Tim:

Actually, what the Rockwell people are saying is it won't fly without the Automation Retro-Encabulator. But that equipment wasn't included in the original scenario. So it won't fly....

So, which came first: the chicken or the egg? Why?

I thought that the Earth ORBITS around the sun and revolves around it's AXIS. No?
:p

Hehe. All the guys here at work found that hilarious.
Yes, it's an engineering department...

So in answer to the title of this thread....

apparently not! ;-)

Hmmm....if you read the whole thread, I think the answer is still out there waiting to be found!

(I think it will fly because the wheels decouple the airframe (where the thrust is) from the conveyor belt.)

That's great Michael, you may have the ultimate post on this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One Michael to another!

Mike

The Plane indeed will fly
 

The Classical Question of “Chicken and Egg”, this question is always asked and asked, therefore I have devised a simple FAQ

Question:

“What came first the Chicken or the Egg?”

Answer:

This question was first asked to demonstrate the circular argument for biogenesis, its a circular reference and thus can not have an answer, it ends in an infinite regress. The only solution is an external agent that is not dependent within the co-dependent loop, i.e. a Creator.

Formal mathematical answer:

(1) Co-existence of two co-dependent entities A and B
(2) A can not exist without the prior existence of B
(3) B can not exist without the prior existence of A
(4) From (2) and (3) a closed loop occurs.

Therefore either can not come first (due to the closed loop), the ONLY solution is to have an independent agent OUTSIDE of the closed loop to bring about the first entity within the loop.


I hope that helps

Anhar Hussain Miah

P.S The plane does fly, I was going to derive from first principle, INCLUDING the control system mathematics involved in the "treadmill", because the feedback system will indeed have a slight delay, but in the end I realised that unlike a Car that requires the friction between the wheel and the road to move forward, the the plane uses propulsion from the engines thrust to move forward (thats the key difference) and perhaps the reason as to why people are having problems in visualizing the riddle.

Some good points stated here and some that seem a bit slanted by a version of Creation Theory.

About chickens: In fact, an egg is a part of every chicken, as much as a placenta and umbilical cord are or have been a part of each one of us. It's included in our genetic codes to have them, even though at hatching or birth, they are discarded and only a small reminder is evident in our case, that they were ever present (Mariette Hartley having two and Kyle XD having none, being rare exceptions). Therefore, neither the chicken or the egg came first, as being integral parts of a single entity, they evolved together from the earliest ancestor that was a clump of self-replicating proteins in the sea. This amorphous forebear preceded eggs, legs, wings or early morning crowing, but nevertheless, is the root of the chicken's family tree.

Mr J. Stephen McDonald, with the greatest of respect I have to stress and disagree that, Unfortunately your entire reasoning depends on assuming from the very foundation that the Modern Synthesis of evolution is actually correct, however a very large part of humanity does not subscribe to that philosophical worldview, further more I see no scientific reason to accept such a false model.

Of course I can see this thread descending into Evolution Vs ID debate, which I will gracefully wish to opt out for the sake of the thread.

However if you wish to know why I have come to such a conclusion, then if you email me I will be more than happy to email the entire transcript of my formal debate on the very topic (Which I won) :)

Anhar Hussain Miah

Thank you in advance, as we will not use this forum to debate evolution vs. intelligent design. They are, after, completely synonymous terms which both describe the exact same process (in other words, evolution is the mechanism of creation). Thus a "debate" is not only inappropriate, but also impossible, at least in the context of this forum. There, I've managed to iterate that we will not pursue poltical or religious topics here, while getting my own viewpoint aired. Now I can enjoy the morning. Yes, the plane will fly.

If there is no air moving over the wings (no airspeed), there is no lift and there may as well not be any wings at all. It is difficult to take off without wings. However, it is possible to take off without wheels.

As for the lasers, I believe c+k = c, so the light will arrive at the same time regardless of the plane's sublight speed. I could be wrong, though, as I am not well versed in physics.

1. Who says there's no air moving over the wings?

2. This assumption is based on the theory that there's the equivalent of a universe-wide grid, within which light moves at a uniform speed that relates only to the grid and not to any motion of an object within the grid, from which the light emanates. The obvious fallacy in this theory is, that if it were true, there would be no Doppler Effect, which causes light coming from celestial bodies to shift in its position in the color spectrum, in relation to its relative speed, towards or away from an observer.

Arrrghh! This thread has reappeared!
Dang it. I KNEW we shoulda locked this thread last time it went quiet!
;-)

unanswered information
 

The laser question doesn't give enough information. Is the target in the air or on the ground? Is it an orbiting deathstar satellite? What altitude? How high up is the tower where the laser is?

Depending on this info, the distance from the target to the planes laser might be less than the distance from the tower to the target. If the distance is less, the closest laser beam will strike first.

I just found this thread for the first time, read through every reply and I have to go ahead and say ... that I really have no idea what the plane will do.

I'm kind of lost why this hasn't come to a consensus. We were just talking about a problem similar to this in my PHYS261 class. It was a slightly different setup but same properties. The plane will never move off the conveyor belt and thus never generate enough lift via wind velocity (see Bernoulli's principle) to get off the ground. Regardless of the propulsion provided by the engines, the plane cannot leave the conveyor belt if it matches its velocity.

The comparison made previously with ice is not similar in any way. Ice is simply a frictionless surface; this conveyor belt actively negates any horizontal force exerted on the craft to move it.

Yay, Ben... That was my argument back in the early posts. Took a lot of heat from most....

I can't believe I'm going to reply again but what heck, it's a slow Friday night. Ben, the plane will take off. Here's the Straight Dope:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060203.html

THE PLANE HAS WHEELS!!!!!!!!!!!

Ben, please send me your physics instructor's email so I can advise him/her to fail you!
;-)

I'm going to resist the almost overwhelming urge to lock this thread. Instead, I think I'll just mercilessly taunt anyone who re-posts any arguments or facts, correct or faulty, that have already been stated earlier in this ridiculously long thread. And then I shall taunt you a second time.

Ben, the mistake you are making is the assumption that the plane will be stationary because the belt matches its speed. I made this mistake too, as you will see if you read the thread. In a realistic scenario there is not enough friction between the plane and belt for this to happen, therefore the plane will eventually move ahead and fly regardless of what speed the belt is running at.

Pete

For the LOVE OF GOD.... FOR WHATEVEVER you hold dear...

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD!!!!

You're killing me man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Post #11... THE CORRECT ANSWER)

Don't forget that excellent post #21.

It may be somewhat frustrating, I agree, but no real reason to close it. If it were just about how irritating a post can be, there would be dozens of them closed, starting with most of the ones that ask, "What Tape Do You Use In Your---------," and Should I Use A Cleaning Tape, and What Kind?"

Mike :)

Hey Ben. We jeanusus has to stik two gather !!

Hmmm...

interesting. "speed" in the proposed situation needs to be clarified...ground speed or air speed?

In this problem, if it was ground speed that the conveyor belt would match, there is an issue with theoretical reponse time...

If the conveyor responded instantly (since we're theoretical, we can do that), and it was groundspeed, from the wheels, the jet engines would move the airplane itself forward regardless of the conveyor belt's acceleration as the airplane moves itself through the air...the wheels would be turning infinitley fast as they would continue to accelerate as the belt would accelerate to compensate for the fact the wheels are attached to the plane, which would move forward based on the engines pushing the body, without direct relationship to the wheels rotation speed and inverse motion of the conveyor ...negating kinetic friction of the rubber and the conveyor surface and any operating range of bearings and bushings and flash point of any flammable lubricants contained therein...which would most likely simply incinerate the wheels during the whole procedure...provided the conveyor didn't simply fly apart.

If the conveyor responded to airspeed...largely the same scenario would apply, with the exception of the acceleration curve probably wouldn't be as steep as the groundspeed scenario because the response of the conveyor would be directly inverse to the forward motion of the aircraft (without the acceleration influence of the conveyor's compensatory movement on the wheel acceleration, which creates wheel speed as a rapidly increasing multiple of actual forward motion due to the wheels direct contact with the conveyor), though the acceleration would still be a bit of a logarithmic curve as the belt will have to accelerate, but would max out at the exact inverse of lift off speed.

In the airspeed compensation scenario, the wheels would rotate at a theoretical maximum of 2X liftoff speed (1X for the aircraft forward motion, another 1X to compensate for the inverse belt movement), whereas the groundspeed scenario could create an almost infinite amount of wheel acceleration.

If the wheels didn't burn up and the conveyor belt held together, in either case the airplane would move based on the engines pushing the fuselage, not the relative speed of the wheels, therefore it WOULD move and would takeoff.

:-) Whew!

Ah...yes in the scenario we discussed in class, the conveyor belt (or in our class' example a wheel) was motorized to match the velocity of the airplane.

Actually, our problem dealt with a model plane and a weight, and did involve friction, although it was not stressed as the reason for taking off...I'll take a peek at it again. Perhaps not so parallel a problem after all. Although it still seems to me that if the conveyor belt is actively...no wait, I guess it's frictionless. Sigh.

*steps back* you should probably lock this now.

My Mom is a Mensa member, I am not. I have not read any other responses so here's my input (or lack thereof)...
If I understand it correctly, the plane isn't moving forward, it's staying stationary while this giant belt rolls under the wheels....
No, the plane would have no lift so it could not take off... unless it had thrust similar to a Harrier jet's vertical takeoff, lol...
As long as the pilot doesn't "hit the brakes." (edit)

Ok Dave, I warned earlier that I'd taunt anyone who re-posted info that was already in the thread! Taunt: Of course you're not in Mensa; how could you pass the test if you don't READ!

I may taunt you a second time later, but there's hockey game on the Idiot Box (InHD) at present.

The plane flys.
Weight any 3 cubes against any 3 cubes,then any 2 from the heavy set.
1hour 30minutes.

Apparently "Myth Busters" will be taking this little problem on so we'll finally get to see this setup in action. :-)

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/28...s-tackles.html

" the next episode of MythBusters (airing this Wednesday). It tackles the famous "plane on a conveyor belt problem," that has pitted brother against brother and friend against friend for years.

To get to the bottom of the thought-problem, Adam and Jamie used a real plane, in this case a 400-lb ultralight, and a large conveyor belt. Did the plane take off? You'll have to wait until Wednesday to find out, but Adam said even the pilot guessed wrong."

So, today's Wednesday.... a whole week to wait!

I would have thought that the plane would not take off, but since the airplane pilot guessed wrong.... who knows!

Several pilots on this thread have conflicting opinions. I'm a pilot, and I say it flies.

I figured they would get to this one at one point...... is that tonight....?

Watching it right now...here's what I've identified as a problem with this DVInfo thread:

The problem statement is incorrectly or ambiguously stated. The original problem statement (as far as I know):

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=348452

Whereas the the way it is in this forum:

The difference is subtle but critical and I believe goes a long way to explain the vehement disagreement we have endured. The latter statement is ambiguous, leading to two very different interpretations.

I leave it to you to spot the difference!

I was one who said it wouldn't fly, but first test with came off showing it would, but I don't think they really matched speed with treadmill.

Did I miss it??? I thought it was next week! I assume it flew... VINDICATED!

Yes, verily vindicated!

Though the way they did it was rather unscientific which doesn't suit my scientific (in)sensibilities but does suit my boys and their toys bent.

Oh - it was on at 9e, perhaps it will be on at 9p?

Cool it's on at eight pm here in California. Funny, they do a lot of their outdoor testing just up 101 from me, in the old Naval Yards.

I don't think the original statement here is 'wrong' or confusing. Even if you gave the treadmill a slight 'head start' - the plane would still accelerate independent of the speed of the treadmill.

I was hoping they'd get to this...did somebody here suggest it on their site, or was this just coincidence?

I have to agree that the question as posed in this thread is a bit confusing, only because of "And there is also a device on the plane that communicates with the conveyor belt to tell it how fast the plane is traveling". How fast the plane is traveling? That means it's moving. If it's moving forward fast enough, it can create the necessary lift to take off, so the entire point is moot, as you've just explained the thing is able to move. The more appropriate setup would be to match the speed of the wheels' rotation, as John pointed out, but that only changes the way the situation is stated, not the fundamental principles involved. The whole thing is difficult to imagine just from the question, as whether the belt matches the wheels or the body of the plane, it wouldn't have anything to match if there were not already motion, and once the plane gets moving, well, problem solved.

I think the biggest problem here is to get hung up, as I initially did, on the Bernoulli effect, and to focus on how wings generate lift, forgetting that you've already made the mistake of assuming the plane does not move forward. "Can a conveyor belt stop an aircraft from moving forward?" might be a better question, excluding of course helicopters and those pontoon-equipped dealies that land in water. Since the propulsion of the aircraft has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the wheels, I should say the answer is a definite 'no'. The wheels can spin as fast as they need to, the landing gear could snap off if it came to that, even skidding on its belly the thing would create lift if it had enough thrust behind it. I don't know if a jumbo jet is really built to overcome that kind of friction, even with four enormous engines, but you get the idea; unless this conveyor system is on the moon or underwater, there's plenty of air for the jets or propellors to send backward in the pursuit of thrust.