Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / The cat/buttered toast paradox EXPLAINED!

Author
Message
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 18th May 2012 09:40
Link
Yes it does. A plane gets propulsion from a jet engine or propeller, not the wheels. A treadmill has NO effect on a plane whatsoever. Also, mythbusters found that the plane did take off, as a matter of fact.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
zeroSlave
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jun 2009
Location: Springfield
Posted: 18th May 2012 09:55 Edited at: 18th May 2012 10:01
Link
Quote: "Also, what happens if you place an airplane on a treadmill, but the treadmill moves backwards at exactly the same speed that the wheels are rolling?"

Quote: "No it doesn't, they tried it on Mythbusters and the plane didn't move. There's no movement of air across the wings, so why would it?"

The plane did in fact move relative to the ground below and the air above the "treadmill"

The real factor is the plane's speed relative to the air above the treadmill. A treadmill's only power against the plane is the slight friction on the ball bearings on the wheel, which is negligible. The plane will not remain stationary relative to the air above the treadmill if it does not want to.

Quote: "Just conducted the experiment. The control cat was a nimble young kitty and the test subject was a not-so-nimble portly old kitty. The control landed just fine feet down, while the test crashed face down."


The real test is toast with butter on both sides...
The conclusion? My hands are really messy right now.

Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 18th May 2012 09:56
Link
Quote: "No it doesn't, they tried it on Mythbusters and the plane didn't move. There's no movement of air across the wings, so why would it?"


I honestly hope you're joking

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 18th May 2012 10:29
Link
[solved] Plane vs Conveyor belt:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY[/youtube]

Plane takes off.

An aside: The plane is actually moving at the same speed (relatively) on the conveyor belt as it is on the tarmac. The problem with dealing with relative things is that they're relative.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
zeroSlave
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jun 2009
Location: Springfield
Posted: 18th May 2012 10:54 Edited at: 18th May 2012 11:11
Link
As I watch the plane pass the parking cones, I have to disagree. It is not stationary relative to the ground (or more accurately, the air below and above the wings.) The conveyor belt nor the ground has any influence on the plane other than making the wheels move; which have no affect on the plane's lift. The only reason a plane has wheels is to minimize friction while the engine or propeller pulls the plane through the air. The lift comes from the speed the wings are pushing through and over the air.

If a plane required a speed of 60mph, and the truck and conveyor belt was going 60mph in the opposite direction... the plane would be going 120mph relative to the truck and conveyor belt, and 60mph relative to the ground and air when it lifted off.

Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 18th May 2012 12:27
Link
That's kinda what I meant. Maybe I didn't explain it properly, but the gist of what I was saying was and echo of what Myth Busters said; that it didn't matter what was below the plane, so long as the propeller (or jet-engine for large crafts) reached a certain speed (whatever the speed is). In other words:
Quote: "If a plane required a speed of 60mph, and the truck and conveyor belt was going 60mph in the opposite direction... the plane would be going 120mph relative to the truck and conveyor belt, and 60mph relative to the ground and air when it lifted off."

...although the plane's relative speed to the truck is of no consequence in that scenario.

Quote: "It is not stationary relative to the ground "

Never said (or implied) it was

I meant:
let x be the km p/h the plane is moving at.
If the plane's on the tarmac, the plane's speed is x.
If the plane's on the conveyor belt, the plane's speed is still x.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 18th May 2012 12:53
Link
Quote: "so long as the propeller (or jet-engine for large crafts) reached a certain speed (whatever the speed is)"


The speed of the power plant on the plane doesn't matter.

Simply, the only thing that matters is the FORWARD air speed of the wing. If you have a headwind you'll usually be ok, but if you have a tailwind you need to increase your airspeed to compensate. With a tailwind of say 275 MPH and forward airspeed of say 500 MPH you'll have a ground speed over Mach 1 (775 MPH).

Oh noes! I'm in a passenger jet and my speed is over Mach 1...we're all gonna die when the plane shakes itself to bits!

Not so fast there spaz...the ground speed is Mach 1, the airspeed is 500 MPH.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 18th May 2012 12:58
Link
@ Nateholio... Concorde...

Back to top
Profile PM
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 18th May 2012 13:00
Link
Ha! Ok, got me there on the Mach 1 and flutter.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 18th May 2012 13:20
Link
Amazing how this thread has taken off again.

Great video Ortu.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 18th May 2012 13:33
Link
ORTU THAT VIDEO WAS HILARIOUS!!!!!!! MADE MY MONTH!!!

no really it did

Back to top
Profile PM
mr Handy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 18th May 2012 14:26 Edited at: 18th May 2012 23:37
Link
My theory:



«It's the Shader, shader me this, shader me that»

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 18th May 2012 17:53 Edited at: 18th May 2012 17:58
Link
I think you've all missed the premise of Neuro Fuzzy's version of the question:

Quote: "Also, what happens if you place an airplane on a treadmill, but the treadmill moves backwards at exactly the same speed that the wheels are rolling??"


The original version had the plane moving at certain speed (assumed to be airspeed since the wheels don't provide propulsion), so the speed of the wheels didn't matter. And of course airspeed is all that matters, so if you have a plane moving at a sufficient speed it will be able to take off regardless of how fast the treadmill is moving, unless of course the wheel brake is on, in which case the plane will not move forwards at all unless there is sufficient force to overcome the friction between the wheel, the ground, and the brake.

As I mentioned when we discussed this before, the wheels on a plane are simply used as a (hypothetically) frictionless buffer between the plane and the ground, so how fast they are rolling has no bearing on anything.

If the question is as Neuro put it, then the plane won't take off because for the wheel speed to match the treadmill speed the plane would have to provide enough force to remain stationary, which would give it close to zero airspeed.



Support a charitable indie game project!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 18th May 2012 19:48
Link
Quote: "Yes it does. A plane gets propulsion from a jet engine or propeller, not the wheels. A treadmill has NO effect on a plane whatsoever. Also, mythbusters found that the plane did take off, as a matter of fact. "


Damn, I don't know how I remembered that so badly. Anyway, that plane is actually moving forward (relative to the ground), which means that there was air movement.

If planes could take off from 0 velocity, then why would we have runways?

Back to top
Profile PM
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 18th May 2012 19:50 Edited at: 18th May 2012 19:57
Link
@ Indicium

VTOL

EDIT

also VISTOL

EDIT

MACH NUMBER

Back to top
Profile PM
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 18th May 2012 20:06
Link
They're hardly conventional aircraft, and if you read the articles, you'll see that they usually use runways, and that the harriers, for example, must use a runway when fully loaded.

Back to top
Profile PM
nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 18th May 2012 20:19
Link
Quote: "Simply, the only thing that matters is the FORWARD air speed of the wing."

I get that. But you still need a form of propulsion to make this possible (or an unholy gale, lol) or am I missing something (I prolly am, it's been long since I was in school and my memory isn't always... what was I saying again?)

Since this thread's so off-on-off-on-topic anyway, I've a question for those with physics degrees:
Would a plane be able to take off if a piece of buttered toast was strapped to the underside? I mean, the force of the toast attracting to the ground would be pretty strong, perhaps too strong.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 18th May 2012 20:21
Link
I think it would be a better idea to strap a couple of pigs to the wings, that way so many people will be eating their words.

Back to top
Profile PM
zeroSlave
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jun 2009
Location: Springfield
Posted: 18th May 2012 21:40
Link
Quote: "Never said (or implied) it was"

Sorry, nonZero. I misunderstood you. All that talk about relativity was, well, relatively confusing.

Quote: "The speed of the power plant on the plane doesn't matter."

Sorry, I didn't word it right. I should have said: ...so long as the propeller (or jet-engine for large crafts) propelled the plane forward enough to reach a certain speed (whatever the speed is)...

It seems that the cat was let out of the bag in this thread and it's spinning out of control...

Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
mr Handy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 18th May 2012 23:37
Link
*updated image. still in phorum getto*

«It's the Shader, shader me this, shader me that»
Back to top
Profile PM
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 19th May 2012 03:15
Link
Why does the phone ring everytime you go to the toilet?

I phoned Mythbusters about it, but there was no reply!

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 19th May 2012 03:21
Link
Pax... That explains why you never answer my calls...

Back to top
Profile PM
Neuro Fuzzy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 19th May 2012 03:28
Link
Okay, so we've done planes and buttered toast, so why are galaxies flat, why does .999...=1, and why are the real numbers more infinite than the natural numbers?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 19th May 2012 04:35 Edited at: 19th May 2012 04:39
Link
Galaxies are flat because they rotate, and everything that rotates rotates about an axis, and in the direction of that axis there is nothing to stop gravity pulling everything flat.

.9999... = 1 because (1/3)*3 = 1 and (1/3)*3 = 0.9999... Also, 1 - 0.9999... = 0.0000... = 0 because the whole point of infinity is that it has no end. It shouldn't be too surprising that there is more than one way to write down each number in our number system. Just like with fractions, it's obvious that 2/4 is the same as 1/2, and they are written differently.

The real numbers are more infinite than the natural numbers because there is no way to pair up every real number with a natural number. Natural numbers are countably infinite, real numbers are uncountably infinite. I tend to imagine it as the difference between a discrete infinity and a continuous infinity.

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 19th May 2012 09:11
Link
Pi

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Neuro Fuzzy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 19th May 2012 10:00
Link
well crap. Uhh, so what if I wanted to make a set that was larger than the natural numbers, but smaller than the real numbers? I tried but I can't seem to come up with one.

(also the axis thing is only partially true. the reason they begin rotating in the first place is because of gas-gas interactions)

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 19th May 2012 10:06
Link
Quote: "the reason they begin rotating in the first place is because of gas-gas interactions"


Then I should be spinning like a flywheel in those newfangled F1 cars. Well not really "new"....

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 19th May 2012 15:11
Link
Quote: "Why does the phone ring everytime you go to the toilet?"


That's also the moment when the gas or phone company turn up - you've hung on all morning waiting for them and the moment you decide you can't wait any longer. Ping! They've arrived - but only when you've reached the point of no return.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 19th May 2012 15:26
Link
GG that is so true and it HAPPENS EVERYTIME

Morning call
Afternoon call

Should not exist in their vocab...ecause they never turn up during these times... B

Back to top
Profile PM
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 19th May 2012 15:26 Edited at: 19th May 2012 15:28
Link
Quote: "Galaxies are flat because they rotate, and everything that rotates rotates about an axis, and in the direction of that axis there is nothing to stop gravity pulling everything flat."


Until you get to quantum Physics, and then things get more complicated. The rotation about an axis has vanished to a point, and the point is not supposed to have a preference. Of course it does have a lateral preference, but discovering why, is discovering Gravity preference, and that is new physics.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neuro Fuzzy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 19th May 2012 16:13 Edited at: 19th May 2012 17:42
Link
Quote: "Until you get to quantum Physics, and then things get more complicated. The rotation about an axis has vanished to a point, and the point is not supposed to have a preference. Of course it does have a lateral preference, but discovering why, is discovering Gravity preference, and that is new physics."

if there's anything that makes sense in what you're thinking it wasn't in that post...

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 19th May 2012 18:23 Edited at: 19th May 2012 18:27
Link
Quote: "if there's anything that makes sense in what you're thinking it wasn't in that post..."


A point in quantum physics has no rotation area, because to rotate you need parts, but the smallest part of a fundamental particle has no parts. So a point has no rotation area to flatten out. Then you need to account for these new physics. Which are physics of scale. There are no maths for physics of scale so far. What I work on is a fractal, which then diminishes to a negative dimension, so the smallest part is negative. If you add negative values to electrons Quantum Physics works ok. So one fix is to give electrons negative mass. Which I what I do. Or there may be other solutions, which I have not thought of. But basically, a point is a zero dimension in some cases.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 19th May 2012 18:36
Link
Why are you comparing 'conventional' physics to quantum physics anyway? There's rarely a case where they act exactly the same.

Back to top
Profile PM
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 19th May 2012 18:52 Edited at: 19th May 2012 18:52
Link
Because I want to work on Quantum Physics for my DBPro Universe Generator.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 19th May 2012 19:21
Link
Do you really need to take it to a quantum level?

Back to top
Profile PM
nonZero
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2011
Location: Dark Empire HQ, Otherworld, Silent Hill
Posted: 19th May 2012 20:05
Link
Quote: "Sorry, nonZero. I misunderstood you. All that talk about relativity was, well, relatively confusing."

No prob zeroSlave, it's relatively common for people to become relatively confused with what I say. I word things relatively badly after all all.

Quote: "Because I want to work on Quantum Physics for my DBPro Universe Generator"

Sounds awesome!

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 19th May 2012 21:49 Edited at: 19th May 2012 21:50
Link
Quote: "Do you really need to take it to a quantum level?"


I started at the Quantum Level, and worked up instead of backwards. I thought that someone should try it, and I think I have a working set of physics, but it is hard to be sure until it's finished. I'm running the program in my head, and it seems to work.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 19th May 2012 23:31 Edited at: 20th May 2012 01:45
Link
Quote: "Uhh, so what if I wanted to make a set that was larger than the natural numbers, but smaller than the real numbers? I tried but I can't seem to come up with one."


There are actually various sizes of infinite sets. The smallest infinity is designated by lowercase omega, or aleph_0 (hebrew letter aleph subscript 0) The next infinity is given by aleph_1 etc. There is no size between any two alephs, although I think it requires accepting the axiom of choice to prove that. Aleph_0 is the size of the set of natural numbers (ie. countable infinity). Aleph_1 is believed to be the size of the set of real numbers (the first uncountable infinity). There are infinitely many infinities, and the number of infinities is larger than any of the infinities in any subset of the infinites. Although there is no actual infinity larger than all the others, it can be useful to have a concept of an infinity that will always compare larger than any other, and this is referred to using uppercase omega, but you can't actually uniquely describe it mathematically.

Quote: "(also the axis thing is only partially true. the reason they begin rotating in the first place is because of gas-gas interactions)"


The reason they are flat is solely because of the rotation and the effect of gravity. The reason that they rotate is because initially the entire cloud of gas has a very tiny total angular momentum. As the cloud collapses due to gravity, it's moment of inertia decreases and so its rotation speeds up. (The same reason if you are spinning slowly on a chair and you bring your arms and legs in you speed up significantly)

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neuro Fuzzy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 20th May 2012 00:57
Link
Quote: " There is no size between any two alephs."

prove it!

Without gaseous interactions you just get an elliptic galaxy, and elliptic galaxies don't flatten out. Your post is the second half of it, but a treatment of many objects as point masses with only gravitational attraction doesn't lead to a flat galaxy, or even a general trend in the direction of rotation.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 20th May 2012 01:44 Edited at: 20th May 2012 01:50
Link
Quote: "prove it!"


Quote: "The definition of aleph_1 implies (in ZF, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice) that no cardinal number is between aleph_0 and aleph_1."


Quote: "If the axiom of choice (AC) is used, it can be further proved that the class of cardinal numbers is totally ordered, and thus aleph_1 is the second-smallest infinite cardinal number."


What you linked to only shows it's impossible to prove that aleph_1 is the size of the real numbers, not that there is another size between aleph_0 and aleph_1.

Quote: "Without gaseous interactions you just get an elliptic galaxy, and elliptic galaxies don't flatten out. Your post is the second half of it, but a treatment of many objects as point masses with only gravitational attraction doesn't lead to a flat galaxy, or even a general trend in the direction of rotation."


Ah I see what you mean, yes I was assuming that particles had a non-zero size and didn't just go through each other without interacting.

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neuro Fuzzy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 20th May 2012 02:37
Link
Quote: "What you linked to only shows it's impossible to prove that aleph_1 is the size of the real numbers, not that there is another size between aleph_0 and aleph_1."

I suppose in what i quoted, yeah, but I did say natural/real numbers in my original question.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 20th May 2012 03:00
Link
Quote: "but I did say natural/real numbers in my original question."


Either way, the fact that it's impossible to prove whether or not there is a set with a size between the natural and real numbers also means it's impossible to construct or find one, so that answers your question

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fallout3fan
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th May 2009
Location:
Posted: 20th May 2012 04:16
Link
....? I did not pay attention to any posts in the thread....? But a cat and butter toast theory? I hope this is a joke. Because it make me feels like if I throw butter toast on the ground and my cat is near it. Something magical will happened?

_!!!!_
,0~U -Well I do say, its been quite a fancy forum for
__-____TheZachadoodle.________________________________
Back to top
Profile PM Email
CumQuaT
AGK Master
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Apr 2010
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posted: 20th May 2012 05:32
Link
What happens if you strap two cats together, back to back? O_o


Back to top
Profile PM Email
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 20th May 2012 09:56
Link
Quote: "What happens if you strap two cats together, back to back?"


Same thing that happens when you google google or wikipedia wikipedia.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-19 06:59:22
Your offset time is: 2025-05-19 06:59:22