What has Occam's Razor got to do with this situation?

There is no wind in the question, so it's written by an observer on the ground.

Uh guys, there's no point in debating it. That plane is long gone.:rolleyes:

Not making unwarranted assumptions or adding extra information.

The question does not define "forward speed" in a way that makes the question answerable, and you can't make it so, without going outside of what is stated. (See: most of this thread.) Step #1, often overlooked, is to read the question and establish what is being discussed. In this case, you can't - the question does not contain the information. Any attempt to re-write the question means you are not answering the original question.

Flint,
 

I owe you an apology. You did note the flaw in the original premise and i missed it. Please excuse me.

I used to be friends with this guy, Scott. He was always right, no matter what, and if it looked like he was wrong he'd press the issue until he was right, in some sense. Any sense.

One day we're driving through Atlantic City and we realize we need to turn right to get to where we wanted to go.

Scott: Turn here!
UT: No, it's one-way.
Scott: No, that's two-way.
UT: I saw the sign.
Scott: That couldn't be.
UT: And there was no turning lane.
Scott: Maybe it was taken up by a double-parked car.
UT: Dude, I'm sure of it. I'm driving. I'm paying more attention to all the signs and the road.
Scott: But maybe I'm paying more attention because I don't have to drive!
UT: OK, here's the next crossing street, I'll turn right here, and then I'll turn right again and we can take a look at the street.
Scott: Done!
UT: OK... yep, there's the sign.
Scott: Oh. Hrm. Hmmm. But look - that doesn't look one-way there. You see, don't you, how I could have made that mistake? There's a solid line down the middle of the street. And the whole thing is not very clearly marked. They use terrible signs here. In fact, I think it used to be a two-way street and they just made it one-way. It looks like that car is parked in reverse. You see, don't you? Anyone would have thought that was two-way.

The question states the plane moves forward and the ground(treadmill)moves backwards. When you throttle up the plane will take off. The only assumption is the plane is capable of flying in the first place. :eyebrow:

I'm gonna guess this former friend was/is single:D

Relative to what? Not stated.

The former friend who was so certain of everything, became uncertain that he was male. He had a sex-change operation and yes, remains single, although she dropped the personality trait of certainty somewhere along the way.

Many of us find humility at some point in our lives. Some of us find it harder than others.

Relative to the same observer who sees the treadmill moving. If the observer sees the treadmill moving, he isn't on it.

I'll try to remember this.

Now I'm sorry I made a joke about that friend. :blush:

This isn't a first person account of an actual event, it's a hypothetical. It could just as likely be written from an omniscient perspective, as the events described are not actual events. The question doesn't make this distinction, so you can't. If you re-write the question, you're no longer answering the question.

You mentioned Occam's razor before. Is it simpler to have one point of view of both the plane and treadmill, or is it simpler to have a point of view that is jumping all over the place?

Consider that the one point of view keeps the question clear, and the multiple points of view or omniscient point of view muddies the meaning of the question.

How does Occam's Razor apply here?

If it's not stated, then it's relative to where it was and nothing else.:cool:

It is simpler to have one point-of-view. But the question doesn't state which one. It's unanswerable.