A harmless little riddle

Holiday Inn Express wrote:

If you set the jet engine at 10mph force, with the belt of the treadmill rotating at 150 mph, the airplane would run off the back end of the treadmill at 140 mph, then remain at that end of the belt.

Bump the thrust of the airplane to 50mph, it runs off the back end of the treadmill at 100 mph, where it will remain at the end of the belt.

Bump the trust to 100 mph, it run off the back end of the treadmill at 50 mph where it will remain.

At 150 mph thrust, the airplane is stationary.

At "one tiny increment" above 150 mph thrust, the airplane will not fly, but it will be traveling at "one tiny increment" above 0 mph off the front of the treadmill, where it will then accelerate (provided enough runway) until it reaches 150mph and flys.

This guy is right. "CHRIST ALMIGHTY" all you say is that "no you are wrong, shut up" to this guy. But you cannot disprove this logic. This is why if the treadmill matches the speed of the airplane relative to the treadmill, it WILL NOT go anywhere.

This guy basically made a better example for my last post.

However, the only thing I disagree with is that the plane CAN take off on the treadmill as long as it is infinte. If the plane's thrust is set to 300mph, and the treadmill is set to 150mph, it will actually be going 150mph relative to its surroundings and will take off from the treadmill.

ONE SMART MOTHERFOCKER wrote:

Put plane on treadmill. Have it go 10mph, have the treadmill go 10mph in the opposite direction. You're telling me that its going to move forward relative to its surroundings?

Yes, that's what we're saying. The plane will move forward if the speed of its tachometer is equal to the speed gauge on the treadmill. The only way you can get the plane to remain stationary is to crank the treadmill way up until the speeds are unequal. At that moment the FORCES will be equal and therefore the plane will not move.

Let's try this one more time.

We have a treadmill that goes a constant 30 mph. We know that if the engine is off, the plane will go backward. We know that if we turn the engine to full blast (300 mph?) it will go forward and eventually turn off. So obviously there is some equilibrium point in the middle where the plane is stationary, neither moving backward nor forward.

OK, I think we all agree on that.

Now let's examine this equilibrium point. Since force is what pushes or pulls something or otherwise compels it to move, obviously the forces are balanced. But what about the speeds? Can we assume that the speeds are equal too? Well, the thing about speeds is that they're funny. Hop in your car, put your foot on the accelerator until the line hits 30 mph and you're probably going 30. But attach a big old load to the back of your car and attempt to go uphill. Hit the gas until the gauge says 30 and guess what? You're crawling up the hill at 10 mph. If you take your foot off the brake, you'll roll backward (unless your car doesn't do that type of thing), and your equilibrium point is probably when your tachometer says "15" or "20".

Do you see where this is going? When you're on that hill at your equilibrium point, the forces are equal even though the "speed" of your car is 15.

Same thing with the airplane. Because the only thing resisting the plane's forward movement is friction along the wheel's axis of rotation, it's not going to take much to overcome this force. If our treadmill is going 30 mph, my guess is that when we hit our equilibrium point (and the plane is stationary), the plane's tachometer says 5 mph or 10 mph. If you increase the plane's speed until it is also going 30 mph, it will go forward.

Man, you're really showing your ignorance here. Just stop.

Look, we have THREE forces at work here:

1) Rolling resistance from the tire/treadmill interface

2) Bearing friction in the axle assembly of the plane

3) Thrust propelling the plane in the direction opposite of these two forces.

Gravity DOES NOT keep it down on the ground. Gravity comes into play when determining the normal force exerted (i.e., "weight") on the wheels by the plane, and thus the two forces of which the normal force is a component - rolling resistance and friction.

IF these two forces (friction and rolling resistance) were great enough to prevent the plane from moving on a treadmill, then they would be great enough to prevent the plane from moving on the ground. If the plane can't develop enough thrust to overcome the wheels spinning at 10 MPH on a treadmill, then explain to me how it could develop enough thrust to overcome the wheels spinning at 10 MPH on the ground?

Anyway, let's assume the forces of friction and rolling resistance were too large to be overcome by the thrust of the engine. The plane wouldn't just stay motionless anyway, the plane would tip end over end (nose first) due to the COUPLE created by these two opposing forces.

The bottom line is, you're ignorant of Newtonian Mechanics if you believe the plane wouldn't be able to take off.

Now please stop making an ass of yourself by posting about shit you don't understand.

And now you've been thwarted TWICE, bitch.

ONE SMART MOTHERFOCKER wrote:

If the plane's thrust is set to 300mph, and the treadmill is set to 150mph, it will actually be going 150mph relative to its surroundings and will take off from the treadmill.

NO! And the sooner you understand this, the sooner you will realize you are WRONG!

If the plane's THRUST is set to 300 MPH, and the treadmill is going 150 MPH (in the opposite direction), then:

1) The PLANE RELATIVE TO THE EARTH is going 300 MPH

2) The TANGENTIAL VELOCITY at the TIRE/TREADMILL interface is 450 MPH

Now please stop making me prove you wrong all the time! Just accept it!

Listen, I'm 22 years old and I see more action in a week than the rest of you see in a year- you're all a bunch of shit-for-brains morons who won't listen to the facts-

THE PLANE WILL TAKE OFF!!!

And once more;

THE PLANE WILL TAKE OFF!!!!!

.. wrote:

Listen, I'm 22 years old and I see more action in a week than the rest of you see in a year- you're all a bunch of shit-for-brains morons who won't listen to the facts-

THE PLANE WILL TAKE OFF!!!

And once more;

THE PLANE WILL TAKE OFF!!!!!

I like your style.

.. wrote:

Listen, I'm 22 years old and I see more action in a week than the rest of you see in a year- you're all a bunch of shit-for-brains morons who won't listen to the facts-

THE PLANE WILL TAKE OFF!!!

And once more;

THE PLANE WILL TAKE OFF!!!!!

I hope that wasn't directed at ME. I KNOW the plane will take off, but I'm having a difficult time convincing, ironically, "ONE SMART MOTHERFOCKER."

And there's no way you're getting more action than me, but that's another thread.

No, not directed at you, but that doesn't mean you haven't got shit for brains.... because that's the only explanation I can find to you thinking you're getting more action than me.

.. wrote:

No, not directed at you, but that doesn't mean you haven't got shit for brains.... because that's the only explanation I can find to you thinking you're getting more action than me.

Dude, I'm gay. All gay guys DO is F***! I'm getting a b****** right now from "ONE SMART MOTHERFOCKER."

That's true, I've gay dudes get more action since obviously other guys want to get it on too.

The major drawback: you're having sex with a hairy man-ass.

(Or worse, you have to take it in the cornhole - who would ever want to do that?)

That was supposed to be "I've heard gay dudes..."

I'm so freaking illiterate.

First thing's first pal, I ain't no dude.

And please refrain from discussing your ungodly relationship with that other cock-jockey on Letsrun. I like to go away from this webpage feeling I've learned something, but that's way too much information.

Secondly, I have had sex with women from almost every continent, every state and every ethnicy.

Beat that! Fudge packer

I think I've figured it out wrote:

That's true, I've gay dudes get more action since obviously other guys want to get it on too.

The major drawback: you're having sex with a hairy man-ass.

(Or worse, you have to take it in the cornhole - who would ever want to do that?)

It's a means to an end... Our means may be different (asshole vs. pussy) but the end is always the same - ropy jets of jism*.

(*With acknowledgements to Henry Rollins)

.. wrote:

First thing's first pal, I ain't no dude.

And please refrain from discussing your ungodly relationship with that other cock-jockey on Letsrun. I like to go away from this webpage feeling I've learned something, but that's way too much information.

Secondly, I have had sex with women from almost every continent, every state and every ethnicy.

you might want to get checked out for std's, seriously

I bet Henry Rollins is exactly your type of man- a real action man-

Big, muscly, crew hair cut and.....NO GENITALS!

.. wrote:

I like to go away from this webpage feeling I've learned something...

You go away from this website feeling like you've learned something? Hmmm... I guess you are an idiot afterall.

That's it for me folks.

Sincerely,

Fudge Packer

I'm not worried about STDs, I'm probably gonna die before I'm 30 anway.

And btw, if I do- it was worth it.

Please elaborate- how am I an idiot?

And please, no references to your husband/boyfriend/toy boy/etc.