The Art

[Josh66]

Doesn't it require wisdom to know right from wrong?

It is my opinion that Wisdom includes but not limited to

* the root of morals
* ability to determine right and wrong
* the ability to apply intelligence properly

I'm pretty sure everyone knows the difference between right & wrong, no matter how 'wise' they are. Some people just don't really care one way or the other, some people do wrong things because they know (or think they do) that they can get away with it. I think they all 'know' that it's wrong though.

Right and wrong depends upon how you were raised and upon what you define as right and wrong. To some the idea of killing another human is the height of evil - for others its a way of life and they think nothing of killing an outside who might threaten their way of life.

But they still KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. Their version of 'wrong' might be different than yours, but there is a distinction, and they know where it is. Some people just choose to ignore it.
(Maybe killing someone from a rival clan is perfectly fine, but stealing a goat from a neighbor is punishable by death...? There would still be the concept of right & wrong, the only differences would be what was on which list.)

I do agree that it has a lot to do with how you were raised though...
For example; for most people, stealing is wrong. For some people, stealing is a way to survive.

I think though, even for the people to whom stealing is OK and just a part of life, they still have a concept of 'wrong'. Stealing just isn't on that list. They would still know when they've done something 'wrong'...

 

[Infidel]

OK, let's try this:

Imagine you've got a plane sitting on a runway. This runway, however, is special - it's a conveyor belt that senses the motion of the airplane's wheels. So, as soon as the airplane starts its engines and gets enough thrust to move the wheels, the conveyor belt senses this movement and rolls back the same amount that the wheels move forward. Will this plane ever leave the ground? (for purposes of this discussion, assume all frictional effects of wheels, tires, and conveyors, are null).

The specific wording here, in relation to wheel speed, not aircraft speed yields a paradox.

Found this nice explanation: The Straight Dope: An airplane taxies in one direction on a moving conveyor belt going the opposite direction. Can the plane take off?

This language leads to a paradox: If the plane moves forward at 5 MPH, then its wheels will do likewise, and the treadmill will go 5 MPH backward. But if the treadmill is going 5 MPH backward, then the wheels are really turning 10 MPH forward. But if the wheels are going 10 MPH forward . . . Soon the foolish have persuaded themselves that the treadmill must operate at infinite speed. Nonsense. The question thus stated asks the impossible -- simply put, that A = A + 5 -- and so cannot be framed in this way. Everything clear now? Maybe not. But believe this: The plane takes off.

 

[Josh66]

OK, let's try this:

Imagine you've got a plane sitting on a runway. This runway, however, is special - it's a conveyor belt that senses the motion of the airplane's wheels. So, as soon as the airplane starts its engines and gets enough thrust to move the wheels, the conveyor belt senses this movement and rolls back the same amount that the wheels move forward. Will this plane ever leave the ground? (for purposes of this discussion, assume all frictional effects of wheels, tires, and conveyors, are null).

The specific wording here, in relation to wheel speed, not aircraft speed yields a paradox.

Found this nice explanation: The Straight Dope: An airplane taxies in one direction on a moving conveyor belt going the opposite direction. Can the plane take off?

This language leads to a paradox: If the plane moves forward at 5 MPH, then its wheels will do likewise, and the treadmill will go 5 MPH backward. But if the treadmill is going 5 MPH backward, then the wheels are really turning 10 MPH forward. But if the wheels are going 10 MPH forward . . . Soon the foolish have persuaded themselves that the treadmill must operate at infinite speed. Nonsense. The question thus stated asks the impossible -- simply put, that A = A + 5 -- and so cannot be framed in this way. Everything clear now? Maybe not. But believe this: The plane takes off.

What many people fail to understand is that the wheels are in NO WAY connected to the engines.

The conveyor belt could be moving at ANY speed, and the wheels will just spin to match it (plus the forward speed of the plane).

The RPM of the wheels and the RPM of the prop/turbine are in no way related.

The wheels are just free-spinning. They will spin at whatever speed they have to in order to match the speed of the conveyor belt.

And yes - the way that is worded, the speed of the conveyor belt and the speed of the wheels would both become infinite. That still doesn't change the fact that IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL. The speed of the wheels means NOTHING!

 

[Josh66]

OK.

Instead of a plane taking off, imagine a plane landing. On an aircraft carrier.

Lets pretend that we have a special plane that needs very little forward speed to stay in the air...

Lets say that the carrier is moving AWAY from the plane at 30kts, and that the plane has to be flying 30kts to get enough lift to stay in the air.

There is no wind at all on this day.

If the plane and the carrier are both traveling at 30kts in the same direction, they would not be moving in relation to each other. To the people standing around on the deck, the plane would appear to just be hanging there, 'stuck' in the air.

Then the plane touches down on the deck, without changing speed. It shuts the engines down the second the wheels touch down... To the people on deck, it would appear to have just lowered straight down onto the deck.

Same thing as taking off, just in reverse.

If it were possible for the carrier to move faster than the minimum speed for the plane to take off, a plane just sitting on the deck with the engines off and the brakes on would become airborne.
(It would most likely lose stability and crash shortly after that, but the wheels would still leave the ground.)

 

[Infidel]

FYI, I understand the principal. I was just pointing out that the wording in the original example can lead to interesting misunderstandings.

 

[KmH]

The wheels are connected to the airplane, meaning that the speed of the wheels is governed by any forward motion of the airplane, regardless if the wheel speed is caused by direct drive, like a car, or movement of the airframe caused by jet or propeller engines.

Since the conveyor belt constant matches the wheel speed, but in the opposite direction, the airplane doesn't actually have any forward motion.

The speed of the airplanes wheels means EVERYTHING in the scenario postulated.

Once the airplane does get airborne, the wheels stop moving.

 

[pgriz]

The fun thing about this airplane thread is that if you read the wording of the question very carefully, you will realize that the actual behavior of the conveyor is to keep the wheels stationary, as the airplane gains speed. Other than affecting the wheels, the conveyor has no influence on the airplane as there is no energy transfer between the wheels and the plane.

If you’re not sure, imagine that you put a chalk-mark on one of the wheels at the point it touches the conveyor (while the whole thing is stationary). Heck, while you’re at it, put a chalk mark on the conveyor belt as well. Now rev up the engines (doesn’t matter whether it is prop or jet or rocket, or rubber-band), and let the plane start moving forward. If you are looking at the chalk mark on the wheel, it will start moving backwards. Now the conveyor senses this and moves in the opposite sense of the wheel, which returns the chalk-mark back to its original point. Net effect, the conveyor is now moving forward at the same speed as the plane. This continues as the plane accelerates, with the conveyor matching the acceleration of the airplane. At a certain point, the airplane becomes airborne, the wheels no longer contact the conveyor, and the conveyor, not having any idea what the wheels are doing, stops (or keeps on going at the same speed if you’re inclined to think this way).

The way most people read this tread initially, they think that the conveyor moves in the opposite direction of the plane (not the wheels), in effect bringing it back to the same point (as seen by an observer standing off the conveyor to the side). As pointed out earlier, if there was power transmission between the airplane and the wheels (as for a geared vehicle), then that would in fact be the case that the forward motion of the vehicle would be cancelled by the backward motion of the conveyor. However, if the wheels are free-wheeling, then there would be no loss of energy (through the wheels), and the airplane would accelerate and eventually take off.

A similar discussion occurs when we ask the question: “How come really smart people do really dumb things?” But that’s a Dr.Phil question…

 

[usayit]

I'm not sure how many different ways it can be explained by several people with two links + video to the experiment before it crosses into being hopeless.

You have two different systems.

1) wheels in contact with the conveyor belt. Only horizontal forces are applied. Zero vertical forces are applied (until lift is achieved)
2) The plane, its jet propulsion, fluid (air).

System 1 and 2 are isolated from each other until lift is achieved. This is because the wheels are not influenced by the jet and the brakes are off. They spin freely.

For system 1, a similarity would be a person in a house pushing on a wall horizontally. The harder the person pushes the harder the wall pushes back (newton law). As long as the forces are equal no movement is achieved. As long as the wheels and the conveyor belt are matched in speed, no movement is achieved. This we agree on.

Here is where the misunderstanding starts. For system 2, a similarity would be the house (with the person inside pushing on a wall) is placed on a flat bed truck. Forces are applied to the system1 as a whole from outside the system. If the truck moves, the whole house and person pushing on the wall must also move. If the jet applies force, the whole plane and wheels must also move. The movement of the plane + opposite movement of the conveyor belt is 100% translated into the rotational speed of the wheels.

In other words,

Before thrust:
Rotational velocity of the wheels = velocity of the conveyor belt.

After thrust:
Rotational velocity of the wheels = velocity of the conveyor belt + velocity of the aircraft.

In the after thrust equation, it is impossible for the "rotational velocity of the wheels" to equal the "velocity of the conveyor belt" unless you drive the value of "velocity of the aircraft" to zero.

In summary,
The ONLY way for wheels and conveyor belt to match speed is if they are an isolated system with no outside forces being applied. This can only be achieved if the engines of the plane are OFF. The post specifically mentions thrust. Once thrust is achieved, The system containing the wheels and conveyor belt must change... meaning the wheels must spin faster in order to allow forward motion. Thrust, wheels, and conveyor belt in a single static system Does Not Exist.

 

[usayit]

A similar discussion occurs when we ask the question: “How come really smart people do really dumb things?” But that’s a Dr.Phil question…

I've been a drunk discussion about this... (funny eh) the conclusion we as a group agreed on goes like this

1) Smart people can do dumb things
2) Dumb people can do dumb things
3) Dumb actions are driven by inappropriate assessments and assumptions.
4) Smart people are more likely to make the correct assessments and assumptions more frequently.

Conclusion: Dumb people make inappropriate assessments and assumptions more frequently. Smart people do it less frequently but are more stubborn when it comes to admitting the mistakes in their assessment and assumptions because it doesn't happen enough.

 

[table1349]

I see a distinction between wisdom and common sense. In college I had a roommate that was very intelligent. He had a 4.0 GPA his entire life. However he didn't have the common sense God gave a turnip. He was a pre med student and as far as his abilities to learn the various subjects necessary he was quite capable.

In real world life situations he was dumber than a rock. He never learned how to cope with life with other humans. Was he wise about his chosen field of medicine, you bet. But his understanding of common things in life was all but non existent. I guess I see common sense in humans being more closely related to knowing right from wrong and being able to act on that knowledge.

What you describe is common sense versus intelligence.. is it not? Your friend is very intelligent and capable maintaining a 4.0 GPA, finishing pre-med, understanding medicine, and acquiring more knowledge. Doesn't it require wisdom to know right from wrong?

It is my opinion that Wisdom includes but not limited to

* the root of morals
* ability to determine right and wrong
* the ability to apply intelligence properly

It is the foundation of a healthy society. A society in which wisdom is abundant can thrive even though its progress forward (advancements in technology for example) can be slow.

Can an wise individual be also corrupt? (IMO, No). Can an intelligent individual be also corrupt? (IMO, yes)

The way I look at it, intelligence is a measure of a persons ability to learn. Wisdom is the ability to understand and apply what is learned.
Common sense is an inborn knowledge specific to the human race. It is what we have and use that is the leftover from our ancient ancestors. In animals we call them instincts, such as a salmons ability to find and return to the same stream and location to spawn. Ours were developed for the needs of humans.

Can a wise man be corrupt. Ask any politician. :mrgreen: Ok seriously,
How about the person that is "street wise?" They are wise in the ways of survival in their environment including the criminal element of that environment.

 

[table1349]

A similar discussion occurs when we ask the question: “How come really smart people do really dumb things?” But that’s a Dr.Phil question…

I've been a drunk discussion about this... (funny eh) the conclusion we as a group agreed on goes like this

1) Smart people can do dumb things
2) Dumb people can do dumb things
3) Dumb actions are driven by inappropriate assessments and assumptions.
4) Smart people are more likely to make the correct assessments and assumptions more frequently.

Conclusion: Dumb people make inappropriate assessments and assumptions more frequently. Smart people do it less frequently but are more stubborn when it comes to admitting the mistakes in their assessment and assumptions because it doesn't happen enough.

Please allow me to edit your post as I see it.

1) Smart people do dumb things
2) Dumb people do dumb things
3) Dumb actions are driven by inappropriate assessments and assumptions.
4) Smart people are more likely to make the correct assessments and assumptions more frequently.
5) Smart people doing dumb things are dumber than dumb people doing dumb things as the smart people should have known better. They compound their dumb action, sort of like interest on a savings account. :lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[Josh66]

The wheels are connected to the airplane, meaning that the speed of the wheels is governed by any forward motion of the airplane, regardless if the wheel speed is caused by direct drive, like a car, or movement of the airframe caused by jet or propeller engines.

The wheels being connected to the plane just mean that they won't fall off when the plane gets airborne... Yes, their speed is controlled by the forward motion of the plane, which is controlled by the THRUST from the ENGINES. The plane 'does not care' how fast they are going - it makes no difference in the plane's ability to take off.

OK, lets take the wheels out of the equation. What if it was a sea plane trying to take off in a very fast current. Would that plane get airborne?

(yes, it would.)

Since the conveyor belt constant matches the wheel speed, but in the opposite direction, the airplane doesn't actually have any forward motion.

Basics of Flight

Read that and then get back to me when you find the part that talks about the conveyor belt.

The drag caused by the friction of the wheels touching the ground is not enough to counter the thrust from the engines. (And that amount of drag is probably very tiny compared to the drag caused by the friction of the air moving over the wing.)

The speed of the airplanes wheels means EVERYTHING in the scenario postulated.

How? Why?
Do the engines shut down or something when the wheels get up to 88 mph?

Once the airplane does get airborne, the wheels stop moving.

That's because they APPLY the BRAKES as the gear goes up. (I guess they just don't like the idea of the wheels still moving while they're inside the gear well.)

If the gear was still down, and the brakes were off - the wheels would still spin a little. Probably in the same direction they were going when the plane took off, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be that direction.

If it weren't for the 500mph wind blowing on them, they would come to a rest eventually if they were just left to hang there with no brakes.

 

[usayit]

5) Smart people doing dumb things are dumber than dumb people doing dumb things as the smart people should have known better. They compound their dumb action, sort of like interest on a savings account. :lmao::lmao::lmao:

hahahaha :lmao: You are so right!