Hmm if you are in the ship itself would it render all lights useless then?

> Wild Flower Soul wrote:

> lol.. Flint defying the rules of physics Why don't we get over with and just say all we know is an illusion created by some god!

you're just jealous becuase Flint's God is bigger then your God.

>The wheels and conveyer belt are of equal and opposite velocitites, but after a point due to a lack of the wheels capabilites of turning FOR SOME REASON, the wheels start to slide over the conveyer belt accelerating the aircraft from 0m/s to some take off velocity.

No. The wheels don't start sliding. The conveyor can never put more then 2klb of force apposing the plane. The wheels still turn at the same speed as the conveyor which is now the speed the conveyor was going when the plane was being held back by the conveyor [PLUS] the planes speed relative to the observer. The plane accelerates and takes off with it's wheels now spinning [Much faster then normal].

The wheels don't skid when the plane starts to move relative to the observer. The wheels/conveyor just move faster. The conveyor can't push against the plane more then 2klb which isn't going to stop a 747's 200klb of potential thrust.

@Avo

Maybe you don't get that this problem is NOT about can a plane take off when standing still. It's really asking can a conveyor hold back a plane. A conveyor can hold back a car, but it cannot hold back a plane. That's what I've been writing. That's what you don't get. You keep talking about the conveyor continually matching the wheel speed and thinking that has any effect. The conveyor just can provide enough friction to hold back a plane. End of story.

Avo Don't talk to me until you shave.

Cuz warp drives are too expensive We don't have a budget like those folks at Star Trek did

> A10 wrote:

> >The wheels and conveyer belt are of equal and opposite velocitites, but after a point due to a lack of the wheels capabilites of turning FOR SOME REASON, the wheels start to slide over the conveyer belt accelerating the aircraft from 0m/s to some take off velocity.

No. The wheels don't start sliding. The conveyor can never put more then 2klb of force apposing the plane. The wheels still turn at the same speed as the conveyor which is now the speed the conveyor was going when the plane was being held back by the conveyor [PLUS] the planes speed relative to the observer. The plane accelerates and takes off with it's wheels now spinning [Much faster then normal].

The wheels don't skid when the plane starts to move relative to the observer. The wheels/conveyor just move faster. The conveyor can't push against the plane more then 2klb which isn't going to stop a 747's 200klb of potential thrust.

@Avo

Maybe you don't get that this problem is NOT about can a plane take off when standing still. It's really asking can a conveyor hold back a plane. A conveyor can hold back a car, but it cannot hold back a plane. That's what I've been writing. That's what you don't get. You keep talking about the conveyor continually matching the wheel speed and thinking that has any effect. The conveyor just can provide enough friction to hold back a plane. End of story.

Avo Don't talk to me until you shave.

See Pixie, told you, you were giving him too much credit.

ok, A10, why do you think the question isnt asking whether a plane can take off when standing still, but that its asking if a conveyor can hold back a plane? we are not saying the conveyor is holding it back. imagine a toy plane in your hand. imagine, your hand is the air that the plane is pushing off of. now, when you have the plane on the ground standing still, the wheel speed is the same as the ground speed. now, by moving the plane on the ground, without making the wheels slide, try to make it so the wheels are not rolling forward faster then the ground, is rolling back. that is what you're claiming the plane is doing. do you see how that doesnt make sense?

> A10 wrote:

> The question is "Can the plane take off?" Your thinking about it in the wrong way. You're already assuming the conveyor will hold the plane stationary. The question isn't about can a stationary plane take off because the conveyor is incapable of producing such conditions.

Lets start with a car:
A car on a conveyor that spins in the opposite direction of the car's tires at the same velocity will keep a car still. No matter how much the car rev's it's engine it will never move relative to an observer. You agree with this right? A plane is different from a car though.

Here;s how:
Imaging a car on a super smooth surface that had ZERO friction. If a car floors it's engine will it move forward? No. You agree with this right? The car depends exclusively on the friction of it's tires to move forward.

Now say we put a plane on this zero friction surface. It throttles it's engines up to full power. Will it move forward even though it's tires have zero traction? Yes. The plane will move forward. The plane moves independent of it's tires friction. It's this very same principle that prevents a conveyor from keeping a plane still. The conveyor isn't countering the engines thrust because the plane is not moving by transferring energy through it's tires.

Thus the question isn't "can a stationary plane take off" because the circumstances we're given won't hold back a plane.

A10, how many times do i have to say i agree, there is no way for a conveyor to hold back a plane? stop arguing that, its accepted by everyone.

First you're constant post editing means I'm probably lagging a version as I write this.

>try to make it so the wheels are not rolling forward faster then the ground, is rolling back.

You're saying that the conveyor can't keep up with the wheels speed once the plane exceeds the forces provided by the conveyor. You would thus like to restrict the problem to where the plane Never exceeds the force from the conveyor so that the conveyor stays the same speed as the wheels. Thus you would like to say the problem is asking can a plane take off using about 1% of the engines thrust.

I believe the conveyor's inability to keep up with the plane's wheels is simply a result of the plane being on this conveyor and shouldn't call for restricting the plane to only use 1% of it's thrust in the problem.

"First you're constant post editing means I'm probably lagging a version as I write this."

sorry, i try to state it easier for you to understand, and then after i edit it, i see you made a response to the earlier one, so i try to go back.

>ok, now the wheels were never designed to take nearly that much abuse and theres no way a 747 would be able to take off with their wheels destroyed.

I thought we'd assume magic wheels when we constructed the magic conveyor

"you're just jealous becuase Flint's God is bigger then your God."

What god?

It's all relative?