JohnsonJones

Same here. I was going by US procedure. Don't know Australian procedure. I imagine they have something similar, he could ask about it, but not sure.

It depends on what you refer to. This can be a difficult thing for people to address. Anti-Mormons (and to be clear, I'm not saying you are anti-Mormon or saying this is where you got your information, however THIS particular idea of Joseph Smith being a polygamist in this manner actually originated with anti-Mormons and is most often mostly promulgated by anti-Mormons. Hence, why I am addressing it as so because it is actually THEIR issue, and not one that most of the world, or even secular historians normally even care about in regards to the larger history we study) want people to believe that Joseph Smith was married to a bunch of woman and did certain acts people do in marriage. Now, Joseph Smith had several children, thus we KNOW he was not impotent. Some lived, some died. These were from his wife, Emma or legally obtained rather than fathered by Joseph Smith with other women. If he did, as the Anti-Mormons claim, the biggest question then is...where is the evidence. If what they claim is true, as there were no birth control pills back then, where are the children. If there are children, where is the DNA evidence? Using their own logic in regards to DNA proving or disproving things which many anti-Mormons regularly love to do, they tend to toss it out the window when faced with this idea. This does not mean that Joseph Smith was not acting in certain ways towards these women, but thus far, no true evidence has come about to actually prove this. However, what we do think is that Joseph Smith was sealed to these women, or married for eternity...This means that they were married not for this life, but for the next. (LDS doctrine has it that this is something that can occur, in that one can be married either for time [this life] or the eternity [the next life] or for both [time and eternity] when they are married together. In fact, most Anti-Mormon accounts grossly underestimate HOW MANY women were actually sealed to Joseph Smith. Originally, when temple sealings were done, many sealings were done via marriage to Joseph Smith. My thoughts are the ones that are still accounted by the Anti-Mormons are those that he was personally present for and are seen as personally being approved in his regard. However, the number of woman he was sealed to via proxy or other methods number in the hundreds to the thousands. This was seen as a mistake in how the ordinance was to be performed, and later on they tried to correct many of theses sealings. The woman that had been previously sealed to Joseph Smith, it was approved that they instead also be sealed to their husbands that they had in this life. This changed much of what we see in our records, and these woman are officially considered that they are sealed to their Husbands rather than Joseph Smith. I believe that was the original intent when it was first occurring, but things had not completely been "ironed" out at that point. Of course, most historians will say, it may not be one extreme or the other (the LDS take that I exhibited where these were only marriages for eternity, and the opposite slant that these were all marriages for this life), that instead, it is normally some middle ground. What that middle ground is though, I don't know. The problem is, there is almost no evidence for the opposing side in regards to real, true, and hard evidence to support what they say as of yet, but on the otherhand, when looking at the information we have regarding the marriages that Joseph Smith may have had, one must question when some accounts seem to indicate that the marriage may have been for time as well as eternity. In that, as it's a hotspot of unknowns, and where people's feelings get highly contested at times, I'd say the best course of action typically if making media on it is to stay FAR FAR FAR away from the subject and focus on what the point or focus of the media actually is. If we were to discuss something in our own world that isn't Mormon of a similar nature, I would say it would probably be in another topic that many try to shy away from, that where we can discuss many of our Founding Fathers as slave holders (George Washington amongst others). It's a highly contested subject among people where many times a lot is said with very little evidence to support one opinion or the other. Because it can be such a hotbed of contention, normally when talking about such individuals (like George Washington) the idea is to stay FAR FAR FAR away from it unless it is directly pertinent to the topic of the film/book/media. It's not an attempt to hide it, but to avoid the contention that it can bring, many time because that contention can cause the actual message or topic trying to be conveyed to be lost and forgotten due to how involved they get with that one portion of that individuals life.

I believe if you want to cancel the divorce you can simply ask for a dismissal. If it is before the court date, I think you can even get a county clerk to do this for you. On your topic, it sounds like you cannot have it both ways. The following is MY thoughts, not necessarily what is the right thing, so please do not take it the wrong way... You can either have a wife that is hot in regards to worldly matters, or if she slacks off as you say as she grows more comfortable with the relationship, you can simply see her physical features as the world might see them and be disappointed, OR, you can have a wife that you still see as beautiful as when she was young because you can see beyond the physical into what made you fall in love with her in the first place. It is up to each of us to see decide whether we see the beauty in someone or not.

There ARE some other differences that you will come upon. The ones you mentioned have already been addressed, in that the only thing that was done was clarifying which of the three the text was referring to so there were no mistakes in understanding who it was about regarding it. However, there are some other changes which disturb some people FAR more than that. I don't have a problem with the changes myself, but some do find the changes problematic. Most of those that I can think of off the top of my head are addressed by the Link that was posted a few pages back though. I think it's better to discuss these things and present the sides of the coin so that all is clear and present for you to make your choice and to better understand.

Another way to look at it for the LDS, but not a perfect parallel. Imagine that the apostles of the LDS church died without naming anymore apostles. Who then would be the leaders of the church. From what I understand, it would be the Seventies, and thus the leadership would probably be the Presidency of the Seventy and the First Bishopric. In this way, they inherit the mantle of leadership, but they themselves are NOT apostles. Now, as LDS we believe that the Lord would probably then make a way for more apostles to be appointed, be established, but when one does not accept the idea of continuing prophets and revelation, you would be stuck with the Bishops. Not a perfect parallel, but hopefully that can explain it in a way some LDS could understand how the Bishops each have the apostolic power in regards to Catholicism. Now, of interest, The Great Schism (of I think 1054) are viewed differently between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. The Orthodox do not believe in the supremacy of Rome, but that all Bishops and hence churches were made equal. For who was the greater and who said what to whom, Peter to Paul, or Paul to Peter? Who reprimanded whom, and in the Lord's eyes, was Peter greater than the others, or were they all brothers and equal as apostles to the Lord? The Orthodox may recognize that there was some order, but not the degree that the Church in Rome decided upon it in the years preceding the Great Schism, and more directly after the Great Schism. The Roman Catholic church interprets the Biblical verses where the Lord tells Peter upon this rock, as literally saying that Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built (if I recall from many years ago when I learned this). Hence, as per the Biblical justification, the throne of the church lies upon the church which comes from Peter, which is the church in Rome. As it is his seat that the Bishop in Rome dwells upon (aka...known as the Pope), it is the authority of Peter that dwells upon him in his purpose as the Bishop of Rome or the head of the church. As Peter and the other apostles are no longer around, it falls upon the Bishops that inherit that apostolic succession to lead the church (ala, similar to the LDS example I put above...but not a perfect example). Orthodox churches that do NOT believe in the Supremacy of Rome, still believe in the apostolic succession though, but that each Bishop is equal in their authority within the church, rather than Rome have supremacy (if I understand the Orthodox teachings correctly).

I believe you are right, but I was trying to be more concise because I can go on and on and on about something (if no one had noticed). I could have expounded on that for at least 5 paragraphs explaining it!!! !

This is also sort of counter intuitive. When you originally can choose a door, you have a 1/3 chance of being correct. When he then reveals what is behind one of the doors you did NOT choose, that leaves two doors. If you choose the other door, you have a 50/50 chance of being correct, which is greater than your chances previously (50% is greater than 33.333...%). The reason is he has revealed one answer that is absolutely not correct, where as before, you had a 2 in 3 chance of choosing an incorrect one. Furthermore, he is going to reveal one that is NOT correct, rather than one that IS correct. (which affects it as Zil already notated). It is because of this action of his (if it were equal chances of him revealing the right door rather than what was a wrong door...it could change this...but the game is he reveals a WRONG door) that makes the best choice (but not always the right choice...if that makes sense) to always do the trade. It can have a little bit more complex explanation than that, but I've been longwinded enough for this thread already...

The thing that I was thinking about in relation to the question, is if we take the question seriously with the magic conveyor belt. IF, it is actually doable, why don't we see it more often. Vort pointed it out, though I recognized it already (as I had stated, groundspeed is not airspeed, however, it is necessary for the aircraft to show forward movement in order to generate airspeed and airflow over the wings). Basic physics state that if you have no airflow, you cannot fly...period. It is the principle of the air flowing over and under the wings that cause lift, and without that, you will have NO lift. This is a basic principle to all flying. In addition, an object that is not moving generates no airflow. It is correct, that a plane does not fly in relation to how it moves on the ground, that is inconsequential, what matters is it's movement in relation to the air around it. The question specifies however, that the plane is STATIONARY. If we do not toss this out as nonsense, then we have to say that the plane IS STATIONARY...which means all it's forward movement of the aircraft itself (not the movement of the wheels) is stationary. A stationary aircraft cannot fly. So then I started to think of examples of this in reality, rather than fantasy land. You have river takeoffs. Contrary to what some think, there are some aircraft that will have a very hard time, or not even able, to be able to take off going upstream against a strong river current. The plane instead will never generate the airspeed in improper conditions. This is somewhat similar to the question, the thing is, why is this so if the people who state a plane will be able to take off are correct? (and I haven't figured that out completely yet). At the same time, that same plane may have difficulties with a downstream takeoff with some bad conditions also...so there's also that to consider. You also have planes that do take off upstream as their engines more then compensate for any obstacle, the same with downstream...but each has different variables to consider. I used the river, because it is an actual moving runway...and perhaps the closest we may actually get to a conveyor belt in real life that moves at a constant rate. Normally, that movement is something that you need to counter in your own movement (aka...if talking vectors, our positive vector must exceed the river's negative friction vector, along with any wind vectors and air friction vectors). So, how does this apply to the wheels. Once again, we view the wheels and airflow as separate, but this time rather than seeing it as a car, we'll view it as an aircraft. In this case, then, what role does a wheel actually play? If it's not part of the thrust of the aircraft, what is it? A free spinning wheel is a REFLECTION of what the aircraft is doing. It is rolling because the aircraft's own movement is forcing it to move I a certain direction. Thus, in theory, what should a conveyor belt do in regards to a wheel? It should cause a counter reflection of the wheel. Hence, the forces that cause the wheel to turn one way in the first place, should be shown to be exactly opposite in regards to the wheel if we are using a vector of opposing force. How would this be done? Well, first, once again, this is impossible. However, we'll imagine we have a world of perfect friction, where the plane and the belt will only turn the wheel relative because they have 100% friction between them and can reflect these forces via the wheel. This means, that the airplanes forward movement is negated, and the airplane itself is actually stationary. If this is reflected upon the wheel, this should mean the wheel itself is also stationary. I like this idea though in regards to the conveyor belt as it answers another question. The treadmill type question we adapted it to above actually does not provide a reflection vector for the wheels. If we view wheel movement as a reflection of the force upon them, then it is their spinning that is the actual movement/vector that they have. When a plane is moving, the wheel vector of 5 is a separate vector then the plane's own forward vector of 10. However, when we do the treadmill idea which I showed in my post above(the post prior to this one), the actual WHEEL movement is doubled. Instead of showing a counter to the airplane, or even the wheels, it actually just doubles the wheel's vector. They now have an independently moving vector of 10. However wheels are reflecting the forces upon them. Thus, for the plane to remain stationary, the wheels also should reflect this. This could require MORE energy to do than the opposite. To stop the wheel vector with an opposing force, could require more energy, and thus this would also explain WHY one would not actually perform this experiment...it is NOT cost effective. In presenting an opposite force to the plane of a vector of 10 (numbers are arbitrary, just to give something one can see as a representative number), requires two times the energy of something that is only opposing a force of 5. The wheels however, are merely a reflection of that force and the forces acting upon them. As you I mentioned, and you aptly pointed out...we see this all the time when the plane is actually stationary. On the ground the chalks are a safety feature, but they are not necessarily the thing that keeps the plane from moving...as all things on aircraft with backups, they are a back up feature (and most aircraft have one or two backups in case of a primary system failure...airplanes are actually safer than cars). Since the wheels are unnecessary to the equation, and are only a reflection of the forces acting upon it, you are absolutely correct. All we need is someway to keep the aircraft completely stationary (as per the question). It assumes a conveyor belt in the "riddle" which is impossible, but in real life, there ARE things that are possible to do this. You can have a plane with full engines going, but it is still stationary. As we say the wheels are merely a reflection of the forces upon them, they don't actually matter in regards to whether the conveyor belt is keeping the plane stationary or not. The direct force keeps the plane stationary, the wheels are just a reflection of what the forces are doing. In that matter, as you say...you could have the wheels chalked, you could have the entire wheel assembly chained to the ground, the difference as I see it negligible. However, we then have real world examples of this, and thus the question then comes up...in these examples...does the airplane fly. The answer is, I haven't seen it yet. The reason most would say it does not, there is not enough airflow across the wings to result in flight. Even if the engines are at full thrust, if the brakes are acting in the opposite vector to resist this and thus keeping the plane stationary, the plane does not take flight. Why do I use these examples, because I prefer REAL world and REAL life examples if we are tackling this to things that people may think, but have never been demonstrated. That does NOT mean this is the correct answer (afterall, many thought the world was flat and we know now it is round, many thought we could never escape the atmosphere, and yet now we've been to the moon), just that as I think of what is REAL and what occurs in the REAL world...the most relevant would be this result.

You are right, but actually, and if you put a chain or something else on the tires, it actually is pretty relevant, hence the engine checks. This is depending on if one reads the riddle as a PILOT and about an AIRPLANE...or whether they read it as a non-pilot and as a CAR. The riddle specifies that the aircraft is stationary. Almost every analysis done by someone who thinks the plane can take off throws this idea out, or that the conveyor keeps the plane stationary...they have to because the riddle itself is nonsense and an impossibility. Those reading it as a car imagine an engine which is directly connected to the wheels. Hence, at least one set of wheels are not free spinning. They are controlled. The only wheels in that scenario that are free spinning is if you have a front or rear wheel drive. In many instances they recognize that there is a difference between airspeed and groundspeed. We'll make it simple...In this scenario they see it then that the engine is producing a thrust vector of (we'll make up a number) 10. The wheels only get a thrust vector of 5. Much of this is due to friction and is different than that of the plane. Hence, the thrust vector of the resistance is also 5. it is obvious that the thrust is greater than the friction, and hence as the thrust moves the plane forward it moves with more power as the thrust itself is not accounted for (aka...the plane is NOT stationary, and the conveyor can somehow magically do this, both of which many toss out because it is an impossibility, but it is STILL part of the consideration...hence by tossing it out, they change the question). The plane thus has that extra thrust. In addition, with a plane there is the added number that says, a plane needs to have 5 Thrust accelerating I order to take off. Well, if the thrust going in the opposite direction is only 5, it is obvious it can still take off, as the total thrust vector is unaccounted for. This is a VERY simple way of viewing it, but it is this idea that people address, rather than the full question. However, many pilots are going to view it very differently, because we can see situations where a similar thing would occur, AND, as some are very literal people, if it was as simple as the above statement seems to make it...then WHY isn't it being done on a regular basis? Where is the actual physical evidence? If an aeronautical engineer truly agreed with that...why isn't it done? The lack of physical evidence is far more telling than anything else. In all science, you can come up with an idea or hypothesis, but until you actually have something to back it up, it's not really anything provable. They mythbusters went with the idea of the above scenario (and rather badly I might add with some of the choices they made, but it's all we have in that regard) where it is obvious that the pilot's groundspeed becomes faster than what they are going (his wheels turn at the predicted rate and than faster than that rate, as his groundspeed actually becomes FASTER as his wheels are NOT countered by the speed they are going on their momentum, in addition, with his thrust, he can take off at a certain point with very little forward thrust or movement...which he eventually does...lucky he was in a plane which he could do such a thing in). It basically discounts the two points above...and applies it to groundspeed and only groundspeed. We still haven't actually gotten to the riddle yet though, we are still tossing things out...so what does the opposite side say about the above modified riddle. But the question isn't ABOUT groundspeed, it's about keeping the actual airplane stationary...and doing this by a conveyor belt. In this fantasy world then, we have to conclude that somehow the conveyor belt has a perfect friction and that this ability lets the conveyor belt completely negate the Aircrafts thrust vector. Aka...you have the Aircraft thrust vector moving forward...but the reverse is a vector that matches it instantly (no delay, which is another item many who utilize the idea above) and makes it stationary. In theory, if a conveyor belt matched the thrust vector, and you saw this, despite the friction of the wheels, you'd say...the total vector is greater than that of the forward vector on the wheels, hence this means that the aircraft MUST be moving backwards. Right? However, we ALSO know that the plane has to be stationary, which means the plane must be in a constant acceleration. Of course if that is true, than the vectors of both must be increasing equally at the same time, hence creating an infinite loop where the aircraft will never take off. In addition, it will NEVER get enough thrust vector to actually generate the thrust to take off. In this one, the plane has a vector of 10 acceleration, but instead of a vector of 5 in the opposite direction for the wheels, it is a direct vector against the aircraft itself, since it is the aircraft specified. In this you get an loop that will result in the plane never taking off. Many say that in addition, if it were possible, the wheels or belt would be destroyed (tires can only turn so fast), but this, is obviously NOT allowed by the original question in THIS tread. So, in this scenario, why did the Mythbusters idea work? Because they only addressed the vectors that dealt directly with the wheels (that vector of 5 for simplicities sake) rather than that of the aircraft, hence they ignored the idea that the aircraft (not the wheels) is supposed to stay stationary. This means, if you look closely at their final, you can see the aircraft slowly moving forward. In addition, once it gets airborne, it obviously moves forward. The magic conveyor does not keep it stationary. So, here we have both sides of what is seen commonly, but why don't we see this more often then if those who are thinking it will take off are correct? The ones who say it is not possible, obviously currently have the evidence on their side (as in physical evidence and the rules of flying as we understand it), while those who say it is have almost no evidence on theirs (physical evidence that shows it actually is done...their only piece is normally that one mythbuster's episode which as I said, is seen as highly flawed). So what is my thinking on this this then and how did I come up with the idea I did (beyond the fact that the actual question is heavily flawed in it's premise and is an impossibility in and of itself...as no conveyor belt has the perfect ability to negate an aircraft's forward movement, hence cannot be applied in any fashion and is...in fact nonsense?). since this is already long explaining the two different takes which disagree most of the time in these threads...I'll give the other below in a secondary post...if you don't mind

Good one, I've seen the Osprey (that's what you meant...right?). It operates on the horizontal lift principle. Of interest, the mythbusters answered a question, but most pilots I know question the results. The know fact is that without ground movement, there is normally no air movement. This is because airflow is needed in order to get lift. If you have no lift, you cannot fly. This is the simple reason for the aircraft moving forward. In the Mythbusters, they accounted for groundspeed, or ground movement, but not the thrust of the aircraft. Hence, rather than being at a standstill (or stationary), the airplane actually is moving forward and this is how the airflow is generated (on a plane that needs very little airspeed to actually take off). That said, it still needs and showed it needed the airspeed or airflow across it's wings, even if that airflow is very light and not that heavy. The Osprey on the otherhand, is definitely an interesting craft. It CAN act like an normal aircraft that needs that airflow over it's wings, but it also can act very differently. In the question of this thread, when asked what would happen, the Osprey pilot would probably say they would simply rotate their rotors and take off vertically!!! Even if they didn't even have wheels moving, and were being dragged along by the car (if the vehicle was strong enough to drag an Osprey)...they could simply rotate the rotors and take off vertically!!! I've actually never seen one take off in any manner except vertically now that I think about it. That would definitely make the answer very simple! I've seen a Harrier, but never seen the F-35 replacement that supposedly they got.

Does it? How many planes that are not moving have you seen take off? Or, that have absolutely stationary wheels that are not moving in the least...take off from the ground? It's counter intuitive to those who look at it the same as a car, but a plane does not MOVE like a car. The wheels are merely reflections of the force being acted upon them (much like the rear wheel of a car). The ONLY reason they are rolling counterclockwise when a plane moves forward is because of the forward movement of the plane itself. It is not the wheels that are causing this. It is a reflection of the plane's force upon them. Hence, if you move the conveyor belt in that same direction, all it is doing is amplifying this. This has an effect on the wheels and groundspeed, but NOT on the aircraft itself or at least that would be the theory (closest anyone's come to proving that is the mythbusters...and there are still problems with their example), and hence the aircraft could still take off. However, to actually keep the aircraft stationary, you need something that counteracts the force of the aircraft itself. Hence, if you are using the wheels and conveyor belt as a reflection of that force, it needs to be a force that keeps the wheels with an equal force the opposite direction. Hence, as the aircraft tries to move the wheels counterclockwise due to it's force, you would have an equal but opposite force moving them clockwise. Since they are not directly controlled by an engine (unlike the front wheels of a car in a frontwheel drive which ARE directly controlled), they are freely able to spin one way or the other. Hence, in THEORY, an equal but opposite force upon them to move the opposite direction than the direction of the force the airplane is trying to make them move is doable to the point of basically having wheels that do not turn one way or the other, for as soon as the force of one acts upon them to spin one way, the force of the other acts upon them to spin the exact opposite way...hence, they are kept stationary...reflecting that the aircraft itself is at a stationary movement of force. As I said, how many planes that do not have their wheels moving have you seen take off? I admit, I have seen a harrier and a helicopter and even an osprey...but for normal aircraft that do not have jets or props that go vertical, I haven't seen a single one...yet...at least. Not even seaplanes. PS: Of course, it should be noted, the above example would require perfect friction in the situation, which is improbable, but would be required to see if this would actually hold up. Or we could simply see the normal situation where we have the wheels as motionless but the engines at full throttle (this happens regularly on with some aircraft during the preflight checks) and yet the plane doesn't fly to see what would happen. PPS: In regards to the mythbusters thing, where it was NOT countered by an equal force on the conveyor belt but an additive force, all this means is that the wheels may turn twice the speed before take off 2x=x rather which actually means the aircraft would be moving forward at an even great speed by some theories, rather than being stationary at all. This is the big difference between what they did and what the question asks. The mythbusters kept the wheels stationary relative to the ground, but the aircraft still was moving as expressed by the wheels as they were moving 2x or more faster than normal. This is why you'd need something that acts as a counter to the aircraft's force to actually keep it stationary, rather than adding to it's momentum that it already has. Even then, this is probably even more hotly debated (as most seem to understand the question as a CAR works rather than an airplane...), if the treadmill was able to actually move fast enough to also account for the airplane's thrust...would the plane be able to take off? It's actually somewhat based on this idea that with the additive extreme force idea that navy catapults work (but they still need a little runway...though it is lessened). This can also go into various areas, but normally devolve to several postions. One where people basically say the test is impossible as no machine will ever be able to match the plane exactly, or if it does you go into the infinite loop scenario. Others where they use mythbusters (which is actually a rather poor example, but one of the only ones out there except for the navy catapults) as an example and proclaim it would work. Then you have others that take the stance that it only worked for reasons such as I did, where it doesn't take into account the thrust vector of the aircraft, only the reflective vectors of the secondary nature, and hence there is no equal but opposing force to the takeoff. If the force could take into account the full force of the aircraft rather than just the reflective vectors of the wheels, and truly stay equal, the aircraft would not be able to take off, but it may end up, once again in that infinite loop that I discussed because the question itself is flawed, even to that degree. That's the one that most people normally hotly debate, but ignore that the question is about the airframe and aircraft being stationary, not simply the wheel position relative to the ground. In fact most of this thread views it more of a car in action than an airplane in action, where as the question is relative to stopping the aircraft motion...not it's wheels. The wheels though, are a reflection of the aircraft momentum, not what is actually moving it. Hence a stationary aircraft will have stationary wheels. Wheels that are rotating...are a form of movement/force and a reflection of an aircraft that has movement rather than being stationary. PPPS: Of course, the best evidence is putting practice into reality. If one truly believes the conveyor belt will work, then put it into practice (if one could even build it) and prove it with reality rather than postulating about it! Thus far, I have read debates on this, but no one who says...yes the plane will fly...in either of the questions really have put it to the test other then the mythbusters, and their experiment was full of problems (which is par for the course...mythbusters in many ways try to show science, but aren't very scientific at times with how exact or precise their measurements need to be in some instances...this would be one of them from what I saw, they are still fun to watch though).

You're still looking at it from a groundspeed perspective though, which is forces that are acting upon the wheels. In that light, if it is going to actually be a force to keep the PLANE stationary rather than simply the wheel positions, it will need to spin counter the direction of the wheels when they normally would accommodate aircraft ground movement. However, if the plane is trying to move them counterclockwise at 100 mph, and the belt is trying to move them clockwise at 100 mph, it then falls to how much friction is on the belt. With enough friction, the wheels might not move at all if they can directly be channeled into utilizing all of the aircrafts force to try to move them. Of course, that's nonsense, but if we are talking about keeping an aircraft stationary via a conveyor belt, then we should assume the power of friction is perfect in this instance, and the forces acting upon the wheels by the plane to move them one direction, are equally matched by the conveyor in the equal but opposite force for the other direction. Aka, the situation in this case would resemble a plane on the ground which has no tire movement at all...at which point will it take off?

That is probably the REAL correct answer...as the question is basically a nonsense question probably originally asked by someone (not NT, I'm talking whoever originated this question) who doesn't seem to understand anything about aircraft to begin with. However, as I pointed out, I'm open to be shown I'm wrong. I've shown myriads of takeoffs of various aircraft with the current laws of physics (including one on a "moving" tarmac as one could put it...or a river). If the answer to the question is that indeed, a plane could take off under those conditions, as a pilot, I am interested in seeing the video of a heavy plane that normally requires a substantial distance to take off, completing such a takeoff in such a circumstance (as opposed to the ultralight aircraft or models that mythbusters utilized). If it is such an easy thing as people propose, we should have many examples of this already to match the equal number of debaters who think it is possible. I think my side has a TON of examples of how take offs normally work, as I've posted several of these clips from youtube as examples. True, but if you look at the question it is not about the wheel position, it specifies it is to keep the AIRPLANE stationary. It is not there to keep the wheel position stationary. As it is a force upon the airplane, I'd think if anything was possible, it would be the river as a replacement for the conveyor belt. It's not a perfect example though, as I've already admitted, the question itself is deeply flawed. There is a remarkable difference between the question and the river as an example (as I've already noted, the entire reason the wheels move counterclockwise is because they are reacting to the plane's thrust upon them as a side effect, meaning they are rolling to accommodate the airplanes forward movement, not moving the plane themselves. Hence, a counter force would therefore need to move them the opposite direction, or clockwise, to actually counter the plane's force upon them to keep the plane's force itself stationary, but this is also impossible as per how the question is worded). PS: Since many utilize a car to understand the force of the engines reactions on the wheels, rather than seeing them differently...I just thought of a car example that may explain somewhat the airplane principle. This is from me, a non-car type guy though. Imagine that you have a frontwheel drive. The rearwheels thus react to the force applied to them in reaction to the front wheels moving counterclockwise. This front wheel tire movement causes the car to move forward. The rearwheels also move forward. What direction would the rearwheels need to move to counter act the movement of the frontwheels and keep it stationary? This can hopefully illuminate why, to create an opposing force for the aircraft wheels, if one is using that medium to keep the aircraft stationary (rather then the wheel position) one needs to move the conveyor belt in the direction from tail to front rather than from front to back. Not a perfect example, I admit, but maybe one people can grasp a little easier???

. It's part of the question... Ignoring that it is part of the question only changes what you are asking, not the question itself. I'd say it's the vital part of the question because it makes it impossible for the question to actually be really completed as asked. It's easy to toss it out, but then it's no longer the same question anymore. I agree the question is flawed, and thus it creates an impossibility...but if one changes it so that it's no longer an impossibility, it is no longer the same question. Of course, I'm always open to see physical evidence of airplanes taking off in a situation as posed by the question, thus far, though I've posted multiple evidence of planes being able to take off under the current laws of physics, I haven't seen one that is posted in regards to the ones who say the plane would take off regardless. I've seen the mythbusters solution, but there were several problems in that (question was different, ultralight plane that could have taken off with mere inches with how much thrust the pilot was giving it, doubling the thrust takeoff relavant to what was needed...etc...etc..etc)

Here's a beautiful clip of a plane taking off of a moving tarmac...aka...a river...

You just ignored the question though. The question wasn't what you just asked. The tarmac in this instance is simply reflecting rather than counter acting the wheels. There is NO FORCE acting upon the aircraft itself. It is acting upon the wheels, and in this instance, it is not actually presenting a countering force to keep the aircraft stationary as the question requires. The wheels may be in a stationary position, though rotating, but the aircraft is moving forward (technically...this is all hypothetical). In an airplane, this principle can also be applied, but it's different than what everyone thinks. A plane is easier to take off when it has a headwind, aka...a force moving the opposite direction of the plane itself...however...it becomes much harder at times with a tailwind. Just as a headwind will reduce the speed needed for rotate speeds, a tailwind can increase it. It works the opposite of what it seems like. The conveyor belt is not a red herring though, as per the question, as it is required to keep the plane stationary. If does NOT keep the plane stationary, then the question is flawed, as that is specified as part of the question. By tossing it out, effectively one ignores the question and creates their own question (as mythbusters did) rather than trying to adhere to the question in the first place...flawed as it may be. From what I understand/have seen, that said the best chance one may have of showing this idea in principle would be via a plane taking off on a river and showing the effects, but as the seaplanes do not have wheels and the ensuing forces upon them to act upon them in the way an airplane or conveyor belt does, it's a very different approach. HOWEVER...if one is flying a seaplane against a strong river current, it is possible that the some planes might not be able to take off unless their is a strong headwind to aid them...which is more of what actually happens in real life as opposed to this fantasy question. On the otherhand, a plane going downstream with a strong tailwind may have similar problems (in which instance, it is better to wait till the wind dies and then do a downstream takeoff), but going downstream will make it so the plane can gain speed faster and hopefully get the airspeed it needs to take off which the upstream takeoff can affect. When one sees the effect a river current (aka, replacement for a conveyor belt) has in real life on take offs and landings, one can see that something that actually can reduce the forward movement of a plane and the air flow over it's wings has upon takeoff and landing, the answer would be in a true situation where a plane has no forward momentum, it will not be able to take off as per the river trying an upstream takeoff which doesn't have the engine power to build up the airspeed to take off. However, that same airplane may be able to take off with a downstream takeoff (of course, one should be cognizant of obstacles in the water, that the distance may be further than on still water, etc...). Of course, in such an instance the best place to plan landings will be on a lake...where you don't have to worry as much about upstream or downstream...etc.

@Vort since the Stationary part is part of the question, it cannot be tossed out...regardless of whether that's an impossibility as posed by the question or not. In fact, when one considers it actually should move the same direction as the airplane wants to move, but in the opposite direction the wheels normally move when the plane moves them...it becomes even a bigger impossibility to a degree that one has to change the entire question to something else (like mythbusters did, where they made it regarding groundspeed rather than the aircraft itself). The difficulty is the question relates to the airplane directly, rather than what it is trying to infer to, which is the groundspeed of the airplane. The wording of the question specifies it is to keep the airplane stationary, when in fact, as it is stated, this is an impossible thing as per the question's wording, or we go into the infinite loop thing. It is possible if the conveyor belt is going the same direction as the plane, but fast enough to move the wheels in the opposite direction of which the plane is directing them to move (in order for the conveyor to keep the plane stationary, rather than keeping the wheels at a stationary spot...it would need to counteract the forces on the wheels themselves, which is the force of the aircraft. The assumption from your question, points out the flaw of the question to begin with. Many assume that because the wheels are turning counterclockwise, it works like a car. However, when we realize that the question isn't about the wheels at all, you have to view it as what is causing those wheels to move in that direction. It is a secondary effect of the real forces acting upon the airplane itself. That force causes the wheel to turn in a counterclockwise motion. If we put it on a conveyor belt that simply reflects that motion, it may prevent the wheels from moving forward (but still rotating) but it is not actually countering the forces on the aircraft itself (the thrust, which is greater than the wheels, hence, even if the wheels are stationary, the aircraft itself may actually be moving forward in the mythbuster's example). It may mean the wheels are actually moving at twice their normal speed though. To counter the actual force of the aircraft, you need the conveyor belt moving the same direction as the airplane if it's actions are upon the wheels...as it is the wheels that are the conveyance of that force/friction. Hence, counter intuitive to what we see in a car, the belt needs to go in the same direction as the airplane at double the speed, thus moving the wheels in the opposite direction (aka with the opposite force) than what the aircraft is directing upon them if we are to even hope to dream of seeing the conveyor belt do as the question asks. Of course this all presupposes that friction is going to be effective in keeping all this going on. But the question makes it impossible to do this... The question itself is flawed though... Much like the car question...because when we discount physics the simple answer to the car question in any situation would be...just add +1...as in the speed of light+1...OR if one says it is infinite...ask at what point does it become infinite then?

Not positive I understand your questions... As a NON-scientist, my thoughts would be... Well, for the question you'd still need a force to replace the conveyor belt to provide an equal and opposite force to keep it stationary in regards to some of the considerations. That's going to be a difficulty. The original question was in relation to the airplane and not the wheels of the airplane having that force keep it stationary (relative to the aircraft, rather than via groundspeed, which is a pretty big difference). without that equal force to keep it stationary, with enough thrust the plane 1. will go forward and with lift and speed it will 2. ascend. At 100 American feet off the ground, the speed depends on the wingspan. Ground effect normally affects the plane to around twice the distance of the wingspan on average, so unless it builds enough speed, it will speed up to move forward, start to climb, and then disastrously crash into the ground, unless the suspension remains in effect to prevent it from crashing until it meets minimum airspeed to meet rotate regulation for that airframe (we normally call for rotation, which is where we move the rudder to climb at a certain speed where it can climb and maintain altitude, ground effect means we can actually climb sooner than that, but it is not fast enough to really keep the plane afloat AFTER we leave ground effect).. The way jets work is that it takes a whole bunch of matter and presses it into an itty bitty space and then pushes it out causing thrust. It is thus pushing against the force that moves it forward, aka...it is being pushed forward. This moves the aircraft or object forward. Without resistance to it's movement (keeping it stationary, such as ground friction via the wheels or otherwise) it will move forward of it's own accord. If you have enough thrust, you get a rocket (And it is on this principle that rockets move, except they normally have fuel inside of them and thus as it exerts energy out behind it, the equal but opposite principle moves it forward). Once it has the required amount of airspeed or airflow over the wings, the plane would indeed become airborne, if it has enough speed, it keeps on flying. If it falls below the airspeed needed with the shape of the wing (which you can change to affect whether you climb or descend) than you descend. I suppose an answer could be, if the conveyor belt is of no consideration to the point that there is no friction or resistance to it whatsoever, it would be unable to actually keep the aircraft stationary at all. We could say he wheels wouldn't turn, but the aircraft wouldn't move until it got enough thrust to suddenly burst up (sort of like what the navy does with it's navy catapults, but even moreso). At that pressure though, at that sudden acceleration, with the speeds required to do that, it may tear the airframe apart...if you could get the speed up to do that. It's an airframe afterall, not a rocketship.

Vort's answer did get me thinking on something...not fully fleshed out yet, still thinking about it stage...Something else that occurred to me in relation to this part of the question... If it was rolling the opposite direction of the way the airplane wanted to move, which way are the wheels actually turning on the airplane? In mythbusters they are rolling counterclockwise...because they are accounting for the ground...right? But on a conveyor belt programmed to roll the opposite direction the plane wants to move....which way is the conveyor belt really moving and which way are the wheels turning? If the conveyor belt is moving from front to back of the aircraft, it is not necessarily keeping an aircraft stationary, but if it is going from back to front at a fast enough speed to keep it stationary (meaning it overcomes it's forward momentum), which way are the wheels turning...clockwise. It's counter intuitive...because our minds are made to think about the wheels like a car in relation to movement. However, it is the body of the airplane that is being countered, not the wheels, which may mean, intuitively, the difference between the two questions (mythbusters and the original) is which way the conveyor belt actually needs to be turning. The wheels are independent of the airplane, as Vort pointed out, which means that the airplane thrust really isn't going to be the effect it has on them that we think. In order to keep the plane stationary, it may be more effective for the conveyor belt to actually be going from back to front (which is impossible as per the question), which means the wheels, which are independent of the actual aircraft would be moving as if in reverse, even as the aircraft engines are trying to go forward. Hence the effect is basically countering the normal force of the jets on the wheels (the jets with enough force cause the plane forward which has the side effect of causing enough force for the wheels to move counterclockwise, so in theory, the conveyor belt would need to exert the opposite force to cause them to go clockwise???) Just something that caught my thoughts when thinking on Vort's answer. PS: To understand WHY this would work in this manner, you have to first realize the wheels in the question have no connection to the aircraft other than to connect it to the ground and reflect the forces that are acting upon them. In this, the conveyor belt has to be moving at a speed that is fast enough to counteract the speed of the aircraft, which is why it would be moving quite quickly from tail to front to act upon the wheels which are turning in relation to the conveyor belt rather than the forces of pressure from the aircraft. It is the AIRCRAFT that is being countered in this example, rather than the groundforce that is countered in that of mythbusters. Because we are geared to thinking of it like a car to a small degree, it seems counter intuitive. We think of it as if it were standing still, but if the wheels are the vehicle of conveyance to show force, than in fact, it would seem to me to keep the plane stationary if it were reacting to the plane rather than the ground speed and friction of the ground, in order to keep the PLANE stationary, rather than the groundforce/groundspeed, it would need to be acting in the manner of tail to front to counter the force acting upon the wheels which would move it from front to tail as it normally would. The reason then why we might not see this as a practical physical example is because it would require twice as much energy to pull this off on a conveyor belt than it does now, or using a conveyor belt that worked like the mythbuster's idea instead.

I agree, learn to play the piano. Your leadership will always be glad that you do if they find out (though it may be you might not be quite as glad at times).

It seems that the best answer is what was given already...find out WHY she is tanning. If she is tanning because she feels it makes her beautiful, ask her who she is doing this for. If you do NOT find it beautiful, tell her that you find her prettier without that tan than with, and if she's doing it for you, perhaps she could consider the alternative. On the otherhand, if she is doing it for other guys...maybe ask her why she feels it is more important to be beautiful for other guys more than it is to be beautiful for you? It could be for other reasons (though in many instances they do it because of a beauty thing rather than anything else). It could be that she feels she does not get enough vitamin D (I know a couple that tan for this exact reason, and in Utah's climate, I know I've been diagnosed as needing to take vitamin D because I have a very low amount of it during the winter...it could be that couple has solved this problem with tanning...I don't know). Or it could be a social thing where that's where she socializes with others. The key is to get to the root of the thing of WHY she chooses to do so. It may be, that once one learns of her reasoning, you might even agree with her!!!

Awe, I finally figured out what you did there. I had to hit the quote button and make it all black to see it though. Is there an easier way (I am an individual that is not quite as tech literate as many younger individuals may be, or even some older ones that are my age perhaps!) That isn't the answer to the question asked though. That's the answer to the Mythbusters question in regards to ground speed.... It is correct, once the airflow over the wings is sufficient, the plane will take off, but if the airflow is stationary, as in regards to the thrust which causes it, then it will remain on the ground. Of course, the problem is that as per the questions wording, this is actually impossible. The question has it worded so the conveyor belt is responding to the engines and airflow rather than the wheels, which as explained, means that this would move the plane backwards...thus meaning the plane needs to continually accelerate which makes it stationary, which creates an infinite loop. Normally, the wheels or the belt would burst into flame or erode or something, but that isn't possible as per the question. It's like asking...if a car could accelerate at one mile per hour on an endless highway, could it go an infinite speed? Caution, that car question is more tricky than it may first appear. PS: That said, I would be delighted to be shown that my thoughts are wrong. I'd love to see the physical evidence of this idea working on a heavy (or even a fighter jet which can require a lot less runway with enough thrust). The closest thing are the Navy catapults, but they require a LOT of thrust and at least a little runway to takeoff. I'd love to see a living example rather than claims.

I know that a few months ago they had RCA Voyager Tablets (I think that's what they were) for $25. I had a friend buy one and put the gospel library on that. They now have the Voyager III out for $49, it's possible when the new school year rolls around that they will reduce that one in price (long term, I know...that's some time away from now). PS: Thought I'd add, of very interesting note, I got a LOT of help here putting on the gospel library on my tablet when I got one (one of the first questions I asked here). From that experience, and the things people told me here, I was actually able to help that friend with the Voyager tablet be able to install the gospel library on their tablet!!! Not that they are reading this thread, but if they are, thanks again for the help all that while ago!!! From me and others I've helped since as well!!!

As I said, I'm all up for anyone who can post physical evidence. Now, model airplanes and ultralights probably are VERY BAD examples... The basic principals of flight rely on Newton and Bernoulli, which normally are thrust and airspeed plus lift via the air movement. With enough thrust, a many a model airplane or an ultralight need a foot or less to take off, of, if it is really the right conditions, zero distance (the same holds true for bigger aircraft, but that normally only happens when a strong headwind hits, like during a hurricane or something similar). Here are examples of planes taking off with our current understanding of physics... I await the videos that show the planes taking off of a conveyor belt... Afterall, if you can show me the physical evidence (and as I said, planes that require very low or 0 distance with very low thrust are probably bad examples...especially as the original question that the question in this thread came from utilized asking about a heavy in the first place) of this occurring, I'd be very curious, and probably want to know how in the world it worked or how they figured it out (physics without math or science is magic afterall). PS: Changing this to be more kindly - I'm probably more invested in this than I should, because, while I can show hundreds of examples of planes taking flight from how we understand the physics and the principles of flight to work, I don't see anything showing the opposite to be true in practice. But at the same time, I'm fascinated at the prospect, if there really IS something that shows that the idea is plausible without any other explanation (light aircraft that could take off on a dime for example is NOT what I'd be looking at for an example...but something which absolutely shows it as hard evidence, I'd be absolutely fascinated by it and wanting to learn more about how they did it or pulled it off with the science behind it rather than...magic). That said, once again, I AM open to physical evidence that shows why planes do not need runways, airlift, or airspeed to take off on. Also adding, if Vort did write something I didn't see in his first posting, interested in seeing what it actually said...I don't know why it shows up as a blank space on my screen on that post, but I would be interested in what it said if it could be written down in a manner that I can see it to read it.