[quote=“RuBiCaNT,post:359,topic:37377"”]
And then a unicorn trotted out of your butt and started going on myspace on your computer which also prevented you from typing… Right?
[/quote]
lol no… I fucked the shit out of that unicorn. I mean, how many chances do you get in your life to toss it in a mythical creature?
[quote=“Fry,post:361,topic:37377"”]
lol no… I fucked the shit out of that unicorn. I mean, how many chances do you get in your life to toss it in a mythical creature?
[/quote]
That horn come out brown?? 
i’m starting to wonder why mods are allowing so much of this shit to carry on. it’s obvious what will happen when the jets turn on.
but, why then…was there a 23495879345 page thread before, probably more than one…and this one comes up, and spawns like 4 more threads as well…isn’t it a little much? can we have a merge at least?
OT is littered with stupid shit enough…it doesn’t need to repeat itself now…
[quote=“90NA300ZX,post:363,topic:37377"”]
i’m starting to wonder why mods are allowing so much of this shit to carry on. it’s obvious what will happen when the jets turn on.
but, why then…was there a 23495879345 page thread before, probably more than one…and this one comes up, and spawns like 4 more threads as well…isn’t it a little much? can we have a merge at least?
OT is littered with stupid shit enough…it doesn’t need to repeat itself now…
[/quote]
Quit whining… It’s OT. Don’t read it if you don’t like it.
this time the people who actually thought it out(instead of bandwagoning) came out and explained the reasoning with mathematical and physical facts, seems like a success to me.
my final prediction: due to the negative exponential speed of the conveyor belt, the airplane will leave the ground, instantly bending space and thus traveling backwards in time breaking all laws of physics.
But where the fuck are they going to find a conveyer belt that can handle 1.21 jiggawatts?
[quote=“Fry,post:366,topic:37377"”]
But where the fuck are they going to find a conveyer belt that can handle 1.21 jiggawatts?
[/quote]
jigga what?
[quote=“Fry,post:366,topic:37377"”]
But where the fuck are they going to find a conveyer belt that can handle 1.21 jiggawatts?
[/quote]
At Target on the shelf right next to the Flux-Capacitors… duh!
lol Mr Fusion…
[quote=“boardjnky4,post:367,topic:37377"”]
great scott, your right!!
[/quote]
I know. This is heavy.
the plane cant fly afterall!!
Um… of course it will still be able to take off. The velocity of the air over the wings (plane speed relative to a static position roughly) is the ONLY thing that matters. How fast the conveyor or its wheels move is completely irrellevent.
However, they need to specify that the conveyer is going backwards at TWICE the speed of the plane. (plane speed -plane speed = dead stall, plane couldnt even move, you need to substract plane speed AGAIN to make it the opposite of plane speed)
As I said, if the plane if moving forward on the conveyer at takeoff speed relative to the ground, the speed of the conveyor and wheels (-2x plane speed) is meaningless… though you better not be twitchy on the controls!
[quote=“Final GTS,post:373,topic:37377"”]
. How fast the conveyor or its wheels move is completely irrellevent.
However, they need to specify that the conveyer is going backwards at TWICE the speed of the plane.
[/quote]
right and wrong. Depending on what you actually meant to say, you may have contradicted yourself.
If the conveyor was moving at, let’s say “Viper-speed”,or standing still…it would still take off at the same speed in the same ammount of time…assuming ideal “frictionless” wheel bearings which provide no resistance in the opposite direction.
does the plane actually exist? Will Jamie and Adam take the red or the blue pill? Find out on 12/12 :eek:
btw: the plane is less likely to take off going on an icy runway pointing uphil than it is on a treadmill. If you can figure that out, you can then figure out why it’s going to take off in december.
there is no spoon.
[quote=“LAFENGAS,post:374,topic:37377"”]
right and wrong. Depending on what you actually meant to say, you may have contradicted yourself.
[/quote]
I didnt contradict myself, you just didnt understand what I said.
As per the REQUIREMENTS, the conveyor must be moving at the same speed, opposite direction of take-off. As I stated, this is irrellevant, although the way they word it is somewhat questionable. They should have specified that the plane is moving forward at 1X relative to the ground, while the conveyor is moving at -2X relative to the plane. They way thay word it, it almost sounds like the plane is standing dead still relative to the ground, and “take-off” speed is relative to the conveyor (not the ground), which is meaningless if the plane is actually static.
Plane = +X and conveyer = -X, if they base conveyer speed on plane speed.
I don’t know where you’re getting -2X from. :gotme:
maybe a delta of 2X, thats about it I can figure out
looks like he is trying to add in relative constants but doesn’t really understand the concept of it
if talking about relative to the ground
Plane = X
Conveyor = -X
Wheels = 2x
Yeah I think he’s using plane speed relative to ground and conveyer speed relative to the plane. Though you are then comparing apples to crackers and the numbers become meaningless. :bloated:
EDIT: Naw he said conveyer relative to ground. I don’t know what he’s thinking. :gotme: