|
Whichever is slowed the least by air resistance. Both having the same shape, and if we discount the effect the 3 holes in the bowling ball would have, the one slowed the least would be the one with the highest mass density. Which I think is the bowling ball. Im gay
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
they don't have the same shape though, the golf ball has dimples to reduce its drag, while the bowling ball is like the smooth golf balls they used to use that don't go nearly as far furthermore i too am gay
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Is the tower on a treadmill?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
If you model them both as perfect spheres and atmosphere is present then the more dense one will hit the ground first, outside of really weird shapes. If it's in a vacuum anything will hit the ground at the same time. As I would guess the holes in the ball will have a much smaller impact than the much denser bowling ball overcoming wind resistance, a bowling ball would probably fall faster.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Ah yes many very intelligent responses in this thread but let us change the game. What happens when the dimples in the golf ball are full of tiny drops of poo poo?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
The unwary tend to reason by analogy to a car on a conveyor belt--if the conveyor moves backward at the same rate that the car's wheels rotate forward, the net result is that the car remains stationary. An aircraft in the same situation, they figure, would stay planted on the ground, since there'd be no air rushing over the wings to give it lift. But of course cars and planes don't work the same way. A car's wheels are its means of propulsion--they push the road backwards (relatively speaking), and the car moves forward. In contrast, a plane's wheels aren't motorized; their purpose is to reduce friction during takeoff (and add it, by braking, when landing). What gets a plane moving are its propellers or jet turbines, which shove the air backward and thereby impel the plane forward. What the wheels, conveyor belt, etc, are up to is largely irrelevant. Let me repeat: Once the pilot fires up the engines, the plane moves forward at pretty much the usual speed relative to the ground--and more importantly the air--regardless of how fast the conveyor belt is moving backward. This generates lift on the wings, and the plane takes off. All the conveyor belt does is, as you correctly conclude, make the plane's wheels spin madly. A thought experiment commonly cited in discussions of this question is to imagine you're standing on a health-club treadmill in rollerblades while holding a rope attached to the wall in front of you. The treadmill starts; simultaneously you begin to haul in the rope. Although you'll have to overcome some initial friction tugging you backward, in short order you'll be able to pull yourself forward easily. As you point out, one problem here is the wording of the question. Your version straightforwardly states that the conveyor moves backward at the same rate that the plane moves forward. If the plane's forward speed is 100 miles per hour, the conveyor rolls 100 MPH backward, and the wheels rotate at 200 MPH. Assuming you've got Indy-car-quality tires and wheel bearings, no problem. However, some versions put matters this way: "The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation." 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.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:The unwary tend to reason by analogy to a car on a conveyor belt--if the conveyor moves backward at the same rate that the car's wheels rotate forward, the net result is that the car remains stationary. An aircraft in the same situation, they figure, would stay planted on the ground, since there'd be no air rushing over the wings to give it lift. But of course cars and planes don't work the same way. A car's wheels are its means of propulsion--they push the road backwards (relatively speaking), and the car moves forward. In contrast, a plane's wheels aren't motorized; their purpose is to reduce friction during takeoff (and add it, by braking, when landing). What gets a plane moving are its propellers or jet turbines, which shove the air backward and thereby impel the plane forward. What the wheels, conveyor belt, etc, are up to is largely irrelevant. Let me repeat: Once the pilot fires up the engines, the plane moves forward at pretty much the usual speed relative to the ground--and more importantly the air--regardless of how fast the conveyor belt is moving backward. This generates lift on the wings, and the plane takes off. All the conveyor belt does is, as you correctly conclude, make the plane's wheels spin madly. Now read the first letter of each sentences: IM GAY
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:friction the actual answer is that it is assumed that the conveyor can turn as fast as it needs to to keep the plane in place which it can for a jet unless magnetic high-load vacuum bearings are invented a propeller-based aircraft would still achieve lift by blowing air at high speed directly over the wings TAKE THAT, 1998 MEME!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
myth busters demonstrated jet take off by setting conveyor at arbitrarily low speed and people forgot that all that show is good for is crashing things together
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
golf balls are aerodynamic and will be subjected to less drag than your dumb fat bowling ball
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
as for the plane on the treadmill, i find a better thought experiment is a model rocket with wheels on a treadmill. nobody would argue that the treadmill somehow offsets the rocket engine. now realize that the prop plane just replaces the rocket engine with propellers and wings
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
you irl posted:as for the plane on the treadmill, i find a better thought experiment is a model rocket with wheels on a treadmill. nobody would argue that the treadmill somehow offsets the rocket engine. now realize that the prop plane just replaces the rocket engine with propellers and wings propeller aircraft have demonstrated lifting off the ground in-place irl going against the wind
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Air friction? loving Christ.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
you irl posted:this is stupid though, the only reason it won't fall in is because the smallest cover measurement (for a circular cover, the diameter) is larger than the largest hole measurement (for a circular hole, also the diameter), but you can build any shaped cover like that, just might take a little more material for some shapes No, there are plenty of shapes that would allow the lid to fall in, a square for example. But also yes, that is not the only reason they are round. Ease of manufacture and structural stability are also factors.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
the left ball dropped first
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
This thread is trolling the poo poo out of me. I'm so triggered over friction and how loving static it is.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:56
|
|
