Physics Puzzle
- Thread starter chilluk
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Surely after 190+ replies, someone must have hit upon the right answer. The fact that some people either don't understand what's being said or plainly just don't agree leads me to believe that this thread will just keep going round in circles with people just getting more and more frustrated.
Why don't you just let it drop? If you know you're right, be secure in that knowledge and don't try and force it upon someone else with a differing opinion.
Now play nice.
Why don't you just let it drop? If you know you're right, be secure in that knowledge and don't try and force it upon someone else with a differing opinion.
Now play nice.
Sponsored Links
Softus said:Same as the question that underlies the chicken/egg thang, namely: "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?"noodlz said:Softus said:
That's a good answer
54 Where does it all end?
I can't belive this topic is still going.
There's 2 answers it either took off or it didn't,
There's 2 answers it either took off or it didn't,
this is the same as others here are saying replace the wheels for skates but the example relies on the wheels in order to govern the speed of the runway.johnny_t said:
I still stand by the fact that the wheels being attached to the plane and not being able to gain any ground on the backwards running runway means the plane also gains no ground being attached to the aforementioned wheels.
think of a cartoon character trying to run on ice, his legs go ten to the dozen but he stays in one spot.
ive put the puzzle to a cameraman at work who is a pilot and he agrees with what i have said.
ok pennies dropped i understand where i was going wrong, the distance circumference argument i was putting forward due to the wheel being physically attached to the axle and therefore the plane was what was directing me down the wrong road of thought.
the reason distance will mot come into it is that the tyre could revolve many times around the axle say for example 4 revs tyre circumferance for this example we'll call a foot therefore the wheel will have turned a distance of 4 feet but the axle/spindle whatever you want to call it bears no relation to this and may have only moved a foot forward depending on applied thrust because i can now see there is no relationship between distance travelled by the tyres or amount of revolutions in regards to how far the axle could or has moved the physical attachment argument has gone.
Apologies to all i've disagreed with, but once you go down a certain road of thought and convinced yourself it's hard for others to explain in a certain way where you are getting it wrong and what i needed was for someone to explain the above distance travelled argument as being flawed in the way it was explained this morning by a colleague at work for me to latch onto where i went wrong.
Again apologies.
the reason distance will mot come into it is that the tyre could revolve many times around the axle say for example 4 revs tyre circumferance for this example we'll call a foot therefore the wheel will have turned a distance of 4 feet but the axle/spindle whatever you want to call it bears no relation to this and may have only moved a foot forward depending on applied thrust because i can now see there is no relationship between distance travelled by the tyres or amount of revolutions in regards to how far the axle could or has moved the physical attachment argument has gone.
Apologies to all i've disagreed with, but once you go down a certain road of thought and convinced yourself it's hard for others to explain in a certain way where you are getting it wrong and what i needed was for someone to explain the above distance travelled argument as being flawed in the way it was explained this morning by a colleague at work for me to latch onto where i went wrong.
Again apologies.
Sponsored Links
