Thanks humber! A very nicely formatted post, and most or all sentences were able to be read without too much additional noise from typos and so forth. Also, no hanging tags. I appreciate your efforts in that regard, although it's a pity that much of the content still has the same old problems (in my opinion of course). Still, it's all good fun isn't it?
Debatable
Are you sure? How can we tell?
Great, you acknowledge the Earth is moving. Surely that means your parked car is also moving? When did it experience the acceleration that took it from being at rest to moving? If you claim your car was always moving, then I will claim that mine was always moving also. I'm sure we can agree to avoid any reliance on any form of
Prime Mover!
It does not have to. The process is incremental. There is no chance of it being any other way. All the frames are permanently linked. Not the meaning at all. Too complicated, Clive.
Something can be moving without accelerating Humber. You may want to argue that all moving things started at rest (w.r.t. "ground"???) at some stage in the past and then had to be accelerated by something else at some later time. Are you trying to tell me you can tell what is "moving" and what is not only by examining it's entire history of accelerations since... umm....
There is no change of motion without acceleration. The history is incremental. It has what it has, but you need to apply force change it. How do you do that without manipulating it?
To that last remark, Yes! It is already done. Its a "chain", it never needs to be tracked and it never breaks. Time is
continuous.
Newton came up with his laws? No. I guess it must have been earlier, perhaps even before there were observers!
Yes, and no frames were lost and nobody gave a toss. There is essentially "nothing to see". It's hyperbole.
Where are you measuring from to get displacement? Why did you choose that particular place? Can I choose I different place please? By the way, the accelerometer measures acceleration, which is the rate of change in velocity. Just because you notice some acceleration doesn't mean it wasn't moving to start with.
Now you are being absolutist about relative matters. The treadmill is not in orbit. No you have the wrong take on history. What I meant was that there is no chance of a "gap" developing, such that you would you need to know the "start". This frames idea has become hyperbolic, at the expense of reason.
I choose to measure displacement from the "X" marked in the belt. I don't get zero displacement or velocity. In fact I get the same as what I get for the car on the road with my "X" on the road if that is an appropriate distance and direction from the car initially.
The belt has no relationship to the car's actual motion. Accept that and you will not have to worry ever again about frames in connection with the treadmill !
Actually, no. Displacement w.r.t the origin of whichever inertial reference frame you choose to use is arguably the most important thing!
There is no need for an origin. There are no records required to maintain the "log". It can be no other way. There is nothing...
What if do some similar test in deep space. Who or what will tell me what is real there? What if I ask NASA to take a treadmill and cart to the moon so we can test your scenario of the cart running on the treadmill in a vacuum? Do I have to use moon ground there? Or Earth ground? Why?
Then you would need to make preparations for that. I see no attempt to consider say, humidity. Why bother about even smaller things?
No Clive, the vacuum is the limiting case, the conclusion of the logic. That is an error of derivation, not my idea.
Who said? Why? Perhaps now is the time for you tackle my
post #2744 in the original thread!
A datum is not a fixed reference, Clive.
And if you use a reference frame at rest to any particular one of these many coloured belts, then Newtons laws will predict the same outcome for any particular interaction between some set of objects "out there". Do you want me to work through a simple example to show you? Or will the mathematics be "all good but meaningless"?
Quite implausible. Which one is the correct one, Clive? Is there a law of nature that allows for that, or prevents error? There are usually consequences, but you can pile on as many as you like. Do you think that likely if the belt was truly the road? It is like carpet.
It is man made, and artificial. So, no problem. The belt is not like the runner's treadmill belt in function. A dyno belt is different again, and so is the BMW/F1 belt. They look all like roads, but they do not have the same functionality. A belt-as-road is different again, and is
not employed in the treadmill.
I thought you said observers have nothing to do with this? Now you try to tell me the "real ground" is the ground that you're standing on and you can just "see" this somehow.
No. The reason is, that there is nothing on the treadmill that is real, except the cart. Remove the belt, and what do you have? Nothing.
The belt has nothing to do with motion, so remove that and...
The belt
simulates the passing of the road surface. That is all. It is
not a road. That is the mistake. There is nothing, other than the cart, that is real in the treadmill. This is not the case with the BMW/F1. It has has two real objects; real wind and car, but it works just as well without the belt. Rotate the wheels by other means, but all that would be lost is the laminar flow under the car. The belt has nothing to do with motion.
For the belt to be valid, there must be a r
eal connection with the road. In the case of BMW/F1, they have real wind that connects the whole thing to the natural world. That allows other things to be added, like laminar flow.
But the treadmill has none of these, so the belt is an orphan, if you like.
Please also show me how anybody can get negative KE. Show me the numbers I need to put in the formula. I guess I'll need mass, and velocity (as a vector). I know all of this stuff has come up before, and your errors were pointed out to you then as well. Have you not learned anything at all? Perhaps you have heard of "Clive Wearing"? (Not me by the way!) Check out Google or youtube. He has a interesting problem with his memory!
I don't have to do this Clive!. The -KE was not my claim, it was proffered as an explanation for a treadmill error.
Honestly humber, I don't think you have convinced anybody of anything. You have given some of us a reason to revisit some stuff we haven't thought about for a long time so thanks for that. You make a good teacher albeit in a very back-to-front kind of way! And you've also been quite funny, although possibly that was accidental some of the time. The end result was the same though so keep it coming!
If you could insist that a piece of vinyl can be a road, then would have point, but a moot one. What you do not seem to appreciate, is that such a frame cannot be built. It will always come down to the ground, not because of the "importance" of the earth, but because equivalence says it must. If the frame is valid in the real world, the is no need to hide, or take this or that measurement from here or there. That's what it all means. It makes no difference
at all. You don't need observers, if only because you are that observer.
You can do what you like from the belt, but that won't change what the Earth reference sees. The problem is that the belt is not real, so it cannot be the equivalent of a real road, so there is discord between belt and ground. Move to the ground, and all adds up. The whole thing becomes exactly like everything else in the world, instead of an anomaly.
If you insist that the belt is the road in any meaningful way, then you will naturally disagree because our ideas are quite incompatible. Further discussion on the matters of the treadmill would be futile.
The belt-as-road supports the idea of windspeed frame. Remove that and you have a cart that is essentially still. That is what every reading from the ground says. That is what the cart itself says, that is what the friction and balance says.
Only from the belt can you get windspeed. That is fictional, because the belt has no connection with actual travel. It is just a belt, that has been pressed into service as a means of making laminar flow. That is not the only means by the way. Sometimes fans, jets and acoustic devices are used.
Sometimes water is used instead of air.
Mmmm.... Funny but accidentally so, knows lots of words but not the meaning, is confusing, good but bad teacher, can analyze the complex, but is stumped by a belt....... Do you think it's all me?
