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

[John Freestone]

Well jjcote, if it is as easy as this little canard, it won't be a problem.


Yes, yes, get on with it...

A little more patience, and you might get one puzzle right this year.

Ok here goes for the paddle question. I don't know what the 'paddle' is really about, but it seems some device for measuring two air velocities, from which we can calculate the difference.

Stand in real wind while holding a paddle device, so that the axle is above the boundary layer, with the top and bottom blades driven by the wind and boundary respectively. This should yield a difference of '4m/s' (CW) and then again at windspeed. (10 - 6 = 4).

First of all, it seems right up to '4 m/s', for someone 'standing in real wind', if that means someone standing on the ground. Yes. The top layer is going 10, the particular layer lower down that we're measuring the other velocity of, jj said was going slower, at 6. Difference = 4. Now, I don't get why you've put CW. You're obsessed with clocks. All I can imagine is that if I stood to the East of the 'paddle', the top layer would be going 4 m/s faster than the lower layer, and we can imagine that would spin a 'paddle device' clockwise as we look at it. Yes? I think jjcote's wind direction was from the south, but I can't be sure now. I'll say that was it anyway for this. As I've pointed out before to you, CW and CCW don't mean diddly unless you give enough information. If we stood to the West of the device, the southerly wind would still be faster at the top layer and slower in the lower layer, but now it would move the paddle CCW. It hasn't changed direction. You just looked at it from the other side. Ok so far. 4 CW looking from the east side.

But now you say same again at windspeed. If you mean we are now travelling with the wind holding the device, you must surely realise that it can only measure the relative windspeed (by now, surely, can't you, by now, surely, please?). So it's top measuring device gets 0 m/s and its lower one gets

(the speed of the wind jj said it had relative to the ground) minus (whatever speed we are going at)
= 6 - 10
= -4
i.e. the bottom measurer is getting a backwards wind (it's going slower than us at our 10 m/s) of 4 m/s. The top one is stationary. So your bit in brackets should read (0 - - 4 = 4) not (10 - 6 = 4).

So when we are travelling with the wind at windspeed, we get: 4 CW looking from the east side. Gosh, that's the same as above. How amazing. A difference in two velocities is the same even when we measure it relative to a different 'ground-zero'. [ETA: I removed one particularly bitchy bit here, because you did get the same answer, and I was criticising the wrong thing, perhaps. The error seems just that you have a magical paddle device that can measure the windspeed relative to the ground when you're travelling at windspeed, rather than reading 0, and the boundary layer w.r.t. the ground (6) instead of w.r.t. the device (-4), but 10-6 does = 0--4 anyway).]

Now you get really bad:

The belt is not the same.

Yes it is.

At windspeed, (taken from he cart) the paddle will turn ( 0 - 6) -6m/s (CW).

No. The top one is right, 0. The bottom one is wrong. Unfortunately, I'm finding it difficult to think of how to walk you through how to get it right without just employing the relative velocities trick normal people use all the time when doing this kind of thing. Here goes: JJ said that the boundary layer wind was going at 6 wrt the ground. Now, to any of us, it is obvious that that means that the equivalent layer must also be going at 6 w.r.t. the belt (or we just haven't got a correct setup and need a wider belt, or the air pressure has changed or something - this depends on such laws of physics - ok?). Therefore, if the belt is going backwards (i.e. negative) 10 and the boundary layer is going +6 with respect to it, then the boundary layer is going -10 +6 with respect to us.

= 6 - 10 = -4
So, to correct you above, the paddle will turn (0 - - 4) = 4 CW looking from the east side. Ring any bells?

Going with the belt will be ( 10 - 6) 6m/s (CCW) ETA:4m/s (CCW)

No. Going with the belt, your back is pushed into a wind. That is what you called a positive wind, so you are right to say the top one gets 10. The bottom one is right as well, 6. But where did you get CCW from? The top is still faster than the bottom, and from the rear, just as before. It should therefore be 4 CW looking from the east side. Hmmm.

This is tricky. If you stand on the belt, the air right next to the belt will be at 0 w.r.t you, so the slower flow of 6ms, can be said to move away from you at 4m/s.

No. JJ said that the boundary layer he was using was going 6 m/s over the ground. In the equivalent scenario, it is also going over the belt at 6 m/s, although from our usual earthbound perspective we might call that the belt going past the wind at -6 m/s.

The air over the top (from your back) is coming to the paddle at 10m/s, so the difference is 6m/s (CCW.) ETA: 4m/s (CCW)

See above calculation. 4 CW looking from the east side.

ETA:
If the lower paddle touches the belt, the paddle will stop, and so for a flow going at the speed of the belt. A flow of 6m/s will therefore be 4m/s slower, turning the paddle 4m/s (CCW)

I think you've even confused the poor wind now.

You have to agrees that at some point when moving up the belt, the flows will be equal and opposite, so the paddle will stop. This will not happen in the wind.

I have no idea what you mean by that. Wind is the motion of an air mass relative to something else's motion. None of these motions are absolute. Blah blah blah blah...

The answer, in case you missed it, was 4 m/s CW looking from the east side.

 

[John Freestone]

Please show the error in the paddle wheel.

Done.

Showing you the errors you do is fruitless, as is evidenced by thousands of posts in this and the original thread. There is no reason anymore to point out any of your numerous flaws, since you simply don't accept that they are flaws. You have shown that over and over again.

Add to that your lack of understanding of even the most basic physics, and it should be pretty clear that it makes absolutely no sense to explain anything to you.

Quite true, Chris. I love that signature of yours, by the way! Best yet.

 

[CORed]

Humber, why don't you answer the question? You never have.

I have looked at the boundary layer. The look the same to me.

That's because you forgot to switch your frame of reference from the belt to the ground in the middle of your analysis, so you fail to realize that the boundary layer on the belt is going "the wrong way".

The silly thing about the whole boundary layer discussion is that even if humber were correct, it would not invalidate the treadmill test as evidence that the cart can, indeed go downwind faster than the wind.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Hello John,

Quite true, Chris.

i can't help, but humber's line of argument (dare do not call that reasoning, please!) is pretty much the same as with all the woo-woo's. Just take a look at the challenge application threads, where people help them to work out a protocol. Or the thread about "Vision From Feeling" and her claims. No matter what, everything is rejected that doesn't fit 100% with their views of things. And of course it is always the others that are to blame, from their viewpoint. Reality-rejection as pure as it can get. And the goalposts are always floating in free air, driven by some magic force that moves them around seemingly automatically.

I love that signature of yours, by the way! Best yet.

Thanks, yours are quite nice as well. Too bad that mine already uses up the available space. I'd really like to add his recent statement "That is definitely one way or the other." as well. Definitely that one. Or the other.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Subduction Zone]

John Freestone I was reading a bit of humber's posts and I think I know what he means by CW and CCW, must have been something I ate. He means clockwise and counterclockwise. Of course you do not measure rotational speed in m/s except in the humberverse of course. So I predict that since you did not know the meaning of is incorrect use of units then your proof, which was rather nice by the way, does not apply to him. humber does so many things wrong every time he post something it is amazing. And if you can't read his pointy little head and see what he was trying to say through his errors he won't accept your proof. And even if you did point out every error in his statement I doubt if he would still accept your proof.

 

[John Freestone]

I should hope not. The atmosphere at the ground level, does not move at 1000mph w.r.t the ground, bunker or not. Wind is the velocity difference between the atmosphere and ground, at some given location but not the whole planet, and the wind moves over the ground.

I'm not quite sure which bit of that you think I would disagree with. I said that it wasn't specifically for you, whereas I should obviously have said that you wouldn't even be able to understand it. The 1000 mph wind is fictional, part of a thought experiment. As I stated, if we wanted to do this for real, we only need to go to a higher latitude. At 38.2 miles south of the North Pole, the ground rotates round the pole at about 10 mph. On a still day, the air is doing the same (at that position; as I also made clear, not necessarily everywhere). Hence, if the air 'stayed still' w.r.t. an observer somewhere in space, himself motionless w.r.t. a line between the centre of the earth and a distant star, the ground would be seen to move past the 'stationary' air. To us, that's wind blowing over the 'stationary' ground - you know, where you park your stationary car.

Do you realise that when it is a still day, the air is moving with the ground at whatever velocity the ground is moving at? 'Wind' is as you say, is air movement w.r.t. the ground, so it can't stay still w.r.t. the centre of the earth as well. I asked you several times to say what it means that you choose the Earth as your frame of reference, when bits of it are moving at different velocites. Like 'real wind', it remains a mystery.

Let's see if you're ready to argue with my 'paddle puzzle' maths yet...this'll be good.

 

[John Freestone]

John Freestone I was reading a bit of humber's posts and I think I know what he means by CW and CCW, must have been something I ate. He means clockwise and counterclockwise. Of course you do not measure rotational speed in m/s except in the humberverse of course. So I predict that since you did not know the meaning of is incorrect use of units then your proof, which was rather nice by the way, does not apply to him. humber does so many things wrong every time he post something it is amazing. And if you can't read his pointy little head and see what he was trying to say through his errors he won't accept your proof. And even if you did point out every error in his statement I doubt if he would still accept your proof.

Hi SZ, yes, but you missed a bit of the history on the main DDWFTTW thread, the parent from which this split for the purposes of trying to find wormholes between our universe and humberverse. In that, one of his descriptions of the cart (and, of course, why it was wrong to put one on a treadmill) used CW and CCW about the wheels and prop, again with no understanding that a clock goes CCW if you look at it from the back. I soon guessed that those were the meanings, and they're fairly common.

The whole idea of just presenting this crazy paddle no-one has the foggiest idea about, and having to guess how it could possibly translate two windspeeds into a rotational movement, whilst also correcting the same mistake I pointed out before (backed up by several others) beats the hell out of me...assuming my interpretation of the thing bears any resemblance to what was going on in his head anyway. He'll probably begin his next refutation by explaining that I don't understand how his paddle works at all!

 

[spork]

After 39 pages of batting this mouse around it's lost some of its appeal. It's been dead for at least the last 38 pages, but we keep thinking it will respond with at least a meaningful (even though wrong) answer to one of our questions.

I'm far more interested to hear what S'zone's brother has to say about our little problem at this point. He comes with a genuine rocket science title and good references. I presume he can form sentences. Please give us an update S'Zone. In fact, I'd love you to get him on the forum. I think you know that if he is honest and respectful everyone here will be as well. I think you know that the claws don't come out for incorrectness, or even stupidity - only for arrogance.

 

[spork]

you missed a bit of the history on the main DDWFTTW thread, the parent from which this split for the purposes of trying to find wormholes between our universe and humberverse.

I wish I had your way with words! I'd hit the "nominate" button, but I'm almost sure this isn't what they have in mind.

I've made a couple of plea's via PM to speak to humber on Skype - but to no avail. I have to wonder if that's because he knows he can't think up these bizarre twists in real time, and the gig would be up.

 

[sol invictus]

Nah - he just doesn't want to use up one of his weekly calls on that.

You can't blame him...

 

[John Freestone]

I wish I had your way with words! I'd hit the "nominate" button, but I'm almost sure this isn't what they have in mind.

Thanks. I wish I had your aeroplanes! Your words aren't bad either; you have me in stiches sometimes.

I've made a couple of plea's via PM to speak to humber on Skype - but to no avail. I have to wonder if that's because he knows he can't think up these bizarre twists in real time, and the gig would be up.

Can Skype do that? Don't you need a black hole? I wouldn't expect the PMs to get through, either - I think you have to recalibrate the sensor array or something.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Can Skype do that? Don't you need a black hole? I wouldn't expect the PMs to get through, either - I think you have to recalibrate the sensor array or something.

Well, easy.

You just have to put some grease on the modem to make the bits slippy, spin it up so it stores enough momentum through its torsion-springy ethernet cable, then put it on the floor so the bits can slip along the boundary layer. Don't forget to spin it CCW so that the bits slip CW toward humber. And beware of the belt, or you need to do some time-freezing to overcome it.

That should do it, don't ya think?

 

[spacediver]

I've an idea that's less expensive than hiring a recognized expert to read this thread.

Humber, how would you feel if we gave you a few physics questions from an accredited source, and had you answer them. Perhaps from a high school physics exam or something that has good questions on relative motion, windspeed, force, etc.

Then we can compare your answers to the actual correct answers.

Anyone got access to such questions and answers?

 

[spork]

Humber, how would you feel if we gave you a few physics questions from an accredited source, and had you answer them.

That would be a swell idea, but we're talking about humber here. There is absolutely no way he'll offer a responsive answer to a concrete question. I can't even get him to take a stance on my assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. That seems like fairly safe territory to me. But I think he's just bright enough to know not to walk down any path that may ultimately expose him to light.

Anyone got access to such questions and answers?

No problem. I'd be happy to post questions on any of the topics in classical physics from my college texts. But it doesn't make sense to do so unless humber agrees to this exercise - and I'd give you 1000:1 against that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyone got access to such questions and answers?

Any college level physics textbook should be good enough for this purpose. Of course if we just do our own quotes from one I am sure that humber would reject it so maybe an online source?

 

[John Freestone]

4 m/s CW looking from the east side.

SZ is absolutely right, metres per second isn't a measure of angular velocity, so clockwise or counter-clockwise are odd things to attach. These readings appear to be a feature of a curious paddle device used to measure two windspeeds and translate their relative velocity (by subtraction) into a measurement of rotational motion expressed in linear-velocity terms.
The devices could arrive in our universe at any time in a puff of smoke from the future.

Sneak previews indicate that they might not be very accurate.

 

[mender]

Humbre at one point directed me to a elementary physics site about Newton's laws of motion that supposedly supported one of his claims. I dutifully read and also did the excercises (100% score). I then asked him how he scored on the same exercises. As usual, there was no reply.

Here's the link to the site:

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/newtlaws/u2l1a.html


Somehow he thought this site showed that we are all wrong when we argue with him. At the time I think the issue was motion without force, or no acceleration means there is no force - which he kept mixing up with unbalanced forces and continually tried to say that we were saying that. I doubt he read that site any more carefully than he reads a lot of the posts.

Oh yes, I remember a bit more. He was going on about a book on a table as in this part of that site:

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/newtlaws/u2l1d.html

He probably only looked at the pictures.

Wouldn't matter what the site said anyway; he already knows what the outcome is supposed to be in his universe, and as the sole occupant (we hope!) he is king of all he portrays.

 

[spork]

Humbre at one point directed me to a elementary physics site about Newton's laws of motion that supposedly supported one of his claims. I dutifully read and also did the excercises (100% score). I then asked him how he scored on the same exercises. As usual, there was no reply.

I assure you that even scoring a 0% on their on-line test would somehow be construed as them confirming his views.

Somehow he thought this site showed that we are all wrong when we argue with him.

Although I have to imagine in his mind we are all telling him he's right. Clearly everyone else is.

which he kept mixing up with unbalanced forces...

One thing he's clearly familiar with is "unbalanced".

The fact that he refuses to speak to me via Skype (which is absolutely free) tells me all I need to know about him.

 

[John Freestone]

<snip>

There is a category in the JREF's Pigasus Awards http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/pigasus-awards.html, added in 2005, which does not appear to have been awarded yet. It is for "Most Persistent Refusal To Face Reality".

<snip>

Unfortunateli, that seems to be for parapsichological frauds - not realli that much to do with humber. Guess which kei on mi keiboard has just stopped working, guis. Ies, iou guessed it. Bie for now.

 

[spork]

Unfortunateli, that seems to be for parapsichological frauds - not realli that much to do with humber. Guess which kei on mi keiboard has just stopped working, guis. Ies, iou guessed it. Bie for now.

I'm going to guess the "C" key. Silly bunt.

I think you should tear off one new key each day, and see how long we can continue to follow your posts. Then once we can no longer understand you, it'll be interesting to see if humber begins to.