WILL IT FLY /SCI/?

File: 37 KB, 600x600, 747-take-off-conveyor-belt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 15:47:49 2016 No.8474516 [Reply] [Original]

WILL IT FLY /SCI/?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 15:48:40 2016 No.8474518 yes

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 15:49:14 2016 No.8474521 definitely not

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 15:50:52 2016 No.8474529 File: 9 KB, 420x316, 1429810518229[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >planes fly because their wheels spin

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 15:52:01 2016 No.8474534

>>8474516
Yes because the wheels of the plane are free moving and frictionless

The engines are of a separate entity if themselves, with virtually nothing holding them back from the tarmac which is frictionless remember, it produces thrust and pushes itself forward

The treadmill can spin all it wants but it'll never stop the forward thrust of the plane

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 15:52:09 2016 No.8474535

>>8474516
The answer is that the scenario is impossible. Specifically, the "designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels" part.

Thrust will move the plane forward no matter how fast the belt moves backwards. All the belt can do is make the plane's wheels spin faster. Neglecting friction, the speed of the belt would immediately shoot off to infinity as soon as the engines started.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 16:40:30 2016 No.8474660 It will fall down from treadmill and crash.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 16:43:19 2016 No.8474668 >>8474535 brilliant. nobel prize here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 16:50:42 2016 No.8474690 File: 8 KB, 527x507, flo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] if the fishtank is completely full, and the fish swim at the top would it fly? i mean if the fish were strong enough/fast enough at swimming

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 16:52:45 2016 No.8474698 jesus christ you all are tards no, it won't fly. vertical thrust comes from airflow beneath the wings

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 16:55:22 2016 No.8474705

>>8474698
That has nothing to do with the inquiry

Pretending for a moment the treadmill was long enough for take off, the plane would easily take off

There is no force on the wheels, it's frictionless. The turbines are separate and thrust the plane forward

Once up to speed, the lift generated would lift the plane into flight

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 16:59:05 2016 No.8474710 >>8474705 if it is stationary there is no lift generated

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 16:59:51 2016 No.8474713

>>8474705
yes it does have everything to do with the inquiry. the implication is that the plane remains stationary relative to the air in the room. the jet engines on planes only provide horizontal force, the vertical force needed for flight comes from airflow under the wings, which requires the plane to be moving relative to the air.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:15:08 2016 No.8474750 If an unstoppable force pushes against an immovable object, then who was phone?

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:18:52 2016 No.8474760

>>8474710
Its not stationary, the treadmill can't oppose the thrust of the turbines.

>>8474713
The turbines push the plane forward, the air sweeps under the planes wings as it moves forward, this generates lift, and the plane rises.

Theres a reason why a 747's wings bow upward when at like 150 knots its the lift from the air rushing over its wings

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:21:06 2016 No.8474767 >>8474516 Why do people think that if a plane's wheels are frictionless, somehow the treadmill will magically stop the forward motion of the plane.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:21:40 2016 No.8474769 >>8474760 I dont think you understand OP's scenario. The idea is that the plane isn't being pushed forward as you say, rather it remains stationary relative to the air, floor, and treadmill.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:22:09 2016 No.8474774 >>8474769 What EXACTLY is stopping the thrust of the turbines?

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:22:17 2016 No.8474776

>>8474705
If the wheels were completely frictionless, then yes, the turbines would provide a horziontal force on the air and we would take off, the treadmill spinning faster and faster unti infinity.
If there was some friction in the wheels, the treadmill would provide a negative force and prevent takeoff.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:24:33 2016 No.8474781 >>8474774 why does it matter? the point of the scenario is that the plane doesn't move. if you're trying to say the plan will lift off if it moves... congratulations? everyone already knows that dipshit

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:27:14 2016 No.8474787

>>8474776
There isn't anywhere near enough friction on the wheels to ever stop the massive turbines' thrust.

Theres 4 gigantic rolls rolls royce turbine engines that produce some 46k+ pounds of thrust.

You probably can't come up with enough force for that as a boeing 747-700 will probably generate enough force to over come the wheels with the parking brake on.

>>8474781
You're a fucking idiot, its implied the plane turns on its engines and attempts to move forward

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:27:57 2016 No.8474788 >>8474767 Maybe because they understand physics better than you do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:28:46 2016 No.8474796 File: 247 KB, 1224x1445, are you being retarded on purpose.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8474788

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:31:11 2016 No.8474804 >>8474516 The question is: who designed the treadmill? Answer me that and then I shall consider your question.

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:31:23 2016 No.8474806

>>8474787
you have shit reading comprehesion. the goal of the thought exercise isn't to try to figure out if the plane is moving or not. it's obviously not supposed to be moving, you're not answering the question by asserting the plane does, in fact, move, you're just outing yourself as an autist

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:33:16 2016 No.8474816 >>8474806 Its implied that the plane attempts to take off with the question "can it take off" asking irrelevant questions like "well is the parking brake on?" or "you didn't say it turns the engines on :^)" is pointless

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:33:24 2016 No.8474817 >a scenario where the plane is not moving >thought exercise literally no one will claim the plane will take off

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:34:27 2016 No.8474821 >>8474817 meant for >>8474806

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:35:29 2016 No.8474825 >>8474817 yes, some normie tards will claim the plane will take off >>8474816 so you're basically arguing that the plane will roll off the treadmill and take off? you honestly think that's the secret answer to the question?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:36:12 2016 No.8474827 >>8474825 I'm not agreeing with you fucknugget

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:36:40 2016 No.8474828 >>8474535 >Neglecting friction >Tires spinning Nice kek but wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:38:37 2016 No.8474831 >>8474827 yeah you're an utter moron, that's exactly the type of answer i'd expect once you've been backed into a corner lash out

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:39:56 2016 No.8474835

>>8474516
They aint connected to a fuckin engine anon.

u ever played a game called garry's mod?

just build a conveyor belt that move in a direction opposite to where u want 2 test ur object to go, place four wheels that provide no energy to a light pole, and place a jet engine on the back of the light pole.

Tell me which direction it goes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:40:50 2016 No.8474837 >>8474835 Up?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:41:52 2016 No.8474838 >>8474837 u gotta play gmod to understand.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:44:37 2016 No.8474846 >>8474516 No because the plane is at rest in the air's frame.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:45:04 2016 No.8474848 the engines would fly off the plane since the plane is physically incapable of moving

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:49:41 2016 No.8474854

>>8474516
No it cannot take off because the plane has no speed relative to the belt from which it needs to take off. However it can only take off when air's resistance, which depends upon speed, is great enough. If speed = 0 therefore no air resistance to take off.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:50:52 2016 No.8474860 >>8474806 >it's obviously not supposed to be moving That is not at all obvious. Explain your reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:55:47 2016 No.8474871 >>8474848 >physically incapable of moving I keep seeing people say this, but I'm yet to see a good argument for it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:56:01 2016 No.8474872 >>8474860 Wheels on cars drive the cars. Wheels on airplanes roll, and brake. They do not power the airplane. When the engines make enough thrust, the plane will take off.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 17:59:44 2016 No.8474884 >>8474871 You fucking brainlet. v-v=0

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:02:26 2016 No.8474890

>>8474854
>No it cannot take off because the plane has no speed relative to the belt from which it needs to take off
It doesn't matter about the relative speed vs the treadmill. The treadmill can''t over come the thrust of the engines if the wheels are frictionless

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:03:28 2016 No.8474894 >>8474825 >so you're basically arguing that the plane will roll off the treadmill and take off? Yes because the threadmill literally can't do shit about the thrust of the engines

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:03:42 2016 No.8474896 >>8474860 because the idea that it rolls off the treadmill and flies normally is retarded? if it's not supposed to remain stationary then you're arguing if jet engines can overcome a treadmill which is so retarded even normies wouldn't fall for it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:03:54 2016 No.8474898 >>8474828 Friction = df There I fixed it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:04:39 2016 No.8474900 >>8474896 >if jet engines can overcome a treadmill which is so retarded even normies wouldn't fall for it? How does the treadmill stop the thrust of the engines?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:04:44 2016 No.8474901 >>8474894 no shit, that's so obvious it should be obvious that the plane is supposed to remain stationary as a given in the question

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:05:58 2016 No.8474907 >>8474900 it doesn't. it's not a real scenario. its a meme question. you must be amazing at parties.

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:06:48 2016 No.8474910

>>8474901
The plane won't be stationary though, the thrust of the engines will propel the plane forward

no amount of speed the treadmill spins at will oppose the forward motion of the plane. This is because there is no equal and opposing force against the engines. The net vector here is ONLY forward. The wheels are frictionless and don't affect the forward motion of the plane regardless of how fast it attempts to spin. They're separate entities in a system

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:07:42 2016 No.8474912 >>8474890 You retard tires cannot spin if there's no friction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:07:50 2016 No.8474913 >>8474907 >this treadmill stops the speed of the plane >how? >it doesn't :^)

>>	dhbn Mon Nov 14 18:08:45 2016 No.8474918 sdfvsdv

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:08:51 2016 No.8474919 >>8474912 the wheel bearing is frictionless, not the tires against the surface. We know the tires grip but the wheels on a plane spin freely and don't power the plane

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:11:48 2016 No.8474929 >>8474896 Do you have a better argument than "it's retarded"? >if it's not supposed to remain stationary then you're arguing if jet engines can overcome a treadmill That's the discussion, yes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:12:02 2016 No.8474931 >>8474919 >Wheel bearing is frictionless Nice meme but that is equivalent to say that the tires spin on the surface without friction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:13:11 2016 No.8474934 >>8474907 >you must be amazing at parties >is the autist being a contrarian memelord

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:13:11 2016 No.8474935 >>8474901 You're making strange assumptions. Nowhere is it implied that the plane is "supposed" to remain stationary.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:13:41 2016 No.8474936 >>8474931 No its not, do you even know where the wheel bearing is? The wheels about the axle are virtually frictionless, they're oiled and lubricated to spin freely. We know the wheel's tire grips the tarmac.

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:14:11 2016 No.8474939

>>8474929
the argument is that the intention of the creator is this scenario is clear. obviously the nothing would overcome the thrust from the jet engines. it's so obvious that it should make you question if that's what the creator's intention was all along (it wasn't).

and yes, normies are so stupid they would think the plane might take off if it's not moving

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:14:55 2016 No.8474941 >Jet engines overcome the treadmill The op is literally autistic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:15:12 2016 No.8474942 >>8474939 This isn't it. This is a simple physics problem that easily separates the people who don't understand how physics work and those that do. Everyone who says "no the plane can't fly" is flat out wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:15:45 2016 No.8474944 >>8474939 the intention was to expose retards who think planes work like cars, not whatever dumb shit you're arguing

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:17:34 2016 No.8474950 >>8474939 The assumption you're making about the creator's "intention" is not "clear" to the general reader, and is in no way implied in OP's image.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:18:38 2016 No.8474953 >>8474884 Simply writing down an equation is not an argument.

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:19:37 2016 No.8474957

>>8474950
>its not clear
you're obviously autistic. Not easily understanding what the OP's pic is directly implying is a symptom of autism where you seem to lack the ability to comprehend simple things

This isn't a "no it doesn't take off" and you don't understand the physics, thats one thing but you're fucking autistic if you''re trying to reinterpret or you misinterpret the idea of the text

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:20:36 2016 No.8474959
File: 672 KB, 1182x520, 4IdsAZT.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm partially convinced I'm being trolled in this thread but for all the morons who are saying the plane isn't obviously supposed to remain stationary... maybe I'm just too old for this shit ass board full of undergraduates with a baseless sense of pride but this is an old joke question that's been around for so long they've covered it on mythbusters

go ahead and look at pic related. does it look like the plane is supposed to "roll off" the belt? no. furthermore, if that were meant as a possibility, the OP would have drawn his picture radically different, with there being lots of space for the plane to roll.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:21:17 2016 No.8474961 >>8474959 you're autistic

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:22:19 2016 No.8474963 >>8474959 jesus christ stop posting

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:23:06 2016 No.8474965 >>8474961 >>8474963 see >>8474831 morons

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:23:34 2016 No.8474968 >>8474965 here's your (You)

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:24:32 2016 No.8474969 File: 3 KB, 280x272, cGIay9e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8474968 here's your gold star maybe one day you'll win an argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:25:22 2016 No.8474971 >>8474969 there's no argument to win this entire thread is shitposting for the sake of it

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:31:06 2016 No.8474982

>>8474957
You're just trying to shift the goalposts because you were proven wrong. Stop grasping at straws and basing arguments on some fictional interpretation of the "intention" of the creator.
Also, calling people autistic isn't an argument and just makes you sound like a child.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:31:54 2016 No.8474986 >>8474959 Just what do you win by pretending to be retarded in order to bait people? Isn't your time worth anything? If this is your fun I pity you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:32:35 2016 No.8474987 >>8474959 >Question is "will it take off?" >It's obviously not meant to take off because I said so. Great argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:32:53 2016 No.8474988 >>8474982 you're autistic

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:34:52 2016 No.8474994

>>8474986
>>8474987
you people don't understand the stupidity of the normie

yes, obviously there's no counterforce to overcome the force of the jets, if you were paying attention you would have realized i already said that

you people LITERALLY have autism because you can't interpret the fact that this question is a joke designed for people with no understanding of physics. I never said the plane wasn't supposed to take off, I said the plane was supposed to remain stationary, because physics neophytes wouldn't know any better.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:36:15 2016 No.8474998 >>8474994 >no guys I was only pretending to be retarded >watch as I regurgitate all your arguments then call you stupid for my plagiarism

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:38:41 2016 No.8475002 >>8474998 god youre a massive faggot I already stated that like 20 minutes ago. you still dont understand my argument. you are beyond saving unironically kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:39:18 2016 No.8475004 >>8475002 >the plane will take off >NO THE POINT OF THE QUESTION IS ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO >but it will take off >NUUUUUU FUCKIN NORMIES you're autistic

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:39:40 2016 No.8475007 >>8474994 You can pretend that's what you were saying all along, but we can all read the thread. I don't know why you're bothering to try to save face. Just leave.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:42:17 2016 No.8475014 >>8475007 >>8475004 see >>8474907 and literally kill yourselves all of you

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:44:15 2016 No.8475019 >>8474690 No, conservation of momentum.

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 18:54:00 2016 No.8475029

Because the argument obviously hasn't been made clearly enough
>plane engines start
>engines provide forward force on plane
>plane begins to move forwards
>wheels start rolling, conveyor belt matches speed
>but no force applied to plane because wheels are unpowered, unconnected and free-spinning
>plane continues to accelerate forward due to unbalanced forward-oriented force
>wheels spin faster, treadmill matches, wheels spin faster, treadmill matches off into infinity
>wings eventually generates enough lift for plane to take off
>plane disappears into the sky with rapidly spinning wheels

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 19:08:55 2016 No.8475054 >>8475029 No its not supposed to move forward, dont you normies understand my bad interpretation I'm not autistic you are and you're retarded thats not what I said

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 19:17:03 2016 No.8475061 File: 33 KB, 991x605, exemplary logical argument that could not possibly be refuted.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] clearly this is trivial

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 19:28:02 2016 No.8475074 >>8474516 No, airplane require inertia to sustain flight. If take away inertia mid flight then fall to earth boom

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 19:30:19 2016 No.8475077 >>8475074 the treadmill can't take away the plane's inertia, what stops the thrust of the engines?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 19:58:19 2016 No.8475099 >>8475054 Well in that case say 'a plane is stuck to its x coordinate by magic immovable rods, can it take off?' And the answer is no, it needs horizontal movement for its wings to generate lift.

Anonymous Mon Nov 14 21:21:33 2016 No.8475229

Holy shit, this entire thread is full of spherical-cow idiots.
If the conveyor matched the forward movement of the plane and the speed of the wheels then both the conveyor belt and the plane would have to be moving infinitely fast. Even fucking xkcd can figure this shit out, it's high school physics:
https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 21:24:00 2016 No.8475233 >>8474529 >implying the treadmill will prevent the plane from moving forward just as normal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 22:46:21 2016 No.8475327 It will move forward normally and fly off. The only difference the belt will make is the wheels will be spinning twice the speed of the plane.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 22:47:57 2016 No.8475331 >>8474516 No

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 14 22:49:29 2016 No.8475336 >>8475229 Xckd says the plane does take off, you're wrong

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 00:08:31 2016 No.8475447 >>8475229 The plane would not need to move infinitely fast, just the wheels and the treadmill. The plane can move at normal finite speeds. v_c = = v_w + v_c when v_w is nonzero when v_c is infinte.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 00:19:04 2016 No.8475470 File: 73 KB, 793x547, kike.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8475061 KEK

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 00:19:43 2016 No.8475472 >>8475447 You can't have infinite speed though. The treadmill would approach lightspeed instead. What would actually happen is that long before this occurs the treadmill would pull air across the wing and produce lift.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 00:35:40 2016 No.8475509 >>8475233 he wasnt

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 01:04:51 2016 No.8475543 >>8475472 We found the solution!

Anonymous Tue Nov 15 02:09:22 2016 No.8475624

>>8474994
>I said the plane was supposed to remain stationary,

Relative to the treadmill, but the plane will still be moving forward relative to the ground, right? It would look like the plane is being launched by the treadmill since its wheels will not be rotating.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 02:19:08 2016 No.8475638 >>8474787 No the plane won't fly because it's in your imagination. If you imagine your ass being fucked by a midget it won't make it so as you probably know because you were just imagining it. Idoit

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 02:20:37 2016 No.8475639 >>8474804 L2r

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 02:22:44 2016 No.8475641 >>8474516 The wheels are rotating and therefore have a speed of 0 that means the belts speed is also 0 the plane takes off in your brain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 02:29:53 2016 No.8475650 >>8474516 no it cant because the net velocity will be 0

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 03:11:07 2016 No.8475684 >>8474516 Is there even a pilot and fuel?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 06:22:45 2016 No.8475814 File: 52 KB, 699x449, emdrive.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8475019

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 08:33:13 2016 No.8475908 >>8474690 No fish is strong enough to pull its own weight plus the weight of a tank with it into the air against gravity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 10:37:19 2016 No.8476041 >>8474516 No, because it stands still in the inertial system. The plane lifts off through air displacement.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 12:23:24 2016 No.8476188 >>8474516 Yes the moving tarmac will spin the air into a velocity allowing for lift

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 12:26:15 2016 No.8476194 >>8474806 >Just outing yourself as an autistic Impeccable

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 12:26:46 2016 No.8476195 >>8475908 but what if the tank was really light maybe some helium balloons in there to make it easier, but not so light that it would start floating wihout the fish and the fish was really strong like really strong

Anonymous Tue Nov 15 13:13:04 2016 No.8476275

>>8475639
L2r is the company that designed it? Can't say that I'm familiar with them.
Could you tell me about them, please? I wish to estimate whether it will function as designed. If l2r have a poor record of producing equipment which meets the stated aim of the design specification then my opinion of the outcome and happenings before the outcome will be slightly different.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 14:19:44 2016 No.8476413 https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/ You're all a bunch of fucking retards.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 14:21:07 2016 No.8476418 >>8476195 Nope. If they had that much force they break the glass.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 14:51:43 2016 No.8476504 >>8476418 but what if the glass was really strong

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 14:56:21 2016 No.8476520 >>8476413 xkcd as never been funny nor relevant, now go back to plebbit

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 15:22:22 2016 No.8476570 >>8476504 Then it would be heavier than them and they couldn't lift it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 15:46:02 2016 No.8476608 >>8476570 but what if there were helium balloons attached to it i.e.>>8476195 >some helium balloons in there to make it easier, but not so light that it would start floating wihout the fish

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 15:49:02 2016 No.8476615 no. relative to the ground it is not moving at all really, so the plane could not get enough lift or thrust in order to fly

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 16:06:52 2016 No.8476670 >>8475814 The EMdrive doesn't break any laws though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 16:44:31 2016 No.8476747 >>8476520 Autistic retard detected.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 15 16:48:32 2016 No.8476756 >>8474534 >>8474535 >>8474705 >>8474767 >>8474776 >frictionless ???

Anonymous Tue Nov 15 16:52:27 2016 No.8476763

>>8475650
>>8475908
>>8475641
>>8475099
>>8475029

Everyone who sincerely poses this question should be ashamed of themselves for doing so without specifying whether the planes forward momentum is generated by an engine causing the wheels to drive the plane along the ground like a car, or from the engines on the wings pushing the plane against the air.

Because virtually everybody's frame of reference is going to be from driving cars, whose forward momentum is created by the wheels on the ground.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 00:01:46 2016 No.8477559 I shouldn't bother replying, but ffs, draw the free body diagram and the answer is clear people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 00:08:49 2016 No.8477572 >>8476763 What the fuck? There is not a single plane that is driven by its wheels you moron. But this has very little to do with answering the question, which makes you even more retarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 00:09:51 2016 No.8477574 >>8477559 OK, draw the free body diagram that makes it clear.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 00:11:27 2016 No.8477577 >>8474516 Yes, the motion of the wheels has nothing to do with the ability of the plane to generate forward momentum, and thus lift.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 00:13:11 2016 No.8477584 File: 32 KB, 576x470, 1477587961627.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8474835 >>8474838 >A game engine over a decade old is a good barometer of real-world physics

Anonymous Wed Nov 16 02:51:54 2016 No.8477809

>ITT
What the no-sayers think:
>The plane is actually a car with wings and any forward motion is created by the propelled wheels, which in turn is countered by the threadmill
>no airflow -> not flying

What the yes-sayers correctly think:
>The jet-engines produce thrust by pushing out air, thus the plane pushes itself off the air and not from the ground
>forward motion happens regardless of the wheels practically moving backwards as they are free spinning
>it flies

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 11:19:37 2016 No.8478287 the speed of the wheels is equal to the thrust, and the conveyor belt is matching it all...so the plane is not going anywhere. the airflow underneath the wings is like nothing so its going to sit there. this is a stupid post lol

Anonymous Wed Nov 16 11:46:00 2016 No.8478325

>>8474516
don't you know that no one knows how planes work to begin with?
like, how does it even fly?
air pressure shenanigans? pff, not likely
the truth is, planes are magic, treadmills can't stop planes from taking off because planes are not restricted by physics like we are.
'nuff said

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 13:17:15 2016 No.8478438 >>8474521 yes idiot now kys

Anonymous Wed Nov 16 14:46:51 2016 No.8478565

>>8474516
For any object to get off the ground of "fly" it must have a vertical force acting upon it which is larger than gravity.

In airplanes this force generated through the differences in pressure which result from the flow of air around the wings and the shape of the wings.

What matters to a plane taking off is wether there is a flow of air, when you say that the plane has a speed relative to the conveyor belt such that it is standing still, that means the air is not moving relative to the plane or the wings, there is no flow of air around the wings so no lift is generated.

Also i suspect that this is a low effort trollpost due to the simplicity of the question and the appearent low effort put into the image and formulation of the question.

>>8474690
no

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 15:21:07 2016 No.8478607 >>8474516 Planes are not like cars There is no torque applied to the wheels It will fly just fine

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 15:35:21 2016 No.8478625 >>8477809 this

None !niqjediPCA Wed Nov 16 16:36:35 2016 No.8478719

>>8474516
>The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction.

As soon as the planes engines are put up to even HALF thrust, and the plane begins moving, the convener belt will immediately rev up to infinite speed and destroy the runway.

Barring a conveyer belt moving at infinite speed, the conveyer will quickly hit maximum speed, and the plane will keep moving foreward, eventually reaching takeoff speed and flying away from the stupid little pointless conveyor belt.

tl;dr

Planes fly because the airspeed over the wings generate lift, it literally has nothing to do with how fast the wheels are moving, and in what direction.

Anonymous Wed Nov 16 16:59:50 2016 No.8478754

>>8477577
> the motion of the wheels has nothing to do with the ability of the plane to generate forward momentum
It has everything to do with it.

What always confuses people is that the question explicitly states something which is contrary to any reasonable assumption, namely that
> The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction.

IOW, it's explicitly stating that the plane cannot move forward, because the conveyor belt will be moving backwards however fast it needs to in order to prevent the plane from moving forward.

With a real plane, that would have to be something like mach 50, i.e. the wheels would disintegrate first.

But were not talking about an actual plane, we're talking about a hypothetical question, and it clearly states that the conveyor belt is moving fast enough to prevent forward motion. No forward motion = no lift = no fly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 17:03:19 2016 No.8478758 >>8478754 Shorter version: it's not a physics problem, it's a reading-comprehension problem.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 19:28:25 2016 No.8478939 >>8478758 Speed of the wheels, not speed of the plane.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 19:30:21 2016 No.8478940 File: 292 KB, 1280x960, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] When 1+1-1=2

Anonymous Wed Nov 16 19:39:33 2016 No.8478956

>>8478939
Speed of the plane is included in speed off the wheels. In order for the plane to move forward it must add rotation to the wheels. When you push a shopping cart the wheels spin at the speed of the shopping cart. Now think about that shopping cart on a treadmill. When you push the treadmill so that it is not moving relative to someone off the treadmill, that means the speed of the wheels perfectly matches the speed of the treadmill. Push it harder and it will move forward, because the wheels are moving faster than the treadmill. Make the treadmill faster instead and the cart will move backward. Get it? The whole "plane is not a car" argument just shows you don't understand what you're arguing against.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 19:41:32 2016 No.8478957 >>8478956 *when you push the cart so that it is not moving

Anonymous Wed Nov 16 20:29:49 2016 No.8479027

>>8475229
>
درب اتوماتیک on 2014-05-05 at 5:01 am said:

i really enjoyed to visit this site.it is a very nice site and i book mark ur site.

This is a nice content with lots of information. It’s a very excellent idea for raising money for charity. I think honest review is more important for authors. I like your whole discussion. Keep it up.
Keep blogging.ur site is good.and finelly ur site going to in high position

This is a really good read for me. Must agree that you are one of the coolest blogger I ever saw.
Thank you for this very interesting infographic ! I’m talking about Google Venice on my blog.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 16 21:10:38 2016 No.8479086 >>8474516 no, only if there are hurricane force winds present blowing toward the plane in the right direction and the right speed.

Anonymous Wed Nov 16 21:19:55 2016 No.8479107

Holy shit the levels you people take this to.

The only reason someone would even come up with a situation like this is if they thought they could design a runway that allows shorter take off. Which I suspect is what the original source of this is from.

Yes the plane will fly if it takes off like it normally does and if it has the manufacturer specified length of runway. Which if that's what the person posing the question implied then this is one of the dumbest questions ever.

Now if you said the treadmill was just longer than the length of the plane and operated in a manner that matched the speed of the plane as it would roll down a runway then no it would not take off as air isn't moving across the wings

>Tl;dr you can't use this to make a shorter runway, which is the real question being asked here

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 17 02:07:47 2016 No.8479478 >>8474516 The wheels will just move 2x the speed they normally would, it should take off normally if the treadmill is long enough.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 17 04:25:16 2016 No.8479579 >>8474705 The length of the belt is irrelevant since it's constantly matching the jet's speed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 17 04:41:16 2016 No.8479589 >>8477572 >There is not a single plane that is driven by its wheels you moron. Anon did not say this

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 17 09:21:58 2016 No.8479764 >>8479478 You appear to have trouble comprehending what > The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction. means.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 17 09:33:14 2016 No.8479778 >>8479764 Everyone has trouble comprehending it, because it's ambiguous and likely nonsense.

Anonymous Thu Nov 17 21:24:21 2016 No.8480642
File: 8 KB, 236x236, 1479347693578.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8474884
you dumb cunt its forces that are being applied did you just finish physics 101 in your frshman year and feel speacial ...
the direction of the force being induced by the 747 is also going upward since the wings generate lift ...

kys

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 03:13:22 2016 No.8481068 No because steel is heavier than feathers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 03:15:09 2016 No.8481071 >>8474690 No because an object can't exert a force on itself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 03:29:32 2016 No.8481083 >>8480642 you didn't even answer the question baka...

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 03:49:29 2016 No.8481099 >>8481071 you mean net force

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 05:39:47 2016 No.8481161 File: 31 KB, 326x512, 1477432661923.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8481068 I read this with a scottish accent, kekd

>>	surreal Fri Nov 18 05:47:13 2016 No.8481172 do you dumb shits actually think this is science?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 05:57:48 2016 No.8481184 >>8474919 > never handled a bearing

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 07:36:06 2016 No.8481275
File: 38 KB, 500x250, lift and drag wings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Imagine you're running on a treadmill, the belt is moving at a certain speed v and for you to stay on top of it you need to run at the same speed to the opposite direction. In that case your speed relative to the ground is 0 and relative to the belt is 2v. Same thing happens with the 747. How does the turbine work? It produces a forward thrust, thus that is the reason the plane go FORWARD. To generate LIFT you need different rates of air flow above and underneath the wings. Now imagine you're inside a car with open windows, the air seems to flow faster when the car is stopped or when it's moving relative to the ground? That's why it wont take off.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 07:50:55 2016 No.8481287 >>8478754 >mach 50

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 08:18:19 2016 No.8481314 >>8475233 >The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 08:21:12 2016 No.8481315 >>8474516 only if there was something that pushed an adequate amount of air over the wings, so that the plane would take off regardless of the conveyor belt

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 08:39:22 2016 No.8481329 File: 31 KB, 352x450, intothetrash.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8481275 >To generate LIFT you need different rates of air flow above and underneath the wings.

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 09:03:49 2016 No.8481340

>>8481275
>the belt is moving at a certain speed v and for you to stay on top of it you need to run at the same speed to the opposite direction. In that case your speed relative to the ground is 0 and relative to the belt is 2v.
Uh, no. If the belt is travelling at v, then to stay stationary relative to the ground you'd need to be travelling at -v relative to the belt.

All of which is entirely irrelevant, as a thousand people have already pointed out: A plane is not a car. The engines provide thrust, the wheels spin freely, and the belt doesn't get any say in how fast the plane moves relative to the ground.

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 09:08:24 2016 No.8481345

>>8474535
this, more or less
The plane will move forward propelled by its engines, and the wheels will spin at whatever rate is determined by the combination of the motion of the plane and the treadmill. Consequently the treadmill which is trying to 'match the speed of the wheels' will accelerate, accelerating the wheels in turn, and the positive feedback will either increase until the wheels are blown apart from the stress or the plane leaves the end of the treadmill

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 09:43:40 2016 No.8481380

>>8481340
Yes, it would be -v, that's why I said opposite direction.

Obviously it is not a car, the plane moves forward because of the thrust and not torque on the wheels. However as long as they are in contact with the belt the analogy works. While the plane is accelerating forward without taking off, and assuming the belt speed increases accordingly, we can conclude that the wheels gain more angular momentum (spin faster) to obey the questio conditions. Note that during this transitional state the speed of the plane would always be 0 relative to ground, therefore not having air flow over the wings and not creating lift to remove the wheels from the belt. After the whole system achieves a steady state, as no lift was produced, the plane wont take off.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 10:21:20 2016 No.8481432 >>8481380 The belt can't stop the plane from accelerating - it's not exerting any forces on it. Once the engines start, the plane will roll forward. Spinning the wheels up won't change that,

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 12:42:21 2016 No.8481616

>>8481432
Ah, I see your point now, you're right.

The problem with my analysis was considering that the plane speed (and acceleration) was relative to the belt instead the ground frame of reference. However assuming friction on the wheel bearing, the turbine would need a stronger thrust, and if we use an actual 747 (no modified turbines) on a system like that, - with a belt as long as a runway as the question propose - the plane still might not take off.

Assuming the wheels can handle to time more angular velocity than usual.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 13:26:02 2016 No.8481666 File: 75 KB, 600x600, kys.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] no

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 14:19:29 2016 No.8481717

>>8478956
>In order for the plane to move forward it must add rotation to the wheels.

THIS IS FUCKING WRONG.

Planes do not gain speed through force applied to the ground. Planes fly by force applied to the atmosphere. It doesn't matter whether the wheels are there, or what direction or speed the wheels are rotating.

> When you push a shopping cart the wheels spin at the speed of the shopping cart.

That's because a shopping cart moves forward by applying force into the ground through the wheels. PLANES DO NOT WORK THIS WAY.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 14:21:10 2016 No.8481722 >>8481275 >Imagine you're running on a treadmill Running moves you forward by applying force to the ground through your feet. PLANES DO NOT WORK THIS WAY.

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 14:31:06 2016 No.8481732
File: 46 KB, 759x422, goa-seaplane.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Look, here's a sea-plane. It doesn't even have wheels. This is to emphasize the point that on a plane, the speed of wheel rotation has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of the plane to apply thrust and take off.

Cars connect their engine to the wheels - wheel rotation is directly related to vehicle speed. Shopping carts, cars, feet, tank treads - these are ALL applying force to the ground.

Plane engines do NOT connect to their wheels. They connect to the propellers or turbines. Propellers and turbines move the vehicle by pushing the air, not the ground.

Actually, the question is better posed with a sea-plane on a river with fast current, as the pontoons wouldn't spin freely and ACTUALLY reduce the speed from the propellers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 14:34:56 2016 No.8481735 >>8474516 1. Sweden 2. Yes

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 16:01:16 2016 No.8481896 >>8481732 There are wheels at the front of the floats, just look! (Also, ski planes are a thing if you want imagine low friction ground, rather than water)

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 16:08:59 2016 No.8481932 >>8474516 The answer is more obvious if you rephrase the question: can a plane that's on a regular runway take off when the velocity of the air exactly matches that of the plane?

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 16:10:14 2016 No.8481936

>>8481732
>Actually, the question is better posed with a sea-plane on a river with fast current, as the pontoons wouldn't spin freely and ACTUALLY reduce the speed from the propellers.
Okay, so could the plane take of if the current was so fast that the plane couldn't move forward on the water?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 16:15:21 2016 No.8481958 File: 14 KB, 300x300, happy-wojak-men-s-t-shirt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8474969 Oh shit! I made that image :D

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 16:23:01 2016 No.8481982 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY We has no on posted this yet?

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 17:34:42 2016 No.8482123

>>8481717
I didn't say they gained speed from force applied to the ground, you illiterate baboon. I said that any forward movement of the plane must add speed to the wheels.

And a shopping cart does not move forward by applying force to the ground. Are you retarded? It moves forward by being pushed, which is no different than how a plane moves forward from its engine. Shopping carts are not cars. We've really reached peak stupidity when you make the EXACT mistake you falsely accuse others of.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 18:04:26 2016 No.8482160 >>8481982 Because the conveyor belt is not moving at the same speed

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 18:08:56 2016 No.8482164 >>8481732 Shopping cart moves from being pushed, not from torque applied to wheels. Morons.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 18:13:22 2016 No.8482169 The only factor you're adding is additional friction on the wheel bearings. Anyone who assumes for a moment it won't take off is a brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 18:13:48 2016 No.8482172 >>8474516 It would explode.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 18:14:23 2016 No.8482174 >>8474516 what is the speed of the wind?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 18:30:33 2016 No.8482208 >>8474516 >WILL IT FLY /SCI/? yup, unless you're foolish enough to think the friction from the wheel bearings would be greater than the thrust of the jet's engines

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 18:34:41 2016 No.8482213
File: 49 KB, 300x500, ScaryClown.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8482208
>friction from the wheel bearings

ITT retards who think that the only way the conveyor can slow the plane is via friction in the wheel bearings.

Physics tells us that an impulse to the bottom of the wheel will be transmitted to the plane via the axle even in the absence of friction. To demonstrate this, hold a baseball bat in the middle and then hit the end on something. You will feel a strong impulse. Because physics.

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 19:00:04 2016 No.8482247

>>8479778
> Everyone has trouble comprehending it, because it's ambiguous and likely nonsense.
It could certainly be worded better. Even so, I can't see how it can be interpreted as anything other than "keeps the axle stationary".

In any case, enough people in this thread have pointed out that the plane won't move to contradict the claim that /everyone/ has trouble comprehending it.

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 19:07:20 2016 No.8482262

>>8482213
Not an entirely accurate comparison.

In the absence of friction, the conveyor belt would only need to impart enough force to accelerate the wheels (i.e. they'd accelerate at a constant rate, with no limit).

If the force was sufficient to counteract the thrust of a 747's engines, the wheels would be up to Mach 1000 in no time (assuming, of course, that they didn't explode; which is what would actually happen if you put a 747 on a conveyor belt capable of opposing that much thrust).

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 19:12:03 2016 No.8482269

>>8482208
> unless you're foolish enough to think the friction from the wheel bearings would be greater than the thrust of the jet's engines
>>8478754
>>8479764
It's not a matter of being foolish, it's a matter of answering the question which was actually asked (rather than a more physically-plausible question, which is obviously somewhat easier).

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 19:25:13 2016 No.8482285

>>8482269
>It's not a matter of being foolish, it's a matter of answering the question which was actually asked (rather than a more physically-plausible question, which is obviously somewhat easier).
The question being asked is strictly ambiguous. Using the most physically-plausible interpretation seems like the only way to honestly try to answer an ambiguous question.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 19:55:35 2016 No.8482327 >>8481099 How can an object exert any force on itself?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 20:09:00 2016 No.8482360 >>8482174 Wind speed is a little over v2, and it's a headwind. What's the density altitude?

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 20:10:58 2016 No.8482365

>>8478754
>it's explicitly stating that the plane cannot move forward
no, it's explicitly stated that
> The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction.
which does NOT preclude the plane itself from moving forward

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 20:23:55 2016 No.8482387 >>8482327 they're called internal forces, and they happen, pretty much, whenever your object is larger than a single point

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 18 21:13:21 2016 No.8482471 >>8482365 It does preclude the plane from moving forward, as long as the wheels are touching the treadmill. The only way for them to not touch the treadmill is for the plane to move forward and generate lift. Thus the plane does not move forward.

Anonymous Fri Nov 18 23:48:00 2016 No.8482621

>>8481936
No, if the force the water on the pontoons equaled the force the props put on the air, the plane would have zero air speed.

The whole reason the plane on the conveyor belt can take off is because the wheels rotate freely.

>>8482123
>I said that any forward movement of the plane must add speed to the wheels.
No, you said
>In order for the plane to move forward it must add rotation to the wheels.
Which is wrong. The plane can move forward WITHOUT adding rotation to the wheels. It does this at every moment while it is flying. It is no different for takeoff.

>And a shopping cart does not move forward by applying force to the ground.
Then how is it breaking friction?
>It moves forward by being pushed
That push is applied by the body pushing it, which gains its force by PUSHING AGAINST THE GROUND.

>which is no different than how a plane moves forward from its engine.
This would be true if you added a big ol fan on the cart, but otherwise no.

>>8482164
That push is applied by the body pushing it, which gains its force by PUSHING AGAINST THE GROUND.

>>8482213
The wheels would disintegrate before EVER getting enough force this way to counteract a jet engine.

>>8482471
Why? Imagine the thrust of the plane is not from jet engines, but from an attached cable pulling the airplane. Both this cable and the jet engine are applying forward motion to the plane WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FORCE TO THE WHEELS. How do the wheels spinning backwards stop this cable from pulling the plane forward?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:09:58 2016 No.8482649 >>8474516 OK No wait So what if you put a motorbike with wings on the treadmill instead?

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:13:07 2016 No.8482654

>>8482649
As a motorbike applies the force of the engine to the wheels, it would not be able to obtain any air speed if it was placed on such a conveyor.

Now if you had a rocket-cycle instead of a IC engine and drive train, THEN it would work - assuming the wings can provide enough lift, that is.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:13:43 2016 No.8482656

>>8482621
>The plane can move forward WITHOUT adding rotation to the wheels. It does this at every moment while it is flying.
Irrelevant, it's not flying, its touching the treadmill. It can't move forward until it stops touching the treadmill, and it can't stop touching the treadmill until it moves forward.

>Then how is it breaking friction?
The force you impart on it when you push on it is greater than friction. How old are you? Ever taken a physics class?

>That push is applied by the body pushing it, which gains its force by PUSHING AGAINST THE GROUND.
Utter nonsense. The push is from the contraction of muscles contracting using energy stored in your body. You don't have to be standing on anything to push something away from you. Not to mention that this has nothing to do with the scenario since it doesn't matter whether you strap a jet engine to the shopping cart on the treadmill or push it while you stand on the ground. The effect is exactly the same. M-O-R-O-N.

>Both this cable and the jet engine are applying forward motion to the plane WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FORCE TO THE WHEELS.
So let me get this straight, you think that if you attached a cable to a shopping cart, and that cable was pulled, then the shopping carts wheels would not move? And you think that it matters whether someone standing on the ground is pulling this cable, or a hovering thing is pulling the cable? Trolling or retarded?

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:17:54 2016 No.8482663

>>8482656
>It can't move forward until it stops touching the treadmill

YES IT CAN!!!!

>You don't have to be standing on anything to push something away from you.
Try it. Go float underwater or be suspended from cables or get into a Vomit Comet and see how good you do pushing things without pushing off against a solid surface. This is basic Newton's Law shit.

> you think that if you attached a cable to a shopping cart, and that cable was pulled, then the shopping carts wheels would not move?
Fucking idiots, I swear...

No. I am saying if you attach a cable to a shopping cart and use said cable to apply motion, then it doesn't MATTER whether the cart is on unmoving ground or a conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction or floating in the air.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:21:29 2016 No.8482670
File: 34 KB, 288x288, fig.5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Here, since there seems to be people utterly imbecilic when it comes to this:

>Newton's third law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is relevant to walking because when you put your foot on the ground, you are applying a force to it. In doing this, the ground also actually applies an equal force onto your foot, in the opposite direction, pushing you forward.

PLANES DO NOT APPLY FORCE TO THE GROUND.

PLANES APPLY FORCE TO THE AIR.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:27:01 2016 No.8482679

>>8482663
>YES IT CAN!!!!
Wow, brilliant argument. When you get a shopping cart to move without the wheels turning, tell me. Until then, fuck off.

>Try it. Go float underwater or be suspended from cables or get into a Vomit Comet and see how good you do pushing things without pushing off against a solid surface.
Newton's third law, welcome to physics 101. I bet you think rockets can't work in space because "there's nothing to push against."

>I am saying if you attach a cable to a shopping cart and use said cable to apply motion, then it doesn't MATTER whether the cart is on unmoving ground or a conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction or floating in the air.
So if you put a treadmill on a shopping cart and put your arm out to stop the shopping cart, it would move relative to your arm. Wow, good job idiot. No, there is always a point at which the treadmill will counteract the force applied to the shopping cart. That point is DEFINED as the point at which the speed of the treadmill equals the speed of the cart's wheels. If it didn't matter what the treadmill was doing, it would be impossible to hold a cart steady on a treadmill, but it is always possible to do so.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:29:31 2016 No.8482681

>>8482663
Also, you purposely ignored that screaming "YOUR FEET ARE ON THE GROUND" is irrelevant because it has no bearing on the behavior of the cart. Pushing the cart while standing off the treadmill has the same result as a rocket on the cart. Force is force. You lose, moron.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:31:45 2016 No.8482683 >>8476756 Assume it's a frictionless treadmill

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:33:33 2016 No.8482684

>>8482679
>When you get a shopping cart to move without the wheels turning, tell me.
Float the cart in a pond, pull it with a rope.

How are you STILL missing the point that THE WHEELS DON'T MATTER?

Planes do NOT apply force to their wheels.

>I bet you think rockets can't work in space because "there's nothing to push against."
Why would I think that? Rockets are moved by the expellent having an equal & opposite force applied to the rocket. The very fact that rockets work shows why you need the ground to push a shopping cart. Because without that base the cart would push you back as much as you pushed it forward.

>So if you put a treadmill on a shopping cart
>a treadmill on a shopping cart
What the fuck? Go back and fix whatever terrible thought process you had there.

>Pushing the cart while standing off the treadmill has the same result as a rocket on the cart.
It's not about the result. It's about where the force is being applied. Hot damn you are stupid.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:35:07 2016 No.8482686

https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-large-airplane-move-on-the-ground

>Airplanes move on the ground the same way they move through the air: Using the thrust generated by their turbine engines. The wheels turn freely and merely support the weight of the plane.

>Unlike the other ground-based vehicles, there is no linkage or connection between the engine(s) and the tyre(s). The engines produce thrust in the normal way by sucking in some air from the front and accelerating it backwards either through a jet engine or using a propeller. As a result, the whole aircraft moves forward.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:39:11 2016 No.8482689

Imagine a car driving between two walls. On the walls are treadmills moving backwards. Attach two wheels to the sides of the car so that they are touching the treadmills.

Do you think that running those treadmills and spinning those wheels is in any way going to affect whether the car can move forward or backward?

Why not?

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:42:55 2016 No.8482695

Or if you want to try and bitch about gravity, we can do it the other way.

Same car driving between two walls. However this time - have the wheels on the side of the car be the ones attached to the engine, and the wheels on the bottom are unconnected, and can spin freely. Now put the treadmill below the car and run it backwards.

Do you think this car can move forward? Why or why not? Keep in mind that it is the wheels on the SIDE of the car that provide thrust - not the wheels on the bottom.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:45:24 2016 No.8482699 >>8474690 Absolutely, because we all know that Nemo made it back home to his father at the end of the movie in those plastic bags.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:48:26 2016 No.8482702

>>8482684
>Float the cart in a pond, pull it with a rope.
Then it's not a cart, the wheels aren't touching the ground. You might as well say "hurr durr pick up the cart". As I said before, the wheels are touching the ground, so appealing to scenarios where they don't touch the ground is nothing but a distraction.

>How are you STILL missing the point that THE WHEELS DON'T MATTER?
I already proved they matter. You still have failed to respond to the point: When the speed of the wheels match the speed of the treadmill, the cart is not moving. You can't show me a single scenario where the wheels are touching the treadmill, the speed of the wheels are equal to the speed of the treadmill relative to an observer, and the cart is moving relative to an observer. It's simply impossible for you to do so, which is why you can only refer to scenarios where the cart is not touching the ground, or the wheels are not free, or some other nonsense.

>Planes do NOT apply force to their wheels.
Of course they do when they are sitting on their wheels. Again, this is like saying a shopping cart does not apply force to its wheels, which anyone who is not being willfully ignorant can see is nonsense.

>Why would I think that? Rockets are moved by the expellent having an equal & opposite force applied to the rocket.
Yeah but what is it pushing against, after all, you can only get force from pushing against something right?

>The very fact that rockets work shows why you need the ground to push a shopping cart. Because without that base the cart would push you back as much as you pushed it forward.
Yeah and what that means is that the cart will move and you will move. It does not mean that no movement is produced unless you are standing on the ground. If you pushed on a cart while floating in a vacuum, the cart WOULD move.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:49:10 2016 No.8482703 >>8474690 All the force the fish exert on the top is caused by pushing against the water. The water, in turn, pushes the bottom of the bag back down with equal force. Thus, the bag would not go anywhere.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:52:37 2016 No.8482707

>>8482684
>What the fuck? Go back and fix whatever terrible thought process you had there.
Wow, a typo, you sure defeated my argument by pointing that out! Yeah you have no answer because you KNOW that you can always stop a cart from moving on a treadmill. That means that any movement of the cart can be counteracted by the treadmill. You lose.

>It's not about the result. It's about where the force is being applied.
The result is the force applied. That's what I said in the part of the quote you cut off. Now you're just being dishonest.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:59:06 2016 No.8482718

>>8482686
Irrelevant, no one is arguing against this.

>>8482689
>Imagine a car driving between two walls. On the walls are treadmills moving backwards. Attach two wheels to the sides of the car so that they are touching the treadmills.
>Do you think that running those treadmills and spinning those wheels is in any way going to affect whether the car can move forward or backward?
Yes. The treadmill imparts a force to the wheels which impart a force to the car. If the treadmill's speed is equal to the speed of the wheels it's touching, then the car is not moving relative to someone off the treadmill. If the wheels are not applying a force to the car, then the wheels cannot be traveling with the car at all.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 00:59:09 2016 No.8482719

>>8482702
>You can't show me a single scenario where the wheels are touching the treadmill, the speed of the wheels are equal to the speed of the treadmill relative to an observer, and the cart is moving relative to an observer.

Ahh. I think I understand the confusion, and I agree with you.

HOWEVER.

You could pull the cart with a cable, which in those brief moments of acceleration, the wheels would go faster than the treadmill. Or you could attach a propellor or turbine or rocket and do the same.

Thus while your statement is true, it isn't particularly relevant for whether the plane would take off.

>Of course they do when they are sitting on their wheels.
By "apply force" I meant with energy from their engine. I think you're being willfully obtuse now.

>Yeah but what is it pushing against
It's pushing against the structure of the rocket.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 01:00:50 2016 No.8482722 >>8482707 >That means that any movement of the cart can be counteracted by the treadmill. Try my experiment. Put the cart on a treadmill and see if you can pull it forward with a cable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 01:02:07 2016 No.8482723 >>8482718 >The treadmill imparts a force to the wheels which impart a force to the car. The wheels the treadmill touch can spin freely. the force applied to the car itself would be easily overcome by the wheels pushing against a stable surface.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 01:06:04 2016 No.8482729

>>8482719
>You could pull the cart with a cable, which in those brief moments of acceleration, the wheels would go faster than the treadmill.
Then this is not the question being asked. The question states that the speed of the treadmill exactly matches the speed of the wheels. So when the cart is accelerated by anything, the treadmill would also accelerate.

>By "apply force" I meant with energy from their engine. I think you're being willfully obtuse now.
When did I ever say plane's wheels are driven by the engine? And how is it relevant? No I'm not being obtuse, I'm simply assuming that you are making statements relevant to the discussion.

>It's pushing against the structure of the rocket.
No, that's what the propellant is doing, not the rocket. A cart can be pushed by a person floating in vacuum, because the person acts as the propellant.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 01:07:36 2016 No.8482730

>>8482722
>Put the cart on a treadmill and see if you can pull it forward with a cable.
Of course I can. But that would mean the cart's wheels are moving faster than the treadmill.

Also, this does not reply to what you quoted. I said that any movement of the cart can be counteracted, not that it is always counteracted.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 01:09:17 2016 No.8482735

>>8482729
>The question states that the speed of the treadmill exactly matches the speed of the wheels. So when the cart is accelerated by anything, the treadmill would also accelerate.

https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/

>What if we hook up a speedometer to the wheel, and make the treadmill spin backward as fast as the speedometer says the plane is going forward? Then the “speedometer speed” would be vW+vB — the relative speed of the wheel over the treadmill. This is, for example, how a car-on–a-treadmill setup would work. This is the assumption that most of the ‘stationary plane’ people subscribe to. The problem with this is that it’s an ill-defined system. For non-slip tires, vB=vC. So vC=vW+vC. If we make vW positive, there is no value vC can take to make the equation true. (For those stubbornly clinging to vestiges of reality, in a system where the treadmill responds via a PID controller, the result would be the treadmill quickly spinning up to infinity.) So, in this system, the plane cannot have a nonzero speed. (We’ll call this the “JetBlue” scenario.)

>But if we push with the engines, what happens? The terms of the problem tell us that the plane cannot have a nonzero speed, but there’s no physical mechanism that would plausibly make this happen. The treadmill could spin the wheels, but the acceleration would destroy them before it stopped the plane. The problem is basically asking “what happens if you take a plane that can’t move and move it?” It might intrigue literary critics, but it’s a poor physics question.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 01:09:47 2016 No.8482738

>>8482723
>The wheels the treadmill touch can spin freely.
Depends on what you mean by "freely." The wheels are not truly free if they are being pushed by the car as it drives, which they are.

>the force applied to the car itself would be easily overcome by the wheels pushing against a stable surface.
Yes, if this was reality and not a hypothetical scenario in which treadmills could exactly match the speed of the wheels. But it is such a hypothetical.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 01:10:19 2016 No.8482739

>So, people who go with interpretation #3 notice immediately that the plane cannot move and keep trying to condescendingly explain to the #2 crowd that nothing they say changes the basic facts of the problem. The #2 crowd is busy explaining to the #3 crowd that planes aren’t driven by their wheels.

And that's why I'm done. Your interpretation is silly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 01:13:18 2016 No.8482744 >>8482738 >Yes, if this was reality kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 01:14:21 2016 No.8482747 >>8474516 Here's the thing- if it's 'matching the speed of the wheels', then isn't the whole thing in a state of equilibrium?

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 01:14:23 2016 No.8482748

>>8482735
There is a physical mechanism, friction. Just because it's not realistic for a treadmill to be powerful enough or wheels to be sturdy enough doesn't mean it's contradictory.

>>8482739
It's silly, but it's the least silly interpretation and is not a red herring, like the "not driven by wheels" argument.

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 01:16:15 2016 No.8482751

>>8482744
>he laughs because the result is unrealistic and not the problem itself
This indicates you never understood what the problem meant until now. If you actually cared about reality then you should never have attempted to answer the problem in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 01:54:39 2016 No.8482793 >>8474959 WHY ARENT WE TALKING ABOUT THE HELICOPTER ON THE RECORD PLAYER THOUGH??!?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 15:20:49 2016 No.8483897 File: 13 KB, 300x300, 73ca76012aec108d4412203b16f4dba0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw this thread. And the answers is no

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 15:27:38 2016 No.8483921 File: 173 KB, 3000x3000, 1478646830753.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8474835 >A videogame physics motor is a 100% accurate representation of real life physics https://www.reddit.com/r/GamePhysics/

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 15:33:22 2016 No.8483933 >>8477809 >forward motion happens regardless of the wheels practically moving backwards as they are free spinning >it flies you forgot the part where you mention how "forward" becomes "up"

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 15:39:09 2016 No.8483941 File: 68 KB, 1000x900, 1479563203349.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8474690 Yes if they're quantum fish.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 15:40:15 2016 No.8483944 File: 77 KB, 372x300, 1479283567349.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8477809 The wheels would explode before it got enough speed to take off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 16:16:17 2016 No.8484023 >>8483933 >you forgot the part where you mention how "forward" becomes "up" You cant possibly be this retarded, fixed wing aircraft generate lift by having air pass over their wings, the usual way to achieve this is to move forward

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 16:17:23 2016 No.8484027 >>8474516 If both plane and and treadmill are magic and indestructible and can move at infinite speed then the plane will not take off In any approximation of real life, the plane will take off or crash depending on the specific setup

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 16:23:13 2016 No.8484050 >>8484027 >If both plane and and treadmill are magic and indestructible and can move at infinite speed then the plane will not take off how can u be this dum

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 16:24:50 2016 No.8484053 >>8484050 What exactly is wrong with my statement, other than writing "and" twice?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 16:26:42 2016 No.8484057 >>8484053 airplane's thrust is from atmosphere not ground contact

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 16:33:26 2016 No.8484083 >>8484057 Yes but if the magical indestructible treadmill constantly matches speed with the magical indestructible wheels then friction will prevent the plane moving forward

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 16:56:40 2016 No.8484144 No, because steel is heavier than feathers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 19:14:07 2016 No.8484560 >>8482718 >The treadmill imparts a force to the wheels which impart a force to the car. Why can't retards see this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 19:15:39 2016 No.8484568 No, the flight tower wouldn't allow the aircraft to attempt to take off while on top of the conveyor belt.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 19:16:44 2016 No.8484575 >>8482670 >PLANES DO NOT APPLY FORCE TO THE GROUND. I guess that's why when a plane lands there are skids marks and indentations in the tarmac (if soft enough). SHOUTING does not compensate for the fact that you have no grasp whatsoever of physics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 19:19:30 2016 No.8484583 ... Are you guys serious? Im new on /sci/ but is this kind of game here to be as retarted as you can? Hell, this is one ironic meme-ing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 19:20:41 2016 No.8484590 >>8484583 Inb4 are you new on 4chan. No i'm not, but this is on whole new level.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 19 21:03:35 2016 No.8484891 File: 181 KB, 960x722, IMG_20160807_091620.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8484568 We have a winner!

Anonymous Sat Nov 19 21:18:48 2016 No.8484922

>>8474516
>>8481314
Well if it is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, then logically it stands still, and doesn't fly, because the winds generated by the engines aren't as strong as if the plane was moving compared to the surrounding air. Practically, the wheels would explode.

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 02:12:21 2016 No.8485422

It would fly. It doesn't even matter which way the treadmill is moving. If it moves in a direction that opposes the wheel rotation, then the plane will not be moving relative to the treadmill, but it WILL be moving relative to the ground and thus reach a speed where the wings generate enough lift to take off. It would look like the treadmill is launching the plane basically.

If the treadmill moves in the same directions as the rotation of the wheels, then it will still not be able to stop the takeoff. The wheels will simply rotate faster and and faster while the plane continues to gain speed relative to the ground.

I thought this sub-saharan clay modeling forum would be smarter than this. Sad!

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 03:00:35 2016 No.8485458

this riddle is almost debunked in its own questioning.
>match the speed of the wheels
not the plane itself.

the wheels are free to spin at whatever speed they want, while the plane as a whole is pushed forward by the jets.
the plane would take off pretty much as normal, albeit with tires spinning twice as fast as normal take-off velocity.

a car would stay still on a treadmill because it's delivering it's power through the wheels, but put that car in neutral and strap a jet engine to it and you have the same situation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 03:17:18 2016 No.8485472 >>8485458 >>the wheels are free to spin at whatever speed they want, while the plane as a whole is pushed forward by the jets. you are to stupid to see that there is a link between the speed of the wheels and the forward movement of the jet

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 07:54:49 2016 No.8485730 >>8474516 the treadmill ends up moving at the same rate as the aircraft as the aircraft accelerates down the runway. The wheels remain stationary, the plane takes off. lots of people in this thread are shitty at abstract thinking.

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 08:15:33 2016 No.8485751

>>8485458
> the plane would take off pretty much as normal, albeit with tires spinning twice as fast as normal take-off velocity.
That's one possible way to interpret "speed of the wheels". But it's not an interpretation anyone is likely to come up with /unless/ they start from the premise that the plane will take off then look for an interpretation under which that's true. If you wanted to specify the speed of the axle, you'd just refer to the speed of the plane, what with them being the same and all.

I suspect that most people would interpret it as being the rotational speed, i.e. the speed of any point on the outside of the wheel relative to the axle.

Of course, the ambiguity is intentional. An unambiguous phrasing would have less trolling potential (although it would still have some; witness the number of idiots saying "but a plane isn't driven by its wheels").

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 08:17:16 2016 No.8485754 >>8485730 How does that cause the treadmill to > match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction? Or didn't you read the question?

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 08:22:04 2016 No.8485758
File: 56 KB, 194x259, bright.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8485754
>How does that cause the treadmill to> match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction?Or didn't you read the question?

at all times the treadmill will be matching the speed of the wheels in the opposite direction thus creating wheels that do not appear to rotate relative to the treadmill. Ordinarily the wheels would be rotating very quickly but due to the treadmill moving in the opposite direction at exactly the same speed there is no relative motion in spite of the acceleration of the entire plane wheels treadmill frame of reference.

trust me I'm smart, or don't, most people are dumb anyways.

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 08:48:18 2016 No.8485804

One possible scenario: Since the wheels are free spinning and assuming they ideally stick to the belt, the force the belt is able to exert onto the plane depends on the friction of the wheel bearing. When the friction approaches zero the belt won't be able to move the plane at all even if its speed goes to infinity and therefore it will be able to take off.

The planes ability to take off depends on a variety of different factors. But this is a troll question and most of you argue over nothing without even agreeing on certain parameters.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 08:51:03 2016 No.8485811 >>8475814 jej

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 09:05:23 2016 No.8485838

>>8485804
> One possible scenario: Since the wheels are free spinning and assuming they ideally stick to the belt, the force the belt is able to exert onto the plane depends on the friction of the wheel bearing.
Not entirely.

If the belt speed increases, so will the rotational speed of the wheel, which means that it exerts a force on the part of the wheel in contact with the belt. In turn, this exerts a force on the axle even if the bearings are completely frictionless.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 09:07:55 2016 No.8485841 >>8474690 They would break the glass

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 09:11:07 2016 No.8485849

>>8485838
>If the belt speed increases, so will the rotational speed of the wheel,

no.

Imagine a wheel spinning clockwise. now imagine a line moving left to right at exactly the speed to match the rotation of the wheel except that it is in the opposite direction. The wheel need not rotate while resting on this line as it moves from left to right.

the rotation of the wheel in this thought experiment is not pertinent to the question of flight.

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 09:23:33 2016 No.8485866
File: 78 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8485838
1) I already made the assumption that the wheel ideally sticks to the surface and there is no slip, which I think is quite accurate in such a low force high grip scenario. That also means that the belt speed equals the wheel speed.

2) If the bearing is frictionless no amount of orthogonal force applied can produce torque on the strut holding the axis therefore it cannot exert force on the plane. It is like pulling nothing. All the energy you put in will end up in wheel rotation.

To illustrate: Get a toy car put it on a movable flat surface, for instance a cardboard box. Move the surface. If you do it fast enough to overcome static friction (not ideal system like the plane!) the toy car will almost stay in place.

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 09:39:51 2016 No.8485889 [DELETED]

>>8485866
Correction: Of course the introduction of angular momentum into the wheel will a produce a counter torque onto the axis but with the assumption that weight of the wheel << weight of the plane this is pretty much neglectable.

In addition to that this torque will try to rotate the plane around the wheel axis not make it go forward or backward.

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 09:47:20 2016 No.8485897

>>8485866
> the toy car will almost stay in place.
The relevant word here is "almost".

You can't spin the wheel without applying a tangential force, and in the absence of some equal-and-opposite force, the tangential force amounts to a net force on the wheel.

IOW, a continuously-accelerating belt will impart a non-zero horizontal force on the axle.

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 10:24:22 2016 No.8485933

>>8485897
The "almost" comes from non-ideal conditions, because in real life the wheels don't ideally stick and the bearings have a lot of friction.

No and you are ignoring my assumptions which I made to clarify what makes the wheel spin and the plane move. Scrap the car or plane or whatever.
Put just the wheel on a conveyor.

!Under the assumption! that there is no slip and the wheel sticks perfectly to the conveyor belt the wheel itself will stay in place! The counter-force you are thinking that results from spinning up the wheel is applied to the conveyor itself, but it has no effect because the conveyor is stationary.

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 10:37:40 2016 No.8485949

>>8485849
First of all, the wheel would be moving counterclockwise. Second, if the wheel is rotating at the same speed as the treadmill then the wheel is not moving forward or backward relative to the air. If the wheel is moving forward then the speed it's moving forward is added to the rotation of the wheel.

The speed of the wheel is quite pertinent as it is a necessary result of the plane flying.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 10:57:03 2016 No.8485976 >>8485841 but what if the glass was really strong

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 11:21:16 2016 No.8486023 do you feel wind in your face when you run on a treadmill? no. because you don't use treadmills. go to the gym

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 16:15:21 2016 No.8486584 >>8485949 >Planes need spinning tires to fly okay retard go back to retard town now thanks.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 16:35:05 2016 No.8486615 no air will go under its wings

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 16:41:34 2016 No.8486628

>>8486615
>no air will go under its wings

no.

the thrust generated propels the aircraft relative to the surrounding air without respect to the rotation of the wheels relative to the treadmill.

The wheels spinning is immaterial to the question of flight in this thought experiment.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 16:43:47 2016 No.8486635 >>8474516 >conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels So, as the engines rev up, the conveyor belt will speed up as fast as necessary to keep the plane from moving? The wheels would exceed their speed limit and burst in seconds.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 16:49:21 2016 No.8486653 >>8474535 Wheels have angular inertia. Might be small in proportion to the magnitude of acceleration, but there will be friction as long as the wheels are (rotationally) accelerating.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 16:51:10 2016 No.8486657 File: 1.49 MB, 444x250, Rolling_Racers_-_Moment_of_inertia.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8486653 >>8474535 Have an illustration.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 16:52:28 2016 No.8486661 >>8474690 If they swim upwards at speed then slam into the top, they might get the tank to hop at most, but it will not fly.

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 16:53:15 2016 No.8486664

>>8486635
>the conveyor belt will speed up as fast as necessary to keep the plane from moving?

You're on the right track.

The surface of the treadmill matches its speed to counter the rotation of the wheels, this means in practice that the wheels do not even rotate no matter how fast the plane is moving relative to the surrounding air.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 16:55:40 2016 No.8486672 >>8486657 doesn't have shit to do with the question. Is at best retard bait for anyone who never took a mechanics/physics course.

>>	Ꭺnonymous Sun Nov 20 16:58:16 2016 No.8486676 >>8482793 I FUCKING KNOW RIGHT? I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE AND NOW I HAVE TO KNOW IF IT WILL TAKE OFF.

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 16:58:26 2016 No.8486677

>>8486635
> The wheels would exceed their speed limit and burst in seconds.
It's a hypothetical question. No-one is suggesting you could actually achieve it in practice.

In fact, the physical impossibility is what leads people to the wrong answer (more specifically, to answer the wrong question).

At this point, the thread is mostly people who came up with the wrong answer initially and are now trying to come up with interpretations of "matching" which would make it correct.

>>	Ꭺnonymous Sun Nov 20 17:00:36 2016 No.8486685 >>8476520 it's been funny before, not usually but sometimes

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 17:04:02 2016 No.8486691

>>8486672
If the acceleration of the belt and wheels is fast enough, friction could in theory match the thrust of the engines, thus preventing the aircraft from moving. The acceleration would be absolutely massive, though.

However, if you ignore friction or assume the wheels are massless, that ceases to be the case.

So yeah, it is relevant.

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 17:12:51 2016 No.8486707

>>8486691
>So yeah, it is relevant.

go get a piece of paper and a matchbox car. Put the matchbox car (plane) on the paper (treadmill) on your desk. Now begin to move the matchbox car with your hand (simulating the thrust of the engines), simultaneously move the paper at the speed necessary to keep the wheels from rotating.

Observe how you are now moving the paper and the matchbox car in the same direction and at the same rate and the wheels aren't even moving.

Was the matchbox car actually an airplane and moving fast enough then it would in fact take off: the spinning of the wheels isn't relevant in the context of the thought experiment as it was posed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 17:21:44 2016 No.8486727 >>8486707 >you are now moving the paper and the matchbox car in the same direction But the original problem explicitly says "moving in the opposite direction."

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 17:28:29 2016 No.8486741

>>8484922
But if the treadmill is moving relatively to the bottom surface of the wheel, the plane will take off twice as fast. Add that to the scenario in which the treadmill moves opposite to the top of the wheel, where it stays in place, and average the two, you get that the plane takes off on average equally as fast as if it were not on a treadmill.
Brainlet

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 17:30:16 2016 No.8486747

>>8486727
>But the original problem explicitly says "moving in the opposite direction."

No, it actually says this:

"exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction"

To satisfy that criteria do exactly as I described here:

>>8486707
>go get a piece of paper and a matchbox car. Put the matchbox car (plane) on the paper (treadmill) on your desk. Now begin to move the matchbox car with your hand (simulating the thrust of the engines), simultaneously move the paper at the speed necessary to keep the wheels from rotating. Observe how you are now moving the paper and the matchbox car in the same direction and at the same rate and the wheels aren't even moving.Was the matchbox car actually an airplane and moving fast enough then it would in fact take off: the spinning of the wheels isn't relevant in the context of the thought experiment as it was posed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 17:42:06 2016 No.8486771 >>8486747 Do you not understand the meaning of the word "opposite?"

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 17:48:01 2016 No.8486784

>>8486771
>Do you not understand the meaning of the word "opposite?"

when a wheel is rotating the speed of the wheel's rotation is greatest at the maximum distance from the center. The direction of that movement of the wheel is opposite to the forward motion of the vehicle. To be moving opposite to the movement of the wheel you are moving in the direction of the vehicles movement.

Are you sure you know what opposite means in this context?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 20:54:46 2016 No.8487116 File: 32 KB, 480x324, FB_IMG_1479638324097.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm so glad I stuck with this thread, things just got interesting.

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 21:15:02 2016 No.8487156

>>8486584
Planes don't need spinning tires to fly, they need to move forward relative to the air. If they are sitting on a treadmill and their wheels are not spinning faster than the treadmill that means they are not moving forward. It's not the wheels spinning that causes them to fly, it's simply a corollary of what causes them to fly. Do you understand the difference between causation and correlation?

Moron.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 21:16:14 2016 No.8487160 >>8487156 >Planes don't need spinning tires to fly, they need to move forward relative to the air. no shit Sherlock. that's literally exactly what I fucking said. Read before you shitpost.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 21:17:35 2016 No.8487163 >>8487160 Yes, I'm agreeing with you and explaining how what you said is a non-sequitur. Nice reading comprehension, Mr. Dunning-Kruger.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 21:20:15 2016 No.8487166 >>8487163 >shitposting see this for actual answer >>8485730 >>8485758

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 21:28:59 2016 No.8487186 >>8487166 >The wheels remain stationary as the treadmill moves That violates the premise of the question and makes no sense anyway. It's impossible for the wheels to not be spinning relative to the treadmill unless the treadmill is off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 21:31:40 2016 No.8487195 >>8487186 >more shitposting this >>8486747

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 21:32:48 2016 No.8487198 >>8487186 and this>>8486784

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 21:39:40 2016 No.8487213

>>8487195
>>8487198
You just described the wheels moving in the same direction as the treadmill, you baboon. How is this hard to understand? When you run forward on a treadmill the treadmill is going in the opposite direction of your running. When you stand on a treadmill moving forward it's moving in the same direction.

A treadmill is actually just a flexible wheel. When the wheels of the plane rotate counter-clockwise the treadmill should rotate clockwise according to the problem. Don't bother replying with another nonsensical interpretation that violates the problem.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 21:42:49 2016 No.8487224 File: 827 KB, 929x494, grasp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8487213 >failing at reading comprehension and abstract thinking Don't feel bad man at least you tried.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 21:43:46 2016 No.8487225 >>8487224 Nice non-response. Thanks for admitting you lose.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 21:48:57 2016 No.8487230 >>8474959 Nice pic. The helicopter on the turntable is good. Even dese fules can see it would take off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 21:54:17 2016 No.8487243 File: 86 KB, 400x400, Fail_Meme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8487225

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 22:04:00 2016 No.8487258 The ONLY scenario in which the plane would not fly is if the pilot applied the wheel brakes in proportion to the thrust generated by the engines - and the tyres and landing gear were indestructable.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 22:08:41 2016 No.8487265 >>8486784 >>8487224 >>8487243 You're literally the ONLY ONE HERE who's failing to understand what "opposite direction" means. Give it up, dude.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 22:10:17 2016 No.8487269 >>8487265 No you just aren't intelligent enough tou understand the problem or to post spicy memes from memegenerator

Anonymous Sun Nov 20 22:29:44 2016 No.8487309

>>8474516
Replace plane with car
Replace car with car+rocket at the back
Replace rocket car with plane

The plane will not move
Translation and rotation are the same thing if viewed from a fixed point
Like imagine the sun just going to anothrr dimension
Planets would move in straight lines but from the point of view where the sun was before they would still have the same rotation. Forever.

In other words: the thrust is counteracted by the rotation of the conveyor belt

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 22:45:23 2016 No.8487330 Wasn't there an analogy a while back comparing this to holding a toy car over a treadmill? It went something like the car will move in the direction you're moving it regardless of how fast the wheels spin. Can't remember it atm

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 20 22:51:26 2016 No.8487339 >>8487330 >It went something like the car will move in the direction you're moving it regardless of how fast the wheels spin. Nope, because then the wheels will not be spinning at the same speed as the treadmill.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 21 18:24:48 2016 No.8488947 >>8474787 How is that implied? The question is incomplete, that's why this discussion is so long

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 18:29:00 2016 No.8488953

If the conveyor belt moves underneath it and makes the wheels spin real fast, that wouldn't make the plane take off. Spinning the wheels fast in a stationary position doesn't make a plane lift off.
However, if the plane is dragged along with the conveyor and matches the speed of a takeoff and is trusted into the air at the end of it, then of course it would take off.

The true answer here being the one where a fluid (air) is flowing over/under the wings.

From my understanding, since the conveyor would move in the opposite direction, thrusting the plane backwards at the end of it would cause a crash and, again, the case where the plane stays still but the wheels spin fast would result in no takeoff whatsoever.

Fuck this picture

Anonymous Mon Nov 21 19:02:34 2016 No.8488999

Close or not too much, it basically like taking off with wind from the back. Which planes can definitely power through unless it's too extreme. The biggest additional thing to consider is also powering through the friction of the gear.

Is the conveyor belt at least as long as an adequate runway, preferably longer?
How fast is the belt moving compared to the take-off speed?
Does the plane start with a full backward movement and no engine thrust? Or does it start with full thrust?
How close is the plane to its max take off weight?
Can the gear take getting the oversped to the fuck without burning up? (probably yes)

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 00:46:08 2016 No.8489526

>>8474516
No, there has the be a certain amount of airspeed around the wings to cause the proper lift, if the engines were providing thrust it would just fall off the counter as the small amount of lift created would bring it just high enough to not be on the conveyor, moving it forward until the plane falls off.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 01:06:05 2016 No.8489553 >>8474529 Car's drive because there wheels spin so why not plane's

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 01:09:44 2016 No.8489555 >>8482327 slap yourself. Did you feel a force? If not, you're brain dead. If you do, you're probably brain dead too, but ignorant, too

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 11:32:28 2016 No.8490106 >>8474516 This was on mythbusters you 4th grade retards

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 18:43:25 2016 No.8490811 >>8481099 >fish >net Heh

Anonymous Tue Nov 22 20:47:01 2016 No.8491033
File: 579 KB, 471x620, einstein.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8474516
>WILL IT FLY /SCI/?
yes. who cares how fast the wheels spin, the relative velocity between air and wing creates lift and forward thrust is delivered by the jet turbines to the air not to the ground through the wheels.

fuck people are stupid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 22:38:24 2016 No.8491198 >>8491033 but the plane will be stationary from an absolute perspective so there'll be no lift gained?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 22:42:11 2016 No.8491208 >>8491198 >absolute perspective thing that doesn't exist

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 22 22:45:07 2016 No.8491216 >>8491208 ok explain to me how the relative velocity in this case between the air and the wings is greater than me standing still with my arms out

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 23 05:45:28 2016 No.8491668 >>8491216 If the planes wheels were locked in place, then the conveyor belt would push the plane backwards, negating thrust. If the wheels spin freely, then the engines, pushing off the air, more the plane forward as normal.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math