Airplane on a Conveyor conundrum

[nero279]

must

[nero279]

make

[nero279]

500

[nero279]

posts.

[nero279]

OK, that short outage was probably a good thing, as I was just about to make a post that was, well, frankly not very polite, and would only have served to vent my frustration.

I had a chance to do some further searching of the net, and I found this site - http://www.airplaneonatreadmill.com/. It basically tackles all aspects of the argument, covers the various misinterpretations of the question, and provides the answers that I have been trying to get across.

Please, read, and understand.

I shall be posting no further on this topic as I now feel there is no more to post. If anyone is still unable to understand, then I fear that they never will.

I shall close this thread sometime around lunchtime.

It has been fun, but enough is enough.

Shit, time travel really is true. I can reply before you posted, maybe it doesn't take off after all

[MattF]

OK, that short outage was probably a good thing, as I was just about to make a post that was, well, frankly not very polite, and would only have served to vent my frustration.

You've actually been taking the thread seriously?

[MattF]

I can reply before you posted

Me too.

[Slugsie]

OK, that short outage was probably a good thing, as I was just about to make a post that was, well, frankly not very polite, and would only have served to vent my frustration.

I had a chance to do some further searching of the net, and I found this site - http://www.airplaneonatreadmill.com/. It basically tackles all aspects of the argument, covers the various misinterpretations of the question, and provides the answers that I have been trying to get across.

Please, read, and understand.

I shall be posting no further on this topic as I now feel there is no more to post. If anyone is still unable to understand, then I fear that they never will.

I shall close this thread sometime around lunchtime.

It has been fun, but enough is enough.

[Slugsie]

OK, that is very bizarre!

[Slugsie]

Oh, and it has now made more than 500 posts, so does that mean you'll let me close it?

[Slugsie]

You've actually been taking the thread seriously?

Well, yes, I'm afraid so.

[Snorkel]

Sorry Slugsie but that website contradicts itself:-

In number '2)' of the interpretation of the question he gives a 100% bet you life answer as 'No'. Then in 'B' of his core facts states 'relative to the ground' that it will take off. Well '2)' states it being 'relative to the ground' - so a contraditon occurs.

The only answer is that given by the very first post (Trev I think), as long as it is a normal airplane and not a jump jet (Harrier). As there's no tail or head wind the air is still in relation to the ground (in relation = linked), air and ground do not move.

During take off the engines are needed to overcome the friction created by the wheels on the ground to gain enough wind speed over the wings so lift can occur to overcome the gravity. Even if a jet engine is burning at full throttle it cannot move forward on a conveyor belt which moves at a speed matching the force created by the engines - and hence cannot get any air passing it's wings. I could stand next to the plane on the ground and talk to the pilot while all this was going on (just as a car does on a rolling road in the garage).

It just is not possible!!! haha I can't believe it's even being discussed lol.
Again - without enough 'lift' the plane cannot overcome gravity! To get lift you need air passing over the wings! In this scenario there is no wind doing that.

[Slugsie]

Sorry Slugsie but that website contradicts itself:-

In number '2)' of the interpretation of the question he gives a 100% bet you life answer as 'No'. Then in 'B' of his core facts states 'relative to the ground' that it will take off. Well '2)' states it being 'relative to the ground' - so a contraditon occurs.

The only answer is that given by the very first post (Trev I think), as long as it is a normal airplane and not a jump jet (Harrier). As there's no tail or head wind the air is still in relation to the ground (in relation = linked), air and ground do not move.

During take off the engines are needed to overcome the friction created by the wheels on the ground to gain enough wind speed over the wings so lift can occur to overcome the gravity. Even if a jet engine is burning at full throttle it cannot move forward on a conveyor belt which moves at a speed matching the force created by the engines - and hence cannot get any air passing it's wings. I could stand next to the plane on the ground and talk to the pilot while all this was going on (just as a car does on a rolling road in the garage).

It just is not possible!!! haha I can't believe it's even being discussed lol.
Again - without enough 'lift' the plane cannot overcome gravity! To get lift you need air passing over the wings! In this scenario there is no wind doing that.

Sorry Snorkel, but you are the one who is wrong. It has already been explained so many times why you are wrong that I'm not going to bother repeating it. If you don't get it by now, you never will.

Oh, there is NO contradiction in #2. The pilot is conspiring to basically not take off, so if he's not trying to then he never will.

[dieselboy]

There is the fundamental flaw in your thinking, the plane moves solely because of the thrust of the engines acting on the body of the aircraft.

The conveyor isn't even relevant until the plane begins to move in anyone's argument, as it's completely stationary relative to anything until the plane moves.

All you have to detemine is whether there's any possible way of a significant transfer of force from the conveyor belt to the body of the plane through it's freewheeling wheels?

thats the thing. if the conveyor ever moved then this would have a force on the airplane. but since the equasion works out that the conveyor never moves at all, then there wont be any force on the plane and it will take off.
its not a flaw in my thinking. its a theory your completely misunderstanding

[dieselboy]

its all very true yoshie.
the macroscopic world ,ie the one we can see,is goverend by newtonian physics,the microscopic worls is just plain weird !!

particles can wink in and out of existence millions of times a second,electrons can not only appear to be but actually can be in two places at the same time.
it can be represented by changing the way you think about time.space and time (spacetime is its name) are inextricably linked,but the time part is not the artificial system man invented(think before clocks were invented,no one knew the time).space bends time in a way 3 dimensions cant adequately explain,and give rise to anomalies in the way we use physical laws to interpret things.

i now have a head ache and am going for a bath,back shortly

yes but how do we know they even exist in the first place.
no one has ever actually seen one. we have only seen effects or reactions that happen to other things because of them. this doesnt mean that they exist.
just because logically this is how it is explained, doesnt mean thats how it is.