Plane

[Deleted member 35927]

You obviously don't understand how the plane normally moves forward on a runway from a standing start, this is part of the problem with your comprehension.

The plane doesn't fly through the air from a standstill, the engines push it forward and the tyres react with the opposite force of the solid tarmac to allow the plane to roll.

If there is no solid resistance, the plane can't roll. And guess what, the conveyor moving in the opposite direction as per one interpretation of the scenario is the lack of solid resistance.

This clearly shows your lack of understanding, the plane produces 240k of thrust pushing through the air, the wheels are just there to provide stability and as least resistance as possible , to hold it stationary you need to provide an opposing force equal to or greater than the planes 240k, this is an actual fact.
You'd be lucky if your belt provides 0.5% of that

 

[Deleted member 36735]

The OP doesn't declare what the wheels actually do in reality. The OP says it has been "programmed". So, even if there is a debate as to what the programmer is trying to achieve, there are 2 options:

Option 1: Belt in opposite direction to plane. In this scenario the programmer could set the program to match the wheel speed, in opposite direction to plane movements. Of course, this would be impossible to actually achieve, belt could never catch up with wheel speed and so would exponentially increase.

No.

That's not a valid argument because what you have done there is acknowledge the rules but discarded them by making an assumption.

The only thing that any argument can be based on is what is written, ie the belt is always at the same speed at the wheels of the plane. You cannot say, "oh well I don't think that's possible so I'm making up a different scenario".

 

[Deleted member 35927]

No.

That's not a valid argument because what you have done there is acknowledge the rules but discarded them by making an assumption.

The only thing that any argument can be based on is what is written, ie the belt is always at the same speed at the wheels of the plane. You cannot say, "oh well I don't think that's possible so I'm making up a different scenario".

Sounds legit to me and doesn't require fairy dust.

 

[Deleted member 36735]

This clearly shows your lack of understanding, the plane produces 240k of thrust pushing through the air the wheels are just there to provide stability and as least resistance as possible , to hold it stationary you need to provide an opposing force equal to or greater than the planes 240k, this is an actual fact.
You'd be lucky if your belt provides 0.5% of that

None of that is relevant to what is written in the puzzle.

The scenario says that the belt always moves at the same speed as the wheels.

When the wheels are moving at 1mph, so is the belt, plane doesn't move.

Wheels are at 10mph, so is the belt.

Wheels are at 30mph, so is the belt.

Etc etc etc.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

None of that is relevant to what is written in the puzzle.

The scenario says that the belt always moves at the same speed as the wheels.

When the wheels are moving at 1mph, so is the belt, plane doesn't move.

Wheels are at 10mph, so is the belt.

Wheels are at 30mph, so is the belt.

Etc etc etc.

And there you go, discarding the laws of motion.
You can't simply vanish all that force away with your magic conveyor belt

Might as well say it being held in place by superman.

 

[RichA]

Can those with full understanding who know the solution please just clarify in which direction the conveyor belt is moving? Same direction as the plane or opposite?

 

[Deleted member 36735]

And there you go, discarding the laws of motion.
You can't simply vanish all that force away with your magic conveyor belt

Might as well say it being held in place by superman.

And there you go, discarding a rationally made point with absolutely no substance.
Your "laws of motion" ? Last time you quoted any of Newton's Laws, I responded but you said you had the wrong one. So then I replied with the correct one but you didn't understand there was more to the Law than you realised so you just laughed as you couldn't answer.

You can't simply vanish the force of logical argument with your magic airbrush.

Might as well keep repeating, Harry Potter, Wizards and Superman.

It's nothing to do with "all that force", it's all to do with following the rules of the wording of the puzzle.

If the force of the engines makes the wheels skid or bounce or hover along the treadmill, the rules of the puzzle are broken, so you can't use that as an example.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

Can those with full understanding who know the solution please just clarify in which direction the conveyor belt is moving? Same direction as the plane or opposite?

Must say I took it to mean opposite,like a Treadmill.
Taken as written then forward with the plane.

Either way, makes no difference.

 

[Deleted member 36735]

Can those with full understanding who know the solution please just clarify in which direction the conveyor belt is moving? Same direction as the plane or opposite?

It's fair to say that it can be either way.

We have to use the wording of the "counteracting" sentence, so looking at the definition and synonyms, it can mean to offset/negate or also to stop. Both camps are fine in saying that the belt either moves forward or backward. That's part of the genius of the puzzle.

 

[Deleted member 36735]

Must say I took it to mean opposite,like a Treadmill.

Which completely contradicts half of what you've written in this thread.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

And there you go, discarding a rationally made point with absolutely no substance.
Your "laws of motion" ? Last time you quoted any of Newton's Laws, I responded but you said you had the wrong one. So then I replied with the correct one but you didn't understand there was more to the Law than you realised so you just laughed as you couldn't answer.

You can't simply vanish the force of logical argument with your magic airbrush.

Might as well keep repeating, Harry Potter, Wizards and Superman.

It's nothing to do with "all that force", it's all to do with following the rules of the wording of the puzzle.

If the force of the engines makes the wheels skid or bounce or hover along the treadmill, the rules of the puzzle are broken, so you can't use that as an example.

What a strange reply, theres no logic in your response , it's your standard fall back of waffle and feeble insults.

Skidding ? Bouncing ? You're just making up stuff.

You're answer to the 'puzzle' lives in the land of make believe.

And if you follow the wording the belt is going forward is it not ?

 

[GreiginFife]

Conveyer or treadmill just needs to allow the wheels to turn as if the plane was moving forwards (so the belt would move backwards in my eyes). It only needs to keep doing that until the engine thrust creates the lift needed to get the plane airborne. The wheels are a red herring, the’re just rollers for all intents and purposes.

 

[RichA]

Must say I took it to mean opposite,like a Treadmill.
Taken as written then forward with the plane.

Either way, makes no difference.

Surely if it's forward with the plane then it's acceleration is boosted and it takes off much more quickly than normal. And this thread would've died out on Sunday morning.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

Surely if it's forward with the plane then it's acceleration is boosted and it takes off much more quickly than normal. And this thread would've died out on Sunday morning.

Yes, I believe we are to suppose the belt is moving opposite direction to the plane.

 

[SocketRocket]

The engine

The engines produce a force that wants to move the airframe forwards. The point of least resistance with the ground (Or the conveyor belt) are the planes wheels therefore the airframe moves forward as the wheels turn. In such a theoretical exercise we have to take certain conditions as reasonable (The wheels are able to turn and support the airframe at any speed etc).
The conveyor belt is setup such that it's rotation in the opposite direction to the wheels match their speed exactly. In this case the two rotations cancel eachother, therefore whatever the thrust of the engines the forward rotation of the wheels are offset by the rearward rotation of the conveyor. The airframe remains stationary with respect to the space around it, there will not be sufficient air passing over the wing to create lift, the plane will not take off.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

The engines produce a force that wants to move the airframe forwards. The point of least resistance with the ground (Or the conveyor belt) are the planes wheels therefore the airframe moves forward as the wheels turn. In such a theoretical exercise we have to take certain conditions as reasonable (The wheels are able to turn and support the airframe at any speed etc).
The conveyor belt is setup such that it's rotation in the opposite direction to the wheels match their speed exactly. In this case the two rotations cancel eachother, therefore whatever the thrust of the engines the forward rotation of the wheels are muted. The airframe remains stationary with respect the space around it, therefore there will not be sufficient air passing over the wing to create lift, the plane will not take off.

Ah no, you need an opposing force equal to or greater than the thrust of the plane in order to hold it stationary. Not a hope in hell are you getting that from the conveyor via the free spinning wheels.

 

[Swango1980]

The engines produce a force that wants to move the airframe forwards. The point of least resistance with the ground (Or the conveyor belt) are the planes wheels therefore the airframe moves forward as the wheels turn. In such a theoretical exercise we have to take certain conditions as reasonable (The wheels are able to turn and support the airframe at any speed etc).
The conveyor belt is setup such that it's rotation in the opposite direction to the wheels match their speed exactly. In this case the two rotations cancel eachother, therefore whatever the thrust of the engines the forward rotation of the wheels are offset by the rearward rotation of the conveyor. The airframe remains stationary with respect to the space around it, there will not be sufficient air passing over the wing to create lift, the plane will not take off.

This is true, in a parallel universe with different laws of nature.

In this one however, the rotation of a treadmill produces no force to opposed the engines thrust.

 

[Swango1980]

No.

That's not a valid argument because what you have done there is acknowledge the rules but discarded them by making an assumption.

The only thing that any argument can be based on is what is written, ie the belt is always at the same speed at the wheels of the plane. You cannot say, "oh well I don't think that's possible so I'm making up a different scenario".

I followed the rules precisely.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Counteracting their rotation - this wording can not be used to justify an impossibility that becomes "a thing that actually does happen". The impossibility does not happen.

The rotation of the wheels is not an act of the wheels. The wheels are not active. They are passively responding when they rotate.
If the wheels start to rotate, then the conveyor moves at the same speed. This is the conveyor countering.

The conveyor IS countering the wheels, by matching their speed of rotation.
But this countering action of the conveyor does not prevent the plane from taking off.
The conveyor does not counter or oppose the jet engines.

Arguing that the wording or the phrasing describes an impossibility that is happening, or can happen, seems a very pointless exercise.
It will never be a "winning" argument.

If the wording has produced vagueness or an ambiguity, this does not change reality.
Such a conveyor, as we know the realms of reality allow, will not prevent the plane from taking off.

 

[Golf is fun]

Counteracting their rotation - this wording can not be used to justify an impossibility that becomes "a thing that actually does happen". The impossibility does not happen.

Exactly! The question is badly worded, but if we take the question so literally that some laws of physics don't apply and replaced by some mysterious unexplained phenomenon, the question becomes impossible to answer, as there is no point applying any other physical laws to the situation, why not just replace them with unexplained phenomena too?