160 replies to this topic

[Prancer]

Maybe it's all about thrust. A jet will push the object forward no matter what. A treadmill can't beat tens of thousands of pounds of sheer jet thrust.

[[V1]-[VR]-[V2]]

i think it isnt a case of proving if it will or won't move but its just about attacking my arguements :s because i see both people ''fighting'' against me

[Pavehawk]

[V1]-[VR]-[V2], on Nov 30 2005, 12:13 PM, said:

i think it isnt a case of proving if it will or won't move but its just about attacking my arguements :s because i see both people ''fighting'' against me

we aren't fighting, we are trying to help you to grasp the idea.

[[V1]-[VR]-[V2]]

Pavehawk, on Nov 30 2005, 06:15 PM, said:

[V1 said:

-[VR]-[V2],Nov 30 2005, 12:13 PM] i think it isnt a case of proving if it will or won't move but its just about attacking my arguements :s because i see both people ''fighting'' against me

we aren't fighting, we are trying to help you to grasp the idea.

yes but i need to understand that it will move and i need to understand that it won't move both sides (people) are against me so i think its not a proper discussion anymore

but i still don't get it: the enigne is providing a force forwards, it doesnt goes forward its still so there must be a force backwards, right? newtons law...

when there are two forces equal the object is moving at a constant speed or its still

Edited by [V1]-[VR]-[V2], 30 November 2005 - 12:20 PM.

[Corsair1138]

[V1 said:

-[VR]-[V2],Nov 30 2005, 12:16 PM]

Pavehawk, on Nov 30 2005, 06:15 PM, said:

[V1 said:

-[VR]-[V2],Nov 30 2005, 12:13 PM] i think it isnt a case of proving if it will or won't move but its just about attacking my arguements :s because i see both people ''fighting'' against me

we aren't fighting, we are trying to help you to grasp the idea.

yes but i need to understand that it will move and i need to understand that it won't move both sides (people) are against me so i think its not a proper discussion anymore

but i still don't get it: the enigne is providing a force forwards, it doesnt goes forward its still so there must be a force backwards, right? newtons law...

when there are two forces equal the object is moving at a constant speed or its still

Ok, stop quoting laws you don't understand. You're just quoting them cause you remember it from high school.

Once again, answer MY post about the treadmill, rollerblades and rope. You still haven't responded to it.

Until you understand that, you won't understand this.

And we're not fighting you, we're tying to explain it to you but instead of reading the first chapter, you keep skipping to the end of the book to try to solve the last problem.

Edited by Corsair1138, 30 November 2005 - 12:23 PM.

[[V1]-[VR]-[V2]]

Corsair1138, on Nov 30 2005, 06:21 PM, said:

[V1 said:

-[VR]-[V2],Nov 30 2005, 12:16 PM]

Pavehawk, on Nov 30 2005, 06:15 PM, said:

[V1 said:

-[VR]-[V2],Nov 30 2005, 12:13 PM] i think it isnt a case of proving if it will or won't move but its just about attacking my arguements :s because i see both people ''fighting'' against me

we aren't fighting, we are trying to help you to grasp the idea.

yes but i need to understand that it will move and i need to understand that it won't move both sides (people) are against me so i think its not a proper discussion anymore

but i still don't get it: the enigne is providing a force forwards, it doesnt goes forward its still so there must be a force backwards, right? newtons law...

when there are two forces equal the object is moving at a constant speed or its still

Ok, stop quoting laws you don't understand. You're just quoting them cause you remember it from high school.

Once again, answer MY post about the treadmill, rollerblades and rope. You still haven't responded to it.

Until you understand that, you won't understand this.

And we're not fighting you, we're tying to explain it to you but instead of reading the first chapter, you keep skipping to the end of the book to try to solve the last problem.

i can quote if i want to

and thats why i said ''''''''''''''''''''fighting''''''''''''''''''''''

also i can answer any posts i want i just don't find it appealing to talk with you, pavehawks approach seems more gentile and just gets my attraction ok?

[wnfaknd]

V1VrV2, we are not attacking you in any way dude... we are trying to show with example after example how the airplane would indeed take off.   But your remarks are so out of context that is leading me to believe that you are either pulling our legs or you are just not reading what we are typing.

We keep on asking you to name one thing that would prevent the airplane from moving forward.  You havent answered.

If this was a car, it woult not move forwards, because the engine of the car is connected to the tires, so no matter how hard the car's engine would try, the conveyor belt would match it.

But we are talking about an airplane, where the wheels spin freely and the engines are not conneced to them.  You can make those wheels spin whichever way you want,  but the airplane would still move forward.  The conveyor belt moving one way or another at any speed will not prevent the airplane from moving forward.

Edited by wnfaknd, 30 November 2005 - 12:29 PM.

[Hawker]

what the ######....

If yall are assuming that the belt speed matches the planes speed in the opposite direction, and the plane is staying in the same spot, and saying it can fly...then I want some of what you're smoking.

[[V1]-[VR]-[V2]]

wnfaknd, on Nov 30 2005, 06:27 PM, said:

But we are talking about an airplane, where the wheels spin freely and the engines are not conneced to them.  You can make those wheels spin whichever way you want,  but the airplane would still move forward.  The conveyor belt moving one way or another at any speed will not prevent the airplane from moving forward.

now that is understandable

also i really do wanna know how and when but when you guys say like u still havent replyed and say what you don't get about what ive typed is kinda forcing and i don't think its about showing me how it all works but about correcting me... i feel attacked by that

Edited by [V1]-[VR]-[V2], 30 November 2005 - 12:35 PM.

[Corsair1138]

Hawker, on Nov 30 2005, 12:31 PM, said:

what the ######....

If yall are assuming that the belt speed matches the planes speed in the opposite direction, and the plane is staying in the same spot, and saying it can fly...then I want some of what you're smoking.

Ummm, read again. No one said it is staying in the same spot.

[Corsair1138]

[V1]-[VR]-[V2], on Nov 30 2005, 12:33 PM, said:

wnfaknd, on Nov 30 2005, 06:27 PM, said:

But we are talking about an airplane, where the wheels spin freely and the engines are not conneced to them.  You can make those wheels spin whichever way you want,  but the airplane would still move forward.  The conveyor belt moving one way or another at any speed will not prevent the airplane from moving forward.

now that is understandable

also i really do wanna know how and when but when you guys say like u still havent replyed and say what you don't get about what ive typed is kinda forcing and i don't think its about showing me how it all works but about correcting me...

V3 (i renamed you since V1-VR-V2 is too much to type, so I've nick-named you V3   )

Sorry, we're not trying to sound forceful or condescending.  Its just with all the jumping around from post to post, it gets frustating trying to explain how it works.

I was trying to start you off with a simple example, then work your way up from there. Don't worry, at first glance, I too thought the plane would stay still. I had to re-think about it relying on how an airplane propels itself forward to understand it.

[[V1]-[VR]-[V2]]

but after all it won't take off

[Hawker]

I havent read anything that says that outright...first post just says the treadmill matches the planes speed...so assuming that, this plane isnt going anywhere. If said plane can actually move forward, then sure, it might be able to fly if it has enough power.

[Corsair1138]

[V1]-[VR]-[V2], on Nov 30 2005, 12:41 PM, said:

but after all it won't take off

If you think it won't take off, then you do not understand how this works and how forces work.

[Hawker]

someone should make an addon to test this in fs....

[Corsair1138]

Hawker, on Nov 30 2005, 12:42 PM, said:

I havent read anything that says that outright...first post just says the treadmill matches the planes speed...so assuming that, this plane isnt going anywhere. If said plane can actually move forward, then sure, it might be able to fly if it has enough power.

That's the point. There's nothing in the original problem that prevents the airplane from moving forward. Therefore the plane will take off. You're assuming the plane won't go anywhere...that's a wrong assumption.

[[V1]-[VR]-[V2]]

Corsair1138, on Nov 30 2005, 06:42 PM, said:

[V1 said:

-[VR]-[V2],Nov 30 2005, 12:41 PM] but after all it won't take off

If you think it won't take off, then you do not understand how this works and how forces work.

u need to top the friction and then add more to move forwards so under normal conditions no

[sweetfracture3]

Is it really that hard of an idea to grasp? Airplane wheels are not car wheels, they rotate freely. Try to counter rotate a cars wheel while it's in gear and you'll not have much luck

If the treadmill was acting on a locked wheel - such as on a car - then the car would indeed move backwards. This is not the case on airplanes.

If you were to suspened an airplane you could easily grab a wheel and spin it anyway you wanted without much resistance. Now put that airplane on a moving surface and it will remain stationary - there is basically no force being applied to the airplane other than a small amount of friction - probably only slowing the wheels rotation a bit.l

Now, since there is no force moving the plane backwards any force causing it to move foward will do just that - move it forward.

As for Newtons laws I'll break it down for cars and airplanes:

Cars: The car is trasffering the engines power output to rotate the wheels which act on the ground. The wheels push on the ground and the ground pushes back creating a foward force; or side; or backwards depending on how the wheel moves against the ground.

Airplanes: The wheel of an airplane transfers no power to the ground. The airplane engine displaces air backward causing an equal and opposite movement foward. THE AIR IS WHAT CAUSES THE AIRPLANE TO MOVE FOWARD - THE GROUND PLAYS NO PART IN IT.

I hope that helps.

[[V1]-[VR]-[V2]]

sweetfracture3, on Nov 30 2005, 06:47 PM, said:

Is it really that hard of an idea to grasp? Airplane wheels are not car wheels, they rotate freely. Try to counter rotate a cars wheel while it's in gear and you'll not have much luck

If the treadmill was acting on a locked wheel - such as on a car - then the car would indeed move backwards. This is not the case on airplanes.

If you were to suspened an airplane you could easily grab a wheel and spin it anyway you wanted without much resistance. Now put that airplane on a moving surface and it will remain stationary - there is basically no force being applied to the airplane other than a small amount of friction - probably only slowing the wheels rotation a bit.l

Now, since there is no force moving the plane backwards any force causing it to move foward will do just that - move it forward.

As for Newtons laws I'll break it down for cars and airplanes:

Cars: The car is trasffering the engines power output to rotate the wheels which act on the ground. The wheels push on the ground and the ground pushes back creating a foward force; or side; or backwards depending on how the wheel moves against the ground.

Airplanes: The wheel of an airplane transfers no power to the ground. The airplane engine displaces air backward causing an equal and opposite movement foward. THE AIR IS WHAT CAUSES THE AIRPLANE TO MOVE FOWARD - THE GROUND PLAYS NO PART IN IT.

I hope that helps.

ive already passed that stage of understanding the part of air and such looong time ago, explain something i don't know

[wnfaknd]

what don't you know?  on what part are you getting stuck?  we'll be happy to explain.