I sort of wish Fark had an Ignore option for links to bad sites (so you could, for example, set i09 to ignore, and not see threads/links to/for that site - or gizmodo, jalopnik, ny times, whatever).

Just an idea.

No, I've heard of Bevets.

Loucifer: Winning the war against gravity....

For now. But those dugs will be keeping time soon enough..

In the article it was stated that he believed gravity drowned his sister in a river. I would argue that it was more of a mater of buoyancy.

\proceeds to run naked from his bathtub

Author of the article thinks "weight" = "mass".

hahahahahaha

StopLurkListen: Author of the article thinks "weight" = "mass".

hahahahahaha

better than that, the author thinks aircraft fly by Bernoulli. I mean by dead grandmother ain't that stupid, and all she can say is BRAIIINSSSSSS>

Antigravity on board the plane would mean that any fluids, any small loose objects, and all people walking up and down the aisles would float around un-tethered for the duration of the flight. Planes would have to be locked down the same way space flights are. And the toilet situation would be awful. Air sickness or a child spitting up might be cause to ground the plane for a while.

And then there's the plane in general. If an engine goes out or a wing tears off, anyone on board would certainly rather have antigravity than no antigravity, but the plane stills needs to be landed with precision. Simply switching off gravity would effectively let the plane slip the Earth entirely.

Article writer is an idiot. Turn machine to 50% power and all those problems go away. toilets still flow, passengers can bunny hop down the isle, and planes with no wings can glide to earth more gently than a full blown plummet.

Trolljegeren: I sort of wish Fark had an Ignore option for links to bad sites (so you could, for example, set i09 to ignore, and not see threads/links to/for that site - or gizmodo, jalopnik, ny times, whatever).

Just an idea.

While I don't like the idea, this was one of the worst links I've ever found on fark. What we need are mods with some standards. I mean, Subby is ultimately to blame of course, but you can't stop people from submitting outright, that's kind of the point. Sure, you can ban them from the ability after so many terrible ones, but in between, our mods are freaking terrible.

Rodrigues:

Article writer is an idiot. Turn machine to 50% power and all those problems go away. toilets still flow, passengers can bunny hop down the isle, and planes with no wings can glide to earth more gently than a full blown plummet.

As long as we're wishing for miracles, no need to employ them as a whole deal. Make it affect only the aircraft superstructure itself.

On top of that, emergency grav units deploy their force gradually, like that safety rope that splits and slows an object's velocity threads at a time.

But yeah, people that are not fan's of fiction and have never given even a passing thought to such things should not be writing such yawn inducing articles.

I blame pot. That's the only way someone could write an article that long and boring with such poorly thought out idea's. Well, that and/or the writer is in a perpetual state of counting to potato.

OK,

I figured I, or rather we, were alone in this, but a friend of mine, who hasn't been to fark despite my warnings, has talked to the author of this POS. this is what I was forwarded.

"Look, I don't know what to tell you, except to say that here are two different NASA educational sites, one about Coanda and one about Bernoulli, both of which talk about variations in pressure on the wing as the source of lift. If people are laughing about it, fine. People have laughed at me before. I've made mistakes before. My quick summary about the principles involved in lift, and how they aren't due to gravitational pull - meant to show that antigravity shouldn't have an effect on aircraft - was correct as far as NASA is concerned."

So in order of import.

1) The author's email is somewhere available.

2) The author responds.

3) The author thinks NASA is on their side.

4) The author actually thinks that removing gravity wouldn't effect how an aircraft flies? (Despite the direct statement of this from above, I'm still not sure, I mean really? Even Bevits wouldn't say that, would she?)

5) The author, along with the green lighter, needs a lot of feedback. After all without feed back how would we improve?

Smallberries:

5) The author, along with the green lighter, needs a lot of feedback. After all without feed back how would we improve?

Second thread where I've seen you complain about what gets greenlit. *Clicks profile*

Login: Smallberries (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What's TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 127572
Account created: 2003-12-19 19:04:52
Submitted links approved: 1

Ah, I see. Carry on. I'll start a Preparation H fund for ya.

Here's a better article (pops) that focuses on the various monuments erected in his honor around the country. Plenty of people have seen them, and know his name, but likely don't know a thing about his lunacy.

- gif pops (too large for FARK)
- but soooo worth it!

MaudlinMutantMollusk: The opposite of gravity is levity

/therefore, we need more rare-mirth magnets

I wish you could see the look I just gave you. It's the look my Michelle Obama gave after the milk joke. It's the look my wife gives me twice a day.

I hope you can feel it burning on your soul.

Gravity?

No Zapp Brannigan in this thread? I am disappoint.

Gravity is a harsh mistress.

Smallberries: OK,

I figured I, or rather we, were alone in this, but a friend of mine, who hasn't been to fark despite my warnings, has talked to the author of this POS. this is what I was forwarded.

"Look, I don't know what to tell you, except to say that here are two different NASA educational sites, one about Coanda and one about Bernoulli, both of which talk about variations in pressure on the wing as the source of lift. If people are laughing about it, fine. People have laughed at me before. I've made mistakes before. My quick summary about the principles involved in lift, and how they aren't due to gravitational pull - meant to show that antigravity shouldn't have an effect on aircraft - was correct as far as NASA is concerned."

Obviously I'm no aeronautics engineer, but doesn't the pressure difference between the top and bottom of the wing result in the air below the wing being slightly denser [and thus have more upward pressure] than the air on top of the wing? And isn't that because gravity makes the air denser the farther down you go?

Schoolhouse Rock - Victim of Gravity

/Are you down?

Laughs at you, Subby!

Smallberries: StopLurkListen: Author of the article thinks "weight" = "mass".

hahahahahaha

better than that, the author thinks aircraft fly by Bernoulli. I mean by dead grandmother ain't that stupid, and all she can say is BRAIIINSSSSSS>

Wha?

NateAsbestos: Smallberries: StopLurkListen: Author of the article thinks "weight" = "mass".

hahahahahaha

better than that, the author thinks aircraft fly by Bernoulli. I mean by dead grandmother ain't that stupid, and all she can say is BRAIIINSSSSSS>

Wha?

It's a commonly held believe that aircraft lift is the product of the Bernoulli pressure difference on the wing. If you bother to do the math a 747 could never fly. Flight is achieved much the way you swim. By forcing air down as you jam an airfoil at it at high speeds. Bernoulli is important in designing efficient air foils as it is in designing efficient cars, however, it's contribution to lift is minimal.

Just remember the picture of the air flow across an air foil. The wind is going significantly down as it comes off the wing, thus the plane goes up. The wing basically converts some of the forward thrust of the engines into upward force. Turn off the engines and the plane still flies, but now you're going to start slowing down, etc.

If you will now turn to page three hundred of your textbooks...
/sorry got started, couldn't stop...