"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
news
[...]
Agreed, further interpretation is required, although I think
the most reasonable interpretation is pretty clear

But that's my point. Just as a "reasonable interpretation" is required,
one can just as easily assert that a MORE reasonable interpretation would
be to assume the question means to discuss a scenario that is at least
theoretically possibly to reproduce with existing technology.

The question is ambiguous no matter how one looks at it. How can anyone
assert that it makes more sense to interpret it in a way that creates a
physically impossible situation than to interpret in a way that can at
least in theory be tested experimentally?

Pete


Yup. The question can be interpreted in a couple of different ways. This is
what has created the multi-faceted debate. We are not just debating whether
the plane will fly given a single scenario. We are arguing about the
scenario itself. Stupid, really. I mean, the arguing is stupid. I'm all for
discussing alternate scenarios to gain enlightenment (which I got the last
round - no new information this time).

I happen to believe that the point of the scenario is to illustrate the
independence (within limits of friction) of the motion of the plane from its
connection to the ground. I think that the alternate scenarios are
interesting and have their own merit. However, there are those that clearly
do not get the independent nuance of airmotive thrust (e.g. Darkwing).
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK