Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

[HexHammer]

Airplanes that has to travel the same distance East/West must respectivly spend less/more time travelling as the Earth will rotate and make the trip shorter or longer as the plane will only for less than a minute keep the speed of the rotating earth, I also remember hearing that the artellery calculators had to calculate the earth rotation and sutract/add to compensate.

[uwot]

...
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.

It's yer basic Newton, Arising: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The thrust the engines produce is nothing to do with any contact with the surface and everything to do with the air it is pushing against. It will take a bit longer to overcome several tons worth of inertia, but as you will undoubtedly have experienced, jet engines have a pretty handy 0-60.

Airplanes that has to travel the same distance East/West must respectivly spend less/more time travelling as the Earth will rotate and make the trip shorter or longer as the plane will only for less than a minute keep the speed of the rotating earth, I also remember hearing that the artellery calculators had to calculate the earth rotation and sutract/add to compensate.

I doubt it, Mr Hammer. The rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with it. The reason flights generally take longer east to west is that the prevailing winds are in your face. There are effects at relativistic speeds, (see viewtopic.php?f=12&t=12282&hilit=hafele+keating&start=0 ) but it's yer basic Galilean Relativity. If drop your beer on a plane in steady flight, it doesn't smash into the people behind you.

[HexHammer]

I need to repharse my former statement.

The air is dragged with the earth rotation, why it therefore will give greater wind resistance flying East.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... f-a-bullet

any object moving horizontally on or near the earth’s surface is deflected slightly off course due to the spinning of the planet beneath it. The Coriolis effect has a big effect on phenomena like hurricanes and other weather systems, a small effect on small objects. But if the small object is a precisely aimed rifle bullet, and that bullet travels far enough, it’s not something you can completely ignore.

[uwot]

... if the small object is a precisely aimed rifle bullet, and that bullet travels far enough, it’s not something you can completely ignore.

That's true, Mr Hammer; anyone wishing to shoot a gnat in the arse, rather than the elbow, will have to take the Coriolis effect into consideration.

[Arising_uk]

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.

Thanks.

However none of this convinces me that in the hypothetical scenario of a perfect conveyor belt the plane would be able to take off and I assume that was what was being discussed?

[uwot]

Well, yes...

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

The overwhelming factor is weather. The sun rises in the east; daytime, warm air comes from the east, warm air rises creating low pressure which sucks air in from cooler night time air. There's a lot more to it, but that is the dominant factor.
The Coriolis effect is less than negligible. If you spin a bucket of water, eventually drag will cause the water to spin at the same rate, same with the Earth and it's atmosphere. After 4.5 billion years, any residual Coriolis effect can safely be ignored.

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.

Yes, but a drop of oil can work wonders. Have you ever been on a plane at take-off?

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.

I am currently on a train. Typically for London rush hour, it is overcrowded and I am having to stand. If I wish to walk to the front of the train, it is no more effort than if I wish to walk to the back. Same with aeroplanes on the runway. Like I said: Galileo, relativity of motion. The speed you are travelling at only matters if you pass from one inertial frame to another. Space agencies make use of this fact by building launch sites close to the equator where the spin of the Earth is fastest and will actually make a difference once the rocket has left the atmosphere.

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

Cladking, me old mucker; stick your head out of the window for a second. If it is still on your shoulders when you are back in the room, then there is no 1000mph tail wind.

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

Thanks.

However none of this convinces me that in the hypothetical scenario of a perfect conveyor belt the plane would be able to take off and I assume that was what was being discussed?

Arising, seriously, mate; the thrust from a jet is fuck all to do with the runway. It may have escaped you, but there is no tarmac in heaven.

[cladking]

However none of this convinces me that in the hypothetical scenario of a perfect conveyor belt the plane would be able to take off and I assume that was what was being discussed?

Everything is perspective. Perspective is even critical in metaphysical language so every sentence included the perspective. It's even more important in modern language because every word takes its meaning from context. It's difficult to understand context if you don't know or share the perspective. Language is so confused that it's difficult to build on the work of previous generations meaning each philosopher almost has to start over at the beginning.

The plane on a conveyor merely highlights the importance of perspective.

Look at it from the perspective of the jets. They fire up puttingf a high forward force on the plane. The plane is light so little force is necessary to drive it. Even if the plane is already moving backward on the conveyor the large force will start the plane rolling in the direction of the force. It will simply continue backward until the speed of the jets matches and then exceeds the conveyor. Even if you speed up the conveyor it has no effect on the jets and no effect on how fast it can push the plane through the air. When the air speed is great enough the plane lifts off.

It doesn't matter what the conveyor is doing but if it's running the same direction as the plane a smart pilot might keep his brakes applied until the plane matches speed with it.

In physics you're taught to maintain a single frame of reference but for some reason this isn't applied to other fields or to language. We misunderstand one another because of perspective.

[thedoc]

The Earth is spinning and with it the air, the airplane, and the surface form which it is to take off. They are all moving together at the same speed and are mostly unaware and unaffected by the spin of the Earth.

Rocket engines and jet engines develop thrust the same way, and that thrust does not depend on the exhaust "pushing" against something outside, the thrust is developed inside the engine. Hint, Rockets work in space where there is nothing to "push" against.

[Ginkgo]

In physics you're taught to maintain a single frame of reference but for some reason this isn't applied to other fields or to language. We misunderstand one another because of perspective.

There is a very good reason why language is not analyzed in the same manner as physics. Language is convention, it is a piecemeal construct that has been developed over time. As such it is subject to revision and modifications.

As Wittgenstein pointed out language is leaned by many people in many different ways. Wittgenstein describes language as a labyrinth of ideas. We think we know our way around but we can run into dead and take wrong paths in out attempt to construct meaning from the world.

The idea that if we can dismantle language and lay bare its constituent parts we will discover some type of significant information about the world turned out to be wrong. A reductionist method for studying atoms might provide some insight into the workings of the world. Subject language to the same methodology and you will turn up nothing of use.

[cladking]

The idea that if we can dismantle language and lay bare its constituent parts we will discover some type of significant information about the world turned out to be wrong. A reductionist method for studying atoms might provide some insight into the workings of the world. Subject language to the same methodology and you will turn up nothing of use.

As things stand today our ignorance is vast, profound, and invisible. We are reduced to considering the chronological order of chickens and eggs. We can't return to a natural metaphysical language nor can we possibly invent a new metaphysical language. But we can easily do as the hard sciences do and create a language with defined perspectives that uses key words that aren't dependent on context. Such a language might be much easier to develop and expand than seems possible at first blush. Since many words are standardized it would be obvious when it is being used. I believe that such a language would at least give us insight into the depth of our ignorance. I would hope that using such a language it would become possible to build on the work of others.

Modern language probably does contain a great deal of information about its origin and human nature but modern language is like "word soup" and it might never give up very many of its secrets. But using modern knowledge and modern tools we can come to understand any metaphysical language. We can come to understand human origins. This understanding will almost certainly aid us in understanding ourselves and our real place in nature.

[Arising_uk]

It's yer basic Newton, Arising: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The thrust the engines produce is nothing to do with any contact with the surface and everything to do with the air it is pushing against. It will take a bit longer to overcome several tons worth of inertia, but as you will undoubtedly have experienced, jet engines have a pretty handy 0-60.

Ah! I understand why a jet engine if fired-up on the ground and given a suitable bump will fly into the air but the scenario is about a plane and planes apparently get lift from air-flow causing a pressure differential on the wing and in the scenario we presumably have ideal wheels and an ideal conveyor belt which will produce Newton's equal and opposite reaction to the jet thrust so I can't understand why it won't just sit there spinning its wheels?

[Clinias]

Aristotle answered this question. It is in Aristotle.

The egg is only a reproduction of the adult. The Form comes first. Therefore, the chicken came first.

Aristotle postulated that the archtype was brought into being. Aristotle backs up the story in Genesis. The primal form comes first. It was created. Then, the first chicken with the second laid the first egg.

I'd dig up the quote but I gots to get ready for a trip tomorrow.

[thedoc]

Aristotle answered this question. It is in Aristotle.

The egg is only a reproduction of the adult. The Form comes first. Therefore, the chicken came first.

Aristotle postulated that the archtype was brought into being. Aristotle backs up the story in Genesis. The primal form comes first. It was created. Then, the first chicken with the second laid the first egg.

I'd dig up the quote but I gots to get ready for a trip tomorrow.

The creature that hatches from the egg is the same creature that existed in the egg before hatching. The contents of the egg do not magically transform into a chicken at hatching. But a chicken didn't have to lay the egg, it could have been laid by a creature that was almost a chicken but not quite. Aristotle was not a biologist and the Bible is not a biology text book, it's a story book and tells some wonderful stories. The chicken hatched from an egg that contained a chicken, but the egg didn't need to be laid by a pure chicken. Anything else is a fools argument, and only a fool would argue that the chicken came first.

[thedoc]

It's yer basic Newton, Arising: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The thrust the engines produce is nothing to do with any contact with the surface and everything to do with the air it is pushing against.

So far so good, but you went astray when you went on about pushing on the air, it is a simple matter of Newtonion physics, the exhaust goes in one direction at high velocity and the engine and ship go in the other direction, but because they are more massive the movement is less than the exhaust relative to the ship.

[uwot]

Ah! I understand why a jet engine if fired-up on the ground and given a suitable bump will fly into the air but the scenario is about a plane and planes apparently get lift from air-flow causing a pressure differential on the wing and in the scenario we presumably have ideal wheels and an ideal conveyor belt which will produce Newton's equal and opposite reaction to the jet thrust so I can't understand why it won't just sit there spinning its wheels?

Any mechanism that relies on contact with the ground for thrust, cars, trains, those loons on treadmills down the gym, will go nowhere, because the thing they are pushing against is disappearing in the opposite direction. But, bare in mind that if you had ideal, friction free, bearings then regardless of how fast the conveyor is going, eventually wind resistance would bring everything to a halt. It's obvious if you imagine a parachute tied to a roller-skate, but the same is true of a Jumbo Jet; it will just take a bit longer. Perhaps you can imagine what would happen if you switch the engines on in those conditions.