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

[RossFW]

Originally Posted by RossFW
?
Humber, acknowledge one thing- "All frames of reference are equally valid" in Newton- So Newton was wrong, right??
.
Would it matter to you if your treadmill was not a frame of reference but a toy on a belt?

Are you in any way suggesting that that is an answer to my question?

 

[humber]

humber, another serious question: are you on amphetamines?

Is that a flippant question?

You believe that if you put a belt under a wheel, it goes at windspeed? I'm the on drugs, SD?

 

[humber]

Are you in any way suggesting that that is an answer to my question?

Do you ever think RossFW, that after answering the same question over and over because you insist I believe something, that I may not be interested in the question?

 

[Modified]

Would it matter to you if your treadmill was not a frame of reference but a toy on a belt?

Can you at least correct your terminology? A thing can not be a frame of reference. There is an inertial frame of reference in which the top surface of the treadmill belt is not moving, which we may call "the frame of reference of the treadmill belt" for simplicity.

 

[humber]

What do you mean by "valid"? You have created a situation where the vehicle interacts with something other than the belt and air. You can't compare that to a situation where there is no such interaction. For any such situation you can come up with involving a treadmill belt, I can tell you what the equivalent situation on the road (or wall or ceiling, since you are now using sideways and overhead belts) would be, and the car will perform the same in both cases.

I meant that the belt is not a road it's just a surface ,so you can add many as you like. It's the same as having a bigger surface.

 

[RossFW]

Can you at least correct your terminology?

No, he can't. He doesn't UNDERSTAND the terminology!!

 

[humber]

Can you at least correct your terminology? A thing can not be a frame of reference. There is an inertial frame of reference in which the top surface of the treadmill belt is not moving, which we may call "the frame of reference of the treadmill belt" for simplicity.

It's not a frame of reference, so that cover all types, Modified. It's a model.
It's a variable speed belt, the surface of which is said to model the road's surface.

 

[Modified]

I meant that the belt is not a road it's just a surface ,so you can add many as you like. It's the same as having a bigger surface.

Please restate that in English.

 

[humber]

Now the cart is not moving on the treadmill: Why are its wheels spinning then humber? And if it is not moving why is it not rotating around the treadmill with the belt?

The wheel's rims are moving at the speed of the belt, but in contra rotation. The torque delivered to the propeller is in opposition to the wheel, so there can be little load, and therefore no axle motion.
A vehicle powered in this way can make little progress along the belt.This is not the case if there is torque delivered by the prop, suggesting that there is no torque delivered by the prop ,which is logical considering it comes from the belt.

 

[Modified]

It's not a frame of reference, so that cover all types, Modified.

Once again, an object can not be a frame of reference. Saying "the treadmill is not a frame of reference" adds no information. It's like saying "The cat is not a business plan".

It's a model.
It's a variable speed belt, the surface of which is said to model the road's surface.

I thought you weren't worried about surface characteristics?

 

[humber]

Please restate that in English.

The road is not modeled, but the surface. More belts are like a bigger surface. The road can't be correctly modelled on the treadmill, because the wind's power comes from the motor. The belt surface generates the laminar flow, and simulates friction of the road, but is not the road.

 

[John Freestone]

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?

Yes.

Whoa, Ross, that's going a bit far, surely, without my corrections.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Whoa, Ross, that's going a bit far, surely, without my corrections.

Hi John,

in our universe, yes, i agree.
But let's not forget about the humberverse!

Greetings,

Chris

 

[CORed]

I have no quarrel with the ideas of physics. None. It is how they are applied, and I take issue with the liberty has been taken in interpretation.

And yet

Specifically, I have asked for evidence for motion without displacement,(?!)
or support for the idea that a vehicle at rest can be said to be moving.
Real motion over the ground without KE? These are error of course, and an insult to Mr Newton, but fended off or ignored. That happens quite easily when you are the only naysayer.
The notion of frames has become inflated. To me, the idea means that there are a lot of things moving about at different velocities, within the same frame
Views are equivalent. I hope so. No cause or reason to question that.
If two objects are at the same velocity, then they have a relative velocity of zero? Yes, OK. So what?

He once again conclusively demonstrates that he has no idea what the ideas of physics actually are. Only in the Humberverse is the ground magic.

 

[RossFW]

Only in the Humberverse is the ground magic.

And getting Magicer all the time!!

The road is not modeled, but the surface. More belts are like a bigger surface. The road can't be correctly modelled on the treadmill, because the wind's power comes from the motor. The belt surface generates the laminar flow, and simulates friction of the road, but is not the road.

Now, I just got back from sailing my Land Yacht, and drove home in my 4x4. I'm pretty sure in both I was only on the SURFACE of the road, so I though modeling that would be enough.....

But NOT in the Humberverse!!

 

[John Freestone]

It's not lost on the mists of time if you learn how to use your handy-dandy time machine properly. You know, the same one Humber uses to freeze time on the belt.

The zen-like chain of thought began here...

The belt is just a source of power. What of a car on the a road? If you put a real car on a running belt, but do not start the engine, do you think that is the same as a car on the road?

Indeed it is so, Brother-monk. I used the Force, and the time-machine brought me to that saying. It is there in the text for our edification and enlightenment, praise be!

The reason I did not start there is that the verse was not merely the seed of our question, but the fruit of even earlier ones, as is so often the case.
The full text from which you quoted is finely crafted, as usual, and includes further insight, as follows:

The laminar flow moves with the wind.

For the above reasons, the contraflow of the belt will corrupt the experiment.

It is the wrong way, Brian-M

Ah, that great insight, "It's the wrong way." How often has that brought me comfort in zazen.

But this is not the best of the treatise. It continues (and please, do note the first statement well):

In real wind, the propeller drives the wheels. This force will generates a ground reaction to the rear of the driving axle.

The 'rear of the driving axle' - do you see?...

That force and the friction do generated propel the vehicle's axle until friction should break due to excessive force or whatever. This is in no way like the static (rolling) friction to the belt. That is low. That is why we use wheels.

...wheels, did you think of that?...but His Humberness goes on to give more than we could ever expect, showing how in all of this relative motion, the use of tyres is vital:

Tyres allow the wheel to change shape. They adapt to the load. High or low rolling resistance according to load.

...and, once again, why equivalence is not relevant here...

This cannot happen on the belt, because there is no load, which is why there is no axle movement on the belt, whereas there is in reality.

'there is no axle movement on the belt' - do you see? - if spork could only see the axle on the belt, he'd see it wasn't moving, because the wheels aren't being driven by the propeller, and the tyres aren't being deformed, because there is no load.

Then He posed another crucial point none of us are worthy to answer, but may contemplate in silence:

If not, why do you think a propeller driven by a belt is like a propeller in real wind?
What's the difference Brian_M? In the real world, the wind drives the propeller directly, exchanging real energy and the load of the cart as it is propelled forward. The belt can only drive the propeller, via the friction too the belt.

Wind drives the propeller. Obviously our thoughts and the whole thread has been going the wrong way for months, the art of DDWFFTW for years, decades. Furthermore...

Not on the treadmill Bryan-M. It's topsy-turvy because the cart is going the wrong way, while equivalence useage contains some "upsidedownism"

...not only the wrong way, but upside down, probably inside out, and, more concisely...

No way, Jose.

I also found these dimensional visions of physics, probably way beyond most of us, which I had missed in the sacred scrolls before (because I had them on fast-sacred-scroll, I think):

I don't see the world the way you do. I think of all things being in one "frame" but containing different amounts of KE as a dimension. ... I think of velocity as a dimension, force and acceleration too. That is why I think of the cart as being in force "well". I don't impose that view on you. Just that it your ideas be consistent ,and correctly applied.

Do you see where we're going wrong? We don't see kinetic energy, velocity, force and acceleration as dimensions.

The learnings are vast in this chapter:

(1) There is no wind in the belt's frame of reference .

(2) As explained. Laminar flow is a flow. It does not make stops for photos.

On the treadmill there are two flows. They will always be distinguishable by the same test.

Two flows, you see? One room with the doors closed, but two winds. Not real ones, of course...

(3) Take a red and a blue smoke generator so as to colour belt and observer flows. Definitely not the same as real in wind. Do I win?

But do any of us bother to dig out our red and blue smoke generator and see if he wins? Of course not. Would we know what the belt and observer flows are? How could we, we who think that the wheels drive the propeller in both scenarios.

We don't even do proper experiments, like He does:

Spinning on the belt is just like being held back a bit. I did to some oranges at the supermarket checkout last week. Quite, easy really. Bananas have potential.

Which of us takes the time to explore the potential of bananas to roll on a treadmill? Has ynot tied one to his turntable? Has spork prodded one with a foon on his treadmill? I don't think so.

I really think this passage, which is one of His longer ones, is quite important, and I'm sorry I didn't trace the work back to it. There is only time to concentrate on some highlights today. One day, when our study is very good, we will unravel it all.

I hope you will forgive me Brother, for I did not know how far to trace back the question that has no answer. If I took one more jump in the time-machine, I could have confused things with your own troubled words to the Master that stimulated those teachings:

It's quite easy to show you how you are wrong. (The trouble is convincing you to accept the explanation.)

Take an observer, standing on the road with his palms facing forward and the wind at his back.

The wind is blowing at 10mph.

He lowers his hand to a height where, due to laminar flow, the wind on the back of his hand is only 7mph.

Now he moves forwards at 8mph.

He is still travelling at 2mph slower than the wind, but his hand is moving at 1mph faster than the laminar flow.

Consequently, he feels a 1mph headwind against the palm of his hand. That's how he can feel wind against the palm of his hand. He may be travelling slower than the wind, but he is travelling faster than the laminar flow.

If he tries the same experiment on a treadmill, on a windless day, he'll get exactly the same results.

Your "hand test" fails completely Humber.

Let us rejoice that such foolishness can be straightened out after all these lost centuries of going the wrong way. Om mani padme humb.

 

[John Freestone]

Hi John,

in our universe, yes, i agree.
But let's not forget about the humberverse!

Greetings,

Chris

I keep thinking of that line from the Monty Python film The Holy Grail, "On second thought, let us not go to Camelot; it is a silly place."

 

[mender]

Electrical analogues, a mainstay of modern engineering, are treated as foreign.

That is because of the way you use them. Here's an example:

"The torque delivered to the propeller is in opposition to the wheel, so there can be little load, and therefore no axle motion."

It sounds like you are saying "there is no load across a voltage, so there will be no current flow", which does not equate to a mechanical system. I've noticed this quite a few times. Mechanical systems are not the same as electrical systems, and trying to apply the same logic to energy flows will result in bizarre term useage, statements that don't make sense, flawed reasoning, etc. and will prevent you from ever understanding what the cart is really doing while on the road and on the treadmill.

As part of one project, I helped develop a low voltage DC/DC converter to take 1v and 12 amps to a more usable 13.8v and .8 amps. It started at about 80% efficiency and ended up at 91%, with a little room for more but was good enough. I initially had to come up with mechanical analogues to understand how it worked so I could think of ways to improve the performance. It was different enough from my normal way of thinking to stump me at first but with the help of a professor of EE (the designer of the circuit), I was able to get it and improve it.

You have a number of people here who would like very much to help you get this, but you have to listen to what they say rather than argue. You've come close a few times but then you take off again on a rant.

 

[jjcote]

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.

Yes, the belt is man made and artificial. So is asphalt. So is a gymnasium floor. So is the inside of a wind tunnel. Do different laws of physics apply on man-made surfaces?

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.

The cart is real. The treadmill belt is a real surface, and it is the "road" for this test (though the question doesn't specify that a road is required). The air is real and is moving across the belt, which means it's a real wind. In the boundary layer, close to the belt, the velocity of the air is intermediate between the velocity of the surface and the velocity of the free-flowing air above. It's exactly the same outdoors, intermediate between the velocity of the surface and the velocity of the free-flowing air above. If you can't see the surroundings, there's no way to tell the difference. If a large conveyor belt, the size of a factory floor, were available, and if we couldn't see as far as the walls, then we could set up two cameras, one sitting on the belt, and another hanging from the ceiling. The latter would produce videos just like the one by Goodman, which (once the cart was up to speed) would also be just like the ones by spork and JB. The one on the belt would give a "spectator's" point of view.

 

[spacediver]

Is that a flippant question?

You believe that if you put a belt under a wheel, it goes at windspeed? I'm the on drugs, SD?

No not a flippant question - just a stab in the dark. Your thought processes seem a bit accelerated and jumbled at times, though lately you've been a bit more focused. No offense intended - just a wild stab in the dark as I said.