Earth spinning

div0 said:
Just that in this example, you have to make the realisation that the statements made, are effectively telling you that the engines can't accelerate the plane, and so it CAN'T take off!
Click to expand...

In that case if you remove the treadmill, the engines are so underpowered, it still can't take off. You may as well take off the wings as they are just as irrelevant as the treadmill in your scenario.

Nate
 
div0 said:
No, it makes it a question in understanding forces, just like the original version of the question.

Just that in this example, you have to make the realisation that the statements made are effectively telling you that the engines can't accelerate the plane, and so it CAN'T take off!

Whereas in the 'normal' version, there is no such restriction and the realisation you make is that even though the treadmill keeps accelerating to match the PLANE'S speed, it doesn't matter, as the ENGINES are the driving force and the WHEELS are just a transfer point.

This is the point I made a long time ago. If you don't understand why this version is so completely different, then I don't believe you understand the original version as well as you think you do.
Click to expand...

I do understand it, However if the engines are not powerful enough to accelerate the plane, then there's no need for a treadmill the statement/question may as well read;

Q Can a plane with insufficient engine power to accelerate to take off speed, take off ?
A No

Can a dog with no legs hop ?
 
Last edited:
Nate--IRL-- said:
In that case if you remove the treadmill, the engines are so underpowered, it still can't take off. You may as well take off the wings as they are just as irrelevant as the treadmill in your scenario.

Nate
Click to expand...

Think of it that way if you want.

All you're saying is that you've finally made the realisation as to why the plane CAN'T take off in the example posted in this thread.

It doesn't matter if it's not a realistic version. The point is that you should understand what the restrictions of the statement made in the question mean to the objects involved. The statements made in this version clearly lead to a different result than the 'normal' version.

So why argue against it for so long?
 
LOAM said:
"can a plane with engines insufficient power to accelerate IE Move, take off ?"
Click to expand...

Congrats :D

And that's what you should have been thinking the moment you saw the 'subtle' difference in wording from the 'normal' version.
 
I always thought it was Thrust and Air flow that amde a plane take off/fly. If it is using thrust to fight against the treadmil rotation in the opposite direction then it will remain stationary to us as there is no air flow moving over the wings and flaps to give it lift off. If there was a fan on, facing the plane then thats a different story.
 
on a side note.

3 Men check into a motel room. The room cost £30. Each man paid £10. The manager of the motel realized he overcharged the men for their room.

The room should have been £25. He gave the bellboy £5 to give back to the men. The bellboy took the money, but on the way thought to himself, "£5 cannot be divided evenly by 3 people."

The bellboy then pocketed £2 and decided to give the men £3 back, each man receiving £1. At this point the room cost each man £9.

£9 x 3 = £27

£27 + £2 (Bellboy pocketed) = £29.

What happened to the last Pound?
 
div0 said:
Think of it that way if you want.

All you're saying is that you've finally made the realisation as to why the plane CAN'T take off in the example posted in this thread.

It doesn't matter if it's not a realistic version. The point is that you should understand what the restrictions of the statement made in the question mean to the objects involved. The statements made in this version clearly lead to a different result than the 'normal' version.

So why argue against it for so long?
Click to expand...

It can take off, it's living in a fantasy world and as such can do whatever the hell I want it to and this time around Mr T is the pilot and Murdoch ain't getting on no plane fools!!! :)
 
LOAM said:
on a side note.

3 Men check into a motel room. The room cost £30. Each man paid £10. The manager of the motel realized he overcharged the men for their room.

The room should have been £25. He gave the bellboy £5 to give back to the men. The bellboy took the money, but on the way thought to himself, "£5 cannot be divided evenly by 3 people."

The bellboy then pocketed £2 and decided to give the men £3 back, each man receiving £1. At this point the room cost each man £9.

£9 x 3 = £27

£27 + £2 (Bellboy pocketed) = £29.

What happened to the last Pound?
Click to expand...

You cannot add incomings to outgoings and expect it to add up.
 
What scares me, is that OCUK on average I'd assume is more intelligent than the average member of the public (percent wise). So that'd probably mean the average person on the street would stare blankly and not understand what a plane was - let alone the rest of it.
 
That's easy it's one of those things you use to make a lump of wood smaller, now I come to think of it, that definitely wouldn't take off and I've never seen one with wheel either...
 
LOAM said:
on a side note.

3 Men check into a motel room. The room cost £30. Each man paid £10. The manager of the motel realized he overcharged the men for their room.

The room should have been £25. He gave the bellboy £5 to give back to the men. The bellboy took the money, but on the way thought to himself, "£5 cannot be divided evenly by 3 people."

The bellboy then pocketed £2 and decided to give the men £3 back, each man receiving £1. At this point the room cost each man £9.

£9 x 3 = £27

£27 + £2 (Bellboy pocketed) = £29.

What happened to the last Pound?
Click to expand...

£27 - £2 is the £25 that was ultimately paid for the room, or alternatively £27 paid + £3 each man got back totals the £30 originally laid out. Adding the £2 on makes no sense whatsoever, as much as subtracting the £3 from the £27 paid - in both cases, you're either adding or subtracting the same value twice and ignoring the other value. Each man paid £9 and kept £1, the total of £27 going to pay the £25 room bill and the £2 *******'s thieved tip. It's always shocked me how people don't immediately grasp what's wrong with this riddle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom