Just bin asked this but got confused so....

[barne77]

If you jump up in a plaine would you move further back on the plaine.

if yes why?
if no why?

If you jump up on top of a plaine would you move to the back

if yes why?
if no why?

if you get diffrent answers why??

[Roach-Rampino]

If you jump up in a plaine would you move further back on the plaine.

if yes why?
if no why?

If you jump up on top of a plaine would you move to the back

if yes why?
if no why?

if you get diffrent answers why??

I should imagine it's to do with the fact that the cabin is pressurised?

[B.I.G.]

Also depends if the plane was actually moving.

[MsDG]

Assuming you are actually talking about a plane. Then its all about wind resistance.

When you jump inside a plane you are traveling the same speed as the aircraft and there is nothing inside the plane to slow you down or move you backwards. So no, you won't go backwards.

On top of a plane you have 700 mph winds pushing you in opposite direction... so yes

[CzarJunkie]

Assuming you are actually talking about a plane. Then its all about wind resistance.

When you jump inside a plane you are traveling the same speed as the aircraft and there is nothing inside the plane to slow you down or move you backwards. So no, you won't go backwards.

On top of a plane you have 700 mph winds pushing you in opposite direction... so yes

I had the voice of Professor Heinz Wolff in my head as I read that. Turned me on a bit.

[coin-op]

I should imagine it's to do with the fact that the cabin is pressurised?

No, to do with the fact that the cabin is sheltered from the effect that the plane is moving through the air. The effect would be the same in an unpressurised cabin, but not in pipe strapped to the roof of a plane.

[Roach-Rampino]

No, to do with the fact that the cabin is sheltered from the effect that the plane is moving through the air. The effect would be the same in an unpressurised cabin, but not in pipe strapped to the roof of a plane.

I see. I wasn't too sure, as afterwards I considered that light aircarft that fly at lower altitudes aren't pressurised cabins.

[burner1]

I remember something like this from that nugget of information programme called 'how' in the 70's (everyone put your right hand up and shout 'how' in your deepest manly Red indian voice )

They explained it as this; 'If I throw an apple into the air whilst going along in a car, why doesn't it go backwards?'

They answered it by looking at the (Cardboard) car side on, as the car moved forward he used a pencil to show the up/down movement of the apple... this basically left a line similar to what a triangle wave would give (Lots of WWWW's sort of thing)

They also explained why water goes down plug holes different ways depending on what side of the equator you are on... missed the answer, I think I was out of it on glue at the time.

[coin-op]

I remember something like this from that nugget of information programme called 'how' in the 70's (everyone put your right hand up and shout 'how' in your deepest manly Red indian voice )

They explained it as this; 'If I throw an apple into the air whilst going along in a car, why doesn't it go backwards?'

They answered it by looking at the (Cardboard) car side on, as the car moved forward he used a pencil to show the up/down movement of the apple... this basically left a line similar to what a triangle wave would give (Lots of WWWW's sort of thing)

.

It's actually a sin wave, and the same think happens in a plane, train or whatever, assuming no wind resistance (Which would skew the shape of the sine wave depending how much drag it presents)

[Shambles]

Hehe to you lot. It's called momentum, and momentum will keep an object at it's release trajectory speed based on it's forward motion.

Signed.. professor Sheik Hambledon of Lesbania

[headsortails]

They also explained why water goes down plug holes different ways depending on what side of the equator you are on... missed the answer, I think I was out of it on glue at the time.

I didn't think this was totally true?

[drdude]

Assuming a fantasy world where fuel is not an issue:

If a helicopter was to hover above ground at location X for 12 hours, considering that the Earth rotates (!), would it still remain at location X or would it be in a new location?

[burner1]

Assuming a fantasy world where fuel is not an issue:

If a helicopter was to hover above ground at location X for 12 hours, considering that the Earth rotates (!), would it still remain at location X or would it be in a new location?

I would have thought you would have to be outside the earths gravitational pull to actually stay still whilst the earth moved. I recall a nasa project where they were going to design a HOTOL (Horizontal Take off and Land) aircraft that would take off, go out of earths stratosphere, sit and wait till the earth turned then come back down to it's destination.

[/dev/null]

It's to do with newtons 1st law of motion...

[MsDG]

Assuming a fantasy world where fuel is not an issue:

If a helicopter was to hover above ground at location X for 12 hours, considering that the Earth rotates (!), would it still remain at location X or would it be in a new location?

Again wind is the issue. For an helicopter to hover it is constantly making adjustments due to the wind.

As your question stands, the helicopter will be where ever the wind blew it after 12 hours.

However, if you went a step further and used the hovering helicopter question with absolutely no wind or thermals (or anything like that) and is somehow able to stay in the exact point in space, It actually gets quite complicated. If you think about it the earth is not only spining on its axis, it is also circling around the sun and indeed the whole universe is moving from the expansion of the big bang!
If you think about it the whole concept of hovering is based on keeping to a fixed point while adjusting to external factors. Really the orginal question is too simplified to give a reasonable deep answer!

[cassy34]

The above holds if the plane is travelling with a constant velocity, but what if the plane was accelerating when you jumped. Would you travel backwards then?

[/dev/null]

The above holds if the plane is travelling with a constant velocity, but what if the plane was accelerating when you jumped. Would you travel backwards then?

Yes, but a very small distance, unles you can hover for a bit.

[gunner]

Assuming a fantasy world where fuel is not an issue:

If a helicopter was to hover above ground at location X for 12 hours, considering that the Earth rotates (!), would it still remain at location X or would it be in a new location?

Yes.

The earth rotates at 1000mph, so assuming you jumped for 1 sec in the air, you would land where you jumped from (assuming you jumped straight up) - not a mile away (which is approx where you would be of you travelled for 1000mph for a second.
Otherwise, imagine playing football or tennis.

[marcode]

I remember something like this from that nugget of information programme called 'how' in the 70's

70's ?? i used to watch 'how 2' after school and im only 21 ffs..

[Cenus_]

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Were you off shcool the day they did physics?