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

[humber]

No thanks, I already have one that works.

Who's got it?

 

[spork]

Yes, I know. I am not trying to "avoid the answer" but to show what extremes you must go to, to get the result that you already expect.

There is nothing to understand in that way, that you seem to suggest Brian_M. You are "right".
What good can such an environment be? You can do nothing!. How could it be the basis of a useful idea? This is a pointless discussion in many ways, because the treadmill has nothing to do with frames at all. It should be just a game, to see if you can beat the objections, but in this case, one side simply removes all means until the only possible outcome is that you have nothing left. That would simply be time to got to bed, not the basis of a means of scientific inquiry. They are hypothetical ideas, that have been made real in the most literal of ways, to say that the treadmill could be a frame of reference.

It seems the gibberish is strong with this one!

 

[mender]

Who's got it?

Certainly not you. Maybe you should check your warranty, I would think you'd have a valid claim on your old one.

On second thought, maybe you should have taken your old one along when you got your new one, you can usually get a good deal when trading in something with low mileage.

 

[Dan O.]

Humber, here it is again.

The task is: If you had the resources available to the cart, could you figure out whether you were on a treadmill in still air or on solid ground moving with a tailwind.

Everybody else here says the cart behaves exactly the same in both situations. You however claim to be smarter than the cart but somehow can't produce one shred of evidence to back your case. You have been outsmarted by a toy.

 

[humber]

Certainly not you. Maybe you should check your warranty, I would think you'd have a valid claim on your old one.

Evidence strongly suggests it's not you.

On second thought, <sip>

I wouldn't risk a third one.

 

[humber]

It seems the gibberish is strong with this one!

Please give me a result of the hobo experiment that you would not expect?

The only possible exceptions would be due to one of the forces or sources of information that you had deliberately excluded. It's a watch with no hands. It tells you that you do not know the time.

It also depends so much upon the knowledge of the observer. I can think of several ways in which I can tell if the ISS is moving towards me, or the other way around.
ETA:
I was thinking about Greg London's tumbleweed, and how it failed. I imagine that yours would not.
It would look good in orange.

 

[humber]

Humber, here it is again.

The task is: If you had the resources available to the cart, could you figure out whether you were on a treadmill in still air or on solid ground moving with a tailwind.

Using my chute and skates, I travel to windspeed on the belt. The differential velocity between the wheel and belt, will be zero. This is not the case in real wind. Case closed.

Everybody else here says the cart behaves exactly the same in both situations. You however claim to be smarter than the cart but somehow can't produce one shred of evidence to back your case. You have been outsmarted by a toy.

Ouch.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Detailed answers are never sarcasm. Sometimes, I do wonder what there is left to say. The treadmill is false, it is so.

When did you ever give a consistent, detailed and logical answer? In your dreams maybe, but not here. So far all you have given are random ramblings that only show that you know nothing.

You make bold statements like "The treadmill is false, it is so." but fail to to explain why. Looks pretty much like a case of megalomania. Everyone else is saying that it is a valid and equivalent test, it is only you who denies it. You are fantasizing, thats all.

 

[spork]

Please give me a result of the hobo experiment that you would not expect?

Here are a few results I'd never expect:

- humber ever answering a question directly
- humber following through with any of the things he claims "are coming"
- humber demonstrating even the most basic understanding of high school level physics.
- humber fooling anyone into believing his gibberish means anything.
- humber maintaining a train of thought for one complete sentence.
- humber outdoors or even just interfacing with another human in person (or even on the telephone)
- An orange holding its position on a moving, level conveyor belt without outside influence (other than gravity).

I can think...

No you can't

By the way - no more offer to boil me in oil?

 

[spork]

This is not the case in real wind.

Remember - look for the words "Real Wind" on the label. Accept no substitutes!

Case closed.

Do you understand that "Case closed" loses some of its punch when you follow it up with another 20 pages of gibberish?

 

[Christian Klippel]

I'd also like to recommend the thread called The Psychology of the Crackpot . Many things there should sound quite familiar to everyone who had read humber's gibberish.

 

[humber]

Here are a few results I'd never expect:

- humber ever answering a question directly
- humber following through with any of the things he claims "are coming"
- humber demonstrating even the most basic understanding of high school level physics.
- humber fooling anyone into believing his gibberish means anything.
- humber maintaining a train of thought for one complete sentence.
- An orange holding its position on a moving, level conveyor belt without outside influence (other than gravity).

These are not the answers I would expect of a man who would teach me.

By the way - no more offer to boil me in oil?

If you wish.

 

[spork]

These are not the answers I would expect of a man who would teach me.

You don't expect honesty from a man who has long since faced the reality of a lost cause?

 

[humber]

Remember - look for the words "Real Wind" on the label. Accept no substitutes!

Do you understand that "Case closed" loses some of its punch when you follow it up with another 20 pages of gibberish?

Do you understand the meaning of Case Closed? Now reinvigorated.

 

[humber]

You don't expect honesty from a man who has long since faced the reality of a lost cause?

Of coruse not. That I what I was saying.

 

[spork]

Do you understand the meaning of Case Closed?

Looks like we have to add "case closed" to the list of terms now owned by humber.

Now let's be careful out there folks. If you use any of "humber's" words you prove he was entirely right from the start.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Looks like we have to add "case closed" to the list of terms now owned by humber.

Now let's be careful out there folks. If you use any of "humber's" words you prove he was entirely right from the start.

Hello spork,

but only in the humberverse, which has no relation at all to the real universe that we live in.

I would be more worried to use humbers "logic" instead of his words. Because that would be fatal.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[humber]

owned by humber.

Yes.

 

[CORed]

Remember - look for the words "Real Wind" on the label. Accept no substitutes!




Do you understand that "Case closed" loses some of its punch when you follow it up with another 20 pages of gibberish?

It also loses its punch when it follows a simple statement that is glaringly, obviously wrong.

 

[John Freestone]

Thanks for those replies about the spherical/orbiting problem. I should have said 'sperical' rather than 'orbital', in fact, as I didn't mean anything to do with the rotation of the Earth (I realise that would also have some effects, but my brain has enough trouble just with the problem of someone jumping on a moving object on a spherical path). So I think Spork is ahead of me:

It is a valid argument. But the logic is ever so slightly twisted. <snip>

So yes, if we ignore the implied assumption that both are inertial frames there are in fact effects of spinning earth, earth orbiting sun, etc.

However, the words I particularly like are the ones I've bolded, and everything else is negligible!

Similarly:

Yes and no (which is a fancy way of saying that you're on the right track). If we interpret the initial question to be implying that the boxcar has a constant velocity, then it isn't allowed to follow the curvature of the earth, because that would mean that it was accelerating. <snip>

Seriously, the 'no' bit here is very interesting and important. It says that actually my interpretation cheats, by suggesting that the lateral component of the jumper's velocity is in a straight line, while I've allowed the train to follow the curvature of the Earth without compensation, and I am reminded that a change of direction, even at constant speed, is an acceleration. Actually, that's something else I find difficult to get my head round, but it's a separate issue.

OTOH, what I think you're saying, jjcote, is that, given another kind of idealized system, the one I described, in which a fast train moved on a small planet, and a powerful jumper jumped to a very great height, the actual physical results are as I suggested, a lag. It occurs to me that actually this result (being different from the flat earth scenario which was the reasonable but unexpressed assumption of the original proposition), is because all objects in this real Earth space are moving in elipses. As soon as we jump, we are in orbit (or if I'm going to be really pedantic, the Earth and I are orbiting each other's shared CoG!).

All right I guess I will have to get my comment in on this too. If you have a very accurate measuring system this can be determined. There is a term for it which I cannot remember right now, but I saw references to it on the Flat Earth Soc Forum. If you want to try to argue with a group of hunbers that is the place to go. I am off to google this topic.

No, no, no! I'm certainly not arguing that this is the way to go. As far as the original point is concerned, this is just me rambling on about real-world effects that have nothing to do with the point that was trying to be illustrated to humber, and which humber failed to understand/accept. If we look back at the trail of breadcrumbs, it is astounding, actually, how we got here. I think it was from humber repeating his assertion that the treadmill is wrong, an abortive attempt to understand the wind, and specifically the gradient at the belt, from the frame of reference of the belt, whereupon he introduced someone jumping, for no purpose other than to allow himself more easily to freeze his imaginary observer in mid air (instead of continuing to travel with the belt, and thus changing frames willy-nilly as is his wont), which led to trains, cabooses, oxygen masks, motion on the spherical earth and coriolis forces! Please don't take my observation as in any way agreeing with humber. His insistence that the person jumping in a train carriage would come down behind the chalk mark was based on other reasons - he never mentioned my reason - and mine is negligible and irrelevant to the purpose of the thought experiment, as I think I already said.

Hello John,

well, yes, it is some kind of valid. But then you also have to consider the circumference of the earth vs. the circumference of that imagined "orbit". Add to that the consideration of the time the person jumping would be in the air. In the end that effect would be incredibly small, so i would say that it just doesn't really matter for that thought-experiment. It might have a noticeable effect if the person is to jump several thousand or million times, but that is not the case since we talk about a single jump.

Hi chris, yes, that's pretty much what I said.

I would say it is just the classic misdirection trick that humber always applies as soon as he moved himself in a corner and sees no other way to get out without admitting that he has been wrong.

<big snip>

Well, we have to be fair to humber here. He didn't use this observation as a misdirection. He didn't mention it. He used one of his usual KE arguments, which was wrong, AFAIK. From earlier evidence, there is reason to believe that words like 'spherical' and 'orbit' and 'coriolis' might creep into further refutations from now on, however, as he adds them to his random text generator. It happened when I pointed to the scale effect differences of a treadmill vs 'carpark' test. It happened quite a few times with quite a few people, as they notice interesting facts about the systems we're investigating; humber introduces those into his word spaghetti to pretend that he knows all about them.

Well, unless the train is at the equator when the person jumps, there is also the Coriolis effect. The jumper will veer slightly to the right of the motion of the train in the northern hemisphere, slightly to the left in the southern hemisphere. Again, this is an extremely small deviation for something on this scale, though very important if you are dealing with large-scale weather systems, or targeting ballistic missiles.

Thanks for that, CORed. You're on the same page as spork, and observing something I hadn't. I'm a bit sad there's nothing I can put in bold here to massage my ego, but never mind.

Now, dark matter, anyone? Quantum effects? If our hobo is unable to look out the window to assess his direction, does he not have a direction because the wave function can't collapse without an observer? He actually is a shrodinger's cat! Please note, I'm joking.