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

Dan O. · Dec 28, 2008

The purpose of this post is to present the established tenets of classical physics and to create a point where this thread can be split if there is still disagreement as to the validity of these tenets.

If the participants in this thread agree to the split, all further discussion of the validity of alternate inertial reference frames, the special nature of an earth based reference, the treatment of Kinetic energy being an absolute property of an object and not relative to the frame of reference and any other claims that invalidate classical physics shall be split to the new thread.
--- cut here ---
Title: The validity of classical physics [split from Down Wind Faster Than The Wind]

In Newton's laws of motion, there is no factor of an absolute reference for position or velocity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

First law
It is possible to select a set of reference frames, called inertial reference frames, observed from which a particle moves without any change in velocity if no net force acts on it. This law is often simplified into the sentence "A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." This law is known as the law of inertia.
Second law
Observed from an inertial reference frame, the net force on a particle is proportional to the time rate of change of its linearmomentum: F = d (mv) / dt. Momentum mv is the product of mass and velocity. Force and momentum are vectorquantities and the resultant force is found from all the forces present by vector addition. This law is often stated as "F = ma: the net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by its acceleration."
Third law
Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two forces act along the same line. This law is often simplified into the sentence "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

This means that we can investigate the behavior of physical systems in an equivalent inertial frame that is chosen to be more convenient. For instance, the physics of a vehicle traveling down a straight level road with a tail wind can be investigated by placing that vehicle on a similar surface that is moving at a constant velocity relative to the observer so that the same effective tail wind will not be moving relative to the observer and the vehicle when traveling at the speed of the tail wind will also not be moving relative to the observer.

This split thread has been created to discuss the validity of using alternate inertial reference frames to examine or model classical physical interactions [between the limits where relativity and quantum effects are significant] and related topics such as motion relative to the ground being somehow special and kinetic energy having a specific value independent from the frame of reference. I don't understand the contrary view so I'll let the other posters present their side.

Split from: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128483

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Gaspode

humber · Dec 28, 2008

Christian Klippel said:
Assume a windspeed of 10 mph. Also assume a cart moving on the ground at exactly the same speed and direction as the wind.

1) What is the speed/velocity and the direction of the air relative to the cart?
2) What is the speed/velocity and the direction of the ground relative to the cart?

Edit:
3) What is the speed/velocity and the direction of the ground relative to the air? (or vice versa)

If you do something, and it doesn't work, do you do exactly the same again but hope that this time it will ?
When I tell you "true but trivial" and take your logic to show contradictions, and then ask "where does the KE go", or wonder how it can be that I am at at "relative" windspeed, yet literally doing so at the same time. You don't see those as perhaps problems with your ideas, but that I cannot do the simple arithmetic.

(1) How many "frames" in the world are there with zero KE relative to the treadmill cart? Aren't they the same vector?

(2) How many are there that do not?

(3) In all of the bullet-time experiments you could connect each item together, no? In fact, aren't all items in the same "frame" effectively one mass? What difference would it make if that were zero? How do you do any work without leaving that frame?

You have fallen for a simple mathematical error. Yes, it's correct, but the answer has no meaning or consequence. Lots of equations do that. Once you make that error, all sorts of wonders are possible. Over-energy and time machines are all "theoretically possible" in a limited sense.

The conclusion from the argument for zero KE is something like;
"Equivalency tells us that all objects are equivalent relative to themselves"

Step back, take a real world view of the treadmill.
In your new world of "frames" do you now see the items on the supermarket checkout belt as in a different "frame of reference", or just things moving relative to you? (Still have to pay, just the same)

I say person on a treadmill as someone moving relative to the ground. If I put myself on that same belt or as an observer, I say I am moving relative the ground. If you say no, you are making a mistake. You are using the ground perspective, but retaining it and transferring it to the treadmill. I think that you would say "relative to me, the ground is moving under me". No, it is not. ( That would certainly break the principle of locality, if nothing else)

What if I paint the ground, or illuminate it in some way that creates an optical illusion, so the the belt may appear to go one way or the other?
You may fall over, perhaps. Why? Because the "inertial reference" in your ears, the fluid-based balance system, is bound to the gravity of the Earth. It evolved under those conditions. Like your sight.
What if you overcome that? You still don't know which way things are going.
Perhaps you could look "under" the treadmill to avoid the trick, but "where" would you be so that you can so that? On the ground.
Instruments can show you your errors, but they are not allowed, it seems. Perhaps because they expose the deception.

JB's porch is a carnival stand. Let me put you in an enclosed box. When I later open the door, I tell you that you have been in the 14th Century. Try to prove to me that you have not.
How much weight do you think it would take to disprove that? I think that you will agree that it is not possible to say, because the ideas are not connected.
The weight over the wheels of the cart and "frames of reference" have that same relationship.

Do items flowing in a river reach riverspeed? Why not? If you have a power boat, don't you need constant force and energy to maintain riverspeed?
If you achieve riverspeed, is the water ahead and behind frozen in "bullet time" like windspeed air?

John Freestone · Dec 28, 2008

humber said:
Cartoon questions have cartoon answers. Even still, the chance to yell 'false' lured some to error. It is irrelevant that KE = 0. True, but trivial.

It's not trivial if you're on the sharp end of the bullet. But really we just like to force you into admitting the opposite of what you stated earlier to demonstrate what a lot of nonsense you post.

humber said:
Spork claimed that (ROLF), not me.

Ok. You mean ROFL, BTW, AFAIK.

Michael C said:
I just saw that Dan posted his message a few minutes before mine. I'm for the split as Dan suggests.

I don't quite understand that. If you have questions about props and other details, why not post them, instead of saying that you'd like to but other people are swamping the thread with trivia about physics? You don't have to compete for thread space to discuss those things. It seems to me that without these discussions of inertial frames, there would be precious little keeping the thread alive. I also consider the question a very valid one, even if it is perhaps done to death now.

I am not even sure that it is done to death. I think there might still be a question hanging - which is whether there is any difference between mathematically analysing the same physical conditions from different frames (i.e. considering a different element as stationary), and constructing completely different physical scenarios, as per land test and treadmill test. I hope you're aware that I accept the equivalence in this case - I just don't quite get where the limits are to the principle. If it's ok to drive the 'ground', why would it not be ok to drive the wheels with a motor at a constant rate and see what happens to the air and the ground - or maybe it would.

CORed · Dec 28, 2008

humber said:
No, it does not have zero KE relative to you. It has zero velocity relative to you.

And if you sqare that zero velocity and multiply it by the mass of the object, what value does that give you for the kinetic energy? Of course, I'm not sure what result multiplication by zero gives in the Humberverse.

humber · Dec 28, 2008

John Freestone said:
It's not trivial if you're on the sharp end of the bullet. But really we just like to force you into admitting the opposite of what you stated earlier to demonstrate what a lot of nonsense you post.

Make is a barrel of oil moving at 100m/s. How much error is your velocity will kill you?

Ok. You mean ROFL, BTW, AFAIK.

All that to tell me you took the meaning, but not that you wrongly attributed the claim of Chief Scientist to me?

humb · Dec 28, 2008

With this talk of frames and the denial of the ground reference, let us not forget that at absolute zero all motion stops. Where will your treadmill be then? An undeniable point of no motion and zero KE. Certainly if you are hit by a bullet at absolute zero in any frame, you would feel the effect, though it will of needs be hotter than that and therefore irrelevant. But it would shatter you like glass nonetheless.

humber · Dec 28, 2008

CORed said:
And if you sqare that zero velocity and multiply it by the mass of the object, what value does that give you for the kinetic energy? Of course, I'm not sure what result multiplication by zero gives in the Humberverse.

Exactly. The real cart has a "real and positive" KE wrt the ground. The translation from windspeed is -ve. So the KE is indeed "positive" wrt ground. It is not so on the treadmill. Keep up, I pointed that out a few posts ago, and much, much earlier too.

Velocity is a vector. A time-variant quantity. It cannot be described by one coordinate. Momentum is a vector, so that applies too.
Schoolboy error.

CORed · Dec 28, 2008

humber said:
I mean that KE is a property of the body. It does not change with perspective.

In the Humberverse, being rear-ended by a car going 60 miles per hour when your car is stationary is the same thing as being rear-ended by a car going 60 milse per hour when you car is going 58 mph in the same direction. Or the opposite direction, for that matter. The Humberverse is a strange place for sure.

humber · Dec 28, 2008

CORed said:
In the Humberverse, being rear-ended by a car going 60 miles per hour when your car is stationary is the same thing as being rear-ended by a car going 60 milse per hour when you car is going 58 mph in the same direction. Or the opposite direction, for that matter. The Humberverse is a strange place for sure.

So things in your world are restricted to your frame. You contradict yourself.
The KE of two bodies may remain the same (relative KE = 0 in your terms)
but gain 1000 fold wrt another

Christian Klippel · Dec 28, 2008

CORed said:
In the Humberverse, being rear-ended by a car going 60 miles per hour when your car is stationary is the same thing as being rear-ended by a car going 60 milse per hour when you car is going 58 mph in the same direction. Or the opposite direction, for that matter. The Humberverse is a strange place for sure.

Hell CORed,

yes, indeed it would in the humberverse. But then, we couldn't have any cars or anything else, since we would have been smashed by the KE of the earth and all objects on it by now. I'm wondering "where did all the KE go" that the my house has, while sitting in it. In the humberverse, it should have smashed me as soon as i put a foot in it.

A strange place that humberverse is, indeed...

Greetings,

Chris

humber · Dec 28, 2008

Christian Klippel said:
Hell CORed,

yes, indeed it would in the humberverse. But then, we couldn't have any cars or anything else, since we would have been smashed by the KE of the earth and all objects on it by now. I'm wondering "where did all the KE go" that the my house has, while sitting in it. In the humberverse, it should have smashed me as soon as i put a foot in it.

A strange place that humberverse is, indeed...

Greetings,

Chris

As the designers at GM or Ford is they agree with you. Go on. Only an e-mail away. Ask you physics teacher.
You have evaded all the questions that I posted to you? Are you afraid to answer them?

Christian Klippel · Dec 28, 2008

humber said:
As the designers at GM or Ford is they agree with you. Go on. Only an e-mail away. Ask you physics teacher.
You have evaded all the questions that I posted to you? Are you afraid to answer them?

You don't answer my questions, that came first, so don't expect me to answer yours, which came later. Play nice and other will play nice as well. Play foul and expect others to foul you as well. It's simple as that.

humber · Dec 28, 2008

Christian Klippel said:
You don't answer questions, so don't expect me to answer yours. Play nice and other will play nice as well. Play foul and expect others to foul you as well. It's simple as that.

I did answer your question. The answer is always something like you are killed or the KE is zero, but I did it again. If you post another question I will answer it, but you must defend it, and not assume you are correct.
If your version of the world is true, then the other questions should be easy.

humber · Dec 28, 2008

Christian Klippel said:
So, you agree now that in that case the bullet's KE would be zero relative to the person moving at the same speed and direction?

Yes, Told you many times. You just won't take yes for an answer.
True, but trivially so.

Wikki? What Wikki? But thanks for showing so clear that you don't even bother to read the links that people give you.

They do not answer the question, but reiterate it. I have quite openly said that I do not look at such link, after having done so. I already know what they will say, but of course they do not say that a treadmill is a frame of reference.

YOUR answer concerning the treadmill. How you support that, without simply saying KE = 0. I know that, but do you think that scientific truth is based upon one answer?

Again, do you agree that there is 0 KE in the bullet in that example?

[/QUOTE]
Yes, now go from there. Spork can't, but perhaps you can.

Originally Posted by Michael C View Post

For a ride-on DDWFTTW cart, what would be the best way to control acceleration and deceleration?

Change the prop's pitch, so that it is more efficient at that speed of travel.
Brakes waste energy, so store it instead. A rotating mass, as used in some "motorless" buses is the idea. When you have more that you need, you can use that energy to drive the propeller or wheels so that the cart accelerates. Given enough storage, and like the bus, the cart's speed can be independent of the wind. YoYo's give no power gain, so will not be effective.

Christian Klippel · Dec 28, 2008

humber said:
Yes, Told you many times. You just won't take yes for an answer.
True, but trivially so.

No, you didn't. You answered:

humber said:
No, it does not have zero KE relative to you. It has zero velocity relative to you.

And later you said:

humber said:
The answer is always something like you are killed or the KE is zero

Now you say yes, it has 0 KE relative to me, if i move at the same speed and direction. So, you have been wrong with your first answer, and tried to wiggle out with your other answer. After all, there can't be "either this or that" at the same time for a single frame of reference. And here the frame of reference is the person moving along with the bullet, at the same speed and direction.

Let's get the basics right first. Do you admit that you have been wrong with your first answer? Yes or no?

humber said:
They do not answer the question, but reiterate it. I have quite openly said that I do not look at such link, after having done so. I already know what they will say, but of course they do not say that a treadmill is a frame of reference.

They clearly say and imply that things like KE and velocity are relative. That in turn implies that there can be many frames of reference, not only one. And in case of the cart on the treadmill, the frame of reference is attached to the cart. It can also be the air, or the belt, but never the ground, because the cart has nothing to do with the ground in this case, only with the belt and the air. But more about that later, after we established some very basic things.

humber said:
YOUR answer concerning the treadmill. How you support that, without simply saying KE = 0. I know that, but do you think that scientific truth is based upon one answer?

Yes, now go from there. Spork can't, but perhaps you can.

What you know or what not is exactly what is in question here. So, again, let's get the basics right first. Once you agree to the well established fact that KE and velocity are relative, and thus there can be different frames of reference, we can continue.

spork · Dec 28, 2008

humber said:
Change the prop's pitch, so that it is more efficient at that speed of travel.

Another brilliant quote from humber. But I wonder how a prop can become any more or less efficient when it is nothing more than a simple flywheel in the humberian universe. Remember when we were going to replace the prop with a flywheel, an old rag, etc. and find that the cart was no less effective?

humber · Dec 28, 2008

spork said:
Another brilliant quote from humber. But I wonder how a prop can become any more or less efficient when it is nothing more than a simple flywheel in the humberian universe. Remember when we were going to replace the prop with a flywheel, an old rag, etc. and find that the cart was no less effective?

Once gain with the straw man. You are a man of limited responses.
Are you saying that changing a prop's pitch will not affect its efficiency?
That with sufficient energy, the cart can not be driven directly by the wheels, even if the prop were to be in a vacuum?

humber · Dec 28, 2008

Christian Klippel said:
No, you didn't. You answered:

And later you said:

Now you say yes, it has 0 KE relative to me, if i move at the same speed and direction. So, you have been wrong with your first answer, and tried to wiggle out with your other answer. After all, there can't be "either this or that" at the same time for a single frame of reference. And here the frame of reference is the person moving along with the bullet, at the same speed and direction.

Let's get the basics right first. Do you admit that you have been wrong with your first answer? Yes or no?

I have told you that many times. It is trivially true. I can take your stance or not, because it remains so from both perspectives. The bullet does not have zero KE. The "relative to you" is what you add.
It is one thing to propose a cartoon world where things do not have real physical characteristics and there is effectively no time, no beginning or end, for the purposes of explanation, but not to then say that is the same as reality. That's the kind of mistake that is so ridiculous you will not find it mentioned via Wikki. Physics texts assume that the reader does not believe in magic, so they don't mention it.

They clearly say and imply that things like KE and velocity are relative. That in turn implies that there can be many frames of reference, not only one. And in case of the cart on the treadmill, the frame of reference is attached to the cart. It can also be the air, or the belt, but never the ground, because the cart has nothing to do with the ground in this case, only with the belt and the air. But more about that later, after we established some very basic things.

They do not support your interpretation. That is the point. If done, it leads to bullet time. If you post someone in support, you should ask the if they agree with the implied consequences, and not simply assume that they do. Spork cannot supply academic support, because they do not agree. It is to laugh...
Show me a link that directly shows that a belt can be a "frame of reference" and supports your conclusions.

In cartoon land, ride a rocket. It may have an engine or not. Without damaging the machine in other ways, cut off the tail. There it is, right "behind" to you, KE = 0. Pick it up, it doesn't weigh so much.
Do think that happens with real rockets?

What you know or what not is exactly what is in question here. So, again, let's get the basics right first. Once you agree to the well established fact that KE and velocity are relative, and thus there can be different frames of reference, we can continue.

No, I only agree that tow objects traveling at the same velocity can be "said" to have zero KE. It is mathematically correct, but had no physical meaning. It's "notional"

Christian Klippel · Dec 28, 2008

humber said:
I have told you that many times. It is trivially true. I can take your stance or not, because it remains so from both perspectives. The bullet does not have zero KE. The "relative to you" is what you add.

Then any further discussion with you is just meaningless.

If you can not agree on basic principles that are used in physics over and over again, there is just no basis for any successful discussion. No, you can not "take my stance or not". You can not bend physics and the used math to solely support your viewpoint, just to make it fit. Two people discussing something have to agree on the terms, definitions and methods which are the basis of what is going to be discussed.

You are not willing to agree on such a simple set. Therefore it's absolutely meaningless to discuss it with you any further. The "relative to me" is not just simply added to make me happy, it simply defines the frame of reference that is used. A windtunnel test for an airplane works because these very principles allow for that. It work's even with the fact that the plane has 0 velocity and thus 0 KE relative to the ground. It would have that in case of a plane really flying. But still the tests work in the tunnel. You want to rewrite physics, go for it. Good luck with that, and hope that your employer will never come across this thread and finds out who you are.

I'm definitely done with you now. You had a second chance, you have choosen to insist on playing foul. I'm not playing your silly game anymore.

humber · Dec 28, 2008

Christian Klippel said:
Then any further discussion with you is just meaningless.

I'm definitely done with you now. You had a second chance, you have choosen to insist on playing foul. I'm not playing your silly game anymore.

None of that stops you from answering the questions, if only to show that you are not avoiding them. They are from your stance.

humb · Dec 28, 2008

spork said:
Actually, not a secret forum, but a forum controlled by someone with a direct interest in DDWFTTW.

Ah yes, a place where you can hide from people with actual knowledge of things, and you can ruminate in your own stew. Don't let in those who know better, they might spoil the fantasy party.

In the strange "frames universe", where KE comes and goes at will, can you step off a falling escalator at the last minute and land unharmed like a daisy? KE = 0 for the escalator in your "frame", right? Or maybe a falling treadmill. Does it matter how fast the treadmill is turning when you hit the ground? Perhaps if you move it fast enough, you will have KE = 0. Or defuse the dynamite. Don't tell that to the ground, which knows better and will smash you like a trout.

Do you know what I give you "frame boys"? Razzberries!

humb · Dec 28, 2008

The answer to all of this is from Einstein. Yes, everything is relative, but also Generally so. The earth with its large mass dominates, and all other "frames" must conform. It is called "frame dragging". Wiki that and see where it leaves your treadmill. In the cosmic dust, no doubt! Or do you deny the validity of Einstein? Even Galileo knew that. You say that the treadmill and the cart and the bullet has KE = 0. "E pur si muove."

humb · Dec 28, 2008

spork said:
Just imagine two of your cotton reels. One is empty and the other has 1000 meters of filament. The prop-shaft has the full spool, and the axle has the empty one. As the axle turns it pulls the filament onto its spool. This can give you a nearly 100% efficient transmission - even with the 90 degree turn that's required. But it has an obvious range limitation, and the possibility of spewing filament everywhere if not designed well.

Yes, and yet another illusion. In addition to the flywheel you will store energy in the elastic string and oscillate around a fictitional speed that will never exceed the negative headwind. Also with the 90 degrees of twist, you will gain by precession from the propeller to the wheels and back? Right hand rule! Only if the cart will run in circles, but perhaps that is why you are counting on the equally fictitional turntable to deploy your aims. But if it travels in a circle, then the average velocity is zero and KE = 0 still, as seen from the ground or ang so-called "frame". Reducto Allah Bsurdum!

spacediver · Dec 28, 2008

humber said:
If I try and construct your world, I need fantastic levels of precision to avoid fatal errors. How do you do that? How do you know the precise level of force and acceleration before the event?
Perhaps you can answer some of the questions that Christian won't.

Utter nonsense. In the construction of the quasi-relative but in reality absolute KE world, precision is also relative. The level of accelerative force does not exist before or after the event, but rather during.

Clive · Dec 28, 2008

Humb or Humber, that is the question...

humb said:
The answer to all of this is from Einstein. Yes, everything is relative, but also Generally so. The earth with its large mass dominates, and all other "frames" must conform. It is called "frame dragging".

Humb, I'd like to hear your response to my post #2744 (on page 69). Humber seems to be having a lot of trouble with it for some reason. I'm not sure why though - it doesn't involve any significant mathematics. Perhaps you can help him out?

In case you haven't read #2744 previously, it involves a thought experiment where we use half the earth as a kind of treadmill. Feel free to add in the appropriate frame dragging calculations if you think they are at all relevant.

humber · Dec 28, 2008

spacediver said:
Utter nonsense. In the construction of the quasi-relative but in reality absolute KE world, precision is also relative. The level of accelerative force does not exist before or after the event, but rather during.

I am afraid not. Einstein's world is about information. Also, your view raises questions of what is computable, and how you manage get the data ahead of time.
Really, I have some magic beans to sell you. Notice though, that when in my palm, they all have a relative KE of zero. All the objects that have the same "velocity" and so the same "frame" no matter where they are, are joined as it were, by an invisible plane.

humber · Dec 28, 2008

Clive said:
Humb or Humber, that is the question...

Humb, I'd like to hear your response to my post #2744 (on page 69). Humber seems to be having a lot of trouble with it for some reason. I'm not sure why though - it doesn't involve any significant mathematics. Perhaps you can help him out?

In case you haven't read #2744 previously, it involves a thought experiment where we use half the earth as a kind of treadmill. Feel free to add in the appropriate frame dragging calculations if you think they are at all relevant.

Again, sorry. I am working on it!

spacediver · Dec 29, 2008

humber said:
I am afraid not. Einstein's world is about information. Also, your view raises questions of what is computable, and how you manage get the data ahead of time.

Yes, information is key. But computability is irrelevant to the temporal frame of reference.

Really, I have some magic beans to sell you. Notice though, that when in my palm, they all have a relative KE of zero. All the objects that have the same "velocity" and so the same "frame" no matter where they are, are joined as it were, by an invisible plane.

But if the beans are poisonous, you'll be fataled before you have a chance to compute the relative KE. So your position is completely flawed.

humber · Dec 29, 2008

spacediver said:
Yes, information is key. But computability is irrelevant to the temporal frame of reference.

Not at all. The computation must be done in situ. You still need to calculate it beforehand, or have some means of doing so in real time. Big problems there.

But if the beans are poisonous, you'll be fataled before you have a chance to compute the relative KE. So your position is completely flawed.

They are not poisonous. Still zero KE, eh? That's all you need to make a new ~~palm~~ frame. I can pass them to you from a treadmill if you like.

John Freestone · Dec 29, 2008

humber said:
Make is a barrel of oil moving at 100m/s. How much error is your velocity will kill you?

There's no need to post drunken non-sequiturs: you're already busted. It's like you asked me "John, if you had my car keys instead of yours, will you be able to get into your car?", and, with a week to think about it, I finally answered "Bananas ripe better is you leave them on the parcel shelf." Are you stoned when you do this?

All that to tell me you took the meaning, but not that you wrongly attributed the claim of Chief Scientist to me?

I said, "Ok.", as in, Ok, I wrongly attributed the claim of Chief Scientist to you. Then I said "It's ROFL" so that you might get it right next time, and "BTW, AFAIK" for a bit of light-hearted banter, y'know?

spacediver · Dec 29, 2008

humber said:
They are not poisonous. Still zero KE, eh? That's all you need to make a new ~~palm~~ frame. I can pass them to you from a treadmill if you like.

The beans' KE is theoretically infinite, but these are just mathematical symbols. Worship of these symbols leads to a profound ignorance of actual reality. I worked at a bean farm, and I've observed how fatal they are. There is no way someone handling beans would be able to perform the mathematical calculation necessary to ascertain the KE for the beans in the appropriate frame of equivalence.

Reality Check · Dec 29, 2008

humb said:
The answer to all of this is from Einstein. Yes, everything is relative, but also Generally so. The earth with its large mass dominates, and all other "frames" must conform. It is called "frame dragging". Wiki that and see where it leaves your treadmill. In the cosmic dust, no doubt! Or do you deny the validity of Einstein? Even Galileo knew that. You say that the treadmill and the cart and the bullet has KE = 0. "E pur si muove."

You should read the Wikipedia article yourself: Frame-dragging

Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that rotating bodies drag spacetime around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging. The rotational frame-dragging effect was first derived from the theory of general relativity in 1918 by the Austrian physicists Josef Lense and Hans Thirring, and is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect.[1][2][3] Lense and Thirring predicted that the rotation of an object would alter space and time, dragging a nearby object out of position compared to the predictions of Newtonian physics. The predicted effect is incredibly small — about one part in a few trillion. In order to detect it, it is necessary to look at a very massive object, or build an instrument that is incredibly sensitive. More generally, the subject of field effects caused by moving matter is known as gravitomagnetism.

We happen not live on a massive rotating black hole and so there is no detectable frame-dragging on Earth.

You may also want to refresh your knowledge of what a frame of reference is: Frame of reference.

Modified · Dec 29, 2008

Reality Check said:
You should read the Wikipedia article yourself: Frame-dragging

Dude...

humber · Dec 29, 2008

spacediver said:
The beans' KE is theoretically infinite, but these are just mathematical symbols. Worship of these symbols leads to a profound ignorance of actual reality. I worked at a bean farm, and I've observed how fatal they are. There is no way someone handling beans would be able to perform the mathematical calculation necessary to ascertain the KE for the beans in the appropriate frame of equivalence.

Then you don't know beans. As you say, worship of symbols leads you to believe that a world where al objects where "KE =0 " can ever be useful.

humber · Dec 29, 2008

Reality Check said:
You should read the Wikipedia article yourself: Frame-dragging

We happen not live on a massive rotating black hole and so there is no detectable frame-dragging on Earth.

You may also want to refresh your knowledge of what a frame of reference is: Frame of reference.

That would all be useful to know when it can be shown that the treadmill is subject to any of the above effects.

humber · Dec 29, 2008

John Freestone said:
There's no need to post drunken non-sequiturs: you're already busted. It's like you asked me "John, if you had my car keys instead of yours, will you be able to get into your car?", and, with a week to think about it, I finally answered "Bananas ripe better is you leave them on the parcel shelf." Are you stoned when you do this?

Flat out. Me, my posse, crack whores, AA dropouts and the guys from Cell Block G (a group of logical positivists).

I said, "Ok.", as in, Ok, I wrongly attributed the claim of Chief Scientist to you. Then I said "It's ROFL" so that you might get it right next time, and "BTW, AFAIK" for a bit of light-hearted banter, y'know?

[/QUOTE]
It was the lack of " light-hearted banter" that fooled me.

sol invictus · Dec 29, 2008

humber said:
Flat out. Me, my posse, crack whores, AA dropouts and the guys from Cell Block G (a group of logical positivists).

Hey humber - how do you like posting in a special thread created just for you and your trolling, entitled "The validity of classical physics"?

Of course you can't post in the other, since anything you said would be off-topic and a violation of the forum rules. It's a bit like being in prison...

humber · Dec 29, 2008

Christian Klippel said:
Hell CORed,

yes, indeed it would in the humberverse. But then, we couldn't have any cars or anything else, since we would have been smashed by the KE of the earth and all objects on it by now. I'm wondering "where did all the KE go" that the my house has, while sitting in it. In the humberverse, it should have smashed me as soon as i put a foot in it.

A strange place that humberverse is, indeed...

Greetings,

Chris

How does a car or house stationary wrt the ground move without accellerating, and so increasing its KE?

Michael C · Dec 29, 2008

humber said:
Do items flowing in a river reach riverspeed?

yes

Why not? If you have a power boat, don't you need constant force and energy to maintain riverspeed?

no

humber · Dec 29, 2008

Michael C said:
yes
No, they do not. Next time, observe that different items move at different speeds. Just like in the wind.

no

Boats must overcome the drag upon the hull, just as a windblown object must overcome the aerodynamic drag.
The fastest river water is somewhat below the surface. In a canoe you cannot travel as fast as even the surface water without paddling.

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

Banned

Philosopher

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Student

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Master Poster

Philosopher

Master Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Graduate Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Philosopher

Student

Student

Student

Thinker

Critical Thinker

Philosopher

Philosopher

Thinker

Philosopher

Muse

Thinker

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Graduate Poster

Philosopher