QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 15 2005, 01:09 AM)
QUOTE (Sage+Dec 15 2005, 12:53 AM)
What causes the plane to stop is the brakes, spoiler devices to generate more drag and reverse thrust which also produces more drag.
So you mean, if the plane doesn't apply the brakes the plane carries on forever?????
And that the weight of the plane has nothing to do with it..................
And there was me thinking there was this thing called gravity.
You should take this comedy show up to Edinburgh on the Fringe.
You'd go down a storm!
Wrong! The belt cannot repeat CANNOT! apply any significant force to the airplane to counter the thrust of the engines! You guys are so far off in the weeds it's really is unbelievable! You were right! This problem IS trivial!
Krreagan
So why is it that you cannot even take a first step to just talk about the reference frame for the problem, i.e. measuring the speed of the plane realtive to the conveyor? Is that not possible? Or just not possible for you? You insist on jumping immediately to a conslusion without ever looking at the problem from a different reference frame. My post clearly indicates that if you presume that motion of the plane is defined as its forward movement away from a stationary observer (and thus net of any and all other forces that could act upon it) then why wouldn't it take off? No special physics required to explain that and the same definition would get the ground speed of a truck up to the same velocity...just try it. So surely that very definition proves NOTHING of differences between a plane and a truck on a conveyor. If either is moving away from a stationary observer at one speed and the conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction at the same speed, you've already declared that they are MOVING AWAY and will continue to MOVE AWAY. Pointless problem.
By the way, the same relative motion anaysis that I've used to show the plane stationary with speed of the plane measured relative to the belt easily explains why it takes off with the "other definion of speed"...no special physics, motive forces, "freewheeling", wheel bearing friction vs thrust required. It is all in your definition that of the speed of the plane is measured with respect to a stationary observer and NOTHING more.
Again, why are you so reluctant to just take a look at what another reference frame suggests?
The reference frames are truly irrelevant!
Tell me how in what ever reference frame you want, the belt imparts a large enough force on the plane to keep it from flying! That is all that matters! not the reference frame! The engines act on the air (defined as being still)! what the wheels are on, does not matter! period.
Krreagan
Krreagan...have you ever previously worked physics problems concerned with relative motion of objects moving on a moving surface? If you had, you would'nt be saying that reference frames are irrelevant. Newton thought that they were pretty darned important in order to support his work on laws of motion. But hey, guess you think that is unimportant stuff too. You are irrelevant! NEXT!!
om my god gravity varies with movement
Yes. Did no-one tell you?!?!?!?
The plane moves. The plane has wings. The wings generate lift. The lift counters gravity. The plane 'defies' gravity and actually flies. Wowww!!!!
Gravity varies with movement. Welcome to the real world.
Dipshit III,
Please, Please, Please tell me you were kidding!
Krreagan
So you mean, if the plane doesn't apply the brakes the plane carries on forever?????
And that the weight of the plane has nothing to do with it..................
And there was me thinking there was this thing called gravity.
You should take this comedy show up to Edinburgh on the Fringe.
You'd go down a storm!
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 14 2005, 08:30 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 14 2005, 01:03 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 14 2005, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE
Free your mind and please accept that the plane's speed can be measured with respect to the conveyor. Just picture a speedometer on the plane's wheels that tells us the speed that the plane passes over the surface of the conveyor, just like in a car. Match that speed with an opposite conveyor speed and you end up with the plane stationary with respect to an outside observer.
Wrong! The belt cannot repeat CANNOT! apply any significant force to the airplane to counter the thrust of the engines! You guys are so far off in the weeds it's really is unbelievable! You were right! This problem IS trivial!
Krreagan
So why is it that you cannot even take a first step to just talk about the reference frame for the problem, i.e. measuring the speed of the plane realtive to the conveyor? Is that not possible? Or just not possible for you? You insist on jumping immediately to a conslusion without ever looking at the problem from a different reference frame. My post clearly indicates that if you presume that motion of the plane is defined as its forward movement away from a stationary observer (and thus net of any and all other forces that could act upon it) then why wouldn't it take off? No special physics required to explain that and the same definition would get the ground speed of a truck up to the same velocity...just try it. So surely that very definition proves NOTHING of differences between a plane and a truck on a conveyor. If either is moving away from a stationary observer at one speed and the conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction at the same speed, you've already declared that they are MOVING AWAY and will continue to MOVE AWAY. Pointless problem.
By the way, the same relative motion anaysis that I've used to show the plane stationary with speed of the plane measured relative to the belt easily explains why it takes off with the "other definion of speed"...no special physics, motive forces, "freewheeling", wheel bearing friction vs thrust required. It is all in your definition that of the speed of the plane is measured with respect to a stationary observer and NOTHING more.
Again, why are you so reluctant to just take a look at what another reference frame suggests?
The reference frames are truly irrelevant!
Tell me how in what ever reference frame you want, the belt imparts a large enough force on the plane to keep it from flying! That is all that matters! not the reference frame! The engines act on the air (defined as being still)! what the wheels are on, does not matter! period.
Krreagan
Krreagan...have you ever previously worked physics problems concerned with relative motion of objects moving on a moving surface? If you had, you would'nt be saying that reference frames are irrelevant. Newton thought that they were pretty darned important in order to support his work on laws of motion. But hey, guess you think that is unimportant stuff too. You are irrelevant! NEXT!!
QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 14 2005, 06:03 PM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 15 2005, 12:51 AM)
om my god gravity varies with movement
Yes. Did no-one tell you?!?!?!?
The plane moves. The plane has wings. The wings generate lift. The lift counters gravity. The plane 'defies' gravity and actually flies. Wowww!!!!
Gravity varies with movement. Welcome to the real world.
Dipshit III,
Please, Please, Please tell me you were kidding!
Krreagan
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 15 2005, 01:07 AM)
I see what you are saying but it does mean its true. If movement caused a change in gravity every woman I know would be on this conveyor with a scale and that is the weight they would tell every one they weighed.
Ah, but women don't have wings! It's the wings that generate the lift, accompanied by enough speed forwards to get it, of course!!!
Wrong! The belt cannot repeat CANNOT! apply any significant force to the airplane to counter the thrust of the engines! You guys are so far off in the weeds it's really is unbelievable! You were right! This problem IS trivial!
Krreagan
So why is it that you cannot even take a first step to just talk about the reference frame for the problem, i.e. measuring the speed of the plane realtive to the conveyor? Is that not possible? Or just not possible for you? You insist on jumping immediately to a conslusion without ever looking at the problem from a different reference frame. My post clearly indicates that if you presume that motion of the plane is defined as its forward movement away from a stationary observer (and thus net of any and all other forces that could act upon it) then why wouldn't it take off? No special physics required to explain that and the same definition would get the ground speed of a truck up to the same velocity...just try it. So surely that very definition proves NOTHING of differences between a plane and a truck on a conveyor. If either is moving away from a stationary observer at one speed and the conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction at the same speed, you've already declared that they are MOVING AWAY and will continue to MOVE AWAY. Pointless problem.
By the way, the same relative motion anaysis that I've used to show the plane stationary with speed of the plane measured relative to the belt easily explains why it takes off with the "other definion of speed"...no special physics, motive forces, "freewheeling", wheel bearing friction vs thrust required. It is all in your definition that of the speed of the plane is measured with respect to a stationary observer and NOTHING more.
Again, why are you so reluctant to just take a look at what another reference frame suggests?
The reference frames are truly irrelevant!
Tell me how in what ever reference frame you want, the belt imparts a large enough force on the plane to keep it from flying! That is all that matters! not the reference frame! The engines act on the air (defined as being still)! what the wheels are on, does not matter! period.
Krreagan
Krreagan...have you ever previously worked physics problems concerned with relative motion of objects moving on a moving surface? If you had, you would'nt be saying that reference frames are irrelevant. Newton thought that they were pretty darned important in order to support his work on laws of motion. But hey, guess you think that is unimportant stuff too. You are irrelevant! NEXT!!
Dipshit IV,
So you are saying that it will fly when viewed in one reference frame, but will not fly when viewed in the other!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
By the way, You forgot to answer the question! Where is the force coming from again to counter the engines?
Krreagan
PS. My Celestial Mechanics professor at the University of Houston was on the team of scientists who calculated the trajectories for the Apollo missions!
Please, Please, Please tell me you were kidding!
Krreagan
Please don't tell me you don't understand this. It's the very thing that makes flight possible.
Movement. With wings. Against air. Negates the effect of graivty on said object. Making said object weightless. And therefore actually able to fly.
??????????
Ah, but women don't have wings! It's the wings that generate the lift, accompanied by enough speed forwards to get it, of course!!!
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 15 2005, 01:07 AM)
What you mean is as the plane slows the lift decreases and the weight begins to be carried by the wheels and not the wings. Can't argue there.
Yes, that's exactly right!! When the plane first hits the tarmac, it's only just below take-off speed, so it weighs practically nothing. So the tarmac can spin the wheels with pretty much no effect on the plane's velocity.
But as the wheels begin to carry the weight of the plane, they can no longer spin without them having an effect on the plane (i.e. friction!!) - up to the point where the plane can no longer roll at all.
Yes, that's exactly right!! When the plane first hits the tarmac, it's only just below take-off speed, so it weighs practically nothing. So the tarmac can spin the wheels with pretty much no effect on the plane's velocity.
But as the wheels begin to carry the weight of the plane, they can no longer spin without them having an effect on the plane (i.e. friction!!) - up to the point where the plane can no longer roll at all.
Sorry, that was me Kenny G that posted that last post. 
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 14 2005, 06:14 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 14 2005, 08:30 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 14 2005, 01:03 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 14 2005, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE
Free your mind and please accept that the plane's speed can be measured with respect to the conveyor. Just picture a speedometer on the plane's wheels that tells us the speed that the plane passes over the surface of the conveyor, just like in a car. Match that speed with an opposite conveyor speed and you end up with the plane stationary with respect to an outside observer.
Wrong! The belt cannot repeat CANNOT! apply any significant force to the airplane to counter the thrust of the engines! You guys are so far off in the weeds it's really is unbelievable! You were right! This problem IS trivial!
Krreagan
So why is it that you cannot even take a first step to just talk about the reference frame for the problem, i.e. measuring the speed of the plane realtive to the conveyor? Is that not possible? Or just not possible for you? You insist on jumping immediately to a conslusion without ever looking at the problem from a different reference frame. My post clearly indicates that if you presume that motion of the plane is defined as its forward movement away from a stationary observer (and thus net of any and all other forces that could act upon it) then why wouldn't it take off? No special physics required to explain that and the same definition would get the ground speed of a truck up to the same velocity...just try it. So surely that very definition proves NOTHING of differences between a plane and a truck on a conveyor. If either is moving away from a stationary observer at one speed and the conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction at the same speed, you've already declared that they are MOVING AWAY and will continue to MOVE AWAY. Pointless problem.
By the way, the same relative motion anaysis that I've used to show the plane stationary with speed of the plane measured relative to the belt easily explains why it takes off with the "other definion of speed"...no special physics, motive forces, "freewheeling", wheel bearing friction vs thrust required. It is all in your definition that of the speed of the plane is measured with respect to a stationary observer and NOTHING more.
Again, why are you so reluctant to just take a look at what another reference frame suggests?
The reference frames are truly irrelevant!
Tell me how in what ever reference frame you want, the belt imparts a large enough force on the plane to keep it from flying! That is all that matters! not the reference frame! The engines act on the air (defined as being still)! what the wheels are on, does not matter! period.
Krreagan
Krreagan...have you ever previously worked physics problems concerned with relative motion of objects moving on a moving surface? If you had, you would'nt be saying that reference frames are irrelevant. Newton thought that they were pretty darned important in order to support his work on laws of motion. But hey, guess you think that is unimportant stuff too. You are irrelevant! NEXT!!
Dipshit IV,
So you are saying that it will fly when viewed in one reference frame, but will not fly when viewed in the other!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
By the way, You forgot to answer the question! Where is the force coming from again to counter the engines?
Krreagan
PS. My Celestial Mechanics professor at the University of Houston was on the team of scientists who calculated the trajectories for the Apollo missions!
Question: If what the no fly guys say is true and a conveyor runway can bring a landing plane to a halt very quickly and also help a plane take off in much less distance, then why doesn't the navy use this device on aircraft carriers ?
Answer: Because no matter if you spin the conveyor forwards or backwards the plane still takes the same amount of distance to take off or land.
Answer: Because no matter if you spin the conveyor forwards or backwards the plane still takes the same amount of distance to take off or land.
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 01:15 AM)
Please, Please, Please tell me you were kidding!
Krreagan
Please don't tell me you don't understand this. It's the very thing that makes flight possible.
Movement. With wings. Against air. Negates the effect of graivty on said object. Making said object weightless. And therefore actually able to fly.
??????????
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 15 2005, 01:19 AM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 15 2005, 01:07 AM)
I see what you are saying but it does mean its true. If movement caused a change in gravity every woman I know would be on this conveyor with a scale and that is the weight they would tell every one they weighed.
Ah, but women don't have wings! It's the wings that generate the lift, accompanied by enough speed forwards to get it, of course!!!
Ah, but women don't have wings! It's the wings that generate the lift, accompanied by enough speed forwards to get it, of course!!!
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 15 2005, 01:07 AM)
What you mean is as the plane slows the lift decreases and the weight begins to be carried by the wheels and not the wings. Can't argue there.
Yes, that's exactly right!! When the plane first hits the tarmac, it's only just below take-off speed, so it weighs practically nothing. So the tarmac can spin the wheels with pretty much no effect on the plane's velocity.
But as the wheels begin to carry the weight of the plane, they can no longer spin without them having an effect on the plane (i.e. friction!!) - up to the point where the plane can no longer roll at all.
Umm how can the wheels not roll at all?
I think what you are saying is almost true. As long as the plane is moving you have very little friction on them there bearings. Even when the plane is stationary you have very little friction on them bearings. The frictio nof the tires on the ground only makes them roll.
What you do have is more pressure from the tires on the tarmac.
(everseen a big aviation tire up close?? Them big ones are filled with nitrogen and inflated to pressure that would blow you car tires right off!!!.)
This pressure wants to distort the tire and give the tire more surface area, but do to the internal pressures of the tire the tire remains pretty round.
Now ever had to ride a bike with a flat? Pretty hard to pedal. Ever rode a bike with so much pressure in the tires you think they wight pop every time you hit a bump!!. Easy to pedal, but those bumps are hell.
So now we are back to the real point here. If the plane could not over come gravity pinning the wheel to the ground, how does the plane ever move
I realize it can be measured by the speed of the conveyor. Both moving 5mph in opposite directions. While sitting in the pilots seat what will you see? The ground (read conveyor as that is what we are relating the speed to.)passing by at 0 mph?? No, the ground passing by at 2.5mph?? No, the ground passing by at 5mph?? Wrong again, the ground speed will be 10 mph!!!
If it is 5mph then you are saying 5+l-5l=5, or 5+(-5)=5.
Picture X's every 1ft on the conveyor. Count the # of Xs that pass under the plane in a second and you now have a speed relative to the conveyor. You don't need an outside reference. Set the speed of the conveyor to match the number of X's/ses that pass under the plane in one second. If the plane is moving 5 X's or 5 ft/second down the conveyor, then the conveyor speed is -5 ft/sec. 5+(-5) = 0 relative to the outside observer. It really isn't hard.
Yes, that's exactly right!! When the plane first hits the tarmac, it's only just below take-off speed, so it weighs practically nothing. So the tarmac can spin the wheels with pretty much no effect on the plane's velocity.
But as the wheels begin to carry the weight of the plane, they can no longer spin without them having an effect on the plane (i.e. friction!!) - up to the point where the plane can no longer roll at all.
Umm how can the wheels not roll at all?
I think what you are saying is almost true. As long as the plane is moving you have very little friction on them there bearings. Even when the plane is stationary you have very little friction on them bearings. The frictio nof the tires on the ground only makes them roll.
What you do have is more pressure from the tires on the tarmac.
(everseen a big aviation tire up close?? Them big ones are filled with nitrogen and inflated to pressure that would blow you car tires right off!!!.)
This pressure wants to distort the tire and give the tire more surface area, but do to the internal pressures of the tire the tire remains pretty round.
Now ever had to ride a bike with a flat? Pretty hard to pedal. Ever rode a bike with so much pressure in the tires you think they wight pop every time you hit a bump!!. Easy to pedal, but those bumps are hell.
So now we are back to the real point here. If the plane could not over come gravity pinning the wheel to the ground, how does the plane ever move
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 14 2005, 08:10 PM)
QUOTE
Illiac: [...]Free your mind and please accept that the plane's speed can be measured with respect to the conveyor .[...].
I realize it can be measured by the speed of the conveyor. Both moving 5mph in opposite directions. While sitting in the pilots seat what will you see? The ground (read conveyor as that is what we are relating the speed to.)passing by at 0 mph?? No, the ground passing by at 2.5mph?? No, the ground passing by at 5mph?? Wrong again, the ground speed will be 10 mph!!!
If it is 5mph then you are saying 5+l-5l=5, or 5+(-5)=5.
Picture X's every 1ft on the conveyor. Count the # of Xs that pass under the plane in a second and you now have a speed relative to the conveyor. You don't need an outside reference. Set the speed of the conveyor to match the number of X's/ses that pass under the plane in one second. If the plane is moving 5 X's or 5 ft/second down the conveyor, then the conveyor speed is -5 ft/sec. 5+(-5) = 0 relative to the outside observer. It really isn't hard.
QUOTE (swimmer+Dec 14 2005, 07:46 PM)
QUOTE (fargo boyle+Dec 15 2005, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 15 2005, 12:00 AM)
How exactly can the ground stop a plane's engines from moving a plane?
Been to an airport recently? In your world, I can just imagine the pilot explaining to the passengers "Im sorry but we can't take off today - the ground is stopping us from taking off. We've tried everything but the ground just wont let go."
If the ground moves the jet backwards, then that's exactly what it does.
Don't say that the conveyor rotates the wheels, because it doesn't - even the tiniest bit.
Set the plane on the conveyor and start the conveyor going backwards. It does not rotate the wheels. Increase the conveyor's speed to 100mph. It still does not rotate the wheels.
Apply some thust on the plane. THIS moves the wheels. Set the planes' throttle back to zero. Again, the wheels stop rotating.
The conveyor moves the jets backwards, and the jets are trying to go forwards.
Life's too short for this bollox but I'll have one last go...
Imagine this plane is coming in to land.
The runway is a giant conveyer belt - but it's not moving.
Imagine there are two observers - one on the plane and one on the tarmac/runway/conveyer belt.
Imagine neither observer can feel any forces - they can only see what's going on around them.
From the observer on the ground's point of view, he sees a plane come in to land on the runway/conveyer belt.
From the observer on the plane's point of view, he sees a giant conveyer belt/runway fast approaching the underside of the plane.
Both observers agree that the wheels on the plan'e undercarriage start to rotate rapidly as the plane and coveyer belt/runway come in to contact.
So is the plane moving relative to the conveyer belt/runway or is the conveyer belt/runway moving relative to the plane? Which observer is right?
Mull this highly unlikely scenario over for a while...
any lights coming on in the top floor, FargoB?
See what I'm trying to say about the rotation of a plane's wheels if it's standing on a conveyer belt if you switch it on?
Hey, you just made the perfect analogy of droping a plane on a treadmill that's doing 100mph.....ya sure, the wheels would turn.
That's not quite the same as a static runway with a plane, and then the treadway starts to move...in that situation, the plane's wheels would roll the same distance as they would had; the plane was coasting at 5mph over a static runway and the engines were cut....get that Kreagan?
And as to the earlier post on this block:
Well that's easy...just increase the CRF of the contact area!
Imagine a perfectly smooth, perfectly flat, runway of deep desert sand....deep desert sand.
Please, Please, Please tell me you were kidding!
Krreagan
Please don't tell me you don't understand this. It's the very thing that makes flight possible.
Movement. With wings. Against air. Negates the effect of graivty on said object. Making said object weightless. And therefore actually able to fly.
??????????
Dipshit ???
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE DUE TO MOTION.
We may be able to counter it (standup in your chair) ! but it does not change!
Krreagan
Wrong! The belt cannot repeat CANNOT! apply any significant force to the airplane to counter the thrust of the engines! You guys are so far off in the weeds it's really is unbelievable! You were right! This problem IS trivial!
Krreagan
So why is it that you cannot even take a first step to just talk about the reference frame for the problem, i.e. measuring the speed of the plane realtive to the conveyor? Is that not possible? Or just not possible for you? You insist on jumping immediately to a conslusion without ever looking at the problem from a different reference frame. My post clearly indicates that if you presume that motion of the plane is defined as its forward movement away from a stationary observer (and thus net of any and all other forces that could act upon it) then why wouldn't it take off? No special physics required to explain that and the same definition would get the ground speed of a truck up to the same velocity...just try it. So surely that very definition proves NOTHING of differences between a plane and a truck on a conveyor. If either is moving away from a stationary observer at one speed and the conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction at the same speed, you've already declared that they are MOVING AWAY and will continue to MOVE AWAY. Pointless problem.
By the way, the same relative motion anaysis that I've used to show the plane stationary with speed of the plane measured relative to the belt easily explains why it takes off with the "other definion of speed"...no special physics, motive forces, "freewheeling", wheel bearing friction vs thrust required. It is all in your definition that of the speed of the plane is measured with respect to a stationary observer and NOTHING more.
Again, why are you so reluctant to just take a look at what another reference frame suggests?
The reference frames are truly irrelevant!
Tell me how in what ever reference frame you want, the belt imparts a large enough force on the plane to keep it from flying! That is all that matters! not the reference frame! The engines act on the air (defined as being still)! what the wheels are on, does not matter! period.
Krreagan
Krreagan...have you ever previously worked physics problems concerned with relative motion of objects moving on a moving surface? If you had, you would'nt be saying that reference frames are irrelevant. Newton thought that they were pretty darned important in order to support his work on laws of motion. But hey, guess you think that is unimportant stuff too. You are irrelevant! NEXT!!
Dipshit IV,
So you are saying that it will fly when viewed in one reference frame, but will not fly when viewed in the other!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
By the way, You forgot to answer the question! Where is the force coming from again to counter the engines?
Krreagan
PS. My Celestial Mechanics professor at the University of Houston was on the team of scientists who calculated the trajectories for the Apollo missions!
Reference frames are irrelevant.
The crux of the question is "Can a conveyor belt prevent a plane from taking off?"
If you read into the question any more than that then you are turning into a riddle, not a physics problem.
I realize it can be measured by the speed of the conveyor. Both moving 5mph in opposite directions. While sitting in the pilots seat what will you see? The ground (read conveyor as that is what we are relating the speed to.)passing by at 0 mph?? No, the ground passing by at 2.5mph?? No, the ground passing by at 5mph?? Wrong again, the ground speed will be 10 mph!!!
If it is 5mph then you are saying 5+l-5l=5, or 5+(-5)=5.
Picture X's every 1ft on the conveyor. Count the # of Xs that pass under the plane in a second and you now have a speed relative to the conveyor. You don't need an outside reference. Set the speed of the conveyor to match the number of X's/ses that pass under the plane in one second. If the plane is moving 5 X's or 5 ft/second down the conveyor, then the conveyor speed is -5 ft/sec. 5+(-5) = 0 relative to the outside observer. It really isn't hard.
Dipshit IV,
You have no critical thinking skills! You my friend are totally off in the weeds.
Again, please tell me where the force is coming from and how it's transmitted to the plane to keep it from flying! This should be simple! (and you can use any frame of reference you want!)
Krreagan
Therein lies part of the problem! They cannot tell the difference!
Krreagan
I realize it can be measured by the speed of the conveyor. Both moving 5mph in opposite directions. While sitting in the pilots seat what will you see? The ground (read conveyor as that is what we are relating the speed to.)passing by at 0 mph?? No, the ground passing by at 2.5mph?? No, the ground passing by at 5mph?? Wrong again, the ground speed will be 10 mph!!!
If it is 5mph then you are saying 5+l-5l=5, or 5+(-5)=5.
Picture X's every 1ft on the conveyor. Count the # of Xs that pass under the plane in a second and you now have a speed relative to the conveyor. You don't need an outside reference. Set the speed of the conveyor to match the number of X's/ses that pass under the plane in one second. If the plane is moving 5 X's or 5 ft/second down the conveyor, then the conveyor speed is -5 ft/sec. 5+(-5) = 0 relative to the outside observer. It really isn't hard.
Now wait I thought we were looking at this from only the pilots perspective. If so the X's on the runway will only show some thing is moving relative to the pilot. It does not prove the plane and conveyor are moving at the same speed.
I could tie a rope to the front and back of the plane and hook them to tree on each end of the runway. The plane can not move. So now turn on the conveyor at 5mph. Is the plane moving at 5mph??? No but that is what the pilot sees as a ground speed. In reality the plane is not moving at all and the conveyor is moving at 5mph.
I could move the plane at 5 mph and not move the conveyor and the pilot will then truely be moving at 5 mph, but then the speeds have to match right.
If coveyor/plane speed cancel each why does only the plane appear stationary and the coveyor continues to roll at 5 mph to the observer? Because this is the way you want it to happen.
Why doesnt the conveyor stop and the plane roll of the end?? I mean when we add 5+(-5)we get zero. Is this the planes speed when observed by a bystandar or is this the conveyors speed? or both?
Been to an airport recently? In your world, I can just imagine the pilot explaining to the passengers "Im sorry but we can't take off today - the ground is stopping us from taking off. We've tried everything but the ground just wont let go."
If the ground moves the jet backwards, then that's exactly what it does.
Don't say that the conveyor rotates the wheels, because it doesn't - even the tiniest bit.
Set the plane on the conveyor and start the conveyor going backwards. It does not rotate the wheels. Increase the conveyor's speed to 100mph. It still does not rotate the wheels.
Apply some thust on the plane. THIS moves the wheels. Set the planes' throttle back to zero. Again, the wheels stop rotating.
The conveyor moves the jets backwards, and the jets are trying to go forwards.
Life's too short for this bollox but I'll have one last go...
Imagine this plane is coming in to land.
The runway is a giant conveyer belt - but it's not moving.
Imagine there are two observers - one on the plane and one on the tarmac/runway/conveyer belt.
Imagine neither observer can feel any forces - they can only see what's going on around them.
From the observer on the ground's point of view, he sees a plane come in to land on the runway/conveyer belt.
From the observer on the plane's point of view, he sees a giant conveyer belt/runway fast approaching the underside of the plane.
Both observers agree that the wheels on the plan'e undercarriage start to rotate rapidly as the plane and coveyer belt/runway come in to contact.
So is the plane moving relative to the conveyer belt/runway or is the conveyer belt/runway moving relative to the plane? Which observer is right?
Mull this highly unlikely scenario over for a while...
any lights coming on in the top floor, FargoB?
See what I'm trying to say about the rotation of a plane's wheels if it's standing on a conveyer belt if you switch it on?
Hey, you just made the perfect analogy of droping a plane on a treadmill that's doing 100mph.....ya sure, the wheels would turn.
That's not quite the same as a static runway with a plane, and then the treadway starts to move...in that situation, the plane's wheels would roll the same distance as they would had; the plane was coasting at 5mph over a static runway and the engines were cut....get that Kreagan?
And as to the earlier post on this block:
QUOTE
How exactly can the ground stop a plane's engines from moving a plane?
Well that's easy...just increase the CRF of the contact area!
Imagine a perfectly smooth, perfectly flat, runway of deep desert sand....deep desert sand.
QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 14 2005, 06:22 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 01:15 AM)
Please, Please, Please tell me you were kidding!
Krreagan
Please don't tell me you don't understand this. It's the very thing that makes flight possible.
Movement. With wings. Against air. Negates the effect of graivty on said object. Making said object weightless. And therefore actually able to fly.
??????????
Dipshit ???
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE DUE TO MOTION.
We may be able to counter it (standup in your chair) ! but it does not change!
Krreagan
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 15 2005, 01:27 AM)
Umm how can the wheels not roll at all?
I did not say the wheels cannot roll at all! I said the plane is not rolling at all.
Even without brakes, as the plane lands it begins to rest it's weight on the wheels. The more weight it rests, the more friction there is, and the more the plane's velocity slows down in relation to the ground.
The plane will eventually come to a stop. And ot cannot move again until acted on by some force, like the jets - or a conveyor moving underneath it.
I did not say the wheels cannot roll at all! I said the plane is not rolling at all.
Even without brakes, as the plane lands it begins to rest it's weight on the wheels. The more weight it rests, the more friction there is, and the more the plane's velocity slows down in relation to the ground.
The plane will eventually come to a stop. And ot cannot move again until acted on by some force, like the jets - or a conveyor moving underneath it.
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 01:21 AM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 14 2005, 06:14 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 14 2005, 08:30 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 14 2005, 01:03 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 14 2005, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE
Free your mind and please accept that the plane's speed can be measured with respect to the conveyor. Just picture a speedometer on the plane's wheels that tells us the speed that the plane passes over the surface of the conveyor, just like in a car. Match that speed with an opposite conveyor speed and you end up with the plane stationary with respect to an outside observer.
Wrong! The belt cannot repeat CANNOT! apply any significant force to the airplane to counter the thrust of the engines! You guys are so far off in the weeds it's really is unbelievable! You were right! This problem IS trivial!
Krreagan
So why is it that you cannot even take a first step to just talk about the reference frame for the problem, i.e. measuring the speed of the plane realtive to the conveyor? Is that not possible? Or just not possible for you? You insist on jumping immediately to a conslusion without ever looking at the problem from a different reference frame. My post clearly indicates that if you presume that motion of the plane is defined as its forward movement away from a stationary observer (and thus net of any and all other forces that could act upon it) then why wouldn't it take off? No special physics required to explain that and the same definition would get the ground speed of a truck up to the same velocity...just try it. So surely that very definition proves NOTHING of differences between a plane and a truck on a conveyor. If either is moving away from a stationary observer at one speed and the conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction at the same speed, you've already declared that they are MOVING AWAY and will continue to MOVE AWAY. Pointless problem.
By the way, the same relative motion anaysis that I've used to show the plane stationary with speed of the plane measured relative to the belt easily explains why it takes off with the "other definion of speed"...no special physics, motive forces, "freewheeling", wheel bearing friction vs thrust required. It is all in your definition that of the speed of the plane is measured with respect to a stationary observer and NOTHING more.
Again, why are you so reluctant to just take a look at what another reference frame suggests?
The reference frames are truly irrelevant!
Tell me how in what ever reference frame you want, the belt imparts a large enough force on the plane to keep it from flying! That is all that matters! not the reference frame! The engines act on the air (defined as being still)! what the wheels are on, does not matter! period.
Krreagan
Krreagan...have you ever previously worked physics problems concerned with relative motion of objects moving on a moving surface? If you had, you would'nt be saying that reference frames are irrelevant. Newton thought that they were pretty darned important in order to support his work on laws of motion. But hey, guess you think that is unimportant stuff too. You are irrelevant! NEXT!!
Dipshit IV,
So you are saying that it will fly when viewed in one reference frame, but will not fly when viewed in the other!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
By the way, You forgot to answer the question! Where is the force coming from again to counter the engines?
Krreagan
PS. My Celestial Mechanics professor at the University of Houston was on the team of scientists who calculated the trajectories for the Apollo missions!
Reference frames are irrelevant.
The crux of the question is "Can a conveyor belt prevent a plane from taking off?"
If you read into the question any more than that then you are turning into a riddle, not a physics problem.
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 14 2005, 06:28 PM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 14 2005, 08:10 PM)
QUOTE
Illiac: [...]Free your mind and please accept that the plane's speed can be measured with respect to the conveyor .[...].
I realize it can be measured by the speed of the conveyor. Both moving 5mph in opposite directions. While sitting in the pilots seat what will you see? The ground (read conveyor as that is what we are relating the speed to.)passing by at 0 mph?? No, the ground passing by at 2.5mph?? No, the ground passing by at 5mph?? Wrong again, the ground speed will be 10 mph!!!
If it is 5mph then you are saying 5+l-5l=5, or 5+(-5)=5.
Picture X's every 1ft on the conveyor. Count the # of Xs that pass under the plane in a second and you now have a speed relative to the conveyor. You don't need an outside reference. Set the speed of the conveyor to match the number of X's/ses that pass under the plane in one second. If the plane is moving 5 X's or 5 ft/second down the conveyor, then the conveyor speed is -5 ft/sec. 5+(-5) = 0 relative to the outside observer. It really isn't hard.
Dipshit IV,
You have no critical thinking skills! You my friend are totally off in the weeds.
Again, please tell me where the force is coming from and how it's transmitted to the plane to keep it from flying! This should be simple! (and you can use any frame of reference you want!)
Krreagan
QUOTE
If you read into the question any more than that then you are turning into a riddle, not a physics problem.
Therein lies part of the problem! They cannot tell the difference!
Krreagan
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 15 2005, 01:28 AM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 14 2005, 08:10 PM)
QUOTE
Illiac: [...]Free your mind and please accept that the plane's speed can be measured with respect to the conveyor .[...].
I realize it can be measured by the speed of the conveyor. Both moving 5mph in opposite directions. While sitting in the pilots seat what will you see? The ground (read conveyor as that is what we are relating the speed to.)passing by at 0 mph?? No, the ground passing by at 2.5mph?? No, the ground passing by at 5mph?? Wrong again, the ground speed will be 10 mph!!!
If it is 5mph then you are saying 5+l-5l=5, or 5+(-5)=5.
Picture X's every 1ft on the conveyor. Count the # of Xs that pass under the plane in a second and you now have a speed relative to the conveyor. You don't need an outside reference. Set the speed of the conveyor to match the number of X's/ses that pass under the plane in one second. If the plane is moving 5 X's or 5 ft/second down the conveyor, then the conveyor speed is -5 ft/sec. 5+(-5) = 0 relative to the outside observer. It really isn't hard.
Now wait I thought we were looking at this from only the pilots perspective. If so the X's on the runway will only show some thing is moving relative to the pilot. It does not prove the plane and conveyor are moving at the same speed.
I could tie a rope to the front and back of the plane and hook them to tree on each end of the runway. The plane can not move. So now turn on the conveyor at 5mph. Is the plane moving at 5mph??? No but that is what the pilot sees as a ground speed. In reality the plane is not moving at all and the conveyor is moving at 5mph.
I could move the plane at 5 mph and not move the conveyor and the pilot will then truely be moving at 5 mph, but then the speeds have to match right.
If coveyor/plane speed cancel each why does only the plane appear stationary and the coveyor continues to roll at 5 mph to the observer? Because this is the way you want it to happen.
Why doesnt the conveyor stop and the plane roll of the end?? I mean when we add 5+(-5)we get zero. Is this the planes speed when observed by a bystandar or is this the conveyors speed? or both?
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 01:33 AM)
Dipshit ???
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE DUE TO MOTION.
We may be able to counter it (standup in your chair) ! but it does not change!
Krreagan
You are unequivocally wrong.
What happens as you begin to move into outer-space? Why are satellites sitting in our orbit?
The further you move away from the object that is pulling you down/towards it, the less it's gravitational pull has an effect on you.
Gravtiy DOES CHANGE WITH MOTION. DipSHIT!!
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE DUE TO MOTION.
We may be able to counter it (standup in your chair) ! but it does not change!
Krreagan
You are unequivocally wrong.
What happens as you begin to move into outer-space? Why are satellites sitting in our orbit?
The further you move away from the object that is pulling you down/towards it, the less it's gravitational pull has an effect on you.
Gravtiy DOES CHANGE WITH MOTION. DipSHIT!!
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 14 2005, 07:54 PM)
QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 14 2005, 05:40 PM)
QUOTE (Sage+Dec 15 2005, 12:31 AM)
In Alt5p's world the planes stop instantaneously on contact with the runway. Collect your innards from the cockpit as you disembark.
No, it's the plane's contact with the runway that causes it to stop.
The slower it gets, the less the wheels spin because the more the plane 'pins the wheels down' and 'pushes' them into the ground.
At zero speed, the ground is spinning the wheels at zero mph, because now you cannot move the wheels without moving the plane. He's absolutely right.
With no 'lift' on the plane, it's weight remains the same. You cannot move the wheels without moving the plane.
Dipshit III,
No, the wheels rotate because there is a difference in the relative velocities of the plane and runway and the wheels are the point of contact between the two objects. The wheels go round and round because that is the way they are designed to work! The wheel was invented many thousands of years ago. you might want to look it up on wikipedia!
The friction because of the planes weight is more or less constant with modern bearings!
Krreagan
Someone needs to read links...
How Tires Work
EVERYBODY! Your incorrect use of terminology just points to your ignorance of the physical concepts involved and adds to the confusion!
Please use the correct terminology!
Krreagan
Therein lies part of the problem! They cannot tell the difference!
Krreagan
Oops, typo
"If you read into the question any more than that then you are turning the question (not you,well...maybe) into a riddle, not a physics problem.
No, it's the plane's contact with the runway that causes it to stop.
The slower it gets, the less the wheels spin because the more the plane 'pins the wheels down' and 'pushes' them into the ground.
At zero speed, the ground is spinning the wheels at zero mph, because now you cannot move the wheels without moving the plane. He's absolutely right.
With no 'lift' on the plane, it's weight remains the same. You cannot move the wheels without moving the plane.
Dipshit III,
No, the wheels rotate because there is a difference in the relative velocities of the plane and runway and the wheels are the point of contact between the two objects. The wheels go round and round because that is the way they are designed to work! The wheel was invented many thousands of years ago. you might want to look it up on wikipedia!
The friction because of the planes weight is more or less constant with modern bearings!
Krreagan
Someone needs to read links...
How Tires Work
QUOTE
From these calculations you can see that the three things that affect how much force it takes to push the tire down the road (and therefore how much heat builds up in the tires) are the weight on the tires, the speed you drive and the CRF (which increases if pressure is decreased).
QUOTE
I did not say the wheels cannot roll at all! I said the plane is not rolling at all.
EVERYBODY! Your incorrect use of terminology just points to your ignorance of the physical concepts involved and adds to the confusion!
Please use the correct terminology!
Krreagan
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 01:40 AM)
QUOTE
If you read into the question any more than that then you are turning into a riddle, not a physics problem.
Therein lies part of the problem! They cannot tell the difference!
Krreagan
Oops, typo
"If you read into the question any more than that then you are turning the question (not you,well...maybe) into a riddle, not a physics problem.
QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 14 2005, 06:44 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 01:33 AM)
Dipshit ???
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE DUE TO MOTION.
We may be able to counter it (standup in your chair) ! but it does not change!
Krreagan
You are unequivocally wrong.
What happens as you begin to move into outer-space? Why are satellites sitting in our orbit?
The further you move away from the object that is pulling you down/towards it, the less it's gravitational pull has an effect on you.
Gravtiy DOES CHANGE WITH MOTION. DipSHIT!!
Dipshit AND brainless!
Gravity does not change with motion! It changes with position! These are different concepts in physics. (Oh I forgot you don't know physics).
This just confirms my last post you cannot even display the simplest knowledge of physics and the concepts contained therein!
Krreagan
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE DUE TO MOTION.
We may be able to counter it (standup in your chair) ! but it does not change!
Krreagan
You are unequivocally wrong.
What happens as you begin to move into outer-space? Why are satellites sitting in our orbit?
The further you move away from the object that is pulling you down/towards it, the less it's gravitational pull has an effect on you.
Gravtiy DOES CHANGE WITH MOTION. DipSHIT!!
Dipshit AND brainless!
Gravity does not change with motion! It changes with position! These are different concepts in physics. (Oh I forgot you don't know physics).
This just confirms my last post you cannot even display the simplest knowledge of physics and the concepts contained therein!
Krreagan
QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 15 2005, 01:44 AM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 01:33 AM)
Dipshit ???
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE DUE TO MOTION.
We may be able to counter it (standup in your chair) ! but it does not change!
Krreagan
You are unequivocally wrong.
What happens as you begin to move into outer-space? Why are satellites sitting in our orbit?
The further you move away from the object that is pulling you down/towards it, the less it's gravitational pull has an effect on you.
Gravtiy DOES CHANGE WITH MOTION. DipSHIT!!
Don't bother Krreagan. let it go
Kenny G,
Back to the problem, tell us how a conveyor can prevent a plane from taking off.
I realize it can be measured by the speed of the conveyor. Both moving 5mph in opposite directions. While sitting in the pilots seat what will you see? The ground (read conveyor as that is what we are relating the speed to.)passing by at 0 mph?? No, the ground passing by at 2.5mph?? No, the ground passing by at 5mph?? Wrong again, the ground speed will be 10 mph!!!
If it is 5mph then you are saying 5+l-5l=5, or 5+(-5)=5.
Picture X's every 1ft on the conveyor. Count the # of Xs that pass under the plane in a second and you now have a speed relative to the conveyor. You don't need an outside reference. Set the speed of the conveyor to match the number of X's/ses that pass under the plane in one second. If the plane is moving 5 X's or 5 ft/second down the conveyor, then the conveyor speed is -5 ft/sec. 5+(-5) = 0 relative to the outside observer. It really isn't hard.
Illiac...
So you determine the speed of the plane with x's on the conveyor.....
How did you determine the speed of the conveyor? I mean...say that again? Or rather...how do you determine the speed of the plane? say what? how many X's equals a give distance ? Oh ya!! the plane doesn't move.......but the conveyor DOES......AH! I see how the plane can stand still...even though the problem says it is MOVING!!!!!!!!
Therein lies part of the problem! They cannot tell the difference!
Krreagan
Oops, typo
"If you read into the question any more than that then you are turning the question (not you,well...maybe) into a riddle, not a physics problem.
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE DUE TO MOTION.
We may be able to counter it (standup in your chair) ! but it does not change!
Krreagan
You are unequivocally wrong.
What happens as you begin to move into outer-space? Why are satellites sitting in our orbit?
The further you move away from the object that is pulling you down/towards it, the less it's gravitational pull has an effect on you.
Gravtiy DOES CHANGE WITH MOTION. DipSHIT!!
Don't bother Krreagan. let it go
Kenny G,
Back to the problem, tell us how a conveyor can prevent a plane from taking off.
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 15 2005, 01:28 AM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 14 2005, 08:10 PM)
QUOTE
Illiac: [...]Free your mind and please accept that the plane's speed can be measured with respect to the conveyor .[...].
I realize it can be measured by the speed of the conveyor. Both moving 5mph in opposite directions. While sitting in the pilots seat what will you see? The ground (read conveyor as that is what we are relating the speed to.)passing by at 0 mph?? No, the ground passing by at 2.5mph?? No, the ground passing by at 5mph?? Wrong again, the ground speed will be 10 mph!!!
If it is 5mph then you are saying 5+l-5l=5, or 5+(-5)=5.
Picture X's every 1ft on the conveyor. Count the # of Xs that pass under the plane in a second and you now have a speed relative to the conveyor. You don't need an outside reference. Set the speed of the conveyor to match the number of X's/ses that pass under the plane in one second. If the plane is moving 5 X's or 5 ft/second down the conveyor, then the conveyor speed is -5 ft/sec. 5+(-5) = 0 relative to the outside observer. It really isn't hard.
Illiac...
So you determine the speed of the plane with x's on the conveyor.....
How did you determine the speed of the conveyor? I mean...say that again? Or rather...how do you determine the speed of the plane? say what? how many X's equals a give distance ? Oh ya!! the plane doesn't move.......but the conveyor DOES......AH! I see how the plane can stand still...even though the problem says it is MOVING!!!!!!!!
QUOTE (isfn+Dec 14 2005, 06:47 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 01:40 AM)
QUOTE
If you read into the question any more than that then you are turning into a riddle, not a physics problem.
Therein lies part of the problem! They cannot tell the difference!
Krreagan
Oops, typo
"If you read into the question any more than that then you are turning the question (not you,well...maybe) into a riddle, not a physics problem.
QUOTE (Atl5p+Dec 15 2005, 01:31 AM)
QUOTE (swimmer+Dec 14 2005, 07:46 PM)
QUOTE (fargo boyle+Dec 15 2005, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 15 2005, 12:00 AM)
How exactly can the ground stop a plane's engines from moving a plane?
Been to an airport recently? In your world, I can just imagine the pilot explaining to the passengers "Im sorry but we can't take off today - the ground is stopping us from taking off. We've tried everything but the ground just wont let go."
If the ground moves the jet backwards, then that's exactly what it does.
Don't say that the conveyor rotates the wheels, because it doesn't - even the tiniest bit.
Set the plane on the conveyor and start the conveyor going backwards. It does not rotate the wheels. Increase the conveyor's speed to 100mph. It still does not rotate the wheels.
Apply some thust on the plane. THIS moves the wheels. Set the planes' throttle back to zero. Again, the wheels stop rotating.
The conveyor moves the jets backwards, and the jets are trying to go forwards.
Life's too short for this bollox but I'll have one last go...
Imagine this plane is coming in to land.
The runway is a giant conveyer belt - but it's not moving.
Imagine there are two observers - one on the plane and one on the tarmac/runway/conveyer belt.
Imagine neither observer can feel any forces - they can only see what's going on around them.
From the observer on the ground's point of view, he sees a plane come in to land on the runway/conveyer belt.
From the observer on the plane's point of view, he sees a giant conveyer belt/runway fast approaching the underside of the plane.
Both observers agree that the wheels on the plan'e undercarriage start to rotate rapidly as the plane and coveyer belt/runway come in to contact.
So is the plane moving relative to the conveyer belt/runway or is the conveyer belt/runway moving relative to the plane? Which observer is right?
Mull this highly unlikely scenario over for a while...
any lights coming on in the top floor, FargoB?
See what I'm trying to say about the rotation of a plane's wheels if it's standing on a conveyer belt if you switch it on?
Hey, you just made the perfect analogy of droping a plane on a treadmill that's doing 100mph.....ya sure, the wheels would turn.
That's not quite the same as a static runway with a plane, and then the treadway starts to move...in that situation, the plane's wheels would roll the same distance as they would had; the plane was coasting at 5mph over a static runway and the engines were cut....get that Kreagan?
And as to the earlier post on this block:
Well that's easy...just increase the CRF of the contact area!
Imagine a perfectly smooth, perfectly flat, runway of deep desert sand....deep desert sand.
Aaaaarrgh! Why the hell am i bothering?
That's the point Atl5p - IF you increase the friction between ground and plane ... then the ground will influence the plane's ability to move and take off.
That's why airports tend to have flat and smooth runways and planes have wheels on their undercarriages - to MINIMISE THE FRICTION
Whatever that friction happens to be in the tyres and bearings of the wheels - IN REAL LIFE - the amount of friction is far too small to prevent planes from taking off. That is an empirical fact. Go visit an airport.
THEREFORE - it doesn't matter a hoot what speed this hypothetical conveyer belt is going at. The friction between the conveyer belt and the plane is too low for it to prevent the plane taking off.
CAN'T YOU SEE THAT???
I realize it can be measured by the speed of the conveyor. Both moving 5mph in opposite directions. While sitting in the pilots seat what will you see? The ground (read conveyor as that is what we are relating the speed to.)passing by at 0 mph?? No, the ground passing by at 2.5mph?? No, the ground passing by at 5mph?? Wrong again, the ground speed will be 10 mph!!!
If it is 5mph then you are saying 5+l-5l=5, or 5+(-5)=5.
Picture X's every 1ft on the conveyor. Count the # of Xs that pass under the plane in a second and you now have a speed relative to the conveyor. You don't need an outside reference. Set the speed of the conveyor to match the number of X's/ses that pass under the plane in one second. If the plane is moving 5 X's or 5 ft/second down the conveyor, then the conveyor speed is -5 ft/sec. 5+(-5) = 0 relative to the outside observer. It really isn't hard.
If you have 5X's passing under the plane due to the planes movement you then need to add 5 more X's to play the roll of the conveyors speed so now you have 10 X's passing under the plane per second.
And again I ask, if the plane moves at +5mph and the conveyor moves at -5mph, when they come together they cancel each other out right
(+5)+(-5)=0 relative speed to the observer. You stat at this opoint the plane will not be moving to the observer.
So if we call the conveyor +5mph and the plane -5mph then
(+5)+(-5)=0 relative to the observer. Now the conveyor has stopped moving relative to the observer and the plane just rolled off down the runway.
What does the "0" represent and how do you determin that?
Been to an airport recently? In your world, I can just imagine the pilot explaining to the passengers "Im sorry but we can't take off today - the ground is stopping us from taking off. We've tried everything but the ground just wont let go."
If the ground moves the jet backwards, then that's exactly what it does.
Don't say that the conveyor rotates the wheels, because it doesn't - even the tiniest bit.
Set the plane on the conveyor and start the conveyor going backwards. It does not rotate the wheels. Increase the conveyor's speed to 100mph. It still does not rotate the wheels.
Apply some thust on the plane. THIS moves the wheels. Set the planes' throttle back to zero. Again, the wheels stop rotating.
The conveyor moves the jets backwards, and the jets are trying to go forwards.
Life's too short for this bollox but I'll have one last go...
Imagine this plane is coming in to land.
The runway is a giant conveyer belt - but it's not moving.
Imagine there are two observers - one on the plane and one on the tarmac/runway/conveyer belt.
Imagine neither observer can feel any forces - they can only see what's going on around them.
From the observer on the ground's point of view, he sees a plane come in to land on the runway/conveyer belt.
From the observer on the plane's point of view, he sees a giant conveyer belt/runway fast approaching the underside of the plane.
Both observers agree that the wheels on the plan'e undercarriage start to rotate rapidly as the plane and coveyer belt/runway come in to contact.
So is the plane moving relative to the conveyer belt/runway or is the conveyer belt/runway moving relative to the plane? Which observer is right?
Mull this highly unlikely scenario over for a while...
any lights coming on in the top floor, FargoB?
See what I'm trying to say about the rotation of a plane's wheels if it's standing on a conveyer belt if you switch it on?
Hey, you just made the perfect analogy of droping a plane on a treadmill that's doing 100mph.....ya sure, the wheels would turn.
That's not quite the same as a static runway with a plane, and then the treadway starts to move...in that situation, the plane's wheels would roll the same distance as they would had; the plane was coasting at 5mph over a static runway and the engines were cut....get that Kreagan?
And as to the earlier post on this block:
QUOTE
How exactly can the ground stop a plane's engines from moving a plane?
Well that's easy...just increase the CRF of the contact area!
Imagine a perfectly smooth, perfectly flat, runway of deep desert sand....deep desert sand.
Aaaaarrgh! Why the hell am i bothering?
That's the point Atl5p - IF you increase the friction between ground and plane ... then the ground will influence the plane's ability to move and take off.
That's why airports tend to have flat and smooth runways and planes have wheels on their undercarriages - to MINIMISE THE FRICTION
Whatever that friction happens to be in the tyres and bearings of the wheels - IN REAL LIFE - the amount of friction is far too small to prevent planes from taking off. That is an empirical fact. Go visit an airport.
THEREFORE - it doesn't matter a hoot what speed this hypothetical conveyer belt is going at. The friction between the conveyer belt and the plane is too low for it to prevent the plane taking off.
CAN'T YOU SEE THAT???
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 15 2005, 01:28 AM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 14 2005, 08:10 PM)
QUOTE
Illiac: [...]Free your mind and please accept that the plane's speed can be measured with respect to the conveyor .[...].
I realize it can be measured by the speed of the conveyor. Both moving 5mph in opposite directions. While sitting in the pilots seat what will you see? The ground (read conveyor as that is what we are relating the speed to.)passing by at 0 mph?? No, the ground passing by at 2.5mph?? No, the ground passing by at 5mph?? Wrong again, the ground speed will be 10 mph!!!
If it is 5mph then you are saying 5+l-5l=5, or 5+(-5)=5.
Picture X's every 1ft on the conveyor. Count the # of Xs that pass under the plane in a second and you now have a speed relative to the conveyor. You don't need an outside reference. Set the speed of the conveyor to match the number of X's/ses that pass under the plane in one second. If the plane is moving 5 X's or 5 ft/second down the conveyor, then the conveyor speed is -5 ft/sec. 5+(-5) = 0 relative to the outside observer. It really isn't hard.
If you have 5X's passing under the plane due to the planes movement you then need to add 5 more X's to play the roll of the conveyors speed so now you have 10 X's passing under the plane per second.
And again I ask, if the plane moves at +5mph and the conveyor moves at -5mph, when they come together they cancel each other out right
(+5)+(-5)=0 relative speed to the observer. You stat at this opoint the plane will not be moving to the observer.
So if we call the conveyor +5mph and the plane -5mph then
(+5)+(-5)=0 relative to the observer. Now the conveyor has stopped moving relative to the observer and the plane just rolled off down the runway.
What does the "0" represent and how do you determin that?
QUOTE (Atl5p+Dec 14 2005, 06:44 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 14 2005, 07:54 PM)
QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 14 2005, 05:40 PM)
QUOTE (Sage+Dec 15 2005, 12:31 AM)
In Alt5p's world the planes stop instantaneously on contact with the runway. Collect your innards from the cockpit as you disembark.
No, it's the plane's contact with the runway that causes it to stop.
The slower it gets, the less the wheels spin because the more the plane 'pins the wheels down' and 'pushes' them into the ground.
At zero speed, the ground is spinning the wheels at zero mph, because now you cannot move the wheels without moving the plane. He's absolutely right.
With no 'lift' on the plane, it's weight remains the same. You cannot move the wheels without moving the plane.
Dipshit III,
No, the wheels rotate because there is a difference in the relative velocities of the plane and runway and the wheels are the point of contact between the two objects. The wheels go round and round because that is the way they are designed to work! The wheel was invented many thousands of years ago. you might want to look it up on wikipedia!
The friction because of the planes weight is more or less constant with modern bearings!
Krreagan
Someone needs to read links...
How Tires Work
Dipshit,
The atmospheric pressure at sea level will change when your head implodes due to the vacuum therein, but the resulting atmospheric pressure change will not change the result of this discussion!
In plain english! the amount is not worth worrying about.
Krreagan
No, it's the plane's contact with the runway that causes it to stop.
The slower it gets, the less the wheels spin because the more the plane 'pins the wheels down' and 'pushes' them into the ground.
At zero speed, the ground is spinning the wheels at zero mph, because now you cannot move the wheels without moving the plane. He's absolutely right.
With no 'lift' on the plane, it's weight remains the same. You cannot move the wheels without moving the plane.
Dipshit III,
No, the wheels rotate because there is a difference in the relative velocities of the plane and runway and the wheels are the point of contact between the two objects. The wheels go round and round because that is the way they are designed to work! The wheel was invented many thousands of years ago. you might want to look it up on wikipedia!
The friction because of the planes weight is more or less constant with modern bearings!
Krreagan
Someone needs to read links...
How Tires Work
QUOTE
From these calculations you can see that the three things that affect how much force it takes to push the tire down the road (and therefore how much heat builds up in the tires) are the weight on the tires, the speed you drive and the CRF (which increases if pressure is decreased).
Dipshit,
The atmospheric pressure at sea level will change when your head implodes due to the vacuum therein, but the resulting atmospheric pressure change will not change the result of this discussion!
In plain english! the amount is not worth worrying about.
Krreagan
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 01:50 AM)
QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 14 2005, 06:44 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 01:33 AM)
Dipshit ???
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE DUE TO MOTION.
We may be able to counter it (standup in your chair) ! but it does not change!
Krreagan
You are unequivocally wrong.
What happens as you begin to move into outer-space? Why are satellites sitting in our orbit?
The further you move away from the object that is pulling you down/towards it, the less it's gravitational pull has an effect on you.
Gravtiy DOES CHANGE WITH MOTION. DipSHIT!!
Dipshit AND brainless!
Gravity does not change with motion! It changes with position! These are different concepts in physics. (Oh I forgot you don't know physics).
This just confirms my last post you cannot even display the simplest knowledge of physics and the concepts contained therein!
Krreagan
Mebe KennyG's thinking about what would happen as the plane approached the speed of light
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE DUE TO MOTION.
We may be able to counter it (standup in your chair) ! but it does not change!
Krreagan
You are unequivocally wrong.
What happens as you begin to move into outer-space? Why are satellites sitting in our orbit?
The further you move away from the object that is pulling you down/towards it, the less it's gravitational pull has an effect on you.
Gravtiy DOES CHANGE WITH MOTION. DipSHIT!!
Dipshit AND brainless!
Gravity does not change with motion! It changes with position! These are different concepts in physics. (Oh I forgot you don't know physics).
This just confirms my last post you cannot even display the simplest knowledge of physics and the concepts contained therein!
Krreagan
Mebe KennyG's thinking about what would happen as the plane approached the speed of light
QUOTE (swimmer+Dec 14 2005, 07:03 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 01:50 AM)
QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 14 2005, 06:44 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 01:33 AM)
Dipshit ???
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE DUE TO MOTION.
We may be able to counter it (standup in your chair) ! but it does not change!
Krreagan
You are unequivocally wrong.
What happens as you begin to move into outer-space? Why are satellites sitting in our orbit?
The further you move away from the object that is pulling you down/towards it, the less it's gravitational pull has an effect on you.
Gravtiy DOES CHANGE WITH MOTION. DipSHIT!!
Dipshit AND brainless!
Gravity does not change with motion! It changes with position! These are different concepts in physics. (Oh I forgot you don't know physics).
This just confirms my last post you cannot even display the simplest knowledge of physics and the concepts contained therein!
Krreagan
Mebe KennyG's thinking about what would happen as the plane approached the speed of light
Then we would have to consider time dilation, mass increase, length contraction and all the neat stuff
Krreagan
GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE DUE TO MOTION.
We may be able to counter it (standup in your chair) ! but it does not change!
Krreagan
You are unequivocally wrong.
What happens as you begin to move into outer-space? Why are satellites sitting in our orbit?
The further you move away from the object that is pulling you down/towards it, the less it's gravitational pull has an effect on you.
Gravtiy DOES CHANGE WITH MOTION. DipSHIT!!
Dipshit AND brainless!
Gravity does not change with motion! It changes with position! These are different concepts in physics. (Oh I forgot you don't know physics).
This just confirms my last post you cannot even display the simplest knowledge of physics and the concepts contained therein!
Krreagan
Mebe KennyG's thinking about what would happen as the plane approached the speed of light
Then we would have to consider time dilation, mass increase, length contraction and all the neat stuff
Krreagan
QUOTE (isfn+Dec 15 2005, 01:50 AM)
Back to the problem, tell us how a conveyor can prevent a plane from taking off.
Once the plane is sitting on the conveyor, it behaves no differently than it would do to to the ground.
I mean, the ground itself is moving and yet we cannot feel it .....the earth is rotating.....but how does this affect the plane's velocity to everything around it.
It's only because we have reference points that we can truly say that anything is moving at all. We measure everything in relation to everything else.
The fact that you think the conveyor is rotating the wheels of the plane is only due to your perception. It's an optical illusion. You're standing on ground youself, you see the conveyor moving, the plane moving, and you see the plane's wheels moving. Your conclusion is, the conveyor must be moving the wheels. That's perfectly rational.
But if you were standing on the conveyor, you'd see things differently. You'd see the ground moving. But now the conveyor is not moving. When you look at the plane, you see the wheels are moving, but this time you'd attribute it to the fact that the plane itself must be exerting some force to make them move.
Like I said, the plane behaves in relation to the conveyor in the way it would behave to the ground. It knows no different. It's only your perceptions which change - but in relation to what, exactly?
Once the plane is sitting on the conveyor, it behaves no differently than it would do to to the ground.
I mean, the ground itself is moving and yet we cannot feel it .....the earth is rotating.....but how does this affect the plane's velocity to everything around it.
It's only because we have reference points that we can truly say that anything is moving at all. We measure everything in relation to everything else.
The fact that you think the conveyor is rotating the wheels of the plane is only due to your perception. It's an optical illusion. You're standing on ground youself, you see the conveyor moving, the plane moving, and you see the plane's wheels moving. Your conclusion is, the conveyor must be moving the wheels. That's perfectly rational.
But if you were standing on the conveyor, you'd see things differently. You'd see the ground moving. But now the conveyor is not moving. When you look at the plane, you see the wheels are moving, but this time you'd attribute it to the fact that the plane itself must be exerting some force to make them move.
Like I said, the plane behaves in relation to the conveyor in the way it would behave to the ground. It knows no different. It's only your perceptions which change - but in relation to what, exactly?
geeeesh!!!...You guys are saying that a gigantic laser gun pointed at a moving object will alter the moving object and bring it TO the laser beam.....rather than the moving object continuing on and the laser beam tracking IT!!!
QUOTE (Fynlcut+)
I could move the plane at 5 mph and not move the conveyor and the pilot will then truely be moving at 5 mph, but then the speeds have to match right.
If coveyor/plane speed cancel each why does only the plane appear stationary and the coveyor continues to roll at 5 mph to the observer? Because this is the way you want it to happen.
If coveyor/plane speed cancel each why does only the plane appear stationary and the coveyor continues to roll at 5 mph to the observer? Because this is the way you want it to happen.
Not at all, just what one sees every day in the gym when a joggers speed down the treadmill is matched by an opposite speed of the treadmill.
QUOTE (Fynlcut+)
Why doesnt the conveyor stop and the plane roll of the end?? I mean when we add 5+(-5)we get zero. Is this the planes speed when observed by a bystandar or is this the conveyors speed? or both?
Not sure what you mean, but if you suddenly stopped the conveyor (-5 is now 0) then you only have +5 in the picture so you'd go forward, just like a jogger would if you suddenly stopped the treadmill. In reverse, say the plane stops moving forward, you don't have +5, only -5 so the plane would move backward with the conveyor...just what you'd expect a plane or anything else on a conveyor to do when no other force is applied.
that example while back of the table cloth pulled from under the tableware seems to say alot about the plane and the conveyor.....
QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 15 2005, 02:08 AM)
QUOTE (isfn+Dec 15 2005, 01:50 AM)
Back to the problem, tell us how a conveyor can prevent a plane from taking off.
Once the plane is sitting on the conveyor, it behaves no differently than it would do to to the ground.
I mean, the ground itself is moving and yet we cannot feel it .....the earth is rotating.....but how does this affect the plane's velocity to everything around it.
It's only because we have reference points that we can truly say that anything is moving at all. We measure everything in relation to everything else.
The fact that you think the conveyor is rotating the wheels of the plane is only due to your perception. It's an optical illusion. You're standing on ground youself, you see the conveyor moving, the plane moving, and you see the plane's wheels moving. Your conclusion is, the conveyor must be moving the wheels. That's perfectly rational.
But if you were standing on the conveyor, you'd see things differently. You'd see the ground moving. But now the conveyor is not moving. When you look at the plane, you see the wheels are moving, but this time you'd attribute it to the fact that the plane itself must be exerting some force to make them move.
Like I said, the plane behaves in relation to the conveyor in the way it would behave to the ground. It knows no different. It's only your perceptions which change - but in relation to what, exactly?
Blah,blah,blah.
A plane creates force to move it so it can take off. How does a conveyor prevent that from happening?
Like I said, the plane behaves in relation to the conveyor in the way it would behave to the ground. It knows no different. It's only your perceptions which change - but in relation to what, exactly?
The plane moves IN RELATION TO THE AIR.
The engines apply thrust to the plane via THE AIR
That's why the plane takes off -
THE CONVEYER BELT HAS ESSENTIALLY NO EFFECT ON THE PLANE ENGINE'S ABILITY TO APPLY THRUST
Once the plane is sitting on the conveyor, it behaves no differently than it would do to to the ground.
I mean, the ground itself is moving and yet we cannot feel it .....the earth is rotating.....but how does this affect the plane's velocity to everything around it.
It's only because we have reference points that we can truly say that anything is moving at all. We measure everything in relation to everything else.
The fact that you think the conveyor is rotating the wheels of the plane is only due to your perception. It's an optical illusion. You're standing on ground youself, you see the conveyor moving, the plane moving, and you see the plane's wheels moving. Your conclusion is, the conveyor must be moving the wheels. That's perfectly rational.
But if you were standing on the conveyor, you'd see things differently. You'd see the ground moving. But now the conveyor is not moving. When you look at the plane, you see the wheels are moving, but this time you'd attribute it to the fact that the plane itself must be exerting some force to make them move.
Like I said, the plane behaves in relation to the conveyor in the way it would behave to the ground. It knows no different. It's only your perceptions which change - but in relation to what, exactly?
Blah,blah,blah.
A plane creates force to move it so it can take off. How does a conveyor prevent that from happening?
QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 15 2005, 02:08 AM)
Like I said, the plane behaves in relation to the conveyor in the way it would behave to the ground. It knows no different. It's only your perceptions which change - but in relation to what, exactly?
The plane moves IN RELATION TO THE AIR.
The engines apply thrust to the plane via THE AIR
That's why the plane takes off -
THE CONVEYER BELT HAS ESSENTIALLY NO EFFECT ON THE PLANE ENGINE'S ABILITY TO APPLY THRUST
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 14 2005, 08:08 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 14 2005, 05:47 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 12:37 AM)
Dipshit jr.
I like the way you've taken to calling everyone 'Dipshit'.
Even though no-one else is calling you names, you seem to be very offensive back towards them.
What do you have to hide? You're obviously on the defensive, because they're getting too close to the truth.
I have nothing to hide!
I understand the physical concepts involved! The people I have called dipshit have all come here to this physics board and argued a point that they have no understanding of! They have shown that they do not understand the concepts involved and do not have the critical thinking skills necessary to comprehend a solution! Yet they still argue the point for no other reason that I can find but stubbornness! And this is why I refer to them as dipshits!
Krreagan
and this is from the guy who told us un-powered satalites won't all eventually fall to earth...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm
I like the way you've taken to calling everyone 'Dipshit'.
Even though no-one else is calling you names, you seem to be very offensive back towards them.
What do you have to hide? You're obviously on the defensive, because they're getting too close to the truth.
I have nothing to hide!
I understand the physical concepts involved! The people I have called dipshit have all come here to this physics board and argued a point that they have no understanding of! They have shown that they do not understand the concepts involved and do not have the critical thinking skills necessary to comprehend a solution! Yet they still argue the point for no other reason that I can find but stubbornness! And this is why I refer to them as dipshits!
Krreagan
and this is from the guy who told us un-powered satalites won't all eventually fall to earth...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm
QUOTE (How Satellites Work+)
In general, the higher the orbit, the longer the satellite can stay in orbit. At lower altitudes, a satellite runs into traces of Earth's atmosphere, which creates drag. The drag causes the orbit to decay until the satellite falls back into the atmosphere and burns up. At higher altitudes, where the vacuum of space is nearly complete, there is almost no drag and a satellite can stay in orbit for centuries (take the moon as an example).
And also said that the weight of a plane has no effect on the friction caused by the tires. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/tire4.htm
Krreagan...I sure hope this username wasn't somehow special to you...because when it's all over with, you're gonna never want to use it again, i'm afraid.
And also said that the weight of a plane has no effect on the friction caused by the tires. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/tire4.htm
Krreagan...I sure hope this username wasn't somehow special to you...because when it's all over with, you're gonna never want to use it again, i'm afraid.
QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 14 2005, 07:08 PM)
QUOTE (isfn+Dec 15 2005, 01:50 AM)
Back to the problem, tell us how a conveyor can prevent a plane from taking off.
Once the plane is sitting on the conveyor, it behaves no differently than it would do to to the ground.
I mean, the ground itself is moving and yet we cannot feel it .....the earth is rotating.....but how does this affect the plane's velocity to everything around it.
It's only because we have reference points that we can truly say that anything is moving at all. We measure everything in relation to everything else.
The fact that you think the conveyor is rotating the wheels of the plane is only due to your perception. It's an optical illusion. You're standing on ground youself, you see the conveyor moving, the plane moving, and you see the plane's wheels moving. Your conclusion is, the conveyor must be moving the wheels. That's perfectly rational.
But if you were standing on the conveyor, you'd see things differently. You'd see the ground moving. But now the conveyor is not moving. When you look at the plane, you see the wheels are moving, but this time you'd attribute it to the fact that the plane itself must be exerting some force to make them move.
Like I said, the plane behaves in relation to the conveyor in the way it would behave to the ground. It knows no different. It's only your perceptions which change - but in relation to what, exactly?
Someone else want to take dipshit III's post? the non sequitur density exceeded my threashold on that one!
Krreagan
Krreagan...I sure hope this username wasn't somehow special to you...because when it's all over with, you're gonna never want to use it again, i'm afraid.
..now that's even funnier than all the other bollox you've been coming out with on this subject Atl5p.
Here's another puzzle for you, rearrange the following: pot - black - kettle - calling
Once the plane is sitting on the conveyor, it behaves no differently than it would do to to the ground.
I mean, the ground itself is moving and yet we cannot feel it .....the earth is rotating.....but how does this affect the plane's velocity to everything around it.
It's only because we have reference points that we can truly say that anything is moving at all. We measure everything in relation to everything else.
The fact that you think the conveyor is rotating the wheels of the plane is only due to your perception. It's an optical illusion. You're standing on ground youself, you see the conveyor moving, the plane moving, and you see the plane's wheels moving. Your conclusion is, the conveyor must be moving the wheels. That's perfectly rational.
But if you were standing on the conveyor, you'd see things differently. You'd see the ground moving. But now the conveyor is not moving. When you look at the plane, you see the wheels are moving, but this time you'd attribute it to the fact that the plane itself must be exerting some force to make them move.
Like I said, the plane behaves in relation to the conveyor in the way it would behave to the ground. It knows no different. It's only your perceptions which change - but in relation to what, exactly?
Someone else want to take dipshit III's post? the non sequitur density exceeded my threashold on that one!
Krreagan
what happens when you put a weight in motion on wheels, if you take you car out of gear going 5 mph what happens, it coasts. the wheels on a plane coast. If the conveyor starts with a plane on it, the plane sits still till the friction in the bearing overcomes the inertia of the plane. The heavier the plane, the longer it takes to start moving. Friction from bearings on the planes wheels will never overcome the thrust fron the planes engine
QUOTE (Atl5p+Dec 15 2005, 02:18 AM)
Krreagan...I sure hope this username wasn't somehow special to you...because when it's all over with, you're gonna never want to use it again, i'm afraid.
..now that's even funnier than all the other bollox you've been coming out with on this subject Atl5p.
Here's another puzzle for you, rearrange the following: pot - black - kettle - calling
QUOTE (Atl5p+Dec 14 2005, 07:18 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 14 2005, 08:08 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 14 2005, 05:47 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 12:37 AM)
Dipshit jr.
I like the way you've taken to calling everyone 'Dipshit'.
Even though no-one else is calling you names, you seem to be very offensive back towards them.
What do you have to hide? You're obviously on the defensive, because they're getting too close to the truth.
I have nothing to hide!
I understand the physical concepts involved! The people I have called dipshit have all come here to this physics board and argued a point that they have no understanding of! They have shown that they do not understand the concepts involved and do not have the critical thinking skills necessary to comprehend a solution! Yet they still argue the point for no other reason that I can find but stubbornness! And this is why I refer to them as dipshits!
Krreagan
and this is from the guy who told us un-powered satalites won't all eventually fall to earth...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm
I like the way you've taken to calling everyone 'Dipshit'.
Even though no-one else is calling you names, you seem to be very offensive back towards them.
What do you have to hide? You're obviously on the defensive, because they're getting too close to the truth.
I have nothing to hide!
I understand the physical concepts involved! The people I have called dipshit have all come here to this physics board and argued a point that they have no understanding of! They have shown that they do not understand the concepts involved and do not have the critical thinking skills necessary to comprehend a solution! Yet they still argue the point for no other reason that I can find but stubbornness! And this is why I refer to them as dipshits!
Krreagan
and this is from the guy who told us un-powered satalites won't all eventually fall to earth...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm
QUOTE (How Satellites Work+)
In general, the higher the orbit, the longer the satellite can stay in orbit. At lower altitudes, a satellite runs into traces of Earth's atmosphere, which creates drag. The drag causes the orbit to decay until the satellite falls back into the atmosphere and burns up. At higher altitudes, where the vacuum of space is nearly complete, there is almost no drag and a satellite can stay in orbit for centuries (take the moon as an example).
And also said that the weight of a plane has no effect on the friction caused by the tires. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/tire4.htm
Krreagan...I sure hope this username wasn't somehow special to you...because when it's all over with, you're gonna never want to use it again, i'm afraid.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
So tell me dipshit when is the moon going to fall?
Krreagan
And also said that the weight of a plane has no effect on the friction caused by the tires. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/tire4.htm
Krreagan...I sure hope this username wasn't somehow special to you...because when it's all over with, you're gonna never want to use it again, i'm afraid.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
So tell me dipshit when is the moon going to fall?
Krreagan
oh my effn god..... there was so much BS in the last 8 pages i missed i dont even know where to begin. I see we have some new faces (dipshits as krregan puts it) that are either not reading the problem, or arent reading some of the posts way back when that have already been proven wrong or ...i dont even know what theyre thinking.
I find it remarkable that thre are so many examples given and so amny statements that literally show the logic and physics of how it works, yet the no fly guys refuse to even acknowledge it. they just refer back to another twisted example that theyre creating to change variables of the problem to suit their needs. Ok....this is really simple and look at these questions and PLEASE SOMEONE ANSWER THEM...DONT IGNORE, and you will see how i works, and if it doesnt please show me the physics of why it doesnt.
First off....gravity does not change, unless you change the atmospheree..... thats why gravity in earth atmosphere is a constant.... 9.8m/s. What does change is the net of the forces of lift and gravity.
second. and SOMEONE PLEASE ACKNOWLDEGE THIS... Tell me how the belt is able to prevent the planes movement. show me the physics.... easiest way is to draw a FBD. and youll notice there is nothing pushing against the plane.... except air drag.....which has nothing to do with the belt.
third.... to the people that think the wheels move the plane...your wrong. its not a car...a person on a treadmill, or anything that uses friction of ground to move forward. a plane can take off without wheels....floats on a plane in water will move.
fourth.. someone please dispute the example that somone posted about 30 pages ago..bloy i believe posted it...if not then im sorry for not acknowldging your wonderful example...but this thread is too long to go find it. he stated that turn the conveyor so its vertical. take a matchbox car with a magnet in it that will push it into the belt to keep it in contact. now turn the belt to whatever speed you want and drop the matchbox car down the belt. tell me how the belt will magically make the car not fall downwards...cause it wont.
fifth... quit coming up with these asanine examples to try to explain your ideas... your twisting the variables around to suit your needs.
sixth.... its idiotic to think the plane when trying to land on a conveyor going backwards will stop instantly....
seventh... no one that thinks it will fly has ever said that it shortens the runway, quit thinking were saying that cause were not. if it does anything it will lengthen the runway a bit.
finally.....well i had another one...but in my rant i have lost track of it for now... there was just so many ridiculous things said that i cant even remember them all
I find it remarkable that thre are so many examples given and so amny statements that literally show the logic and physics of how it works, yet the no fly guys refuse to even acknowledge it. they just refer back to another twisted example that theyre creating to change variables of the problem to suit their needs. Ok....this is really simple and look at these questions and PLEASE SOMEONE ANSWER THEM...DONT IGNORE, and you will see how i works, and if it doesnt please show me the physics of why it doesnt.
First off....gravity does not change, unless you change the atmospheree..... thats why gravity in earth atmosphere is a constant.... 9.8m/s. What does change is the net of the forces of lift and gravity.
second. and SOMEONE PLEASE ACKNOWLDEGE THIS... Tell me how the belt is able to prevent the planes movement. show me the physics.... easiest way is to draw a FBD. and youll notice there is nothing pushing against the plane.... except air drag.....which has nothing to do with the belt.
third.... to the people that think the wheels move the plane...your wrong. its not a car...a person on a treadmill, or anything that uses friction of ground to move forward. a plane can take off without wheels....floats on a plane in water will move.
fourth.. someone please dispute the example that somone posted about 30 pages ago..bloy i believe posted it...if not then im sorry for not acknowldging your wonderful example...but this thread is too long to go find it. he stated that turn the conveyor so its vertical. take a matchbox car with a magnet in it that will push it into the belt to keep it in contact. now turn the belt to whatever speed you want and drop the matchbox car down the belt. tell me how the belt will magically make the car not fall downwards...cause it wont.
fifth... quit coming up with these asanine examples to try to explain your ideas... your twisting the variables around to suit your needs.
sixth.... its idiotic to think the plane when trying to land on a conveyor going backwards will stop instantly....
seventh... no one that thinks it will fly has ever said that it shortens the runway, quit thinking were saying that cause were not. if it does anything it will lengthen the runway a bit.
finally.....well i had another one...but in my rant i have lost track of it for now... there was just so many ridiculous things said that i cant even remember them all
QUOTE (isfn+Dec 14 2005, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (swimmer+Dec 14 2005, 11:24 PM)
QUOTE (fargo boyle+Dec 14 2005, 11:18 PM)
QUOTE (QuantumRift+Dec 14 2005, 10:56 PM)
Because it is simple math.
If you need 100 knots IAS to take off, and you take off into a 25 knot headwind, your IAS will STILL BE 100 knots at take off and your GROUNDSPEED WILL BE 75 knots.
If you need 100 knots IAS (indicated airspeed) to take off, and you take off into a 25 knot headwind, your IAS will still be 100 knots but your GROUNDSPEED will be 125 knots.
There's no way that's right.
Think about what you wrote!
...come on - that's a typo. Any fool can see QuantumRift meant to write tailwind in the second part of his posting.
Right
Correct. I was typing fast and erred. TYPO. Mea Culpa.
- Quant.
"Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas."
-- Fortunate is he who has been able to learn the causes of things.
...And also said that the weight of a plane has no effect on the friction caused by the tires. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/tire4.htm...
SO WHAT - IT DOESN'T MATTER EITHER WAY
IN REAL LIFE THE FRICTION IN A PLANE'S TYRES IS TOO LOW TO HAVE ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE PLANE'S ABILITY TO TAKE OFF.
If you need 100 knots IAS to take off, and you take off into a 25 knot headwind, your IAS will STILL BE 100 knots at take off and your GROUNDSPEED WILL BE 75 knots.
If you need 100 knots IAS (indicated airspeed) to take off, and you take off into a 25 knot headwind, your IAS will still be 100 knots but your GROUNDSPEED will be 125 knots.
There's no way that's right.
Think about what you wrote!
...come on - that's a typo. Any fool can see QuantumRift meant to write tailwind in the second part of his posting.
Right
Correct. I was typing fast and erred. TYPO. Mea Culpa.
- Quant.
"Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas."
-- Fortunate is he who has been able to learn the causes of things.
QUOTE (Atl5p+Dec 15 2005, 02:18 AM)
...And also said that the weight of a plane has no effect on the friction caused by the tires. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/tire4.htm...
SO WHAT - IT DOESN'T MATTER EITHER WAY
IN REAL LIFE THE FRICTION IN A PLANE'S TYRES IS TOO LOW TO HAVE ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE PLANE'S ABILITY TO TAKE OFF.
The moon is gunna fall..... ummm calculate, calculate calculate...... well it is falling right now, had you actaully asked when will it impact - my answer is that the earth and moon will collide, 3 weeks from next tuesday.
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 15 2005, 02:18 AM)
QUOTE (Kenny G+Dec 14 2005, 07:08 PM)
QUOTE (isfn+Dec 15 2005, 01:50 AM)
Back to the problem, tell us how a conveyor can prevent a plane from taking off.
Once the plane is sitting on the conveyor, it behaves no differently than it would do to to the ground.
I mean, the ground itself is moving and yet we cannot feel it .....the earth is rotating.....but how does this affect the plane's velocity to everything around it.
It's only because we have reference points that we can truly say that anything is moving at all. We measure everything in relation to everything else.
The fact that you think the conveyor is rotating the wheels of the plane is only due to your perception. It's an optical illusion. You're standing on ground youself, you see the conveyor moving, the plane moving, and you see the plane's wheels moving. Your conclusion is, the conveyor must be moving the wheels. That's perfectly rational.
But if you were standing on the conveyor, you'd see things differently. You'd see the ground moving. But now the conveyor is not moving. When you look at the plane, you see the wheels are moving, but this time you'd attribute it to the fact that the plane itself must be exerting some force to make them move.
Like I said, the plane behaves in relation to the conveyor in the way it would behave to the ground. It knows no different. It's only your perceptions which change - but in relation to what, exactly?
Someone else want to take dipshit III's post? the non sequitur density exceeded my threashold on that one!
Krreagan
oh yeah...that reminded me of my last statement..... IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT THE REFERENCE POINT IS!!!!! the belt and wheels can be forgotten about because they dont act on the plane.... you will also figure that out from a simple FBD.
and dont give me the rolling resistance does affect it argurment... cause yes your right..it does... but in comparison to the amount of thrust in the planes its magnitude of force is so minor that it can pretty much be negated.
If they are both moving the same speed, and they both weight the same, then the forces are equal.....OPPOSING FORCES!!!!!
But if the plane isn't applying it's force to the belt how is it's force opposed by the belt?
Once the plane is sitting on the conveyor, it behaves no differently than it would do to to the ground.
I mean, the ground itself is moving and yet we cannot feel it .....the earth is rotating.....but how does this affect the plane's velocity to everything around it.
It's only because we have reference points that we can truly say that anything is moving at all. We measure everything in relation to everything else.
The fact that you think the conveyor is rotating the wheels of the plane is only due to your perception. It's an optical illusion. You're standing on ground youself, you see the conveyor moving, the plane moving, and you see the plane's wheels moving. Your conclusion is, the conveyor must be moving the wheels. That's perfectly rational.
But if you were standing on the conveyor, you'd see things differently. You'd see the ground moving. But now the conveyor is not moving. When you look at the plane, you see the wheels are moving, but this time you'd attribute it to the fact that the plane itself must be exerting some force to make them move.
Like I said, the plane behaves in relation to the conveyor in the way it would behave to the ground. It knows no different. It's only your perceptions which change - but in relation to what, exactly?
Someone else want to take dipshit III's post? the non sequitur density exceeded my threashold on that one!
Krreagan
oh yeah...that reminded me of my last statement..... IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT THE REFERENCE POINT IS!!!!! the belt and wheels can be forgotten about because they dont act on the plane.... you will also figure that out from a simple FBD.
and dont give me the rolling resistance does affect it argurment... cause yes your right..it does... but in comparison to the amount of thrust in the planes its magnitude of force is so minor that it can pretty much be negated.
now someone please...address all my statements...and RATIONALLY explain where i erred... and show me the physics to prove me wrong...give me a FBD that proves its wrong. I dont want to see another cockamamie example that doesnt address the problem
QUOTE (sooks+Dec 15 2005, 02:30 AM)
oh my effn god..... there was so much BS in the last 8 pages i missed i dont even know where to begin. I see we have some new faces (dipshits as krregan puts it) that are either not reading the problem, or arent reading some of the posts way back when that have already been proven wrong or ...i dont even know what theyre thinking.
I find it remarkable that thre are so many examples given and so amny statements that literally show the logic and physics of how it works, yet the no fly guys refuse to even acknowledge it. they just refer back to another twisted example that theyre creating to change variables of the problem to suit their needs. Ok....this is really simple and look at these questions and PLEASE SOMEONE ANSWER THEM...DONT IGNORE, and you will see how i works, and if it doesnt please show me the physics of why it doesnt.
First off....gravity does not change, unless you change the atmospheree..... thats why gravity in earth atmosphere is a constant.... 9.8m/s. What does change is the net of the forces of lift and gravity.
second. and SOMEONE PLEASE ACKNOWLDEGE THIS... Tell me how the belt is able to prevent the planes movement. show me the physics.... easiest way is to draw a FBD. and youll notice there is nothing pushing against the plane.... except air drag.....which has nothing to do with the belt.
third.... to the people that think the wheels move the plane...your wrong. its not a car...a person on a treadmill, or anything that uses friction of ground to move forward. a plane can take off without wheels....floats on a plane in water will move.
fourth.. someone please dispute the example that somone posted about 30 pages ago..bloy i believe posted it...if not then im sorry for not acknowldging your wonderful example...but this thread is too long to go find it. he stated that turn the conveyor so its vertical. take a matchbox car with a magnet in it that will push it into the belt to keep it in contact. now turn the belt to whatever speed you want and drop the matchbox car down the belt. tell me how the belt will magically make the car not fall downwards...cause it wont.
fifth... quit coming up with these asanine examples to try to explain your ideas... your twisting the variables around to suit your needs.
sixth.... its idiotic to think the plane when trying to land on a conveyor going backwards will stop instantly....
seventh... no one that thinks it will fly has ever said that it shortens the runway, quit thinking were saying that cause were not. if it does anything it will lengthen the runway a bit.
finally.....well i had another one...but in my rant i have lost track of it for now... there was just so many ridiculous things said that i cant even remember them all
Phew!!
Thanks sooks.
Only problem is there won't be any coherent logic in response to your well said points
I find it remarkable that thre are so many examples given and so amny statements that literally show the logic and physics of how it works, yet the no fly guys refuse to even acknowledge it. they just refer back to another twisted example that theyre creating to change variables of the problem to suit their needs. Ok....this is really simple and look at these questions and PLEASE SOMEONE ANSWER THEM...DONT IGNORE, and you will see how i works, and if it doesnt please show me the physics of why it doesnt.
First off....gravity does not change, unless you change the atmospheree..... thats why gravity in earth atmosphere is a constant.... 9.8m/s. What does change is the net of the forces of lift and gravity.
second. and SOMEONE PLEASE ACKNOWLDEGE THIS... Tell me how the belt is able to prevent the planes movement. show me the physics.... easiest way is to draw a FBD. and youll notice there is nothing pushing against the plane.... except air drag.....which has nothing to do with the belt.
third.... to the people that think the wheels move the plane...your wrong. its not a car...a person on a treadmill, or anything that uses friction of ground to move forward. a plane can take off without wheels....floats on a plane in water will move.
fourth.. someone please dispute the example that somone posted about 30 pages ago..bloy i believe posted it...if not then im sorry for not acknowldging your wonderful example...but this thread is too long to go find it. he stated that turn the conveyor so its vertical. take a matchbox car with a magnet in it that will push it into the belt to keep it in contact. now turn the belt to whatever speed you want and drop the matchbox car down the belt. tell me how the belt will magically make the car not fall downwards...cause it wont.
fifth... quit coming up with these asanine examples to try to explain your ideas... your twisting the variables around to suit your needs.
sixth.... its idiotic to think the plane when trying to land on a conveyor going backwards will stop instantly....
seventh... no one that thinks it will fly has ever said that it shortens the runway, quit thinking were saying that cause were not. if it does anything it will lengthen the runway a bit.
finally.....well i had another one...but in my rant i have lost track of it for now... there was just so many ridiculous things said that i cant even remember them all
Phew!!
Thanks sooks.
Only problem is there won't be any coherent logic in response to your well said points
QUOTE (sooks+Dec 15 2005, 02:35 AM)
now someone please...address all my statements...and RATIONALLY explain where i erred... and show me the physics to prove me wrong...give me a FBD that proves its wrong. I dont want to see another cockamamie example that doesnt address the problem
My friend, these geniuses don't even know what a FBD is. If they do actually produce one, I'm sure it will have at least one force represented that nobody else knows exists. They really don't know enough to figure out what forces are acting on the plane.
My friend, these geniuses don't even know what a FBD is. If they do actually produce one, I'm sure it will have at least one force represented that nobody else knows exists. They really don't know enough to figure out what forces are acting on the plane.
QUOTE (sooks+Dec 14 2005, 07:30 PM)
oh my effn god..... there was so much BS in the last 8 pages i missed i dont even know where to begin. I see we have some new faces (dipshits as krregan puts it) that are either not reading the problem, or arent reading some of the posts way back when that have already been proven wrong or ...i dont even know what theyre thinking.
I find it remarkable that thre are so many examples given and so amny statements that literally show the logic and physics of how it works, yet the no fly guys refuse to even acknowledge it. they just refer back to another twisted example that theyre creating to change variables of the problem to suit their needs. Ok....this is really simple and look at these questions and PLEASE SOMEONE ANSWER THEM...DONT IGNORE, and you will see how i works, and if it doesnt please show me the physics of why it doesnt.
First off....gravity does not change, unless you change the atmospheree..... thats why gravity in earth atmosphere is a constant.... 9.8m/s. What does change is the net of the forces of lift and gravity.
second. and SOMEONE PLEASE ACKNOWLDEGE THIS... Tell me how the belt is able to prevent the planes movement. show me the physics.... easiest way is to draw a FBD. and youll notice there is nothing pushing against the plane.... except air drag.....which has nothing to do with the belt.
third.... to the people that think the wheels move the plane...your wrong. its not a car...a person on a treadmill, or anything that uses friction of ground to move forward. a plane can take off without wheels....floats on a plane in water will move.
fourth.. someone please dispute the example that somone posted about 30 pages ago..bloy i believe posted it...if not then im sorry for not acknowldging your wonderful example...but this thread is too long to go find it. he stated that turn the conveyor so its vertical. take a matchbox car with a magnet in it that will push it into the belt to keep it in contact. now turn the belt to whatever speed you want and drop the matchbox car down the belt. tell me how the belt will magically make the car not fall downwards...cause it wont.
fifth... quit coming up with these asanine examples to try to explain your ideas... your twisting the variables around to suit your needs.
sixth.... its idiotic to think the plane when trying to land on a conveyor going backwards will stop instantly....
seventh... no one that thinks it will fly has ever said that it shortens the runway, quit thinking were saying that cause were not. if it does anything it will lengthen the runway a bit.
finally.....well i had another one...but in my rant i have lost track of it for now... there was just so many ridiculous things said that i cant even remember them all
Gravity is not dependent on the atmosphere! It's constant at the surface of the earth and yes it does not change in our little problem. If we did not have an atmosphere the gravity would be the same.
Lift changes as the wing accelerates through the air.
Krreagan
And it's m/s^2 it's an acceleration.
I find it remarkable that thre are so many examples given and so amny statements that literally show the logic and physics of how it works, yet the no fly guys refuse to even acknowledge it. they just refer back to another twisted example that theyre creating to change variables of the problem to suit their needs. Ok....this is really simple and look at these questions and PLEASE SOMEONE ANSWER THEM...DONT IGNORE, and you will see how i works, and if it doesnt please show me the physics of why it doesnt.
First off....gravity does not change, unless you change the atmospheree..... thats why gravity in earth atmosphere is a constant.... 9.8m/s. What does change is the net of the forces of lift and gravity.
second. and SOMEONE PLEASE ACKNOWLDEGE THIS... Tell me how the belt is able to prevent the planes movement. show me the physics.... easiest way is to draw a FBD. and youll notice there is nothing pushing against the plane.... except air drag.....which has nothing to do with the belt.
third.... to the people that think the wheels move the plane...your wrong. its not a car...a person on a treadmill, or anything that uses friction of ground to move forward. a plane can take off without wheels....floats on a plane in water will move.
fourth.. someone please dispute the example that somone posted about 30 pages ago..bloy i believe posted it...if not then im sorry for not acknowldging your wonderful example...but this thread is too long to go find it. he stated that turn the conveyor so its vertical. take a matchbox car with a magnet in it that will push it into the belt to keep it in contact. now turn the belt to whatever speed you want and drop the matchbox car down the belt. tell me how the belt will magically make the car not fall downwards...cause it wont.
fifth... quit coming up with these asanine examples to try to explain your ideas... your twisting the variables around to suit your needs.
sixth.... its idiotic to think the plane when trying to land on a conveyor going backwards will stop instantly....
seventh... no one that thinks it will fly has ever said that it shortens the runway, quit thinking were saying that cause were not. if it does anything it will lengthen the runway a bit.
finally.....well i had another one...but in my rant i have lost track of it for now... there was just so many ridiculous things said that i cant even remember them all
Gravity is not dependent on the atmosphere! It's constant at the surface of the earth and yes it does not change in our little problem. If we did not have an atmosphere the gravity would be the same.
Lift changes as the wing accelerates through the air.
Krreagan
And it's m/s^2 it's an acceleration.
QUOTE (Atl5p+Dec 15 2005, 02:18 AM)
bollox
Atl5p I beg you! Please put me out of my misery.
In the puzzle that was originally posed - if the plane's undercarriage had ZERO friction between the plane and whatever it was standing on (runway or conveyer belt)...
What do you think would happen? Would the plane take off?
COME ON I NEED AN ANSWER SOON
Atl5p I beg you! Please put me out of my misery.
In the puzzle that was originally posed - if the plane's undercarriage had ZERO friction between the plane and whatever it was standing on (runway or conveyer belt)...
What do you think would happen? Would the plane take off?
COME ON I NEED AN ANSWER SOON
QUOTE ( swimmer+)
That's the point Atl5p - IF you increase the friction between ground and plane ... then the ground will influence the plane's ability to move and take off.
That's why airports tend to have flat and smooth runways and planes have wheels on their undercarriages - to MINIMISE THE FRICTION
Whatever that friction happens to be in the tyres and bearings of the wheels - IN REAL LIFE - the amount of friction is far too small to prevent planes from taking off. That is an empirical fact. Go visit an airport.
THEREFORE - it doesn't matter a hoot what speed this hypothetical conveyer belt is going at. The friction between the conveyer belt and the plane is too low for it to prevent the plane taking off.
And likewise, if you increase the SPEED, you will increase the CRF. The Speed of the treadmill.
Equal and Opposite Forces Cancel Out
what we need to realize is, all it takes to slow an object, that is riding on the ground, is an equal and opposite speed of the ground
(force = speed, when the weight of the two objects in question are the same...
consider:
weight of (treadmill belt) + plane = Plane + (Treadmill + Plane)
Same as a plane flying into a headwind. All it takes to slow an object, that is riding in THE AIR, is an equal and opposite speed of the AIR!!!
The belt weighs the same as the plane, when the plane is on it.
(plus the belt of course)
Since the belt weighs as much as the plane now, and the speeds are the same, then that must mean the forces are equal
Plane Force = Weight x Speed
Treadmill Force = W x S
If they are both moving the same speed, and they both weight the same, then the forces are equal.....OPPOSING FORCES!!!!!
It's in the MATH!
That's why airports tend to have flat and smooth runways and planes have wheels on their undercarriages - to MINIMISE THE FRICTION
Whatever that friction happens to be in the tyres and bearings of the wheels - IN REAL LIFE - the amount of friction is far too small to prevent planes from taking off. That is an empirical fact. Go visit an airport.
THEREFORE - it doesn't matter a hoot what speed this hypothetical conveyer belt is going at. The friction between the conveyer belt and the plane is too low for it to prevent the plane taking off.
And likewise, if you increase the SPEED, you will increase the CRF. The Speed of the treadmill.
Equal and Opposite Forces Cancel Out
what we need to realize is, all it takes to slow an object, that is riding on the ground, is an equal and opposite speed of the ground
(force = speed, when the weight of the two objects in question are the same...
consider:
weight of (treadmill belt) + plane = Plane + (Treadmill + Plane)
Same as a plane flying into a headwind. All it takes to slow an object, that is riding in THE AIR, is an equal and opposite speed of the AIR!!!
The belt weighs the same as the plane, when the plane is on it.
(plus the belt of course)
Since the belt weighs as much as the plane now, and the speeds are the same, then that must mean the forces are equal
Plane Force = Weight x Speed
Treadmill Force = W x S
If they are both moving the same speed, and they both weight the same, then the forces are equal.....OPPOSING FORCES!!!!!
It's in the MATH!
QUOTE (2Shane+Dec 14 2005, 07:32 PM)
The moon is gunna fall..... ummm calculate, calculate calculate...... well it is falling right now, had you actaully asked when will it impact - my answer is that the earth and moon will collide, 3 weeks from next tuesday.
I stand corrected! the moon is actually falling around the earth, just as the earth is falling around the moon (don't blow a gasket anyone).
And the moon is actually receding (getting further and further from the earth).
Krreagan
I stand corrected! the moon is actually falling around the earth, just as the earth is falling around the moon (don't blow a gasket anyone).
And the moon is actually receding (getting further and further from the earth).
Krreagan
QUOTE (Atl5p+Dec 15 2005, 02:49 AM)
If they are both moving the same speed, and they both weight the same, then the forces are equal.....OPPOSING FORCES!!!!!
But if the plane isn't applying it's force to the belt how is it's force opposed by the belt?
QUOTE (Atl5p+Dec 15 2005, 02:49 AM)
QUOTE ( swimmer+)
That's the point Atl5p - IF you increase the friction between ground and plane ... then the ground will influence the plane's ability to move and take off.
That's why airports tend to have flat and smooth runways and planes have wheels on their undercarriages - to MINIMISE THE FRICTION
Whatever that friction happens to be in the tyres and bearings of the wheels - IN REAL LIFE - the amount of friction is far too small to prevent planes from taking off. That is an empirical fact. Go visit an airport.
THEREFORE - it doesn't matter a hoot what speed this hypothetical conveyer belt is going at. The friction between the conveyer belt and the plane is too low for it to prevent the plane taking off.
And likewise, if you increase the SPEED, you will increase the CRF. The Speed of the treadmill.
Equal and Opposite Forces Cancel Out
what we need to realize is, all it takes to slow an object, that is riding on the ground, is an equal and opposite speed of the ground
(force = speed, when the weight of the two objects in question are the same...
consider:
weight of (treadmill belt) + plane = Plane + (Treadmill + Plane)
Same as a plane flying into a headwind. All it takes to slow an object, that is riding in THE AIR, is an equal and opposite speed of the AIR!!!
The belt weighs the same as the plane, when the plane is on it.
(plus the belt of course)
Since the belt weighs as much as the plane now, and the speeds are the same, then that must mean the forces are equal
Plane Force = Weight x Speed
Treadmill Force = W x S
If they are both moving the same speed, and they both weight the same, then the forces are equal.....OPPOSING FORCES!!!!!
It's in the MATH!
I know this is going to seem a bit off the wall here - but ATL5p - are you by any chance a Creationist?
Your arguments have the same heady mix that Creationists employ when criticising Evolution - the occasional true fact swimming in a sea of bollox.
PLEASE PLEASE ANSWER MY EARLIER QUESTION:
IF THERE IS ZERO FRICTION BETWEEN PLANE AND GROUND/CONVEYER BELT...
WILL THE PLANE TAKE OFF?
In the puzzle that was originally posed - if the plane's undercarriage had ZERO friction between the plane and whatever it was standing on (runway or conveyer belt)...
What do you think would happen? Would the plane take off?
COME ON I NEED AN ANSWER SOON
This is what I was referring to:
That's why airports tend to have flat and smooth runways and planes have wheels on their undercarriages - to MINIMISE THE FRICTION
Whatever that friction happens to be in the tyres and bearings of the wheels - IN REAL LIFE - the amount of friction is far too small to prevent planes from taking off. That is an empirical fact. Go visit an airport.
THEREFORE - it doesn't matter a hoot what speed this hypothetical conveyer belt is going at. The friction between the conveyer belt and the plane is too low for it to prevent the plane taking off.
And likewise, if you increase the SPEED, you will increase the CRF. The Speed of the treadmill.
Equal and Opposite Forces Cancel Out
what we need to realize is, all it takes to slow an object, that is riding on the ground, is an equal and opposite speed of the ground
(force = speed, when the weight of the two objects in question are the same...
consider:
weight of (treadmill belt) + plane = Plane + (Treadmill + Plane)
Same as a plane flying into a headwind. All it takes to slow an object, that is riding in THE AIR, is an equal and opposite speed of the AIR!!!
The belt weighs the same as the plane, when the plane is on it.
(plus the belt of course)
Since the belt weighs as much as the plane now, and the speeds are the same, then that must mean the forces are equal
Plane Force = Weight x Speed
Treadmill Force = W x S
If they are both moving the same speed, and they both weight the same, then the forces are equal.....OPPOSING FORCES!!!!!
It's in the MATH!
I know this is going to seem a bit off the wall here - but ATL5p - are you by any chance a Creationist?
Your arguments have the same heady mix that Creationists employ when criticising Evolution - the occasional true fact swimming in a sea of bollox.
PLEASE PLEASE ANSWER MY EARLIER QUESTION:
IF THERE IS ZERO FRICTION BETWEEN PLANE AND GROUND/CONVEYER BELT...
WILL THE PLANE TAKE OFF?
QUOTE (swimmer+Dec 15 2005, 02:43 AM)
In the puzzle that was originally posed - if the plane's undercarriage had ZERO friction between the plane and whatever it was standing on (runway or conveyer belt)...
What do you think would happen? Would the plane take off?
COME ON I NEED AN ANSWER SOON
This is what I was referring to:
QUOTE (Atl5p+Dec 14 2005, 07:49 PM)
QUOTE ( swimmer+)
That's the point Atl5p - IF you increase the friction between ground and plane ... then the ground will influence the plane's ability to move and take off.
That's why airports tend to have flat and smooth runways and planes have wheels on their undercarriages - to MINIMISE THE FRICTION
Whatever that friction happens to be in the tyres and bearings of the wheels - IN REAL LIFE - the amount of friction is far too small to prevent planes from taking off. That is an empirical fact. Go visit an airport.
THEREFORE - it doesn't matter a hoot what speed this hypothetical conveyer belt is going at. The friction between the conveyer belt and the plane is too low for it to prevent the plane taking off.
And likewise, if you increase the SPEED, you will increase the CRF. The Speed of the treadmill.
Equal and Opposite Forces Cancel Out
what we need to realize is, all it takes to slow an object, that is riding on the ground, is an equal and opposite speed of the ground
(force = speed, when the weight of the two objects in question are the same...
consider:
weight of (treadmill belt) + plane = Plane + (Treadmill + Plane)
Same as a plane flying into a headwind. All it takes to slow an object, that is riding in THE AIR, is an equal and opposite speed of the AIR!!!
The belt weighs the same as the plane, when the plane is on it.
(plus the belt of course)
Since the belt weighs as much as the plane now, and the speeds are the same, then that must mean the forces are equal
Plane Force = Weight x Speed
Treadmill Force = W x S
If they are both moving the same speed, and they both weight the same, then the forces are equal.....OPPOSING FORCES!!!!!
It's in the MATH!
Dipshit,
Force = speed??
"The belt weighs the same as the plane, when the plane is on it"???
You have no logical thought processes do you!
Krreagan
That's why airports tend to have flat and smooth runways and planes have wheels on their undercarriages - to MINIMISE THE FRICTION
Whatever that friction happens to be in the tyres and bearings of the wheels - IN REAL LIFE - the amount of friction is far too small to prevent planes from taking off. That is an empirical fact. Go visit an airport.
THEREFORE - it doesn't matter a hoot what speed this hypothetical conveyer belt is going at. The friction between the conveyer belt and the plane is too low for it to prevent the plane taking off.
And likewise, if you increase the SPEED, you will increase the CRF. The Speed of the treadmill.
Equal and Opposite Forces Cancel Out
what we need to realize is, all it takes to slow an object, that is riding on the ground, is an equal and opposite speed of the ground
(force = speed, when the weight of the two objects in question are the same...
consider:
weight of (treadmill belt) + plane = Plane + (Treadmill + Plane)
Same as a plane flying into a headwind. All it takes to slow an object, that is riding in THE AIR, is an equal and opposite speed of the AIR!!!
The belt weighs the same as the plane, when the plane is on it.
(plus the belt of course)
Since the belt weighs as much as the plane now, and the speeds are the same, then that must mean the forces are equal
Plane Force = Weight x Speed
Treadmill Force = W x S
If they are both moving the same speed, and they both weight the same, then the forces are equal.....OPPOSING FORCES!!!!!
It's in the MATH!
Dipshit,
Force = speed??
"The belt weighs the same as the plane, when the plane is on it"???
You have no logical thought processes do you!
Krreagan
QUOTE (Atl5p+Dec 15 2005, 02:49 AM)
QUOTE ( swimmer+)
That's the point Atl5p - IF you increase the friction between ground and plane ... then the ground will influence the plane's ability to move and take off.
That's why airports tend to have flat and smooth runways and planes have wheels on their undercarriages - to MINIMISE THE FRICTION
Whatever that friction happens to be in the tyres and bearings of the wheels - IN REAL LIFE - the amount of friction is far too small to prevent planes from taking off. That is an empirical fact. Go visit an airport.
THEREFORE - it doesn't matter a hoot what speed this hypothetical conveyer belt is going at. The friction between the conveyer belt and the plane is too low for it to prevent the plane taking off.
And likewise, if you increase the SPEED, you will increase the CRF. The Speed of the treadmill.
That's why airports tend to have flat and smooth runways and planes have wheels on their undercarriages - to MINIMISE THE FRICTION
Whatever that friction happens to be in the tyres and bearings of the wheels - IN REAL LIFE - the amount of friction is far too small to prevent planes from taking off. That is an empirical fact. Go visit an airport.
THEREFORE - it doesn't matter a hoot what speed this hypothetical conveyer belt is going at. The friction between the conveyer belt and the plane is too low for it to prevent the plane taking off.
And likewise, if you increase the SPEED, you will increase the CRF. The Speed of the treadmill.