Seaguls in a Plane

No.

Mythbusters did something like this, and yes, the mass aboard the aircraft remains the same.

It would be the same if they were flying or not because the force of the air they have to push down is equivalent to their own body weight.

That would mean a flying plane would crush everything below it? Being in water I can understand due to displacement, but air weighs a lot less.

What was the science behind it? Is it because 1000 seagulls would quickly do their own bodyweight in crap on the plane floor?

If you jumped inside a moving train, would you land in a different spot?

Tragic Magic wrote:If you jumped inside a moving train, would you land in a different spot?

If it was accelerating or decelerating.

Tragic Magic wrote:If you jumped inside a moving train, would you land in a different spot?

No.

JNR wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:If you jumped inside a moving train, would you land in a different spot?

No.

Pff. Now you're going to say jumping just before a lift hits the ground and jumping out of a plane just before it hits water won't save you.

JNR wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:If you jumped inside a moving train, would you land in a different spot?

No.

Why not? Surely if you jump, while you're in mid air the train keeps moving forward and you get left behind?

Tragic Magic wrote:

JNR wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:If you jumped inside a moving train, would you land in a different spot?

No.

Why not? Surely if you jump, while you're in mid air the train keeps moving forward and you get left behind?

No, because you are moving with the train. If that worked it would mean that you would be fighting the forces the train exerts for the whole journey.

Tragic Magic wrote:

JNR wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:If you jumped inside a moving train, would you land in a different spot?

No.

Why not? Surely if you jump, while you're in mid air the train keeps moving forward and you get left behind?

Oh dear.

bigcheez2k3 wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:

JNR wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:If you jumped inside a moving train, would you land in a different spot?

No.

Why not? Surely if you jump, while you're in mid air the train keeps moving forward and you get left behind?

No, because you are moving with the train. If that worked it would mean that you would be fighting the forces the train exerts for the whole journey.

By this logic... surely if you tried to walk down the train in a direction opposite to it's movement then you'd just be walking on the spot... like a treadmill!?

Mini E wrote:

bigcheez2k3 wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:

JNR wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:If you jumped inside a moving train, would you land in a different spot?

No.

Why not? Surely if you jump, while you're in mid air the train keeps moving forward and you get left behind?

No, because you are moving with the train. If that worked it would mean that you would be fighting the forces the train exerts for the whole journey.

By this logic... surely if you tried to walk down the train in a direction opposite to it's movement then you'd just be walking on the spot... like a treadmill!?

I get happy every time I see physics crop up on this forum. Walking in the opposite direction to the train's movement, you'd be exerting forces on the train (and vice versa) with each step you take. It works exactly as if the train were stationary.

Mini E wrote:

bigcheez2k3 wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:

JNR wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:If you jumped inside a moving train, would you land in a different spot?

No.

Why not? Surely if you jump, while you're in mid air the train keeps moving forward and you get left behind?

No, because you are moving with the train. If that worked it would mean that you would be fighting the forces the train exerts for the whole journey.

By this logic... surely if you tried to walk down the train in a direction opposite to it's movement then you'd just be walking on the spot... like a treadmill!?

Not really as a train would travel at a speed superior to ours. It wouldn't only work, vaguely at that, when the train is moving off.

And no, because air has to be moving beneath the plane's wings in order to give it lift.

The only way you'd land in a different place with the train scenario is if it accelerated while you were in the air, surely?

Heskimo wrote:The only way you'd land in a different place with the train scenario is if it accelerated while you were in the air, surely?

Exactly.

Mass in a closed system is mass in a closed system. The birds could be flying, standing, or hovering around on jetpacks - gravity doesn't care.

Pilch wrote:

Mini E wrote:

bigcheez2k3 wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:

JNR wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:If you jumped inside a moving train, would you land in a different spot?

No.

Why not? Surely if you jump, while you're in mid air the train keeps moving forward and you get left behind?

No, because you are moving with the train. If that worked it would mean that you would be fighting the forces the train exerts for the whole journey.

By this logic... surely if you tried to walk down the train in a direction opposite to it's movement then you'd just be walking on the spot... like a treadmill!?

I get happy every time I see physics crop up on this forum. Walking in the opposite direction to the train's movement, you'd be exerting forces on the train (and vice versa) with each step you take. It works exactly as if the train were stationary.

How do relativity questions keep appearing?