Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

[HexHammer]

Not if it didn't hatch.

The first chicken might have been fully chicken except chickens all come from egg by definition. It couldn't be completely chicken unless it came from an egg.

This whole thing is just confusion spawned by modern language in my book. And sounds occur in woods whether there's a person there who thought himself into existence or not. We exist therefore we think. This isn't to say that I reject the modern paradigms so much as that I reject the confusion spawned by them.

Nice parrotting, but it seems you fail at logical thinking.

The egg must have hatched since we by emperical evidense has chickens, how else would that link of thought come to pas?

Existance and thinking is outdated nonsense and doesn't explain anything in itself, only silly cozy chatters who call themselves philosophers would say such thing, out in the real world with serious buisness none such things are every said, because it doesn't fit anywhere.

If one actually is intelligent the answer would be easy, but if one is unknowledgeable and unintelligent it may be confusing.

[cladking]

The egg must have hatched since we by emperical evidense has chickens, how else would that link of thought come to pas?

What egg? What thought?

It sounds like your changing your reference in mid thought.

This is exactly why many people mistakingly believe an airplane couldn't take off from a conveyor belt.

The real world is brutal to beliefs. The real world often isn't predictable even after the fact. The real world destroys superstition and quite often the superstitious.

[HexHammer]

The egg must have hatched since we by emperical evidense has chickens, how else would that link of thought come to pas?

What egg? What thought?

It sounds like your changing your reference in mid thought.

This is exactly why many people mistakingly believe an airplane couldn't take off from a conveyor belt.

The real world is brutal to beliefs. The real world often isn't predictable even after the fact. The real world destroys superstition and quite often the superstitious.

Maybe for once it's your play with words that was wrong?
But besides that, you are right.

[Bernard]

The questionn is flawed because it doesn't identify either the specific chicken or egg referred to. Generic chickens and eggs only exist within language.

How specified would you like it? Suppose you make the specification you would like.

PhilX

The items of language belong only to language. The items of language are very clear cut and final, whilst the actual phenomena that language may be referring to are never so well defined. The question does not direct toward any actual phenomena except that within language, so I can only assume the relevant specific items within the sentence are the targets under question - in which case the chicken came first because it was mentioned before egg, as it usually is - I mean how many times is it asked "which came first; the egg or the chicken"? The chicken nearly always comes first within the language item: which is the only place given to us that either chicken or egg are to be had. If you asked:"Who is bigger, Genevieve or Kevin?" Id have to say Genevieve simply because it is a bigger word, even though men tend to be taller then women. Presented when questioned with actual persons called Kevin or Genevieve wherein Kevin is clearly physically larger than Genevieve than my answer would be Jim.

[Bernard]

http://imghumour.com/categories/comic-s ... t-question

[Arising_uk]

...
This is exactly why many people mistakingly believe an airplane couldn't take off from a conveyor belt. ...

You've made this claim before and once again I ask you to show evidence for it please. As whilst it may well be true I currently find it a dubious given the explanation for lift that I've heard.

[ClayJack]

What if the chicken and the egg do not exist because we are hallucinating in an artificial reality? Do you really know that egg exists? What if, using that same logic, nothing in our reality exists?

[cladking]

...
This is exactly why many people mistakingly believe an airplane couldn't take off from a conveyor belt. ...

You've made this claim before and once again I ask you to show evidence for it please. As whilst it may well be true I currently find it a dubious given the explanation for lift that I've heard.

The question was around in many places including aeronautical engineering sites and many people had the tendency to get it wrong. It's not so much a matter of intelligence or knowledge as it is the ability to maintain a single frame of reference when it is considered. Of course you have to understand the nature of a wheel and how a plane is propelled and becomes airbourne as well.

Simply stated the wheels isolate the plane from any surface movement forward or backward. So long as the air is moving along with the system then it doesn't even matter if the movement of the surface is sideways as evidenced by the ability of a plane to take off on a N/ S runway despite the fact it's moving at 1000 MPH sideways along with the surface of the earth.

Only physicists overwhelmingly get this right (~97%). Pilots do a remarkably poor job though some might be playing devil's advocate as most jumbo jet wheels wouldn't survive spinning at double normal take-off speed.

It is incredibly difficult to get most people to understand this once they've made up their minds. One gets in a "rut" considering it and will follow the same "logical" path to the wrong answer.

[Arising_uk]

...
So long as the air is moving along with the system ...

Yes but how is the air moving along the system if the plane is not moving? As I assume this thought experiment is proposing that this conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction to the engine thrust and equalling it so the plane will not be moving at all so no airflow over the wings so no lift?

[HexHammer]

Mythbusters proved it.

[cladking]

Yes but how is the air moving along the system if the plane is not moving? As I assume this thought experiment is proposing that this conveyor belt is moving in the opposite direction to the engine thrust and equalling it so the plane will not be moving at all so no airflow over the wings so no lift?

The wheels isolate the plane from the conveyor belt.

The wheels have a small amount of inertia and friction which affects the plane through the axles but this total retarding force is insignificant compared to the power of the engines. The engines easily accelerate the plabne to take-off speed regardless of what the conveyor belt is doing.

If the pilot applies the wheel brakes then the plane is no longer isolated from the conveyor and it won't be able to take off unless the conveyor is running the same direction and the plane can achieve take-off velocity.

There are 1000 ways to see this scenario but in order to get to the right answer you have to maintain a single perspective. You can't see it from the perspective of the plane and then switch to the wheels, conveyor, or airport. No matter how you do the math the plane takes off everytime.

Just keep reminding yourself that the earth spins at 1000 MPH and planes take off in every which direction. And if they fly around the north pole they even go back in time.

The question just leads many people to change perspective.

[Arising_uk]

I thought this a thought experiment and the idea is of the perfect conveyor belt? If we are saying its in the real world then I can see that its pretty much impossible to achieve but with a perfect conveyor belt matching the forward velocity exactly I cannot understand how the plane would get the initial impetus to achieve the air flow?

[Arising_uk]

Mythbusters proved it.

Looking at it I think that the plane started just before the conveyor and as such had the initial impetus needed to out accelerate the belt and cause the air-flow needed to create lift.

[Arising_uk]

Just keep reminding yourself that the earth spins at 1000 MPH and planes take off in every which direction. ...

Ah! Now that is an excellent point. Given that everything is moving does that cancel out the forces?

[cladking]

Just keep reminding yourself that the earth spins at 1000 MPH and planes take off in every which direction. ...

Ah! Now that is an excellent point. Given that everything is moving does that cancel out the forces?

Well, yes...

But don't forget that the spinning earth alone creates some wind and wind affects planes taking off.

The moving conveyor belt has its effects on the aerodynamics nullified by the wheels of the plane but these same wheels have to turn twice as fast if the conveyor is running the same speed in the opposite direct. These wheels have to be accelerated to twice their normal speed. Increased friction is a retarding force.

If you look at the plane from a fixed point in space then there's a huge difference between taking off to the east or taking off to the west. To go east the plane has to accelerate to about -850 MPH but to take off but to the west it has to (negatively) accelerate to -1150 MPH. Point of reference is everything and perspective is everything.

From the pilot's perspective there's no difference because there's usually about a 1000 MPH tail or headwind.

It does kind of all cancel out. The plane takes off if it can get to take off speed relative the air.