Discussion: Sorry, the math is wrong!

"Again, my original point remains uncontested. At no time in the televised experiments did anyone calculate the maximum ground speed of the plane. If the plane is exerting maximum thrust and the conveyer is moving in the opposite direction at the same speed, the plane will never be able to take off."

"
You are mixing up speed and thrust, using them interchangeably, when they are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably."

"The next step is easy. Bolt the wings back onto the airplane and put it on a conveyer that's calibrated to run at 100 MPH. Since the plane's maximum thrust now equals the speed of the conveyer, the plane remains stationary creating insufficient lift for flight.
"

"I'll stick to my deceased equine for as long as it takes you to present a supported mathematical formula that correctly and numerically expresses the value (negative or positive) of a conveyer rotating contrary to forward motion.

For you to say the number is small is to infer that the number exists. If the number exists, it must be reconciled within the entire the flight equation.

Again, here are base numbers to assist in your logic. Flight occurs when lift + thrust >= load + drag. If all four components have a value of 1, the plane will fly where solid ground has a value of zero. For this scenario, the propeller rotating at maximum output has a value of 1.

Your task is two-fold: First, determine the accurate numeric value created by a conveyer rotating in a fashion that will cause all forward motion of the craft to end. (Hint; the number will be a negative value) Second, determine which of the four main components will be impacted most by the new variable and factor it into the flight equation. State your findings numerically then verbally describe the flight capabilities of the plane based on those numbers .

Please always bear in mind your debate, no matter how stupid, is no longer between you and I, it's between you and the numbers. "

"What tests did you conduct to proove drag is 0.05 to 0.1? none? Science is either theory or fact. Myself, I'd prefer fact.

Perhaps there's neither a problem with my logic or yours but in the execution of the premise as done on TV.

Ignore everything for a moment except for the drawn illustration that they used to explain the premise. It showed a plane on a conveyer and (critical point) the plane was stationary..

Now look at the two experiments and ask one question. If the goal of the conveyer was to keep the plane stationary and the planes moved forward in the experiments, did the conveyer accomplish it's goal? I'm guessing you answered yes to the question while I said no. I further assert the wrong types of tests were performed to see what speed the treadmill would need to obtain.

Now consider an alternative experiment. (I ask forgiveness twice in the following, One, the following will probably never take place and, Two, the example of our fishing trips is the best I could think of to help in the description.)

I love to go fishing with my daughter it's a great pasttime. There's a weight restriction, however, on some of our catches so we carry a small gravity scale to make sure we don't break any rules.

Consider then the proposal where a plane is sitting on a large conveyer. Attach a rope to the tail of the plane and attach a large gravity scale to the end of that rope. The other end of the scale is attached to an anchor capable of withstanding whatever force might be generated by the pull of the propeller. Turn on the motor and advance it to full throttle.

Now turn on the conveyer and advance it's speed to where the gravity scale reads zero pounds. At this point, the experiment mirrors the premise and the conveyer obtains it's goal. If you now release the rope, the plane will not fly because there's no air flowing over the wings to create lift."

"Aaaahhh!

I didn't see your proposed experiment until now and I agree; under most of these open-ended conditions, flight is possible.

There are a few propositions under these terms, however, that, as a matter of fairness, should be considered:

If the plane is capable of infinite thrust and the conveyer is limited to a set maximum, then the plane will always get airborne and the myth is true.

If the plane has unlimited thrust potential and the conveyer also has infinite potential, then the myth is plausible but impossible to research.

If the plane has limited thrust and the conveyer is also limited on potential, then the myth is both plausible and possible to research. It really comes down to how much bigger one item is over the other and your hypothesis hints that I'm allowed to get a bigger, more powerful conveyer.

If the plane has a set limit on thrust and the conveyer has infinite potential, then the plane will never fly. Eventually, the wheels will be unable ward off all of the drag force and the myth is busted.

Under these sets of values, You're right at one end of the scale and I'm right at the other.

If we're talking abount an all-or-nothing proposition where plausible is not an acceptable outcome, then, under the Scientific Method of Investigation, the myth must be busted because one set of variables exist that negate the hypothesis.

Either way, I appreciate the friendly sparring. My hats off to a worthy opponent!"