach? Where does the "nonsense" creep in?
2. If your approach is different (and it certainly seems to be) please spell it out as clearly and concisely as you can, treating me as a rank beginner (which is all I really am) so that there is minimal chance of misunderstandings.

 

[mender]

Wow, nice link, John! Finally, humber is vindicated by an absolute value. Now the tricky part will be to compute how much compensation I have to do for my cart tests because of the KE change according to my location on Earth (just north of where that link is based).

And here I thought that all I would have to do is declare myself the centre of the Universe - but I guess humber already did that.

Peristarkawan, to "understand" the humberverse, let's propose a scenario using a river, a boat, and humber standing on the shore. The river has a current of 5 mph, and the boat is pointing upstream and is moving at 5 mph w.r.t. the water. He thinks that if the boat's speed upstream is the same as the river's speed downstream thereby canceling any forward motion of the boat relative to humber's position on the shore, the boat has no KE and therefore doesn't require any power to maintain that position.

However, transplant that boat to the middle of a still lake and suddenly the boat's engine needs to generate power to maintain that 5 mph w.r.t. the water. It all has to do with the "absolute" KE of the boat using a ground based observer as the marker.

Many people have tried to convince humber that a person below deck on the boat wouldn't have any way of knowing whether the boat was running at zero mph w.r.t. the shore in a 5 mph river current or running at 5 mph w.r.t. the shore on a still lake, based solely on what they can see and experience if an outside visual reference is not provided (i.e., the boat is enclosed by fog and the water surface is smooth in both cases).

 

[Christian Klippel]

I believe Christian Klippel intends to compile a guide to the humberverse if you wish to study the subject further. This will contain many marvels, no doubt, including the way the force on an object accelerated by the wind increases to its maximum as the object reaches near windspeed, the way a simple watch (and many other household objects) can be used to measure 'absolute velocity', and how pilots of carts going at windspeed should be careful not to fall out and get sucked into the propeller. I imagine Chris will be kept busy with later editions to reflect the changes in the laws.

Hello John,

yes, i plan to do that. Even more so now that there is the proper thread to place it in. But it will take some time until i start with it, because i'm rather busy currently and to collect all his gems need quite some time and reading. I'd say that i wont start in the next two weeks or so. I may start to collect that stuff earlier, but will put it here only once it is somewhat complete.

Sure will be some fun to read it then, especially for people coming to this thread that then will learn about some curious humberphysics. I already can see Newton spinning in his grave at a really high RPM.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[John Freestone]

Hello Clive, BTW, I enjoy your posts, and good luck getting a clear description from humber as to where your 'nonsense' might creep in.

Wow, nice link, John! Finally, humber is vindicated by an absolute value.

There is that bizarre aspect to all this, that there is often a grain of truth to humber's statements, but they are so vastly misunderstood or incorrectly used that they seem to lead him astray every time. It often seems that his mind is either too simple to notice an observation that would be clear to a small child, or has been corrupted by sophisticated concepts from cosmology, including General Relativity, and he tries to apply them to the human scale problems at hand, as though when playing pool he adjusted his aim to take account of the gravity between the balls and the warping of table-time around them! Either that, or these sophisticated ideas are used as leverage to wriggle out of the basic errors that he dare not own up to.

The point about absolute velocity given by reference to the background radiation from the Big Bang is quite funny - it may, of course, be that we can compute the 'centre of the universe' and consider it our absolute origin, but for all we know the fog-on-a-boat problem may extend further, and our universe be whizzing through a collection of universes with other relative velocities. And let us not forget that other fact in favour of humber's physics: the infinite universes theory is well respected in some quarters, and if that's true, the humberverse would have to exist!

Besides the cosmic objection to humber's absolutism, there is the more obvious one - that he would like to make Earth the origin, not the Big Bang. Our relativism is mere postmodernist propaganda, he says. I suppose that's what Newtonian physics must look like from some point before the Enlightenment. Yet somehow he seems to think we're not taking enough account of Einstein. It's no wonder it's all so intruiging and overcomes the (probably better) intentions of most of us not to feed the Nordic Mythical types.

Now the tricky part will be to compute how much compensation I have to do for my cart tests because of the KE change according to my location on Earth (just north of where that link is based).

...and the other celestial corrections! If a job's worth doing... ...don't spoil the wind cart for a ha'peth of warp.

And here I thought that all I would have to do is declare myself the centre of the Universe - but I guess humber already did that.

Peristarkawan, <snip>

Many people have tried to convince humber that a person below deck on the boat wouldn't have any way of knowing whether the boat was running at zero mph w.r.t. the shore in a 5 mph river current or running at 5 mph w.r.t. the shore on a still lake, based solely on what they can see and experience if an outside visual reference is not provided (i.e., the boat is enclosed by fog and the water surface is smooth in both cases).

Gosh, I missed that scenario: that's even more bizarre, if he managed not to "understand" that. We have various different scenarios going on for him to respond to. I'm still waiting to see where that aircraft carrier in the fog gets to...I have a sense my little planetary excursions might have been a bit of a spoiler...sorry jjcote.

Hello John,

yes, i plan to do that. Even more so now that there is the proper thread to place it in. But it will take some time until i start with it, because i'm rather busy currently and to collect all his gems need quite some time and reading. I'd say that i wont start in the next two weeks or so. I may start to collect that stuff earlier, but will put it here only once it is somewhat complete.

Sure will be some fun to read it then, especially for people coming to this thread that then will learn about some curious humberphysics. I already can see Newton spinning in his grave at a really high RPM.

Greetings,

Chris

I do look forward to it, but don't feel under any pressure to complete the task! I also wonder if this thread would be the right place, however, after it was split with the intention of discussing the validity of classical physics (and some had the hope of it being a sensible discussion, too), but I'm not sure where would be the right place. There is a humour section at JREF, though, and you might be able to 'lay it on with a trowel' there without moderators objecting.

I should really get back on topic myself.

 

[humber]

In one response we see humber claim that he understands frames of reference and then the posts some nonsense like this


No matter how many times he is told or shown by physics links that KE is always a relative property he won't understand and will always insist his silly equivalence to the flat earth belief.

No, Subduction Zone you are wrong. The KE goes with the moving body.

There are two objects traveling at 10m/s, one is solid, the other hollow. From the ground, the solid object has 100E9 J of KE and the other 0,01J of KE. You say their relative KE is zero. Please explain where the KE is.

 

[humber]

Back to the rubber surface in the foggy dark, if that's acceptable, then is it okay if the fog lifts somewhat and we see that the rubber surface has been laid down on the deck of an aircraft carrier? It's still foggy, so we can't see down to the water or the drydock or whatever, but we still feel the 10 m/s breeze. Is that okay for testing a cart that purportedly goes DDWFTTW, or do you now need to see more of the surroundings?

Haven't we done this? But, OK.

 

[humber]

Ok Humber, in all seriousness, can you look at the following figure, and answer the questions.

Forget about treadmills, beans, oranges. Just focus on this specific scenario.

[qimg]http://i43.tinypic.com/1hq8mt.jpg[/qimg]

Here we have a surface with two objects, A and B.


Object A is moving rightwards at 10 metres per second (relative to the ground). Object B is not moving relative to the ground.

In this idealized scenario, there is no friction, no wind, etc.

Now here are the questions I would like you to answer, so I can better understand you.

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS CONCISELY AND CLEARLY

1) What is the velocity of A relative to the ground?
2) What is the velocity of A relative to B?
3) What is the Kinetic Energy of A relative to B?

For the third question, please show calculations.

No, Spacediver. This is NOT the point. I have repeatedly said that. KE = O is a mathematical possibility, but has no meaning. You do the calculations. How can you actually DO ANYTHING, without moving one object out of its frame?
To maintain zero KE, the objects can never change, collide, accelerate or change direction. Were are your KE's for all the other infinite number of directions that the objects could move?
Your calculations work only for objects that are in exactly the same "frame", and only those you see. If there is another object, but 100km away from the above two, are they in the same "frame" and also have zero KE? If that object is stopped, do the others know about it? Any influence at all?
Your zero KE objects, have to have the same speed, same direction, for all time. Cartoon world.
If you still disagree, then please tell me how that relates to the treadmill, other than to tell me again that the cart has zero KE. How does that influence the cart and treadmill?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, Subduction Zone you are wrong. The KE goes with the moving body.

There are two objects traveling at 10m/s, one is solid, the other hollow. From the ground, the solid object has 100E9 J of KE and the other 0,01J of KE. You say their relative KE is zero. Please explain where the KE is.

As you have been told countless times humber KE is not an absolute value. If it was you would have to use John's link to figure out the exact KE of an object as defined by its motion through the universe. Now there is going to be a time element introduced also since the Earth is rotating there are some times of the day (depending on latitude) when we would be going a bit faster or slower in the direction of the Earth's travel.

In answer to your question where did the KE go? If both objects are moving in the same direction at the same speed there is no KE between them. As given by the formula KE=(m*v^2)/2, if the relative velocity v between the two is zero then the relative KE between the two is zero. Their kinetic energy relative to the Earth is still the same (100E9j and 0.01j).