Discussion
Galileo, those are all links that were not posted in the thread I started, when I repeatedly asked what question everyone else was referring to. In the 58-page (or however many) thread that just happened, please find the first instance where the problem is stated. It will be a good 38 pages in.
I have plans, as it's Friday. So no, I am not bored.
What about you? Happy reading...
>> Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Friday 26th May 18:19
I have plans, as it's Friday. So no, I am not bored.
What about you? Happy reading...
>> Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Friday 26th May 18:19
Not seen the previous thread, nor fully read this one either 
, however I get the idea its about a plane and a 'perfect equal and oposite' rolling surface under the wheels; Raising hte question would the plane take off 
. If my assumption is wrong then ignore the rest of my post .
Simplistically no it wouldn't take off as it would never acheive forward momentum and hence airflow across its wings. The easiest parallel is a car on a rolling road, mine does around 110mph in 4th but it stays stationary. (yes I appreciate its tied down but thats to overcome the less than perfect set up).
I can't understand why this thread created so much 'I am brighter than tho, so listen to me' attitudes. Surely the whole point of questions like these is to stimulate diner table conversation not start WWIII, or is PH geting a bit like the pub where religion and politics are off limits.
, however I get the idea its about a plane and a 'perfect equal and oposite' rolling surface under the wheels; Raising hte question would the plane take off . If my assumption is wrong then ignore the rest of my post . Simplistically no it wouldn't take off as it would never acheive forward momentum and hence airflow across its wings. The easiest parallel is a car on a rolling road, mine does around 110mph in 4th but it stays stationary
. (yes I appreciate its tied down but thats to overcome the less than perfect set up). I can't understand why this thread created so much 'I am brighter than tho, so listen to me' attitudes. Surely the whole point of questions like these is to stimulate diner table conversation not start WWIII, or is PH geting a bit like the pub where religion and politics are off limits
. trackcar 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 ...
no, simply the conditions can't apply in the real world
can a plane take off if a man on a motorbike rides underneath touching the wing with his outstretched arm?
no, because when it takes off, he's no longer touching it
in reality, yes, it takes off, but he's not touching it anymore
dvs_dave said:
What is it with the latest spat of hypothetical physics questions being posed, which get answered correctly by numerous qualified, experienced, and educated people, only for a select few "confused" posters to swear blind that they are correct despite overwhelming proof and explanations to the contrary?
How on earth do these people get through life refusing to believe others who clearly have considerably greater knowledge and understanding about something than they do, and then have the audacity to say that those in the know are talking rubbish?
I presume that the next time one of these folk get on a plane they'll be able to tell the pilot how to take off without using the engines because they know where to find a giant wind tunnel and moving runway where the laws of physics don't apply
And the reason is.....
Because they can.
HarryW said:Thank you HarryW. That was my understanding of the question too, and consequently, my response as well. trackcar's, and a few others too.
Not seen the previous thread, nor fully read this one either
Simplistically no it wouldn't take off as it would never acheive forward momentum and hence airflow across its wings. The easiest parallel is a car on a rolling road, mine does around 110mph in 4th but it stays stationary
I can't understand why this thread created so much 'I am brighter than tho, so listen to me' attitudes. Surely the whole point of questions like these is to stimulate diner table conversation not start WWIII, or is PH geting a bit like the pub where religion and politics are off limits
>> Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Friday 26th May 19:35
orgasmicliving!! said:
Not seen the previous thread, nor fully read this one either
Simplistically no it wouldn't take off as it would never acheive forward momentum and hence airflow across its wings. The easiest parallel is a car on a rolling road, mine does around 110mph in 4th but it stays stationary
I can't understand why this thread created so much 'I am brighter than tho, so listen to me' attitudes. Surely the whole point of questions like these is to stimulate diner table conversation not start WWIII, or is PH geting a bit like the pub where religion and politics are off limits
and it's still wrong, everyone knows now surely that the car analogy is wrong, cars being wheel driven and all
hugoagogo said:of course the plane can take off, as the man is not preventing it. and if you have ever seen a hand being outstretced, you would know that it can be bent at an angle. so the motorcyclist can continue to touch the wing simply by angling his arm or rising up in the seat, as the plane takes off.
no, simply the conditions can't apply in the real world
can a plane take off if a man on a motorbike rides underneath touching the wing with his outstretched arm?
no, because when it takes off, he's no longer touching it
in reality, yes, it takes off, but he's not touching it anymore
it seems very little is possible in your world. are you in Sheffield? sorry, can't help you, then.
>> Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Friday 26th May 19:38
hugoagogo said:for the eighteen millionth time, it does not matter. but please, can we drop this and agree to disagree? on how we understand the question, the world around us, the blue yonder, and most importantly, the axis of evil as personified by Bush and Blair and Vauxhall.
everyone knows now surely that the car analogy is wrong, cars being wheel driven and all
orgasmicliving!! said:
no, simply the conditions can't apply in the real world
can a plane take off if a man on a motorbike rides underneath touching the wing with his outstretched arm?
no, because when it takes off, he's no longer touching it
in reality, yes, it takes off, but he's not touching it anymore
exactly, and the belt cannot prevent the plane from moving
this is the thing you still cannot understand (and yet try to castigate others for lack of physics knowledge)
and yes, hands can bend etc, thank you for being patronising, in my scenario he is touching it with his fingertips and cannot stretch out any further
orgasmicliving!! said:
everyone knows now surely that the car analogy is wrong, cars being wheel driven and all
but that is the whole of the problem you have, a plane can move no matter what its wheels are doing, spinning fast, slow, backwards forwads in fact even if it's wheels aren't touching the ground believe it or not
orgasmicliving!! said:As soon as you eat the humble pie you promised to eat if you were wrong
everyone knows now surely that the car analogy is wrong, cars being wheel driven and all
orgasmicliving!! said:
everyone knows now surely that the car analogy is wrong, cars being wheel driven and all
I think it would be a shame to see it dropped, myself. I like watching you winding each other up!
Personally I favor the realist approach to analysing this hypothetical problem (the plane takes off). On the other hand I recognise the abstracted opinion (the plane does not take off). I never did like people with their heads up their posteriors.
I personally find it strange that they always seem to stick together, have far too many letters after their names, and generally seem to have a way of making most things worse.
My other motto is as follows;
When in doubt patronise anyone/thing you can!
Edited to add;
>> Edited by dilbert on Friday 26th May 20:01
hugoagogo said:Read the following as slowly as you need to:
no, simply the conditions can't apply in the real world
can a plane take off if a man on a motorbike rides underneath touching the wing with his outstretched arm?
no, because when it takes off, he's no longer touching it
in reality, yes, it takes off, but he's not touching it anymore
exactly, and the belt cannot prevent the plane from moving
this is the thing you still cannot understand (and yet try to castigate others for lack of physics knowledge)
and yes, hands can bend etc, thank you for being patronising, in my scenario he is touching it with his fingertips and cannot stretch out any further
The wheels do not prevent the plane from taking off.
The conveyor belt, moving to exactly match the wheel speeds at all times, results in them rotating, but not moving forward over the conveyor belt.
Think about the centres of the axles.
They don't move forward.
Neither does the big fat plane sitting on them.
If it did, so would the axle centres.
If they did, the wheels would move forward along the conveyor belt.
For them to do so, they would HAVE to be moving faster than the conveyor belt.
That breaks the condition already imposed by the question as understood by trackcar, me, HarryW, and most other normal people who got beyond the simpleton London to Edinburgh problems.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff