What is fit?

Carnal was the fittest man on these boards. He was banned for being too fit.
 
Fit is highly subjective. If you can do the things that people do that you consider "fit," then you are fit.

Me, not so much, because when I think of fit, I think of all outstanding highs on the PRT, or a triathlete, neither of which I am. I am a potato that is trying to get strong.

...by the way, if I need help pushing my car out of the ditch, I don't look for someone who is "fit."
 
DrBdan said:
"Plane on a treadmill" is like p90x and CrossFit. Everyone picks their side and no matter what arguments are made no one changes their mind.
Click to expand...

True. The problem with that Mythbusters episode is that the test sucked. The plane still had forward motion (wasn't sitting still), so the wing produced lift and it flew. If the plane is sitting in one neutral position, like the tail is tied down, you can put all sorts of throttle to it and it won't fly.
 
callador said:
True. The problem with that Mythbusters episode is that the test sucked. The plane still had forward motion (wasn't sitting still), so the wing produced lift and it flew. If the plane is sitting in one neutral position, like the tail is tied down, you can put all sorts of throttle to it and it won't fly.
Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding the plane on a treadmill question. The question is "If a plane was on a giant treadmill, and the treadmill was going in the reverse direction of the plane, could the plane still take off?" Whether or not the plane can move forwards fast enough to take off is the test.
 
I agree with Tosa.

*resists the urge to comment further about plane on a treadmill*
 
Tosa said:
I think you're misunderstanding the plane on a treadmill question. The question is "If a plane was on a giant treadmill, and the treadmill was going in the reverse direction of the plane, could the plane still take off?" Whether or not the plane can move forwards fast enough to take off is the test.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. When you run on a treadmill, the mat moves at the exact same speed you run, so you always stay at the same spot.

Not that an airplane in a giant treadmill makes much sense to begin with.

Anyway, the fact is that an airplane moving forward in a giant treadmill doesn't make much less not sense that an airplane running still on the giant treadmill isn't.
 
callador said:
True. The problem with that Mythbusters episode is that the test sucked. The plane still had forward motion (wasn't sitting still), so the wing produced lift and it flew. If the plane is sitting in one neutral position, like the tail is tied down, you can put all sorts of throttle to it and it won't fly.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask whether you could put a plane on a giant treadmill, tie the tail down, and have it take off.
 
miaou said:
That doesn't make sense. When you run on a treadmill, the mat moves at the exact same speed you run, so you always stay at the same spot.
Click to expand...

Maybe in your perfect world, miaou.

**spites miaou's perfect treadmill running abilities**
 
SM, I guess you often accidentally outrun the treadmill when you run on it.

RTFM, noob!
 
callador said:
True. The problem with that Mythbusters episode is that the test sucked. The plane still had forward motion (wasn't sitting still), so the wing produced lift and it flew. If the plane is sitting in one neutral position, like the tail is tied down, you can put all sorts of throttle to it and it won't fly.
Click to expand...

The plane has forward motion because it's pushing against the AIR, not the ground. The wheels are there just to keep it attached to the ground and rolling. The wheels don't pull the plane forward like a car. There's no way the wheels can 'tie down' the airplane to a single spot because the point of the wheels isn't to have traction against the ground. Think of the wheels as having zero traction. The plane is pulling itself against the air not against the ground.

Imagine that the plane is like a swimmer and the air is the water. The plane is pulling itself through the air like the swimmer does with the water. If the swimmer was swimming along the bottom of the pool, and he had a small wheel attached to his belly that touched the ground, this wheel wouldn't affect the swimmer's ability to generate forward thrust against the water, even if the bottom of the pool was a treadmill. The wheel would just freely turn against the treadmill and the swimmer would move through the water.
 
turbozed said:
[...] If the swimmer was swimming along the bottom of the pool, and he had a small wheel attached to his belly that touched the ground, this wheel wouldn't affect the swimmer's ability to generate forward thrust against the water, even if the bottom of the pool was a treadmill. The wheel would just freely turn against the treadmill and the swimmer would move through the water.
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you smoking dude??




I'll have what he's having please.
 
callador said:
True. The problem with that Mythbusters episode is that the test sucked. The plane still had forward motion (wasn't sitting still), so the wing produced lift and it flew. If the plane is sitting in one neutral position, like the tail is tied down, you can put all sorts of throttle to it and it won't fly.
Click to expand...

The point is that the power of the plane is not derived at the wheels. It would not have mattered how fast the treadmill was going. You are correct though, if you tie a plane down good enough with chains, it will not move forward. ;)
 
I'm done talking about the plane on a treadmill.

But I've thought about it, and I think I understand the Monty Hall problem.

The questions like this: "There's a game show, hosted by Monty Hall. The contestant picks one of three doors, behind one door is a fantastic new car, and behind the other two are goats. After the contestant has picked, Monty Hall opens one of the doors that wasn't picked, and reveals a goat. He then asks if the contestant wants to switch the door he/she picked. Is it beneficial to do so?

Now the initial thought is no, since a person has a 1/3 chance of guessing right, and switching won't change that. But it's actually beneficial to switch because

1/3 is the chance of picking the car correctly at the beginning. So if the contestant switches he/she doesn't get the fantastic new car prize.

2/3 is the chance of picking a goat at the beginning. Monty Hall then reveals the other goat. So behind the other door is the car. So switching is beneficial.

This presupposes that the contestant prefers a new car to a goat however. Goats can make good pets, and, if female, provide milk.
 
Imagine you are standing on a long treadmill wearing rollerblades. Now imagine you have a person on either side of you holding on to your arms. The treadmill starts moving and the people start walking forward, pulling you with them. It doesn't matter how fast the treadmill goes, it will only make the wheels spin faster.

You are the plane and the people are the engines.
 
Tosa said:
I'm done talking about the plane on a treadmill.

But I've thought about it, and I think I understand the Monty Hall problem.

The questions like this: "There's a game show, hosted by Monty Hall. The contestant picks one of three doors, behind one door is a fantastic new car, and behind the other two are goats. After the contestant has picked, Monty Hall opens one of the doors that wasn't picked, and reveals a goat. He then asks if the contestant wants to switch the door he/she picked. Is it beneficial to do so?

Now the initial thought is no, since a person has a 1/3 chance of guessing right, and switching won't change that. But it's actually beneficial to switch because

1/3 is the chance of picking the car correctly at the beginning. So if the contestant switches he/she doesn't get the fantastic new car prize.

2/3 is the chance of picking a goat at the beginning. Monty Hall then reveals the other goat. So behind the other door is the car. So switching is beneficial.

This presupposes that the contestant prefers a new car to a goat however. Goats can make good pets, and, if female, provide milk.
Click to expand...

Well, your odds switch from 1 in 3 to 1 in 2, so if you do choose again your odds are better than they were in your original choice, but choosing again does not increase your odds of winning or losing. Since regardless, you have a 50/50 shot.
 
miaou said:
That doesn't make sense. When you run on a treadmill, the mat moves at the exact same speed you run, so you always stay at the same spot.
Click to expand...

The difference is that we (humans) push against the ground in order to move. A plane uses it's propeller or engines to move forward, and the wheels are just there to limit friction.
 
Tosa said:
[...] This presupposes that the contestant prefers a new car to a goat however. Goats can make good pets, and, if female, provide milk.
Click to expand...





edit:
Tosa said:
The difference is that we (humans) push against the ground in order to move. A plane uses it's propeller or engines to move forward, and the wheels are just there to limit friction.
Click to expand...
So you are saying the plane is fit enough to fly but not fit enough to run?

But that would mean that fitness is goal-dependent. Which is obviously wrong.


edit2: also, the plane is not fit enough to roll around with a 100lb heavy bag in the first place, so your argument is fallacious.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,062
Messages
55,464,425
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top