Who here is stupid?

[Tisket]

Discussed this during a MENSA roundtable.

Oh do shut up, you giant gaping cunt.

[Wrathbringer]

Oh do shut up, you giant gaping cunt.

Lol

[Tisket]

Discussed this during a MENSA roundtable.

This says everything I think when I see someone brag about being in MENSA: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/08/3...n-youre-smart/

Also, leading with that usually means most people stop reading whatever bullshit you are getting ready to vomit up.

[Gelston]

I'm late to the party, but:

Setting aside the fact that a jet engine gains additional thrust from having air pushed into the intakes via movement (Thank you Kerbal Explosion Simulator), assuming the turbines generate enough thrust for takeoff, of course the answer is no...a 747 cannot take off like a harrier jet, no matter how much you wish it Gelston. Movement generates lift. If there is no movement, there is no lift. Not even if the engines were pointed straight upward. They'd have to be much, much stronger engines. The engines make the plane move forward fast enough that air assists the wings in generating lift, and then the engines keep it moving forward fast enough to keep generating that lift. Can't run on engines alone without lift.

Unless you change the question, which is what I think you think you've done but haven't.

There would STILL BE MOVEMENT. Planes are not propelled by their wheels.

[Stumplicker]

There would STILL BE MOVEMENT. Planes are not propelled by their wheels.

The question states: The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels.

If the wheels are turning the exact same speed as the conveyor belt, there is no forward movement. That's the part you're not gettin'. The jet engines work to increase the speed of the wheels, but the conveyor belt matches it as per the terms of the question posed. Without any forward movement, there is no lift, and no getting off the ground. The only hope would be to change the power of the engines on a 747 to be able to vertical takeoff like a harrier...which is minimum 735,000 pounds per google on a 747 (A harrier comes in around 26,000 max takeoff capacity). I doubt jet turbines powerful enough to vertical lift 735,000 pounds exist, but if they did, that's the only hope for the scenario as posed.

[Gelston]

The question states: The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels.

If the wheels are turning the exact same speed as the conveyor belt, there is no forward movement. That's the part you're not gettin'. The jet engines work to increase the speed of the wheels, but the conveyor belt matches it as per the terms of the question posed.

The plane doesn't care about the tires spinning. Those only exist because the plane has to have contact with the ground during take off, landing, and when it isn't flying, because it can't hover like star wars things.

[Stumplicker]

The plane doesn't care about the tires spinning. Those only exist because the plane has to have contact with the ground during take off, landing, and when it isn't flying, because it can't hover like star wars things.

How then do you suppose the plane will move forward prior to achieving flight, if not by the wheels? In order to achieve lift.

[Gelston]

How then do you suppose the plane will move forward prior to achieving flight, if not by the wheels? In order to achieve lift.

The engines on the wings propel it.

[Stumplicker]

The engines on the wings propel it.

Gravity exists. The jet engine pushes it forward and gravity pushes it downward at 9.8ms^2. The downward causes the wheels to be necessary in the equation. And the wheels are being pushed backwards as fast as the engine pushes forward, again, per the terms of the question.

[Crash187]

6 pages and no one realizes Gelston is trolling the fuck out of y'all. You guys are slacking.