Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110

Bloy
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 08:07 PM)
oh boy! only 13 more pages to reach 200 !!!!
...and as "Blood Sweat and Tears" group played...Where do we go from here?

I take it then that we all agree that any type of vehicle( human or otherwise) WILL accelerate on the conveyor and move forward. NO standing still....unless NO movement from both the conveyor and propelled object on it.

yeee hah! I'm wallowing in my shortlived "last word"....

VERY "shortlived" indeed !!!!
krreagan
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 22 2005, 04:01 PM)
re: the car.
There are obviously 2 trains of thought here.  And it has to do with how the phrase "moves forward" is interpreted.  You can either take it to mean in relation to the belt or in relation to the tower/ground/calm air.

1--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured by radar guns from the tower which have to match each other at all times, then the car will achieve wind flow over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

wheel speed/car speedometer = 100
air speed over wings = 50

2--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured based on their own speedometers which have to match each other at all times, then the car will have zero wind over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

car speedometer speed = 50
belt speedometer speed = 50
wheel speed/car speedometer = 50
air speed over wings = 0

--
So neither side is right or wrong... just a different interpretation of the question which doesn't explicitly state what 'moves forward' really means.

However, in scenario 2, the speedometer of the car is measuring it's speed in relation to the belt, and the belt is measuring it's speed in relation to the dirt beneath it.  Is this wrong?  Not necessarily, but I think it would be more correct/scientific to measure both speeds in relation to the same object as per scenario 1.

So I will agree to disagree with the 'car no flyiers'.

BTW I don't mean to put words in anyones mouth... this is just the way I am interpreting the two sides of the argument.

SkiSTX,

I think that Atl5p, Fargo and I (plus a few unidentified Guests) long ago agreed that there were two possible interpretations.

1. Speed of the plane is measured as movement forward from a stationary observer. This interpretation totally discounts any effect from the belt because it already says that the plane is moving forward away from a stationary observer and hence all actions of the belt must be netted out for that to occur. If that is your definition, then of course the problem is trivial and the plane will fly.

2. Speed of the plane is measured relative to the belt, just like you see on a treadmill in a gym a millions of times per day. The plane moves forward relative to the belt in one direction and the belt moves in the opposite direction at the same speed and the plane is stationary with respect to an outside observer, thus no airspeed and it will not fly.

The problem here has been a total refusal of the "it will fly" folks to acknowledge the second interpretation which has been muddled by all sorts of "new physics" such as "free wheeling", to support their claim that even if you did interpret the problem as case #2, the plane still would fly because there's nothing the conveyor could do to stop the forward motion of the plane. Now it seems that while there be some acknowledgment that #2 is possible, they want to argue that #1 is a "more correct interpretation" or even more amazing, that you couldn't build a controller to work for case #2 so therefore #1 has to be the only possible interpretation...incredible!! Now I am reading a post that suggests that you might be able to get a close match of speeds but that the plane would inch forward every so slightly so therefore it would always have the advantage over the belt....give me a break!! Certainly, you could just put a light sensor at the side of the conveyor about an inch ahead of the plane's wheel and when the wheel triggers the light, speed up the conveyor until the sensor goes out and with some smoothing intellegence the whole thing could probably match speeds within +- a couple inches/sec....that's not close enough??

Remember that the it will fly folks have to own up to a long history of posts about "free wheeling" which has been used both to support their case for interpretation #1 and also to refute all possibility of interpretation #2. I think that a new thread should be started on that topic alone just to capture the madness in one place.

I also think it has been interesting to note the difference in civility between the "it will fly" posters versus the "no fly" posters...wonder why that is? Alt5p has born the brunt of this because he's obviously put a LOT more energy into this debate but has for the most part (OK, one bad night) been extremely patient and civil.

Certainly this has been an interesting problem and a demonstration that any "learning" by web board is probably a futile effort as I don't see anyone changing their original stance on the problem after nearly 200 pages of argument.

Looks like I'll have to do this again...

QUOTE
A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).

The question is:

Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

"new physics" such as "free wheeling"

New?? I think the wheel was invented at least ten thousand yeas ago! Not what I would call new! The term "free wheeling" refers to the fact that the brakes are not on! (Again, an extremely difficult concept to grasp) You can see that their interpretation is flawed!

The light sensor he mentions, tracks the planes position of the plane not speed... again violating the original conditions of the question.

He is also forgetting that for a very long time they interpreted the question as we did, and they were saying that the friction in the wheels coupled with the planes weight, would not allow the plane to move forward. ( pages in the 50's .. 90's )

Pounding our head against a wall... and beating a dead horse all come to mind!

It's been evident throughout that their knowledge of physics and physical concepts as well as critical thinking skills are all lacking! As a matter of fact, Atl5p has actually learned quite a bit. If you go back and read his early posts they were horrible! The later ones, although still flawed showed much improvement in terminology and understanding.

Krreagan
krreagan
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 01:22 PM)
Your right it might just reach 200.

Time to start transferring my kids to any school other than the no fly-ers went to.

Since Atl5p mentioned www.howstuffworks.com so much... I would assume he's home schooled!

Krreagan
Bloy
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 22 2005, 02:33 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 02:19 PM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 22 2005, 02:14 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 22 2005, 01:41 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 01:10 PM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 22 2005, 12:58 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 12:52 PM)
I would suggest you experiment with different waxes applied to the floats to find the best typw for least resistance..

??

I'm talking boats. Will a boat go faster in a lake of alcohol or in a lake of slightly warmed maple syrup?

Prop is more eficient in the syrup, but it's harder to ove the boat , yet it does not displace as much liquid. The prop is less efficient in alcohol, but the boat displaces more liquid, but has less resistance to the boat passing through it.

yes skiers/snowboarders use different waxes for different temps and snow conditions.

isn't a boat a float? and as for the prop.... I know of props on planes that change pitch, but I'm not sure if boat props can be made to do so also...

I don't keep up with boating much, but I don't know of any variable props.

I think you have to pick the best one for the job and use it.

Boats float, but they are not a float. They are a boat. Floats are not self propelled.

well...you could go with a "swamp boat" that uses "air" to propel it. Then you could make use of the variable pitch mechanism and if you are hopping from one poluted area to another with variable viscosity(a pool of thick oil spill) you could change the prop pitch for maximize performance.

That could work, but maybe it would be more eficient to have a a 5 speed manuall transmission. That way I could alway run the engine at optimum RPM.

Hell... lets just go with a "hover craft" and avoid all the sludge or viscosity factors all together...

...er.. we'll still have to figure in the "density" of the atmosphere...
but the fresh paint job on the vehicle would remain somewhat clean...depending on how much spray the viscous fluid releases into the atmosphere.

On second thought(or third or fourth), your boat seems the most environmently harmonious..

Perhaps I should let the EPA clean up the mess befor I go boating.

I thought I'd go back a few pages, find a relatively long post and post it here..just to help move the page count along....
Bloy
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 22 2005, 04:01 PM)
re: the car.
There are obviously 2 trains of thought here.  And it has to do with how the phrase "moves forward" is interpreted.  You can either take it to mean in relation to the belt or in relation to the tower/ground/calm air.

1--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured by radar guns from the tower which have to match each other at all times, then the car will achieve wind flow over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

wheel speed/car speedometer = 100
air speed over wings = 50

2--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured based on their own speedometers which have to match each other at all times, then the car will have zero wind over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

car speedometer speed = 50
belt speedometer speed = 50
wheel speed/car speedometer = 50
air speed over wings = 0

--
So neither side is right or wrong... just a different interpretation of the question which doesn't explicitly state what 'moves forward' really means.

However, in scenario 2, the speedometer of the car is measuring it's speed in relation to the belt, and the belt is measuring it's speed in relation to the dirt beneath it.  Is this wrong?  Not necessarily, but I think it would be more correct/scientific to measure both speeds in relation to the same object as per scenario 1.

So I will agree to disagree with the 'car no flyiers'.

BTW I don't mean to put words in anyones mouth... this is just the way I am interpreting the two sides of the argument.

SkiSTX,

I think that Atl5p, Fargo and I (plus a few unidentified Guests) long ago agreed that there were two possible interpretations.

1. Speed of the plane is measured as movement forward from a stationary observer. This interpretation totally discounts any effect from the belt because it already says that the plane is moving forward away from a stationary observer and hence all actions of the belt must be netted out for that to occur. If that is your definition, then of course the problem is trivial and the plane will fly.

2. Speed of the plane is measured relative to the belt, just like you see on a treadmill in a gym a millions of times per day. The plane moves forward relative to the belt in one direction and the belt moves in the opposite direction at the same speed and the plane is stationary with respect to an outside observer, thus no airspeed and it will not fly.

The problem here has been a total refusal of the "it will fly" folks to acknowledge the second interpretation which has been muddled by all sorts of "new physics" such as "free wheeling", to support their claim that even if you did interpret the problem as case #2, the plane still would fly because there's nothing the conveyor could do to stop the forward motion of the plane. Now it seems that while there be some acknowledgment that #2 is possible, they want to argue that #1 is a "more correct interpretation" or even more amazing, that you couldn't build a controller to work for case #2 so therefore #1 has to be the only possible interpretation...incredible!! Now I am reading a post that suggests that you might be able to get a close match of speeds but that the plane would inch forward every so slightly so therefore it would always have the advantage over the belt....give me a break!! Certainly, you could just put a light sensor at the side of the conveyor about an inch ahead of the plane's wheel and when the wheel triggers the light, speed up the conveyor until the sensor goes out and with some smoothing intellegence the whole thing could probably match speeds within +- a couple inches/sec....that's not close enough??

Remember that the it will fly folks have to own up to a long history of posts about "free wheeling" which has been used both to support their case for interpretation #1 and also to refute all possibility of interpretation #2. I think that a new thread should be started on that topic alone just to capture the madness in one place.

I also think it has been interesting to note the difference in civility between the "it will fly" posters versus the "no fly" posters...wonder why that is? Alt5p has born the brunt of this because he's obviously put a LOT more energy into this debate but has for the most part (OK, one bad night) been extremely patient and civil.

Certainly this has been an interesting problem and a demonstration that any "learning" by web board is probably a futile effort as I don't see anyone changing their original stance on the problem after nearly 200 pages of argument.

Looks like I'll have to do this again...

QUOTE
A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).

The question is:

Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

"new physics" such as "free wheeling"

New?? I think the wheel was invented at least ten thousand yeas ago! Not what I would call new! The term "free wheeling" refers to the fact that the brakes are not on! (Again, an extremely difficult concept to grasp) You can see that their interpretation is flawed!

The light sensor he mentions, tracks the planes position of the plane not speed... again violating the original conditions of the question.

He is also forgetting that for a very long time they interpreted the question as we did, and they were saying that the friction in the wheels coupled with the planes weight, would not allow the plane to move forward. ( pages in the 50's .. 90's )

Pounding our head against a wall... and beating a dead horse all come to mind!

It's been evident throughout that their knowledge of physics and physical concepts as well as critical thinking skills are all lacking! As a matter of fact, Atl5p has actually learned quite a bit. If you go back and read his early posts they were horrible! The later ones, although still flawed showed much improvement in terminology and understanding.

Krreagan

another one for the count!
Bloy
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 08:27 PM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 22 2005, 02:33 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 02:19 PM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 22 2005, 02:14 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 22 2005, 01:41 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 01:10 PM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 22 2005, 12:58 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 12:52 PM)
I would suggest you experiment with different waxes applied to the floats to find the best typw for least resistance..

??

I'm talking boats. Will a boat go faster in a lake of alcohol or in a lake of slightly warmed maple syrup?

Prop is more eficient in the syrup, but it's harder to ove the boat , yet it does not displace as much liquid. The prop is less efficient in alcohol, but the boat displaces more liquid, but has less resistance to the boat passing through it.

yes skiers/snowboarders use different waxes for different temps and snow conditions.

isn't a boat a float? and as for the prop.... I know of props on planes that change pitch, but I'm not sure if boat props can be made to do so also...

I don't keep up with boating much, but I don't know of any variable props.

I think you have to pick the best one for the job and use it.

Boats float, but they are not a float. They are a boat. Floats are not self propelled.

well...you could go with a "swamp boat" that uses "air" to propel it. Then you could make use of the variable pitch mechanism and if you are hopping from one poluted area to another with variable viscosity(a pool of thick oil spill) you could change the prop pitch for maximize performance.

That could work, but maybe it would be more eficient to have a a 5 speed manuall transmission. That way I could alway run the engine at optimum RPM.

Hell... lets just go with a "hover craft" and avoid all the sludge or viscosity factors all together...

...er.. we'll still have to figure in the "density" of the atmosphere...
but the fresh paint job on the vehicle would remain somewhat clean...depending on how much spray the viscous fluid releases into the atmosphere.

On second thought(or third or fourth), your boat seems the most environmently harmonious..

Perhaps I should let the EPA clean up the mess befor I go boating.

I thought I'd go back a few pages, find a relatively long post and post it here..just to help move the page count along....

By the way.... What would the EPA use to clean up... a boat? or a rope on a float?
krreagan
Doesn't count if it's padded guys!

Krreagan
QuantumRift
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:35 PM)
Doesn't count if it's padded guys!

Krreagan

How about somebody conduct the official POLL of who is here...

FLY vs NO-FLY.

I vote for FLY.
Bloy
QUOTE (QuantumRift+Dec 22 2005, 08:40 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:35 PM)
Doesn't count if it's padded guys!

Krreagan

How about somebody conduct the official POLL of who is here...

FLY vs NO-FLY.

I vote for FLY.

I make a motion to second that! but we have to wait for Atl5p to wake up and present his findings to the contrary
krreagan
QUOTE (QuantumRift+Dec 22 2005, 01:40 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:35 PM)
Doesn't count if it's padded guys!

Krreagan

How about somebody conduct the official POLL of who is here...

FLY vs NO-FLY.

I vote for FLY.

Fly!

Krreagan
Bloy
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:49 PM)
QUOTE (QuantumRift+Dec 22 2005, 01:40 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:35 PM)
Doesn't count if it's padded guys!

Krreagan

How about somebody conduct the official POLL of who is here...

FLY vs NO-FLY.

I vote for FLY.

Fly!

Krreagan

okay ...that's three for "fly", and zip for "no fly"
krreagan
QUOTE (QuantumRift+Dec 22 2005, 01:40 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:35 PM)
Doesn't count if it's padded guys!

Krreagan

How about somebody conduct the official POLL of who is here...

FLY vs NO-FLY.

I vote for FLY.

Since we all know that the law of physics obey the democratic vote! This will determine how the universe will behave until the next poll overrides this definition of reality!

or

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" A.Savage

Krreagan
QuantumRift
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE (QuantumRift+Dec 22 2005, 01:40 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:35 PM)
Doesn't count if it's padded guys!

Krreagan

How about somebody conduct the official POLL of who is here...

FLY vs NO-FLY.

I vote for FLY.

Since we all know that the law of physics obey the democratic vote! This will determine how the universe will behave until the next poll overrides this definition of reality!

Krreagan

Ah, just enter the FORD ROAD TO KONA Sweepstakes (Below)...

LoL..
isfn
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 08:52 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:49 PM)
QUOTE (QuantumRift+Dec 22 2005, 01:40 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:35 PM)
Doesn't count if it's padded guys!

Krreagan

How about somebody conduct the official POLL of who is here...

FLY vs NO-FLY.

I vote for FLY.

Fly!

Krreagan

okay ...that's three for "fly", and zip for "no fly"

fly
Guest
If you actually did a poll, it would probably turn out exactly the same way it does on almost every other forum: about 3 fly to 1 no fly.

BTW, I'm a flyer.
sooks
FLY!!!!
vrd863
Fly !
Illiac
QUOTE (sooks+Dec 22 2005, 07:45 PM)
A lot more "Civility"  ........???  Clearly, you missed the part where Atl snapped on me.  I mean he lost it..... I know you guys did take it harshly from some before.  But it was pretty much unprovoked, i hadnt done any name calling, just simply proving his ideas wrong with the physics.

Atl5p acknowledge that and took the time to appologize. Try to look at the context of the forum at that time with some of your "thought companions" bashing all the no fly guys/gals with I,II,III,IV-type labels which you'll find easy to trace.

QUOTE (sooks+Dec 22 2005, 07:45 PM)
I dont think most of the will fly guys care much about situation 1 or 2..... whether you use belt or ground...just as long as your consistent with both of them.  The main problem most of you no flyers were using is that you had 2 different refernce frames...which is the case where it doesnt work...
But there are two different reference frames. One (the conveyor)determines the speed that the plane is moving down the conveyor and is used in #2 to match the conveyor speed. The other, the outside world is where "apparent motion" (despite the fact that plane may be moving quite fast down the conveyor) determines whether you have airpseed or not. Please refer to any 1st semester college physics class in mechanics and look at problems considering relative motion where one object is moving on the surface of another object, whether the surface is a solid or a fluid. Also, if there are pilots in this debate, surely they must be aware that two reference frames are used ALL THE TIME when considering flight in a moving airmass. Winds aloft give the the speed that an airmass is moving with respect to the ground. Your airspeed in that airmass tells you speed with respect to the airmass. Net the two, with consideration to vectors and you get ground speed...pilots do this everyday...the airmass is like the conveyor, the plane moves within it and the airmass moves in relation to the ground.This problem should be simpler as the vector calculation is trivial. For the life of me, I don't see why pilots of all people in this thread have difficulty accepting that perspective. BTW, what's your groundspeed if you are flying 70kts directly into a headwind of 70kts? Are you moving? Got a lot of fuel?
QUOTE (sooks+Dec 22 2005, 07:45 PM)

And, i dont know how you say a LOT more effort into it.  THere are plenty of the will fly group (me included) that has spent a lot of time doing some research and running the formulas, using examples, everything to show the physics of it.  just to have it thrown out the window and not even acknowledged, but in turn a rsponse comes back that just twists it around another way.  I believe thats why you no flyers recieved so much flak is because it was like pulling teeth to get a straight answer.  It was amazing how factual information could just be completely ignored.  I didnt care if you debated it, or showed it wrong...  There was so many times it was just flat out ignored.  It starts to get out at people when they spend all that time coming up with a thought out rational explanation, and dont recieve anything back, except for twisting around what they said to something completely the opposite.
Sorry, that was not clear on my part, I meant effort relative to other no-fly posters. Face it, Atl5p tried to keep up with all your posts and I can't imagine how much time that took. For a problem who's solution depends only upon "speed", (the only givens in the problem) I think Atl5p certainly went the the distance in trying to accomodate all the challenges into turf such as CRF, total force to move a 747, you name it. You didn't see me respond to all that stuff as I certainly have other things to do and felt it more important to focus on relative motion...beating a dead horse.

Illiac
No Fly when speed of plane is taken as relative to the conveyor. (My assumption)

Fly if speed of plane is taken as forward motion away from fixed observer. (Not my assumption and not a very interesting problem as speed of plane is the independent variable...what's to determine?)
krreagan
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 03:07 PM)
No Fly when speed of plane is taken as relative to the conveyor.  (My assumption)

Fly if speed of plane is taken as forward motion away from fixed observer.  (Not my assumption and not a very interesting problem as speed of plane is the independent variable...what's to determine?)

It's more interesting then the wheels/belt spinning to infinity on first forward motion? That's all your interpretation gives us! A feedback loop that quickly goes out of control!

Krreagan
Bloy
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 09:57 PM)
QUOTE (sooks+Dec 22 2005, 07:45 PM)
A lot more "Civility"  ........???   Clearly, you missed the part where Atl snapped on me.  I mean he lost it..... I know you guys did take it harshly from some before.  But it was pretty much unprovoked, i hadnt done any name calling, just simply proving his ideas wrong with the physics.

Atl5p acknowledge that and took the time to appologize. Try to look at the context of the forum at that time with some of your "thought companions" bashing all the no fly guys/gals with I,II,III,IV-type labels which you'll find easy to trace.

QUOTE (sooks+Dec 22 2005, 07:45 PM)
I dont think most of the will fly guys care much about situation 1 or 2..... whether you use belt or ground...just as long as your consistent with both of them.  The main problem most of you no flyers were using is that you had 2 different refernce frames...which is the case where it doesnt work...
But there are two different reference frames. One (the conveyor)determines the speed that the plane is moving down the conveyor and is used in #2 to match the conveyor speed. The other, the outside world is where "apparent motion" (despite the fact that plane may be moving quite fast down the conveyor) determines whether you have airpseed or not. Please refer to any 1st semester college physics class in mechanics and look at problems considering relative motion where one object is moving on the surface of another object, whether the surface is a solid or a fluid. Also, if there are pilots in this debate, surely they must be aware that two reference frames are used ALL THE TIME when considering flight in a moving airmass. Winds aloft give the the speed that an airmass is moving with respect to the ground. Your airspeed in that airmass tells you speed with respect to the airmass. Net the two, with consideration to vectors and you get ground speed...pilots do this everyday...the airmass is like the conveyor, the plane moves within it and the airmass moves in relation to the ground.This problem should be simpler as the vector calculation is trivial. For the life of me, I don't see why pilots of all people in this thread have difficulty accepting that perspective. BTW, what's your groundspeed if you are flying 70kts directly into a headwind of 70kts? Are you moving? Got a lot of fuel?
QUOTE (sooks+Dec 22 2005, 07:45 PM)

And, i dont know how you say a LOT more effort into it.  THere are plenty of the will fly group (me included) that has spent a lot of time doing some research and running the formulas, using examples, everything to show the physics of it.  just to have it thrown out the window and not even acknowledged, but in turn a rsponse comes back that just twists it around another way.  I believe thats why you no flyers recieved so much flak is because it was like pulling teeth to get a straight answer.  It was amazing how factual information could just be completely ignored.  I didnt care if you debated it, or showed it wrong...  There was so many times it was just flat out ignored.  It starts to get out at people when they spend all that time coming up with a thought out rational explanation, and dont recieve anything back, except for twisting around what they said to something completely the opposite.
Sorry, that was not clear on my part, I meant effort relative to other no-fly posters. Face it, Atl5p tried to keep up with all your posts and I can't imagine how much time that took. For a problem who's solution depends only upon "speed", (the only givens in the problem) I think Atl5p certainly went the the distance in trying to accomodate all the challenges into turf such as CRF, total force to move a 747, you name it. You didn't see me respond to all that stuff as I certainly have other things to do and felt it more important to focus on relative motion...beating a dead horse.

okay, now bring that 70kts down to the conveyor....
Is the conveyor moving? NO. Because there is no forward motion of the plane..

This is a similar situation when AI was at the EAA convention in Oshkosh(several times)....
When the wind storm came in, all the ultra-light pilots ran to their planes. we were just beyond a tall hedge. The planes took off practically vertically, needing only a small movment along the runway. we couldn't actually see them lift off, but they sounded like a bunch of bumble bees buzzing up into the air..
WHAT???
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 07:28 PM)
SkiSTX,

I think that Atl5p, Fargo and I (plus a few unidentified Guests) long ago agreed that there were two possible interpretations. EH?

1.  Speed of the plane is measured as movement forward from a stationary observer.  This interpretation totally discounts any effect from the belt because it already says that the plane is moving forward away from a stationary observer and hence all actions of the belt must be netted out for that to occur.  If that is your definition, then of course the problem is trivial and the plane will fly. WHAT???

2. Speed of the plane is measured relative to the belt, just like you see on a treadmill in a gym a millions of times per day.  The plane moves forward relative to the belt in one direction and the belt moves in the opposite direction at the same speed and the plane is stationary with respect to an outside observer, thus no airspeed and it will not fly. WHAT???

The problem here has been a total refusal of the "it will fly" folks to acknowledge the second interpretation which has been muddled by all sorts of "new physics" such as "free wheeling", to support their claim that even if you did interpret the problem as case #2, the plane still would fly because there's nothing the conveyor could do to stop the forward motion of the plane.  Now it seems that while there be some acknowledgment that #2 is possible, they want to argue that #1 is a "more correct interpretation" or even more amazing, that you couldn't build a controller to work for case #2 so therefore #1 has to be the only possible interpretation...incredible!! WHAT??? Now I am reading a post that suggests that you might be able to get a close match of speeds but that the plane would inch forward every so slightly so therefore it would always have the advantage over the belt....give me a break!!  WHAT??? Certainly, you could just put a light sensor at the side of the conveyor about an inch ahead of the plane's wheel and when the wheel triggers the light, speed up the conveyor until the sensor goes out and with some smoothing intellegence the whole thing could probably match speeds within +- a couple inches/sec....that's not close enough??  WHAT???

Remember that the it will fly folks have to own up to a long history of posts about "free wheeling" which has been used both to support their case for interpretation #1 and also to refute all possibility of interpretation #2.  WHAT??? I think that a new thread should be started on that topic alone just to capture the madness in one place.

I also think it has been interesting to note the difference in civility between the "it will fly" posters versus the "no fly" posters...wonder why that is? BECAUSE YOU TAKE PRIDE AT BEING STUPID!!   Alt5p has born the brunt of this because he's obviously put a LOT more energy into this debate but has for the most part (OK, one bad night) been extremely patient and civil. WHAT???

Certainly this has been an interesting problem and a demonstration that any "learning" by web board is probably a futile effort as I don't see anyone changing their original stance on the problem after nearly 200 pages of argument.  BUT YOU TAKE PRIDE AT BEING TOTALLY STUPID!!

"PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to physics and technology..... If you need any help on your scientific problem or you want to ask a question related to physics or technology, then PhysOrg is the right place to be, since a lot of experts from various fields visit PhysOrg Forums every day."

So much for this forum.
A lot of experts, eh?
The place to come for help on a scientific problem, eh?

Let me rewrite the first line of the Illiac quote:
"I think that Atl5p, Fargo and Illiac (plus a few unidentified Guests)" are so full of sh*t its un-f**k**g-believable.
How can they be on a Physics forum?
How?

They make no attempt to understand anyones argument.
Show no capacity for rational thought.

Illiac your " two possible interpretations" are a joke.

Read some of the will fly posts and WEEP.

krreagan
I'll take full credit for the dipshits I,II,III & IV! Why because they fit my definition of dipshits!

What is my definition you might ask...

A person who:

1) Argues a point from ignorance (not personal but knowledge).
2) Does not have the critical thinking skills necessary to formulate a scientific answer to the problem they are arguing.

(1 & 2 are normal for all of us prior to our education!)

3) Ignores or refutes polite attempts to correct points 1 & 2.

and most importantly.

4) Over and over telling people on this list (full of people with physics degrees, including myself), That _they_ are ignorant of the parameters of the problem when it is very obvious that they are uninformed as to the the physics involved.

Krreagan
Illiac
QUOTE (WHAT???+Dec 22 2005, 10:24 PM)
BUT YOU TAKE PRIDE AT BEING TOTALLY STUPID!!
You pointed out that this a a physics forum so that's some really excellent physics there WHAT???

QUOTE (WHAT???+Dec 22 2005, 10:24 PM)
Let me rewrite the first line of the Illiac quote:
"I think that Atl5p, Fargo and Illiac  (plus a few unidentified Guests)" are so full of sh*t its un-f**k**g-believable.
More outstanding physics there WHATT???

You couldn't better illustrate my point about lack of civility. More irrelevant bashing in lieu of substance.

Bloy
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 10:19 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 09:57 PM)
QUOTE (sooks+Dec 22 2005, 07:45 PM)
A lot more "Civility"  ........???   Clearly, you missed the part where Atl snapped on me.  I mean he lost it..... I know you guys did take it harshly from some before.  But it was pretty much unprovoked, i hadnt done any name calling, just simply proving his ideas wrong with the physics.

Atl5p acknowledge that and took the time to appologize. Try to look at the context of the forum at that time with some of your "thought companions" bashing all the no fly guys/gals with I,II,III,IV-type labels which you'll find easy to trace.

QUOTE (sooks+Dec 22 2005, 07:45 PM)
I dont think most of the will fly guys care much about situation 1 or 2..... whether you use belt or ground...just as long as your consistent with both of them.  The main problem most of you no flyers were using is that you had 2 different refernce frames...which is the case where it doesnt work...
But there are two different reference frames. One (the conveyor)determines the speed that the plane is moving down the conveyor and is used in #2 to match the conveyor speed. The other, the outside world is where "apparent motion" (despite the fact that plane may be moving quite fast down the conveyor) determines whether you have airpseed or not. Please refer to any 1st semester college physics class in mechanics and look at problems considering relative motion where one object is moving on the surface of another object, whether the surface is a solid or a fluid. Also, if there are pilots in this debate, surely they must be aware that two reference frames are used ALL THE TIME when considering flight in a moving airmass. Winds aloft give the the speed that an airmass is moving with respect to the ground. Your airspeed in that airmass tells you speed with respect to the airmass. Net the two, with consideration to vectors and you get ground speed...pilots do this everyday...the airmass is like the conveyor, the plane moves within it and the airmass moves in relation to the ground.This problem should be simpler as the vector calculation is trivial. For the life of me, I don't see why pilots of all people in this thread have difficulty accepting that perspective. BTW, what's your groundspeed if you are flying 70kts directly into a headwind of 70kts? Are you moving? Got a lot of fuel?
QUOTE (sooks+Dec 22 2005, 07:45 PM)

And, i dont know how you say a LOT more effort into it.  THere are plenty of the will fly group (me included) that has spent a lot of time doing some research and running the formulas, using examples, everything to show the physics of it.  just to have it thrown out the window and not even acknowledged, but in turn a rsponse comes back that just twists it around another way.  I believe thats why you no flyers recieved so much flak is because it was like pulling teeth to get a straight answer.  It was amazing how factual information could just be completely ignored.  I didnt care if you debated it, or showed it wrong...  There was so many times it was just flat out ignored.  It starts to get out at people when they spend all that time coming up with a thought out rational explanation, and dont recieve anything back, except for twisting around what they said to something completely the opposite.
Sorry, that was not clear on my part, I meant effort relative to other no-fly posters. Face it, Atl5p tried to keep up with all your posts and I can't imagine how much time that took. For a problem who's solution depends only upon "speed", (the only givens in the problem) I think Atl5p certainly went the the distance in trying to accomodate all the challenges into turf such as CRF, total force to move a 747, you name it. You didn't see me respond to all that stuff as I certainly have other things to do and felt it more important to focus on relative motion...beating a dead horse.

okay, now bring that 70kts down to the conveyor....
Is the conveyor moving? NO. Because there is no forward motion of the plane..

This is a similar situation when AI was at the EAA convention in Oshkosh(several times)....
When the wind storm came in, all the ultra-light pilots ran to their planes. we were just beyond a tall hedge. The planes took off practically vertically, needing only a small movment along the runway. we couldn't actually see them lift off, but they sounded like a bunch of bumble bees buzzing up into the air..

regardless that the plane is in an air mass, the air mass is still referenced to the ground. You are still in the same reference frame(the ground) and the conveyor will stop if the plane isn't moving forward....as you imply by the 70kt headwind.

Ruling out ground effect, you should be able to land that plane vertically over a motionless conveyor. You could even power down causing the wind to move you backward and the conveyour would slip under the wheels in reverse(forward) following the opposite movement condition.....you just better have very good control as the "now touching" wheels will tend to follow the conveyor friction if not perfectly straight.
SkiSTX
I vote FLY of course!
Illiac
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 10:46 PM)
okay, now bring that 70kts down to the conveyor....
Is the conveyor moving?  NO.  Because there is no forward motion of the plane..

This is a similar situation when AI was at the EAA convention in Oshkosh(several times)....
When the wind storm came in, all the ultra-light pilots ran to their planes.  we were just beyond a tall hedge.  The planes took off practically vertically, needing only a small movment along the runway.  we couldn't actually see them lift off, but they sounded like a bunch of bumble bees buzzing up into the air..

I'm afraid you lost me on that one Bloy. The fact that the ultralights took so little runway should emphasize that the relative wind was already near their rotation speed. If was just slightly more, they could have taken off and had a near zero groundspeed...the whole point of the plane stationary on the conveyor despite moving fast down the conveyor. Probably not all that safe for the ultralights to do in any case.

QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 10:46 PM)
regardless that the plane is in an air mass, I said that the air mass is still referenced to the ground. I said that too   You are still in the same reference frame(the ground) and the conveyor will stop if the plane isn't moving forward....as you imply by the 70kt headwind.I have no idea what you mean here Bloy.  The point is that you have 70kts airspeed but are stationary with respect to the ground, hence groundspeed =0.  The analogy being that you can appear to be motionless with respect to the outside observer even though you are moving through the airmass at 70kts because the airmass is also moving at an equal but opposite speed, just like the conveyor problem.  Hence substitute the airmass for the conveyor and you are looking at the problem in exactly the same fashion with respect to multiple reference frames...and since the speeds match, the plane is motionless (wrt outside) despite moving quite rapidly down the conveyor.

Ruling out ground effect, you should be able to land that plane vertically over a motionless conveyor.

WHAT??
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 10:46 PM)
QUOTE (WHAT???+Dec 22 2005, 10:24 PM)
BUT YOU TAKE PRIDE AT BEING TOTALLY STUPID!!
You pointed out that this a a physics forum so that's some really excellent physics there WHAT???

QUOTE (WHAT???+Dec 22 2005, 10:24 PM)
Let me rewrite the first line of the Illiac quote:
"I think that Atl5p, Fargo and Illiac  (plus a few unidentified Guests)" are so full of sh*t its un-f**k**g-believable.
More outstanding physics there WHATT???

You couldn't better illustrate my point about lack of civility. More irrelevant bashing in lieu of substance.

Don't be such a stuck up so and so. "Holier than thou" - dont make me laugh.

From past evidence you wouldn't recognize excellent or outstanding physics if it hit you in the face with a baseball bat.

How about your lack of civility? You think you can go on day after day insulting everyones intelligence by endlessly repeating moronic arguments?

Your crassly stupid statements are the equivalent of intellectual mud wrestling. Most of the will fly guys are trying to discuss the issue using physics, maths, logic. Lofty aspirations maybe? But you respond with gravity defying, cretinous, idiocy on every occasion.

I couldn't have put it better myself: a recent article in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University

Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

What is a guy to do faced with constantly self satisfied dummkopfs* like you?

*dummkopf

NOUN: A mentally dull person: blockhead, chump, clod, dolt, dullard, dummy, dunce, numskull, thickhead. Slang : dimwit, dumbbell, dumbo.

yesitdid
I have not read this entire thread but I can't believe that it is still going.

The plane cannot take off, there is no airspeed over the wings to provide lift!

The conveyor might produce some air movement and a propeller will blow some air past the wing but the propeller does not make a plane go up because it moves air over the wing. It allows the plane to lift off because it moves the wing through the air by moving the entire plane forward.

In this senario the plane is not moving at all relative to the air therefore no airflow over the wing therefore no liftoff. All you are doing is moving the plane forward to keep it in place relative to the air.

This assumes a calm day.

If there is a 100 mph wind then even some tethered craft will attempt to lift off since air is in fact moving over the wing. This is why small aircraft do get tied down when not in use.
yesitdid
here's another one for the contenders on this thread.

In movies such as "The Italian Job" a car is driven up into a moving trailer or van.
When the drive wheels get on the ramp does the driver of the car have to immediatly slow down by hitting the brakes hard or not,,, and why?
yesitdid
No Fly of course
WHAT??
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 11:10 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 10:46 PM)
okay, now bring that 70kts down to the conveyor....
..

I'm afraid you lost me on that one Bloy. The fact that....

QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 10:46 PM)

Ha - Bloy's lost you? Youve been lost up thick-as-sh*t creek for a long time now.

Get in touch with the Cornell guys before it's too late

Go and read again the posts by Krreagan for example. They contain substance. They contain physics... in lieu of your idiocy.

WHAT??
QUOTE (yesitdid+Dec 22 2005, 11:37 PM)
I have not read this entire thread but I can't believe that it is still going.

The plane cannot take off, there is no airspeed over the wings to provide lift!

The conveyor might produce some air movement and a propeller will blow some air past the wing but the propeller does not make a plane go up because it moves air over the wing. It allows the plane to lift off because it moves the wing through the air by moving the entire plane forward.

In this senario the plane is not moving at all relative to the air therefore no airflow over the wing therefore no liftoff. All you are doing is moving the plane forward to keep it in place relative to the air.

This assumes a calm day.

If there is a 100 mph wind then even some tethered craft will attempt to lift off since air is in fact moving over the wing. This is why small aircraft do get tied down when not in use.

I rest my case..... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGHHHHHHH
Guest
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 22 2005, 04:01 PM)
re: the car.
There are obviously 2 trains of thought here. And it has to do with how the phrase "moves forward" is interpreted. You can either take it to mean in relation to the belt or in relation to the tower/ground/calm air.

1--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured by radar guns from the tower which have to match each other at all times, then the car will achieve wind flow over it's wings. And the speeds could be as follows...

wheel speed/car speedometer = 100
air speed over wings = 50

2--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured based on their own speedometers which have to match each other at all times, then the car will have zero wind over it's wings. And the speeds could be as follows...

car speedometer speed = 50
belt speedometer speed = 50
wheel speed/car speedometer = 50
air speed over wings = 0

--
So neither side is right or wrong... just a different interpretation of the question which doesn't explicitly state what 'moves forward' really means.

However, in scenario 2, the speedometer of the car is measuring it's speed in relation to the belt, and the belt is measuring it's speed in relation to the dirt beneath it. Is this wrong? Not necessarily, but I think it would be more correct/scientific to measure both speeds in relation to the same object as per scenario 1.

So I will agree to disagree with the 'car no flyiers'.

BTW I don't mean to put words in anyones mouth... this is just the way I am interpreting the two sides of the argument.

So obviously, it's impossible for the treadbelt to stop the car either....the car MOVES from our vantage point standing next to a stationary molecule of air.

ANd a runner will move too....it is impossible for either to be held back by the treadmill, as long as the treadbelt's speed matches the speed of the object MOVING away from a fixed location on terra firma

that's what we've been trying to say all along, it's just been polluted with all the freewheeling this and driven wheels that ad nausium...it's really a stupid thing to argue about:

which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead, it's just that simple....which side of the boarder to bury the survivors....the plane moves, the car moves, the runner moves, they all MUST move to satisfy the question.

the plane will obviously move, this isn't a question about force from the treadbelt, the treadbelt dosn't have anything to do with nothing.
Guest
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 03:28 PM)
QUOTE (fargo boyle+Dec 22 2005, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 03:00 PM)
I think you will find you will be moving...according to your pedometer attached to your belt(EDIT- BODY or personal belt, ).... at 1 mph to match the speed of the conveyor and satisfy the problem. which translates to the same speed of .5mph of the belt....calibrated to what the belt is sitting upon....a common reference.

This is the part where you're wrong. Because you're not trying to match your speed to the belt. The belt is matching it's speed to you!

YOU have to move first in order for the belt to move!

So let's do this in slow motion: you move forward slowly and travel a distance of 1 inch in 1 second in relation to a standing observer next to the treadmill. Now the treadmill makes it's first read of the sensors. What speed are you travelling at? 1 inch per second. So that's what the treadmill set it's speed to, in relation to the standing observer. 1 inch per second.

Yes,, and while the belt is moving opposite that 1 unit per second, you are moving another 2unit per second while the belt is making its initial move.... so you don't suddenly go backwards with the belt. you progress! You have to apply more power to your legs, wheels, propeller to continue your forward movement of 1 unit per second.... that is why your speedometer(on the car) will be reading twice the speed of what you are actually traveling.
A plane just applies full power all at once and gradually accelerates as its mass adjusts because its wheels are not so dependant.

..also according to your scenario, the belt(conveyor) wouldn't move because when it takes its reading, you have already moved that 1 unit and the reading would be 0units per sec(at the time of the reading) . Now if you are in a state of continuous motion, THEN the belt would take that first reading and move.

It is obvious that it is clearly impossible for a treadmill to cause a man to appear to be 'running in place'. That's impossible, and that's all there is to it, PERIOD.
That's why treadmills were such a fad in the 80's, until they found out that people really didn't burn any calories while training on one...it was the same as hanging from a bar, and wiggling your legs...no WORK got done, thus no ENERGY was burned....energy can never be destroyed.
WHAT??
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 23 2005, 12:05 AM)

So obviously, it's impossible for the treadbelt to stop the car either....the car MOVES from our vantage point standing next to a stationary molecule of air. I LOVE IT!!

ANd a runner will move too....it is impossible for either to be held back by the treadmill, as long as the treadbelt's speed matches the speed of the object MOVING away from a fixed location on terra firma

that's what we've been trying to say all along, OF COURSE YOU HAVE!! it's just been polluted with all the freewheeling this and driven wheels that ad nausium...it's really a stupid thing to argue about:

which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead, it's just that simple....which side of the boarder to bury the survivors....the plane moves, the car moves, the runner moves, they all MUST move to satisfy the question.

the plane will obviously move, this isn't a question about force from the treadbelt, the treadbelt dosn't have anything to do with nothing.

More irrelevant STUPIDITY in lieu of substance.

Are you on the wrong forum by any chance? Try the "I have my head stuck up my ***" forum.

While your up there have a look for Illiac and atl5p.
Guest
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 22 2005, 04:01 PM)
re: the car.
There are obviously 2 trains of thought here.  And it has to do with how the phrase "moves forward" is interpreted.  You can either take it to mean in relation to the belt or in relation to the tower/ground/calm air.

1--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured by radar guns from the tower which have to match each other at all times, then the car will achieve wind flow over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

wheel speed/car speedometer = 100
air speed over wings = 50

2--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured based on their own speedometers which have to match each other at all times, then the car will have zero wind over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

car speedometer speed = 50
belt speedometer speed = 50
wheel speed/car speedometer = 50
air speed over wings = 0

--
So neither side is right or wrong... just a different interpretation of the question which doesn't explicitly state what 'moves forward' really means.

However, in scenario 2, the speedometer of the car is measuring it's speed in relation to the belt, and the belt is measuring it's speed in relation to the dirt beneath it.  Is this wrong?  Not necessarily, but I think it would be more correct/scientific to measure both speeds in relation to the same object as per scenario 1.

So I will agree to disagree with the 'car no flyiers'.

BTW I don't mean to put words in anyones mouth... this is just the way I am interpreting the two sides of the argument.

SkiSTX,

I think that Atl5p, Fargo and I (plus a few unidentified Guests) long ago agreed that there were two possible interpretations.

1. Speed of the plane is measured as movement forward from a stationary observer. This interpretation totally discounts any effect from the belt because it already says that the plane is moving forward away from a stationary observer and hence all actions of the belt must be netted out for that to occur. If that is your definition, then of course the problem is trivial and the plane will fly.

2. Speed of the plane is measured relative to the belt, just like you see on a treadmill in a gym a millions of times per day. The plane moves forward relative to the belt in one direction and the belt moves in the opposite direction at the same speed and the plane is stationary with respect to an outside observer, thus no airspeed and it will not fly.

The problem here has been a total refusal of the "it will fly" folks to acknowledge the second interpretation which has been muddled by all sorts of "new physics" such as "free wheeling", to support their claim that even if you did interpret the problem as case #2, the plane still would fly because there's nothing the conveyor could do to stop the forward motion of the plane. Now it seems that while there be some acknowledgment that #2 is possible, they want to argue that #1 is a "more correct interpretation" or even more amazing, that you couldn't build a controller to work for case #2 so therefore #1 has to be the only possible interpretation...incredible!! Now I am reading a post that suggests that you might be able to get a close match of speeds but that the plane would inch forward every so slightly so therefore it would always have the advantage over the belt....give me a break!! Certainly, you could just put a light sensor at the side of the conveyor about an inch ahead of the plane's wheel and when the wheel triggers the light, speed up the conveyor until the sensor goes out and with some smoothing intellegence the whole thing could probably match speeds within +- a couple inches/sec....that's not close enough??

Remember that the it will fly folks have to own up to a long history of posts about "free wheeling" which has been used both to support their case for interpretation #1 and also to refute all possibility of interpretation #2. I think that a new thread should be started on that topic alone just to capture the madness in one place.

I also think it has been interesting to note the difference in civility between the "it will fly" posters versus the "no fly" posters...wonder why that is? Alt5p has born the brunt of this because he's obviously put a LOT more energy into this debate but has for the most part (OK, one bad night) been extremely patient and civil.

Certainly this has been an interesting problem and a demonstration that any "learning" by web board is probably a futile effort as I don't see anyone changing their original stance on the problem after nearly 200 pages of argument.

Looks like I'll have to do this again...

QUOTE
A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).

The question is:

Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

"new physics" such as "free wheeling"

New?? I think the wheel was invented at least ten thousand yeas ago! Not what I would call new! The term "free wheeling" refers to the fact that the brakes are not on! (Again, an extremely difficult concept to grasp) You can see that their interpretation is flawed!

The light sensor he mentions, tracks the planes position of the plane not speed... again violating the original conditions of the question.

He is also forgetting that for a very long time they interpreted the question as we did, and they were saying that the friction in the wheels coupled with the planes weight, would not allow the plane to move forward. ( pages in the 50's .. 90's )

Pounding our head against a wall... and beating a dead horse all come to mind!

It's been evident throughout that their knowledge of physics and physical concepts as well as critical thinking skills are all lacking! As a matter of fact, Atl5p has actually learned quite a bit. If you go back and read his early posts they were horrible! The later ones, although still flawed showed much improvement in terminology and understanding.

Krreagan

It's obvious that Atl5p learned a ton....

And it's also obvious that special k needs to choose his inturpretation.
See, he just said the car would move forward...

QUOTE
"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

But just a couple of pages ago, he had this little gem:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=46905
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE "The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction." This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

But just a couple of pages ago, he had this little gem:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=46905
Okay, I've lurked in the darkness for a while and have two answers for you.

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the car does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed, therefore the car will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the car will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the car will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

My US\$.02

Krreagan

Somethings gotta give special K

The it is IMPOSSIBLE for the car to be held back by that conveyor...the question says it all, the object WILL MOVE!
Guest
QUOTE (sooks+Dec 22 2005, 04:44 AM)
QUOTE (Fynlcut+Dec 22 2005, 01:26 AM)
I see it as the car NOT moving in relation to a fixed point. Simply because when I think of a car's speed it's related to the speedo. The wheels will not spin faster than the engine makes them.

A plane's engine acting on the air will pull the plane simply because the wheels will serve their purpose even a double the revolutions of a normal take off. (at least I'd hope.

I agree it just depends on how you measure the speed of a car. The plane, the way I see it doesn't matter because of it acting on the air for propulsion.

Id have to say im with fnylcut and flanker on this one. i like fnylcuts explanation on how you view this... That is similar to what i see with it too. Its actually a different FBD witha car then a plane. the force to move forward is transported through the wheels.

the example where its driving down the regular road and its going 50 and then you hit the conveyor going backwards... it wont simply doubling the speed.within the wheels.....if you didnt change the throttle speed....the wheels wouldnt accelerate any faster...the car would slow down. the wheels now wouldnt be able to gain any ground

Who gave you two permission to break special K's rules about using a fixed point?!?

You dipshits X and XI
Guest
QUOTE (sooks+Dec 22 2005, 05:42 AM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 05:16 AM)
Okay, I've lurked in the darkness for a while and have two answers for you.

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the car does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed,  therefore the car will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the car will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the car will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

My US\$.02

Krreagan

perfect explanation krregan.!!!

OMG!!! Get your mouth off of that sooks!!!

special K, put that thing back into your pants!!!
Guest
QUOTE (swimmer+Dec 22 2005, 08:29 AM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 05:16 AM)
Okay, I've lurked in the darkness for a while and have two answers for you.

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the car does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed,  therefore the car will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the car will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the car will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

My US\$.02

Krreagan

Very good. That makes sense.

You stupid *** morons.....the question says it all, ONE POINT OF REFRENCE!!! Kreep has spoken...it is stupid to use two points of refrence, and you'll probably want to wash that...
WHAT??
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 23 2005, 12:41 AM)
QUOTE (swimmer+Dec 22 2005, 08:29 AM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 05:16 AM)
Okay, I've lurked in the darkness for a while and have two answers for you.

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the car does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed,  therefore the car will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the car will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the car will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

My US\$.02

Krreagan

Very good. That makes sense.

You stupid *** morons.....the question says it all, ONE POINT OF REFRENCE!!! Kreep has spoken...it is stupid to use two points of refrence, and you'll probably want to wash that...

Any idea of the context here?

Nah - didnt think so.

What was it like taking part in the Cornell study - which percentile were you actually in?
Obviously you were never able to "recognize the limitations of your abilities".

QUOTE (WHAT??+)
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University

Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
Guest
QUOTE (WHAT??+Dec 23 2005, 01:01 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 23 2005, 12:41 AM)
QUOTE (swimmer+Dec 22 2005, 08:29 AM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 05:16 AM)
Okay, I've lurked in the darkness for a while and have two answers for you.

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the car does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed,  therefore the car will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the car will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the car will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

My US\$.02

Krreagan

Very good. That makes sense.

You stupid *** morons.....the question says it all, ONE POINT OF REFRENCE!!! Kreep has spoken...it is stupid to use two points of refrence, and you'll probably want to wash that...

Any idea of the context here?

Nah - didnt think so.

What was it like taking part in the Cornell study - which percentile were you actually in?
Obviously you were never able to "recognize the limitations of your abilities".

QUOTE (WHAT??+)
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University

Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

Kreegan, swimmer, sooks, bloy, atl5p, fargo...are you listening?
Fynlcut
Somebody is going to get some coal for christmas. Jeez lighten up.

While I've not been an angel at least I can say I understand where both sides are coming from on this.

I think it will fly, and I can give you reasons why. Now if you believe me or not, oh well. I've tried.

Looking at the mechanics and physics of it it looks clear to me.
krreagan
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 05:21 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 22 2005, 04:01 PM)
re: the car.
There are obviously 2 trains of thought here.  And it has to do with how the phrase "moves forward" is interpreted.  You can either take it to mean in relation to the belt or in relation to the tower/ground/calm air.

1--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured by radar guns from the tower which have to match each other at all times, then the car will achieve wind flow over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

wheel speed/car speedometer = 100
air speed over wings = 50

2--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured based on their own speedometers which have to match each other at all times, then the car will have zero wind over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

car speedometer speed = 50
belt speedometer speed = 50
wheel speed/car speedometer = 50
air speed over wings = 0

--
So neither side is right or wrong... just a different interpretation of the question which doesn't explicitly state what 'moves forward' really means.

However, in scenario 2, the speedometer of the car is measuring it's speed in relation to the belt, and the belt is measuring it's speed in relation to the dirt beneath it.  Is this wrong?  Not necessarily, but I think it would be more correct/scientific to measure both speeds in relation to the same object as per scenario 1.

So I will agree to disagree with the 'car no flyiers'.

BTW I don't mean to put words in anyones mouth... this is just the way I am interpreting the two sides of the argument.

SkiSTX,

I think that Atl5p, Fargo and I (plus a few unidentified Guests) long ago agreed that there were two possible interpretations.

1. Speed of the plane is measured as movement forward from a stationary observer. This interpretation totally discounts any effect from the belt because it already says that the plane is moving forward away from a stationary observer and hence all actions of the belt must be netted out for that to occur. If that is your definition, then of course the problem is trivial and the plane will fly.

2. Speed of the plane is measured relative to the belt, just like you see on a treadmill in a gym a millions of times per day. The plane moves forward relative to the belt in one direction and the belt moves in the opposite direction at the same speed and the plane is stationary with respect to an outside observer, thus no airspeed and it will not fly.

The problem here has been a total refusal of the "it will fly" folks to acknowledge the second interpretation which has been muddled by all sorts of "new physics" such as "free wheeling", to support their claim that even if you did interpret the problem as case #2, the plane still would fly because there's nothing the conveyor could do to stop the forward motion of the plane. Now it seems that while there be some acknowledgment that #2 is possible, they want to argue that #1 is a "more correct interpretation" or even more amazing, that you couldn't build a controller to work for case #2 so therefore #1 has to be the only possible interpretation...incredible!! Now I am reading a post that suggests that you might be able to get a close match of speeds but that the plane would inch forward every so slightly so therefore it would always have the advantage over the belt....give me a break!! Certainly, you could just put a light sensor at the side of the conveyor about an inch ahead of the plane's wheel and when the wheel triggers the light, speed up the conveyor until the sensor goes out and with some smoothing intellegence the whole thing could probably match speeds within +- a couple inches/sec....that's not close enough??

Remember that the it will fly folks have to own up to a long history of posts about "free wheeling" which has been used both to support their case for interpretation #1 and also to refute all possibility of interpretation #2. I think that a new thread should be started on that topic alone just to capture the madness in one place.

I also think it has been interesting to note the difference in civility between the "it will fly" posters versus the "no fly" posters...wonder why that is? Alt5p has born the brunt of this because he's obviously put a LOT more energy into this debate but has for the most part (OK, one bad night) been extremely patient and civil.

Certainly this has been an interesting problem and a demonstration that any "learning" by web board is probably a futile effort as I don't see anyone changing their original stance on the problem after nearly 200 pages of argument.

Looks like I'll have to do this again...

QUOTE
A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).

The question is:

Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

"new physics" such as "free wheeling"

New?? I think the wheel was invented at least ten thousand yeas ago! Not what I would call new! The term "free wheeling" refers to the fact that the brakes are not on! (Again, an extremely difficult concept to grasp) You can see that their interpretation is flawed!

The light sensor he mentions, tracks the planes position of the plane not speed... again violating the original conditions of the question.

He is also forgetting that for a very long time they interpreted the question as we did, and they were saying that the friction in the wheels coupled with the planes weight, would not allow the plane to move forward. ( pages in the 50's .. 90's )

Pounding our head against a wall... and beating a dead horse all come to mind!

It's been evident throughout that their knowledge of physics and physical concepts as well as critical thinking skills are all lacking! As a matter of fact, Atl5p has actually learned quite a bit. If you go back and read his early posts they were horrible! The later ones, although still flawed showed much improvement in terminology and understanding.

Krreagan

It's obvious that Atl5p learned a ton....

And it's also obvious that special k needs to choose his inturpretation.
See, he just said the car would move forward...

QUOTE
"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

But just a couple of pages ago, he had this little gem:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=46905
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE "The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction." This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

But just a couple of pages ago, he had this little gem:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=46905
Okay, I've lurked in the darkness for a while and have two answers for you.

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the car does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed, therefore the car will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the car will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the car will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

My US\$.02

Krreagan

Somethings gotta give special K

The it is IMPOSSIBLE for the car to be held back by that conveyor...the question says it all, the object WILL MOVE!

I refuse to acknowledge a "Guest" Register or shut the hell up!

Krreagan
krreagan
I'm willing to stand here and defend ALL that I have said on this forum. If you are a "GUEST" I have no respect for your opinion! because you have no HONOR! It's easy to sit there are call others a liar or whatever and do it while remaining anonymous!

SHOW YOURSELF YOU COWARDS!

Krreagan
fuck-K
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 02:55 AM)
I'm willing to stand here and defend ALL that I have said on this forum. If you are a "GUEST" I have no respect for your opinion! because you have no HONOR! It's easy to sit there are call others a liar or whatever and do it while remaining anonymous!

SHOW YOURSELF YOU COWARDS!

Krreagan

Didn't say you were a liar special K, just pointed out where you contradict yourself.

Damn, he get's awful defensive awful fast....

krreagan
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 05:41 PM)
QUOTE (swimmer+Dec 22 2005, 08:29 AM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 05:16 AM)
Okay, I've lurked in the darkness for a while and have two answers for you.

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the car does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed,  therefore the car will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the car will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the car will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

My US\$.02

Krreagan

Very good. That makes sense.

You stupid *** morons.....the question says it all, ONE POINT OF REFRENCE!!! Kreep has spoken...it is stupid to use two points of refrence, and you'll probably want to wash that...

I suspect you are Atl5p as he has not shown his head here in a while!

You are a coward!

Krreagan
Guest
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 02:55 AM)
I'm willing to stand here and defend ALL that I have said on this forum. If you are a "GUEST" I have no respect for your opinion! because you have no HONOR! It's easy to sit there are call others a liar or whatever and do it while remaining anonymous!

SHOW YOURSELF YOU COWARDS!

Krreagan

Okay, I've lurked in the darkness for a while and have two answers for you.

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the plane does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed, therefore the plane will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the plane will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the plane will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

My US\$.02

big guy has to vent online cause his wife wears the pants, won't let him have the remote, and his girls don't love him anymore cause they're getting pounded by the loosers in shop class, and all he has is his computer and online 'friends'...seen it before and it's not too pretty....
krreagan
QUOTE (fuck-K+Dec 22 2005, 08:01 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 02:55 AM)
I'm willing to stand here and defend ALL that I have said on this forum. If you are a "GUEST" I have no respect for your opinion! because you have no HONOR! It's easy to sit there are call others a liar or whatever and do it while remaining anonymous!

SHOW YOURSELF YOU COWARDS!

Krreagan

Didn't say you were a liar special K, just pointed out where you contradict yourself.

Damn, he get's awful defensive awful fast....

AN ignorant mind is a terrible thing!

Show me exactly where I contradicted myself and I will defend myself. Unlike some cowards that are so unsure of their themselves that they refuse to register.

Krreagan
krreagan
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 08:05 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 02:55 AM)
I'm willing to stand here and defend ALL that I have said on this forum. If you are a "GUEST" I have no respect for your opinion! because you have no HONOR! It's easy to sit there are call others a liar or whatever and do it while remaining anonymous!

SHOW YOURSELF YOU COWARDS!

Krreagan

Okay, I've lurked in the darkness for a while and have two answers for you.

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the plane does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed, therefore the plane will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the plane will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the plane will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

My US\$.02

big guy has to vent online cause his wife wears the pants, won't let him have the remote, and his girls don't love him anymore cause they're getting pounded by the loosers in shop class, and all he has is his computer and online 'friends'...seen it before and it's not too pretty....

Sound like some 12 year olds cannot control themselves

Armature!
Krreagan
krreagan
I thought not!

Krreagan
krreagan
QUOTE (***-k-really-hard-in-the-asss=k+Dec 22 2005, 08:19 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 03:13 AM)
QUOTE (***-k+Dec 22 2005, 08:12 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 08:09 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 03:06 AM)

AN ignorant mind is a terrible thing!

Show me exactly where I contradicted myself and I will defend myself. Unlike some cowards that are so unsure of their themselves that they refuse to register.

Krreagan

QUOTE
"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

But just a couple of pages ago, he had this little gem:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=46905

QUOTE
Okay, I've lurked in the darkness for a while and have two answers for you.

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the car does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed, therefore the car will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the car will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the car will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

My US\$.02

Krreagan

THE CAR MOVES FORWARD YOU NUBM COKC SUCKING FAGGET

Register!

Krreagan

I'll register if you anser me this....what force causes the car to stay put?? There IS no force, because the question SAYS the car/plane whatever MUST MOVE FORWARD!!!

fukc-k

Register!

Krreagan

This faggot will side with a guest all day long, but now he wont answer one when he know's he's caught.....all it took was the right slip and a little time...

The question says the car moves forward, so it MUST move forward...everything this guys' been telling you fools is bullshit, and you follow the prickless speck like he's not the biggest bag of *** to ever post on this board.

He said the plane MOVES in one direction, and went to great lengths to explain why a fixed point should be used to measure the speed...

now he says the treadmill will hold the plane back if it matches speeds. Several of you were on the fence until your god led the way, for his sheeppeople.

So the car dosn't move because it can't get past the treadbelt holding it back via the wheels.

But the plane can move forward because the question SAYS it MOVES FORWARD.

what a looser full of shiite.

There are 3 questions that I have answered consistently (actually all but these are relevant).

1) The plane on a treadmill (Original question)

If you want me to address these questions or only one Just register and ask!

I have been consistent with my physics and logic!

Now, Pick a question, register and I will explain!

Krreagan
krreagan
I really must have blown his view of the universe for him to get so miffed! Some people just cannot stand the thought of being wrong. That's why I guess he refuses to register!

Krreagan
Guest
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 03:32 AM)
I really must have blown his view of the universe for him to get so miffed! Some people just cannot stand the thought of being wrong. That's why I guess he refuses to register!

Krreagan

Oh yeah, the plane moves forward by default, but the car get's held back because it has an automatic transmission so it really isn't directly attatched to the engine by ANY stretch...so yeah, you've really blow up the universe alright!
krreagan
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 08:29 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 03:07 PM)
No Fly when speed of plane is taken as relative to the conveyor.  (My assumption)

Fly if speed of plane is taken as forward motion away from fixed observer.  (Not my assumption and not a very interesting problem as speed of plane is the independent variable...what's to determine?)

It's more interesting then the wheels/belt spinning to infinity on first forward motion? That's all your interpretation gives us! A feedback loop that quickly goes out of control!

Krreagan

what a great insight from krack-k

I have explained in great detail, my logic on this topic!

If you dispute it! find it, register and I'll explain!
As I have said I will stand behind all that I have put on this forum!

That cannot be said for you! Except for the 12 year old mouth, We don't know what is yours and what is other "guest" posters!

Krreagan
lurkin
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 23 2005, 03:29 AM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 03:07 PM)
No Fly when speed of plane is taken as relative to the conveyor.  (My assumption)

Fly if speed of plane is taken as forward motion away from fixed observer.  (Not my assumption and not a very interesting problem as speed of plane is the independent variable...what's to determine?)

It's more interesting then the wheels/belt spinning to infinity on first forward motion? That's all your interpretation gives us! A feedback loop that quickly goes out of control!

Krreagan

what a great insight from krack-k

Guest
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 22 2005, 04:01 PM)
re: the car.
There are obviously 2 trains of thought here.  And it has to do with how the phrase "moves forward" is interpreted.  You can either take it to mean in relation to the belt or in relation to the tower/ground/calm air.

1--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured by radar guns from the tower which have to match each other at all times, then the car will achieve wind flow over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

wheel speed/car speedometer = 100
air speed over wings = 50

2--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured based on their own speedometers which have to match each other at all times, then the car will have zero wind over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

car speedometer speed = 50
belt speedometer speed = 50
wheel speed/car speedometer = 50
air speed over wings = 0

--
So neither side is right or wrong... just a different interpretation of the question which doesn't explicitly state what 'moves forward' really means.

However, in scenario 2, the speedometer of the car is measuring it's speed in relation to the belt, and the belt is measuring it's speed in relation to the dirt beneath it.  Is this wrong?  Not necessarily, but I think it would be more correct/scientific to measure both speeds in relation to the same object as per scenario 1.

So I will agree to disagree with the 'car no flyiers'.

BTW I don't mean to put words in anyones mouth... this is just the way I am interpreting the two sides of the argument.

SkiSTX,

I think that Atl5p, Fargo and I (plus a few unidentified Guests) long ago agreed that there were two possible interpretations.

1. Speed of the plane is measured as movement forward from a stationary observer. This interpretation totally discounts any effect from the belt because it already says that the plane is moving forward away from a stationary observer and hence all actions of the belt must be netted out for that to occur. If that is your definition, then of course the problem is trivial and the plane will fly.

2. Speed of the plane is measured relative to the belt, just like you see on a treadmill in a gym a millions of times per day. The plane moves forward relative to the belt in one direction and the belt moves in the opposite direction at the same speed and the plane is stationary with respect to an outside observer, thus no airspeed and it will not fly.

The problem here has been a total refusal of the "it will fly" folks to acknowledge the second interpretation which has been muddled by all sorts of "new physics" such as "free wheeling", to support their claim that even if you did interpret the problem as case #2, the plane still would fly because there's nothing the conveyor could do to stop the forward motion of the plane. Now it seems that while there be some acknowledgment that #2 is possible, they want to argue that #1 is a "more correct interpretation" or even more amazing, that you couldn't build a controller to work for case #2 so therefore #1 has to be the only possible interpretation...incredible!! Now I am reading a post that suggests that you might be able to get a close match of speeds but that the plane would inch forward every so slightly so therefore it would always have the advantage over the belt....give me a break!! Certainly, you could just put a light sensor at the side of the conveyor about an inch ahead of the plane's wheel and when the wheel triggers the light, speed up the conveyor until the sensor goes out and with some smoothing intellegence the whole thing could probably match speeds within +- a couple inches/sec....that's not close enough??

Remember that the it will fly folks have to own up to a long history of posts about "free wheeling" which has been used both to support their case for interpretation #1 and also to refute all possibility of interpretation #2. I think that a new thread should be started on that topic alone just to capture the madness in one place.

I also think it has been interesting to note the difference in civility between the "it will fly" posters versus the "no fly" posters...wonder why that is? Alt5p has born the brunt of this because he's obviously put a LOT more energy into this debate but has for the most part (OK, one bad night) been extremely patient and civil.

Certainly this has been an interesting problem and a demonstration that any "learning" by web board is probably a futile effort as I don't see anyone changing their original stance on the problem after nearly 200 pages of argument.

Looks like I'll have to do this again...

QUOTE
A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).

The question is:

Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

"new physics" such as "free wheeling"

New?? I think the wheel was invented at least ten thousand yeas ago! Not what I would call new! The term "free wheeling" refers to the fact that the brakes are not on! (Again, an extremely difficult concept to grasp) You can see that their interpretation is flawed!

The light sensor he mentions, tracks the planes position of the plane not speed... again violating the original conditions of the question.

He is also forgetting that for a very long time they interpreted the question as we did, and they were saying that the friction in the wheels coupled with the planes weight, would not allow the plane to move forward. ( pages in the 50's .. 90's )

Pounding our head against a wall... and beating a dead horse all come to mind!

It's been evident throughout that their knowledge of physics and physical concepts as well as critical thinking skills are all lacking! As a matter of fact, Atl5p has actually learned quite a bit. If you go back and read his early posts they were horrible! The later ones, although still flawed showed much improvement in terminology and understanding.

Krreagan

If I have to spell it all out, this is the contradiction....he says that #2 must be the correct inturpretation, but later he says that the belt will over come the car...he ignores the fact that the car MUST move forward, it's not about matching wheel speed, it's all about movinng forward by DEFAULT visa vi the wording of the question itself

BTW the plane WILL fly, because the question MAKES it move forward over the earth in the calm air....airspeed = lift, everyone knows that...what special K dosn't realize is the same inturpretation must be used for the car example, NO ONE here is disputing that except special K
Guest
QUOTE (lurkin+Dec 23 2005, 03:48 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 23 2005, 03:29 AM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 03:07 PM)
No Fly when speed of plane is taken as relative to the conveyor.  (My assumption)

Fly if speed of plane is taken as forward motion away from fixed observer.  (Not my assumption and not a very interesting problem as speed of plane is the independent variable...what's to determine?)

It's more interesting then the wheels/belt spinning to infinity on first forward motion? That's all your interpretation gives us! A feedback loop that quickly goes out of control!

Krreagan

what a great insight from krack-k

you are following a moron....all I ask is independent thought.
krreagan
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 22 2005, 04:01 PM)
re: the car.
There are obviously 2 trains of thought here.  And it has to do with how the phrase "moves forward" is interpreted.  You can either take it to mean in relation to the belt or in relation to the tower/ground/calm air.

1--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured by radar guns from the tower which have to match each other at all times, then the car will achieve wind flow over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

wheel speed/car speedometer = 100
air speed over wings = 50

2--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured based on their own speedometers which have to match each other at all times, then the car will have zero wind over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

car speedometer speed = 50
belt speedometer speed = 50
wheel speed/car speedometer = 50
air speed over wings = 0

--
So neither side is right or wrong... just a different interpretation of the question which doesn't explicitly state what 'moves forward' really means.

However, in scenario 2, the speedometer of the car is measuring it's speed in relation to the belt, and the belt is measuring it's speed in relation to the dirt beneath it.  Is this wrong?  Not necessarily, but I think it would be more correct/scientific to measure both speeds in relation to the same object as per scenario 1.

So I will agree to disagree with the 'car no flyiers'.

BTW I don't mean to put words in anyones mouth... this is just the way I am interpreting the two sides of the argument.

SkiSTX,

I think that Atl5p, Fargo and I (plus a few unidentified Guests) long ago agreed that there were two possible interpretations.

1. Speed of the plane is measured as movement forward from a stationary observer. This interpretation totally discounts any effect from the belt because it already says that the plane is moving forward away from a stationary observer and hence all actions of the belt must be netted out for that to occur. If that is your definition, then of course the problem is trivial and the plane will fly.

2. Speed of the plane is measured relative to the belt, just like you see on a treadmill in a gym a millions of times per day. The plane moves forward relative to the belt in one direction and the belt moves in the opposite direction at the same speed and the plane is stationary with respect to an outside observer, thus no airspeed and it will not fly.

The problem here has been a total refusal of the "it will fly" folks to acknowledge the second interpretation which has been muddled by all sorts of "new physics" such as "free wheeling", to support their claim that even if you did interpret the problem as case #2, the plane still would fly because there's nothing the conveyor could do to stop the forward motion of the plane. Now it seems that while there be some acknowledgment that #2 is possible, they want to argue that #1 is a "more correct interpretation" or even more amazing, that you couldn't build a controller to work for case #2 so therefore #1 has to be the only possible interpretation...incredible!! Now I am reading a post that suggests that you might be able to get a close match of speeds but that the plane would inch forward every so slightly so therefore it would always have the advantage over the belt....give me a break!! Certainly, you could just put a light sensor at the side of the conveyor about an inch ahead of the plane's wheel and when the wheel triggers the light, speed up the conveyor until the sensor goes out and with some smoothing intellegence the whole thing could probably match speeds within +- a couple inches/sec....that's not close enough??

Remember that the it will fly folks have to own up to a long history of posts about "free wheeling" which has been used both to support their case for interpretation #1 and also to refute all possibility of interpretation #2. I think that a new thread should be started on that topic alone just to capture the madness in one place.

I also think it has been interesting to note the difference in civility between the "it will fly" posters versus the "no fly" posters...wonder why that is? Alt5p has born the brunt of this because he's obviously put a LOT more energy into this debate but has for the most part (OK, one bad night) been extremely patient and civil.

Certainly this has been an interesting problem and a demonstration that any "learning" by web board is probably a futile effort as I don't see anyone changing their original stance on the problem after nearly 200 pages of argument.

Looks like I'll have to do this again...

QUOTE
A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).

The question is:

Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

"new physics" such as "free wheeling"

New?? I think the wheel was invented at least ten thousand yeas ago! Not what I would call new! The term "free wheeling" refers to the fact that the brakes are not on! (Again, an extremely difficult concept to grasp) You can see that their interpretation is flawed!

The light sensor he mentions, tracks the planes position of the plane not speed... again violating the original conditions of the question.

He is also forgetting that for a very long time they interpreted the question as we did, and they were saying that the friction in the wheels coupled with the planes weight, would not allow the plane to move forward. ( pages in the 50's .. 90's )

Pounding our head against a wall... and beating a dead horse all come to mind!

It's been evident throughout that their knowledge of physics and physical concepts as well as critical thinking skills are all lacking! As a matter of fact, Atl5p has actually learned quite a bit. If you go back and read his early posts they were horrible! The later ones, although still flawed showed much improvement in terminology and understanding.

Krreagan

If I have to spell it all out, this is the contradiction....he says that #2 must be the correct inturpretation, but later he says that the belt will over come the car...he ignores the fact that the car MUST move forward, it's not about matching wheel speed, it's all about movinng forward by DEFAULT visa vi the wording of the question itself

BTW the plane WILL fly, because the question MAKES it move forward over the earth in the calm air....airspeed = lift, everyone knows that...what special K dosn't realize is the same inturpretation must be used for the car example, NO ONE here is disputing that except special K

Register!

Krreagan
krreagan
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE (lurkin+Dec 23 2005, 03:48 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 23 2005, 03:29 AM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 03:07 PM)
No Fly when speed of plane is taken as relative to the conveyor.  (My assumption)

Fly if speed of plane is taken as forward motion away from fixed observer.  (Not my assumption and not a very interesting problem as speed of plane is the independent variable...what's to determine?)

It's more interesting then the wheels/belt spinning to infinity on first forward motion? That's all your interpretation gives us! A feedback loop that quickly goes out of control!

Krreagan

what a great insight from krack-k

you are following a moron....all I ask is independent thought.

Register!

Krreagan
Guest
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 04:08 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 22 2005, 04:01 PM)
re: the car.
There are obviously 2 trains of thought here.  And it has to do with how the phrase "moves forward" is interpreted.  You can either take it to mean in relation to the belt or in relation to the tower/ground/calm air.

1--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured by radar guns from the tower which have to match each other at all times, then the car will achieve wind flow over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

wheel speed/car speedometer = 100
air speed over wings = 50

2--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured based on their own speedometers which have to match each other at all times, then the car will have zero wind over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

car speedometer speed = 50
belt speedometer speed = 50
wheel speed/car speedometer = 50
air speed over wings = 0

--
So neither side is right or wrong... just a different interpretation of the question which doesn't explicitly state what 'moves forward' really means.

However, in scenario 2, the speedometer of the car is measuring it's speed in relation to the belt, and the belt is measuring it's speed in relation to the dirt beneath it.  Is this wrong?  Not necessarily, but I think it would be more correct/scientific to measure both speeds in relation to the same object as per scenario 1.

So I will agree to disagree with the 'car no flyiers'.

BTW I don't mean to put words in anyones mouth... this is just the way I am interpreting the two sides of the argument.

SkiSTX,

I think that Atl5p, Fargo and I (plus a few unidentified Guests) long ago agreed that there were two possible interpretations.

1. Speed of the plane is measured as movement forward from a stationary observer. This interpretation totally discounts any effect from the belt because it already says that the plane is moving forward away from a stationary observer and hence all actions of the belt must be netted out for that to occur. If that is your definition, then of course the problem is trivial and the plane will fly.

2. Speed of the plane is measured relative to the belt, just like you see on a treadmill in a gym a millions of times per day. The plane moves forward relative to the belt in one direction and the belt moves in the opposite direction at the same speed and the plane is stationary with respect to an outside observer, thus no airspeed and it will not fly.

The problem here has been a total refusal of the "it will fly" folks to acknowledge the second interpretation which has been muddled by all sorts of "new physics" such as "free wheeling", to support their claim that even if you did interpret the problem as case #2, the plane still would fly because there's nothing the conveyor could do to stop the forward motion of the plane. Now it seems that while there be some acknowledgment that #2 is possible, they want to argue that #1 is a "more correct interpretation" or even more amazing, that you couldn't build a controller to work for case #2 so therefore #1 has to be the only possible interpretation...incredible!! Now I am reading a post that suggests that you might be able to get a close match of speeds but that the plane would inch forward every so slightly so therefore it would always have the advantage over the belt....give me a break!! Certainly, you could just put a light sensor at the side of the conveyor about an inch ahead of the plane's wheel and when the wheel triggers the light, speed up the conveyor until the sensor goes out and with some smoothing intellegence the whole thing could probably match speeds within +- a couple inches/sec....that's not close enough??

Remember that the it will fly folks have to own up to a long history of posts about "free wheeling" which has been used both to support their case for interpretation #1 and also to refute all possibility of interpretation #2. I think that a new thread should be started on that topic alone just to capture the madness in one place.

I also think it has been interesting to note the difference in civility between the "it will fly" posters versus the "no fly" posters...wonder why that is? Alt5p has born the brunt of this because he's obviously put a LOT more energy into this debate but has for the most part (OK, one bad night) been extremely patient and civil.

Certainly this has been an interesting problem and a demonstration that any "learning" by web board is probably a futile effort as I don't see anyone changing their original stance on the problem after nearly 200 pages of argument.

Looks like I'll have to do this again...

QUOTE
A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).

The question is:

Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

"new physics" such as "free wheeling"

New?? I think the wheel was invented at least ten thousand yeas ago! Not what I would call new! The term "free wheeling" refers to the fact that the brakes are not on! (Again, an extremely difficult concept to grasp) You can see that their interpretation is flawed!

The light sensor he mentions, tracks the planes position of the plane not speed... again violating the original conditions of the question.

He is also forgetting that for a very long time they interpreted the question as we did, and they were saying that the friction in the wheels coupled with the planes weight, would not allow the plane to move forward. ( pages in the 50's .. 90's )

Pounding our head against a wall... and beating a dead horse all come to mind!

It's been evident throughout that their knowledge of physics and physical concepts as well as critical thinking skills are all lacking! As a matter of fact, Atl5p has actually learned quite a bit. If you go back and read his early posts they were horrible! The later ones, although still flawed showed much improvement in terminology and understanding.

Krreagan

If I have to spell it all out, this is the contradiction....he says that #2 must be the correct inturpretation, but later he says that the belt will over come the car...he ignores the fact that the car MUST move forward, it's not about matching wheel speed, it's all about movinng forward by DEFAULT visa vi the wording of the question itself

BTW the plane WILL fly, because the question MAKES it move forward over the earth in the calm air....airspeed = lift, everyone knows that...what special K dosn't realize is the same inturpretation must be used for the car example, NO ONE here is disputing that except special K

Register!

Krreagan

Dipshit Sr. The Original, since 1971
krreagan
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 09:09 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 04:08 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 22 2005, 04:01 PM)
re: the car.
There are obviously 2 trains of thought here.  And it has to do with how the phrase "moves forward" is interpreted.  You can either take it to mean in relation to the belt or in relation to the tower/ground/calm air.

1--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured by radar guns from the tower which have to match each other at all times, then the car will achieve wind flow over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

wheel speed/car speedometer = 100
air speed over wings = 50

2--
If the 'speed' of the two objects is measured based on their own speedometers which have to match each other at all times, then the car will have zero wind over it's wings.  And the speeds could be as follows...

car speedometer speed = 50
belt speedometer speed = 50
wheel speed/car speedometer = 50
air speed over wings = 0

--
So neither side is right or wrong... just a different interpretation of the question which doesn't explicitly state what 'moves forward' really means.

However, in scenario 2, the speedometer of the car is measuring it's speed in relation to the belt, and the belt is measuring it's speed in relation to the dirt beneath it.  Is this wrong?  Not necessarily, but I think it would be more correct/scientific to measure both speeds in relation to the same object as per scenario 1.

So I will agree to disagree with the 'car no flyiers'.

BTW I don't mean to put words in anyones mouth... this is just the way I am interpreting the two sides of the argument.

SkiSTX,

I think that Atl5p, Fargo and I (plus a few unidentified Guests) long ago agreed that there were two possible interpretations.

1. Speed of the plane is measured as movement forward from a stationary observer. This interpretation totally discounts any effect from the belt because it already says that the plane is moving forward away from a stationary observer and hence all actions of the belt must be netted out for that to occur. If that is your definition, then of course the problem is trivial and the plane will fly.

2. Speed of the plane is measured relative to the belt, just like you see on a treadmill in a gym a millions of times per day. The plane moves forward relative to the belt in one direction and the belt moves in the opposite direction at the same speed and the plane is stationary with respect to an outside observer, thus no airspeed and it will not fly.

The problem here has been a total refusal of the "it will fly" folks to acknowledge the second interpretation which has been muddled by all sorts of "new physics" such as "free wheeling", to support their claim that even if you did interpret the problem as case #2, the plane still would fly because there's nothing the conveyor could do to stop the forward motion of the plane. Now it seems that while there be some acknowledgment that #2 is possible, they want to argue that #1 is a "more correct interpretation" or even more amazing, that you couldn't build a controller to work for case #2 so therefore #1 has to be the only possible interpretation...incredible!! Now I am reading a post that suggests that you might be able to get a close match of speeds but that the plane would inch forward every so slightly so therefore it would always have the advantage over the belt....give me a break!! Certainly, you could just put a light sensor at the side of the conveyor about an inch ahead of the plane's wheel and when the wheel triggers the light, speed up the conveyor until the sensor goes out and with some smoothing intellegence the whole thing could probably match speeds within +- a couple inches/sec....that's not close enough??

Remember that the it will fly folks have to own up to a long history of posts about "free wheeling" which has been used both to support their case for interpretation #1 and also to refute all possibility of interpretation #2. I think that a new thread should be started on that topic alone just to capture the madness in one place.

I also think it has been interesting to note the difference in civility between the "it will fly" posters versus the "no fly" posters...wonder why that is? Alt5p has born the brunt of this because he's obviously put a LOT more energy into this debate but has for the most part (OK, one bad night) been extremely patient and civil.

Certainly this has been an interesting problem and a demonstration that any "learning" by web board is probably a futile effort as I don't see anyone changing their original stance on the problem after nearly 200 pages of argument.

Looks like I'll have to do this again...

QUOTE
A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).

The question is:

Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE A plane is standing on runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction).The question is:Will the plane take off or not? Will it be able to run up and take off?

The second interpretation violates that original question!

"The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction."

This implies a single unified reference frame outside both the plane and belt (ie... The ground!) Interpreting it as measuring one in terms of the other is a non sequitur.

"This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in opposite direction)."

"but in opposite direction" implies that the belt is not instantaneous in its measurement and since a second reference frame is not given, then only one can be assumed, the ground reference frame is to be used to measure the speed of the plane. Not to mention that speed is defined as distance per unit time. If it is instantaneous time is zero and you have a divide by zero...and an infinite acceleration of the wheels. And they call our logic flawed!

"new physics" such as "free wheeling"

New?? I think the wheel was invented at least ten thousand yeas ago! Not what I would call new! The term "free wheeling" refers to the fact that the brakes are not on! (Again, an extremely difficult concept to grasp) You can see that their interpretation is flawed!

The light sensor he mentions, tracks the planes position of the plane not speed... again violating the original conditions of the question.

He is also forgetting that for a very long time they interpreted the question as we did, and they were saying that the friction in the wheels coupled with the planes weight, would not allow the plane to move forward. ( pages in the 50's .. 90's )

Pounding our head against a wall... and beating a dead horse all come to mind!

It's been evident throughout that their knowledge of physics and physical concepts as well as critical thinking skills are all lacking! As a matter of fact, Atl5p has actually learned quite a bit. If you go back and read his early posts they were horrible! The later ones, although still flawed showed much improvement in terminology and understanding.

Krreagan

If I have to spell it all out, this is the contradiction....he says that #2 must be the correct inturpretation, but later he says that the belt will over come the car...he ignores the fact that the car MUST move forward, it's not about matching wheel speed, it's all about movinng forward by DEFAULT visa vi the wording of the question itself

BTW the plane WILL fly, because the question MAKES it move forward over the earth in the calm air....airspeed = lift, everyone knows that...what special K dosn't realize is the same inturpretation must be used for the car example, NO ONE here is disputing that except special K

Register!

Krreagan

Dipshit Sr. The Original, since 1971

Register coward!

Krreagan
Guest
What is so telling is how no one will stand up to this freak's impossible analysis....I think it's Rick Durden himself, sounds just like him...
krreagan
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 09:15 PM)
What is so telling is how no one will stand up to this freak's impossible analysis....I think it's Rick Durden himself, sounds just like him...

Register!

If anybody (including yourself) feels my logic or explanations is incorrect, I am very willing to discuss it as long as they are registered. If I'm wrong and someone points it out! I'll gladly admit it! after all I'm only human! And we all make mistakes!

Now register!

Krreagan
Guest
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 23 2005, 04:15 AM)
What is so telling is how no one will stand up to this freak's impossible analysis....I think it's Rick Durden himself, sounds just like him...

no, i agree with you....if the plane must move forward, then the car must move forward as well, all from the same perspective, a person standing on the ground at least 10ft away from all the action....the car moves at 50, the belt moves at 50 and the front wheels spin at 100mph.
krreagan
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 09:23 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 23 2005, 04:15 AM)
What is so telling is how no one will stand up to this freak's impossible analysis....I think it's Rick Durden himself, sounds just like him...

no, i agree with you....if the plane must move forward, then the car must move forward as well, all from the same perspective, a person standing on the ground at least 10ft away from all the action....the car moves at 50, the belt moves at 50 and the front wheels spin at 100mph.

Self admiration is not a good quality in a public place.

Krreagan
Guest
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 04:26 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 09:23 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 23 2005, 04:15 AM)
What is so telling is how no one will stand up to this freak's impossible analysis....I think it's Rick Durden himself, sounds just like him...

no, i agree with you....if the plane must move forward, then the car must move forward as well, all from the same perspective, a person standing on the ground at least 10ft away from all the action....the car moves at 50, the belt moves at 50 and the front wheels spin at 100mph.

Self admiration is not a good quality in a public place.

Krreagan

The question stands...why isn't the car's speed determined by the ground observer? Why is there two points of viewpoint for the car? This question will continue to go unanswered because this moron has crossed himself up and won't admit it.
krreagan
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 09:42 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 04:26 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 09:23 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 23 2005, 04:15 AM)
What is so telling is how no one will stand up to this freak's impossible analysis....I think it's Rick Durden himself, sounds just like him...

no, i agree with you....if the plane must move forward, then the car must move forward as well, all from the same perspective, a person standing on the ground at least 10ft away from all the action....the car moves at 50, the belt moves at 50 and the front wheels spin at 100mph.

Self admiration is not a good quality in a public place.

Krreagan

The question stands...why isn't the car's speed determined by the ground observer? Why is there two points of viewpoint for the car? This question will continue to go unanswered because this moron has crossed himself up and won't admit it.

Register and I'll explain!

Krreagan
jboozerqa
The question stands...why isn't the car's speed determined by the ground observer? Why is there two points of viewpoint for the car? This question will continue to go unanswered because this moron has crossed himself up and won't admit it.

(as was proven with Hitler, appeasment never works)
krreagan
Do we agree that the plane flys? Good.

QUOTE
OK? So the car speed has to be measured LOCALLY.

Based on this part of the CAR problem, The belt reads the speedometer!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE OK? So the car speed has to be measured LOCALLY.

Based on this part of the CAR problem, The belt reads the speedometer!

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the car does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed, therefore the car will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the car will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the car will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

I'll clarify 1. The car moves only enough for speedometer to register a > 0 speed and then it's all over.

What do you not understand?

Krreagan
Bloy
Well, we're only 7 pages from 200.....and I don't have a clue what all the ranting and raving is about. I've totally lost who is saying what except for those who haven't posted. I guess the next 200 pages will be the same... post after post of mud slingin' without further insight as to how the posed question with given conditions should be correctly interpreted.....even if the analysis must be re presented over and over about BOTH examples of a car or a plane.
jboozerqa
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 05:07 AM)
Do we agree that the plane flys? Good.

QUOTE
OK? So the car speed has to be measured LOCALLY.

Based on this part of the CAR problem, The belt reads the speedometer!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE OK? So the car speed has to be measured LOCALLY.

Based on this part of the CAR problem, The belt reads the speedometer!

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the car does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed, therefore the car will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the car will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the car will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

I'll clarify 1. The car moves only enough for speedometer to register a > 0 speed and then it's all over.

What do you not understand?

Krreagan

why dosn't the car move forward from the perspective of a person on the ground?

It seems like you are taking two different refrences for speed. One for the car via speedometer, and one for the treadmill, via the ground.

But that's not good physics, is it?

"The plane MOVES because the question says it moves"

same with the car...it moves away from us, on the ground, and the treadbelt moves in the opposite direction towards us...open the windows and you've got 2-50 airconditioning....2 windows down, 50mph.

what force holds the autotransmission car back? there is no mechanical advantage of the belt to the engine...

what you are saying dosn't make sence.

The car get's it's speed from the belt, but the plane get's it's speed from a person on the earth...what kind of bulllshit are you making up?
krreagan
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:05 PM)
The question stands...why isn't the car's speed determined by the ground observer? Why is there two points of viewpoint for the car? This question will continue to go unanswered because this moron has crossed himself up and won't admit it.

(as was proven with Hitler, appeasment never works)

point out (in detail) where i crossed myself up! If I have, I will admit it! But you will have to show me.

Krreagan
jboozerqa
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:10 AM)
Well, we're only 7 pages from 200.....and I don't have a clue what all the ranting and raving is about. I've totally lost who is saying what except for those who haven't posted. I guess the next 200 pages will be the same... post after post of mud slingin' without further insight as to how the posed question with given conditions should be correctly interpreted.....even if the analysis must be re presented over and over by BOTH examples of a car or a plane.

where's the opinion with Bloy....oh, he's just waiting on K, so then he can agree...
krreagan
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:13 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 05:07 AM)
Do we agree that the plane flys? Good.

QUOTE
OK? So the car speed has to be measured LOCALLY.

Based on this part of the CAR problem, The belt reads the speedometer!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE OK? So the car speed has to be measured LOCALLY.

Based on this part of the CAR problem, The belt reads the speedometer!

1) Conditions are idealized. The belt reacts instantaneously. Therefore the car does not move because the car can never gain the upper hand, as it were! This is like having a belt that is mass-less, frictionless and rotates freely.

2) Conditions are realistic. The belt can only detect the speed of the car after the speed has actually changed, therefore the car will creep forward as long as the car can maintain an acceleration! Once the wheels stop accelerating, the car will stop moving forward! As long as the belt has to play catchup, the car will always be moving slightly faster then the belt so it will move forward!

I'll clarify 1. The car moves only enough for speedometer to register a > 0 speed and then it's all over.

What do you not understand?

Krreagan

why dosn't the car move forward from the perspective of a person on the ground?

It seems like you are taking two different refrences for speed. One for the car via speedometer, and one for the treadmill, via the ground.

But that's not good physics, is it?

"The plane MOVES because the question says it moves"

same with the car...it moves away from us, on the ground, and the treadbelt moves in the opposite direction towards us...open the windows and you've got 2-50 airconditioning....2 windows down, 50mph.

what force holds the autotransmission car back? there is no mechanical advantage of the belt to the engine...

what you are saying dosn't make sence.

The car get's it's speed from the belt, but the plane get's it's speed from a person on the earth...what kind of bulllshit are you making up?

Show me the flaws in my logic! I cannot answer gerneral attacks without knowing where you disagree.

The belt in the car examples read the speedometer as per the question for the cars (unlike for the plane).

Krreagan
jboozerqa
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 05:14 AM)
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:05 PM)
The question stands...why isn't the car's speed determined by the ground observer? Why is there two points of viewpoint for the car? This question will continue to go unanswered because this moron has crossed himself up and won't admit it.

(as was proven with Hitler, appeasment never works)

point out (in detail) where i crossed myself up! If I have, I will admit it! But you will have to show me.

Krreagan

You said the plane moves because the question says it moves...then you assume a position on the ground from which the plane moves away from.

Then when opining about the car, you say the belt cancles out the forward movement, with NO REGARD for the previous 'Forward Movement' caused by the question.

So which is it? Is the belt's effects to be considered, or will the vehicle MOVE FORWARD because the question says it moves, assuming your earth position?

If you can't see how that contradicts, you need help.
Bloy
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 23 2005, 05:15 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:10 AM)
Well, we're only 7 pages from 200.....and I don't have a clue what all the ranting and raving is about.  I've totally lost who is saying what except for those who haven't posted.  I guess the next 200  pages will be the same... post after post of mud slingin' without further insight as to how the posed question with given conditions should be correctly interpreted.....even if the analysis must be re presented over and over by BOTH examples of a car or a plane.

where's the opinion with Bloy....oh, he's just waiting on K, so then he can agree...

I'm analyzing the quotes and preparing a thoughtful response...
jboozerqa
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:24 AM)
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 23 2005, 05:15 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:10 AM)
Well, we're only 7 pages from 200.....and I don't have a clue what all the ranting and raving is about.  I've totally lost who is saying what except for those who haven't posted.  I guess the next 200  pages will be the same... post after post of mud slingin' without further insight as to how the posed question with given conditions should be correctly interpreted.....even if the analysis must be re presented over and over by BOTH examples of a car or a plane.

where's the opinion with Bloy....oh, he's just waiting on K, so then he can agree...

I'm analyzing the quotes and preparing a thoughtful response...

That's my point...you're analysing posts before forming your own opinion....that's the purest definition of being a TOOL.

Bloy, you are a tool...even though the plane will fly after airspeed occurs, you are a tool.
krreagan
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:20 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 05:14 AM)
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:05 PM)
The question stands...why isn't the car's speed determined by the ground observer? Why is there two points of viewpoint for the car? This question will continue to go unanswered because this moron has crossed himself up and won't admit it.

(as was proven with Hitler, appeasment never works)

point out (in detail) where i crossed myself up! If I have, I will admit it! But you will have to show me.

Krreagan

You said the plane moves because the question says it moves...then you assume a position on the ground from which the plane moves away from.

Then when opining about the car, you say the belt cancles out the forward movement, with NO REGARD for the previous 'Forward Movement' caused by the question.

So which is it? Is the belt's effects to be considered, or will the vehicle MOVE FORWARD because the question says it moves, assuming your earth position?

If you can't see how that contradicts, you need help.

QUOTE
You said the plane moves because the question says it moves...then you assume a position on the ground from which the plane moves away from.

The plane and car are two separate questions. In the car question, the reference frame was specific to the belt. Unlike the original plane question.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You said the plane moves because the question says it moves...then you assume a position on the ground from which the plane moves away from.

The plane and car are two separate questions. In the car question, the reference frame was specific to the belt. Unlike the original plane question.

Then when opining about the car, you say the belt cancles out the forward movement, with NO REGARD for the previous 'Forward Movement' caused by the question.

I had two answers which one are you referencing the idealized condition or the realistic condition?

Krreagan
krreagan
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:25 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:24 AM)
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 23 2005, 05:15 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:10 AM)
Well, we're only 7 pages from 200.....and I don't have a clue what all the ranting and raving is about.  I've totally lost who is saying what except for those who haven't posted.  I guess the next 200  pages will be the same... post after post of mud slingin' without further insight as to how the posed question with given conditions should be correctly interpreted.....even if the analysis must be re presented over and over by BOTH examples of a car or a plane.

where's the opinion with Bloy....oh, he's just waiting on K, so then he can agree...

I'm analyzing the quotes and preparing a thoughtful response...

That's my point...you're analysing posts before forming your own opinion....that's the purest definition of being a TOOL.

Bloy, you are a tool...even though the plane will fly after airspeed occurs, you are a tool.

The level of immaturity is truly amazing!

Krreagan
jboozerqa
QUOTE
The plane and car are two separate questions. In the car question, the reference frame was specific to the belt. Unlike the original plane question.

what is the difference in the questions? It's the same question with the word 'plane' exchanged for 'car'. WHo says the refrence frame for the car is specific to the belt???? what kind of bs is that?

You can ONLY refrence from ONE point, as you have so clearly pointed out, and now you are Failing to support that theory...so either you need to throw a theory or two out, or just shut the fuckk up and sit down
Illiac
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 03:07 PM)
No Fly when speed of plane is taken as relative to the conveyor.  (My assumption)

Fly if speed of plane is taken as forward motion away from fixed observer.  (Not my assumption and not a very interesting problem as speed of plane is the independent variable...what's to determine?)

It's more interesting then the wheels/belt spinning to infinity on first forward motion? That's all your interpretation gives us! A feedback loop that quickly goes out of control!

Krreagan

Poor assumption on your part. As always, I take a simple, noncomplicated view of the problem and that's why I see just a relative motion problem and a situation just like a treadmill in a gym. As far as ending the "experiment", if you are matching speeds of the plane down the conveyor and the conveyor in the opposite direction and the plane appears stationary at 5kts, 10kts, 15kts...even 20kts...I think rational participants would conclude that things are as expected so let's shut this down nicely, call it a day and go have a couple beers. Geez...why would anyone let an experiment continue until something flew apart when early observations would easily confirm your hypothesis?
Bloy
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 4 2005, 11:35 PM)
So I say... without adding any elements to the posed question.

Will the airprop driven plane reach liftoff speed? Yes
Will the winged wheel driven car/plane reach liftoff speed? yes

Will the airprop driven plane fly?: Yes, because it can continue to accelerate.

Will the winged wheel driven car/plane fly?: NO, because it will lose thrust when friction to the runway is lost at liftoff speed, thus never being able to accelerate beyond the liftoff speed.

That's my final answer and I'm sticking to it.

Here is my answer using the only acceptable scenario in my opinion...being that a movement forward in our real world is a requirement of the vehicles to satisfy the criteria of the posed question. I will say here hthat when the car reaches (through acceleration) the "liftoff" speed, its forward acceleration will cease due to loss of friction to the conveyor. Since it is no longer moving forward in relation to the surroundings, the belt drops to Zero mph and the car begins to accelerate again. this oscillation continues as long as the car maintains "liftoff" speed.
krreagan
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 05:26 AM)
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:20 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 05:14 AM)
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:05 PM)
The question stands...why isn't the car's speed determined by the ground observer? Why is there two points of viewpoint for the car? This question will continue to go unanswered because this moron has crossed himself up and won't admit it.

(as was proven with Hitler, appeasment never works)

point out (in detail) where i crossed myself up! If I have, I will admit it! But you will have to show me.

Krreagan

You said the plane moves because the question says it moves...then you assume a position on the ground from which the plane moves away from.

Then when opining about the car, you say the belt cancles out the forward movement, with NO REGARD for the previous 'Forward Movement' caused by the question.

So which is it? Is the belt's effects to be considered, or will the vehicle MOVE FORWARD because the question says it moves, assuming your earth position?

If you can't see how that contradicts, you need help.

QUOTE
You said the plane moves because the question says it moves...then you assume a position on the ground from which the plane moves away from.

The plane and car are two separate questions. In the car question, the reference frame was specific to the belt. Unlike the original plane question.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You said the plane moves because the question says it moves...then you assume a position on the ground from which the plane moves away from.

The plane and car are two separate questions. In the car question, the reference frame was specific to the belt. Unlike the original plane question.

Then when opining about the car, you say the belt cancles out the forward movement, with NO REGARD for the previous 'Forward Movement' caused by the question.

I had two answers which one are you referencing the idealized condition or the realistic condition?

Krreagan

BOTH Dipshit Sr.

I thought so, It's Atl5p, or Illiac Most likely Illiac (dipshit Jr).

The level of immaturity has finally lost it's luster! He cannot even show me where he thinks I screwed up. He's just here to fling his crap!

As I have told you earlier, Illiac

you have been measured and found wanting!

So go and play with your little 12 year old friends!

Krreagan
jboozerqa
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 23 2005, 05:34 AM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 22 2005, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE (Illiac+Dec 22 2005, 03:07 PM)
No Fly when speed of plane is taken as relative to the conveyor.  (My assumption)

Fly if speed of plane is taken as forward motion away from fixed observer.  (Not my assumption and not a very interesting problem as speed of plane is the independent variable...what's to determine?)

It's more interesting then the wheels/belt spinning to infinity on first forward motion? That's all your interpretation gives us! A feedback loop that quickly goes out of control!

Krreagan

Poor assumption on your part. As always, I take a simple, noncomplicated view of the problem and that's why I see just a relative motion problem and a situation just like a treadmill in a gym. As far as ending the "experiment", if you are matching speeds of the plane down the conveyor and the conveyor in the opposite direction and the plane appears stationary at 5kts, 10kts, 15kts...even 20kts...I think rational participants would conclude that things are as expected so let's shut this down nicely, call it a day and go have a couple beers. Geez...why would anyone let an experiment continue until something flew apart when early observations would easily confirm your hypothesis?

he's lost and there is no return...all of his friends are suffering migranes about now, and no one is comming to his rescue..

We should wait though...a 'ruler's death is no death unless it is viewed by his subjects...
jboozerqa
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:36 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 4 2005, 11:35 PM)
So I say... without adding any elements to the posed question.

Will the airprop driven plane reach liftoff speed? Yes
Will the winged wheel driven car/plane reach liftoff speed? yes

Will the airprop driven plane fly?: Yes, because it can continue to accelerate.

Will the winged wheel driven car/plane fly?: NO, because it will lose thrust when friction to the runway is lost at liftoff speed, thus never being able to accelerate beyond the liftoff speed.

That's my final answer and I'm sticking to it.

Here is my answer using the only acceptable scenario in my opinion...being that a movement forward in our real world is a requirement of the vehicles to satisfy the criteria of the posed question.

So you agree that Kreegan is full of *** when he says the treabelt will hold the car back...

AHAHAHAHAH it's better than abandonment...they are turning on him....

et tu Blo'y?
krreagan
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:36 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 4 2005, 11:35 PM)
So I say... without adding any elements to the posed question.

Will the airprop driven plane reach liftoff speed? Yes
Will the winged wheel driven car/plane reach liftoff speed? yes

Will the airprop driven plane fly?: Yes, because it can continue to accelerate.

Will the winged wheel driven car/plane fly?: NO, because it will lose thrust when friction to the runway is lost at liftoff speed, thus never being able to accelerate beyond the liftoff speed.

That's my final answer and I'm sticking to it.

Here is my answer using the only acceptable scenario in my opinion...being that a movement forward in our real world is a requirement of the vehicles to satisfy the criteria of the posed question.

So you agree that Kreegan is full of *** when he says the treabelt will hold the plane back...

AHAHAHAHAH it's better than abandonment...they are turning on him....

et tu Blo'y?

Boy you really have lost it. I have argued for 160 pages that the plane will fly!

Krreagan
Bloy
[QUOTE=Bloy,Dec 23 2005, 05:36 AM] [QUOTE=Bloy,Dec 4 2005, 11:35 PM] So I say... without adding any elements to the posed question.

Will the airprop driven plane reach liftoff speed? Yes
Will the winged wheel driven car/plane reach liftoff speed? yes

Will the airprop driven plane fly?: Yes, because it can continue to accelerate.

Will the winged wheel driven car/plane fly?: NO, because it will lose thrust when friction to the runway is lost at liftoff speed, thus never being able to accelerate beyond the liftoff speed.

That's my final answer and I'm sticking to it.   [/QUOTE]
Here is my answer using the only acceptable scenario in my opinion...being that a movement forward in our real world is a requirement of the vehicles to satisfy the criteria of the posed question.
jboozerqa
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:45 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:36 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 4 2005, 11:35 PM)
So I say... without adding any elements to the posed question.

Will the airprop driven plane reach liftoff speed? Yes
Will the winged wheel driven car/plane reach liftoff speed? yes

Will the airprop driven plane fly?: Yes, because it can continue to accelerate.

Will the winged wheel driven car/plane fly?: NO, because it will lose thrust when friction to the runway is lost at liftoff speed, thus never being able to accelerate beyond the liftoff speed.

That's my final answer and I'm sticking to it.

Here is my answer using the only acceptable scenario in my opinion...being that a movement forward in our real world is a requirement of the vehicles to satisfy the criteria of the posed question. I will say here hthat when the car reaches (through acceleration) the "liftoff" speed, its forward acceleration will cease due to loss of friction to the conveyor. Since it is no longer moving forward in relation to the surroundings, the belt drops to Zero mph and the car begins to accelerate again. this oscillation continues as long as the car maintains "liftoff" speed.

I thought I'd bring my modified post up front just so it is complete(at this time).

And you agree with me...the car will move forward over the earth.....

just like the plane....

it has to do with our refrence plane....that's the whole trick
Illiac
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 05:37 AM)
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 05:26 AM)
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:20 PM)
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 05:14 AM)
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 22 2005, 10:05 PM)
The question stands...why isn't the car's speed determined by the ground observer? Why is there two points of viewpoint for the car? This question will continue to go unanswered because this moron has crossed himself up and won't admit it.

(as was proven with Hitler, appeasment never works)

point out (in detail) where i crossed myself up! If I have, I will admit it! But you will have to show me.

Krreagan

You said the plane moves because the question says it moves...then you assume a position on the ground from which the plane moves away from.

Then when opining about the car, you say the belt cancles out the forward movement, with NO REGARD for the previous 'Forward Movement' caused by the question.

So which is it? Is the belt's effects to be considered, or will the vehicle MOVE FORWARD because the question says it moves, assuming your earth position?

If you can't see how that contradicts, you need help.

QUOTE
You said the plane moves because the question says it moves...then you assume a position on the ground from which the plane moves away from.

The plane and car are two separate questions. In the car question, the reference frame was specific to the belt. Unlike the original plane question.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You said the plane moves because the question says it moves...then you assume a position on the ground from which the plane moves away from.

The plane and car are two separate questions. In the car question, the reference frame was specific to the belt. Unlike the original plane question.

Then when opining about the car, you say the belt cancles out the forward movement, with NO REGARD for the previous 'Forward Movement' caused by the question.

I had two answers which one are you referencing the idealized condition or the realistic condition?

Krreagan

BOTH Dipshit Sr.

I thought so, It's Atl5p, or Illiac Most likely Illiac (dipshit Jr).

The level of immaturity has finally lost it's luster! He cannot even show me where he thinks I screwed up. He's just here to fling his crap!

As I have told you earlier, Illiac

you have been measured and found wanting!

So go and play with your little 12 year old friends!

Krreagan

Sorry, but I've got nothing to do with the other poster that's pressing you. I've been consistent with my posts from the very beginning, both in style and my approach to support my conclusion. I've got no reason to assume some alter ego to push points...I'm quite comfortable with what exists here as a record of my participation. So you'd better look elsewhere for the new poster's ID...it isn't me.

Bloy
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 23 2005, 05:46 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:45 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:36 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 4 2005, 11:35 PM)
So I say... without adding any elements to the posed question.

Will the airprop driven plane reach liftoff speed? Yes
Will the winged wheel driven car/plane reach liftoff speed? yes

Will the airprop driven plane fly?: Yes, because it can continue to accelerate.

Will the winged wheel driven car/plane fly?: NO, because it will lose thrust when friction to the runway is lost at liftoff speed, thus never being able to accelerate beyond the liftoff speed.

That's my final answer and I'm sticking to it.

Here is my answer using the only acceptable scenario in my opinion...being that a movement forward in our real world is a requirement of the vehicles to satisfy the criteria of the posed question. I will say here hthat when the car reaches (through acceleration) the "liftoff" speed, its forward acceleration will cease due to loss of friction to the conveyor. Since it is no longer moving forward in relation to the surroundings, the belt drops to Zero mph and the car begins to accelerate again. this oscillation continues as long as the car maintains "liftoff" speed.

I thought I'd bring my modified post up front just so it is complete(at this time).

And you agree with me...the car will move forward over the earth.....

just like the plane....

it has to do with our refrence plane....that's the whole trick

I must say I am wrong in part of my answer....
there is no loss of forward movement but only loss of acceleration, so please disregard the latter portion of the post.
jboozerqa
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (phuck-k+Dec 23 2005, 05:46 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:45 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:36 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 4 2005, 11:35 PM)
So I say... without adding any elements to the posed question.

Will the airprop driven plane reach liftoff speed? Yes
Will the winged wheel driven car/plane reach liftoff speed? yes

Will the airprop driven plane fly?: Yes, because it can continue to accelerate.

Will the winged wheel driven car/plane fly?: NO, because it will lose thrust when friction to the runway is lost at liftoff speed, thus never being able to accelerate beyond the liftoff speed.

That's my final answer and I'm sticking to it.

Here is my answer using the only acceptable scenario in my opinion...being that a movement forward in our real world is a requirement of the vehicles to satisfy the criteria of the posed question. I will say here hthat when the car reaches (through acceleration) the "liftoff" speed, its forward acceleration will cease due to loss of friction to the conveyor. Since it is no longer moving forward in relation to the surroundings, the belt drops to Zero mph and the car begins to accelerate again. this oscillation continues as long as the car maintains "liftoff" speed.

I thought I'd bring my modified post up front just so it is complete(at this time).

And you agree with me...the car will move forward over the earth.....

just like the plane....

it has to do with our refrence plane....that's the whole trick

I must say I am wrong in part of my answer....
there is no loss of forward movement but only loss of acceleration, so please disregard the latter portion of the post.

SkiSTX
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 21 2005, 04:36 PM)
I'd like to add my 2 cents about a winged car on a conveyor...

Assume speeds relative to the tower/earth/calm air.

If the car is on the belt and it's speedometer (which measures how fast the wheels are turning) reads 100mph, it means that the car is moving left at 50mph and the conveyor is moving right at 50mph.  The speeds are equal and opposite per the original question.  There would be a 50mph wind blowing over the wings of the car.

If 50mph is it's takeoff speed, it would be able to take off, albeit only briefly as the air friction would immediately slow it down below it's takeoff/flying speed because it does not have any propulsion if not contacting the ground.

Don't mean to gang up on you krreagan, but I was the person who started the car question (recently at least), and it was stated as above on page 179.

krreagan: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=47328
QUOTE
The plane and car are two separate questions. In the car question, the reference frame was specific to the belt. Unlike the original plane question.

Reference frames are obviously the sticking point here. I realize you understand the physics involved though. As stated above, I bet you would say the car would get wind over it's wings, right? So just a difference of opinion about it then.... no need for name calling from either side!
krreagan
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 23 2005, 05:36 AM)
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 4 2005, 11:35 PM)
So I say... without adding any elements to the posed question.

Will the airprop driven plane reach liftoff speed? Yes
Will the winged wheel driven car/plane reach liftoff speed? yes

Will the airprop driven plane fly?: Yes, because it can continue to accelerate.

Will the winged wheel driven car/plane fly?: NO, because it will lose thrust when friction to the runway is lost at liftoff speed, thus never being able to accelerate beyond the liftoff speed.

That's my final answer and I'm sticking to it.

Here is my answer using the only acceptable scenario in my opinion...being that a movement forward in our real world is a requirement of the vehicles to satisfy the criteria of the posed question.

Bloy,

In the real world answer I gave, The car moves forward only as much as the car can maintain the force against the belt. The belt and car are both accelerating with the belt slightly behind the speed of the car at any on time because the belt is always playing catchup. Once the car has reached it's max speed and the belt catches up. the forward motion will cease.

The question posed by swimmer (181) had the belt measuring the local reference frame (speedometer) to adjust the speed of the belt. This is very different from the original plane question! This is the question I have been answering. not the original question with a car instead of the plane as it appears some have assumed!

Krreagan
Bloy
I'm not sure, but I thought Krreagan's example was in refutation of the "car referenced to the belt" scenario....
correct me if I am wrong....so many quotes within qoutes......hard to distinguish...

By the way.. .Only 5 more pages to 200!!!......I guess I'm a little fixated on this...
jboozerqa
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 23 2005, 05:57 AM)
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 21 2005, 04:36 PM)
I'd like to add my 2 cents about a winged car on a conveyor...

Assume speeds relative to the tower/earth/calm air.

If the car is on the belt and it's speedometer (which measures how fast the wheels are turning) reads 100mph, it means that the car is moving left at 50mph and the conveyor is moving right at 50mph.  The speeds are equal and opposite per the original question.  There would be a 50mph wind blowing over the wings of the car.

If 50mph is it's takeoff speed, it would be able to take off, albeit only briefly as the air friction would immediately slow it down below it's takeoff/flying speed because it does not have any propulsion if not contacting the ground.

Don't mean to gang up on you krreagan, but I was the person who started the car question (recently at least), and it was stated as above on page 179.

krreagan: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=47328
QUOTE
The plane and car are two separate questions. In the car question, the reference frame was specific to the belt. Unlike the original plane question.

Reference frames are obviously the sticking point here. I realize you understand the physics involved though. As stated above, I bet you would say the car would get wind over it's wings, right? So just a difference of opinion about it then.... no need for name calling from either side!

There goes another one....the car moves in relation to a ground based observer....

Hey I agree, windspeed will generate lift, you'd have to be a complete moron like Illac to deny that...and Fargo and Atl can take note, windspeed creates lift. The car will move forward.

Hate to break it to you Kreegan, but the time has come...
krreagan
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 22 2005, 10:57 PM)
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 21 2005, 04:36 PM)
I'd like to add my 2 cents about a winged car on a conveyor...

Assume speeds relative to the tower/earth/calm air.

If the car is on the belt and it's speedometer (which measures how fast the wheels are turning) reads 100mph, it means that the car is moving left at 50mph and the conveyor is moving right at 50mph.  The speeds are equal and opposite per the original question.  There would be a 50mph wind blowing over the wings of the car.

If 50mph is it's takeoff speed, it would be able to take off, albeit only briefly as the air friction would immediately slow it down below it's takeoff/flying speed because it does not have any propulsion if not contacting the ground.

Don't mean to gang up on you krreagan, but I was the person who started the car question (recently at least), and it was stated as above on page 179.

krreagan: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=47328
QUOTE
The plane and car are two separate questions. In the car question, the reference frame was specific to the belt. Unlike the original plane question.

Reference frames are obviously the sticking point here. I realize you understand the physics involved though. As stated above, I bet you would say the car would get wind over it's wings, right? So just a difference of opinion about it then.... no need for name calling from either side!

Correct, It's all at where you measure the speed from! I was answering a post by swimmer a couple of pages beyond your original question. In the future I'll be more carefull and be sure to reference the specific post.

Krreagan
krreagan
QUOTE (Bloy+Dec 22 2005, 11:08 PM)
I'm not sure, but I thought Krreagan's example was in refutation of the "car referenced to the belt" scenario....
correct me if I am wrong....so many quotes within qoutes......hard to distinguish...

By the way.. .Only 5 more pages to 200!!!......I guess I'm a little fixated on this...

Sorry about that, I screwed up the quote levels in the reply!

Krreagan
jboozerqa
QUOTE (swimmer+Dec 21 2005, 10:07 PM)
QUOTE (Flanker+Dec 21 2005, 05:44 PM)
Yes, but that forward movement of the car at 50mph is counteracted by the conveyor going backwards, so to an outsider, the car is static with the wheels spinning really really fast.

I see what SkiSTX said though, the conveyor is supposed to move at the speed of the car relative to the rest of the world, so if the conveyor is moving the car should be moving. But the conveyor is programmed to move at the same speed as the car, but in the opposite direction. The car IS moving on the conveyor, and the conveyor realizes that and coutneracts it, but to the rest of the world, the car does not move.

The argument of the car is the exact same argument that people are making to say that the plane will not fly (the plane WILL fly, by the way).

Thank you - I now realise I have made a blunder regarding the frames of reference when comparing the car on the conveyor and the plane on the conveyor.

Please note THE PLANE WILL FLY as I and others have explained numerous times - but there is an inconsistency that SkiSTX and Flanker have noticed when it comes to monitoring speed. Thanks guys/gals (being very PC I am ). The reason this is important obviously is that the conveyor has a mechanism that matches this speed, but in the opposite direction.

The debate on frames of reference has been about which to use (local or global) and about being consistent.
Unfortunately, as they say, "Houston we have a problem!".

By "local frame of reference" I mean measuring the vehicle's speed (plane or car) relative to the conveyor. On the other hand "global frame of reference" means measuring the vehicle's speed relative to the road.

In the case of the plane we have no choice but to measure the speed globally. It makes sense anyway as the plane's ability to take off is dependent on it moving globally - i.e. relative to the air to gain lift. There is however also an internally logical reason for choosing a global frame of reference - because as the plane moves forward, as it surely will, any attempt by the conveyor to match the local speed, that is of the plane relative to the conveyor is doomed to failure. As I and others have previously explained the conveyor will accelerate up to "infinite" speeds. It is the equivalent of the equation X = X+Y where X is the conveyor's global speed and Y is the plane's global speed (I presume you can see that the sum of their global speeds is their relative local speed). Every time the conveyor tries to measure X it actually measures X+Y which is larger that the original X - so it speeds up to X+Y but when it measures local speed again it is now X+Y+Y etc etc.
OK? So the plane speed has to be measured GLOBALLY.

In the case of the car we hit a different problem. If we measure the speed globally then as soon as the car "moves forward", the conveyor detects the speed and moves in an equal and opposite direction, which in turn means the car is not moving globally. If it's not moving globally then the conveyor's not moving either!
Measuring the speed locally however has no such dilemma. As the car moves forward the conveyor measures the local speed and immediately compensates by moving in the opposite direction. The car remains stationary when looked at globally but the measuring system is able to cope with any local speed the car driver decides upon.
OK? So the car speed has to be measured LOCALLY.

See the logical problem? In one case moving the vehicle causes the conveyor to accelerate to infinity and in the other the vehicle can't move at all (globally or locally)!!!

Time for someone smart to come in and explain* this...

(* I am sorry, I don't mean to be rude but on past showing, not ATL5P or FargoBoyle)

Special K, you reffering to this dribble???

As you have always stated, there must be but one frame of refrence...on the ground.

If the car moves forward from the position of the ground, then the belt moves backwards, it holds the car still, just like the plane...where it breaks down is that this makes the vehicle stationary to the observer, and this is not within the question...the plane MUST move FORWARD.
jboozerqa
QUOTE (krreagan+Dec 23 2005, 06:10 AM)
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 22 2005, 10:57 PM)
QUOTE (SkiSTX+Dec 21 2005, 04:36 PM)
I'd like to add my 2 cents about a winged car on a conveyor...

Assume speeds relative to the tower/earth/calm air.

If the car is on the belt and it's speedometer (which measures how fast the wheels are turning) reads 100mph, it means that the car is moving left at 50mph and the conveyor is moving right at 50mph.  The speeds are equal and opposite per the original question.  There would be a 50mph wind blowing over the wings of the car.

If 50mph is it's takeoff speed, it would be able to take off, albeit only briefly as the air friction would immediately slow it down below it's takeoff/flying speed because it does not have any propulsion if not contacting the ground.

Don't mean to gang up on you krreagan, but I was the person who started the car question (recently at least), and it was stated as above on page 179.

krreagan: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=47328
QUOTE
The plane and car are two separate questions. In the car question, the reference frame was specific to the belt. Unlike the original plane question.

Reference frames are obviously the sticking point here. I realize you understand the physics involved though. As stated above, I bet you would say the car would get wind over it's wings, right? So just a difference of opinion about it then.... no need for name calling from either side!

Correct, It's all at where you measure the speed from! I was answering a post by swimmer a couple of pages beyond your original question. In the future I'll be more carefull and be sure to reference the specific post.

Krreagan

So, WILL the car move forward, or not?....for the record.

It sounds now that you think the car will move forward...I assume that to be your final answer?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.