Is it just me or are people fucking thick?

Bog · Post by **Bog** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:03 am 0

Good Christ. People actually think "Suction" is a force.....?!???!

GAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! NOOOOO!!!!!

*cries*

Mir Nyet · Post by **Mir Nyet** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:03 am 0

zip accident wrote:
Mir Nyet wrote:

this is quite a minor point of wording
Well, it is, and it isn't. I know the difference, and it seems you know the difference, but apparently a few pages ago piku didn't. He's training to be a teacher, so will be in a position to pass on any misunderstazndings.

Physics teaching has been trying to lose Centrifugal force and Suction as theoretical forces that are used in conversation by the general population since before I took O level physics in 1976. They are still confusing people, to this day, and the concepts shouldn't be propagated.

Anyhow, glad we can agree.

No problem...

Now, about those cute pictures? Any more?

Orava · Post by **Orava** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:14 am 0

Surely the push of the incredibly powerful jet engines is such that eventually it would not matter whether the plane would be on weels on a treadmill, on sledges or on stilts.

Anything pushed hard enough over a surface that is moving towards you at speed tends to ignore the forces of friction and just float over it. Whether the thing is on wheels, sledges or even if the surface is moving it soon becomes immaterial when enough power is applied.

kalmar · Post by **kalmar** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:16 am 0

~D4T45H4T~ wrote:
piku wrote:If this whole mental exercise is confusing you, just replace "aeroplane" with "man holding onto hang-glider, running on treadmill". Quite obviously he wouldn't take off. People running on treadmills feel no wind on their face because they aren't moving through the air. No airflow, no lift. No lift, no flight.

QED
Well that seems blindingly obvious to me too, hence the original thread title. How the hell this is 14 pages long is a mystery to me.

Because it's wrong and even a 20 second think would have told you that. A plane doesn't take off by running or indeed turning wheels against the surface it's sitting on.

Look here it is: analogy central.

You have a bicycle. Put it on the treadmill. Switch the treadmill on and hold the bike in place from the side. It will require a small effort, but you can easily overcome this and push the bike forwards on the treadmill and indeed off it altogether. Your arm is the jet engine, the bike is the plane, the bike wheels are the plane wheels.
Where exactly is the point where people start thinking it stays stationary?

Or it could be that you're just pretending not to get it to be funny, in which case, ha ha.

[edit] Wait, never mind, someone beat me to the analogy barrel

Bog · Post by **Bog** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:21 am 0

The assumption is that the engines aren't running, Kalmar, hence to force to the arm, hence gentle trundle off the back of the ramp.

Mir Nyet · Post by **Mir Nyet** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:24 am 0

kalmar wrote:
~D4T45H4T~ wrote:
piku wrote:If this whole mental exercise is confusing you, just replace "aeroplane" with "man holding onto hang-glider, running on treadmill". Quite obviously he wouldn't take off. People running on treadmills feel no wind on their face because they aren't moving through the air. No airflow, no lift. No lift, no flight.

QED
Well that seems blindingly obvious to me too, hence the original thread title. How the hell this is 14 pages long is a mystery to me.
Because it's wrong and even a 20 second think would have told you that. A plane doesn't take off by running or indeed turning wheels against the surface it's sitting on.

Look here it is: analogy central.

You have a bicycle. Put it on the treadmill. Switch the treadmill on and hold the bike in place from the side. It will require a small effort, but you can easily overcome this and push the bike forwards on the treadmill and indeed off it altogether. Your arm is the jet engine, the bike is the plane, the bike wheels are the plane wheels.
Where exactly is the point where people start thinking it stays stationary?

Or it could be that you're just pretending not to get it to be funny, in which case, ha ha.

It is 14 pages long because the blindingly obvious most often is not, so we are exploring

If you read the thread it has gone through a number of stages, from magical treadmills, to can be force the plane to be stationary, to can we dampen its thrust enough, and so on and so forth...

I have quite enjoyed this thread (as you can probably tell from the number of posts

) because it has forced me to think and re-think certain assumptions I initally made... Not a bad thing

kalmar · Post by **kalmar** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:24 am 0

What? Who made that assumption and why wasn't I copied on the memo?

You mean to say this entire thread was a waste of time?

Seriously though, the engines are running. Stop messing abaht.

Mir Nyet · Post by **Mir Nyet** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:25 am 0

Bog wrote:The assumption is that the engines aren't running, Kalmar, hence to force to the arm, hence gentle trundle off the back of the ramp.

Which thread have you been reading

kalmar · Post by **kalmar** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:29 am 0

Imagine a plane is sitting on a massive conveyor belt, as wide and as long as a runway, and intends to take off. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation.

Can the plane take off?

Well, if it "intends to take off" it's not going to do very well unless it spools up a motor or two, is it.

You're shaking the very foundations of the ludicrous proposition Bog, stop it.

sponge · Post by **sponge** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:33 am 0

piku wrote:
sponge wrote:You are all a bunch of thick, soft twats.

Due to friction, the plane will actually begin to move BACKWARDS.

Now, think about that one.
Does that mean the plane will try to fly into the ground? Plane wings don't work in reverse, they're the wrong shape.

Yeah, the plane will fly right through the ground, backwards. Only a Hobgoblin with +5 stamina and at least +2 agility would be able to stop it.

Bog · Post by **Bog** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:24 am 0

kalmar wrote:
Imagine a plane is sitting on a massive conveyor belt, as wide and as long as a runway, and intends to take off. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation.

Can the plane take off?
Well, if it "intends to take off" it's not going to do very well unless it spools up a motor or two, is it.

You're shaking the very foundations of the ludicrous proposition Bog, stop it.

I'm tehbly sohee, but if you're running the engines then why are you fucking well using a Magic Treadmill in the first place, you sap-gnawing anencephalic art critic????

If you want to get off the ground, stop fucking around and push the plane through the air. Or push air at the plane. Do not roll the ground under the plane. It really won't help you. It won't.

And, if you're running the engines - not that they're vectored thrust or anything shut up fil they're nacelled or pylonned or buried in the shut wing up root fil. You have linear thrust, shoving backwards, rolling the treadmill the other way. Total laminar flow of air over wing: Fuck all. Tonnes of irreplacable hydrocarbon burned FOR NOTHING! NOTHING!

Dubya invaded Iraq for the sake of this experiment.

I hope you feel proud.

~D4T45H4T~ · Post by **~D4T45H4T~** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:03 am 0

kalmar wrote:
~D4T45H4T~ wrote:
piku wrote:If this whole mental exercise is confusing you, just replace "aeroplane" with "man holding onto hang-glider, running on treadmill". Quite obviously he wouldn't take off. People running on treadmills feel no wind on their face because they aren't moving through the air. No airflow, no lift. No lift, no flight.

QED
Well that seems blindingly obvious to me too, hence the original thread title. How the hell this is 14 pages long is a mystery to me.
Because it's wrong and even a 20 second think would have told you that. A plane doesn't take off by running or indeed turning wheels against the surface it's sitting on.

Look here it is: analogy central.

You have a bicycle. Put it on the treadmill. Switch the treadmill on and hold the bike in place from the side. It will require a small effort, but you can easily overcome this and push the bike forwards on the treadmill and indeed off it altogether. Your arm is the jet engine, the bike is the plane, the bike wheels are the plane wheels.
Where exactly is the point where people start thinking it stays stationary?

Or it could be that you're just pretending not to get it to be funny, in which case, ha ha.

[edit] Wait, never mind, someone beat me to the analogy barrel

I can't tell if thats a joke or not?

Guru-Meditation · Post by **Guru-Meditation** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:01 am 0

Bog wrote:Good Christ. People actually think "Suction" is a force.....?!???!

You obviously never kissed my ex.

disciple · Post by **disciple** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:54 am 0

Bog wrote:The assumption is that the engines aren't running, Kalmar

Whaaaaaaa?

Where's the assumption come from?

goldfish · Post by **goldfish** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:20 am 0

To save me going through every page of this thread, can someone tell me where Jedburgh posted that in fact, it's 'he' that's the idiot in this particular case...?

Cheers,
Simon