For those that hate the BNP .......

[BUSHWHACKER]

Yep, and another one has just joined us.

[Dodge]

The plane in the Mythbusters test was moving forwards!

Yes, that's the point. Moving the runway backwards didn't stop the aircraft moving forward, thus is didn't prevent it from taking off.

It was stationary to start, the conveyor moved backwards and the aircraft moved forward in despite of the conveyor because it's engines provide the thrust independently from the ground.

All the conveyor does is make the wheels on the aircraft rotate faster then they would if the belt wasn't moving.

[MattF]

Another angle. What would happen if you strapped the wheels to the ground so that the plane couldn't move forwards and then applied throttle? Working on the supposed conveyor theory, the plane would do nothing. Would it?

[Dodge]

Another angle. What would happen if you strapped the wheels to the ground so that the plane couldn't move forwards and then applied throttle? Working on the supposed conveyor theory, the plane would do nothing. Would it?

It would probably rotate around the axle of the tied wheels and stick it's nose into the ground.

If it were held by all three wheels and the strength of whatever held them down were greater then the thrust of the engine the wheels would stay, if the thrust of the engines were greater then the strength of whatever held the wheels to the aircraft this would break and the aircraft would move forward, although without it's wheels and any alternate support it would be scraping along the ground on it's fuselage and be unlikely to take off.

If the aircraft were strapped to the ground by something other than it's wheels, anchors attached to the fuselage and the ground either side of the conveyor for example, when the conveyor is pulled backwards the aircraft would remain stationary but it's wheels would turn. Replace these ground anchors with a little thrust from the engines and the aircraft will also remain stationary, apply more thrust and the aircraft will move forward.

I'll say it again, an aircraft's engines provide thrust by pushing back the air independently of the ground.

[MattF]

It would probably rotate around the axle of the tied wheels and stick it's nose into the ground.

Exactly my point. The supposed stationary on the conveyor belt theory would suggest that the aircraft would do nothing in the above scenario, and we all know that it wouldn't do nothing.

[BUSHWHACKER]

I'll say it again, an aircraft's engines provide thrust by pushing back the air independently of the ground.

You don't have to keep saying it, we know!

[MattF]

You don't have to keep saying it, we know!

He does take things awfully seriously, doesn't he.

[BUSHWHACKER]

[Dodge]

Exactly my point. The supposed stationary on the conveyor belt theory would suggest that the aircraft would do nothing in the above scenario, and we all know that it wouldn't do nothing.

Tying the wheels to the ground is nothing like putting it on a conveyor.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think an aircraft on a conveyor will remain stationary?

OK, I give up you're obviously pulling my leg, no one is that fücking daft!

[MattF]

Tying the wheels to the ground is nothing like putting it on a conveyor.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think an aircraft on a conveyor will remain stationary?

OK, I give up you're obviously pulling my leg, no one is that fücking daft!

Muppet. I'm giving you a simple way to explain it to the trolls. You are a grouchy tw@t.

[Predictable Bob]

You are a grouchy tw@t.

As my dear departed Mother would say:

Hark at pot calling t'kettle grimy arse !

[dieselboy]

Tying the wheels to the ground is nothing like putting it on a conveyor.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think an aircraft on a conveyor will remain stationary?

OK, I give up you're obviously pulling my leg, no one is that fücking daft!

you are taking it out of context.
the scenario was that what happens if the conveyor provided as much force one way as the jets provided the other way.
the answer is simply the plane would stay at a stationary point when measured with the ground beside it.

now get a real plane, and try and setup the above scenario, even if it were an RC plane, that conveyor belt would probably have to rotate backwards at thousands of miles per hour to match the forward force of just a tiny engine. so it just wouldnt happen.

the difference between real life situations and theory.

speaking of theory, has anyone ever heard of a thing called dark matter? basically, when astronomers look at star systems they can somehow weigh the mass of the planets or whatever. (i think they do this by measuring how much light bends as it travels near it)
but basically they cant explain why the planet weighs many times more than what it should do, so they have made assumptions that there must be "dark matter" surrounding it and they just cant see it.
the amount of dark matter is something rediculous like 90%. surely someone has just cocked up somewhere, or there is another logical explanation.

[Dodge]

Muppet. I'm giving you a simple way to explain it to the trolls. You are a grouchy tw@t.

I'm sorry, my apologies.

Banging my head against the wall for so long has made me go blind.

[dieselboy]

Right then. Simple terms. Does a full bog roll rotate quicker than an almost empty bog roll when you pull three sheets?

im not sure, but i would have thought the almost empty bog roll would rotate quicker when compared with a full bog roll when given the exact same force.
i think this because of the gearing system. eg, like a mountain bike has gears.

[dieselboy]

Take for example the 'moon landing' Apparently man 'did' walk on the moon because they 'proved' it. Do you think they would say otherwise? on American TV?? thats overlooked by the US Government.

i started this conversation friday. im starting to seriously believe no one has ever been to the moon.
nasa is launching a mission to go to the moon soon and for this they have already sent a satellite to the moon, it will be there middle of next week. they have a ton load of experiments and prep work for the moon trip.

surely if they had already been to the moon they would have documented everything and all they would need to do is go back through their documentation. not spend billions sending more stuff up there to do ground research...