<p>And a third:</p>
<p>"@Sky, he was dogmatic because he refuted me despite me not saying anything that was technically wrong. "</p>
<p>Now I’m just being thorny.</p>
<p>The “just kidding” applied to “wrong,” not the previous technically incorrect statement.</p>
<p>No, you’re being dogmatic, which was my point. Neither of the examples you posted were from posts in which I was technically wrong (see my previous post). However, there was a post in this thread in which I said something that was technically wrong, although correctly expected that you would not point out the right one and instead would point out the posts in which I was correct but you didn’t read closely enough. I’m the one being thorny.</p>
<p>You were wrong in all three posts. And you were wrong in others, but I didn’t feel like taking statements from 4 pages earlier that were totally irrelevant and out of context.</p>
<p>Please tell me how this statement is correct: ““Do you disagree that another, technically not wrong, reading of “same speed as the plane”, means “same speed as the plane, relative to the treadmill”? This is equivalent to "the treadmill moves at whatever speed necessary to keep the plane steady relative to the ground””</p>
<p>The bolded part is what’s wrong. The first sentence gives the context.</p>
<p>River,</p>
<p>dogmatic</p>
<p>adj 1: characterized by arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles</p>
<p>I still don’t see how his attitude or behavior was in any way dogmatic. Like I said, if anything, the above definition applies to you. And you claim you didn’t say anything technically wrong? Hehe. I find that funny since you supported a position that is clearly wrong. You should be a lawyer instead of an engineer… that would make me feel a little better too knowing I don’t have to rely on your “lateral thinking” and “internally consistent” (but wrong) thinking if/once you become an engineer. I still stand by the statement of improper use of vocabulary. </p>
<p>If you didn’t find any of the correct solutions distasteful, you certainly didn’t make that clear to me or anyone else reading this thread. You thoroughly defended an approach to this problem that is not only lacking in insight, but more importantly, a methodology that flies in the face of engineering principles. </p>
<p>I think you should be a bit more careful taking care of yourself before you ruin your own image trying to defend someone else. </p>
<p>Please do not take my comments in a hostile manner. I did not come here to start any flame wars or get into any personal attacks on anyone. I came here to defend physics, mathematics, and and engineering, as I was requested to do so from the same topic in the Engineering board.</p>
<p>None of those three statements were wrong, and that is where Slorg’s dogma comes into play. If you wish me to clarify, I’m fully willing to take the discussion offline. I took none of your comments in a hostile manner - the comments that I take personally were the statements such as “You are stupid.” directed at others and later me. Even if it ruins my reputation I will not let these gross injustices get away without a fight.</p>
<p>So it’s grossly injust of me to respond to your claim that you were never technically wrong by posting three technically wrong quotes?</p>
<p>You make me laugh out loud.</p>
<p><em>waves</em> hi all :)</p>
<p>I think some of us got worked up about the physics in this thread – I certainly did. But we can all agree that the silly invective started with Slorg. Before that, the harshest statement was made by me, to the tune of “you don’t want to engage with simple geometry.”</p>
<p>This should be a lesson in why it’s important to hold off on the hysterics if you don’t want to get into an unpleasant situation. In this thread, lots of people (including me) were on the wrong side, but came out looking fine. Slorg was right, but came out looking pretty bad.</p>
<p>P.S. Slorg, I’m sorry you lost respect for me, and if you’d like to talk, or if there’s anything I can do for you, please always feel free to contact me.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the correct way to phrase this problem:</p>
<p>An infinitely long runway (thin slab of concrete) rests on a frictionless sheet of ice. An airplane whose rubber wheels are mounted on frictionless ball bearings is on the runway and the engines are turned on at full power. Does the airplane take off?</p>
<p>(This removes the business about having to describe how the runway moves. While it does turn out in the end that the runway moves backward at the rate the airplane is moving forward, that does not need to be stated as a condition of the problem.)</p>
<p>I’d rather be right and look bad than vice versa. Think John Brown and abolition. And every other successful progressive movement of the last 200 years.</p>
<p>(Don’t read too far into this.)</p>
<p>"An infinitely long runway (thin slab of concrete) rests on a frictionless sheet of ice. An airplane whose rubber wheels are mounted on frictionless ball bearings is on the runway and the engines are turned on at full power. Does the airplane take off?</p>
<p>(This removes the business about having to describe how the runway moves. While it does turn out in the end that the runway moves backward at the rate the airplane is moving forward, that does not need to be stated as a condition of the problem.)"</p>
<p>If you had frictionless ball bearings, the runway wouldn’t be affected by the motion of the plane.</p>
<p>Being petulant and hurling insults needlessly on a message board doesn’t quite compare with progressive political reform. Sorry, darling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is incorrect, assuming the wheels are fixed to face forward.</p>
<p>“Being petulant and hurling insults needlessly on a message board doesn’t quite compare with progressive political reform. Sorry, darling.”</p>
<p>This is true.</p>
<p>"An infinitely long runway (thin slab of concrete) rests on a frictionless sheet of ice. An airplane whose rubber wheels are mounted on frictionless ball bearings is on the runway and the engines are turned on at full power. Does the airplane take off?</p>
<p>(This removes the business about having to describe how the runway moves. While it does turn out in the end that the runway moves backward at the rate the airplane is moving forward, that does not need to be stated as a condition of the problem.)"</p>
<p>No. Are you familiar with Newtonian physics or force diagrams? The runway will move forward (or not at all). Where does the force come from that could move it backward?? Friction with the air??</p>
<p>Oh, good point. The runway would move forward, and we would just have a very heavy airplane.</p>
<p>You see, the problem I’m trying to fix is a possible logical flaw in the problem statement. In saying “the treadmill runs in the opposite direction at the same speed the plane is moving”, the problem assumes a certain situation is possible. While this happens to be true, there should be a way of stipulating it without tying together the velocities like that. Or at least, so it seems to me.</p>
<p>The whole point is that they can be moving at equal speeds, but still have net movement occur because of the wheels. If the problem was with a car rather than a plane, then the car couldn’t takeoff, and the sliding runway setup would work.</p>
<p>Yeah, but you see, the point is that the situation in question requires some kind of mechanical artifice to maintain that relationship in their speeds (since it wouldn’t happen “naturally”, as you pointed out above). It is not a priori clear how to operate that machine to achieve the desired effect.</p>
<p>Where are the MythBusters when you need them?</p>
<p>I sincerely hope that the people who have been saying that it would stand still are NOT from MIT.</p>
<p>What do wheels have to do with taking off on an airplane? NOTHING! Who the **** cares what the runway does (if the plane’s bearings are good enough)??? Draw yourself a *<strong><em>ing force diagram at least. Make sure to draw some nice jet engines or at least propellers. *</em></strong> A plane does not work like a car while taking off.</p>
<p>EDIT: Oops, I didn’t realize there were 8 pages… anyway, The riddle does have a flaw in it, because it doesnt say what the treadmill would match the speed to. If it were to match the planes speed with regard to the treadmill itself, it would cause it to go to infinity which can’t happen…</p>