Does a fly on an airplane add weight to the airplane if the fly never lands?

Yes. Think of it this way: If you had a jug of water with a ball of clay slowly sinking through the water (but not touching and of the sides/bottom), and you lifted it up, you are lifting not only the weight of the container, but all of its contents- water and clay included, regardless their connections to the container.

These are all hypothetical, but I know for a fact (well, at least family legend) that my Dad had to take a truckload of chickens over Keebler Pass (CO) when he was a teenager and the truck couldn't make it up the steepest part of the climb. My uncle instructed my Dad to get into the bed of the truck and make the chickens agitated so that that would get airborn in their crates. He listened to his older brother and did so, and the truck was able to make it over the final portion of the steep mountain pass.

jeff goldblum wrote:

If there is a fly buzzing around the inside of a flying airplane, but it never lands on anything inside of the airplane. Does the fact that the fly is inside of the flying airplane increase the weight of the airplane by the weight of the fly?

Yours is a silly question.

Consider the air in the airplane. Does it increase the weight of the airplane by its own weight? The fact that something is floating/suspended/flying within the airplane is blindingly obviously irrelevant.

Weight of plane with resting fly = plane + air + fly

Weight of plane with flying fly = plane + air + fly

So....no.

My fluid mechanics are rusty, but there are some weird drag effects going on from swirling vortices behind a moving object, so the biker in front of another biker would probably have an easier time than the solo guy.

I think some trucks have things on the back of the trailer to adjust for this and lower drag.

michael furey wrote:

Interestingly he will still probably break the bridge if he doesn't have any balls at all (haha) because of the increase in weight when his feet exert force on the bridge when he pushes off, especially if he decides to run across. He will also weigh less when his leg begins to accelerate downward with each step at the highest arc of his foot.

Maybe he is using Pose (Pose juggling?) Because if he is then he is not actually doing any work.

fyth wrote:

Suppose a guy weighs 196 pounds and he's carrying three two-pound balls.

He comes to a bridge that allows a maximum weight of exactly 201 pounds--any weight greater than that will cause it to fall. He decides that he'll juggle the balls, so he's never totaling more than 200 pounds at one time: one of the balls is always in the air.

Yet he takes one full step on the bridge, it fails, and he falls to his death. Why?

Okay, a little history. Years and years ago, about age ten, I first saw a similar setup (196# guy, three 2# balls, bridge that can only handle 201#) in a puzzle book. Back then, they *asked* how the guy could get himself and the balls across safely; their answer: he'd juggle!

This scenario has stayed with me. I only lasted one semester as a physics major, so I could be wrong in my rethinking of this. (If so, please correct me.) But the point is: the bridge is being asked to support a total mass of 202 pounds. Doesn't matter that one ball is in the air all the time; if the guy who's walking across is "supporting" those balls, then the total mass of the guy/balls system is 202#.

If, instead, just before the guy stepped on the bridge, he *threw* one of the balls all the way down the bridge and it landed past the other end, then of course he could safely walk across with the other two balls. Once again, one ball always would have been "in the air" as it went across the bridge, but the bridge would never have been supporting its mass.

Thanks to the OP for posting the fly question. Until you did so, and got me remembering the juggler, I had never figured out why the puzzle book's "solution" bothered me. I think I have it right, now.

Not if the fly is in flight.

It's impossible to answer questions such as this with the incomplete information provided. Are the bikers on EPO, HGH, are they blood doping, or some combination of the three?

michael furey wrote:

Ah I see this was answered before I posted. So to contribute I'll pose another (more difficult) question: there are two bikers travelling at the same speed. One is biking alone, the other is followed closely by another cyclist drafting off of him. Do the two bikers have to exert the same amount of energy to keep going at the same speed? (FYI I don't know the answer)

Are they riding a tandem bicycle?

twat wrote:

Whaaat? wrote:

I assume by "two bikers" (there are three), you mean the two out front.

These "two bikers" are they gay bikers or motorcycle enthusiasts?

If everybody on the plane stands up and pushes against the ceiling of the plane will they help it gain altitude?

As a thought experiment, imagine that instead of one fly there are 50 million or whatever the number needed to completely fill the air in the cabin without touching any of the fuselage. In this case the weight would be something quite substantial. The airplane would still have to gain enough extra speed to generate extra life equal to the weight of the flies. The pilots would still be required, according to the FARS, to include the weight of the flies in their weight and balance calculations.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

As a thought experiment, imagine that instead of one fly there are 50 million or whatever the number needed to completely fill the air in the cabin without touching any of the fuselage. In this case the weight would be something quite substantial. The airplane would still have to gain enough extra speed to generate extra life equal to the weight of the flies. The pilots would still be required, according to the FARS, to include the weight of the flies in their weight and balance calculations.

Yes, but do we have any photographic evidence of this?

Does a person swimming in a pool increase the weight contained in the pool if he never touches the bottom?

Do the air molecules in the plane add weight to the plane if they are not in contact with the floor?

Does a bear shit in the woods?

For the answers to these and other questions (and what about Naomi?) please tune in next time for What Unbelievably Stupid Question Can We Ask Today.

If the fly lands on my peanuts it'll be a moot point anyway. He will be "tray-kill".

Al Eidenberg wrote:

If the fly lands on my peanuts it'll be a moot point anyway. He will be "tray-kill".

Just because you kill the fly, doesn't remove it's mass.

I think this conundrum needs to be posed to Lewis Black for the definitive answer. Why?, I actually missed the fly, and it alighted on the helium-filled balloon the kid sitting next to me was holding. The fly bit the balloon, inhaling a parcel of helium. The flys saliva coagulated on the puncture, sealing the balloon from further helium loss. (as is often the case). I know that all thisay sound very hypothetical to the laymen amongst us.

ronner wrote:

Al Eidenberg wrote:

If the fly lands on my peanuts it'll be a moot point anyway. He will be "tray-kill".

Just because you kill the fly, doesn't remove it's mass.

Whose ass do you think is removed then?

DUMB ASS!

Physics Phor Phun wrote:

jeff goldblum wrote:

If there is a fly buzzing around the inside of a flying airplane, but it never lands on anything inside of the airplane. Does the fact that the fly is inside of the flying airplane increase the weight of the airplane by the weight of the fly?

Yours is a silly question.

Consider the air in the airplane. Does it increase the weight of the airplane by its own weight? The fact that something is floating/suspended/flying within the airplane is blindingly obviously irrelevant.

Yes, it's kind of like visualizing a mitochondrion floating in the cytoplasm of a cell. It, too, is floating much like the fly who has taken wing. And yet, it most assuredly adds to the weight of the cell.