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

[Pob]

The answer depends on how the riddle is interpreted.

How about this then...... take a free wheeling toy car, place it on a motorised treadmill. When the treadmill is switched on and in motion the car would move in the direction that the belt was going, though its wheels would be stationary. If you hold the car still in one place the wheels would now rotate.
If you were to push the car in the oposite direction to that of the belt would it stay still, no you are exerting a directional force upon the body of the car, the wheels would turn faster that is all.

[RodLeach]

The plane is moving through the air, not along the ground. Its landing gear is only there to stop the fuselage hitting the ground.

I said that before you.. Im smarter than you!!





An i can spell Laser now!

[dieselboy]

I'm assuming you've been a tad bored with not much to do over the last several days or so?

nope! was my birthday friday and i was recovering yesterday
if you are referring to the bnp, i have read their letters and understand some of what they are about and i think they are trying to do a good job.
i will definately not be voting labour
depending on more campaigns etc i could either be voting BNP, conservative, or green party. it sickens me how this country is becoming and as a nation i do not think we are progressing forward, so any party with a slight inclination of showing that is their intentions will get my vote, and that is my reason.

im sure you have other ideas and you are fully intitled to them.

[dieselboy]

How about this then...... take a free wheeling toy car, place it on a motorised treadmill. When the treadmill is switched on and in motion the car would move in the direction that the belt was going, though its wheels would be stationary. If you hold the car still in one place the wheels would now rotate.
If you were to push the car in the oposite direction to that of the belt would it stay still, no you are exerting a directional force upon the body of the car, the wheels would turn faster that is all.

this is another version of the scenario i used with a suitcase on wheels and the travellator at the airport.

i think its great how we can have a discussion about one thing and all come to different ideas. we all believe we are correct also.

how about this as an alternative -
-those that have not studied physics to a level and are applying real life to come to a conclusion can accept that the plane will take off (because the wheels are only there to hold the plane up, and there are no forces involved in doing that)

-and those that have some level of physics knowledge and know that if it were at all possible to have a conveyor belt at such speed to match that of the forward force of the jet engine can accept that its impossible for the plane to take off because of the forces equalling out.

there we go. and please stop calling me names.

[Dodge]

-and those that have some level of physics knowledge and know that if it were at all possible to have a conveyor belt at such speed to match that of the forward force of the jet engine can accept that its impossible for the plane to take off because of the forces equalling out.

there we go. and please stop calling me names.

Was your level of physics knowledge taught to you by your cat? If it were I'd ignore it, it's obviously retarded. If it were taught to you in school I'd demand my money back.

The conveyor doesn't apply any force to the aircraft full stop, it moves, it turns the wheels of the aircraft, but it does not hold it stationary or move it backwards.

Movement or speed doesn't mean force, you cannot match force to speed. There is nothing to match or cancel out. You have rearward movement from the conveyor and forward thrust from the engines. The force/thrust of the engines pulls/pushes air backwards not the ground or any conveyor it may be on, they only have to counter the friction of the wheel bearings to move the aircraft forward, apart from the normal air and gravity which it overcomes as a matter of course when taking off anyway.

I'm sure no names will be forth coming if you just stop. Say "I don't believe you." if you want, then log off and leave the internet. You've been given numerous examples of how it works, put simply enough for even a total dumbass to understand, so ffs stop talking shite.

[dieselboy]

Was your level of physics knowledge taught to you by your cat? If it were I'd ignore it, it's obviously retarded. If it were taught to you in school I'd demand my money back.

The conveyor doesn't apply any force to the aircraft full stop, it moves, it turns the wheels of the aircraft, but it does not hold it stationary or move it backwards.

Movement or speed doesn't mean force, you cannot match force to speed. There is nothing to match or cancel out. You have rearward movement from the conveyor and forward thrust from the engines. The force/thrust of the engines pulls/pushes air backwards not the ground or any conveyor it may be on, they only have to counter the friction of the wheel bearings to move the aircraft forward, apart from the normal air and gravity which it overcomes as a matter of course when taking off anyway.

I'm sure no names will be forth coming if you just stop. Say "I don't believe you." if you want, then log off and leave the internet. You've been given numerous examples of how it works, put simply enough for even a total dumbass to understand, so ffs stop talking shite.

you're and irritated whisp of a man arn't you.

[Dodge]

you're and irritated whisp of a man arn't you.

Hahahaha

Now who's calling people names?

[Sancho]

Hello everybody. I've been off for a while having a life, and intend to continue to do so.

I drop in for a look around every now and then, and I must say how delighted I am to see two of my favourite subjects in the same thread...

So, as far as the plane goes, Tony, you're right, there is an equal and opposite reaction to the conveyor belt moving, that's what makes the wheels spin. Because the wheels do spin, though, that force has no (or very minimal, as the bearings won't be friction free) effect on the plane's ability to take off. Using you analogy of the suitcase on the travolator, yes you have to hold it to stop it from moving, but that's the effect of the friction. You do not have to apply the equal force of the travolator to hold it still.

On the BNP thing, I agree entirely that everyone should have the right to vote for who they want and I am at a loss as to why people protest against them or say they shouldn't be allowed to win seats. I do think people need to understand that the BNP are violent criminals though, but that's down to educating people better and actually giving them a mainstream party they want to vote for. Votes for fascists indicate a breakdown in a country's political system and a climate of irrational fear - those things need fixing urgently, and people turning to fascism should hopefully give the politicians the kick they need.

Lastly, George, you've had me in stitches the last few days. No-one doubts the existence of the dark ages and they are, of course, called that because we're a bit vague on what went on then. However, the Romans, Normans, Angles, Jutes etc etc did all certainly invade us but you are correct that much of it was a gradual colonisation followed by seizing power, rather than one big fight that we lost. Talk to a Peruvian and they'll probably tell you they were invaded by the Japanese, same with Fiji and Indians. If you think about it, we invaded America, Australia, New Zealand etc but there wasn't really a big battle to start with as there was loads of room and no real issues. Then we decided we wanted the countries for ourselves and killed everyone. It took ages, but I guess that counts as invading. Kind of a matter of semantics I think.

[dieselboy]

welcome back sancho,

did you partake in the london to brighton today by any chance?

[Sancho]

welcome back sancho,

did you partake in the london to brighton today by any chance?

Nope, not been on the bike much recently. A combination of a broken coccyx (result of an ill considered bombie), tendinitis and lethargy has put paid to all that for a while.

[Sancho]

Could I please direct you all to posts 212 and 215. Where I generously disproved my origonal theory by the addition of air pressure.

Firstly the conveyor belt does exert a backward force upon the aircraft up until the point that the aircraft defeats gravity (I'm not talking about spinning wheels, I'm saying gravity). Yes the engines provide a forward force, by displacing air. These two forces can equal out until a certain point when the engine thrust displaces enougth air to create a low pressure zone in front of the aircraft, at that point the air is pulled across the wings producing lift.

If I remember the video clip, there is a point just before the air pressure difference comes into effect where the plane appears stationary.

Seriously, I started thinking like this for ages. Don't worry about the pressure or anything, it's over-complicating the question. The simple thing is that the conveyor belt has almost no relevance to anything. If the plane was switched off (with the brakes off) and you stood on a gantry behind it, you could probably hold it still with the belt going at 20mph or something. With the amount of friction through the wheels, the force of a jet engine is barely going to notice that there's a conveyor belt going underneath. To put it another way, imagine there's a wall directly in front of the plane and the conveyor belt is trying to push the plane forward through the wall. All that's going to happen is that the plane will nudge the wall, then the wheels will spin on the belt whilst the plane stands still. The same fact that means that the plane will stay pretty much still applies when you apply a massive force pushing the plane - the presence of the conveyor belt is insignificant as all it does it make the wheels spin.