Can the airplane take off?

[acole1]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: acole1
I think the point made by some above is that the plane can (and will) move forward 1MPH even while the belt is moving back 10MPH. There is nothing pulling the plane back. The belt exerts no negative force upon the plane since the wheels are free spinning.

The plane thrusts forward on the air, and the wheels spin freely underneath it as fast as they want to.

The faster the belt moves the faster the wheels move backwards, but with no effect on the plane.

Perhaps I just can't let go of reality. According to what you just laid out, if the plane was simply sitting idle and someone turned the conveyor on at 10,000 MPH in reverse, the plane would simply sit there because the tires would move independently of the plane, is that right? I guess in some hypothetical world this would work, but I don't see if working in reality.

Joe

There would have to be no friction on the spinning of the wheels... which, yes, really isn't very realistic, but is often usefull in some experiments - like 2 balls rolling down an incline, etc....

But, even with friction, there is a point at which, if the belt was going 10,000mph in reverse, the plane (sitting idle) would not just go 10,000mph in reverse (right away). It would not be a 1:1 relationship.

Also, you have to have a point of reference. What is the belt going 10,000mph in reverse to? The plane, the ground, the air?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Netopia

when I said there is a paradox... what smack Down is saying is that the problem states that the treadmill hold the plane stationary...

quote:
Originally posted by: smack Down
IF you are moving forward on a treadmill then the treadmill is no longer matching the speed of the object relitive to the treadmill. So by definition of how you read the problem (if you read it one way) the plane can't move.



which makes the way he interprets the question a paradox, because it cant ever happen.

READING COMPREHENSION FTW.

It's not a paradox. Let's say that the plane moves forward 1mm, and then the belt adjusts and the plane isn't moving forward any longer... and then the plane moves forward 1mm and the belt adjusts... and so on. The only forward movement is that 1 mm and so for 1mm there is speed, but that speed is instantly negated by the matching of speed by the belt. Unless the belt were infinitely long, eventually the plane would simply move the last 1mm forward at some point and the nose would fall off of the end.

I prefer to think of the question (and this is NOT what the OP asked) as a belt that precisely matches the speed of the plane so that the plane never achieves any forward movement. This eliminates even the minuscule movement that might mislead some people into believing that the plane would eventually take off.

Perhaps another way to look at this would be to ask:

If there was a plane that had a mile long chain attached to it, but the chain was taught and there was zero slack... if that plane put its engines on full, at some point would it lift off of the ground and hover like a kite? Unless, perhaps there were rockets involved that created their own lift, the plane would never lift ... no wind over the wings.

Answer me a question...

why is it you believe that the treadmill can hold back the plane in the same manner as a chain with zero slack?

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: acole1
I think the point made by some above is that the plane can (and will) move forward 1MPH even while the belt is moving back 10MPH. There is nothing pulling the plane back. The belt exerts no negative force upon the plane since the wheels are free spinning.

The plane thrusts forward on the air, and the wheels spin freely underneath it as fast as they want to.

The faster the belt moves the faster the wheels move backwards, but with no effect on the plane.

Perhaps I just can't let go of reality. According to what you just laid out, if the plane was simply sitting idle and someone turned the conveyor on at 10,000 MPH in reverse, the plane would simply sit there because the tires would move independently of the plane, is that right? I guess in some hypothetical world this would work, but I don't see if working in reality.

Joe

But what if something were to hold it in place, or better yet even push it forward?
Could it roll stationary or even move forward?

 

[kpb]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: acole1
I think the point made by some above is that the plane can (and will) move forward 1MPH even while the belt is moving back 10MPH. There is nothing pulling the plane back. The belt exerts no negative force upon the plane since the wheels are free spinning.

The plane thrusts forward on the air, and the wheels spin freely underneath it as fast as they want to.

The faster the belt moves the faster the wheels move backwards, but with no effect on the plane.

Perhaps I just can't let go of reality. According to what you just laid out, if the plane was simply sitting idle and someone turned the conveyor on at 10,000 MPH in reverse, the plane would simply sit there because the tires would move independently of the plane, is that right? I guess in some hypothetical world this would work, but I don't see if working in reality.

Joe

For the most part yes. Think of the plane as a car with the transmition in neutral. There is little resistance to the car rolling with it in neutral and the wheels would spin freely.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: acole1
I think the point made by some above is that the plane can (and will) move forward 1MPH even while the belt is moving back 10MPH. There is nothing pulling the plane back. The belt exerts no negative force upon the plane since the wheels are free spinning.

The plane thrusts forward on the air, and the wheels spin freely underneath it as fast as they want to.

The faster the belt moves the faster the wheels move backwards, but with no effect on the plane.

Perhaps I just can't let go of reality. According to what you just laid out, if the plane was simply sitting idle and someone turned the conveyor on at 10,000 MPH in reverse, the plane would simply sit there because the tires would move independently of the plane, is that right? I guess in some hypothetical world this would work, but I don't see if working in reality.

Joe

if there was no friction inside the wheels and we ignored torque, yes the plane would sit perfectly still with the wheels spinning. this is not the case in the real world, but those forces will be relatively small - orders of magnitude less than the thurst of the jet engines, pretty much to the point where you can ignore them.

i wrote up this explanation before:

let's think of a very similar scenario. imagine i'm holding a rollerblade on a treadmill with my arm (i'm not standing on the treadmill though), but the bearings of the rollerblade are very clogged/rusty to the point where the wheels can't spin.

1. do you agree that if i turn the treadmill on, i will have to apply a LOT of force to keep the rollerblade on the treadmill (since the wheels aren't spinning, we're probably burning rubber at this point)?
2. if so, do you agree that if the bearings were slighly less dirty/rusty, allowing the wheel to spin a bit, i'd have to apply less and less force to keep the rollerblade there?
3. and if we extend this to a (nearly) friction free environment, do you agree that i'd have to apply VERY little force to keep the rollerblade there?
4. finally, make one last connection: if i start pushing the rollerblade forward (rather than just holding it in place), my hand would act just like the jet engine. the amount of force i'd have to apply to this rollerblade to move it forward on the treadmill would be almost exactly the same as if it was on a stationary floor. as i mentioned before, it's slightly more to overcome the friction/torque of the wheels, but it's a very tiny margin.

 

[kpb]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Perhaps another way to look at this would be to ask:

If there was a plane that had a mile long chain attached to it, but the chain was taught and there was zero slack... if that plane put its engines on full, at some point would it lift off of the ground and hover like a kite? Unless, perhaps there were rockets involved that created their own lift, the plane would never lift ... no wind over the wings.

See this is why your wrong. A plain with a chain attached wouldn't be able to move forward and wouldn't generate any lift. That is accurate. The problem is the conveyor belt has no way of applying that kind of force to the plane since the wheels on the plane are free spinning like the wheels on a skateboard or rollerskates.

Lets look at a different comparison.

Your standing on a treadmill in standard sneakers and turn the treadmill on and don't start walking. What happens? Obviously the treadmill pulls you backwards with a relatively large amount of force and you either a) slide off the back of the treadmill or b) have your feet pulled out from under you.

What happens if you now put on rollerskates. As long as your holding on to the rails it will be very easy to keep yourself in place and the wheels on your skates will just spin away. Now what happens if you pull yourself forward with your arms? You will go forward with little effort and the wheels on the skates will spin a little faster while moving forward. If you doubt this go try it yourself and you'll see this it what happens.

This is what will happen with the plane. The engine is generating thrust using the air around it and the wheel spins freely.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: sao123
[

Answer me a question...

why is it you believe that the treadmill can hold back the plane in the same manner as a chain with zero slack?

===
But what if something were to hold it in place, or better yet even push it forward?
Could it roll stationary or even move forward?

I wasn't thinking of some magical zero friction tires. I figured that as long as the belt could speed up enough, that the plane would again be going zero relative to the ground, the same as it would if it were held by a chain.

For the second question, the chain would allow only backward movement.

Joe
who wishes he had read about the magical no friction eternal motion machine tires (and wheels and bearings) before posting

 

[Netopia]

Yup... I see.

Joe
who stands humbly corrected!

 

[sao123]

I've got it... the perfect understandable analogy.


you're on a raft, free floating on the water.
Now a current starts pulling your raft down river towards a waterfall. So you start moving in that direction.

Theoretically... If I were to throw you a rope and you tied it your raft, and I pulled it with a winch.

Do you die, or will the winch pull you through the water?

HINT: you cant stay stationary. You either move forward or backwards.
If you move forward your safe...and the plane takes off.
If you move backwards the rope broke and you died.
If you stay stationary, the rope breaks, and you still die.

either way the point is... there is no balance between the planes engines and the treadmill which will keep the plane perfectly still moving in place on the treadmill.
And because the wheels of the plane are free spinning, this eliminates movign backwards.
therefore you must move forward.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: brikis98

if there was no friction inside the wheels and we ignored torque, yes the plane would sit perfectly still with the wheels spinning. this is not the case in the real world, but those forces will be relatively small - orders of magnitude less than the thurst of the jet engines, pretty much to the point where you can ignore them.

i wrote up this explanation before:

let's think of a very similar scenario. imagine i'm holding a rollerblade on a treadmill with my arm (i'm not standing on the treadmill though), but the bearings of the rollerblade are very clogged/rusty to the point where the wheels can't spin.

1. do you agree that if i turn the treadmill on, i will have to apply a LOT of force to keep the rollerblade on the treadmill (since the wheels aren't spinning, we're probably burning rubber at this point)?
2. if so, do you agree that if the bearings were slighly less dirty/rusty, allowing the wheel to spin a bit, i'd have to apply less and less force to keep the rollerblade there?
3. and if we extend this to a (nearly) friction free environment, do you agree that i'd have to apply VERY little force to keep the rollerblade there?
4. finally, make one last connection: if i start pushing the rollerblade forward (rather than just holding it in place), my hand would act just like the jet engine. the amount of force i'd have to apply to this rollerblade to move it forward on the treadmill would be almost exactly the same as if it was on a stationary floor. as i mentioned before, it's slightly more to overcome the friction/torque of the wheels, but it's a very tiny margin.

Yup... makes total sense. Mea culpa!

Joe

 

[theMan]

the thing that people need to understand, is that the conveyor belt does not stop the plane from moving. the wheels just move freely, and the outside force of the jets/propellors would just pull the plane. now, the only change would be that the wheels would be spinning twice as fast as the plane at the time of takeoff.

so, the plane will take off, and it wont take off straight up, like some crazy helicopter thing, it will just be a normal takeoff.

THE END!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: acole1
I think the point made by some above is that the plane can (and will) move forward 1MPH even while the belt is moving back 10MPH. There is nothing pulling the plane back. The belt exerts no negative force upon the plane since the wheels are free spinning.

The plane thrusts forward on the air, and the wheels spin freely underneath it as fast as they want to.

The faster the belt moves the faster the wheels move backwards, but with no effect on the plane.

Perhaps I just can't let go of reality. According to what you just laid out, if the plane was simply sitting idle and someone turned the conveyor on at 10,000 MPH in reverse, the plane would simply sit there because the tires would move independently of the plane, is that right? I guess in some hypothetical world this would work, but I don't see if working in reality.

Joe

if there was no friction inside the wheels and we ignored torque, yes the plane would sit perfectly still with the wheels spinning. this is not the case in the real world, but those forces will be relatively small - orders of magnitude less than the thurst of the jet engines, pretty much to the point where you can ignore them.

i wrote up this explanation before:

let's think of a very similar scenario. imagine i'm holding a rollerblade on a treadmill with my arm (i'm not standing on the treadmill though), but the bearings of the rollerblade are very clogged/rusty to the point where the wheels can't spin.

1. do you agree that if i turn the treadmill on, i will have to apply a LOT of force to keep the rollerblade on the treadmill (since the wheels aren't spinning, we're probably burning rubber at this point)?
2. if so, do you agree that if the bearings were slighly less dirty/rusty, allowing the wheel to spin a bit, i'd have to apply less and less force to keep the rollerblade there?
3. and if we extend this to a (nearly) friction free environment, do you agree that i'd have to apply VERY little force to keep the rollerblade there?
4. finally, make one last connection: if i start pushing the rollerblade forward (rather than just holding it in place), my hand would act just like the jet engine. the amount of force i'd have to apply to this rollerblade to move it forward on the treadmill would be almost exactly the same as if it was on a stationary floor. as i mentioned before, it's slightly more to overcome the friction/torque of the wheels, but it's a very tiny margin.

You can't ignore torque because it is small. It doesn't matter how small it is when there is infinity acceleration. a very small number times infinite equal infinity. There isn't a small amount of torque there is an infinite amount of torque and infite amount of kenitic energy in the wheels.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sao123
I've got it... the perfect understandable analogy.


you're on a raft, free floating on the water.
Now a current starts pulling your raft down river towards a waterfall. So you start moving in that direction.

Theoretically... If I were to throw you a rope and you tied it your raft, and I pulled it with a winch.

Do you die, or will the winch pull you through the water?

HINT: you cant stay stationary. You either move forward or backwards.
If you move forward your safe...and the plane takes off.
If you move backwards the rope broke and you died.
If you stay stationary, the rope breaks, and you still die.

either way the point is... there is no balance between the planes engines and the treadmill which will keep the plane perfectly still moving in place on the treadmill.
And because the wheels of the plane are free spinning, this eliminates movign backwards.
therefore you must move forward.

This totally depends on how you read the question. If you read it the treadmill matches the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface then what you said is simply wrong. If you read it as the treadmill matches the speed ground speed then it is correct.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: acole1
I think the point made by some above is that the plane can (and will) move forward 1MPH even while the belt is moving back 10MPH. There is nothing pulling the plane back. The belt exerts no negative force upon the plane since the wheels are free spinning.

The plane thrusts forward on the air, and the wheels spin freely underneath it as fast as they want to.

The faster the belt moves the faster the wheels move backwards, but with no effect on the plane.

Perhaps I just can't let go of reality. According to what you just laid out, if the plane was simply sitting idle and someone turned the conveyor on at 10,000 MPH in reverse, the plane would simply sit there because the tires would move independently of the plane, is that right? I guess in some hypothetical world this would work, but I don't see if working in reality.

Joe

if there was no friction inside the wheels and we ignored torque, yes the plane would sit perfectly still with the wheels spinning. this is not the case in the real world, but those forces will be relatively small - orders of magnitude less than the thurst of the jet engines, pretty much to the point where you can ignore them.

i wrote up this explanation before:

let's think of a very similar scenario. imagine i'm holding a rollerblade on a treadmill with my arm (i'm not standing on the treadmill though), but the bearings of the rollerblade are very clogged/rusty to the point where the wheels can't spin.

1. do you agree that if i turn the treadmill on, i will have to apply a LOT of force to keep the rollerblade on the treadmill (since the wheels aren't spinning, we're probably burning rubber at this point)?
2. if so, do you agree that if the bearings were slighly less dirty/rusty, allowing the wheel to spin a bit, i'd have to apply less and less force to keep the rollerblade there?
3. and if we extend this to a (nearly) friction free environment, do you agree that i'd have to apply VERY little force to keep the rollerblade there?
4. finally, make one last connection: if i start pushing the rollerblade forward (rather than just holding it in place), my hand would act just like the jet engine. the amount of force i'd have to apply to this rollerblade to move it forward on the treadmill would be almost exactly the same as if it was on a stationary floor. as i mentioned before, it's slightly more to overcome the friction/torque of the wheels, but it's a very tiny margin.

You can't ignore torque because it is small. It doesn't matter how small it is when there is infinity acceleration. a very small number times infinite equal infinity. There isn't a small amount of torque there is an infinite amount of torque and infite amount of kenitic energy in the wheels.

seriously, give it up. you've interpreted the problem INCORRECTLY.

1. if we were going to try to have any kind of realism here, there's obviously no belt that moves infinitely fast, no wheels that can withstand that, etc. so your approach is absurdely unrealistic.

2. even IF the belt could move infinitely fast, then you are violating the problem statement.

You have an airplane on a conveyor belt - when the airplane moves forward, the conveyor matches its speed in reverse.

The belt is matching the speed of the plane, except in reverse. Our plane isn't going at an infinite speed forward, so your belt isn't going at an infinite speed backwards. and if the plane IS going at an infinite speed forward, then the jet engines probably do generate enough thrust to overcome this infinite torque (although it's tough to compare infinity vs. infinity, to some extent it can be done)

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sao123
I've got it... the perfect understandable analogy.


you're on a raft, free floating on the water.
Now a current starts pulling your raft down river towards a waterfall. So you start moving in that direction.

Theoretically... If I were to throw you a rope and you tied it your raft, and I pulled it with a winch.

Do you die, or will the winch pull you through the water?

HINT: you cant stay stationary. You either move forward or backwards.
If you move forward your safe...and the plane takes off.
If you move backwards the rope broke and you died.
If you stay stationary, the rope breaks, and you still die.

either way the point is... there is no balance between the planes engines and the treadmill which will keep the plane perfectly still moving in place on the treadmill.
And because the wheels of the plane are free spinning, this eliminates movign backwards.
therefore you must move forward.

This totally depends on how you read the question. If you read it the treadmill matches the speed of the plane relitive to the treadmill surface then what you said is simply wrong. If you read it as the treadmill matches the speed ground speed then it is correct.

that interpretation MAKES NO SENSE. any reasonable interpretation of the problem will obviously assume that the treadmill matches the speed of the plane with respect to the ground. why? because other than the trivial case of a stand-still, the treadmill CANNOT match the speed of the airplane relative to the treadmill. this is paradoxical and has been explained to you MANY times.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: acole1
I think the point made by some above is that the plane can (and will) move forward 1MPH even while the belt is moving back 10MPH. There is nothing pulling the plane back. The belt exerts no negative force upon the plane since the wheels are free spinning.

The plane thrusts forward on the air, and the wheels spin freely underneath it as fast as they want to.

The faster the belt moves the faster the wheels move backwards, but with no effect on the plane.

Perhaps I just can't let go of reality. According to what you just laid out, if the plane was simply sitting idle and someone turned the conveyor on at 10,000 MPH in reverse, the plane would simply sit there because the tires would move independently of the plane, is that right? I guess in some hypothetical world this would work, but I don't see if working in reality.

Joe

if there was no friction inside the wheels and we ignored torque, yes the plane would sit perfectly still with the wheels spinning. this is not the case in the real world, but those forces will be relatively small - orders of magnitude less than the thurst of the jet engines, pretty much to the point where you can ignore them.

i wrote up this explanation before:

let's think of a very similar scenario. imagine i'm holding a rollerblade on a treadmill with my arm (i'm not standing on the treadmill though), but the bearings of the rollerblade are very clogged/rusty to the point where the wheels can't spin.

1. do you agree that if i turn the treadmill on, i will have to apply a LOT of force to keep the rollerblade on the treadmill (since the wheels aren't spinning, we're probably burning rubber at this point)?
2. if so, do you agree that if the bearings were slighly less dirty/rusty, allowing the wheel to spin a bit, i'd have to apply less and less force to keep the rollerblade there?
3. and if we extend this to a (nearly) friction free environment, do you agree that i'd have to apply VERY little force to keep the rollerblade there?
4. finally, make one last connection: if i start pushing the rollerblade forward (rather than just holding it in place), my hand would act just like the jet engine. the amount of force i'd have to apply to this rollerblade to move it forward on the treadmill would be almost exactly the same as if it was on a stationary floor. as i mentioned before, it's slightly more to overcome the friction/torque of the wheels, but it's a very tiny margin.

You can't ignore torque because it is small. It doesn't matter how small it is when there is infinity acceleration. a very small number times infinite equal infinity. There isn't a small amount of torque there is an infinite amount of torque and infite amount of kenitic energy in the wheels.

seriously, give it up. you've interpreted the problem INCORRECTLY.

1. if we were going to try to have any kind of realism here, there's obviously no belt that moves infinitely fast, no wheels that can withstand that, etc. so your approach is absurdely unrealistic.

2. even IF the belt could move infinitely fast, then you are violating the problem statement.

You have an airplane on a conveyor belt - when the airplane moves forward, the conveyor matches its speed in reverse.

The belt is matching the speed of the plane, except in reverse. Our plane isn't going at an infinite speed forward, so your belt isn't going at an infinite speed backwards. and if the plane IS going at an infinite speed forward, then the jet engines probably do generate enough thrust to overcome this infinite torque (although it's tough to compare infinity vs. infinity, to some extent it can be done)

No where in the question does it state the treadmill matches the ground speed. It just says speed. If you want to read it that way fine. I choose not to because ever time I have ever heard some one say the speed they were going on a treadmill it has always been relitive to the treadmill.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: smack Down

No where in the question does it state the treadmill matches the ground speed. It just says speed. If you want to read it that way fine. I choose not to because ever time I have ever heard some one say the speed they were going on a treadmill it has always been relitive to the treadmill.

are you kidding me? give me ONE example where someone meant it relative to the treadmill? it doesn't even make sense! except at a speed of 0, you CAN'T match the speed relative to itself!!!!!

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: smack Down

No where in the question does it state the treadmill matches the ground speed. It just says speed. If you want to read it that way fine. I choose not to because ever time I have ever heard some one say the speed they were going on a treadmill it has always been relitive to the treadmill.

are you kidding me? give me ONE example where someone meant it relative to the treadmill?

Example of people refering to the speed of the treadmill (surface) relitive to the object on the treadmill.

http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardioworkouts/l/blinterval2.htm
http://www.runningplanet.com/articles/article_detail.asp?article_id=500
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mNIKyL0eYGs&mode=related&search=
http://www.complaints.com/april2002/complaintoftheday.april19.21.htm

I could go on but I think you get the picture. If not google treadmill and mph and see how many of them are talking about the speed of the object relitive to ground.

 

[brikis98]

also, i don't know how i forgot to mention it, but there is no infinite speed, not even for your f*cking treadmill. the speed of light is the max and guess what? neither the airplane, nor the treadmill can get to that speed as just a matter of physics... so, the treadmill CANNNNNNNOOOOOOOTTTT match the speed of the airplane relative to the treadmill. it can't happen. it's impossible, illogical, paradoxical and absurd. your interpretation is WRONG.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: smack Down

No where in the question does it state the treadmill matches the ground speed. It just says speed. If you want to read it that way fine. I choose not to because ever time I have ever heard some one say the speed they were going on a treadmill it has always been relitive to the treadmill.

are you kidding me? give me ONE example where someone meant it relative to the treadmill?

Example of people refering to the speed of the treadmill (surface) relitive to the object on the treadmill.

http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardioworkouts/l/blinterval2.htm
http://www.runningplanet.com/articles/article_detail.asp?article_id=500
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mNIKyL0eYGs&mode=related&search=
http://www.complaints.com/april2002/complaintoftheday.april19.21.htm

I could go on but I think you get the picture. If not google treadmill and mph and see how many of them are talking about the speed of the object relitive to ground.

those are all with respect to the ground. every one of them. you measure the "speed" of a treadmill not by how fast the actual treadmill object is moving, but how fast a POINT on the surface of the treadmill is moving. and if you pick one point on a treadmill going x mph, it's x mph WITH RESPECT TO THE GROUND, NOT THE TREADMILL.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: brikis98
also, i don't know how i forgot to mention it, but there is no infinite speed, not even for your f*cking treadmill. the speed of light is the max and guess what? neither the airplane, nor the treadmill can get to that speed as just a matter of physics... so, the treadmill CANNNNNNNOOOOOOOTTTT match the speed of the airplane relative to the treadmill. it can't happen. it's impossible, illogical, paradoxical and absurd. your interpretation is WRONG.

lol there are also no treadmill that are as long as a runway and can match the speed of a jet so your interpretation is WRONG.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: brikis98
also, i don't know how i forgot to mention it, but there is no infinite speed, not even for your f*cking treadmill. the speed of light is the max and guess what? neither the airplane, nor the treadmill can get to that speed as just a matter of physics... so, the treadmill CANNNNNNNOOOOOOOTTTT match the speed of the airplane relative to the treadmill. it can't happen. it's impossible, illogical, paradoxical and absurd. your interpretation is WRONG.

lol there are also no treadmill that are as long as a runway and can match the speed of a jet so your interpretation is WRONG.

except that it's POSSIBLE to build a treadmill of that scale, whereas it VIOLATES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS to have one move at an "infinite" speed.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: smack Down

No where in the question does it state the treadmill matches the ground speed. It just says speed. If you want to read it that way fine. I choose not to because ever time I have ever heard some one say the speed they were going on a treadmill it has always been relitive to the treadmill.

are you kidding me? give me ONE example where someone meant it relative to the treadmill?

Example of people refering to the speed of the treadmill (surface) relitive to the object on the treadmill.

http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardioworkouts/l/blinterval2.htm
http://www.runningplanet.com/articles/article_detail.asp?article_id=500
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mNIKyL0eYGs&mode=related&search=
http://www.complaints.com/april2002/complaintoftheday.april19.21.htm

I could go on but I think you get the picture. If not google treadmill and mph and see how many of them are talking about the speed of the object relitive to ground.

those are all with respect to the ground. every one of them. you measure the "speed" of a treadmill not by how fast the actual treadmill object is moving, but how fast a POINT on the surface of the treadmill is moving. and if you pick one point on a treadmill going x mph, it's x mph WITH RESPECT TO THE GROUND, NOT THE TREADMILL.

No they are all about how fast the person running on the treadmill is going relitive to the treadmill surface. If what you said was true they would all be negitive. I'm talking only about how people measure the speed of an object on a treadmill in this case a person, the same would apply to a plane, I'm not talking about how you measure the speed of a treadmill.

 

[randay]

GUYS, CAN YOU FVCKEN STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. THANKS!

bold and capital for emphasis.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: brikis98
also, i don't know how i forgot to mention it, but there is no infinite speed, not even for your f*cking treadmill. the speed of light is the max and guess what? neither the airplane, nor the treadmill can get to that speed as just a matter of physics... so, the treadmill CANNNNNNNOOOOOOOTTTT match the speed of the airplane relative to the treadmill. it can't happen. it's impossible, illogical, paradoxical and absurd. your interpretation is WRONG.

lol there are also no treadmill that are as long as a runway and can match the speed of a jet so your interpretation is WRONG.

except that it's POSSIBLE to build a treadmill of that scale, whereas it VIOLATES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS to have one move at an "infinite" speed.

Infinite is just an approximation it is possible to build a plane that will fly under normal conditions but when placed on a treadmill will not move. Just design the plane with really heavy wheels and a crappy engine.

 

[brikis98]

ok, well, i tried. smack down, you're wrong again, but i'm not going to argue with you any more because either you are the most absurdly dense and ignorant person on earth or you are a troll and doing this to annoy us. if it's the former, i actually kind of pity you. if it's the latter, i hope you get banned because i am of the opinion that the higly technical forum is for serious discussions and not someone intentionally trying to irritate others. i'll be happy to continue this discussion with anyone else.