Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • For the list of forums you're not allowed to post in, see below.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - cold one

Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Wow...  he did it again.

For anyone else reading, the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction
The problem with you two idiots is the stupid shit you claim turns up no search results at all.  Because it's only you claiming it.

"the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction"
Are you joking with this link?

He's not, he's really that stupid.  He did exactly the same thing the last time he posted a link that was supposed to prove me wrong. 

Did you look at the first hit when you click your link, F Xtard?

Edit - or the second or the third or the fourth or the fifth?  lol
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
You provided one oceanography textbook, which has since corrected its error. 
Now that is just flat out trolling.  Or you are actually that stupid, and you actually believe what you wrote.  (trolling makes more sense, you can't be that dishonest and stupid)

What I said is exactly what happened.  What makes it really ironic is the error was corrected because you brought it to my attention in an attempt to prove me wrong.

But go ahead, explain to us what really happened.  We're waiting...
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
"speed determined by depth of water" is also true.
No, it is not true.
I understand that you disagree with pretty much everyone else in the world on this physics law. 

Waves in "shallow" water (meaning water that's not as deep as the wavelength) approximately obey a law  that says that their speed is proportional to the square root of the water depth(until it gets deeper than the wavelength, then it's the root of the wavelength).

It's actually considered a law of physics, and it applies to all ocean waves, forced, free, tsunamis, tides, gravity waves, which is what makes your position so delightful.  I provided dozens of sources now, and yet you persist. 

You provided one oceanography textbook, which has since corrected its error.   That's the actually delightful irony here.

You provided no other expert sources at all.  If I'm wrong, post them again and I'll get them corrected too.

By contrast, I believe I actually posted several pages of derivations that prove (using the same physics that gives the correct wave speed for free waves, which indeed is determined by wavelength and ocean depth) that tidal waves are not in fact limited that way.  I also linked to computer simulations that show the same thing, with lots of careful explanations and analytic derivations.  Being an innumerate troll, you couldn't respond to that and just ran away.
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
In 2020 one lone voice of reason will be still mocking everyone else for falling for this huge scam.
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Quote from: F X
What you haven't calculated, much less explored in your mind, is the most essential problem with the two bulge theory. You can use an ocean planet, with either shallow seas (like earth), or deep seas, deep enough that a free wave is not slowed by the depth.

In either case, you won't get two bulges following the moon. Neither a direct tide or inverted. Because physics.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.  I've showed you the math, simulations, equations, and results.  None of it has any effect, either because you are incapable of understanding it or you're just a troll.   On an ocean earth, or simpler yet, a canal earth, the tides are easy to calculate and the result is precisely what you say it is not.

As for wind forced waves, I haven't thought about it or solved the relevant equations, so I have nothing to say for now.
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5

"Tides are shallow water waves" is a true statement.


"speed determined by depth of water" is also true.

No, it is not true.

Are you arguing against those statements?  Your not answering a straight forward question says a lot.

 I've explained to you over and over and over and over and  over precisely why, how, and where you are wrong about this.  I think you honestly still don't understand it, just like you are still innumerate. 
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Summary of changes to the new (12th) edition of Essentials of Oceanography: 

Quote from:  changes to Chapter 9: Tides
Improved clarification of tidal forces in the section "Tide-Generating Forces"......A new, more accurate description of tidal bulges as forced waves that replaces the erroneous description of the characteristics of tidal bulges as freely propagating waves in previous editions

(My emphasis.)

Now here's what the new edition says:

Quote from: Essentials of Oceanography (12th ed)
Idealized tidal bulges are freely propagating waves with the crests of the waves separated by a distance of one-half Earth's circumference--about 20,000 kilometers (12,420 miles). However, the tidal bulges themselves are continually pulled on by astronomical forces, so they actually exist on Earth as forced waves. What this means is they are continuously pulled along by a driving force, which is the tidal force caused mostly by the Moon. As a result, the tidal bulges move across Earth's oceans at about 1600 kilometers per hour to keep up with the tidal force of the Moon. It's the tidal bulge waveform--not the water itself--that moves at such great speeds.

A variety of conditions on the real Earth cause ocean tides to break up into distinct, large circulation units in each ocean basin called cells. In the open ocean, the crests and troughs of the tide wave rotate around an amphidromic point near the center of each cell. There is essentially no tidal range at amphidromic points, but radiating from each point are cotidal lines, which connect all nearby locations where high tide occurs simultaneously.

(My emphasis.)
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Feel any better now, F X?

Now, let's just quote all of that post, shall we?

They are not false, and of course they are two of the main reasons you want to argue over this.

Yes they are, and your source textbook has now been changed to correct that error. 

I'm curious if you're ever going to acknowledge you were wrong about this.  Think about it - after frantically scouring the internet to counter the overwhelming evidence (math, computer simulations, fluid dynamics textbooks, physics arguments) against your assertions, you finally come up with an authoritative source that clearly supports you.  An oceanography textbook!  What could possibly be more authoritative?

And now, the new edition of that same oceanography textbook has been changed precisely to correct the error you've been advocating.  And what do you do?  Pretend it's not there and post the same old red herrings and diversions and "because FysiX" arguments you always did. 

Is this how people argue against global warming?   Sad, because there the truth really matters.
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
It's like I don't know what barotropic means.

Indeed, you don't. 

More generally you are innumerate and totally ignorant about physics.  If you simply read what is written in that (your own) source, you'd see that both viscosities are set to zero and the boundary condition at the ocean floor is non-dissipative.  There is no friction whatsoever in that treatment, and yet, the shallow wave speed is derived. 

But you can't read it because you can't understand the equations (or the words, mostly).  So insteead you just google, quotemine, and troll. 

Doesn't it get old?  Why don't you take a course and learn something, since you seem to care about this?  There are great free online courses you can take to learn physics.
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
For anyone else reading, the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction,
Also, it's not friction that determines or limits the shallow water free wave speed.
FX: read what cold one said carefully: he didn't say the friction doesn't exist. He said it doesn't "determine or limit shallow water free wave speed".

Yep, but that is idiotic


Most problematic item in the shallow water models is the bottom friction parameterization
since the near-bottom current shears are not explicitly resolved. In the Stommel circulation
problem (p. 4.4) the linear bottom friction formulation ...

Dynamical Oceanography
Lecture notes by Jüri Elken Page 51
CHAPTER 5. Shallow water theory

The first thing that link says:  "It is considered that the flow does not depend on depth. This is exactly true for barotropic non-frictional motions."  Then he goes on to derive the "shallow" wave speed I referred to. 

If all you are saying is that the cart ...goes faster than ...the moving air in a different frame of reference, then who can argue with that?

That's it!  Great!!  That is and always was the core claim.  I'm glad you've finally accepted it.

(A sub-claim was that the cart can start from rest wrt the ground and achieve that state, but that was never central or essential.)
You are assuming the cart's wheels are  rolling on the treadmill belt when in fact they are only spinning, then sliding while spinning with perhaps a miniscul;e amount of rolling also involved.

Heinz, I did not assume that, nor do I need to.  The GT tells me that the cart (in my new frame) moves dead dwfttw.  That proves it is possible.  *How* it does that is an interesting but separate question.

What you are seeing is something that only happens on the treadmill and if you do a GT you must end up with the cart on a treadmill, not on a road in the wind.

Again, I do not think you have quite understood what a GT is.  All it does is shift the linear velocity of everything.  A treadmill is still a treadmill after a GT, it's just moving at a different velocity.  So of course the GT doesn't turn the treadmill into a road!  What it does do is make the top surface be at rest, and the air be moving - so there is a wind over a stationary surface, and the cart proceeds along that stationary surface dead dwfttw. 
Your assumption that the belt is in uniform linear motion is incorrect.

Thanks for the response, but I made no such assumption.  If you don't agree, maybe you can point out precisely where in my argument that assumption was used.  Bear in mind that Galilean relativity is valid regardless of what kind of motion is involved (as long as it is non-relativistic).

JWe accept the surface of the earth as a nearly inertial frame even though it has an angular velocity of 7.2921159 × 10−5 rad/sec but surely you would never accept 105 rad/sec as being an inertial frame and you would never claim a Galilean transform of such motion.

I think this indicates where the confusion lies.  I certainly would "claim a Galilean transform of such motion" - at least, if what that means is that the Galilean transforms of it are valid physical solutions.  Given any physically possible system or motion, all of its Galilean transforms are also physically possible systems or motions (again, ignoring finite speed of light effects).

Now consider that the cart's wheels also have a circumference of 0.27 m and when on that same belt, they rotate at 1000 rpm. Of course, they have the same angular velocity of 105 rad/sec and so does the section of belt that is in contact with them!

As you have noted yourself, point contact will not spin the wheels, and the belt must deform into a small arc around the bottom of those wheels. The section of belt that is passing through that arc is not in uniform linear motion, it is moving in circular motion with a angular velocity of 105 rad/sec! Let that fact sink in. Looking at the long flat expanse of belt is what is confusing you! The only part of the belt that matters to the cart is the small arcs at the bottom of the wheels, nothing else. Once you realize that you understand that the GT is wrong. In fact, you cannot claim a GT of the cart on the belt to a cart on the road.

I am not only looking at the top surface of the belt when I make this transform.  I am considering the entire thing.  It is true that after the transform (and before) the bottom portion of the belt and the parts on the ends are not at rest.  However the cart is not in contact with those parts of the belt.  In this frame, the cart is rolling dead downwind faster than the air on a stationary (apart from deformation caused by the wheels) surface made out of treadmill belt.  The fact that it can do that without any battery or motor is a proof that dead dwfttw is possible, at least under these specific circumstances. 

The deformation under the wheels is real, but the same deformation would occur for a cart rolling on a road made from treadmill material.  It is a source of friction that makes it *more* difficult for the cart to move quickly with respect to the surface, not less.
What, exactly do you mean by "relativity of motion"?
I suppose you mean Galilean relativity, which refers only to uniform linear motion.

Either that or special relativity, which also refers to linear motion.  What both say is the following:  given a solution to the laws of physics (i.e. a possible physical process), you can act on it with a transformation that shifts the velocity of everything by some amount (fixed and simply additive for Galilean transforms), and the result is another solution (i.e. another possible physical process).

Now, consider a very long treadmill moving under still air, with a cart slowly advancing up the belt at speed v.  The belt moves at speed w.  Act with the Galilean transform that brings the top surface of the belt to rest.  The new situation is a cart moving at speed w + v, that much is indisputable (it's just the definition of the transform).  The top surface of the belt is at rest in the new frame, while the air is moving over it at speed w.  Therefore this is, at least by some reasonable definitions, an instance of dead dwfttw. 

It would help if you could clarify precisely where you think the above is incorrect.

Do you think the experiment with the balloons should be done or not?

The original Blackbird run had streamers attached that showed the relative wind direction, and it certainly looked to me that they reversed.  Furthermore GPS data showed the speed and direction and it clearly exceeded windspeed.  With that said, sure, it would be fun to see it chase down some balloons.
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
You found another wrong thing on the internet!  Let me see if I can get that one fixed too.

It must be a daumting task to correct all the world's textbooks and scientific knowledge.  But since you alone know better, you can do it.

So far you've only identified one wrong textbook, and it's been corrected.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention, by the way.
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Mayhap you're overthinking this one F X.  There is no reasonable doubt about the tidal driving force - as outlined by Gamow - but the World is a messy complicated place.  What we observe in your global oceanic tide plots is the resultant of those tidal forces on the variable depth oceans broken up by the irregular continental land masses.
It's even more complicated than that. The Coriolis effect would cause the tide to form a gyre, even if the ocean was deep enough to allow the tide to keep up with the moon.

An idealized tidal wave would move across Earth at 1,600 kilometers per hour (1,000 miles per hour) at the equator. Because tides are an extreme example of a shallow-water wave, friction with the ocean floor slows tides to a speed of about 700 kilometers per hour (435 miles per hour). Continents further restrict tide movement. The tidal waves cannot keep up

Read more:

You found another wrong thing on the internet!  Let me see if I can get that one fixed too.
In real life there cannot ever be a precise "contact point".  Even two "point particles" interact at a distance, because they interact via forces with non-zero range and because their quantum wavefunctions cannot never be perfectly localized in position.

Of course, none of that matters for the cart.  Heinz, you really think there is a difference in the wheel/surface deformation between a cart on a treadmill in still air, and a cart on a "road" made out of treadmill belt in a steady wind?  That would violate relativity of motion.
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
At least Humber had the sense to quit posting at some point.  When it was impossible to keep insisting he was right and everyone else was stupid or part of some scam.

When will you arrive at that point?
Once acceleration is involved, the symmetry that is required for a Galilean transform, is broken and the transform being claimed is invalidated.

There is always acceleration involved when a belt is driving a wheel.

Is it the same when a road is driving a wheel?

A wheel being spun by a belt is not at all the same as a wheel that is rolling on the ground. I have delineated the differences before in this thread.
The wheel just 'knows' whether it is on a belt or a road. Does it get an email or phone call, or does it need to read this thread?

Your kind of horseshit really doesn't deserve a reply. Does a wheel get an email when it hits an icy patch in the road? How does it know?!?1

Crawl back under the rock you crawled out from, idiot.

The nature of the forces at the contact patch are what matter. I'll give you a partial credit for intuiting that. I like my rock btw.

Yes the forces at the contact patch are what matter. And those forces are not the same for a wheel being spun by a belt and a wheel that is rolling on a road. Like I said.

Enjoy your rock but be sure to come out to see the balloons.

How and why are you using the terms "spun" and "rolling"?

Just in case there might be a non-crackpot viewing this thread (you never know)

See if you can spot the difference!

Contact patch of wheel being spun by a belt. See the way the belt deforms, to wrap around an arc of the wheel? If the belt did not deform it could never spin the wheel.

Contact patch of a wheel rolling on a road. See the way the wheel deforms as it rolls? If the wheel did not deform, it could not roll!

A crackpot carter is unable to see this. His cogdis is just too strong and his tiny little brain (what passes for a brain) just cannot process it.

And if the road is made out of treadmill belt material, then....  ?

(I should know better than to ask questions.)
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
At the same time, in other parts of the planet, the ocean water drains away to fill these bulges, creating low tides. However, the oceans' water is also constrained by the continents and varying ocean depths. As a result, the tides behave more like water sloshing around in an oddly shaped bathtub than in a smooth and even basin..

Quite correct.
No, and that you still think so, after almost a decade, is pretty damn funny. 

You're back!  How's that friction burn feeling?
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Here's what that page says now:

Oceans Are Pulled Up
The gravitational force of the Moon and the Sun pulls the water in the oceans upwards making the oceans bulge, which creates high tide in the areas of Earth facing the Moon and on the opposite side. (See illustration.)

Oceans Are Pulled Up
The gravitational force of the Moon and the Sun pulls the water in the oceans upwards making the oceans bulge, which creates high tide in the areas of Earth facing the Moon and on the opposite side. (See illustration.)

At the same time, in other parts of the planet, the ocean water drains away to fill these bulges, creating low tides. However, the oceans' water is also constrained by the continents and varying ocean depths. As a result, the tides behave more like water sloshing around in an oddly shaped bathtub than in a smooth and even basin..

Quite correct.
The more that FX supports this, the more comfortable I am in opposing it.

That is actually a really strong argument...
I haven't had time to read the thread but do these carts really work?
So we have two world records through both Guinness and NALSA (the North American Land Sailing Association), loads of data and videos, and have posted detailed videos on how you can build and demonstrate your own model in your own house, and several people have done exactly that, a couple even won their science fair by doing so, but what's his name is probably right... it's all a scam.

Oh yeah, we've also written detailed explanations (both mathematical and through various analogies) that detail exactly how it works.

Next you'll be defending the "moon landings".
I haven't had time to read the thread but do these carts really work?
And here we go

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more

Oh look it's F X.  How's that burn, F X?
I haven't had time to read the thread but do these carts really work?

No, it's a hoax.