Sorry, but for me 1 always has a part, that is not covered by 0.9... even if that part is indefinetely small.
OK pure mathematicians and people on the internet who it doesn't affect in any way but who want to be picky.
You can't look at "infinite" as a number or value. It's not "indefinetely small", there's just NO difference at all. If you think that's impossible, then you're right, as it's exactly as impossible as something being "infinite" is. To form a complete set of math rules however, "infinite" as a term needs to be introduced. Engineers in certain branches use mathematical techniques relying on properties of infinity. I don't think it has any direct practical uses though since nothing is infinite, but without defining it, a lot of more advanced math techniques and tricks just couldn't exist. Btw when talking about infinity don't try to imagine it, as you can't imagine something that can't possibly exist. Exactly because it can't exist, any mathematical equation that includes elements of "infinity" has to be an equation that also is impossible. Only when you accept (not comprehend) the nature of "infinity" and make room for that in your equations, will it become valid. If you would truly comprehend that 0.99... = 1, that would actually proof that it isn't true, and we'd have to come up with new math; possibly from the ground up. Actually when we got teached about this as twelve year olds i also had problems accepting this from my teacher. I kept saying you can keep adding 9's indefinitely at the back of the number, never would the zero at the front change (back then it was '4' in his lessons though). The problem was that i was thinking in time, like in you could keep adding 9's indefinetely in time. When calculating with infinite numbers though, you should actually imagine infinite 9's this split second. Only after you remove time (which we do can imagine to be infinite) will it become obvious that infinite 9's (which we can't imagine) has absolutely nothing to do with adding 9's indefinitely. This at least is how i accepted it back then. And yes Chris, for some unknown reason i always liked math
Good point actually, it's impossible to take issue with an infinitely small value because to comprehend it would mean it is not infinitely small. Besides, it's mostly due to decimals being generally inaccurate. The correct way of doing that series is 1/9 = 1/9th 2/9 = 2/9ths and so on up until 9/9 = 9/9ths or 1/1th or 1. 1/9th plus 8/9ths also = 9/9ths or 1/1th or 1. Fractions motherfucker. Also plane on a treadmill does take off, if you disagree you're a fucking retard.
Trickster you're supposed to be able to fly planes, surely you know how they work? The wheels don't provide the power, the propellor does, and it doesn't give a shit about the treadmill. Unless you left the damn parking brake on you aren't going to be affected by it. By that logic the plane should crash as soon as you retract the landing gear. Or hell, as soon as you get it off the runway given that the wheels aren't doing anything at that point.
Yeah, I thought you meant if it would take off, whilst effectively stationary, not if it would move along the threadmill, which it would. Misunderstood the question really, and apparently I have been for like 3 fucking years with this debate.
if the belt is moving at the same speed the propeller would propell the plan it wouldnt take off since in the end its the air moving around the wings that makes it take off ...
No flasche, Chris explained the whole debate properly. When people say treadmill, you think of a shortish treadmill like people run on, and the plane running it's engines with the treadmill counteracting that, so the plane sits in one spot, much like walking up an escalator backwards. But the thing is, it's a conveyor belt really, so the plane goes forward and the wheels effectively just rotate twice as fast as they would if it wasn't there, but the wheels aren't geared or anything, so the plane engines just carry it forward. The wheels could be skis for all it matters. The air is still moving over the wings because the plane is still moving forward. What would be more interesting would be if you could make a plane rise whilst flying against a super-huge-super-powerful wind tunnel.
Wait what? It's never been about the plane being stationary? Thank god, physics suddenly makes sense again !
if the plane doesnt move forward how does the wind pass the wings? :eek: edit: oh, i finally managed to get it. the conveyor belt actually has no effect on the plane moving forward since its not the wheels that make it move, but the propeller. if the belt would move at the same speed the plane was propelled forward the relative speed of the plane to the belt would just be twice as fast but relative to the enviroment it would still move at the speed it would move on a normal runway ... im dumb - i thought the premise would be that the plane doesnt move because of the belt ... also trickster, if the wind is strong enough the plane could take off aswell. you can notice that if you put your hand out of the window of a moving car and form the shape of a wing, its getting pulled upwards ...
Yeah, Silk and Flasche, I've always thought the exact same thing. I always thought Myth Busters were just shitty because the plane moved on there, it wasn't stationary, so I figured they'd done it wrong. It's the same way planes can both take off, and land on things like snow. Yeah, I know it would Flasche, but it would still be interesting to see, because that in effect is what I always thought the argument was in the first place, in terms of keeping it stationary.
It's amazing how thousands of people are having a debate on this, not knowing they are actually explaining two different situations to eachother and that there truly isn't any debate at all. It's just interpretation. No you aren't. In fact you're smart. The reason all of us thought the myth was about the plane being stationairy, is that obviously everyone knows that it doesn't matter if the surface a plane rests on is moving or not. As everyone knows that, we automatically assumed that the "conveyor belt" was just a simplified way (for the dumbies) of portraying a test in which a plane's propellers are running at full speed while the plane remains stationary (for example tied to a rope that can only move vertically) and wether or not it would lift off. What we thought was a myth about airpressure lifting an airplane, was actually just a stupid test to see who thinks a plane gets its thrust from its wheels
The wheels ARE skis if you're using a seaplane. Honestly I was suprised mythbusters didn't just try to take a seaplane off on a river, it'd be as close as you get to a full scale test.
Actually, I was referring to the planes I saw when I was skiing, which landed on the snow. Float planes basically use fat skis with air in them.
