|
Look at all those chickens.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 07:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Well, Rat Lord, I made it despite your directions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 10:38
|
|
|
Knormal posted:There is only one actual duck in this photo. Because he took the rest to his home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 10:53
|
|
|
Zetsubou-san posted:I found a thing I made at least 15 years ago DREW CURTIS'S FARK DOT COM FEATURING DREW CURTIS FROM FARK DOT COM
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
remember when drew curtis ran for governor of kentucky lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
Bad Wolf posted:Well, Rat Lord, I made it despite your directions. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
SOME BODY ONCE TOLD ME
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
Zetsubou-san posted:I found a thing I made at least 15 years ago
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 17:33
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
poo poo, find a way to shove circumcision, tipping, and wiping sitting/standing in there and I think it's complete
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Memes are better than words.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:poo poo, find a way to shove circumcision, tipping, and wiping sitting/standing in there and I think it's complete
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:poo poo, find a way to shove circumcision, tipping, and wiping sitting/standing in there and I think it's complete Is it 1 fat man or .999999 repeating of a fat man? Edit: gently caress. Well his name is Yanni. Or is it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
What's the deal with the airplane question? I've never understood what the "controversy" actually is
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:What's the deal with the airplane question? I've never understood what the "controversy" actually is The plane should take off!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:What's the deal with the airplane question? I've never understood what the "controversy" actually is Some people who do not understand how planes work think that the plane on a conveyor belt wouldn't take off because they think that the wheels have anything to do with providing forward motion (instead of being free-spinning w/ brakes), or something real dumb like thinking the engines are responsible for providing lift by blowing/pulling air over the wings. Some think it wouldn't take off because they apply real-world physics to the hypothetical and things like "the tires would explode from the speed before the plane had a chance to take off" or whatever. They're technically right but pedantic. Everyone else recognizes that assuming no mechanical failures or other catastrophic developments, the plane would def take off because the engines push the plane forward and the wheels would just spin freely, just at twice the RPMs because of the conveyor belt. yeah it's really dumb
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:What's the deal with the airplane question? I've never understood what the "controversy" actually is 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
lol gently caress it it's been a while. Any lurkers think .999... doesn't equal 1? Show your work. Coincidentally I have to go AFK for a while, have fun everyone
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
Now do the helicopter on a record player one
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:What's the deal with the airplane question? I've never understood what the "controversy" actually is The question is ambiguous and there are two ways to interpret it depending on how the question is asked. Either you think "well the conveyor belt doesn't matter because plane get thrust from engines, not wheels, so it gonna take off" and conclude that the airplane takes off, or you conclude "well if the conveyor belt is constantly going fast enough to counteract the engine thrust, it won't move, and no airflow = no takeoff". The first time I heard the question, it was phrased as "the conveyor belt moves fast enough to counteract the plane's forward motion" or something like that, in which case the latter answer is correct, and the problem with the former answer is that it ignores that the wheels can have friction (and in fact that's the only way for the conveyor to affect the plane's forward motion, which it must be able to according to the statement of the question). In this interpretation, the conveyor belt must go much, much faster than a plane's normal speed to produce the necessary friction. But the question is rarely formulated so clearly, and instead generally gets implicitly interpreted as "the conveyor belt moves as fast as a plane normally goes" which is not nearly fast enough to produce the friction necessary, so the former answer is correct. And then the problem arises that both sides think the other side is dumb, when in fact both are giving correct answers to slightly different problems. See, for instance, Son of Thunderbeast, who has assumed frictionless wheels and "conveyor belt goes as fast as a plane normally goes", and therefore assumed that everyone who gives the other answer is too dumb to know that planes get their thrust from engines, not wheels. And then the "no take off" side assumes that the "take off" side is too dumb to know that lift comes from forward motion, not just engines. To summarize, if conveyor speed = plane speed, it takes off. If conveyor friction = plane thrust, it doesn't take off. And these two sides will argue forever without explaining themselves clearly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:The question is ambiguous and there are two ways to interpret it depending on how the question is asked. Either you think "well the conveyor belt doesn't matter because plane get thrust from engines, not wheels, so it gonna take off" and conclude that the airplane takes off, or you conclude "well if the conveyor belt is constantly going fast enough to counteract the engine thrust, it won't move, and no airflow = no takeoff". The first time I heard the question, it was phrased as "the conveyor belt moves fast enough to counteract the plane's forward motion" or something like that, in which case the latter answer is correct, and the problem with the former answer is that it ignores that the wheels can have friction (and in fact that's the only way for the conveyor to affect the plane's forward motion, which it must be able to according to the statement of the question). In this interpretation, the conveyor belt must go much, much faster than a plane's normal speed to produce the necessary friction. But the question is rarely formulated so clearly, and instead generally gets implicitly interpreted as "the conveyor belt moves as fast as a plane normally goes" which is not nearly fast enough to produce the friction necessary, so the former answer is correct. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
The plane takes off, the helicopter doesn't, wiping with the paper folded is medically unnecessary and the trolley stops before it determines the prisoner's sentence because the conductor realizes he has blue eyes on the second day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
 this guy is dumb and wrong and I am smart and correct
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
Here i fixed this 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:What's the deal with the airplane question? I've never understood what the "controversy" actually is It's a way for people without an actual background in physics to try and show off their understanding of physics while actual physicists work on / worry about more meaningful things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
Six-Of-Hearts posted:Here i fixed this  I dont know what yeet means but im glad it makes the kids happy
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
BillyC posted:
Yeet is the opposite of yoink.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
I never paid much attention to that stuff but I assumed that the question was about the conveyor belt keeping the plan stationary. There it was like "well of loving course that doesn't take off. It isn't moving. Why are people arguing?" Turns out I was completely wrong about what the conveyor belt was doing in said scenario.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
Wait I thought planes wheels were motorised. Can't they taxi even if the jet engines are not working? I realise that they use the jet engines to take off ofc
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I never paid much attention to that stuff but I assumed that the question was about the conveyor belt keeping the plan stationary. There it was like "well of loving course that doesn't take off. It isn't moving. Why are people arguing?" Turns out I was completely wrong about what the conveyor belt was doing in said scenario. the conveyor belt can't keep the plane stationary. the engines work against the air, not the ground. if you drove the conveyor belt backwards "as fast as the plane is moving," that just means the wheels are spinning twice as fast as they would be on a runway. the airplane always takes off. bike tory posted:Wait I thought planes wheels were motorised. Can't they taxi even if the jet engines are not working? no, airplanes cannot taxi without the engines running. airliners often shut down one engine on the taxi back to the gate to save fuel but their only way to move forwards is jet thrust. airplanes also cannot drive backwards so they use little tractors to push them back from the gate when departing. e: most airplanes can't drive backwards. some have thrust reversers that can be used to back out, but they are rarely used that way (they're meant to reduce the landing rollout) because they would throw sand and rocks and poo poo back at the terminal Sagebrush has a new favorite as of 21:08 on Apr 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
       
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
I always thought that the plane wouldn't go up in the air because there wouldn't be any air flow going over the wings? It's staying in a statutory position in an ideal situation with no wind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:I always thought that the plane wouldn't go up in the air because there wouldn't be any air flow going over the wings? It's staying in a statutory position in an ideal situation with no wind. Planes are propelled by their props, not by their wheels, so a treadmill would do nothing to slow them down, making the whole years long debate an exercise is futility.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
What if you put the plane in a trebuchet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
i honestly didn't mean to cause this
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Planes are propelled by their props, not by their wheels, so a treadmill would do nothing to slow them down, making the whole years long debate an exercise is futility. That doesn't make any sense. If the airplane is fixed to a single point on the ground, there will be no airflow going over the wings. If there's no airflow, there's no lift under the wings, therefore it won't go up in the air.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 21:23
|
|