I'm probably exposing myself to wrongness , but without going to the smart people link I'm wondering how without forward motion relevant to opposing air speed it could possibly lift off...
My take: It doesn't matter what the wheels are doing, the thrust pushes on the body of the plane and doesn't turn the wheels. So if the plane is on skis and an icy lake, they don't turn at all but the plane still takes off.
But in that scenario, as soon as the plane moves, the belt matches its speed. The plane is being pushed forward so the wheels need to turn faster (plane speed + belt speed) and so the belt and wheels instantly hit infinite speed and disintegrate so the plane can't take off. But anyway...
I'm probably exposing myself to wrongness , but without going to the smart people link I'm wondering how without forward motion relevant to opposing air speed it could possibly lift off...
It is a challenging concept. I've managed to find myself on both sides of the argument. The key ingredient: - is there, or is there not airflow over the wings? No airflow, no liftoff (right? lol).
Beyond that, it's a bunch of wheels going very fast. And, four engines running up to full speed - think how that works in a static jet engine test stand. Those positing that a treadmill going at warp speed will create the airflow needed over the wings ... these are facts not in evidence, as the lawyerly types would say.
* assumes said treadmill can both create the speeds necessary and tolerate the mechanical abuse
I posted this on FB because the version I saw on some page was full of blowhards being super wrong and I thought it was hilarious and said so. Then a few of my Very Smart Friends started answering incorrectly and giving their Very Well Reasoned wrong answers so I took out my snark from the post but now I'm having so much fun I thought I'd post it here so I can laugh at all the wrong people being Very Wrong Indeed.
I'm probably exposing myself to wrongness , but without going to the smart people link I'm wondering how without forward motion relevant to opposing air speed it could possibly lift off...
LOL ! Yeah, I caught that one on Xitter too. So funny. Completely reveals who understands how airplanes stay aloft and who duzzint!
One friend who is a literal rocket scientist (with Boeing, but still...
) got it right, but most others had some trouble. From my perspective, of course.
I posted this on FB because the version I saw on some page was full of blowhards being super wrong and I thought it was hilarious and said so. Then a few of my Very Smart Friends started answering incorrectly and giving their Very Well Reasoned wrong answers so I took out my snark from the post but now I'm having so much fun I thought I'd post it here so I can laugh at all the wrong people being Very Wrong Indeed.
LOL ! Yeah, I caught that one on Xitter too. So funny. Completely reveals who understands how airplanes stay aloft and who duzzint!
I posted this on FB because the version I saw on some page was full of blowhards being super wrong and I thought it was hilarious and said so. Then a few of my Very Smart Friends started answering incorrectly and giving their Very Well Reasoned wrong answers so I took out my snark from the post but now I'm having so much fun I thought I'd post it here so I can laugh at all the wrong people being Very Wrong Indeed.
Of course it's an old thing and the physicists get all weird about impossibilities in the vague language, but I'm still right.
I shared this on Facebook with a straight face yesterday and ...
So anyway, let me be clear: The video is not real. It's really well done though, and frickin' funny. 3rd time through I'm still catching little jokes...
I shared this on Facebook with a straight face yesterday and ...
So anyway, let me be clear: The video is not real. It's really well done though, and frickin' funny. 3rd time through I'm still catching little jokes...
