FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Science
Science
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off "Yes, simple physics | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Ok......is there a known, specific molecular frequency (or vibrational frequency) that dictates whether matter will be solid as opposed to gaseous in consistency? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off "Wow, that is a fantastic profile pic 
Sorry thread, carry on  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jesus man, if you wanted to just say you can do that, then just say you can sorry that shit out. I didn't say I was a prefessor of every scientific field. Just figured it would be a fun way to spend the night chatting" Chill, it's called taking the piss | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off "No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I figure why not try spread a bit of knowledge with the love too. Any on have any science based questions I'll give you an answer or find you an easy(ish) way to get one. May try doing this a few times to see if it takes off or not. So anyone have any buring or curious thoughts they want to ask? Like why is the sky blue or what are stem cells anyway" My daughter ask me that exact question the other day ! Why is the sky blue!?!? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off "No because it needs air to flow over the wings to create lift. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
Yes, simple physics "Um, no. There's no air flow over the wing and therefore no lift ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated."Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I figure why not try spread a bit of knowledge with the love too. Any on have any science based questions I'll give you an answer or find you an easy(ish) way to get one. May try doing this a few times to see if it takes off or not. So anyone have any buring or curious thoughts they want to ask? Like why is the sky blue or what are stem cells anyway My daughter ask me that exact question the other day ! Why is the sky blue!?!?" Because of the gases that make up our atmosphere. The higher up you go, the less atmospheric gases there are, and the blacker the sky becomes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct. "My dastardly plan is working | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct.
My dastardly plan is working "It is but I know I'm right, physics 101 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated."This has been done just not sure what show it was that did it and yes they can. The moon is very slowly moving away from us how long would it take for it to reach a distance that it would break our orbit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shit my bed you're right! The planes not moving !" Use the quote button so we know who you are answering, it’s not rocket science | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I figure why not try spread a bit of knowledge with the love too. Any on have any science based questions I'll give you an answer or find you an easy(ish) way to get one. May try doing this a few times to see if it takes off or not. So anyone have any buring or curious thoughts they want to ask? Like why is the sky blue or what are stem cells anyway My daughter ask me that exact question the other day ! Why is the sky blue!?!? Because of the gases that make up our atmosphere. The higher up you go, the less atmospheric gases there are, and the blacker the sky becomes. " Thanks I’ll tell her | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shit my bed you're right! The planes not moving ! Use the quote button so we know who you are answering, it’s not rocket science "Let’s not get ahead of ourselves with rockets, we’re still working on how the wheels of a plane do fuck all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I figure why not try spread a bit of knowledge with the love too. Any on have any science based questions I'll give you an answer or find you an easy(ish) way to get one. May try doing this a few times to see if it takes off or not. So anyone have any buring or curious thoughts they want to ask? Like why is the sky blue or what are stem cells anyway My daughter ask me that exact question the other day ! Why is the sky blue!?!? Because of the gases that make up our atmosphere. The higher up you go, the less atmospheric gases there are, and the blacker the sky becomes. Thanks I’ll tell her "lol, no worries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct. "I don't understand this. How can a plane take off if it is stationary relative to the ground and by extension, the air around the wings? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Were all female while we develop or a certain stage and then we become male. My guess (it's a guess) is the nips are there before we change or have our male chromosome go hey home on this one needs a penis" we develop nipples before our genitals so yes x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct.
I don't understand this. How can a plane take off if it is stationary relative to the ground and by extension, the air around the wings?"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=01Q83yxdDaI watch this aeroplan on a tread mill | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Were all female while we develop or a certain stage and then we become male. My guess (it's a guess) is the nips are there before we change or have our male chromosome go hey home on this one needs a penis we develop nipples before our genitals so yes x" Like me, you're probably imagining the aircraft, stationary, but on a massive treadmill, spinning at the same speed as the wheels. Now imagine that the aircraft is moving along a moving runway (treadmill) which is matching the speed of the wheels. It's still not an exact question, because if the wheel speed is still lower than the equivalent stall speed, the aircraft still won't take off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct. "Sneaky question wording... I read it as the treadmill counteracting the forward movement of the plane, which can't actually happen in the real world because aircraft wheels aren't powered. The forward force comes from the engines, which act on the air, not the ground. If this plane throttled up it's engines it would start to move regardless of what the treadmill did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct.
Sneaky question wording... I read it as the treadmill counteracting the forward movement of the plane, which can't actually happen in the real world because aircraft wheels aren't powered. The forward force comes from the engines, which act on the air, not the ground. If this plane throttled up it's engines it would start to move regardless of what the treadmill did."Wahey, someone understands | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
This has been done just not sure what show it was that did it and yes they can. The moon is very slowly moving away from us how long would it take for it to reach a distance that it would break our orbit. "Won't ever happen. The rate at which the moon is receding will eventually drop to zero and then it will start getting closer again. And no, it won't hit Earth; eventually it will stop closing and start to recede. It's all tied up with tidal forces and their effect on Earth's rotation (which is currently getting slower, btw). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some have cores that be solid too." All science should be spoken about in a pirate voice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some have cores that be solid too. All science should be spoken about in a pirate voice." Ahh I feel like we've an accord | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other dude mentioned it really well, I believe the effect is Rayleigh scattering or something. If she's bored you can look into it too. Ask her if she thinks it has anything to do with the colour of water too to get her reading !" She thinks I know everything lol She won’t look into stuff she expects me to know the answer or find it
Teenagers  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What came first the egg or the chicken ? "Ad I understand it, the current thinking is that the egg came first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What came first the egg or the chicken ? "The egg in general Since. Dinosaurs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct.
I don't understand this. How can a plane take off if it is stationary relative to the ground and by extension, the air around the wings?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=01Q83yxdDaI watch this aeroplan on a tread mill "That particular vid ends before the experiment does, but I've seen it before anyway. If you watch to the end of this one you'll see that the aeroplane is most definitely moving in relation to the ground, so they haven't proved the theory. https://youtu.be/YORCk1BN7QY | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how are the gas planets actually planets if they're made of gas?" Being made of rock doesn't factor into the definition of a planet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other dude mentioned it really well, I believe the effect is Rayleigh scattering or something. If she's bored you can look into it too. Ask her if she thinks it has anything to do with the colour of water too to get her reading ! She thinks I know everything lol She won’t look into stuff she expects me to know the answer or find it
Teenagers "At least she's curious! That's definitely a good thing. Shell figure it out I'm sure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really?? That's pretty cool! Do they have a time scale? Or a guess as to what will happen?" The moon in question has been named, Valetudo but it’s presently unclear when exactly the collision will take place. As astronomical timescales are so vast, it may be thousands of years (or even more). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off "I hope you're both proud of yourselves! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other dude mentioned it really well, I believe the effect is Rayleigh scattering or something. If she's bored you can look into it too. Ask her if she thinks it has anything to do with the colour of water too to get her reading ! She thinks I know everything lol She won’t look into stuff she expects me to know the answer or find it
Teenagers "Oh well you're laughing then, just make up any old shit, and so long as you sound like you know what you're talking about, she'll believe it and not research it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really?? That's pretty cool! Do they have a time scale? Or a guess as to what will happen? The moon in question has been named, Valetudo but it’s presently unclear when exactly the collision will take place. As astronomical timescales are so vast, it may be thousands of years (or even more). " I'm so sure that's the name of a Japanese martial arts circuit, which sort of is fitting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What came first the egg or the chicken ?
The egg in general
Since. Dinosaurs"But where did the egg come from in the first place? Xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct.
I don't understand this. How can a plane take off if it is stationary relative to the ground and by extension, the air around the wings?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=01Q83yxdDaI watch this aeroplan on a tread mill
That particular vid ends before the experiment does, but I've seen it before anyway.
If you watch to the end of this one you'll see that the aeroplane is most definitely moving in relation to the ground, so they haven't proved the theory.
https://youtu.be/YORCk1BN7QY"A plane on a moving treadmill cannot ever be stationary. It's physically impossible. If the plane's engines aren't pushing it forwards, the treadmill will slowly carry it backwards - if the wheel axles were frictionless, the wheels would just spin, but since they're not the plane will kove a bit. If the plane throttles up it's engines, it WILL start to move forward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What came first the egg or the chicken ?
The egg in general
Since. Dinosaurs
But where did the egg come from in the first place?
Xx "Again a guess, but looking at frogs and some sea creatures they have eggs too without shells as we know them. Perhaps they were eventually calcified to give a better protective layer outside of whatever jelly. Then it maybe caught on like jeans did | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok my favourite question is .y in all sci-fi is all the ships the same way up the is no up and down " Yeah I really enjoy that there's not a single fucking space captain who's thinking fuck this I'm being upside down. It's like top gun didn't happen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
Yes, simple physics "Sorry but no it can't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok my favourite question is .y in all sci-fi is all the ships the same way up the is no up and down " Because it would confuse the reader/viewer. Same reason most sci-fi doesn't use real Newtonian physics when ships move and turn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct.
I don't understand this. How can a plane take off if it is stationary relative to the ground and by extension, the air around the wings?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=01Q83yxdDaI watch this aeroplan on a tread mill
That particular vid ends before the experiment does, but I've seen it before anyway.
If you watch to the end of this one you'll see that the aeroplane is most definitely moving in relation to the ground, so they haven't proved the theory.
https://youtu.be/YORCk1BN7QY
A plane on a moving treadmill cannot ever be stationary. It's physically impossible. If the plane's engines aren't pushing it forwards, the treadmill will slowly carry it backwards - if the wheel axles were frictionless, the wheels would just spin, but since they're not the plane will kove a bit. If the plane throttles up it's engines, it WILL start to move forward. "I understood it to be a hypothetical situation in which a treadmill is able to keep an aeroplane perfectly stationary in relation to the ground. Accepting it to be impossible is just saying that if a plane can move forwards then it can take off, which we all knew before : ) Anyway. Eggs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What came first the egg or the chicken ?
The egg in general
Since. Dinosaurs
But where did the egg come from in the first place?
Xx
Again a guess, but looking at frogs and some sea creatures they have eggs too without shells as we know them. Perhaps they were eventually calcified to give a better protective layer outside of whatever jelly.
Then it maybe caught on like jeans did"Dinosaurs also gave birth via eggs, and predate the first bird Archaeopteryx by a long time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other dude mentioned it really well, I believe the effect is Rayleigh scattering or something. If she's bored you can look into it too. Ask her if she thinks it has anything to do with the colour of water too to get her reading ! She thinks I know everything lol She won’t look into stuff she expects me to know the answer or find it
Teenagers
At least she's curious! That's definitely a good thing. Shell figure it out I'm sure"She’s always asking me questions that I can’t answer ! I just say google it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct.
I don't understand this. How can a plane take off if it is stationary relative to the ground and by extension, the air around the wings?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=01Q83yxdDaI watch this aeroplan on a tread mill
That particular vid ends before the experiment does, but I've seen it before anyway.
If you watch to the end of this one you'll see that the aeroplane is most definitely moving in relation to the ground, so they haven't proved the theory.
https://youtu.be/YORCk1BN7QY
A plane on a moving treadmill cannot ever be stationary. It's physically impossible. If the plane's engines aren't pushing it forwards, the treadmill will slowly carry it backwards - if the wheel axles were frictionless, the wheels would just spin, but since they're not the plane will kove a bit. If the plane throttles up it's engines, it WILL start to move forward.
I understood it to be a hypothetical situation in which a treadmill is able to keep an aeroplane perfectly stationary in relation to the ground.
Accepting it to be impossible is just saying that if a plane can move forwards then it can take off, which we all knew before : )
Anyway. Eggs "If it were possible for a treadmill to keep a plane stationary, then no, the plane wouldn't take off. However, a treadmill can't keep a plane stationary | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other dude mentioned it really well, I believe the effect is Rayleigh scattering or something. If she's bored you can look into it too. Ask her if she thinks it has anything to do with the colour of water too to get her reading ! She thinks I know everything lol She won’t look into stuff she expects me to know the answer or find it
Teenagers
Oh well you're laughing then, just make up any old shit, and so long as you sound like you know what you're talking about, she'll believe it and not research it "No Couldn’t do that I’ve always told my kids the truth if they don’t know I’ll look it up or tell them to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok my favourite question is .y in all sci-fi is all the ships the same way up the is no up and down Because it would confuse the reader/viewer. Same reason most sci-fi doesn't use real Newtonian physics when ships move and turn." so they think we are all donkey | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct.
I don't understand this. How can a plane take off if it is stationary relative to the ground and by extension, the air around the wings?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=01Q83yxdDaI watch this aeroplan on a tread mill
That particular vid ends before the experiment does, but I've seen it before anyway.
If you watch to the end of this one you'll see that the aeroplane is most definitely moving in relation to the ground, so they haven't proved the theory.
https://youtu.be/YORCk1BN7QY
A plane on a moving treadmill cannot ever be stationary. It's physically impossible. If the plane's engines aren't pushing it forwards, the treadmill will slowly carry it backwards - if the wheel axles were frictionless, the wheels would just spin, but since they're not the plane will kove a bit. If the plane throttles up it's engines, it WILL start to move forward.
I understood it to be a hypothetical situation in which a treadmill is able to keep an aeroplane perfectly stationary in relation to the ground.
Accepting it to be impossible is just saying that if a plane can move forwards then it can take off, which we all knew before : )
Anyway. Eggs
If it were possible for a treadmill to keep a plane stationary, then no, the plane wouldn't take off. However, a treadmill can't keep a plane stationary "Yeah, got that now. Sneaky trick question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok my favourite question is .y in all sci-fi is all the ships the same way up the is no up and down Because it would confuse the reader/viewer. Same reason most sci-fi doesn't use real Newtonian physics when ships move and turn.so they think we are all donkey " How objects move is space is completely different to how they move on earth. Most people don't understand the difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If god created the sun on the fourth day, how had four days passed? "Religion is bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like the stone paradox. Can an omnipotent entity, e.g. God, create an object that is too heavy for him to move? Whether you answer yes or no, either way the result is that the entity is not omnipotent." Like the whole unstoppable force vs an immovable object thing? For an object to be immovable it would need to have infinite mass. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other dude mentioned it really well, I believe the effect is Rayleigh scattering or something. If she's bored you can look into it too. Ask her if she thinks it has anything to do with the colour of water too to get her reading ! She thinks I know everything lol She won’t look into stuff she expects me to know the answer or find it
Teenagers
Oh well you're laughing then, just make up any old shit, and so long as you sound like you know what you're talking about, she'll believe it and not research it
No
Couldn’t do that
I’ve always told my kids the truth if they don’t know I’ll look it up or tell them to"Probably a good job I'm not a parent then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can dogs look up? Do frogs have water tight ass holes? Do bears shit in the woods? Why do we keep using Aspartame in fizzy drinks and sweets when it has known bad effects to humans?" Spot the pisstake.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The other dude mentioned it really well, I believe the effect is Rayleigh scattering or something. If she's bored you can look into it too. Ask her if she thinks it has anything to do with the colour of water too to get her reading ! She thinks I know everything lol She won’t look into stuff she expects me to know the answer or find it
Teenagers
Oh well you're laughing then, just make up any old shit, and so long as you sound like you know what you're talking about, she'll believe it and not research it
No
Couldn’t do that
I’ve always told my kids the truth if they don’t know I’ll look it up or tell them to
Probably a good job I'm not a parent then "Definitely! Always tell the truth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can dogs look up? Do frogs have water tight ass holes? Do bears shit in the woods? Why do we keep using Aspartame in fizzy drinks and sweets when it has known bad effects to humans? Spot the pisstake...." Aspartame hasn't been found to have bad effects in humans, but a lot of people insist it has anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like the stone paradox. Can an omnipotent entity, e.g. God, create an object that is too heavy for him to move? Whether you answer yes or no, either way the result is that the entity is not omnipotent." They're the same thing aren't they but with a different frame of reference | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
We’ll need a few amplifiers and some good batteries | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like the stone paradox. Can an omnipotent entity, e.g. God, create an object that is too heavy for him to move? Whether you answer yes or no, either way the result is that the entity is not omnipotent. Like the whole unstoppable force vs an immovable object thing? For an object to be immovable it would need to have infinite mass. " Kind of but it's hypothetical. If God can create a stone which is too heavy for him to move, then he isn't omnipotent, as he can't move the stone. If he can't create a stone which is too heavy for him to move, then again he isn't omnipotent. It's also logically impossible for God to be both omniscient and omnipotent. If God knows what he is doing next Thursday, then he's not omnipotent because he is tied to future events. If he is free to do whatever he wants next Thursday, then he's not omniscient. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shall we create a black hole? We only need to generate 1,100dB to set it off
We’ll need a few amplifiers and some good batteries "How do you propose to create a black hole with sound? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok my favourite question is .y in all sci-fi is all the ships the same way up the is no up and down Because it would confuse the reader/viewer. Same reason most sci-fi doesn't use real Newtonian physics when ships move and turn.so they think we are all donkey How objects move is space is completely different to how they move on earth. Most people don't understand the difference." I do and ism not that bright | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like the stone paradox. Can an omnipotent entity, e.g. God, create an object that is too heavy for him to move? Whether you answer yes or no, either way the result is that the entity is not omnipotent. They're the same thing aren't they but with a different frame of reference" I thought you were off to bed ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. " As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like the stone paradox. Can an omnipotent entity, e.g. God, create an object that is too heavy for him to move? Whether you answer yes or no, either way the result is that the entity is not omnipotent. They're the same thing aren't they but with a different frame of reference I thought you were off to bed !" It's omnipotence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What came first the egg or the chicken ?
The egg in general
Since. Dinosaurs"How did the egg arrive first? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok my favourite question is .y in all sci-fi is all the ships the same way up the is no up and down Because it would confuse the reader/viewer. Same reason most sci-fi doesn't use real Newtonian physics when ships move and turn.so they think we are all donkey How objects move is space is completely different to how they move on earth. Most people don't understand the difference.I do and ism not that bright " It's not a question of intelligence, it's a question of knowledge. How objects move in a vacuum is outside almost everyone's everyday experience, so unless they've learned about it they tend to expect spacecraft to move like aircraft. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shall we create a black hole? We only need to generate 1,100dB to set it off
We’ll need a few amplifiers and some good batteries
How do you propose to create a black hole with sound?"The theory is that a sound of 1100db would create so much energy that it would generate a massive amount of gravity, enough gravity to create a black hole. Faithless once triggered earthquake alarms through playing an exceptionally loud gig, I seem to remember reading omce. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill." The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok my favourite question is .y in all sci-fi is all the ships the same way up the is no up and down Because it would confuse the reader/viewer. Same reason most sci-fi doesn't use real Newtonian physics when ships move and turn." Also due to the lack of an atmosphere, there would be no ability for sound to travel so no big explosion noises as are common in sci-fi movies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shall we create a black hole? We only need to generate 1,100dB to set it off
We’ll need a few amplifiers and some good batteries
How do you propose to create a black hole with sound?"Firstly 1100dB is so unimaginably loud, it will never happen. a sound wave that strong would have to compress air so dense that the rest mass plus the kinetic energy would mean that the mass of say a metre cubed of air would fall inside it’s own Schwarzschild radius. When a mass of an object is compressed within it’s Schwarzschild radius, the escape velocity required to escape the sphere of matter the compression creates would exceed the speed of light, thus a black hole is formed. We’re talking insane amounts of power to create that level of dB, impossible levels of power..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more." It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shall we create a black hole? We only need to generate 1,100dB to set it off
We’ll need a few amplifiers and some good batteries
How do you propose to create a black hole with sound?"Turn it up to 11. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. " The question states that the treadmill matches the wheel speed required to take off therefore the drive must come from the mill not the engines on the aircraft. Its not a trick question at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shall we create a black hole? We only need to generate 1,100dB to set it off
We’ll need a few amplifiers and some good batteries
How do you propose to create a black hole with sound?
The theory is that a sound of 1100db would create so much energy that it would generate a massive amount of gravity, enough gravity to create a black hole.
Faithless once triggered earthquake alarms through playing an exceptionally loud gig, I seem to remember reading omce."Most people haven’t experienced much over 130dB.....awesome things start to happen with sound pressure level at higher levels. I was massively into audio not too long back and had subwoofers capable of over 150dB....the vibrations at that level blur your vision, make your hair look like you’re in a wind tunnel.....it’s great fun | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shall we create a black hole? We only need to generate 1,100dB to set it off
We’ll need a few amplifiers and some good batteries
How do you propose to create a black hole with sound?
Turn it up to 11. "The volume control on BBC iPlayer goes up to 11 : ) I always wondered if that was somebody having a joke | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. The question states that the treadmill matches the wheel speed required to take off therefore the drive must come from the mill not the engines on the aircraft. Its not a trick question at all. " The question is wrong. What it's describing is physically impossible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. " The wheels would rotate in relation to the thrust of the engines. If the threadmill is in direct counter rotation I’m no genius but it’s clearly Ryanair and going nowhere as usual | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. The wheels would rotate in relation to the thrust of the engines. If the threadmill is in direct counter rotation I’m no genius but it’s clearly Ryanair and going nowhere as usual "No, they won't. The wheels on aircraft aren't powered. They don't provide any motive force. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shall we create a black hole? We only need to generate 1,100dB to set it off
We’ll need a few amplifiers and some good batteries
How do you propose to create a black hole with sound?
The theory is that a sound of 1100db would create so much energy that it would generate a massive amount of gravity, enough gravity to create a black hole.
Faithless once triggered earthquake alarms through playing an exceptionally loud gig, I seem to remember reading omce.
Most people haven’t experienced much over 130dB.....awesome things start to happen with sound pressure level at higher levels.
I was massively into audio not too long back and had subwoofers capable of over 150dB....the vibrations at that level blur your vision, make your hair look like you’re in a wind tunnel.....it’s great fun "That's insanely loud I engineer live music and usually clock myself at around 85-90.
Db is a weird measurement though. Conversation is something like 60db I think, which makes it more than as loud as a typical gig, if you take Db to equate to volume. Even a pin dropping is weirdly high on a Db scale. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shall we create a black hole? We only need to generate 1,100dB to set it off
We’ll need a few amplifiers and some good batteries
How do you propose to create a black hole with sound?
The theory is that a sound of 1100db would create so much energy that it would generate a massive amount of gravity, enough gravity to create a black hole.
Faithless once triggered earthquake alarms through playing an exceptionally loud gig, I seem to remember reading omce.
Most people haven’t experienced much over 130dB.....awesome things start to happen with sound pressure level at higher levels.
I was massively into audio not too long back and had subwoofers capable of over 150dB....the vibrations at that level blur your vision, make your hair look like you’re in a wind tunnel.....it’s great fun
That's insanely loud I engineer live music and usually clock myself at around 85-90.
Db is a weird measurement though. Conversation is something like 60db I think, which makes it more than as loud as a typical gig, if you take Db to equate to volume. Even a pin dropping is weirdly high on a Db scale."Yeah it’s not like 120dB is twice as loud as 60dB. Once you’re above 140dB with speakers it gets harder to gain each dB, needing to effectively double power output gain 3dB. 1000 watts will get you 140dB, you then need 2000 for 143, 4000 for 146 and so on.......it becomes a very expensive hobby when you start chasing numbers. There’s a lot of variables to achieving those numbers but that’s the general jist of it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. The wheels would rotate in relation to the thrust of the engines. If the threadmill is in direct counter rotation I’m no genius but it’s clearly Ryanair and going nowhere as usual
No, they won't. The wheels on aircraft aren't powered. They don't provide any motive force. "Didn’t say they were powered ... just that they would rotate... if they didn’t then no plane would ever take off... like everything else friction comes into it but thankfully I’m no genius but I do know a plane won’t take off without friction... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. The wheels would rotate in relation to the thrust of the engines. If the threadmill is in direct counter rotation I’m no genius but it’s clearly Ryanair and going nowhere as usual
No, they won't. The wheels on aircraft aren't powered. They don't provide any motive force. "Exactly. And even if we assume that the aircraft is physically attached to the treadmill and the mill is turn off and the power comes from the aircrafts engines, the amount of drag caused by the mill on the aircraft would stop any chance of take off be achieved. The plane ain't going anywhere!lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok my favourite question is .y in all sci-fi is all the ships the same way up the is no up and down Because it would confuse the reader/viewer. Same reason most sci-fi doesn't use real Newtonian physics when ships move and turn. Also due to the lack of an atmosphere, there would be no ability for sound to travel so no big explosion noises as are common in sci-fi movies " yes no one can hear you scream in space see we are all think | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. The wheels would rotate in relation to the thrust of the engines. If the threadmill is in direct counter rotation I’m no genius but it’s clearly Ryanair and going nowhere as usual
No, they won't. The wheels on aircraft aren't powered. They don't provide any motive force.
Exactly. And even if we assume that the aircraft is physically attached to the treadmill and the mill is turn off and the power comes from the aircrafts engines, the amount of drag caused by the mill on the aircraft would stop any chance of take off be achieved. The plane ain't going anywhere!lol"If we ever achieve lift off God help us trying to land | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. The wheels would rotate in relation to the thrust of the engines. If the threadmill is in direct counter rotation I’m no genius but it’s clearly Ryanair and going nowhere as usual
No, they won't. The wheels on aircraft aren't powered. They don't provide any motive force.
Exactly. And even if we assume that the aircraft is physically attached to the treadmill and the mill is turn off and the power comes from the aircrafts engines, the amount of drag caused by the mill on the aircraft would stop any chance of take off be achieved. The plane ain't going anywhere!lol
If we ever achieve lift off God help us trying to land "lmfao | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shall we create a black hole? We only need to generate 1,100dB to set it off
We’ll need a few amplifiers and some good batteries
How do you propose to create a black hole with sound?
The theory is that a sound of 1100db would create so much energy that it would generate a massive amount of gravity, enough gravity to create a black hole.
Faithless once triggered earthquake alarms through playing an exceptionally loud gig, I seem to remember reading omce.
Most people haven’t experienced much over 130dB.....awesome things start to happen with sound pressure level at higher levels.
I was massively into audio not too long back and had subwoofers capable of over 150dB....the vibrations at that level blur your vision, make your hair look like you’re in a wind tunnel.....it’s great fun
That's insanely loud I engineer live music and usually clock myself at around 85-90.
Db is a weird measurement though. Conversation is something like 60db I think, which makes it more than as loud as a typical gig, if you take Db to equate to volume. Even a pin dropping is weirdly high on a Db scale.
Yeah it’s not like 120dB is twice as loud as 60dB.
Once you’re above 140dB with speakers it gets harder to gain each dB, needing to effectively double power output gain 3dB.
1000 watts will get you 140dB, you then need 2000 for 143, 4000 for 146 and so on.......it becomes a very expensive hobby when you start chasing numbers.
There’s a lot of variables to achieving those numbers but that’s the general jist of it "1000w gets you 140db ... this is where my tech knowledge falls down. Our venue has a 13k rig but 90db is pretty close to the limit of what it can put out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. The wheels would rotate in relation to the thrust of the engines. If the threadmill is in direct counter rotation I’m no genius but it’s clearly Ryanair and going nowhere as usual
No, they won't. The wheels on aircraft aren't powered. They don't provide any motive force.
Exactly. And even if we assume that the aircraft is physically attached to the treadmill and the mill is turn off and the power comes from the aircrafts engines, the amount of drag caused by the mill on the aircraft would stop any chance of take off be achieved. The plane ain't going anywhere!lol
If we ever achieve lift off God help us trying to land lmfao"Im currently sat looking at an A321 and thinking we might have to order in a treadmill lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. The wheels would rotate in relation to the thrust of the engines. If the threadmill is in direct counter rotation I’m no genius but it’s clearly Ryanair and going nowhere as usual
No, they won't. The wheels on aircraft aren't powered. They don't provide any motive force.
Didn’t say they were powered ... just that they would rotate... if they didn’t then no plane would ever take off... like everything else friction comes into it but thankfully I’m no genius but I do know a plane won’t take off without friction... "I think the problem is that people are envisioning the plane like it's a car with wings. If you're in a car and hit the accelerator to a level that gives you 30mph, and you're on a treadmill the opposite direction at 30mph, you'll be stationary. The same won't happen in a plane. If the plane's engines aren't providing thrust, the plane will move backwards. If the wheel axles were frictionless then the wheels would spin and the plane would be stationary, but they're not so the plane will be dragged backwards. If you apply ANY THRUST AT ALL, the plane will move forwards. This is because the plane's engines apply force to the air, not the ground, so it will move regardless of what the ground beneath it's wheels is doing. If the grou d is a treadmill going backwards, the wheels will just spin faster than you'd expect for a given speed of the plane. So, if you throttle up to a level that would move the plane forward at 30mph, it WILL move forward at 30mph. If it's on a treadmill going backwards at 30mph, then the wheels will spin as though the plane was moving at 60mph. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like the stone paradox. Can an omnipotent entity, e.g. God, create an object that is too heavy for him to move? Whether you answer yes or no, either way the result is that the entity is not omnipotent. They're the same thing aren't they but with a different frame of reference I thought you were off to bed !" Haha so did I but I ended up not being able to sleep! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. The wheels would rotate in relation to the thrust of the engines. If the threadmill is in direct counter rotation I’m no genius but it’s clearly Ryanair and going nowhere as usual
No, they won't. The wheels on aircraft aren't powered. They don't provide any motive force.
Didn’t say they were powered ... just that they would rotate... if they didn’t then no plane would ever take off... like everything else friction comes into it but thankfully I’m no genius but I do know a plane won’t take off without friction...
I think the problem is that people are envisioning the plane like it's a car with wings. If you're in a car and hit the accelerator to a level that gives you 30mph, and you're on a treadmill the opposite direction at 30mph, you'll be stationary. The same won't happen in a plane.
If the plane's engines aren't providing thrust, the plane will move backwards. If the wheel axles were frictionless then the wheels would spin and the plane would be stationary, but they're not so the plane will be dragged backwards. If you apply ANY THRUST AT ALL, the plane will move forwards. This is because the plane's engines apply force to the air, not the ground, so it will move regardless of what the ground beneath it's wheels is doing. If the grou d is a treadmill going backwards, the wheels will just spin faster than you'd expect for a given speed of the plane.
So, if you throttle up to a level that would move the plane forward at 30mph, it WILL move forward at 30mph. If it's on a treadmill going backwards at 30mph, then the wheels will spin as though the plane was moving at 60mph."There you go.. just tell all the airplane manufacturers they don’t need wheels and you will make billions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. The wheels would rotate in relation to the thrust of the engines. If the threadmill is in direct counter rotation I’m no genius but it’s clearly Ryanair and going nowhere as usual
No, they won't. The wheels on aircraft aren't powered. They don't provide any motive force.
Didn’t say they were powered ... just that they would rotate... if they didn’t then no plane would ever take off... like everything else friction comes into it but thankfully I’m no genius but I do know a plane won’t take off without friction...
I think the problem is that people are envisioning the plane like it's a car with wings. If you're in a car and hit the accelerator to a level that gives you 30mph, and you're on a treadmill the opposite direction at 30mph, you'll be stationary. The same won't happen in a plane.
If the plane's engines aren't providing thrust, the plane will move backwards. If the wheel axles were frictionless then the wheels would spin and the plane would be stationary, but they're not so the plane will be dragged backwards. If you apply ANY THRUST AT ALL, the plane will move forwards. This is because the plane's engines apply force to the air, not the ground, so it will move regardless of what the ground beneath it's wheels is doing. If the grou d is a treadmill going backwards, the wheels will just spin faster than you'd expect for a given speed of the plane.
So, if you throttle up to a level that would move the plane forward at 30mph, it WILL move forward at 30mph. If it's on a treadmill going backwards at 30mph, then the wheels will spin as though the plane was moving at 60mph.
There you go.. just tell all the airplane manufacturers they don’t need wheels and you will make billions " The wheels aren't there to drive the plane, they're to allow it to move easily rather than scraping along the ground... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like teasing flatearthers...especially those thinking their nikon p900 does a better job. Flattard fuckwits, with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCfDMU92JqI" No, not the flat earth morons... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ingestation of a gestational twin 1 child born 2 totally different sets of DNA in blood n bodily fluids fact or fiction or a freak of nature called a cimera ???????? "I'm not sure what you're asking sorry! But you can have non identical twins. So they do exist. As for absorbing, I can't see it really happening so easily, mainly because we wouldn't really test for it often. I'm sure there is a case of it though. Human human chimera sounds like a fun band name though so we have that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on treadmill. Lift is created via a pressure differential. This happens by the movement of air of the aerofoil design of the wing. The treadmill is a stationary object and in turn the aircraft would also be stationary therefore not air would be moving over the wing in order to create lift and the speed of the belt on the treadmill would only be relative to the wheels on the aircraft. The result being that it would be impossible for takeoff to be achieved. As I explained earlier, an aircraft can't be stationary on a moving treadmill. The only moving part would be the wheels relative to the belt on the stationary treadmill there for the rest of the aircraft is stationary which equals no lift. Its basic physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which in this case is between the belt and the wheels and nothing more. It's a trick question. The aeroplane wouldn't be stationary, as it's the engines that drive it forward not the wheels. The wheels would rotate in relation to the thrust of the engines. If the threadmill is in direct counter rotation I’m no genius but it’s clearly Ryanair and going nowhere as usual
No, they won't. The wheels on aircraft aren't powered. They don't provide any motive force.
Didn’t say they were powered ... just that they would rotate... if they didn’t then no plane would ever take off... like everything else friction comes into it but thankfully I’m no genius but I do know a plane won’t take off without friction...
I think the problem is that people are envisioning the plane like it's a car with wings. If you're in a car and hit the accelerator to a level that gives you 30mph, and you're on a treadmill the opposite direction at 30mph, you'll be stationary. The same won't happen in a plane.
If the plane's engines aren't providing thrust, the plane will move backwards. If the wheel axles were frictionless then the wheels would spin and the plane would be stationary, but they're not so the plane will be dragged backwards. If you apply ANY THRUST AT ALL, the plane will move forwards. This is because the plane's engines apply force to the air, not the ground, so it will move regardless of what the ground beneath it's wheels is doing. If the grou d is a treadmill going backwards, the wheels will just spin faster than you'd expect for a given speed of the plane.
So, if you throttle up to a level that would move the plane forward at 30mph, it WILL move forward at 30mph. If it's on a treadmill going backwards at 30mph, then the wheels will spin as though the plane was moving at 60mph.
There you go.. just tell all the airplane manufacturers they don’t need wheels and you will make billions
The wheels aren't there to drive the plane, they're to allow it to move easily rather than scraping along the ground..."Oh ok.. try to fly or land a plane without them.. guess it will be a bumpy ride | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like teasing flatearthers...especially those thinking their nikon p900 does a better job. Flattard fuckwits, with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCfDMU92JqI No, not the flat earth morons..." 5k as opposed to 3k like this video...of the clouds going 'behind' the sun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfudi3ikZPw
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off "This  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I figure why not try spread a bit of knowledge with the love too. Any on have any science based questions I'll give you an answer or find you an easy(ish) way to get one. May try doing this a few times to see if it takes off or not. So anyone have any buring or curious thoughts they want to ask? Like why is the sky blue or what are stem cells anyway" Which is more complicated? Brain surgery or rocket science? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft on conveyor belt – yet again. Aircraft are lifted up by the flow of air over their wings. Their engines produce forward motion, they don’t produce any lift at all. The VC10 passenger jets had the engines at the rear, as do some fighters; others force the air through their fuselages, and a few aircraft have “pusher” props mounted behind the wings. My car is driven by its rear wheels. When I travel along a road in my car, the front wheels rotate at approximately the same speed as the back ones; they don’t rotate at random speeds, or not at all. This is because the weight of the car forces the front wheels onto the road surface, and the resulting friction between the tyre rubber and the tarmac forces the wheels to rotate. That’s why I can steer my car around corners. It the front (steering) wheels had no grip on the road, the car would only travel in a straight line. A stationary aircraft’s wheels will be held down on a hypothetical conveyor belt in the same way. You can’t go up to a standing aircraft and rotate any of its undercarriage wheels by hand. They’re stuck to the tarmac by gravity. The aircraft’s engine moves it forward ALONG THE BELT by forcing air from ahead to astern, using some sort of propeller or turbine. Remember, this air flow doesn’t generate any lift, it just causes forward motion. The wheels will rotate at a commensurable speed – they can’t freewheel or skid. But the wheels are held onto the belt, which is moving backwards WITH RESPECT TO ITS SURROUNDINGS at the same commensurable speed. The forward motion of the aircraft is cancelled by the rearward motion of the belt. The aircraft is stationary WITH RESPECT TO ITS SURROUNDINGS. No air passes over the wings (only through the prop/turbo), no lift is generated, the aircraft can’t fly. If the conveyor belt is started when the engine is idling, the friction between the wheels and the belt, caused by the aircraft’s weight, will hold it stationary on the belt, and move backwards with respect to its surroundings. The engine moves the aircraft forwards along the belt, but the belt moves it backwards at the same speed. If you watch from the control tower, the aircraft will remain stationary. There are two videos on Youtube. One shows a model aircraft on a conveyor belt. It takes off when the belt reaches a speed at which its vibrations bounce the wheels off the surface. The other is a ludicrous demo involving a pick-up truck towing a very long piece of cloth under a moving light aircraft at un-matched speeds. More brain strain: What would happen if an aircraft landed on a conveyor belt moving at the same speed in the opposite direction? The belt speed is always the same as the aircraft’s speed in relation to the surroundings, e.g. the control tower. The belt slows as the aircraft slows. " It would appear to be static as soon as the wheels were on the belt but would still be travelling at speed until it came to a gradual stop. I think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jesus man, if you wanted to just say you can do that, then just say you can sorry that shit out. I didn't say I was a prefessor of every scientific field. Just figured it would be a fun way to spend the night chatting" Hey they are all science majors here you've started something now just don't talk politics | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
Yes, simple physics "No  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good luck with the aeroplane and black holes etc... I couldn’t get an answer about a little egg "The egg / chicken question is easy... The egg was laid by the bird that the chicken evolved from. That's the way that evolution works, the genetic changes that create a different animal happen to the developing foetus (or equivalent). Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
"An aircraft's engines push against the air, not against the ground. Is the engines run then the plane would move. If this wasn't the case, then the plane wouldn't be able to maintain its speed after its wheels left the ground (or flying as it's known). Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Is the Universe infinite or not?? "No. It’s potato-shaped. But its boundaries are suffuse. There is no “edge” or “skin” or boundary “wall”. If you moved outwards from the centre, the stars would get fewer and further between, until eventually you wouldn’t be able to see any. There may be other universes out there, floating about like ever-expanding bubbles of mass and energy. Currently, the medium that the universe exists in, the “space-time” continuum, is regarded as being infinite because we can’t detect its boundaries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
https://youtu.be/buqtdpuZxvk | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Is the Universe infinite or not??
No. It’s potato-shaped. But its boundaries are suffuse. There is no “edge” or “skin” or boundary “wall”. If you moved outwards from the centre, the stars would get fewer and further between, until eventually you wouldn’t be able to see any. There may be other universes out there, floating about like ever-expanding bubbles of mass and energy.
Currently, the medium that the universe exists in, the “space-time” continuum, is regarded as being infinite because we can’t detect its boundaries.
"Incorrect . The actual answer is . Nobody has a clue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like the stone paradox. Can an omnipotent entity, e.g. God, create an object that is too heavy for him to move? Whether you answer yes or no, either way the result is that the entity is not omnipotent." Fun joke But not logically correct. If the answer is yes it asserts that this being has created an object which is too heavy for it to move. So the being can't be omnipotent. But the answer to the question is actually no. That's because this merely asserts what is already being claimed, that there is no object too heavy for this being. They cannot create an object too heavy for them because they are omnipotent. Such an object is impossible.
As for this crazy plane on treadmill hijinx... the plane would move forward and off the treadmill easily no matter what speed the treadmill was going at. Once the engines are started you could even power the treadmill up to go at hundreds of times the speed of the plane and the only thing it would do is fuck the wheels up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why do we keep using Aspartame in fizzy drinks and sweets when it has known bad effects to humans?" Research shows nothing of the sort. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"O.K. Twenty-odd posts left on this thread, so: I’m standing still on the surface of Earth. How fast am I travelling in relation to a fixed point in space? " It depends where that point is? Nothing in space is fixed, it's all moving. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? " Because some people think it's cool to pretend to believe utter bollocks than hard facts . They think it makes them more interesting . Just my opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can the time it takes an object to fall from a height be calculated?" All objects fall at the same speed regardless of mass. Acceleration is 9.8m/s/s so it's quite a simple calculation. Except where wind resistance is a factor, eg a feather or a sheet of paper. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? " A lot of people take comfort from religious faith. Conspiracy theorists like to see a more mysterious and magical world. Other people have opinions which are so deeply held and reinforced that to let go of them threatens their very sense of identity and existence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No. The plane is stationary so there is no airflow over the wings, therefore no lift is being generated.
Incorrect, speed of the wheels is irrelevant, if it was wheel driven then youd be correct.
I don't understand this. How can a plane take off if it is stationary relative to the ground and by extension, the air around the wings?"It can’t. Not airflow no lift | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? Because some people think it's cool to pretend to believe utter bollocks than hard facts . They think it makes them more interesting . Just my opinion "Quite possibly. But i think a lot of people can't handle the idea that they are insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe and therefore want to believe that their lives are unique, facts, averages and logic need not apply to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? A lot of people take comfort from religious faith. Conspiracy theorists like to see a more mysterious and magical world. Other people have opinions which are so deeply held and reinforced that to let go of them threatens their very sense of identity and existence. " The latter sentence is the one that I intuitively relate to. Most people seem to want to be a unique individal with nothing a stranger could know about them based on laws of the physical universe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
Yes, simple physics "No banoulis law requires airflow over the wing to create lift, therefore the aerofoil (wing) needs to move or the air over it needs to move. On a treadmill neither happens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces?" Because science's evangelists misrepresent it, warp it, fail themselves to actually grasp it, and use it as a club to bash people over the head about a whole bunch of things that science itself isn't interested in claiming. With friends like that who needs enemies
"Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? " What... like believing that the earth orbits the sun when it's demonstrably true that the sun passes through the sky? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? Because some people think it's cool to pretend to believe utter bollocks than hard facts . They think it makes them more interesting . Just my opinion
Quite possibly. But i think a lot of people can't handle the idea that they are insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe and therefore want to believe that their lives are unique, facts, averages and logic need not apply to them."Yes. I.e. Astrology !! Absolute load of horseshit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? A lot of people take comfort from religious faith. Conspiracy theorists like to see a more mysterious and magical world. Other people have opinions which are so deeply held and reinforced that to let go of them threatens their very sense of identity and existence. The latter sentence is the one that I intuitively relate to. Most people seem to want to be a unique individal with nothing a stranger could know about them based on laws of the physical universe. " I'm curious. You're a Catholic aren't you? Are do you square believing in a faith with a science based world view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off "No. Plane needs air passing over and under wings at speed to generate lift before it can take off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
Yes, simple physics
No banoulis law requires airflow over the wing to create lift, therefore the aerofoil (wing) needs to move or the air over it needs to move. On a treadmill neither happens. "It does though. The treadmill cannot stop the plane moving forwards as the movement comes from the jets/propellor, not the wheels. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Because science's evangelists misrepresent it, warp it, fail themselves to actually grasp it, and use it as a club to bash people over the head about a whole bunch of things that science itself isn't interested in claiming. With friends like that who needs enemies
Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue?
What... like believing that the earth orbits the sun when it's demonstrably true that the sun passes through the sky? "Totally agree. But why do people throw the baby out with the bath water? The scientific method is perfect, scientists aren't. Just because there are some bad statistics out there, people think all statistics are made up! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? A lot of people take comfort from religious faith. Conspiracy theorists like to see a more mysterious and magical world. Other people have opinions which are so deeply held and reinforced that to let go of them threatens their very sense of identity and existence. The latter sentence is the one that I intuitively relate to. Most people seem to want to be a unique individal with nothing a stranger could know about them based on laws of the physical universe. I'm curious. You're a Catholic aren't you? Are do you square believing in a faith with a science based world view? " You clearly haven't met a Catholic. They can square anything with anything | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? A lot of people take comfort from religious faith. Conspiracy theorists like to see a more mysterious and magical world. Other people have opinions which are so deeply held and reinforced that to let go of them threatens their very sense of identity and existence. The latter sentence is the one that I intuitively relate to. Most people seem to want to be a unique individal with nothing a stranger could know about them based on laws of the physical universe. I'm curious. You're a Catholic aren't you? Are do you square believing in a faith with a science based world view? " You're a material philosophist right? So, you believe that eventually, science will explain everything? Our course it doesn't right now, so you take it on faith that it will. I believe in a probalistic universe, not a deterministic one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? A lot of people take comfort from religious faith. Conspiracy theorists like to see a more mysterious and magical world. Other people have opinions which are so deeply held and reinforced that to let go of them threatens their very sense of identity and existence. The latter sentence is the one that I intuitively relate to. Most people seem to want to be a unique individal with nothing a stranger could know about them based on laws of the physical universe. I'm curious. You're a Catholic aren't you? Are do you square believing in a faith with a science based world view? You clearly haven't met a Catholic. They can square anything with anything "Katie is actually from an Irish Catholic background, so I know plenty of them. They don't seem to differ from most other religious people who have the simultaneously ability to live a normal life whilst theoretically believing three impossible things before breakfast. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? A lot of people take comfort from religious faith. Conspiracy theorists like to see a more mysterious and magical world. Other people have opinions which are so deeply held and reinforced that to let go of them threatens their very sense of identity and existence. The latter sentence is the one that I intuitively relate to. Most people seem to want to be a unique individal with nothing a stranger could know about them based on laws of the physical universe. I'm curious. You're a Catholic aren't you? Are do you square believing in a faith with a science based world view? You clearly haven't met a Catholic. They can square anything with anything "You believe in soul mates touching you in dreams. You're not material philosophist dude | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? A lot of people take comfort from religious faith. Conspiracy theorists like to see a more mysterious and magical world. Other people have opinions which are so deeply held and reinforced that to let go of them threatens their very sense of identity and existence. The latter sentence is the one that I intuitively relate to. Most people seem to want to be a unique individal with nothing a stranger could know about them based on laws of the physical universe. I'm curious. You're a Catholic aren't you? Are do you square believing in a faith with a science based world view? You're a material philosophist right? So, you believe that eventually, science will explain everything? Our course it doesn't right now, so you take it on faith that it will. I believe in a probalistic universe, not a deterministic one. " No, I don't believe at all that. "everything" will ultimately be explained whatever "everything" might mean. It's curious that you so loudly trumpet your belief in science and logic when, if I am right about your faith, when you believe that the words of a priest can turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of a deity.* To someone who is not a Catholic that idea is far more ludicrous than any of people's ideas you denigrate on here. * don't bother to lecture me about Aristotealian categories and substance and accidents. I know the arguments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? A lot of people take comfort from religious faith. Conspiracy theorists like to see a more mysterious and magical world. Other people have opinions which are so deeply held and reinforced that to let go of them threatens their very sense of identity and existence. The latter sentence is the one that I intuitively relate to. Most people seem to want to be a unique individal with nothing a stranger could know about them based on laws of the physical universe. I'm curious. You're a Catholic aren't you? Are do you square believing in a faith with a science based world view? You're a material philosophist right? So, you believe that eventually, science will explain everything? Our course it doesn't right now, so you take it on faith that it will. I believe in a probalistic universe, not a deterministic one. No, I don't believe at all that. "everything" will ultimately be explained whatever "everything" might mean. It's curious that you so loudly trumpet your belief in science and logic when, if I am right about your faith, when you believe that the words of a priest can turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of a deity.* To someone who is not a Catholic that idea is far more ludicrous than any of people's ideas you denigrate on here. * don't bother to lecture me about Aristotealian categories and substance and accidents. I know the arguments. " I'd find that fairly easy to answer but i fear we're hijacking a thread here. I asked my question because i see that facts, experts and statistics (all core aspects of science) have almost become dirty words in 2018. I don't think that's because people have become more religious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue? A lot of people take comfort from religious faith. Conspiracy theorists like to see a more mysterious and magical world. Other people have opinions which are so deeply held and reinforced that to let go of them threatens their very sense of identity and existence. The latter sentence is the one that I intuitively relate to. Most people seem to want to be a unique individal with nothing a stranger could know about them based on laws of the physical universe. I'm curious. You're a Catholic aren't you? Are do you square believing in a faith with a science based world view? You're a material philosophist right? So, you believe that eventually, science will explain everything? Our course it doesn't right now, so you take it on faith that it will. I believe in a probalistic universe, not a deterministic one. No, I don't believe at all that. "everything" will ultimately be explained whatever "everything" might mean. It's curious that you so loudly trumpet your belief in science and logic when, if I am right about your faith, when you believe that the words of a priest can turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of a deity.* To someone who is not a Catholic that idea is far more ludicrous than any of people's ideas you denigrate on here. * don't bother to lecture me about Aristotealian categories and substance and accidents. I know the arguments. I'd find that fairly easy to answer but i fear we're hijacking a thread here. I asked my question because i see that facts, experts and statistics (all core aspects of science) have almost become dirty words in 2018. I don't think that's because people have become more religious. " Do you not see that, the doctrines of Catholicisn and Christianity generally directly contradict what you said above? Christianity posits that each individual IS special and of unique importance to God. How can you possibly say you are a Christian whilst holding the view that individuals are of no importance in the grand scheme of things (a view I happen to agree with). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to break the thread before it starts
Aeroplane on a treadmill, treadmill matches the wheel speed.....can it take off
No.
Plane needs air passing over and under wings at speed to generate lift before it can take off."Ok so I studied aerospace engineering at uni and this subject came up. The crux of the question revolves around propulsion types. Where people get mixed up is assuming aircraft are propelled forward in the same way as cars, bike or even people. Cars etc rely on a reaction with the ground, engine applies power to the gearbox which transfers to the wheels then to the ground. Aircraft on the other hand rely on a reaction with the air to propel them selves forward. So regardless of what an aircrafts (unpowered) wheels are doing its engines will propel it forward and it’ll fly. Hope that helps clear things up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so my question is: why do most people hate science and the facts it produces? Because science's evangelists misrepresent it, warp it, fail themselves to actually grasp it, and use it as a club to bash people over the head about a whole bunch of things that science itself isn't interested in claiming. With friends like that who needs enemies
Why do people want to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue?
What... like believing that the earth orbits the sun when it's demonstrably true that the sun passes through the sky?
Totally agree. But why do people throw the baby out with the bath water? The scientific method is perfect, scientists aren't. Just because there are some bad statistics out there, people think all statistics are made up!"The problem is worse than that. The scientific method alone says very little about anything. The scientist runs a test and discerns that small amounts of red wine raise the oxygen levels in blood in some individuals between the age of 45-55 in the London area. He then surmises that in some instances this may lead to increased longevity. The science journalist gets hold of this and all of a sudden everyone's being told red wine helps you live longer. This is lauded as a fact which is undeniably true... and people like yourself will happily accept that and then press the point as such in any arguments over alcohol consumption you may be having. Next another scientist runs a test and finds that copious amounts of red wine led to problems in the gut of 55% of elderly aborigine people living in the remote wilderness. The science journalist gets hold of that and suddenly red wine is bad for your health and this is pushed with the same exact certainty again as being true... and once again people like you pick that study up as facts to push in debates about alcohol. In between... the common man... we can see the whole thing is a confusing work in progress... that yesterday's claims of fact turned out to be bullshit and most likely so will today's... so we'll just wait until science is finished before we bother taking any more of its advice. But of course, as you know, science will never be finished and not listening to current science, no matter how incomplete, is recklessly stupid. Indeed, this whole disillusionment with science isn't based on the science itself... only on the foolish over simplifications of what is claimed of it. If more people knew that they'd be less cynical of science and more cynical of science journalism. It's a massive clusterfuck conjured up mainly not by scientists at all but by science's journalists and fans | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
