Cal Weldon said:
The author of that article correctly states that the question as we have been given it .... *IS FLAWED* .... As we have all said a million times already.... this situation simply can't exist with real world physics etc.
Now if the belt exactly matches the speed of the plane instead of the wheel then I think (at least I hope) we can all agree that the plane takes off. This is the point on which that article was written.
v1d9uy said:
Hi,
As per a couple of my previous posts.... Please read the exact wording of the original question and you will see why this is still going. The original question as it is worded in this thread essentially poses an impossible situation. If we correct the wording of the original question to be what it should read then I think most of us would agree with you. The problem is that we are trying to answer the question as it is worded in this thread .... not as it is intended to be worded.
In spite of what you say Cal, you are not reading the question properly, as I said earlier.
What you and Max are apparently doing, is adding in your own assumptions to suit your arguments, albeit that they are derived from *implications* suggested by the wording in the question.
There are two clear examples of this:
1) The question simply states "the speed of the wheels" etc.
There is no mention here of *the wheels'* rotational speed, or perhaps RPM, or whatever. If one considers a car as another example, the "speed of its wheels", its doors, its sunroof, its wing-mirrors, etc., etc., will (normally) be exactly the same as the car's *moving* speed, unless there is some alternative and clear elaboration which suggests the contrary like RPM, or rotational speed of these wheels.
It must therefore follow that the same applies with any other situation like a plane, where, once again "the speed of the wheels", its pilot, its tailplane, its windows etc., will (normally) be the same as its moving speed, as any other conclusion is completely illogical.
2) The question also states "The conveyor belt *is designed* to exactly match" etc., but nowhere does it state that it *achieves* this state of affairs!
With respect, the unfortunate Space Shuttle which exploded with such awful consequences was *designed to go to the Moon*, but sadly it did not get more than a very few miles, regrettably.
As I earlier said, the question could have been worded better, but there is quite sufficient information in it to see that there is *nothing to arrest the movement of the plane*, so it will take off, as with any normal situation.
The deficiency in the wording is merely with regard to the belt's action, or whatever, and it cannot be conclusively deduced from the question's inadequate wording which way or even whether the belt moves at all, but this is still immaterial to the question of whether the plane will take off or not.
Continually saying things like "unless the planes wheels turn faster than the belt" don't make any sense when the question is properly read, as it doesn't matter a jot what the wheels do in relation to the belt, whether the belt moves forwards or backwards or whatever, or whether the wheels rotate one way or another.
Point 1) above, disproves your latest contention because, for example, the plane's wheels *could* even be locked solid for all it matters, and the belt *could* be moving forward sufficiently fast for the plane to lift off. And yet the plane's wheels would still *not* be "turning any faster than the belt", which you appear to be using as a material reason for your argument.😱
Regards,
What you and Max are apparently doing, is adding in your own assumptions to suit your arguments, albeit that they are derived from *implications* suggested by the wording in the question.
There are two clear examples of this:
1) The question simply states "the speed of the wheels" etc.
There is no mention here of *the wheels'* rotational speed, or perhaps RPM, or whatever. If one considers a car as another example, the "speed of its wheels", its doors, its sunroof, its wing-mirrors, etc., etc., will (normally) be exactly the same as the car's *moving* speed, unless there is some alternative and clear elaboration which suggests the contrary like RPM, or rotational speed of these wheels.
It must therefore follow that the same applies with any other situation like a plane, where, once again "the speed of the wheels", its pilot, its tailplane, its windows etc., will (normally) be the same as its moving speed, as any other conclusion is completely illogical.
2) The question also states "The conveyor belt *is designed* to exactly match" etc., but nowhere does it state that it *achieves* this state of affairs!
With respect, the unfortunate Space Shuttle which exploded with such awful consequences was *designed to go to the Moon*, but sadly it did not get more than a very few miles, regrettably.
As I earlier said, the question could have been worded better, but there is quite sufficient information in it to see that there is *nothing to arrest the movement of the plane*, so it will take off, as with any normal situation.
The deficiency in the wording is merely with regard to the belt's action, or whatever, and it cannot be conclusively deduced from the question's inadequate wording which way or even whether the belt moves at all, but this is still immaterial to the question of whether the plane will take off or not.
Continually saying things like "unless the planes wheels turn faster than the belt" don't make any sense when the question is properly read, as it doesn't matter a jot what the wheels do in relation to the belt, whether the belt moves forwards or backwards or whatever, or whether the wheels rotate one way or another.
Point 1) above, disproves your latest contention because, for example, the plane's wheels *could* even be locked solid for all it matters, and the belt *could* be moving forward sufficiently fast for the plane to lift off. And yet the plane's wheels would still *not* be "turning any faster than the belt", which you appear to be using as a material reason for your argument.😱
Regards,
Bobken said:
Actually it says that the belt moves in the opposite direction of rotation to the wheels. If you're looking for suggestion of rotational speed being matched, there it is.
Nowhere does it state that the plane is actually designed to take off, yet you assume that it actually achieves flight, on mere implication.
Well, if the wheels are locked and the belt is moving forwards under the plane then their rotational speeds are not matching.
What everyone needs to realize is this is a thought experiment that can't be recreated in reality. Stop trying to rationalize it by making the belt match the finite linear speed of the plane itself.
Max
AudioFreak said:
Impossible, indeed. Impossible to achieve flight in this situation.
How do you know how the question should have been worded?
Max
AudioFreak said:
Yep I agree with that 🙂 hehehe
I note also the last line in that article where he mentions our specific wording of the question and states it is impossible, I think I stated in an earlier post somewhere that if the belt part of it is not possible then how can we assume any other normal laws of physics apply to the question, and you could argue it is simply a relative motion question, which depending on your point of reference can in fact lead you to the conclusion that the plane will not take off.
Tony.
Hi Max,
Your quote:
"Actually it says that the belt moves in the opposite direction of rotation to the wheels".
I'm sorry, Max, but it simply does *not* say this at all!
I quote here from the original question "The conveyer belt is designed to *exactly match the speed of the wheels* at any given time"..... which is an entirely different situation altogether.
So, if by chance (and I am not passing any opinion whether it will do this or not) the wheels are *not revolving (at all, never mind at what speed!) in relation to the belt*, this criterion is still happily met, as I had pointed out.
My comment was addressed to Cal in response to his remark in post #857 where he said "The plane simply *cannot make any progress*, not even a mm *unless the planes wheels turn faster than the belt*", which is clearly not true in view of the above example.
The belt does still 'exactly match the speed of the wheels' in the above example, whatever the belt is doing, but this state of afairs is in direct contradiction with Cal's comment.
To complete that sentence which you refer to, it goes on to say extremely ambiguously "moving in the opposite direction of rotation", and nothing else is said here to qualify what exactly is moving or rotating, or whatever else.
You are simply making assumptions again, perhaps quite understandably, but these assumptions are not factually supported by the wording in the question (as I also pointed out), and the assumption here *could* possibly be wrong. In view of this obvious doubt, it is certainly not acceptable proof to support any serious contention in any 'normal' debating or discussion, but apparently the belief now is that it is.
Your subsequent quote:
"Nowhere does it state that the plane is actually designed to take off, yet you assume that it actually achieves flight, on mere implication."
I am not making any such assumption on mere implication at all (nor any other, anywhere else) but I am paying careful attention to what was actually written in the question and I am not adding anything of my own here which is not originally stated by the questioner.
For my own part, I am merely highlighting a simple fact that there is nothing stated in the question to indicate that there is anything to "arrest the movement of the plane", and therefore my answer to the question "Can the plane take off?" must inevitably be 'yes'. This is exactly the same as with any normal situation, as there is nothing *stated* in the question to suggest the contrary.
Your next quote:
"Well, if the wheels are locked and the belt is moving forwards under the plane then their rotational speeds are not matching".
As it happens I did not pass any opinion on whether this *would* happen or not, and I didn't even suggest that this was the case. I highlighted the word *could*, and I have pointed out above that nowhere did it say anything about "their rotational speeds are not matching", as you have also incorrectly suggested here.
Thank you for pointing out what we all "need to realise" and for the suggestion that we should "Stop trying to rationalize it", but unless it has suddenly become acceptable to add in one's own interpretations/guesses/assumptions etc., whilst considering and debating any such 'technical' questions, I for one will continue to do what used to be conventional. i.e. Stick to the facts, exactly as they are presented.
🙂
Its not worth falling out with anyone over this, though, and if you choose an alternative approach, that is entirely up to you.😉
Regards,
Your quote:
"Actually it says that the belt moves in the opposite direction of rotation to the wheels".
I'm sorry, Max, but it simply does *not* say this at all!
I quote here from the original question "The conveyer belt is designed to *exactly match the speed of the wheels* at any given time"..... which is an entirely different situation altogether.
So, if by chance (and I am not passing any opinion whether it will do this or not) the wheels are *not revolving (at all, never mind at what speed!) in relation to the belt*, this criterion is still happily met, as I had pointed out.
My comment was addressed to Cal in response to his remark in post #857 where he said "The plane simply *cannot make any progress*, not even a mm *unless the planes wheels turn faster than the belt*", which is clearly not true in view of the above example.
The belt does still 'exactly match the speed of the wheels' in the above example, whatever the belt is doing, but this state of afairs is in direct contradiction with Cal's comment.
To complete that sentence which you refer to, it goes on to say extremely ambiguously "moving in the opposite direction of rotation", and nothing else is said here to qualify what exactly is moving or rotating, or whatever else.
You are simply making assumptions again, perhaps quite understandably, but these assumptions are not factually supported by the wording in the question (as I also pointed out), and the assumption here *could* possibly be wrong. In view of this obvious doubt, it is certainly not acceptable proof to support any serious contention in any 'normal' debating or discussion, but apparently the belief now is that it is.
Your subsequent quote:
"Nowhere does it state that the plane is actually designed to take off, yet you assume that it actually achieves flight, on mere implication."
I am not making any such assumption on mere implication at all (nor any other, anywhere else) but I am paying careful attention to what was actually written in the question and I am not adding anything of my own here which is not originally stated by the questioner.
For my own part, I am merely highlighting a simple fact that there is nothing stated in the question to indicate that there is anything to "arrest the movement of the plane", and therefore my answer to the question "Can the plane take off?" must inevitably be 'yes'. This is exactly the same as with any normal situation, as there is nothing *stated* in the question to suggest the contrary.
Your next quote:
"Well, if the wheels are locked and the belt is moving forwards under the plane then their rotational speeds are not matching".
As it happens I did not pass any opinion on whether this *would* happen or not, and I didn't even suggest that this was the case. I highlighted the word *could*, and I have pointed out above that nowhere did it say anything about "their rotational speeds are not matching", as you have also incorrectly suggested here.
Thank you for pointing out what we all "need to realise" and for the suggestion that we should "Stop trying to rationalize it", but unless it has suddenly become acceptable to add in one's own interpretations/guesses/assumptions etc., whilst considering and debating any such 'technical' questions, I for one will continue to do what used to be conventional. i.e. Stick to the facts, exactly as they are presented.
🙂
Its not worth falling out with anyone over this, though, and if you choose an alternative approach, that is entirely up to you.😉
Regards,
Bobken said:
hmmm the old jouranistic trick of quoting out of context the full sentence says The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation.
edit: ok so you mentioned that later but it is this stupid ambiguous wording that is the problem, everyone who says that the question is clear if you read it properly isn't reading it properly IMO 😉
😉 Tony.
wintermute said:
Including you! 🙂
If you read that sentence, with my added italics, as soon as the plane moves forward, the belt moves in the opposite direction of rotation, i.e. the same direction as the wheel, accelerating the plane to twice it's ground speed!
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. My name is Quasi and I am your steward for this flight. On behalf Captain Audiofreak may I welcome you to DIY Airlines. Our first officer is Cal and Chris is the co-pilot.
For your comfort and safety, please pay attention to the safety demonstration.
You may have noticed the new generation engines and the expendable undercarriage strapped to the aircraft. The engines use the latest heavy metal fusion technologies accidentally discovered by Messer’s Maxro and Wintermute. Please join me in a minutes silence in remembrance of these gentlemen whose vision is helping to overcome the oppressive “Quickshift” physical domain.
Please fasten your seat belt and now strap on your darkened safety goggles. These will help to protect your eyes from the green engine glow.
Our flight plan is as follows. Once the engines reach 100 solars the brakes will be released. Shortly after, the expendable undercarriage will have done its job and the aircraft will briefly maintain the stationary position. The engine thrust will then launch the aircraft. Flight time to our destination will then be calculated from our new position.
In case of emergency toxic gas masks will drop, and these may be used in accordance with your own pain threshold. Please remember to assist others before fitting your mask.
The captain is about to start the engines, please make sure loose luggage is stowed in the overhead lockers or under the seat in front of you.
Thank you for choosing DIY Airlines.
For your comfort and safety, please pay attention to the safety demonstration.
You may have noticed the new generation engines and the expendable undercarriage strapped to the aircraft. The engines use the latest heavy metal fusion technologies accidentally discovered by Messer’s Maxro and Wintermute. Please join me in a minutes silence in remembrance of these gentlemen whose vision is helping to overcome the oppressive “Quickshift” physical domain.
Please fasten your seat belt and now strap on your darkened safety goggles. These will help to protect your eyes from the green engine glow.
Our flight plan is as follows. Once the engines reach 100 solars the brakes will be released. Shortly after, the expendable undercarriage will have done its job and the aircraft will briefly maintain the stationary position. The engine thrust will then launch the aircraft. Flight time to our destination will then be calculated from our new position.
In case of emergency toxic gas masks will drop, and these may be used in accordance with your own pain threshold. Please remember to assist others before fitting your mask.
The captain is about to start the engines, please make sure loose luggage is stowed in the overhead lockers or under the seat in front of you.
Thank you for choosing DIY Airlines.
ahhh but have you seen my little diagram Al which shows the rotation of the belt and the rotation of the wheel?? 😉 in my interpretation opposite direction in fact should cancel any forward movement (ignoring the fact that it can't absorb the force from the thrust 😉
here is the diagram again..... note that one is rotating clockwise and the other is rotating anti-clockwise..... in your statment they would both be rotating anticlockwise which I don't think is opposite 😉
Tony.
here is the diagram again..... note that one is rotating clockwise and the other is rotating anti-clockwise..... in your statment they would both be rotating anticlockwise which I don't think is opposite 😉
Tony.
Attachments
Tricks? what tricks?
Hi Tony,
There are no tricks in anything I have said (unless entirely by accident).
I just cannot help noticing that those who keep on so forcefully telling everyone else to read what had been written, might just take a leaf out of their own book!
As for "waking up", which is more advice we have seen recently, its now 1.30 AM here, so I am just going to bed!
Incidentally (and strictly between ourselves
😉 ) I happen to think Al is right, and said so in the first couple of days of this thread. The wheels will run at twice the 'normal' speed of take-off.
Now that's done it. How could I have been so careless saying that!
Regards,
Hi Tony,
There are no tricks in anything I have said (unless entirely by accident).
I just cannot help noticing that those who keep on so forcefully telling everyone else to read what had been written, might just take a leaf out of their own book!
As for "waking up", which is more advice we have seen recently, its now 1.30 AM here, so I am just going to bed!
Incidentally (and strictly between ourselves
😉 ) I happen to think Al is right, and said so in the first couple of days of this thread. The wheels will run at twice the 'normal' speed of take-off.
Now that's done it. How could I have been so careless saying that!
Regards,
Exactly, your interpretation! 🙂 If you look at the whole system, then yours stands, if you look at the specific point by the wheel/belt interface, it falls down.
al/counting angels...
yep I also agree that the wheels will run twice as fast and the plane will take off 🙂 I just find it interesting to analyse why it is possible to come to a different conclusion, (which I was guilty of originally before I realised that there was no way the conveyor could counteract the force of the jets popultion). 🙂
Tony.
Tony.
hehehe I seem to recal I said some stuff about points of reference before??? I'm just trying to agree with everyone 😉
Tony.
Tony.
wintermute said:
That's funny. I initially came to the conclusion that the plane would fly. Then I re-analysed the speed matching stipulation and found the correct answer.
Perhaps we should get this thread banned as religion/politics as it definately gets people into disparate camps. Cal and I as "born agains" to the grounded plane faith are now on a mission to convert everyone.
Max
Hi Maxro,
I believe the point of view is the crux of the issue. Either that or you guys have confused yourselves. BTW, I'm an ex-smoker. I am just as commited to watching you argue.
😀
I am not commited to being right or wrong. I just like to watch.
-Chris
Everyone knows that "born agains" are the worst, just like ex-smokers.
I believe the point of view is the crux of the issue. Either that or you guys have confused yourselves. BTW, I'm an ex-smoker. I am just as commited to watching you argue.
😀 I am not commited to being right or wrong. I just like to watch.
-Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.