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

[GregLondon]

So, I'm scaling back my time on this thread, but I would like to make one last request of the people here who do know physics to take a look at my intro to newtonian physics document and check to see if I have any mistakes. It's about 50 pages or so. I originally posted it here since the thread title was "the validity of classical physics". I now realize that it's more a thread about humber's strange version of reality than anything else. But technically, it's on topic, so I figured I'd post one last request. Any feedback from folks who actually understand physics would be appreciated.

http://www.greglondon.com/newton/

Thanks

 

[RossFW]

Cool, I worked on the fly-by-wire project for the 777 way back when.

Damn fine job you did too!

By FAR the easiest jet to fly I've had any experience on. I talk to Airbus pilots who start on about Direct Law and Alpha Floor, and it's nice to know my good 'ole control column will make the aircraft do what I want!! (Though it will SUGEST I ease off if I get a bit out of hand!!)

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

I noticed TAD's absence.

No you didn't.

JB

 

[Furcifer]

That's 'Lord Anubis' to you.
The kite won't fly in a vacuum, so the answer is, doh.
.

At least we're on the same page here.

I don't think anyone said the wind on the treadmill is like real wind. Real wind is all crazy and stuff. Up dafts and down drafts and stopping and going and curving around buildings and all. But we let our minds wander and find that the treadmill belt provides a pretty close approximation. A little less chaotic and more controlable.
Much like the cat that walks through walls, the cart doesn't know any better (unless you spilled the beans) and behaves like it's moving in the wind.

 

[humber]

So what is the bunny going to measure? The reality exist.
I didn't propose any situation that cant happen. Bunny on a treadmill with an anemometer.

You are suggesting, Fredriks that an anemometer can measure the flow above the belt? There are several problems with this, that are perhaps best left to you research, so I will leave that part to you.

The flow with the belt will not be the simple stratified layers of the drawings, but a mixture of turbulence, and perhaps some 'laminar' flow in the slower regions. It is not strictly deterministic, but at the detailed level, an ever-changing pattern of vortexes and random behavior.

Another complication that does not occur in the wind but does on the belt, is that the "tailwind" is generated by the motion of the object moving with the belt, and that includes any instruments that may be used to measure the belt flows. All of this makes measurement difficult and perhaps even meaningless if the correct method is not used.
The paddle resolves these issues by making the measurements differential. Not absolute, but the difference between the air/winds and the flow.

If the belt surface is the same or similar the road, then it should be expected that using the same process in wind and belt, would give the same result, but will not, because the belt flow is simply opposite to that of the real wind.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Absolutely no idea.

To make the kite fly when on the treadmill, means that the kite must be dragged by the belt by some means. Stop that process, and the "wind" stops and the kite falls.

Imagine you are on the moving belt, but holding the kite. You will feel the force upon the kite as it is dragged through the air. The force is at a maximum, because the relative velocity of wind and air is also at a maximum.
(beltspeed)

What if your shoes are slippery? You may be dragged up the belt, and that would reduce your velocity (in the direction of the belt) and so that of the kite, and the force generated by the kite.
This means that the force of the belt-wind is related to the friction to the belt. Make that 'zero' by releasing the kite, and the wind stops completely. This is obviously not like the real wind.
This behavior is on aspect of the cart's behavior. It "slips" (that is just a simile) so much, that its velocity is near zero, and so the force upon it from the "wind" is also near zero.

What I meant by my previous remark, was that the treadmill is not a model of a cart, in real wind and being driven forward by that wind, but the model of a cart being dragged backwards in real, but still air.

 

[humber]

Cool, I worked on the fly-by-wire project for the 777 way back when.

Gulp!

I'm not a gambling man, but I'd wager a sandwich that Humber doesn't know physics more than he has revealed in the thread.

Then you are a gambling man.

So, I'm scaling back my time on this thread, but I would like to make one last request of the people here who do know physics to take a look at my intro to newtonian physics document and check to see if I have any mistakes. It's about 50 pages or so. I originally posted it here since the thread title was "the validity of classical physics". I now realize that it's more a thread about humber's strange version of reality than anything else. But technically, it's on topic, so I figured I'd post one last request. Any feedback from folks who actually understand physics would be appreciated.

http://www.greglondon.com/newton/

Thanks

Do you know Greg, that you are reinventing the wheel? All of these yo-yo type ideas have been tried. They do not work. What is strange, is that you insist they do, despite that and a rather limited knowledge of the topic.

 

[humber]

No you didn't.

JB

Where's The Sporkster?

 

[fredriks]

Humber, you are much clearer than usual. What happend?

You are suggesting, Fredriks that an anemometer can measure the flow above the belt? There are several problems with this, that are perhaps best left to you research, so I will leave that part to you.

So I should look it up? An anemometer is given a result, this result might change with time but it is still a result.

The flow with the belt will not be the simple stratified layers of the drawings, but a mixture of turbulence, and perhaps some 'laminar' flow in the slower regions. It is not strictly deterministic, but at the detailed level, an ever-changing pattern of vortexes and random behavior.

And your point is? I can use my anemometer in a real wind. Your bunny should also be able to.

Another complication that does not occur in the wind but does on the belt, is that the "tailwind" is generated by the motion of the object moving with the belt, and that includes any instruments that may be used to measure the belt flows.

Yes, and this is the wind the bunny wants to measure. The boundary layer over a road is the same.

All of this makes measurement difficult and perhaps even meaningless if the correct method is not used.

Why?

The paddle resolves these issues by making the measurements differential. Not absolute, but the difference between the air/winds and the flow.

The paddle (whatever that is) is not going to make a difference.

If the belt surface is the same or similar the road, then it should be expected that using the same process in wind and belt, would give the same result,

Yes, of course and it does.

but will not, because the belt flow is simply opposite to that of the real wind.

An assertion, way don't you talk to your bunny and ask her?

The relevant measurements are the wind relative to the bunny when it is sitting on the road or belt.

To make the kite fly when on the treadmill, means that the kite must be dragged by the belt by some means. Stop that process, and the "wind" stops and the kite falls.

Correct.

Imagine you are on the moving belt, but holding the kite. You will feel the force upon the kite as it is dragged through the air. The force is at a maximum, because the relative velocity of wind and air is also at a maximum.
(beltspeed)

Correct (even though I am not sure what you mean with maximum)

What if your shoes are slippery? You may be dragged up the belt, and that would reduce your velocity (in the direction of the belt) and so that of the kite, and the force generated by the kite.

Correct. What has happend humber?

This means that the force of the belt-wind is related to the friction to the belt. Make that 'zero' by releasing the kite, and the wind stops completely.

Correct.

This is obviously not like the real wind.

It is like the real wind relative to the air motion and belt/ground motion.

Everything you wrote above is obviously true for a wind over a road to. No friction and the kite feel no wind also in a wind over a road.

This behavior is on aspect of the cart's behavior. It "slips" (that is just a simile) so much, that its velocity is near zero, and so the force upon it from the "wind" is also near zero.

incorrect.

What I meant by my previous remark, was that the treadmill is not a model of a cart, in real wind and being driven forward by that wind, but the model of a cart being dragged backwards in real, but still air.

And the difference is? A bunny sitting on a road looking at the cart moving in a wind and a bunny sitting on the belt looking at the cart is going to see the exact same thing and measure the exact same wind speeds. This is the whole point with the reference frame.

 

[humber]

Humber, you are much clearer than usual. What happend?

So I should look it up? An anemometer is given a result, this result might change with time but it is still a result.

Good, that attitude means that need not consider the remainder of your post. I have given you enough information, you say no, for no other reason than your own limited opinion. No need to take this any further.

<snip>

 

[spork]

Poll update:

Does humber really understand physics more than is apparent in this thread?

And the results:

Yes:
Clive: He Understands Much But Excludes Reason.
recursive prophet: but qualified
Semper: Yes, but not much.

NO:
spork: his confusion is legit
subduction zone: only a true believer would keep this nonsense up for 65 pages and over 2,500 posts.
mender: I believe that humber is presenting things as he understands them.
Dan O.: humber doesn't have the background to be faking it.
Michael C.


Sorry, I'm two pages behind, but the snow calls. I'll update tonight.

 

[humber]

Poll update:

Does humber really understand physics more than is apparent in this thread?

And the results:

Yes:
Clive: He Understands Much But Excludes Reason.
recursive prophet: but qualified
Semper: Yes, but not much.

NO:
spork: his confusion is legit
subduction zone: only a true believer would keep this nonsense up for 65 pages and over 2,500 posts.
mender: I believe that humber is presenting things as he understands them.
Dan O.: humber doesn't have the background to be faking it.
Michael C.


Sorry, I'm two pages behind, but the snow calls. I'll update tonight.

Snow, how apt.

 

[fredriks]

Good, that attitude means that need not consider the remainder of your post. I have given you enough information, you say no, for no other reason than your own limited opinion. No need to take this any further.

<snip>

And the real humber is back again. He started to get much clearer and he also correctly explained a couple of things. The step to actually understand what other people are talking about was quite close but as expected he start to ignore posts and stop the discussion. His cognitive dissonance or troll part saw the problem and jumped on the brake.

 

[John Freestone]

I didn't propose any situation that cant happen. Bunny on a treadmill with an anemometer.

...

thanks fredriks, I was just thinking as I ploughed through the last 3 pages that I might as well put the lot of us on fast scroll, and would post...




You saved the day.

ETA: In fact, I'm bored with my signature too. If you don't mind, I'd like that.

 

[Furcifer]

If the belt surface is the same or similar the road, then it should be expected that using the same process in wind and belt, would give the same result, but will not, because the belt flow is simply opposite to that of the real wind.

This is a contradictory statement. From what I gather from your posts is that the belt flow isn't simply opposite to that of the real wind. If the wind were an ideal fluid moving at 10 m/s --> over a stationary belt could you be very specific and explain how that differs from a stationary wind over a <-- 10m/s moving belt? Remove the cart from the picture. Add a cloud of smoke and take a mental picture of each at 0 sec and then at 1. They should look the same.

What I meant by my previous remark, was that the treadmill is not a model of a cart, in real wind and being driven forward by that wind, but the model of a cart being dragged backwards in real, but still air.

It's actually being driven, by the wheels making contact with the belt. The use of the term "drag" in the above is gonna screw you up.

I think once you see the two reference frames as equal, you're going to have to admit the cart behaves very similar in both.

The thread is long and I can't read all of it, but I'm curious what your opinions on wind tunnels are?

 

[John Freestone]

Do you know Greg, that you are reinventing the wheel? All of these yo-yo type ideas have been tried. They do not work. What is strange, is that you insist they do, despite that and a rather limited knowledge of the topic.

How wonderful then that Greg published it under creative commons. You can correct it for us (and Newton, since you're sick of people misrepresenting him) and re-publish it without further ado.

 

[John Freestone]

If the wind were an ideal fluid moving at 10 m/s --> over a stationary belt could you be very specific and explain how that differs from a stationary wind over a <-- 10m/s moving belt?

I think once you see the two reference frames as equal, you're going to have to admit the cart behaves very similar in both.

The thread is long and I can't read all of it, but I'm curious what your opinions on wind tunnels are?

 

[ctward]

I started reading the DWFTTW thread at the start and after initially dismissing it as a hoax eventually came to understand the reality of it. I read most of that uber-thread with a sort of morbid fascination until I managed to wean myself off. When I returned I was surprised to see the arguments continuing in another thread of equal proportions, but I had to have a look didn't I? So now after reading most of this tread too I think I've worked out what is going on. Humber is not a person but an artificial intelligence experiment. He is software, and this is his Turing test. Some computer scientists have created a program with a knowledge of the laws of physics and a contrary personality and set it loose on the internet.
Look at the signs-
Knows lots of technical words and puts them together in superficially meaningful sentences, which on closer examination are often nonsense.
Never answers questions directly, often evading difficult questions with throwaway quips or obscure generalised philosophical musings.
Gives responses which don't quite fit with the question or are answers to a similar but different question.
Never shows much sign of a human personality, referring to himself in an enigmatic fashion, often in the third person.
And anyway would a real person have the patience and stamina to keep up this sort of mischief for so long?
I think it's time for Humber's designers to come forward and own up.

 

[mender]

Ctward, several of us mused about this being either a Turing test or the basis for a thesis in psychology. It has even crossed my mind that we are being tag-teamed judging by the noticable changes in tone and delivery of humber's responses. Hard to say for sure.

The diagrams supplied by humber so far don't look to be computer generated though!

 

[mender]

Add a cloud of smoke and take a mental picture of each at 0 sec and then at 1. They should look the same.

The thread is long and I can't read all of it, but I'm curious what your opinions on wind tunnels are?

3body, the smoke show (with Deep Purple playing in the background) was about 30 pages or so ago, with the BMW/F1wind tunnel analysis right around there as well. Both lead to this part of the discussion.

 

[mender]

I think once you see the two reference frames as equal, you're going to have to admit the cart behaves very similar in both.

Which is the reason for all the bobbing and weaving that humber does when someone gets humber on the ropes.