Mythbusters to take on "the plane and the treadmill" conundrum?

[So]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
It takes a man to admit he is wrong, thats why i call you kids. anyways, i proved my point that the plane will not fly.

i work in the epicenter of the aerospace industry. Hughes, Raytheon, L3, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, ect are right here. We have engineers with Phds, and i'm embarrass to say, but i did consult with several of them right now and basically they told me to stop playing with these kids. BUT ALL OF THEM SAID THE PLANE CANNOT FLY!

it ends here.

Thank you, and when halloween rolls by, come trick or treatn by my house :beer:

Okay, now you're just clearly a liar and a troll.

what i lie about? Is that the only statement you can make? i cant prove him wrong so i'll call him a liar and a troll. LOL, cute little kid.

First of all, your pathetically feeble ad homeniem attacks, directly claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is plain trolling, and you really should apologize for such. Second, I know that no aerospace engineer would agree with your clearly incorrect position. And thirdly, you're citing no evidence, except mysterious claims that you've "talked to engineers" but have given us to believe you're anything but a thirteen year old in a basement yourself. You're waving a tired old rhetorical tactic around in a debate you seem to have no idea about. Simply put, everything you've said smells so strongly of troll that I can see the stink lines coming off of it.

 

[MasonLuke]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: MasonLuke


Most of you kids are not familiar with a plane, so lets relate this to a car. During a smog check your drive wheels are on a roller. Mind you that this is a primitive device and nothing like the treadmill. The treadmill can counter the exact speed of the wheel. When you press the gas, wheels turn, but the car is not in motion. Now imagine 2 rollers, one for the front wheel and one for the back, or just one long one like our treadmill.

Now, instead of the piston engine connected to the wheels, you have one of the jet powered cars. Thrust comes from the jet and is not powering the wheels as in the case of our airplane. More power you turn on the faster the rollers rotate. The car is stationary. If the car is stationary, the plane will be to. And without forward movement, no lift on wings, thus no flight.

You have just proven hypothesis 1... you are a complete and total moron.

Thank you, thats all i needed to prove. Thanks for supporting me. I've proven hypotheis 1, and if i have proven that, then the plane cant fly. it logical.

Now you are STUPID :Q

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
It takes a man to admit he is wrong, thats why i call you kids. anyways, i proved my point that the plane will not fly.

i work in the epicenter of the aerospace industry. Hughes, Raytheon, L3, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, ect are right here. We have engineers with Phds, and i'm embarrass to say, but i did consult with several of them right now and basically they told me to stop playing with these kids. BUT ALL OF THEM SAID THE PLANE CANNOT FLY!

it ends here.

Thank you, and when halloween rolls by, come trick or treatn by my house :beer:

Okay, now you're just clearly a liar and a troll.

what i lie about? Is that the only statement you can make? i cant prove him wrong so i'll call him a liar and a troll. LOL, cute little kid.

First of all, your pathetically feeble ad homeniem attacks, directly claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is plain trolling, and you really should apologize for such. Second, I know that no aerospace engineer would agree with your clearly incorrect position. And thirdly, you're citing no evidence, except mysterious claims that you've "talked to engineers" but have given us to believe you're anything but a thirteen year old in a basement waving a tired old arguing tactic around in a debate you seem to have no idea about. Simply put, everything you've said smells so strongly of troll that I can see the stink lines coming off of it.

I work at an engineering computer lab at UTexas. I have brought this issue up to senior aerospace engineers, and to aerospace engineering faculty (i.e. professors). I have yet to receive an answer from any stating that the plane will or will not take off. Who knows -- like I said before, test it.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: MasonLuke


Most of you kids are not familiar with a plane, so lets relate this to a car. During a smog check your drive wheels are on a roller. Mind you that this is a primitive device and nothing like the treadmill. The treadmill can counter the exact speed of the wheel. When you press the gas, wheels turn, but the car is not in motion. Now imagine 2 rollers, one for the front wheel and one for the back, or just one long one like our treadmill.

Now, instead of the piston engine connected to the wheels, you have one of the jet powered cars. Thrust comes from the jet and is not powering the wheels as in the case of our airplane. More power you turn on the faster the rollers rotate. The car is stationary. If the car is stationary, the plane will be to. And without forward movement, no lift on wings, thus no flight.

You have just proven hypothesis 1... you are a complete and total moron.

Thank you, thats all i needed to prove. Thanks for supporting me. I've proven hypotheis 1, and if i have proven that, then the plane cant fly. it logical.

Now you are STUPID :Q

Sadly, but even smack down has more common sense than you.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: MasonLuke


Most of you kids are not familiar with a plane, so lets relate this to a car. During a smog check your drive wheels are on a roller. Mind you that this is a primitive device and nothing like the treadmill. The treadmill can counter the exact speed of the wheel. When you press the gas, wheels turn, but the car is not in motion. Now imagine 2 rollers, one for the front wheel and one for the back, or just one long one like our treadmill.

Now, instead of the piston engine connected to the wheels, you have one of the jet powered cars. Thrust comes from the jet and is not powering the wheels as in the case of our airplane. More power you turn on the faster the rollers rotate. The car is stationary. If the car is stationary, the plane will be to. And without forward movement, no lift on wings, thus no flight.

You have just proven hypothesis 1... you are a complete and total moron.

Thank you, thats all i needed to prove. Thanks for supporting me. I've proven hypotheis 1, and if i have proven that, then the plane cant fly. it logical.

Now you are STUPID :Q

And calling people stupid, of all adjectives, proves your expertise on the issue how? I wouldn't believe a word you said even if you wrote a dissertation on the subject purely based on your attitude.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
It takes a man to admit he is wrong, thats why i call you kids. anyways, i proved my point that the plane will not fly.

i work in the epicenter of the aerospace industry. Hughes, Raytheon, L3, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, ect are right here. We have engineers with Phds, and i'm embarrass to say, but i did consult with several of them right now and basically they told me to stop playing with these kids. BUT ALL OF THEM SAID THE PLANE CANNOT FLY!

it ends here.

Thank you, and when halloween rolls by, come trick or treatn by my house :beer:

Okay, now you're just clearly a liar and a troll.

what i lie about? Is that the only statement you can make? i cant prove him wrong so i'll call him a liar and a troll. LOL, cute little kid.

First of all, your pathetically feeble ad homeniem attacks, directly claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is plain trolling, and you really should apologize for such. Second, I know that no aerospace engineer would agree with your clearly incorrect position. And thirdly, you're citing no evidence, except mysterious claims that you've "talked to engineers" but have given us to believe you're anything but a thirteen year old in a basement waving a tired old arguing tactic around in a debate you seem to have no idea about. Simply put, everything you've said smells so strongly of troll that I can see the stink lines coming off of it.

I work at an engineering computer lab at UTexas. I have brought this issue up to senior aerospace engineers, and to aerospace engineering faculty (i.e. professors). I have yet to receive an answer from any stating that the plane will or will not take off. Who knows -- like I said before, test it.

http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/191034-1.html
Free registration required

 

[MasonLuke]

its very hard to test because of the technology behind the treadmill. Im sure it can be done on a very smaller scale, but it will cost you big bucks.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: sao123
http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/191034-1.html
Free registration required

I am very interested in reading the article, but very opposed to signing up to view one thread. Mind sending it to me via PM?

 

[Atheus]

MasonLuke:

You are heading for a ban, so I suggest you cease calling people stupid.

Also I don't think anyone believes you consulted with engineering PHDs on this. Did you use such wonderful sentences as 'it logical' when speaking to them? I bet they were impressed.

 

[MasonLuke]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
It takes a man to admit he is wrong, thats why i call you kids. anyways, i proved my point that the plane will not fly.

i work in the epicenter of the aerospace industry. Hughes, Raytheon, L3, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, ect are right here. We have engineers with Phds, and i'm embarrass to say, but i did consult with several of them right now and basically they told me to stop playing with these kids. BUT ALL OF THEM SAID THE PLANE CANNOT FLY!

it ends here.

Thank you, and when halloween rolls by, come trick or treatn by my house :beer:

Okay, now you're just clearly a liar and a troll.

I am almost willing to bet that I have worked for the same company for longer than he has been breathing (which is an aerospace transport comp).

ok kid

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: sao123
http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/191034-1.html
Free registration required

I am very interested in reading the article, but very opposed to signing up to view one thread. Mind sending it to me via PM?

how about a word document?
http://www.datafilehost.com/download.php?file=c6521278

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: Atheus
MasonLuke:

You are heading for a ban, so I suggest you cease calling people stupid.

Also I don't think anyone believes you consulted with engineering PHDs on this. Did you use such wonderful sentences as 'it logical' when speaking to them? I bet they were impressed.

I, however, have consulted aerospace engineering Ph.D.s, Ph.D. candidates, and pilots None of them spent any time reviewing the problem, so their answers were half-baked at best. Some said it would take off, some said it wouldn't.

 

[MasonLuke]

Originally posted by: Atheus
MasonLuke:

You are heading for a ban, so I suggest you cease calling people stupid.

Also I don't think anyone believes you consulted with engineering PHDs on this. Did you use such wonderful sentences as 'it logical' when speaking to them? I bet they were impressed.

and those calling me a moron or a motherfcker is ok. LOL. kids sticking up for one another. u need to be banned for calling only me out.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Atheus
MasonLuke:

You are heading for a ban, so I suggest you cease calling people stupid.

Also I don't think anyone believes you consulted with engineering PHDs on this. Did you use such wonderful sentences as 'it logical' when speaking to them? I bet they were impressed.

and those calling me a moron or a motherfcker is ok. LOL. kids sticking up for one another. u need to be banned for calling only me out.

And this kids lingo has got to stop! It is ridiculously cliche, and I too believe that most of them are far, far older than you. It is just indecent to call them kids.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Atheus
MasonLuke:

You are heading for a ban, so I suggest you cease calling people stupid.

Also I don't think anyone believes you consulted with engineering PHDs on this. Did you use such wonderful sentences as 'it logical' when speaking to them? I bet they were impressed.

and those calling me a moron or a motherfcker is ok. LOL. kids sticking up for one another. u need to be banned for calling only me out.

I am free to address only you if I choose, I did not 'call you out', and I did not defend others.

Why do you refer to people as kids? How old are you? Your writing style and attitude is extremely immature.

And why do you make such assured statements without evidence?

Example:

Now, instead of the piston engine connected to the wheels, you have one of the jet powered cars. Thrust comes from the jet and is not powering the wheels as in the case of our airplane. More power you turn on the faster the rollers rotate. The car is stationary. If the car is stationary, the plane will be to. And without forward movement, no lift on wings, thus no flight.

If I hook a tow rope to a regular car on a dyno (the rollers) and tug it with another car, it will come off the rollers and move. There is no difference I can see between that towing force and the force of a jet engine, so the argument that the wheels would turn on the rollers to absorb the power of the jet just does not convince me. Evidence man.

 

[MasonLuke]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Atheus
MasonLuke:

You are heading for a ban, so I suggest you cease calling people stupid.

Also I don't think anyone believes you consulted with engineering PHDs on this. Did you use such wonderful sentences as 'it logical' when speaking to them? I bet they were impressed.

and those calling me a moron or a motherfcker is ok. LOL. kids sticking up for one another. u need to be banned for calling only me out.

I am free to address only you if I choose, I did not 'call you out', I did not defend others.

Why do you refer to people as kids? How old are you? Your writing style and attitude is extremely immature.

And why do you make such assured statements without evidence?

Example:

Now, instead of the piston engine connected to the wheels, you have one of the jet powered cars. Thrust comes from the jet and is not powering the wheels as in the case of our airplane. More power you turn on the faster the rollers rotate. The car is stationary. If the car is stationary, the plane will be to. And without forward movement, no lift on wings, thus no flight.

If I hook a tow rope to a regular car on a dyno (the rollers) and tug it with another car, it will come off the rollers and move. There is no difference I can see between that towing force and the force of a jet engine, so the argument that the wheels would turn on the rollers to absorb the power just does not convince me. Evidence man.

what does pulling on a rope have to do with anything? the airplane isnt being pulled by a rope. u just added that for your benefit. LOL. stop changing things and stick with the program. try again.

 

[James Bond]

Imagine a treadmill.
Imagine a man in rollerblades standing on the treadmill.
Imagine another man, at the destination end, holding a rope which is tied to the man on the rollerblades.

If you turn the treadmill on, the man will stay stationary, given that the man on the end is holding the rope.

If the man on the end walks away, pulling the rope, the man on the rollerblades will be pulled--easily.

The man on the rollerblades is the jet. The man pulling the rope is the thrust from the engines.

EDIT: MasonLuke - If you cannot understand this analogy, I suggest you stay in school.

 

[MasonLuke]

Originally posted by: Tizyler
Imagine a treadmill.
Imagine a man in rollerblades standing on the treadmill.
Imagine another man, at the destination end, holding a rope which is tied to the man on the rollerblades.

If you turn the treadmill on, the man will stay stationary, given that the man on the end is holding the rope.

If the man on the end walks away, pulling the rope, the man on the rollerblades will be pulled--easily.

The man on the rollerblades is the jet. The man pulling the rope is the thrust from the engines.

what does pulling on a rope have to do with anything? the airplane isnt being pulled by a rope. u just added that for your benefit. LOL. stop changing things and stick with the program. try again

 

[James Bond]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Tizyler
Imagine a treadmill.
Imagine a man in rollerblades standing on the treadmill.
Imagine another man, at the destination end, holding a rope which is tied to the man on the rollerblades.

If you turn the treadmill on, the man will stay stationary, given that the man on the end is holding the rope.

If the man on the end walks away, pulling the rope, the man on the rollerblades will be pulled--easily.

The man on the rollerblades is the jet. The man pulling the rope is the thrust from the engines.

what does pulling on a rope have to do with anything? the airplane isnt being pulled by a rope. u just added that for your benefit. LOL. stop changing things and stick with the program. try again

Theoretically, being pulled on a rope is no different than being pushed by a jet engine.

If it is too troubling for you to understand, then imagine the man on rollerblades strapped to a jet engine.

 

[MasonLuke]

Originally posted by: Tizyler

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Tizyler
Imagine a treadmill.
Imagine a man in rollerblades standing on the treadmill.
Imagine another man, at the destination end, holding a rope which is tied to the man on the rollerblades.

If you turn the treadmill on, the man will stay stationary, given that the man on the end is holding the rope.

If the man on the end walks away, pulling the rope, the man on the rollerblades will be pulled--easily.

The man on the rollerblades is the jet. The man pulling the rope is the thrust from the engines.

what does pulling on a rope have to do with anything? the airplane isnt being pulled by a rope. u just added that for your benefit. LOL. stop changing things and stick with the program. try again

Theoretically, being pulled on a rope is no different than being pushed by a jet engine.

If it is too troubling for you to understand, then imagine the man on rollerblades strapped to a jet engine.

OMG, i cant believe you kids. obviously, you can pull someone or something with a rope. but i dont think that is what we are debating about.

 

[James Bond]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Tizyler

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Tizyler
Imagine a treadmill.
Imagine a man in rollerblades standing on the treadmill.
Imagine another man, at the destination end, holding a rope which is tied to the man on the rollerblades.

If you turn the treadmill on, the man will stay stationary, given that the man on the end is holding the rope.

If the man on the end walks away, pulling the rope, the man on the rollerblades will be pulled--easily.

The man on the rollerblades is the jet. The man pulling the rope is the thrust from the engines.

what does pulling on a rope have to do with anything? the airplane isnt being pulled by a rope. u just added that for your benefit. LOL. stop changing things and stick with the program. try again

Theoretically, being pulled on a rope is no different than being pushed by a jet engine.

If it is too troubling for you to understand, then imagine the man on rollerblades strapped to a jet engine.

OMG, i cant believe you kids. obviously, you can pull someone or something with a rope. but i dont think that is what we are debating about.

I'll say it again.
If it is too troubling for you to understand, then imagine the man on rollerblades strapped to a jet engine.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: Tizyler
Imagine a treadmill.
Imagine a man in rollerblades standing on the treadmill.
Imagine another man, at the destination end, holding a rope which is tied to the man on the rollerblades.

If you turn the treadmill on, the man will stay stationary, given that the man on the end is holding the rope.

If the man on the end walks away, pulling the rope, the man on the rollerblades will be pulled--easily.

The man on the rollerblades is the jet. The man pulling the rope is the thrust from the engines.

EDIT: MasonLuke - If you cannot understand this analogy, I suggest you stay in school.

Winnar. Or, better yet, the second person is behind the guy pushing on his back. He, of course, will move forward.

 

[MasonLuke]

Originally posted by: Tizyler

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Tizyler

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Tizyler
Imagine a treadmill.
Imagine a man in rollerblades standing on the treadmill.
Imagine another man, at the destination end, holding a rope which is tied to the man on the rollerblades.

If you turn the treadmill on, the man will stay stationary, given that the man on the end is holding the rope.

If the man on the end walks away, pulling the rope, the man on the rollerblades will be pulled--easily.

The man on the rollerblades is the jet. The man pulling the rope is the thrust from the engines.

what does pulling on a rope have to do with anything? the airplane isnt being pulled by a rope. u just added that for your benefit. LOL. stop changing things and stick with the program. try again

Theoretically, being pulled on a rope is no different than being pushed by a jet engine.

If it is too troubling for you to understand, then imagine the man on rollerblades strapped to a jet engine.

OMG, i cant believe you kids. obviously, you can pull someone or something with a rope. but i dont think that is what we are debating about.

I'll say it again.
If it is too troubling for you to understand, then imagine the man on rollerblades strapped to a jet engine.

and? he will not move forward unless u have a guy pulling him with a rope. anything else? i really dont understand why kids what to change the assumptions and add a rope.

if a guy on roller blades strapped to a jet engine was on the treadmill that can counter the rollerbladeswheels in the exact opposite direction, he willnot move forward.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke
what does pulling on a rope have to do with anything? the airplane isnt being pulled by a rope. u just added that for your benefit. LOL. stop changing things and stick with the program. try again.

According to our current understanding of physics, the rope is equivalent to the jet engine.

Do you dispute that?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think it is clear that MasonLuke has misunderstood the stipulations of the problem. He seems to begin with the assumption that the treadmill will move in the opposite direction with whatever speed is necessary to make the plane stand still.

This is not the case, however. The treadmill moves at the same speed as the plane but in the reverse direction. Consequently, the wheels will need to rotate twice as fast to cover the distance the plane would ordinarily travel plus the "pseudo-distance" added by the reverse motion of the treadmmill, which will be precisely equal to the distance that the plane would cover in the first place.

In order for the treadmill to force the plane to remain motionless, it would have to move at speeds MUCH greater than the forward speed of the plane. For that matter, if the plane was motionless, how could one conclude that the treadmill was moving at all? The precondition is that the treadmill moves as fast as the plane. If you assume the belt moves, you've already conceded that the plane moves. If you're arguing that the plane stands still, then it can't be due to the movement of the belt. When the plane's speed is zero, so should be the belt's.

EDIT: MasonLuke, you're not also an anti-evolutionist, by chance, are you?