Discussion
orgasmicliving!! said:Ahem, I think you'll find the exchange actually went something like this:
I don't understand. He can make up words, but I can't? 
With regards to the airplane thread, the big mistake was not stating the problem when I started it. I assumed everyone was talkign about the same problem. I asked for links to the original thread, and no one posted any. Then, 38 pages in, the other side stated the problem as "A plane is moving..." after which everyone went back to insisting that it must move.
If it says the plane is moving, then it is pretty safe to assume the plane is moving, physics be damned.
What about the engines? Who cares, the plane is moving.
Now, what about the conveyor belt? Who cares, the plane is moving.
What about this? What about that? Whocares? The plane is moving. Your problem states, "The plane is moving..."
Nothing left to debate.
Now, if anyone read my problem, which I do take responsibility for not laying out first as I should have, it says, "A plane is sitting on a conveyor belt..."
Tell me why, for 50-odd pages, people insisted on proving that the plane would move when their version of the problem simply stated it would? All they had to do was point to the statement, and say, look it's a given.
Seems we have a lot of aspiring police officers on here...some even have advanced degrees.
orgasmicliving!! said:The question.
Don't you
The question originally asked said:
A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).
The question is:
Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?
Fantastic. The "Dodgy physics" thread has been hijacked by yet more dodgy physics.dvs_dave said:
Would you care to answer my original question ...?
You do after all have an excellent insight into what I’m taking about. You contribution will be most welcome.
I don't know why people argue in the face of overwhelming evidence. I don't. I stepped out of that thread after it was clear we were talking about two different things.
I do believe in the scientific method. I am not a creationist. I am not close-minded (at least I like to think so). And I do wnat to understand the world around me. However, I don't believe mankind has solved all of nature's riddles.
Does this mean I believe in little green men on Mars? Phwoar, everyone knows they are red and blue with yellow polka dots.
orgasmicliving!! said:
Tell me why, for 50-odd pages, people insisted on proving that the plane would move when their version of the problem simply stated it would? All they had to do was point to the statement, and say, look it's a given.
The whole point of the apparent 'plane/conveyor' paradox is that the statement of the problem is ambiguous. One interpretation is completely realistic and reasonable, and results in the plane taking off. The other is vanishingly far fetched and describes a situation in which the plane is prevented from taking off (without explaining how it is prevented). You came up with a possible (although not very realistic) explanation of how it might be prevented, but that doesn't resolve the paradox. To do that you just need to recognise that it is describing two different scenarios which have different outcomes.
GreenV8S said:Recognised, acknowledged. Over and over again.
The whole point of the apparent 'plane/conveyor' paradox is that the statement of the problem is ambiguous. One interpretation is completely realistic and reasonable, and results in the plane taking off. The other is vanishingly far fetched and describes a situation in which the plane is prevented from taking off (without explaining how it is prevented). You came up with a possible (although not very realistic) explanation of how it might be prevented, but that doesn't resolve the paradox. To do that you just need to recognise that it is describing two different scenarios which have different outcomes.
orgasmicliving!! said:
If it says the plane is moving, then it is pretty safe to assume the plane is moving, physics be damned.
What about the engines? Who cares, the plane is moving.
Now, what about the conveyor belt? Who cares, the plane is moving.
What about this? What about that? Who
Nothing left to debate.
if you say 'the belt and wheel speeds are identical' then it is pretty safe to assume the belt and wheel speeds are identical, which means the plane isn't moving, physics be damned.
What about the engines? Who cares, the belt and wheel speeds are identical. etc etc
one of these scenarios CAN exist in real life, therein lies the difference
>> Edited by hugoagogo on Friday 26th May 17:26
hugoagogo said:
if you say 'the belt and wheel speeds are identical' then it is pretty safe to assume the belt and wheel speeds are identical, which means the plane isn't moving, physics be damned.
What about the engines? Who cares, the belt and wheel speeds are identical. etc etc
one of these scenarios CAN exist in real life, therein lies the difference
And why can't the belt speed matching the wheel speed scenario exist in real life?
What about the conveyor belt. How realistic is that?
hugoagogo said:
And why can't the belt speed matching the wheel speed scenario exist in real life?
it can only match it when the plane doesn't move and because the belt can't physically stop the plane from moving, the instant the plane moves, the conditions are broken
so it can't take off then ...
hugoagogo said:
And why can't the belt speed matching the wheel speed scenario exist in real life?
it can only match it when the plane doesn't move and because the belt can't physically stop the plane from moving, the instant the plane moves, the conditions are broken
Very good, although the belt speed can match the wheel speed for any given wheel speed, theoretically speaking. But, would you agree, then, that while the condition holds, the plane does not move, and therefore, no air goes past its wings, and therefore, it does not experience lift, and therefore, it does not take off.
Honestly, you don't have to answer. I really, really don't want to get into this again.
>> Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Friday 26th May 18:04
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff