You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

tut comments on Open thread, August 4 - 10, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: polymathwannabe 04 August 2014 12:20PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (307)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: tut 08 August 2014 07:36:17AM *  0 points [-]

Rolling speed = how fast the wheels turn, described in terms of forward speed. So it's the circumference of the wheels multiplied by their angular speed. And the wheels are not uncoupled from the plane they are driven by the plane. It was only assumed that the friction in the wheel bearings is irrelevant.

Forward movement of the plane = speed of the plane relative to something not on the treadmill. I guess I should have called it airspeed, which it would be if there is no wind.

Speed of the treadmill = how fast the surface of the treadmill moves.

And that is more time than I wanted to spend rehashing this old nonsense. The grandparent was only meant to explain why the great grandparent would not have settled the issue, not to settle it on its own. The only further comment I have is the whole thing is based on an unrealistic setup, which becomes incoherent if you assume that it is about real planes and real treadmills.

Comment author: satt 09 August 2014 04:43:17PM *  0 points [-]

And that is more time than I wanted to spend rehashing this old nonsense.

Fair enough. I have to chip in with one last comment, but you'll be happy to hear it's a self-correction! My comments don't account for potential translational motion of the wheels, and they should've done. (The translational motion could matter if one assumes the wheels experience friction with the belt, even if there's no internal wheel bearing friction.)