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

[sol invictus]

But I do have to admit - I'm starting to doubt my vote that humber is truly as confused as he presents. It's just hard to imagine anyone can be this consistently wrong on every single nuance of every single sub-problem that arises. Seriously - is that possible?

Someone that's wrong 100% of the time is nearly as useful as someone that's right 100% of the time. Either way, it can't be coincidence... but you know my explanation for that already .

 

[humber]

I think this is just darling! humber has found some graphs and equations to try and impress us with.

See if you can be equally impressive by cogently refuting it. I used Maple to make the graphs.

But I do have to admit - I'm starting to doubt my vote that humber is truly as confused as he presents. It's just hard to imagine anyone can be this consistently wrong on every single nuance of every single sub-problem that arises. Seriously - is that possible?

Doubts? A lack of imagination? I mean, you?

 

[humber]

Someone that's wrong 100% of the time is nearly as useful as someone that's right 100% of the time. Either way, it can't be coincidence... but you know my explanation for that already .

And where do you fit in?

 

[mender]

Thanks, John and CORed. I'm at a loss to see how humber keeps disagreeing with my posts. I'm trying to keep them accurate and clear, and your comments seem to indicate that I have.

John, I'm not offended in any way, and appreciate the comparison, however I don't consider myself an expert by any means and would welcome any additional comments from one. Seeing as this is yet another distraction and a fairly weak attempt at contesting the validity of the treadmill, I doubt that it would be worth their while to jump in.

On the plus side, hopefully the discussion revealed a bit of the inner workings of tires.

What's the next topic, humber?

 

[humb]

Lets take a quick vote on that....
Who has made the most compelling arguments between Spork and Humber?.

Humber has. That is a fact.

 

[humber]

Thanks, John and CORed. I'm at a loss to see how humber keeps disagreeing with my posts. I'm trying to keep them accurate and clear, and your comments seem to indicate that I have.

John, I'm not offended in any way, and appreciate the comparison, however I don't consider myself an expert by any means and would welcome any additional comments from one. Seeing as this is yet another distraction and a fairly weak attempt at contesting the validity of the treadmill, I doubt that it would be worth their while to jump in.

On the plus side, hopefully the discussion revealed a bit of the inner workings of tires. Maybe recursive prophet is right.

What's the next topic, humber?

You don't get desert until you have cleaned your plate.

(1) Please describe how a plain wheel develops thrust.
(2) How a belt can induce that thrust in plain wheel.

 

[CORed]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12980&stc=1&d=1234146017[/qimg]

I situation (4) A drives B drives A. No work. Just like a cart on a treadmill.

There's one for the Whiskey Tango Foxtrot list.

 

[humber]

There's one for the Whiskey Tango Foxtrot list.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, they are counter-rotating.

 

[mender]

See if you can be equally impressive by cogently refuting it. I used Maple to make the graphs.

Okay, humber, I'll start the next one. Does the graph of the balloon speed actually end at .9, or does the line continue to 1.0 as it should but is obscured?

 

[CORed]

You don't get desert until you have cleaned your plate.

(1) Please describe how a plain wheel develops thrust.

Friction between the contact patch of the wheel and the surface it is running on.

(2) How a belt can induce that thrust in plain wheel.

Friction between the belt and the contact patch of the wheel.

Got any hard ones.?

 

[CORed]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, they are counter-rotating.

No matter how many times you repeat it, it's still wrong.

 

[mender]

You don't get desert until you have cleaned your plate.

(1) Please describe how a plain wheel develops thrust.
(2) How a belt can induce that thrust in plain wheel.

1) The plain wheel of the cart receives thrust from the belt or the ground. It can't develop thrust (I thought you knew that).
2) It needs to be capable of establishing a high enough coefficient of friction between itself and the wheel to prevent slip. Other than that, it has to be moving to supply the power.

So you did find some "sand" after all?

 

[humber]

Okay, humber, I'll start the next one. Does the graph of the balloon speed actually end at .9, or does the line continue to 1.0 as it should but is obscured?

I still think you have a full plate, but to would you like me to think of your question as a strawman, or the inability to read graphs?
The scale is labeled in 0.2 increments, so it's not 0.9, but 1.0.

 

[humber]

Friction between the contact patch of the wheel and the surface it is running on.

No good. You would need to "apply" that friction more in one direction than the other, or there will be no motion.

Friction between the belt and the contact patch of the wheel.

By your own argument, the belt should drive the cart down the belt, no mater how much force the prop generates.

Got any hard ones.?

Saucy.

 

[humber]

1) The plain wheel of the cart receives thrust from the belt or the ground. It can't develop thrust (I thought you knew that).

Muddled. I asked how can a belt induce thrust in a plain wheel. In the case of the cart, opposite to the direction of the belt. Neat trick.

2) It needs to be capable of establishing a high enough coefficient of friction between itself and the wheel to prevent slip.

Incorrect. Trains can pull a greater load than due to static friction. How does it do that if there is no compressive force? Such a force from the front of the axle, would not drive the wheel.

Other than that, it has to be moving to supply the power.

The power has to be applied to the wheel, from the axle.

So you did find some "sand" after all?

Trains can work without sand.

 

[CORed]

Someone that's wrong 100% of the time is nearly as useful as someone that's right 100% of the time. Either way, it can't be coincidence... but you know my explanation for that already .

Spork: Join Date: 10th November 2008
Humber: Join Date: 19th December 2007

If your explanation is correct, Spork started laying the groundwork over a year ago.

 

[semper]

the belt should drive the cart down the belt, no mater how much force the prop generates.

Really, you are a genius aren't you Humber.

 

[mender]

I can hardly be blamed for assuming that you were trying to introduce your "balloon can never reach windspeed" theory! Everyone remembers that one (except perhaps you - have you changed your mind?).

 

[humber]

Spork: Join Date: 10th November 2008
Humber: Join Date: 19th December 2007

If your explanation is correct, Spork started laying the groundwork over a year ago.

There is no time limit on being wrong.

 

[spork]

If your explanation is correct, Spork started laying the groundwork over a year ago.

I've gotta believe Sol is just cracking wise. If anyone honestly believes that humber and I are one and the same I'm begging to have the moderators check our info.