WILL IT FLY Veeky Forums?

That has nothing to do with the inquiry

Pretending for a moment the treadmill was long enough for take off, the plane would easily take off

There is no force on the wheels, it's frictionless. The turbines are separate and thrust the plane forward

Once up to speed, the lift generated would lift the plane into flight

if it is stationary there is no lift generated

yes it does have everything to do with the inquiry. the implication is that the plane remains stationary relative to the air in the room. the jet engines on planes only provide horizontal force, the vertical force needed for flight comes from airflow under the wings, which requires the plane to be moving relative to the air.

If an unstoppable force pushes against an immovable object, then who was phone?

Its not stationary, the treadmill can't oppose the thrust of the turbines.

The turbines push the plane forward, the air sweeps under the planes wings as it moves forward, this generates lift, and the plane rises.

Theres a reason why a 747's wings bow upward when at like 150 knots its the lift from the air rushing over its wings

Why do people think that if a plane's wheels are frictionless, somehow the treadmill will magically stop the forward motion of the plane.

I dont think you understand OP's scenario. The idea is that the plane isn't being pushed forward as you say, rather it remains stationary relative to the air, floor, and treadmill.

What EXACTLY is stopping the thrust of the turbines?

If the wheels were completely frictionless, then yes, the turbines would provide a horziontal force on the air and we would take off, the treadmill spinning faster and faster unti infinity.
If there was some friction in the wheels, the treadmill would provide a negative force and prevent takeoff.

why does it matter? the point of the scenario is that the plane doesn't move. if you're trying to say the plan will lift off if it moves... congratulations? everyone already knows that dipshit

There isn't anywhere near enough friction on the wheels to ever stop the massive turbines' thrust.

Theres 4 gigantic rolls rolls royce turbine engines that produce some 46k+ pounds of thrust.

You probably can't come up with enough force for that as a boeing 747-700 will probably generate enough force to over come the wheels with the parking brake on.

You're a fucking idiot, its implied the plane turns on its engines and attempts to move forward

Maybe because they understand physics better than you do.

...

The question is: who designed the treadmill?
Answer me that and then I shall consider your question.

you have shit reading comprehesion. the goal of the thought exercise isn't to try to figure out if the plane is moving or not. it's obviously not supposed to be moving, you're not answering the question by asserting the plane does, in fact, move, you're just outing yourself as an autist

Its implied that the plane attempts to take off with the question "can it take off"

asking irrelevant questions like "well is the parking brake on?" or "you didn't say it turns the engines on :^)" is pointless

>a scenario where the plane is not moving
>thought exercise

literally no one will claim the plane will take off

meant for

yes, some normie tards will claim the plane will take off

so you're basically arguing that the plane will roll off the treadmill and take off? you honestly think that's the secret answer to the question?

I'm not agreeing with you fucknugget

>Neglecting friction
>Tires spinning

Nice kek but wrong.

yeah you're an utter moron, that's exactly the type of answer i'd expect once you've been backed into a corner

lash out

They aint connected to a fuckin engine user.

u ever played a game called garry's mod?

just build a conveyor belt that move in a direction opposite to where u want 2 test ur object to go, place four wheels that provide no energy to a light pole, and place a jet engine on the back of the light pole.

Tell me which direction it goes.

Up?

u gotta play gmod to understand.

No because the plane is at rest in the air's frame.

the engines would fly off the plane since the plane is physically incapable of moving

No it cannot take off because the plane has no speed relative to the belt from which it needs to take off. However it can only take off when air's resistance, which depends upon speed, is great enough. If speed = 0 therefore no air resistance to take off.

>it's obviously not supposed to be moving
That is not at all obvious. Explain your reasoning.

>physically incapable of moving
I keep seeing people say this, but I'm yet to see a good argument for it.

Wheels on cars drive the cars.

Wheels on airplanes roll, and brake. They do not power the airplane.

When the engines make enough thrust, the plane will take off.

You fucking brainlet. v-v=0

>No it cannot take off because the plane has no speed relative to the belt from which it needs to take off
It doesn't matter about the relative speed vs the treadmill. The treadmill can''t over come the thrust of the engines if the wheels are frictionless

>so you're basically arguing that the plane will roll off the treadmill and take off?
Yes because the threadmill literally can't do shit about the thrust of the engines

because the idea that it rolls off the treadmill and flies normally is retarded? if it's not supposed to remain stationary then you're arguing if jet engines can overcome a treadmill which is so retarded even normies wouldn't fall for it?

Friction = df

There I fixed it.

>if jet engines can overcome a treadmill which is so retarded even normies wouldn't fall for it?
How does the treadmill stop the thrust of the engines?

no shit, that's so obvious it should be obvious that the plane is supposed to remain stationary as a given in the question

it doesn't. it's not a real scenario. its a meme question. you must be amazing at parties.

The plane won't be stationary though, the thrust of the engines will propel the plane forward

no amount of speed the treadmill spins at will oppose the forward motion of the plane. This is because there is no equal and opposing force against the engines. The net vector here is ONLY forward. The wheels are frictionless and don't affect the forward motion of the plane regardless of how fast it attempts to spin. They're separate entities in a system

You retard tires cannot spin if there's no friction.

>this treadmill stops the speed of the plane
>how?
>it doesn't :^)

sdfvsdv

the wheel bearing is frictionless, not the tires against the surface. We know the tires grip but the wheels on a plane spin freely and don't power the plane

Do you have a better argument than "it's retarded"?
>if it's not supposed to remain stationary then you're arguing if jet engines can overcome a treadmill
That's the discussion, yes.

>Wheel bearing is frictionless
Nice meme but that is equivalent to say that the tires spin on the surface without friction.

>you must be amazing at parties
>is the autist being a contrarian memelord

You're making strange assumptions. Nowhere is it implied that the plane is "supposed" to remain stationary.

No its not, do you even know where the wheel bearing is?

The wheels about the axle are virtually frictionless, they're oiled and lubricated to spin freely. We know the wheel's tire grips the tarmac.

the argument is that the intention of the creator is this scenario is clear. obviously the nothing would overcome the thrust from the jet engines. it's so obvious that it should make you question if that's what the creator's intention was all along (it wasn't).

and yes, normies are so stupid they would think the plane might take off if it's not moving

>Jet engines overcome the treadmill
The op is literally autistic.

This isn't it.

This is a simple physics problem that easily separates the people who don't understand how physics work and those that do.

Everyone who says "no the plane can't fly" is flat out wrong

the intention was to expose retards who think planes work like cars, not whatever dumb shit you're arguing

The assumption you're making about the creator's "intention" is not "clear" to the general reader, and is in no way implied in OP's image.

Simply writing down an equation is not an argument.

>its not clear
you're obviously autistic. Not easily understanding what the OP's pic is directly implying is a symptom of autism where you seem to lack the ability to comprehend simple things

This isn't a "no it doesn't take off" and you don't understand the physics, thats one thing but you're fucking autistic if you''re trying to reinterpret or you misinterpret the idea of the text

I'm partially convinced I'm being trolled in this thread but for all the morons who are saying the plane isn't obviously supposed to remain stationary... maybe I'm just too old for this shit ass board full of undergraduates with a baseless sense of pride but this is an old joke question that's been around for so long they've covered it on mythbusters

go ahead and look at pic related. does it look like the plane is supposed to "roll off" the belt? no. furthermore, if that were meant as a possibility, the OP would have drawn his picture radically different, with there being lots of space for the plane to roll.

you're autistic

jesus christ stop posting

see morons

here's your (You)

here's your gold star

maybe one day you'll win an argument

there's no argument to win

this entire thread is shitposting for the sake of it

You're just trying to shift the goalposts because you were proven wrong. Stop grasping at straws and basing arguments on some fictional interpretation of the "intention" of the creator.
Also, calling people autistic isn't an argument and just makes you sound like a child.

Just what do you win by pretending to be retarded in order to bait people? Isn't your time worth anything? If this is your fun I pity you.

>Question is "will it take off?"
>It's obviously not meant to take off because I said so.
Great argument.

you're autistic

you people don't understand the stupidity of the normie

yes, obviously there's no counterforce to overcome the force of the jets, if you were paying attention you would have realized i already said that

you people LITERALLY have autism because you can't interpret the fact that this question is a joke designed for people with no understanding of physics. I never said the plane wasn't supposed to take off, I said the plane was supposed to remain stationary, because physics neophytes wouldn't know any better.

>no guys I was only pretending to be retarded
>watch as I regurgitate all your arguments then call you stupid for my plagiarism

god youre a massive faggot

I already stated that like 20 minutes ago. you still dont understand my argument. you are beyond saving

unironically kill yourself

>the plane will take off
>NO THE POINT OF THE QUESTION IS ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO
>but it will take off
>NUUUUUU FUCKIN NORMIES
you're autistic

You can pretend that's what you were saying all along, but we can all read the thread. I don't know why you're bothering to try to save face. Just leave.

see and literally kill yourselves

all of you

No, conservation of momentum.

Because the argument obviously hasn't been made clearly enough
>plane engines start
>engines provide forward force on plane
>plane begins to move forwards
>wheels start rolling, conveyor belt matches speed
>but no force applied to plane because wheels are unpowered, unconnected and free-spinning
>plane continues to accelerate forward due to unbalanced forward-oriented force
>wheels spin faster, treadmill matches, wheels spin faster, treadmill matches off into infinity
>wings eventually generates enough lift for plane to take off
>plane disappears into the sky with rapidly spinning wheels

No its not supposed to move forward, dont you normies understand my bad interpretation I'm not autistic you are and you're retarded thats not what I said

clearly this is trivial

No, airplane require inertia to sustain flight. If take away inertia mid flight then fall to earth boom

the treadmill can't take away the plane's inertia, what stops the thrust of the engines?

Well in that case say 'a plane is stuck to its x coordinate by magic immovable rods, can it take off?'

And the answer is no, it needs horizontal movement for its wings to generate lift.

Holy shit, this entire thread is full of spherical-cow idiots.
If the conveyor matched the forward movement of the plane and the speed of the wheels then both the conveyor belt and the plane would have to be moving infinitely fast. Even fucking xkcd can figure this shit out, it's high school physics:
blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/

>implying the treadmill will prevent the plane from moving forward just as normal.

It will move forward normally and fly off. The only difference the belt will make is the wheels will be spinning twice the speed of the plane.

No

Xckd says the plane does take off, you're wrong

The plane would not need to move infinitely fast, just the wheels and the treadmill. The plane can move at normal finite speeds.

v_c = = v_w + v_c when v_w is nonzero when v_c is infinte.

KEK

You can't have infinite speed though. The treadmill would approach lightspeed instead. What would actually happen is that long before this occurs the treadmill would pull air across the wing and produce lift.

he wasnt

We found the solution!