• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
RossFW said:
Notice how Greg came on, was very polite, made some very clear (well, to well people) explanations, but now thinks you are a Whacko?
Click to expand...

Hello RossFW,

let's hope that Greg will now understand it a bit better why people like spork and JB get a bit upset when someone tells them that they are wrong, don't get the concept, etc. If one has to "fight" such blatant stupidity like the stuff that humber spreads, one can get a bit thin-skinned.

In any case, i'm happy that Greg now gets some first-hand experience on the "how stupid can people be" thing.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Remember, humber doesn't know how to change reference frames and will always get it wrong when he tries. His two drawings don't represent the same experiment.

You could make some simplifying assumptions to make the experiments the same but does humber do so?
 
humber said:
Mender... really. I can run rings around your math skills.
No, it is not 300gram .
Click to expand...

Really, humber, a statement from you that you can do something is not proof that you can. And showing an incorrect answer and saying it is not right is not a proof - 3000 grams isn't right either; anybody can make guesses. Showing that you can solve a problem like this however is a proof that you understand the physics and the math and also apply the necessary logic.

humber said:
That will not be useful. The real load on the tires is much higher than that.
Rolling and load resistance are complicated, and variable.
They use 2 or 3 sets in an F1 race.
Click to expand...

Seeing that one of the things I do for a living is crew chief for a team that runs in a national racing series, I dare say my "car" skills and knowledge and understanding of the dynamics involved will literally run circles around yours.

humber said:
The simplest but entirely incorrect assumption, is to make that 1mph/"unit of drag"?

The entirely wrong the answer you seek may be:
So drum roll.......one unit of drag = 100grms.?
Is that what you mean?

Terrible, Mender.
(1)You are trying to plot a velocity/force profile, based on two data points, and on the assumption that you already know it. Not logical.
You still no not know the correct answer, because you do not know that load line.
Click to expand...

Well, so far you haven't impressed me with either your logic, math or understanding of physics. All three are required to get the correct answer, and all three are required to understand how the cart works.

Your guesses aren't any better. Really, all the information needed to come up with the right answers is there. If I haven't stated it clearly enough I'll gladly clarify, but the blanks are in your understanding, not my question. It does require that you demonstrate your knowledge of the physics of what we've been talking about for the last 5000 posts, so I'm pretty sure that you won't get the right answer.

I'll give you a clue though. Read your objection #1 again. I don't need to know the answer to get it, in fact I started with the same information that you did and worked it out. The actual numbers are insignificant. The concept that they convey isn't.

"A fishing reel with lots of line is attached by a scale to the ground. The other end of the fishing line is attached to a sail cart. The sail cart with a fishing line attached to it is released in a 10 mph wind. It reaches 9 mph, losing 1 mph because of rolling resistance.

You apply the brake on the fishing reel to slow the cart down to 8 mph and read the amount of pull (force) on the scale. Let's say it reads 100 grams. Based on these numbers, what is the rolling resistance of the cart when it is traveling at 9 mph in a 10 mph wind?

Now you slow the cart to 6 mph. What is the reading on the scale now?"
 
Last edited:
Sorry, double post again. I need to wait longer to make sure the server didn't have a hiccup.
 
Last edited:
humber said:
I'll let you know when you can speak for me, John.

What a load of self congratulatory dross. It's a toy cart on a belt. The only matter of interest at all, is that you all can't see that.
Click to expand...
Methinks someone is a bit jealous. It has a great deal of interest, actually, but any that it has is overshadowed by your paradoxical "willful inability" to understand it. We know it's just a toy cart on a belt. We know that it's a toy cart on a belt that works just like it does if you put it on the ground outside in a tailwind, with negligible difference. We know that this is in accord with Newtonian mechanics, video evidence on treadmill and road, the sober reports of people who rode a ruddy big one in the 1960s (or witnessed that, at least), photographs of same, expert aerodynamic analyses, a dozen or so mechanical analogues...

...and then there's your objections, an example of which goes:

"The treadmill has no ground equivalent. This means that the belt is not the road, but the Earth. This is because the windspeed status must be forced upon the observer. That means the belt is also a privileged and unique perspective. If not then the treadmill collapses to the real world equivalent of a real treadmill, with different objects at different velocities in the same frame. Either way, no motion."

...and the latest of which is a confused picture of bunnies. It's wake-up time!
 
RossFW said:
Notice how Greg came on, was very polite, made some very clear (well, to well people) explanations, but now thinks you are a Whacko?
Click to expand...

I don't think Humber is a whacko.

I think he doesn't understand the cart, but I've been learning more about it just trying to explain it to humber. So I don't fully understand it yet either.

I think Humber's got some evasiveness about his identity and uses some approaches to discussion that can make it difficult to keep it focused, but there are plenty of folks who use pseudonyms and are pretty reluctant to reveal personal info, and there are people who understand the cart or some other technical topic and can still be hard to interact with.
 
Christian Klippel said:
let's hope that Greg will now understand it a bit better why people like spork and JB get a bit upset when someone tells them that they are wrong, don't get the concept, etc. If one has to "fight" such blatant stupidity like the stuff that humber spreads, one can get a bit thin-skinned.
Click to expand...

If Alice has gotten frustrated with Humber and Alice takes that frustration out on Bob because Bob is new to the whole cart thing and Bob doubts it works, then that's Alice's responsibility to manage her frustration, not Bob's fault because he doesn't understand.

Each individual is responsible for their emotions. If I lose it, I'll apologize.

I don't think I've gotten angry or frustrated with Humber, or taken that anger or frustration out on someone else. If I get to the point that I don't think I can help humber understand the cart, and if I get to the point where I don't think I can learn anything more aobut the cart by answering Humber's questions, then I'll probably withdraw.

I don't think Humber is being malicious. I don't think he's trying to cause someone else harm. So I don't see anything that needs to be "fought".
 
GregLondon said:
I don't think Humber is a whacko.

I think he doesn't understand the cart, but I've been learning more about it just trying to explain it to humber. So I don't fully understand it yet either.
Click to expand...

Greg, I don't think humber is a complete whacko but he has managed to build a system of physics noticeably different than the norm. It's more than just the cart that he doesn't understand, and a lot of the posts on this and the other thread are attempts to help humber get to a modern and correct understanding of physics.

Over the last year, I've been explaining this cart to others and have expanded my understanding of it quite a bit as a result. Spork and JB have been at it for about four years and have admitted that they are still learning too. There are a lot more layers of understanding than most people appreciate. Being brushed off by a newcomer that hasn't seen past the first couple of layers can be frustrating, as I'm sure you'll find out. Trying to get humber to understand is quite frustrating because of the few lucid moments that he shows. I keep hoping that during one of them he actually gets past his mental block.

My latest question for him was a description of a test that I was contemplating conducting on a sail cart. Have you tried to solve it?

John, I suspect the penguin thing is an oblique reference to what Whoopi Goldberg said in "Jumpin' Jack Flash". First time I heard that expression.
 
Last edited:
GregLondon said:
I don't think Humber is a whacko.
Click to expand...
I think that puts you in the minority. Most of us do.

For what it's worth, I think we do have one clue as to the nature of his professional life. I'm pretty sure that he said he designed an oil densitometer that is in use on drilling platforms. Something pretty close to that, anyway.
 
H'ethetheth said:
Bye.
Click to expand...

(1)You do not have the correct explanation.

(2) The remainder is a reflection of you previous reply to the BMW/Fish tank.
I gave it as much attention as you did to writing it. Full of errors and evasion,
so my original summation of religiously blunt, stands.
That's why.
 
mender said:
Sorry, double post again. I need to wait longer to make sure the server didn't have a hiccup.
Click to expand...

Instead of hitting the refresh when the server doesn't respond after posting, open a new window to check if your post was processed.
 
sol invictus said:
"The heights are the same" - it's truly comical how bad you are at expressing yourself. Almost as if it's intentional....
Click to expand...
You seemed to get the picture, despite your best efforts not to.
Also, perhaps height is not important.

Anyway, in that case Heth's perfectly correct analysis applies (although you don't need to write the result as an integral over h), and you are (of course) wrong. I'm afraid that your assertion to the contrary, supported as it is with zero evidence or reasoning, isn't very compelling.

But what's nice about this is that it almost verges on a concrete claim. So tell us, humber - what do you need to do to make the difference large? Be careful, because someone may actually test this....
Click to expand...

That's nice, but wrong.
 
Last edited:
humber said:
When the rabbit passes by the balloons, it will see that they are distance 'x' apart.
X will be larger in the real wind. No numbers are really needed, because that difference is arbitrarily large.
Click to expand...

Oh, proof by assertion! Which ends with BISS ("because I said so!") rather than QED. Well, I can play at that, too. Here's my parry:

No numbers are really needed, because the difference is arbitrarily small.

You don't appear to have anything more backing up your statement than I do.
 
mender said:
Really,
Click to expand...

Sorry, Mender. The answer is, no. I made this clear, and there will be no trying to work around that.
The question is poorly framed and not likely to be of any use. You don't seem to accept that this is not a matter of me not understanding your ideas, that I do, but they are wrong. There is no point in 'testing' me.
 
Humber, post 2292. If you're not going to respond to questions, it's kind of hard to understand where you're coming from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom