Why airplanes taxi

So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.


Some haphazard math here.. if space is indeed entirely frictionless,
which I highly doubt, then to accelerate a body of weight 1kg (2.2
lbs) to the speed of light (using a constant force of 1N (or 1 m/sec2
acceleration) would require a distance of 4.5*(10^16) meters or about
45000000000000 km which is about 300 billion miles. The work done/
energy needed would be about 450 trillion joules.
The time needed to achieve this feat would be about 9.5 yrs.. so no
its not instantaneous

It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
mass to the speed of light.


On Feb 9, 12:37*am, wrote:
So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

Some haphazard math here.. if space is indeed entirely frictionless,
which I highly doubt, then to accelerate a body of weight 1kg (2.2
lbs) to the speed of light (using a constant force of 1N (or 1 m/sec2
acceleration) would require a distance of 4.5*(10^16) meters or about
45000000000000 km which is about 300 billion miles. The work done/
energy needed would be about 450 trillion joules.
The time needed to achieve this feat would be about 9.5 yrs.. so no
its not instantaneous

On Feb 10, 4:36*pm, Tina wrote:
It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
mass to the speed of light.

Ah an oft stated idea but why? Is E not 0.5MC^2 ?

Where's the Ken when we need it?

Cheers

In article ,
WingFlaps wrote:

It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
mass to the speed of light.

Ah an oft stated idea but why? Is E not 0.5MC^2 ?

reaching way way Way WAY back into college physics let's see if I remember
this correctly... because mass increases with velocity. If pressed, I may
even be able to find the formula in my quantum text.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
mass to the speed of light.


True, I just wanted to stay within the realms of Newtonian mechanics
for simplicity because the poster seemed to imply that a body will
reach a velocity of c if there is no friction instantaneously..

On Feb 6, 10:19*am, wrote:
Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
move forward
on the ground.


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Fixed-wing aircraft can only achieve a stable taxi by keeping the CG
between the forward and aft wheel points(WPs). This is why it is so
important in aircraft design that the WPs be placed correctly. In
the early days of aviation some designers placed all the wheels to one
side of the CG, with the result that the aircraft was dynamically
unstable in taxi. Sadly, many lives were lost before this phenomenon
was understood.

If the CG is placed correctly in relation to the WPs, the aircraft
establishes taxi by moving the Earth beneath it. Turns are achieved
by rotating the Earth. Flight is achieved by dropping the Earth down,
and a landing is made by lifting it back up. Aerobatics involve
combinations of lifting, dropping, and rotating.

I hope this clears things up for everyone.

Phil

Phil, to support your theory, I can tell you the earth weighs 130
pounds in my gravitional field (that's before breakfast. It gains a
little after that.).


On Feb 6, 1:58*pm, Phil J wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:19*am, wrote:

Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
move forward
on the ground.

Wrong. *Wrong. *Wrong.

Fixed-wing aircraft can only achieve a stable taxi by keeping the CG
between the forward and aft wheel points(WPs). * This is why it is so
important in aircraft design that the WPs be placed correctly. * In
the early days of aviation some designers placed all the wheels to one
side of the CG, with the result that the aircraft was dynamically
unstable in taxi. *Sadly, many lives were lost before this phenomenon
was understood.

If the CG is placed correctly in relation to the WPs, the aircraft
establishes taxi by moving the Earth beneath it. *Turns are achieved
by rotating the Earth. *Flight is achieved by dropping the Earth down,
and a landing is made by lifting it back up. *Aerobatics involve
combinations of lifting, dropping, and rotating.

I hope this clears things up for everyone.

Phil

On Feb 6, 1:09*pm, Tina wrote:
Phil, to support your theory, I can tell you the earth weighs 130
pounds in my gravitional field (that's before breakfast. It gains a
little after that.).


I have been noticing that the Earth is getting heavier and heavier as
the years go by. I think something needs to be done about this Global
Bloating.

Phil

"Phil J" wrote
...


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Fixed-wing aircraft can only achieve a stable taxi by keeping the CG
between the forward and aft wheel points(WPs). This is why it is so
important in aircraft design that the WPs be placed correctly. In
the early days of aviation some designers placed all the wheels to one
side of the CG, with the result that the aircraft was dynamically
unstable in taxi. Sadly, many lives were lost before this phenomenon
was understood.

If the CG is placed correctly in relation to the WPs, the aircraft
establishes taxi by moving the Earth beneath it. Turns are achieved
by rotating the Earth. Flight is achieved by dropping the Earth down,
and a landing is made by lifting it back up. Aerobatics involve
combinations of lifting, dropping, and rotating.

I hope this clears things up for everyone.

Phil


Hah...hah....
This is called the pilot's perspective: (s)he sits in the cockpit and the
earth performs the requisite manoevers.

wrote:
Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
move forward
on the ground.

:-) I am feeling profound today...

So - how much was the bet for and how many posts do you need to win it?