Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Not what you think.

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 - CORed

1
Heinz,
If what you say above is true then your equations for the cart on the belt must include an angular velocity/momentum component.

Can you show me where this is included?



You know damn well that what I am saying is correct, there is no inertial reference frame in which the belt is not rotating! I don't need to use the fact that the belt is non-inertial to explain how the cart operates. But, you and the rest of the Cargo Cult DO need to claim the belt is at rest in an inertial frame of reference in order to make your silly crackpot claim of how YOU THINK (or how you WANT to think) the cart operates, and then extrapolate that wrongness into your insane claim of ddwfttw.
So that's a "No." then?  You cannot show me how you incorporate angular velocity/momentum into your equations as you claim?

You cannot read what I wrote? I didn't say I could not, I said I do not need to use the fact that the belt is non-inertial.

But YOU need to claim the belt is inertial when it clearly isn't.

Do you understand the difference?

The part of the belt that is in contact with the cart is inertial. That is all that matters.

Really? If there is paint mark on the belt, does it remain at rest in an inertial frame?

THINK before you make an ass out of yourself.
Heinz,
If what you say above is true then your equations for the cart on the belt must include an angular velocity/momentum component.

Can you show me where this is included?



You know damn well that what I am saying is correct, there is no inertial reference frame in which the belt is not rotating! I don't need to use the fact that the belt is non-inertial to explain how the cart operates. But, you and the rest of the Cargo Cult DO need to claim the belt is at rest in an inertial frame of reference in order to make your silly crackpot claim of how YOU THINK (or how you WANT to think) the cart operates, and then extrapolate that wrongness into your insane claim of ddwfttw.
So that's a "No." then?  You cannot show me how you incorporate angular velocity/momentum into your equations as you claim?

You cannot read what I wrote? I didn't say I could not, I said I do not need to use the fact that the belt is non-inertial.

But YOU need to claim the belt is inertial when it clearly isn't.

Do you understand the difference?

The part of the belt that is in contact with the cart is inertial. That is all that matters.

Really? If there is paint mark on the belt, does it remain at rest in an inertial frame?

THINK before you make an ass out of yourself.
THINK before you make an ass out of yourself.

It remains at rest in that inertial frame until it reaches the roller. That is what matters. Keep flogging your red herring about the rotation of the ends of the belt. You certainly don't have anything substantive to argue about.

HA HA!

Another crackpot tries to make excuses for his belief!

""until it reaches the roller" :stopper:

You mean until; it rotates :yes:

You just admitted the belt rotates and you still think it is inertial?

It rotates 1 rev/sec, that is 6.28 rad/sec

That is NOT inertial! Not even close.

Keep apologizing for your religion, but it ain't science. You are a CRACKPOT

So the parts of the belt that are moving in a straight line are really rotating because the ends are. I guess I will never understand the hverse. That's almost certainly a good thing, because if I under stood it, I wouldn't understand the real universe.

How do you know there are any parts of the belt moving in a straight line? The entire belt rotates about a com and there will be centripetal/centrifugal forces distributed along the entire length. It isn't a circle, but an ellipse. You can't put enough tension into the belt to straighten it out on the top and bottom, or if you did, it would be too tight to rotate at all.
[/quote]

You don't actually know what an ellipse is, do you? You might want to look that up in a geometry text. I'm pretty confident that the top part of the belt does not curve upward. If anything, it might curve down a bit due to gravity (but it is supported by rollers, actually). One thing I can state with absolute confidence is that the belt is not an ellipse.
2
Start with a helicopter in still air, maintaining its position.  Now suppose the pilot cuts the power very slightly.  Will the helicopter still maintain its position, or will it go slowly up, or will it go slowly down?

I would say down.
You don't know what you are talking about either.
Oh, so the helicopter goes up if the pilot cuts the power down a little?  Fascinating.

What about the updraft? Or are you going off on another irrelevant tangent? Either way, nothing to do with the cart, so just bag it.

The helicopter discussion doesn't have much to do with the cart, but it certainly helps illustrate your ignorance.
3
HA HA!

Another crackpot tries to make excuses for his belief!

""until it reaches the roller" :stopper:

You mean until; it rotates :yes:

You just admitted the belt rotates and you still think it is inertial?

It rotates 1 rev/sec, that is 6.28 rad/sec

That is NOT inertial! Not even close.

Keep apologizing for your religion, but it ain't science. You are a CRACKPOT

So the parts of the belt that are moving in a straight line are really rotating because the ends are. I guess I will never understand the hverse. That's almost certainly a good thing, because if I understood it, I wouldn't understand the real universe.
4
You really don't get Galilean relativity, do you?

Of course not. If he did, he wouldn't be making a fool of himself on this thread.
Therefore, there is NO inertial frame where the top of the belt is ever at rest.


Except for the one that's moving in the same direction as the top of the belt at the same speed as the top of the belt, in which, by definition, the top of the belt is at rest.

Same question: If there is paint mark on the belt, does it remain at rest in an inertial frame?

Yes, until it stops being on the top of the belt, at which point it won't be in contact with the wheels of the cart, so it won't be relevant to any interaction with the cart until the cart encounters it again, at which point it will again be at rest. For the purposes of interacting with the cart, it's really no different from painting a mark at fixed intervals on a road. You really don't get Galilean relativity, do you?

You mean "yes, until it rotates"  You are a fucking clown. The belt rotates, and you just admitted it!

All the belt has is rotational kinetic energy. PERIOD.

The cart can tap into that in any inertial frame.

The cart NEVER gets any energy from an imaginary wind.

END OF STORY! END OF FARCE!


Heinz, can you explain how the  cart "taps into rotational kinetic energy" when the part of the belt it's in contact with isn't rotating?
5
You really don't get Galilean relativity, do you?

Of course not. If he did, he wouldn't be making a fool of himself on this thread.
6
Heinz,
If what you say above is true then your equations for the cart on the belt must include an angular velocity/momentum component.

Can you show me where this is included?



You know damn well that what I am saying is correct, there is no inertial reference frame in which the belt is not rotating! I don't need to use the fact that the belt is non-inertial to explain how the cart operates. But, you and the rest of the Cargo Cult DO need to claim the belt is at rest in an inertial frame of reference in order to make your silly crackpot claim of how YOU THINK (or how you WANT to think) the cart operates, and then extrapolate that wrongness into your insane claim of ddwfttw.
So that's a "No." then?  You cannot show me how you incorporate angular velocity/momentum into your equations as you claim?

You cannot read what I wrote? I didn't say I could not, I said I do not need to use the fact that the belt is non-inertial.

But YOU need to claim the belt is inertial when it clearly isn't.

Do you understand the difference?

The part of the belt that is in contact with the cart is inertial. That is all that matters.

Really? If there is paint mark on the belt, does it remain at rest in an inertial frame?

THINK before you make an ass out of yourself.
Heinz,
If what you say above is true then your equations for the cart on the belt must include an angular velocity/momentum component.

Can you show me where this is included?



You know damn well that what I am saying is correct, there is no inertial reference frame in which the belt is not rotating! I don't need to use the fact that the belt is non-inertial to explain how the cart operates. But, you and the rest of the Cargo Cult DO need to claim the belt is at rest in an inertial frame of reference in order to make your silly crackpot claim of how YOU THINK (or how you WANT to think) the cart operates, and then extrapolate that wrongness into your insane claim of ddwfttw.
So that's a "No." then?  You cannot show me how you incorporate angular velocity/momentum into your equations as you claim?

You cannot read what I wrote? I didn't say I could not, I said I do not need to use the fact that the belt is non-inertial.

But YOU need to claim the belt is inertial when it clearly isn't.

Do you understand the difference?

The part of the belt that is in contact with the cart is inertial. That is all that matters.

Really? If there is paint mark on the belt, does it remain at rest in an inertial frame?

THINK before you make an ass out of yourself.
THINK before you make an ass out of yourself.
[/quote]

It remains at rest in that inertial frame until it reaches the roller. That is what matters. Keep flogging your red herring about the rotation of the ends of the belt. You certainly don't have anything substantive to argue about.
7
To be fair to you, IF you can show how your helicopter scenario is relevant, I will reconsider discussing it.

Just seen this (I'm a sporadic visitor here) so OK. It might help if I tell you that the way I arrived at my current position did not involve carts [on treadmills]*. There are just three elements to it and the first is that I maintain that a helicopter hovering in still air will require a certain input of power from the engine. The same helicopter hovering in a strong, steady updraft will require less power to maintain its position. And I suggest the source of the power replacing that of the motor in the updraft scenario is the wind. If you agree, I'll move to my second element. If you disagree, I'd be curious to know why.

ETA*


You seem to be conflating two things in your question; one, the aerodynamic force on an object caught in an updraft and two, the thrust from the rotating blades.

These two things are not the same.

Any object, whether it be a helicopter or a sack of potatoes, caught in an updraft will have a lifting force on it from the wind.

How that updraft affects the thrust from the rotating blades is entirely another matter; it will act to lower the thrust, not raise it. To understand this, you must first understand what propeller thrust is. Propeller thrust is a force and like any force it is equal to mass x acceleration. The rotating blades accelerate a mass of air through the disk of the propeller. If there is a reverse air flow, such as an updraft for a helicopter or a tailwind for an airplane, the air mass that can be accelerated through the disk will be reduced, reducing the thrust. There are other reasons why the thrust will be reduced, including a more turbulent flow and a tendency to turbine the propeller.

Depending on whether or not the wind force on the helicopter is greater than the loss of thrust, the power may need to be increased to hold position, not decreased as you think. It is not as simple as you seem to think! Generally, a tailwind will decrease propeller thrust.
Start with a helicopter in still air, maintaining its position.  Now suppose the pilot cuts the power very slightly.  Will the helicopter still maintain its position, or will it go slowly up, or will it go slowly down?

I would say down.

And that situation is exactly the same as a helicopter maintaining its position in an updraft, using less power than it needs in order to maintain its position in still air.

You don't know what you are talking about either. How many choppers have you ever been in? I have been in a lot.
Apparently being in a chopper does not necessarily confer any understanding at all of how they work. At least not if you're  Heinz.
8
Heinz,
If what you say above is true then your equations for the cart on the belt must include an angular velocity/momentum component.

Can you show me where this is included?



You know damn well that what I am saying is correct, there is no inertial reference frame in which the belt is not rotating! I don't need to use the fact that the belt is non-inertial to explain how the cart operates. But, you and the rest of the Cargo Cult DO need to claim the belt is at rest in an inertial frame of reference in order to make your silly crackpot claim of how YOU THINK (or how you WANT to think) the cart operates, and then extrapolate that wrongness into your insane claim of ddwfttw.
So that's a "No." then?  You cannot show me how you incorporate angular velocity/momentum into your equations as you claim?

You cannot read what I wrote? I didn't say I could not, I said I do not need to use the fact that the belt is non-inertial.

But YOU need to claim the belt is inertial when it clearly isn't.

Do you understand the difference?

The part of the belt that is in contact with the cart is inertial. That is all that matters.
9
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I see the slipping argument as borderline insanity.
I don't think there's anything "borderline" about it. What is really hilarious is that slipping would make the cart go slower, not faster. Yes, there would be a small initial forward surge when the cart breaks traction, but as soon as it looses traction, the propeller starts to slow down, because nothing is driving it.
10
Science / Re: August 21, 2017 Total Solar Eclipse Over USA
Viewed the eclipse near Union Pass, Wyoming (close to where the center line of totality crosses the Continental Divide). I didn't get any good pictures, but it was well worth the trip (drove up from Denver).
11
I was never too sure that Humber was not just winding us up all the time.
It was certainly entertaining- come back, Humber! 

I was never sure either, which is why I characterize him as "crank or troll". It was a bit hard to believe that he could be so consistently wrong about every subject by accident.
12
You have to admit Humber was far more interesting and intelligent than our current pres. Strange times indeed.

I certainly wouldn't admit that.  Both of them are extremely interesting in a train-wreck sense.  And both are unbelievably stupid.  Although I think humber might edge Trump out on this count.
As to which is stupider, Trump or Humber, I'm not sure which I would pick. They seem to share a lot of personality traits though. Both seem to think that they know more about whatever topic comes up than people who actually understand it; both are incapable of admitting they are wrong (and both are wrong very frequently). Humber probably gets the nod for creativity (at least when it comes to insults and lies).

I hate to admit it, but Humber was largely responsible for me following and participating in the DDWFTW threads for all these years. More times than I like to admit, he had me staying up late because "someone on the internet is wrong". He was certainly the most entertaining crank or troll I ever encountered, though he started to slip a bit in the later years.
13
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
So you guys found another denier? Wonder what Humber is up to these days? And will RR finally do his long promised test runs of his latest cart this fall?

To show how naive I was I actually believed at some point Humber and the 2 others who's names I've forgotten..Harold something and the later guy...would finally get it after I posted that letter from the guy in charge of the AP test saying none of the teachers had challenged question 11 on that test in 2014, How could they all miss the difference gearing could make? Never understood that one.

Oh well, we now live in a 'post reality' world and maybe Humber was a prophet preparing us for Trump. Such is life..

He wasn't a denier, exactly (he accepted that ddwfttw works), but he was convinced that spork (and just about everyone else in the conversation) were explaining it incorrectly (and it was obvious from this thread and another that he participated in that he had no clue what he was talking about).
14
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Oh for anyone who isn't up to speed on this (wasn't myself until just now):

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

Quote
EU figureheads Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott are staunch supporters of Velikovsky's mythological-based fairy tales and often pay tribute to the enormous influence he has had on shaping their own far-fetched theories.

Quote
The Electric Universe, Wallace Thornhill's website
Thunderbolts Forum, probably the most popular EU advocate website, run by David Talbott
Thornhill says Thunderbox.disinfo is his sister site.
I can confidently tell you that we do not use "Electric Universe" theory to guide exploratory spacecraft through our solar system.  Gravity theory seems all that's needed.

Most Electric Universe advocates have math skills that seem to top out somewhere between long division and linear algebra (or less).
15
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Hang on, the people who run that site seriously think Velikovsky has credibility? WTF?

I'm tellin' ya - perfect impedance match.  He's found his people.

I think you're right. BTW, I have frequently seen the thunderbolts forum referred to as the thunderdolts forum. Based on the two threads that he has participated in here, I think our friend will fit right in over there.
16
Poor Jim didn't realize that arguing against a phase diagram was going to be a hilarious fail.

I saw no evidence that he understood the basics of phase relations, e.g. that boiling point varies with ambient pressure. He seemed to think that 100 C was the boiling point of water regardless of pressure. He certainly didn't understand that the gas phase can exist at less than the boiling point.

It would have been interesting to have him boil potatoes at my house (8400 feet above sea level) and see what kind of creative explanations he would come up with to explain why it takes them so much longer to cook than it would at sea level.
Wow, that's up there.  Looked at your profile (Central City, CO) and didn't realize there were towns that high in the Rockies.

Looking at Google Maps, it looks like an old mining town turned into Casino destination with tailings piles all over.  Is this gold/silver country?  Or some other gems or rare earth deposit?
Poor Jim didn't realize that arguing against a phase diagram was going to be a hilarious fail.

I saw no evidence that he understood the basics of phase relations, e.g. that boiling point varies with ambient pressure. He seemed to think that 100 C was the boiling point of water regardless of pressure. He certainly didn't understand that the gas phase can exist at less than the boiling point.

It would have been interesting to have him boil potatoes at my house (8400 feet above sea level) and see what kind of creative explanations he would come up with to explain why it takes them so much longer to cook than it would at sea level.
Wow, that's up there.  Looked at your profile (Central City, CO) and didn't realize there were towns that high in the Rockies.

Looking at Google Maps, it looks like an old mining town turned into Casino destination with tailings piles all over.  Is this gold/silver country?  Or some other gems or rare earth deposit?

Mostly gold. It was one of the first areas mined in the Colorado gold rush (1859). 8400 isn't that high. There's a couple towns in Colorado over 10,000, and lots of them 8000-9000.
17
Since when did Ben Carson have a first class intellect? I mean ok he became a doctor, but he seems to have shut off the thinking circuits since then.

When I first saw Carson in a debate, I said, "Wow, this guys no brain surgeon.", but then I found out he is a brain surgeon. Go figure.
18
Poor Jim didn't realize that arguing against a phase diagram was going to be a hilarious fail.

I saw no evidence that he understood the basics of phase relations, e.g. that boiling point varies with ambient pressure. He seemed to think that 100 C was the boiling point of water regardless of pressure. He certainly didn't understand that the gas phase can exist at less than the boiling point.

It would have been interesting to have him boil potatoes at my house (8400 feet above sea level) and see what kind of creative explanations he would come up with to explain why it takes them so much longer to cook than it would at sea level.
19
Can we start here?



Your point?

You don't have a clue what anything on that phase diagram means, do you?
20
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
The real question is how can a million tons of water float in the sky?

You can't explain it.
Believers never stop believing.

It's easy to explain.  Electricity.  Electrons enter our atmosphere constantly from above.  It's called the solar wind.  We also know it as static electricity.  H2O microdroplets have a positively charged external shell (related to surface tension).  Water microdroplets rise to balance out these charges.

It's simple physics.

BTW, this was first theorized by Velikovsky in 1946:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16597#p118190



Wow. He's citing Velikovsky, and he thinks everyone else is ignorant about science.
21
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
This forum is the refuge of trolls and idiots.
Every forum of which you are a member is a refuge of at least one idiot troll.  Mathematically provable.


No intelligent person is going to stay here very long.



I guess that's why  you're hanging around.