Quote:
Originally posted by Rockaholic:

read it again - scroll back up and read my argument - you'll see my argument does not violate the original scenario in any way unless you are assuming the plane remains stationary, in whcih case you have created a contradiction (see the previous bolded section of post above tis one- you can scroll up, I hope)

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...

[b] False - the scenario does not say the planes remains in one spot and has no forward motion in relation to the ground - that is an assumption you are making because you do not understand the physics involved with the problem.

False - the conveyor matches the speed of the plane, but it doesn not stop the plane from moving - if it does you have the wheel problem I mentioned before
[/b]

Your idea of the plane with some wheels on and some wheels off the conveyor is NOT the original scenario.

In our scenario the plane is already on the conveyor runway. The scenario does not start off with our plane "halfway" on the runway.

It is pointless to argue and bring in totally different scenarios. It is also pointless to make comparisons to cars.

The scenario doesn't say the plane remains in one spot. By using your logic, the scenario also doesn't say the plane will have any foward motion either.



The scenario says the conveyor matches the plane's speed. That is all it says on that subject. If the plane attempts to do 100MPH the conveyor will be going 100MPH in the opposite direction. That does not equate to forward motion in relation to a point on the ground off of the conveyor.

The scenario doesn't say a lot of things. It doesn't tell us the length of the conveyor. Should we all start making assumptions regarding that too? Does this matter? For the sake of the scenario, most likely not.
_________________________
Click here for Democrat Party theme song...