Riddle Me This.....Before My Brain Implodes!

[Israphel]

I say we kill the thread starter for beginning the mess.

Agreed

 

[Raffi_B]

Oh great, okay, AGAIN, RELATIVITY.

If I was on the same damned train, running backwards at 20 m/s, a dude on the train would say that I'm running at 20 m/s, but a guy standing next to the tracks would say that I'm essentially not moving.

You can be both moving forward and standing still. It's called relativity and perspective.

Stating if the plane is "moving foward" probably meant relative to the conveyor. If not, the question is pathetically stated and I say we kill the thread starter for beginning the mess.

If we're talking in terms of the conveyor, then how would the conveyor be moving backwards relative to itself? It's impossible. The question has to be worded in terms of a stationary observer, or it would fall apart.

The plane moves. Therefore, the plane takes off. There really isn't much of a debate here other than the fact that the question is phrased really stupidly.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Technically you are considered moving forward if you are walking backward on a conveyor belt.

 

[namu]

Stating if the plane is "moving foward" probably meant relative to the conveyor. If not, the question is pathetically stated and I say we kill the thread starter for beginning the mess.

And then the conveyor would be moving opposite relative to itself ? Doesn't make sense.

All that matters is the plane moving relative to air. Conveyor belt and wheels are RED HERRING. Engines make plane move forward relative to air and rest of the world.

 

[Raffi_B]

Technically you are considered moving forward if you are walking backward on a conveyor belt.

This is the same thing airmoran pointed out. However, it doesn't work (see my previous post).

 

[sid]

Oh great, okay, AGAIN, RELATIVITY.

If I was on the same damned train, running to the back at 20 m/s, a dude on the train would say that I'm running at 20 m/s, but a guy standing next to the tracks would say that I'm essentially not moving.

You can be both moving forward and standing still. It's called relativity and perspective.

Stating if the plane is "moving foward" probably meant relative to the conveyor. If not, the question is pathetically stated and I say we kill the thread starter for beginning the mess.

Force is being applied but the action is not being performed. The position of the plane remains the same. No wind will pass through the wings.

 

[namu]

The position of the plane remains the same.

I challenge your affirmation.

The plane is moving, as stated in the question itself. Also, I fail to see what in the described scene would prevent the plane from moving relative to the world / air.

Come on, the sooner we reach a consensus the sooner this thread dies and we can all forget about your embarassment

 

[Raffi_B]

Force is being applied but the action is not being performed. The position of the plane remains the same. No wind will pass through the wings.

You're ignoring the fact that the question explicitly states that the plane is moving. It can't be moving and be stationary at the same time if we're looking at it from an outsider's point of view.

As I said, this question is just one of those that you just get angry at because it's not physics related at all. The way the question is phrased is just to trick you. The plane is moving.

 

[sid]

What according to you is the purpose of the conveyer?

 

[Israphel]

What according to you is the purpose of the conveyer?

TO TRICK YOU INTO THINKING IT HAS SOME RELEVENCE TO THE ISSUE.

IT DOESN'T!

 

[namu]

Confusing the hell out of you. I can safely say it's working.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

This is the same thing airmoran pointed out. However, it doesn't work (see my previous post).

It does work.

But it makes more sense if you think about how the wheels of a plane work in relation to other motorized vehicles.

A car uses it's wheels as a source of thrust, and in the same vein any motorized object that uses it's base as it's source of movement would be standing still on the conveyor belt with exactly opposite force.

However, if an airplane's wheels are indeed free-rotating, it will takeoff. The reason is that the wheels are just going to rotate the speed of the conveyor plus the speed of the airplane in the direction of the airplane. If the airplane provides no power to the wheels. It will take the plane longer to take off but it will in fact take off.

edit: yes I saw the other side

 

[sid]

Oh nevermind Im going to sleep goodnight you guys!! ohhh........my head!!

 

[Raffi_B]

You're overanalyzing it, brizz. We have two options for frames of reference. The first is from the point of view of the conveyor. This can't work because the question explicitly states that both the plane and conveyor are moving. How can the conveyor move relative to itself? A frame of reference has to be stationary relative to itself.

Therefore there is only one other option. We have to look at it from a stationary observer. Since it says the plane is moving, the plane will take off. Ignore the stuff about the wheels. It's just that simple.

 

[The_Head]

Hehe I remember this one

http://www.twistedforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7722&highlight=plane+runway

Some interesting explanations all around

 

[Sir_Brizz]

You're overanalyzing it, brizz. We have two options for frames of reference. The first is from the point of view of the conveyor. This can't work because the question explicitly states that both the plane and conveyor are moving. How can the conveyor move relative to itself? A frame of reference has to be stationary relative to itself.

Therefore there is only one other option. We have to look at it from a stationary observer. Since it says the plane is moving, the plane will take off. Ignore the stuff about the wheels. It's just that simple.

The question is why is the plane moving? My explanation covers it just fine. The wheels have no power, thus create no friction/traction. A car would be standing still. A plane without power to the wheels would not, the wheels would be moving twice as fast in the opposite direction of the plane, but it would not prevent the plane from moving.

 

[Raffi_B]

That can be an explanation, but it's not relevant to the riddle at all. It asked if the plane could take off, and the answer is yes.

 

[Israphel]

Good fun that....lets have another one (preferably better worded).

But can we lock this now....my Inbox is getting really full of "You have just recieved a message from Beyond Unreal Forums"

 

[Sir_Brizz]

That can be an explanation, but it's not relevant to the riddle at all. It asked if the plane could take off, and the answer is yes.

Yah, it wasn't meant to answer the riddle but explain why the answer to the riddle is yes, it can take off.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

I can imagine it taking it off, although the weight of the plane on its wheels did make me think for a minute.

Now, why people are being a little arsey about hypothetical questions, that's an interesting question.