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

[humber]

Yeah, give it up Humber, this kind of complete lack of observation and reasoning capability is beyond even the most visceral excuse here. We are saying that the belt is both moving and not moving, simultaneously. This is an utter paradox for you. However we understand that it is only our perception which has lead to our feeling of paradox.

Logically consistent mathematical theory has been developed which yields accurate description of physical systems and can safely predict, predictable outcomes, and show where they are not predictable. For most people here who are participating in a consensus reality, that is enough. The theory is quite easy to learn and use and becomes a natural and mostly intuitive way of understanding motion of physical objects. It won't solve all problems, but your approach would seem to solve very few if any.

You might have any number of fascinating ideas, valuable insights etc, but they are wasted if you can't form any consensus with other people about some fundamentals of reality. You dispute the "validity of classical physics" as applied to mechanical problems of motion, thats about all you seem to do.

Sometimes things come along which seem to confront the conventional notions. DDWFTTW is a classic and wonderful case. When forms of non-intuitive energy transfer and practical use are observed, they are often met with skepticism. This can be quite healthy, usually necessary, and hopefully progressive. Spork's foray into ensuring healthy skepticism and progressive analysis has been brilliant, most people involved have learn't really valuable truth. Just as valuable is to allow a clear picture of how some people resist the flow of learning, we can't say why, but we see clearly how, and you are making a steady contribution.

I'll take two.

 

[Christian Klippel]

I'd really like to meet humber in person. Hey, humber, want to visit me? We could discuss physical principles, especially the concept of frames of reference.

I would be glad to you give some hands-on examples of those laws. To be correct, of the way you understand them. After that, i am happily giving you hands-on examples of how these laws work in reality for comparison, if you like.

If you then feel touched by the truth somehow, we may discuss the more complicated stuff, like mechanical laws being equivalent to electrical laws. But mind you, here in Germany we have 230 volts line voltage, so be careful what you want to compare, winds are seldom that strong in other countries, last i have heard.

And best of it all, i offer you free stay, food, entertainment. Heck, you can even pet my cats if you want to. You only have to pay for the travel. But trust me, you would learn way more than you obviously learned in any school, and it would be way cheaper compared to a self-paid education.

Would be great if you agree that i can videotape all the experiments we do then, just to educate other people that might be as reluctant to the facts as you are.

 

[GregLondon]

When low-loss items such as billiard ball collide, a great deal of the energy is transferred. However, there is little work done. Idealised, none.That's the difference.

Energy is nothing more than the ability to do work. In fact, I think the formula is something like this: delta energy = work. The change in energy of a system is the work done. How can you have an event that transfers a great deal of energy but very little work is done? That defies the very definition of the two words.

Carts and parachutes, are real also in the sense that they do work. Now look that up in the physics book you did not consult before posting.

The work done on a system directly correlates to the change in energy of the system. what do mean a parachute is "real" because "they do work"???

Your windmill analogy is not correct. A windmill on a treadmill, is not like the real thing. The aerodynamics are different. When real wind blows over a propeller, there is drag on the other side. This consumes power, and limits that power. There is a balance, a feedback system.

I can't even parse this. The only thing I could get out of this was that a windmill on the ground with a 10 mph wind going by it is somehow different than a windmill on a conveyor belt with the air not moving to the ground, but the belt moving at 10 mph.

Somehow.

If you could go back to that post of mine with the tower, the top two drawings show a tower stationary and a tower moving on a converyor belt. If you could explain why the tower measures exactly the same windspeeds, but the two are not equivalent, I'd like to know.

If you change the tower to a windmill, both windmills in both situations would generate teh same amount of power.

ETA: link to image in #2411 for your review:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4373908&postcount=2411

A treadmill's power is not limited, and will simply 'power' the loss and overcome the feedback control by brute force. You may get more power that way, amusing the efficiency is perhaps the 60% you cited.

I don't know what you're saying here at all.

"Equivalency" does allow you to swap relative velocities, but not the medium, or power source.

Humber, you do realize that if you put a windmill on the ground and it generates a kilowatt of power in a 10 mph wind, then if you had to generate the wind artificially (rather than letting just using solar-generated winds in a natural weather cycle), you do realize that it would take at least a kilowatt of power to generate that wind? Right?

It takes power to move the treadmill, sure, but it takes power to move the air adn create wind. The only difference is one is man-made and one is from the sun. The "medium, or power source" is irrelevant. Either way, you've got to use power to move the air or the belt.

If you did the windmill fixed to teh ground in a giant airtight building, and that windmill was cranking out 50 kilowatts of power, then you'd have to have some fans somewhere moving the wind, and those fans would be consuming at least 50 kilowatts of power.

If you put the windmill on a belt in a giant airtight building and moved the belt fast enough so that the windmill generated 33 kilowatts of power, you'd have to be putting at least 33 kilowatts of power into the motor that is driving the belt.

They are exactly equivalent frames. The "medium, or power source" is irrelevant.

 

[humber]

I agree. Before switching metaphors we would have to agree that all the properties are equivalent between the metaphors. Humber won't even agree to the simple properties of mechanical systems that have been known for over 300 years. If he can't see the equivalence of a simple translation in velocity, how is he going to know what rules from a electrical perspective will apply to the mechanical system.

Humber thinks that things have moved on in 300 years. I am strictly orthodox on that point.
The models are not electrical but symbolically equivalent. Always on about mathematics. but now you want to make the abstract real. If you like, replace the resistors, with vectors marked 'Fr', and the voltage sources, vectors, marked' v'. You see, you can make a network linked by equations.
This format is useful because it allows for nodal analysis, and computationally efficient time domain analysis.

 

[humber]

I'd really like to meet humber in person. Hey, humber, want to visit me? We could discuss physical principles, especially the concept of frames of reference.

I would be glad to you give some hands-on examples of those laws. To be correct, of the way you understand them. After that, i am happily giving you hands-on examples of how these laws work in reality for comparison, if you like.

If you then feel touched by the truth somehow, we may discuss the more complicated stuff, like mechanical laws being equivalent to electrical laws. But mind you, here in Germany we have 230 volts line voltage, so be careful what you want to compare, winds are seldom that strong in other countries, last i have heard.

And best of it all, i offer you free stay, food, entertainment. Heck, you can even pet my cats if you want to. You only have to pay for the travel. But trust me, you would learn way more than you obviously learned in any school, and it would be way cheaper compared to a self-paid education.

Would be great if you agree that i can videotape all the experiments we do then, just to educate other people that might be as reluctant to the facts as you are.

Thanks for the offer Cristian, but I am a shadowy character, and an enigma.
I don't eat.

 

[mender]

The real boundary is not powered by the road, but the wind.

The speed change of the air in the boundary layer is caused by the surface of the belt or by the ground. As a result, the wind profile above the belt and above the ground are the same. Try to keep that straight, humbre.

The cart is powered by the wind via the propeller, not via the wheels.

Only yours, humbre. Mine has a propeller powered by the wind via the wheels. Wanna race?

Oh yes, I keep forgetting, you don't have one. Too bad; of all the people in the various forums, I'd say that you need one the most.

Yes. http://www.burj-al-arab.com/

Hmmm. Hanging upside down again, humbre?

 

[GregLondon]

As far as the entire USA is concerned,oOnly 13% of all the energy available from the source, ever does useful work.

What does the national average power efficiency have to do with your maximum power theorem? Is there a physical law that says you can only transfer at most 50% of your available power from a source to a load?

If not, then this entire sub-discussion converting the cart into electrical metaphors was one gigantic smoke screen on your part.

Is there a physical law that correlates to teh electrical max power theorem or not?

 

[Brian-M]

That makes it double for you Captain. Negative drag is not the "opposite" of thrust.

Please, educate us!

Exactly what is the opposite of thrust, then?
And while you're at it, what is the opposite of drag?

The absolute value can be quite the opposite of what you suggest, Captain.

I thought they were absolute values. Are you saying they aren't?

 

[Brian-M]

1) yes
2) incomprehensible
3) no
4) no
5) no

I'd have thought the more accurate answers to 3, 4 and 5 would have been...

3) Stationary relative to what?
4) Stationary relative to what?
5) Only if you define physical forces as being "magical".

 

[recursive prophet]

1694 posts and you are either so dense that you don't understand relative motion and other concepts in physics or are you are just playing.

Not mutually exclusive.

Closest I’ve seen you come to tipping your hand humber, so I decided to take this opportunity to thank you for some top rate entertainment. Been lurking here since they split this off last month, and think it’s hilarious so few seem to grok your tongue-in-key mastery. Do carry on, and kudos.

 

[Brian-M]

X will be larger in the real wind. No numbers are really needed, because that difference is arbitrarily large.

Why will x be larger in a real wind?
The laws of physics don't operate on the principle of "because I say so".

 

[Brian-M]

OK, multi-quote either doesn't work for me or is taking more than five minutes, so I did a single quote and have to post Humber's statements manually:

You could use single-quote, copy/paste to notepad, then click on the back button and repeat as required. Then just copy/paste everything back into the editor window when you're ready to post.

 

[humber]

Energy is nothing more than the ability to do work. In fact, I think the formula is something like this: delta energy = work. The change in energy of a system is the work done. How can you have an event that transfers a great deal of energy but very little work is done? That defies the very definition of the two words.

No. In those collisions, the momentum is transferred with little 'motion'.

The work done on a system directly correlates to the change in energy of the system. what do mean a parachute is "real" because "they do work"???

Quite well, it seems.

I can't even parse this. The only thing I could get out of this was that a windmill on the ground with a 10 mph wind going by it is somehow different than a windmill on a conveyor belt with the air not moving to the ground, but the belt moving at 10 mph.

Yes. The information is different;the natural behavior is different. An object being dragged by a force that can meet every demand, is not the same as an object driven by a limited force.

Somehow.

According to the laws of physics as applied to each specific system.

If you could go back to that post of mine with the tower,

No thanks.

the top two drawings show a tower stationary and a tower moving on a converyor belt. If you could explain why the tower measures exactly the same windspeeds, but the two are not equivalent, I'd like to know.
If you change the tower to a windmill, both windmills in both situations would generate teh same amount of power.
I don't know what you're saying here at all.

They are not the same. Only the velocity is maintained. The precise operation depends on other variables, that are not equivalent, in your example or on the treadmill

Humber, you do realize that if you put a windmill on the ground and it generates a kilowatt of power in a 10 mph wind, then if you had to generate the wind artificially (rather than letting just using solar-generated winds in a natural weather cycle), you do realize that it would take at least a kilowatt of power to generate that wind? Right?

yes. The belt generator may generate more, but that will come from the motor. It is not possible in real wind to demand more than is available. In one system, is power and force are limited, in the other (essentially) not. Big difference. That affects acceleration, and behavior in general. They may be similar, but not the same. Sometimes that difference is significant.

It takes power to move the treadmill, sure, but it takes power to move the air adn create wind. The only difference is one is man-made and one is from the sun. The "medium, or power source" is irrelevant. Either way, you've got to use power to move the air or the belt.

That is the difference, yes. One wind is generated by motion through the air, one is the wind, acting on that body. That is different. Different return paths for that sun and man-made energy.

If you did the windmill fixed to teh ground in a giant airtight building, and that windmill was cranking out 50 kilowatts of power, then you'd have to have some fans somewhere moving the wind, and those fans would be consuming at least 50 kilowatts of power.

No, Greg, you are taking nothing on board.. Things are more complicated than that.

If you put the windmill on a belt in a giant airtight building and moved the belt fast enough so that the windmill generated 33 kilowatts of power, you'd have to be putting at least 33 kilowatts of power into the motor that is driving the belt.
They are exactly equivalent frames. The "medium, or power source" is irrelevant.

No, they are approximate models.
You are advancing a naive form of determinism, based on the kinematic action of a -hits-b, is b-hits-a. OK for text book examples, but not for real systems; they are no transposable or strictly reversible. Copious errors,here.

A simple example. A 1kg mass dropped on the floor, may have the same kinetic/potential energy equivalence of the same weight being raised to the same height, but not for the system. Picking up a weight is not like dropping a weight, but 'backwards'. They are not the same actions. The treadmill and belt generator treadmill are different, for the same reasons, but not obviously so.
No matter, that is but one failure of the treadmill.

 

[Brian-M]

Hurray! Finally the recognition I deserve. Pity I had to beg, but..

What's "intercourse the penguin" about? Not Monty Python is it?

Yes, it's at 4:15 on this video.
"There, I've run rings around you logically."
"Ohhh... Intercourse the penguin."

 

[Brian-M]

Why not? Is this idea the wonder of the ages? All motion is relative. How else?
In fact, should you not be surprised at the result? Isn't your 'real' wind generator moving 1000km/hr as the Earth rotates?
Perhaps that is also true of the one on the treadmill too...perhaps its only the local difference that matters...

Local difference ~ Relative difference.

A cart on the treadmill is not in contact with the ground, and is not being affected by the ground. The ground is not "local" to the cart, the belt is.
If it's only the "local difference" that matters, then the "local difference" is between the cart, the air and the belt. The ground does not come into it.

The power is generated by the action of the wind on the prop. That is 100% of what is available. Wind/prop and wind/ground are not two separate identities.

For props attatched to the ground that may be true. But this prop is moving. The wind across the prop is different from the wind across the ground. You're implying that wind/prop and wind/ground could, in some bizzare and absurd fasion, be the same when the prop is moving at an arbitrary velocity w.r.t. the ground.

 

[RossFW]

Keep your hand on your joystick, Captain
Over.

Originally Posted by humber View Post



I should explain. It's not the sort of cavity search you are used to.

And that is the sort of stupid, meaningless answer you turn to when you don't HAVE an answer.

Negative Drag is not a term used in Aerodynamics
Cavitation is not a term used to describe seperation of Gasses
I was wrong is NOT a term used in the Humberverse.

 

[humber]

And that is the sort of stupid, meaningless answer you turn to when you don't HAVE an answer.

Negative Drag is not a term used in Aerodynamics
Cavitation is not a term used to describe seperation of Gasses
I was wrong is NOT a term used in the Humberverse.

Definitely not lacking in meaning, Captain.
There is no answer, because there is no question.

 

[semper]

Give it up Humber.

troll (COMPUTING)
verb
to leave an intentionally annoying message on a part of the Internet in order to get attention or cause trouble:
His hobby is trolling for newbies.

troll
noun
A well-constructed troll will provoke irate or confused responses from flamers and newbies.

 

[Brian-M]

Similar to mine, posted months ago


It is A
(1) Like my drawing of months ago
(2) Like the toilet paper of video #7. End game


Assume away.


It is A. The flow is not observer dependent. If you change it here, you will need to do the same for both ends and in the real model.
In the real world it's C, but moving the other way. (left to right)
The difference will again appear.



Checkmate.

Checkmate? That sounds familiar, like some kind of catch-phrase...

OMG! He's channeling the spirit of Edward Current!
(Except without the religious slant.)



He doesn't give his trademark "Checkmate" response in this video, more evidence that someone has hijacked his soul. Humber, please give Edward Current his spirit back... he still needs it to make more cool videos.

 

[RossFW]

I think this is telling:-

You are being illogical; why ask a liar to tell the truth? If I were to be such a liar, do you expect that I would wilt under the glare of your piercing interrogation?

You see, Humber doesn't differentiate between making an error and deliberately lying.

In over sixty pages and around 1000 posts, he hasn't openly and honestly come out and said "I was wrong" about anything. I and just about everyone else here has made at least one mistake during this thread, had it pointed out, thanked whomever for the clarification and moved on. It's called learning.

It would seem, though, that Humber feels as much dread at being found to have made an error as any of us would at being caught out in a big, fat, lie, and as such is as happy to subsequently be "Conservative with the truth", bluster, obfuscate, put up red herrings or whatever, to disguise error.

jjcoate, I only just saw your post saying it was you who introduced "Negative drag" to the conversation. Humber, however, mustn't have realized he didn't bring it up, as he is now putting up a great campaign of red herrings, insults and meaningless bluster to make it go away, rather than simply say "I was wrong" (because, to him, that would reveal him as dishonest.).

Humber, simple question (and it's one every Psych has asked me at every job selection program I've been through with airlines. The answer is VERY significant to them.)-

Have you EVER made a substantial error, and how did you deal with it?