[LUconn]

I wanted to argue, when it was debateable. And now mythbusters have busted it. Now granted, they don't 100% use the scientific meathod so you can say they messed it up, but you still haven't given me any reasons as to why the plane wouldn't move forward.

[adam42381]

For it to be disproved, the wheels must be spinning at precisely the same speed as the treadmill belt. If they didn't have both going the same speed, nothing is proven either way. The plane should be "running in place" for the myth to be truly tested. Of course the plane is technically going forward because its wheels are moving but it isn't actually going foward horizontally. The question is whether the plane would lift off if all those factors were met. The parameters of the actual experiment that was done prove nothing. I still say it would lift, but that's just me. My guess is that they'll end up having to redo this one.

[LUconn]

If they didn't have both going the same speed, nothing is proven either way. The plane should be "running in place" for the myth to be truly tested. Of course the plane is technically going forward because its wheels are moving but it isn't actually going foward horizontally.

This is what is assumed initially, but it is a false assumption. If it were correct, the plane would not fly. If the plane were going 25mph one way and the conveyor belt when the other way at 25mph, the plane would move forward at 25mph. Which is why it flys.

[RagingTireFire]

If they didn't have both going the same speed, nothing is proven either way. The plane should be "running in place" for the myth to be truly tested. Of course the plane is technically going forward because its wheels are moving but it isn't actually going foward horizontally.

This is what is assumed initially, but it is a false assumption. If it were correct, the plane would not fly. If the plane were going 25mph one way and the conveyor belt when the other way at 25mph, the plane would move forward at 25mph. Which is why it flys.

Adam is dead on. No one is saying that it could never get off the ground going against a conveyor belt at all. If it's going fast enough to overcome the treadmill, of course it can get off the ground. However, the popular myth and the whole basis of the argument -- which the two dorks did NOT test -- is whether or not the plane can fly if the plane's forward thrust is only enough to compensate for the opposite thrust of the conveyor. As you just said, that plane could not fly.

[RagingTireFire]

You're either just trying to annoy me by arguing, which is your style...

While we're here, that's actually not my style. I certainly don't mind arguing at all -- obviously -- but I've never taken a position on this board that I didn't believe in at the time.

[LUconn]

did you watch the show? Or have you read anything I've typed? The fact that the plane will remain sationary IS THE MYTH. It will never stay stationary.

[RagingTireFire]

The fact that the plane will remain sationary IS THE MYTH. It will never stay stationary.

I've read everything you've typed. Particularly, your first post which was the whole premise of this argument and is, apparently, completely different than what you want to argue about now.

The hypothetical situation is:

Could a plane take off on a giant runway/conveyor belt that is running against the direction in which the plane is trying to go? And I guess to condense things up, it is a treadmill that can go faster than a plane.

THIS ^^ is the whole question we've been arguing to this point. You can't change the argument in the middle and not tell anybody. Start another thread for the stationary/non-stationary argument.

[LUconn]

it doesn't say anything about being stationary. You're assuming that it is when that's not possible. And whether or not it is or isn't stationary is the crux to the problem.