Will it take off?

[jacksonbart]

.

[Travis In Austin]

I feel as long as the plane maintains the same exact longitude and latitude then it cannot take of. A plane takes off due to lift under the wing that is designed for such. The prop or jet is simply a propelling device to allow the wing to attain a lift.

One could accelorate to say 500MPH and not take off (fly).

That is what I struggled with as well, but the plane won't stay at the same longitude and latitude, it will roll down the moving runway just as it would a normal runway, it will pick up ground speed as well as air speed. It will not stay in place. If you got out of the airplane before it started it's take off run, to videotape it for all of us to see, and you stayed in place, you would see it roll down the moving runway just as if the runway was not moving. That is the trick part of the question, there is nothing to push the airplane backwards, it is not the tires, they are free spining. Again, if the plane was sitting on the rolling runway with the engine off, and the runway started to move in reverse, the plane would just sit there, it would not move backwards. As soon as you started the engine it would begin to move forward. They are trying to trick you into thinking it will behave like a car, it won't, unless the car is in neutral. Again the problem assumes tires with zero friction. That is why you need to start with the ice analogy. Put a plane on the most slipery ice you can think of, apply powers and it glides right over the ice, wheels or not. Do the same in a car, apply powers and the wheels just spin. Then think of a plane on an icy hill facing up hill that is kept from sliding down the hill by a teather and a car next to it that is also tied to a teather. You cut both teathers at the same time. The plane moves forward because it is not "tied" or restricted by the ground, it moves forward, whereas the car, not matter how much power is applied rolls backward to the bottom of the hill because it is dedendant upon the amount of traction its tires have with the ground. Think of a plane on the water on floats in a river, with a 20 mph current. It will drift backwards with the current with the engine off, but as soon as you start the engine it will move forward throught the water because the water does not form enought friction with the floats, now picture a car on big ballon tires on that same rivers, big giant bald tires, it will drift back with the current, and when you apply power the wheels just spin and it keeps drifting back with the current.

The whole trick is they get you thinking that the plane stands still on the runway, it does not. If you took a video from above,of two planes side by side, one on the moving runway, and one on a regular runway, and the applied full power at the same time, you could not tell them apart. They would both start moving down the runway at the same time, at the same speed, and they would take off at exactly the same point.

Travis

[Travis In Austin]

Equally obvious is that live sounds best.

Is that true? Does Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon sound better in it near perfect studio mix, or in concert. If given the choice of hearing DSOM, would you prefer to listen to it on a system you were allowed to create without regard to cost, or live but you had to wear a blindfold during the entire concert?

Of course that reminds me of another very important question. Which one is Pink?

Live is best regarding a tree falling in the woods. I was not answering a question about DSOM.

Is that based on personal experience, or a review in Stereophile?

[Travis In Austin]

The question of speakers was ignored because the tree sounds best live. As for eternal life, works or faith has nothing to do with it, since just because there is eternal life, it doesn't mean that you will have it.

Then the big question is how do you obtain, achieve and/or earn eternal life?

Travis

[Ray Garrison]

The question of speakers was ignored because the tree sounds best live. As for eternal life, works or faith has nothing to do with it, since just because there is eternal life, it doesn't mean that you will have it.

Then the big question is how do you obtain, achieve and/or earn eternal life?

Travis

Okay, you asked.

The thing is, each of us exists in multiple parallel universes. Our concious minds inhabit each. Events occur that are analogous, if not identical, in each. As we go through life, events occur that could, and sometimes should, kill us. As we pass through each event, in some of those parallel universes our existence halts, while in others it continues, at a slightly higher degree of improbability. The more likely the event is to kill us (being in a plane that crashes from 40,000 feet, perhaps) the less likely is our survival, and the fewer the number of universes in which our concious minds can find a repository. As we continue to experience life, the likelyhood of our survival continues to become less and less probable, and the number of universes in which we continue to exist decreeses. In conjunction with this, the plysical laws of those universes in which we find ourselves continuing on become more and more strained, as the loopholes that allow for our continued survival become more and more improbable. Eventually, we, each of us, winds up constrained to a universe in which physical laws are taxed to the extreme, and the likelyhood of our survival is less and less. You may eventually arrive at a point where the plane will not take off.

[PhilMays]

I feel as long as the plane maintains the same exact longitude and latitude then it cannot take of. A plane takes off due to lift under the wing that is designed for such. The prop or jet is simply a propelling device to allow the wing to attain a lift.

One could accelorate to say 500MPH and not take off (fly).

That is what I struggled with as well, but the plane won't stay at the same longitude and latitude, it will roll down the moving runway just as it would a normal runway, it will pick up ground speed as well as air speed. It will not stay in place. If you got out of the airplane before it started it's take off run, to videotape it for all of us to see, and you stayed in place, you would see it roll down the moving runway just as if the runway was not moving. That is the trick part of the question, there is nothing to push the airplane backwards, it is not the tires, they are free spining. Again, if the plane was sitting on the rolling runway with the engine off, and the runway started to move in reverse, the plane would just sit there, it would not move backwards. As soon as you started the engine it would begin to move forward. They are trying to trick you into thinking it will behave like a car, it won't, unless the car is in neutral. Again the problem assumes tires with zero friction. That is why you need to start with the ice analogy. Put a plane on the most slipery ice you can think of, apply powers and it glides right over the ice, wheels or not. Do the same in a car, apply powers and the wheels just spin. Then think of a plane on an icy hill facing up hill that is kept from sliding down the hill by a teather and a car next to it that is also tied to a teather. You cut both teathers at the same time. The plane moves forward because it is not "tied" or restricted by the ground, it moves forward, whereas the car, not matter how much power is applied rolls backward to the bottom of the hill because it is dedendant upon the amount of traction its tires have with the ground. Think of a plane on the water on floats in a river, with a 20 mph current. It will drift backwards with the current with the engine off, but as soon as you start the engine it will move forward throught the water because the water does not form enought friction with the floats, now picture a car on big ballon tires on that same rivers, big giant bald tires, it will drift back with the current, and when you apply power the wheels just spin and it keeps drifting back with the current.

The whole trick is they get you thinking that the plane stands still on the runway, it does not. If you took a video from above,of two planes side by side, one on the moving runway, and one on a regular runway, and the applied full power at the same time, you could not tell them apart. They would both start moving down the runway at the same time, at the same speed, and they would take off at exactly the same point.

Travis

Yea, I finially got it. What is comical is how one can become so enamored with an idea and never look "outside of the box".

[oldtimer]

"Is that based on personal experience, or a review in Stereophile?"

LOL. That's hilarious. I would have to say personal experience. I have been in the woods when a tree fell very near me. Now if I were deaf, would it still make a noise?

As for the big question, Ray's response was from a Stereophile review (insert joking smiley face). There is either eternal life, or there isn't; there is no "achieving" it. If the universe is not eternal, is eternal life possible? Or is the universe only in existence because of eternal life? More importantly, is that a Sears poncho or a real poncho?

[ZAKO]

Phil Mays.....Lift occurs on top of the wing not under it.. The airfoil is shaped to make a vaccum on top.. Moving faster it will lift the plane. with enough thrust you will rotate the nose & do a Viking takeoff straight up.!!! Yahooooo!!!! what a ride !!!!!

[flannj]

The eternal life questions make me think of this one posed by George Carlin:

If God is all powerful, could He create a rock so large that even He could not lift it?

[Andy W]

Depends. Is God allowed to break the laws of physics? If a person can lift 200# and also weights 200#, yet a person cannot put their hands under their own feet and lift themself. Can God?

[ZAKO]

Now we have a person on here not knowing the laws of gravity......Graviton a massless particle.

[oldenough]

Maron wrote: Now we have a person on here not knowing the laws of gravity......Graviton a massless particle.

Maron, not so long ago we also had people who thought the plane "could not fly".

[Ray Garrison]

Now we have a person on here not knowing the laws of gravity......Graviton a massless particle.

From the Wolfram Research website (among others...)

"Graviton - A theoretical particle having no mass and no charge that mediates (carries) the gravitational force. The graviton is a boson. The existence of a graviton has not yet been confirmed experimentally, although string theory predicts the existence of gravitons as closed strings with the minimum possible energy. It is also theorized that gravitons interact with leptons and quarks."

[oldtimer]

They better watch out for those leptons, it could get ugly.

[Champagne taste beer budget]

I have a CD by a band named Charmed Quarks, the keyboard player is a friend of mine from high school. However, I don't believe I would add it to Thebes Recommendations thread. [:-*]

It always amazed me something could fly right through the earth unphased.

[oldtimer]

Oh man! You said "fly." You really mean "pass" right?

[Clarence]

damn smart people go to bed. []

[flannj]

Depends. Is God allowed to break the laws of physics? If a person can lift 200# and also weights 200#, yet a person cannot put their hands under their own feet and lift themself. Can God?

Does God have feet?

[flannj]

damn smart people go to bed. []

Not so fast you. Not until these questions have been answered.

Can flying monkeys type?

Will typing monkeys fly?

[Andy W]

Depends. Is God allowed to break the laws of physics? If a person can lift 200# and also weights 200#, yet a person cannot put their hands under their own feet and lift themself. Can God?

Does God have feet?

Yes.

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Here we go again! []