Quote:
Originally posted by Rockaholic:

Please tell me where you pointed out the flaw in my argument (from page 37 on). I don't see that flaw in my argument pointed out anywhere.
Are you talking about this statement?...

Quote:
Rockaholic wrote:

Ok, I screwed up in my last posts with respect to the 3rd party - so ignore those - I ended up confusing myself when people began mention 3rd party observers to the scenario - and made a mistake. If the plane is not moving in relation to the 3rd party observer Like in my aircraft scenario) then the plane does not fly. However my aircraft scenario is flawed because there is nothing to prevent the airplane from moving with respect to the gound. Thus the plane to a 3rd party observer could not appear to stay in one spot.
In that statement your flaw is making the assumption that the aircraft in our scenario is moving forward relative to the ground or an outside observer.

There is nothing in the original scenario that could generate such an assumption. Let's take a look at the original scenario again:



In the original scenario the conveyor and the plane's speed effectively cancel each other out in the equation.

Even if we were to allow an assumption of some forward movement on this conveyor ... relative to the ground and the atmosphere ... that forward movement would have to be enough to allow conditions for lift to occur.

Seeing that the conveyor exactly matches the plane's speed, how much forward motion do you envision?

Quote:
Oh, by the way...
Your "aerospce engineer" has a flaw in his/her explanation.
The engineer says that the ground is moving in relation to the wing, but that the air is not moving in relation to the wing.
I don't see him saying the ground is moving. He makes a statement referring to the "motion of the ground". That is most likely referring to the conveyor. The conveyor is afterall underneath the wheels of the plane, is it not?

Quote:
to which I bring back the point the plane can not be stationary on the conveyor relative to the ground. For proof, re-read the argument I make from page 37 on...
If you are claiming that the plane is moving forward on the conveyor relative to a point on the ground, then you are no longer arguing the parameters of the original scenario.

If the plane were moving forward on the conveyor relative to a point on the ground or an outside observer, then the conveyor is not matching the speed of the plane.

I thought it was interesting that on the NY Times blog thread there are more people who claim the plane would not fly.