If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Archimedes: 1, Mythbusters: 0   (cnn.com) divider line 395
    More: Repeat, reflected light, Canary Wharf, six-yard box, London skyscrapers, beam of light, Jaguar XJ  
•       •       •

31925 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2013 at 1:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



395 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-03 10:54:07 AM  
Just esoteric enough, just nerdy enough, nicely done Subby!
 
2013-09-03 10:59:33 AM  
my UV filtering windows do the same thing to my neighbors siding

www1.whdh.com
 
2013-09-03 12:23:43 PM  
I can't decide if this is the best building design or the worst. XD
 
2013-09-03 01:12:15 PM  

bongmiester: my UV filtering windows do the same thing to my neighbors siding

[www1.whdh.com image 600x338]


I bet they love you.
 
2013-09-03 01:25:00 PM  
 but known by many Londoners as the "Walkie Talkie" for its distinctive shape.

www.skyscrapernews.com
This is supposed to look like a walkie-talkie? I think this skyscraper in Santiago is way more walkie-talkie-esque:
www.celebratebig.com

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.
 
2013-09-03 01:28:02 PM  
Nice headline.  Nice.
 
2013-09-03 01:29:49 PM  
The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.
 
2013-09-03 01:30:21 PM  
You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...
 
2013-09-03 01:30:48 PM  

Paris1127: /also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.


With enough mirrors in the right configuration, you could do it.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-03 01:30:49 PM  
Nice angle, subby.
no too euclidean, either.
 
2013-09-03 01:31:48 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Heathen
 
2013-09-03 01:32:38 PM  
Sounds like the car owner got screwed....
 
2013-09-03 01:32:47 PM  
"I am in construction and sometimes things go wrong which nobody would have envisaged, and this is one of them."

I am more concerned about a talking building
 
2013-09-03 01:33:52 PM  
Great headline. Not sure about this whole 'REPEAT' thing, though.

Paris1127: This is supposed to look like a walkie-talkie?


Ever since 30 St. Mary Axe, which was rapidly gaining the moniker 'the dildo' until a bit of nimble PR coined 'the gherkin', new buildings in London seem to acquire vaguely descriptive, innocuous, nicknames before they're even out of the ground.

It's also a little stumpier than that rendering, in order (notionally) to reduce the visual impact on the nearby St. Paul's Cathedral.
 
2013-09-03 01:34:20 PM  
Never go in against a Sicilian when a death-ray is on the line?
 
2013-09-03 01:35:22 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.



Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.
 
2013-09-03 01:35:30 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


yes, yes you must be some kind of super genius because you can point out that the experiments in a show primarily about blowing stuff up are not always rigorously performed. Besides that, they do a pretty good job given the limitations of the medium: production time, budget and air time.
 
2013-09-03 01:35:44 PM  
That's what happens when you let Ford take over Jaguar... or something.  Now can they please aim that thing at all of Justin Bieber's vehicles?  Especially the leopard print one.

/shrug
 
2013-09-03 01:36:34 PM  

Paris1127: /also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.


Did they ever do it with people in the boat?  Seems like you don't really need to catch the boat on fire, you just need to make the people on board feel like you can.
 
2013-09-03 01:36:46 PM  

dittybopper: Paris1127: /also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

With enough mirrors in the right configuration, you could do it.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x480]


Didn't I liberate this building for the NCR after the Brotherhood of Steel had been holding it?
 
2013-09-03 01:36:52 PM  

Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...


I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.
 
2013-09-03 01:37:06 PM  

joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.


Bingo
 
2013-09-03 01:38:30 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.


They're third rate special fx nerds who fancy themselves genius scientists/inventors.
 
2013-09-03 01:39:02 PM  

joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.


For both of you:

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-09-03 01:39:02 PM  
Paris1127:

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

Mythbusters is prepared lines and pandering to the lowest denominator.

They haven't ever busted shiat, even when trying to look past all their bullshiat, the holes in scientific methods is obvious. If your understanding of authorities of science relies on them, you'd be a moron, which is probably also why their show is doing so well, alongside "Here comes Honey Booboo".
 
2013-09-03 01:39:48 PM  

joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.


It's more: "Two minutes of either Googling or doing some simple math would tell us this was pointless, but we'll do it anyway because it involves blowing something up."
 
2013-09-03 01:39:50 PM  
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:
They're third rate special fx nerds who fancy themselves genius scientists/inventors.

I haven't seen the show in a while but I don't remember them ever saying or implying that.
 
2013-09-03 01:40:01 PM  
Mythbusters only needed to prove that an army of soldiers with reflective shields could burn a ship.. which is the myth is busted as it's near impossible to do even with a ton of people.

Also It takes much less heat to melt plastic then it does setting wood on fire.
 
2013-09-03 01:40:03 PM  
"I am in construction and sometimes things go wrong which nobody would have envisaged, and this is one of them."

I'm sorry, but when another one of the same architect's buildings had the same problem (but with people, not cars), yes, someone certainly could have envisaged it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315978/Las-Vegas-hotel-deat h- ray-leaves-guests-severe-burns.html
 
2013-09-03 01:40:57 PM  
Reminds me of a buddy in Florida.  He had some scratches in the T-top inserts (glass?  Roof?  whatev) on his car and the sun hit it jusssst right and his passenger visor started to smoulder.
 
2013-09-03 01:41:20 PM  
Pretty sure the Mythbusters effort attempted to weaponize it in a mobile fashion.  It's not like this is a sudden revelation of the heretofore unknown concept of solar convergence.
 
2013-09-03 01:41:36 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: It's more: "Two minutes of either Googling or doing some simple math would tell us this was pointless, but we'll do it anyway because it involves blowing something up."


And this is somehow a bad thing? Blowing shiat up is worth it for its own sake.
 
2013-09-03 01:42:28 PM  

China White Tea: Pretty sure the Mythbusters effort attempted to weaponize it in a mobile fashion.  It's not like this is a sudden revelation of the heretofore unknown concept of solar convergence.


This. I've seen a solar collector in a fixed position turn steel into a liquid in seconds. It can be done. But not quite so simply if you've got a bunch of dudes holding a bunch  of mirrors.
 
2013-09-03 01:42:42 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

yes, yes you must be some kind of super genius because you can point out that the experiments in a show primarily about blowing stuff up are not always rigorously performed. Besides that, they do a pretty good job given the limitations of the medium: production time, budget and air time.


Plus the insurance.  It seems like they call out the insurance guys all the time.  "We were going to blow up the Oakland Coliseum, but our insurance underwriter wouldn't go for it."
 
2013-09-03 01:42:53 PM  

joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.


As opposed to yourself, who has a long standing and tarnish free record of proving or disproving myths.  I am sure its all be documented, and peer reviewed, so, pony up, big mouth.
 
2013-09-03 01:43:55 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They're third rate special fx nerds who fancy themselves genius scientists/inventors.


Jealousy is a stinky cologne, my friend.
 
2013-09-03 01:44:27 PM  
"Wait, what?"

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-03 01:44:53 PM  

Trashy: Mythbusters only needed to prove that an army of soldiers with reflective shields could burn a ship.. which is the myth is busted as it's near impossible to do even with a ton of people.

Also It takes much less heat to melt plastic then it does setting wood on fire.


Which was in no way representative of Archimedes Death Ray.

spawn73: Mythbusters is prepared lines and pandering to the lowest denominator.


Yep. It was fun in the beginning but got old fast.
 
2013-09-03 01:45:02 PM  
The address is 20 Fenchurch Street? What's at 42?

Lots of Mythbusters hate and not enough Kari Byron pictures.
 
2013-09-03 01:45:22 PM  
SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

xbradtc.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-03 01:45:43 PM  

Kit Fister: joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.

For both of you:

[imgs.xkcd.com image 599x524]


Feynman was in fact very aware of the importance of rigour, as you can see if you read his comments on psychologists' rat-running experiments. Bad experiments are worse than useless because they make you think you've discovered something when in fact you haven't. "Bookkeeping" indeed...
 
2013-09-03 01:46:04 PM  
Melted plastic is not quite the same as boat catching on fire. In any case everybody knows what a parabolic mirror can do, the Archimedes myth is about soldiers holding their shields to reflect the sun on a boat to burn it which is quite impossible as people cannot stay immobile enough to do such a thing. And no shield reflects the sun as well as a mirror.
 
2013-09-03 01:46:20 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:
They're third rate special fx nerds who fancy themselves genius scientists/inventors.

I haven't seen the show in a while but I don't remember them ever saying or implying that.


So I guess you could say that myth... has been busted?
 
2013-09-03 01:47:28 PM  

Kit Fister: China White Tea: Pretty sure the Mythbusters effort attempted to weaponize it in a mobile fashion.  It's not like this is a sudden revelation of the heretofore unknown concept of solar convergence.

This. I've seen a solar collector in a fixed position turn steel into a liquid in seconds. It can be done. But not quite so simply if you've got a bunch of dudes holding a bunch  of mirrors.


Especially if the best mirror technology you have is hammered bronze sheets polished to be shiny.
 
2013-09-03 01:47:52 PM  

FarkinNortherner: I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.


They consistently do bad science.  I find the show entertaining, but their methods are abysmal.  Also, they sometimes confuse their ineptitude as scientists with busting a myth.  Then there's that whole argument people have that they aren't actually exploring myths so much as examining/recreating scenes from movies.
 
2013-09-03 01:48:02 PM  

Rising Ape: Kit Fister: joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.

For both of you:

[imgs.xkcd.com image 599x524]

Feynman was in fact very aware of the importance of rigour, as you can see if you read his comments on psychologists' rat-running experiments. Bad experiments are worse than useless because they make you think you've discovered something when in fact you haven't. "Bookkeeping" indeed...


Okay, and if you expect a one-hour TV show to cover rigorous scientific testing of myths, you're an elitist prick.
 
2013-09-03 01:48:03 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


I sure you have something she could bust

i.ebayimg.com
 
2013-09-03 01:48:44 PM  

tripleseven: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They're third rate special fx nerds who fancy themselves genius scientists/inventors.

Jealousy is a stinky cologne, my friend.


So is Drakkar Noir
 
2013-09-03 01:48:53 PM  

Bag-o-Nugs: FarkinNortherner: I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They consistently do bad science.  I find the show entertaining, but their methods are abysmal.  Also, they sometimes confuse their ineptitude as scientists with busting a myth.  Then there's that whole argument people have that they aren't actually exploring myths so much as examining/recreating scenes from movies.


Is it interesting? Does it get people to think a little bit? Does it expose reality to people? Yes? then STFU.
 
2013-09-03 01:48:53 PM  
Paris1127:  /also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

If you could not see faults with what they did, then you were not paying attention.
It is an amusing show to watch, but the number of times I have watched it and seen an obvious mistake is not funny.

The biggest problem with their death ray tests is the people they had aiming the mirrors, Archamedes would have had people with the profesionalism of soldiers, they used high school/university students doing it for a laugh. The capabilities of an ancient greek and the capabilites of a modern teenager are no where near the same. and in the areas that mattered for the myth, the greeks would have been ALLOT better due to the time they lived in.
 
2013-09-03 01:49:01 PM  

Rising Ape: Kit Fister: joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.

For both of you:

[imgs.xkcd.com image 599x524]

Feynman was in fact very aware of the importance of rigour, as you can see if you read his comments on psychologists' rat-running experiments. Bad experiments are worse than useless because they make you think you've discovered something when in fact you haven't. "Bookkeeping" indeed...


Do they teach "missing the point" in that ivory tower you spend so much time in, or do you just practice that on your own?
 
2013-09-03 01:49:26 PM  

spawn73: Paris1127:

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

Mythbusters is prepared lines and pandering to the lowest denominator.

They haven't ever busted shiat, even when trying to look past all their bullshiat, the holes in scientific methods is obvious. If your understanding of authorities of science relies on them, you'd be a moron, which is probably also why their show is doing so well, alongside "Here comes Honey Booboo".


And yet, they still do more for science and intelligent thought than people biatching on the internet.
 
2013-09-03 01:50:13 PM  

Paris1127: /also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle.


Using the sun... I fail to see your point. Is it the "stationary" thing? Do you know how slow those boats moved back then? It's not like they were towing waterskiing commandos into the harbor.

Although waterskiing commandos would be totally bad ass...
 
2013-09-03 01:50:43 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Obvious troll is obvious.
 
2013-09-03 01:51:03 PM  

Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...


They did not. If they had used modern reflective materials aimed at a stationary target, they would undoubtedly have succeeded in setting it on fire. That's not hard to do.

Now, try doing the same using only materials available to the ancient inhabitants of Syracuse and you will only succeed in elevating the temperature of the target after a very long time, but you will not succeed in setting it on fire. The Mythbusters did all they could, including concentrating all the mirrors on one stationary boat (remember, Archimedes' death ray was supposed to have sunk a whole moving fleet), and ignoring the fact that given the orientation of Syracuse's harbour, the sun would have been at his back.

One more thing: in TFA, the plastic mirrors did not catch fire, they melted, which can be done at temperatures much lower than those necessary to ignite wood.

Myth Busted !
 
2013-09-03 01:51:19 PM  

Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]


She's kind of like the Tori Amos you'd like to hump, but without the annoying sense it reminded her of prior child abuse and that godawful warble.
 
2013-09-03 01:52:24 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: tripleseven: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They're third rate special fx nerds who fancy themselves genius scientists/inventors.

Jealousy is a stinky cologne, my friend.

So is Drakkar Noir


I wear the "Perfect smell a like" so neener....
 
2013-09-03 01:53:07 PM  

sjmcc13: The biggest problem with their death ray tests is the people they had aiming the mirrors, Archamedes would have had people with the profesionalism of soldiers, they used high school/university students doing it for a laugh.


I used to be a soldier, and I can tell you that it wouldn't have made any difference. Professionalism can't overcome biology for more than a few seconds; even if you had the hands of a surgeon, your own heartbeat and breathing would be enough to disrupt it at any range- like, say the distance to a ship in a harbor.

And ancient Greece didn't have the type of mirrors you'd need.
 
2013-09-03 01:53:29 PM  

Khellendros: spawn73: Paris1127:

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

Mythbusters is prepared lines and pandering to the lowest denominator.

They haven't ever busted shiat, even when trying to look past all their bullshiat, the holes in scientific methods is obvious. If your understanding of authorities of science relies on them, you'd be a moron, which is probably also why their show is doing so well, alongside "Here comes Honey Booboo".

And yet, they still do more for science and intelligent thought than people biatching on the internet.


Not really. I've learned far more in bullshiat Fark threads than I ever have watching their crappy show.

Mr. Wizard? Sure. Bill Nye? Definitely. Mythbusters? They're basically Jershey Shore for IT nerds who own a shiny tool box
 
2013-09-03 01:53:45 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They're third rate special fx nerds who fancy themselves genius scientists/inventors.


Look at the cool on yo. Can we be your friend; pretty please??????
 
2013-09-03 01:54:09 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Was the weapon not supposed to be portable? That is not a portable building.
 
2013-09-03 01:54:12 PM  

Rising Ape: Kit Fister: joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.

For both of you:

[imgs.xkcd.com image 599x524]

Feynman was in fact very aware of the importance of rigour, as you can see if you read his comments on psychologists' rat-running experiments. Bad experiments are worse than useless because they make you think you've discovered something when in fact you haven't. "Bookkeeping" indeed...


That's a big bowl of "missing the point" right there.
 
2013-09-03 01:54:36 PM  

capt.hollister: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

They did not. If they had used modern reflective materials aimed at a stationary target, they would undoubtedly have succeeded in setting it on fire. That's not hard to do.

Now, try doing the same using only materials available to the ancient inhabitants of Syracuse and you will only succeed in elevating the temperature of the target after a very long time, but you will not succeed in setting it on fire. The Mythbusters did all they could, including concentrating all the mirrors on one stationary boat (remember, Archimedes' death ray was supposed to have sunk a whole moving fleet), and ignoring the fact that given the orientation of Syracuse's harbour, the sun would have been at his back.

One more thing: in TFA, the plastic mirrors did not catch fire, they melted, which can be done at temperatures much lower than those necessary to ignite wood.

Myth Busted !


I would rebut that to say Adam and Jamie are not achemedes nor are they a sniper or anything some of these extraordinary people.

There are situations that are IMPOSSIBLE to replicate in a lab. Strange shiat happens and its the stuff of legends.
 
2013-09-03 01:54:43 PM  

spawn73: Paris1127:

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

Mythbusters is prepared lines and pandering to the lowest denominator.

They haven't ever busted shiat, even when trying to look past all their bullshiat, the holes in scientific methods is obvious. If your understanding of authorities of science relies on them, you'd be a moron, which is probably also why their show is doing so well, alongside "Here comes Honey Booboo".


True on most counts but if you want to see them blow stuff up while too wasted from the week they are fun to watch.  Plus the robotics can be interesting even though I doubt Grants ability to do it on his own.

As for the thread, IIRC the Disney Concert Hall in downtown LA caused similar problems for the people living across the street.  I think they ended up dulling the surface facing the building.
 
2013-09-03 01:54:57 PM  

mjohnson71: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

Obvious troll is obvious.


Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.
 
2013-09-03 01:55:13 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.


Nerds are like that.  If you want to have fun, go up to an engineer and let him know you have a buddy who is a software engineer and watch his teeth grind.
 
2013-09-03 01:55:36 PM  

Arnprior Joe: "I am in construction and sometimes things go wrong which nobody would have envisaged, and this is one of them."

I'm sorry, but when another one of the same architect's buildings had the same problem (but with people, not cars), yes, someone certainly could have envisaged it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315978/Las-Vegas-hotel-deat h- ray-leaves-guests-severe-burns.html


Exactly. He built a high surface area concave wall of glass facing the sun. Duh. I'm not Mr. Engineering, but I saw the problem at first glance.
 
2013-09-03 01:55:43 PM  

mjohnson71: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They're third rate special fx nerds who fancy themselves genius scientists/inventors.

Look at the cool on yo. Can we be your friend; pretty please??????


Sorry for insulting your cable TeeVee heroes, bud
 
2013-09-03 01:55:49 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.


It's just the typical hate of the good for being the good =/
 
2013-09-03 01:56:26 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Not really. I've learned far more in bullshiat Fark threads than I ever have watching their crappy show.

Mr. Wizard? Sure. Bill Nye? Definitely. Mythbusters? They're basically Jershey Shore for IT nerds who own a shiny tool box


There's far more science in Mythbusters than you'll ever get sifting through the bullshait your average science or technology Fark thread.  No one here is even trying to experiment, work out problems, or look for facts.  They're arguing their point of view.  It's like reading opinion columns and calling it news.
 
2013-09-03 01:56:58 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: mjohnson71: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.


I don't think you understand the definition of "myth" and that may be your entire problem.
 
2013-09-03 01:57:27 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Arnprior Joe: "I am in construction and sometimes things go wrong which nobody would have envisaged, and this is one of them."

I'm sorry, but when another one of the same architect's buildings had the same problem (but with people, not cars), yes, someone certainly could have envisaged it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315978/Las-Vegas-hotel-deat h- ray-leaves-guests-severe-burns.html

Exactly. He built a high surface area concave wall of glass facing the sun. Duh. I'm not Mr. Engineering, but I saw the problem at first glance.


It's pretty obvious that the guy is building an international arsenal of death rays, and is actually pulling it off.  High-five worthy, at a minimum.
 
2013-09-03 01:58:22 PM  
So we hate Mythbusters now? Didn't we used to love them when word got out that Adam reads Fark? I'm so confused! Tell me what to HATE!
 
2013-09-03 01:58:35 PM  

Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]


Creeping jesus. Was always cute, but she worked hard for that waistline. Deserves some respect.
 
2013-09-03 01:59:14 PM  

Harry Freakstorm: "I am in construction and sometimes things go wrong which nobody would have envisaged, and this is one of them."

I am more concerned about a talking building


A talking building that sounds like it is working for the mob
 
2013-09-03 01:59:43 PM  
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.
 
2013-09-03 02:00:02 PM  
Wait, i just googled creeping jesus and it means something else. Substitute it for holy fark or whatever.
 
2013-09-03 02:00:31 PM  

Kit Fister: Okay, and if you expect a one-hour TV show to cover rigorous scientific testing of myths, you're an elitist prick.


What a depressingly anti-intellectual worldview - anthing that requires even a little thought and patience is "elitist", is it? One hour is plenty of time to cover things in a thoughtful way - not as thoroughly as a scientific paper of course, but a lot better than what they actually do.
 
2013-09-03 02:00:57 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.


static.someecards.com
 
2013-09-03 02:01:54 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.


It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse
 
2013-09-03 02:02:52 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse


lol, look at you being so edgy.
 
2013-09-03 02:03:20 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.


Some of the myths they test can be attributed to something happening under "perfect conditions", like shooting a bullet into the barrel of another gun - it might be a 1 in a billion thing, but to say "busted" just because it's improbable doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible.

Then there's myths like riding a motorcycle 300 feet across an 8-foot deep lake. That totally floored me. I'd have thought surface tension would have been broken by 500+ pounds (motorcycle + rider) within 20 feet. That was definitely a "WTF" episode for me. :)

And of course any episode featuring the rocket sled is a fun one. :)
 
2013-09-03 02:03:38 PM  

China White Tea: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

[static.someecards.com image 420x294]


The graphic does get a chuckle from me every time I see it.  Look at the size of that huge cracker she's eating.
 
2013-09-03 02:04:09 PM  
Beam me down! AAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
 
2013-09-03 02:04:29 PM  

tripleseven: joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.

As opposed to yourself, who has a long standing and tarnish free record of proving or disproving myths.  I am sure its all be documented, and peer reviewed, so, pony up, big mouth.


Your witty remark would carry more weight if I were to have put myself out as a professional buster-of-myths.

I don't.

I simply realize that a hypothesis is not proven because you couldn't think of a way to falsify it.

"I hypothesize that it is impossible to set a ship afire with mirrors."
Later that same year: "Well, I tried a few different methods, and couldn't set the ship afire - therefore, my hypothesis is correct!"
 
2013-09-03 02:04:47 PM  
My favorite episodes:

1.  Did that car in that movie skip across water like a stone?  Let's not look at the film and ask everyone involved how they did it, let's just make stuff up and decide.

2.  There's this news story about a cop's gun that caught a bullet from another gun and is a matter of public record.  It's in the news so it must be fake.  Let's have a whole segment where we decide if the story and photos from the newspaper are a myth or not.

/the show would be much better if it was just a xkcd show of 'what ifs' and 'because we cans'.
 
2013-09-03 02:05:02 PM  
How many times will the dumb farking mods greenlight the same farking story?
 
2013-09-03 02:05:20 PM  

joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.


I didn't know there was such hatred and mistrust for those guys.  Okay, I'll admit that they seem to be looking forward to blowing things up more than actually doing their job, for the most part.  But I always thought that their methods are pretty sound.
 
2013-09-03 02:05:51 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

yes, yes you must be some kind of super genius because you can point out that the experiments in a show primarily about blowing stuff up are not always rigorously performed. Besides that, they do a pretty good job given the limitations of the medium: production time, budget and air time.


I lost all respect for the show when they became, what appears to me IMHO, a shill for promoting movies. You mean you can't curve the path of a bullet? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you.
 
2013-09-03 02:05:59 PM  

PsyLord: China White Tea: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

[static.someecards.com image 420x294]

The graphic does get a chuckle from me every time I see it.  Look at the size of that huge cracker she's eating.


She's eating a sandwich.
 
2013-09-03 02:06:25 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse


pichars.org
 
2013-09-03 02:06:28 PM  

BafflerMeal: My favorite episodes:

1.  Did that car in that movie skip across water like a stone?  Let's not look at the film and ask everyone involved how they did it, let's just make stuff up and decide.


Yeah, it's not like they consulted experts in film making and practical special effects....
 
2013-09-03 02:06:34 PM  

Southern100: Then there's myths like riding a motorcycle 300 feet across an 8-foot deep lake


That was pretty cool. I actually expected it to make it across; looking at the bike and the rider, and with what I know about motorcycles, I was a little surprised it didn't make it.

I remember wondering if trying it in salt water would be different, but after thinking about it for a bit decided it wasn't likely as the problem wasn't really a function of buoyancy.

/and I just now realized that "buoyancy" is spelled with the u first. Stupid English.
 
2013-09-03 02:08:07 PM  

Bag-o-Nugs: FarkinNortherner: I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They consistently do bad science.

AND LABEL IT AS "SCIENCE".  I find the show entertaining, but their methods are abysmal.  Also, they sometimes confuse their ineptitude as scientists with busting a myth.  Then there's that whole argument people have that they aren't actually exploring myths so much as examining/recreating scenes from movies.

FTFY...

You can also tell from the beginnings on certain myths if they are planning on it ending up "Busted' or not. The Archimedes Death Ray is a great example, they set the bar so high, it's never going to be proven... They are taking a thousands of years old legend and interpreting it literally... The ships have to burst into flame to have it pass, although even a small fire on a ship, especially in the middle of a war in hostile water is a bad thing. On top of that, the legend says something like "30 bow lengths", so they set it to be that distance EXACTLY, not leaving room for natural embellishment of the story.

The other thing with their techniques that bother me is their extremely small control group sizes for subjective things like "beer goggles" and if you are more affected driving tired than after drinking. They'll have the 3 or 4 people on the second crew(Sometimes seems to be a guest) drive a course once, drink some alcohol, drive it once again, and then let the alcohol wear off, but stay up late and drive it again. Should be more than one trial of each so that they can get an accurate baseline. The 'beer goggles' one was stupid, since they didn't actually factor in what's involved in lowered inhibitions making you more willing to take home an unattractive person.

The 'Improving gas mileage by tailgating a semi truck' one, on the other hand, was perfect, they did a great job there.

I agree though, it's like nails on a chalkboard when they call their crappy methods "science", my stepsons know not to take anything they say on that show as actual science, and if they have questions about any of the experiments, we can research them together, and most likely find more accurate results in our first Google search.
 
2013-09-03 02:08:17 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse

[pichars.org image 357x400]


This. Calm down Dow. It's just a TV show.
 
2013-09-03 02:08:56 PM  

spawn73: Paris1127:

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

Mythbusters is prepared lines and pandering to the lowest denominator.

They haven't ever busted shiat, even when trying to look past all their bullshiat, the holes in scientific methods is obvious. If your understanding of authorities of science relies on them, you'd be a moron, which is probably also why their show is doing so well, alongside "Here comes Honey Booboo".


I feel sad for you, that you somehow can't enjoy Mythbusters as science based entertainment.  That you somehow can't understand that they are not making grand pronouncements of reality, but that within the scope of their operation that something was doable or not.  That you somehow can't appreciate that the absolute core of science is that ideas should be tested, and that as long as that message gets through there is extreme educational value to it in addition to the fun of seeing things blown up.

Come to the light, brother.  You don't have to live in such darkness and hatred.
 
2013-09-03 02:09:05 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse


Lol, I literally said "I don't care if you like it" in the post you quoted, yet you used that pic anyway. Typical Mythbusters level of intellect...
 
2013-09-03 02:09:16 PM  

joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.

 
2013-09-03 02:09:47 PM  

Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]


what's with her armpit? looks like another wizard sleeve where i could put my wand at.
 
2013-09-03 02:10:14 PM  
If the Mythbusters subjugated themselves to a couple physicists the show would have more scientific sway.

/SWAY
 
2013-09-03 02:10:18 PM  

BafflerMeal: the show would be much better if it was just a xkcd show of 'what ifs' and 'because we cans'.


The actual number of relatively common yet testable myths is finite.  At some point, they have to start scraping the bottom of the barrel.
 
2013-09-03 02:10:32 PM  

jst3p: MooseUpNorth: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse

[pichars.org image 357x400]

This. Calm down Dow. It's just a TV show.


Alright fine but then you don't get to make fun of me for liking Jersey Shore. Deal?
 
2013-09-03 02:10:51 PM  
I don't understand that hate.  Mythbusters got both my niece and my nephew interested in science as teens.  Both are well on their way to earning their Masters (one in marine biology, the other in chemical engineering).  Sure, at the time they were just gawking at two guys blowing stuff up unnecessarily, but it sparked an interest that lead them to a pretty awesome real science.
 
2013-09-03 02:11:16 PM  

joeshill: "I hypothesize that it is impossible to set a ship afire with mirrors."
Later that same year: "Well, I tried a few different methods, and couldn't set the ship afire - therefore, my hypothesis is correct!"


That was never the hypothesis. You could set a ship on fire (or more likely start fires ON it) with mirrors if you set them up right. That's how heliostats work.

The actual myth was that a group of soldiers with polished bronze shields were able to act in tandem to set fire to an entire fleet of ships approaching to attack in a harbor by reflecting the light of the sun using their shields.

Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

At some point you can say "myth busted" with a high enough confidence factor.
 
2013-09-03 02:11:20 PM  

Rising Ape: Kit Fister: Okay, and if you expect a one-hour TV show to cover rigorous scientific testing of myths, you're an elitist prick.

What a depressingly anti-intellectual worldview - anthing that requires even a little thought and patience is "elitist", is it? One hour is plenty of time to cover things in a thoughtful way - not as thoroughly as a scientific paper of course, but a lot better than what they actually do.


No, but biatching and moaning and shiatting all over an attempt to make the basics of scientific thought -- of questioning what you might have held to be true -- is. If it doesn't live up to YOUR expectations of what it should be, then it's obviously shiat.

I love actual scientific documentaries and all, but i want to be entertained with some basic science and blowing shiat up. I'll watch Discovery or youtube for actual science.
 
2013-09-03 02:11:51 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: PsyLord: China White Tea: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

[static.someecards.com image 420x294]

The graphic does get a chuckle from me every time I see it.  Look at the size of that huge cracker she's eating.

She's eating a sandwich.


Like she farking owns the place.

Biatch.
 
2013-09-03 02:12:21 PM  
This is what happens when you let pretentious assholes design.  They're too busy inflating their ego to take into consideration practical aspects of their design.
 
2013-09-03 02:13:03 PM  

Voiceofreason01: BafflerMeal: My favorite episodes:

1.  Did that car in that movie skip across water like a stone?  Let's not look at the film and ask everyone involved how they did it, let's just make stuff up and decide.

Yeah, it's not like they consulted experts in film making and practical special effects....


Missing the point.

"Did that car really skip over the water?  Well we have no way of finding out, so let's make a test to see if it's a myth or not."

They ran out of 'myths' a long time ago.  If they want to just do cool stuff, that's fine.  But the show is basement stupid as framed for the public.  Clearly they have an easy way to answer the question above.  Similarly they could have just framed it as 'recreating how it happened'.  That's kind of cool in itself.  But that's not what the show does.  It approaches everything like the above from a position of stupid.
 
2013-09-03 02:13:09 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Lol, I literally said "I don't care if you like it" in the post you quoted, yet you used that pic anyway.


You've been throwing a thread-long tantrum and throwing insults left and right. Damned right, I used it. Chill the fark down, dude, you're going to pop a vein.
 
2013-09-03 02:13:39 PM  
Besides, don't they frequently ask for and receive help from pretty much anyone they ask it from in the formal scientific community? If their methods were really that bad, the scientific community wouldn't want anything to do with them.
 
2013-09-03 02:13:43 PM  

stamped human bacon: Paris1127: /also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

Did they ever do it with people in the boat?  Seems like you don't really need to catch the boat on fire, you just need to make the people on board feel like you can.


They made it start to smolder, which to me says that you could create the kind of panic that would keep people the fark out of your harbor...

Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

yes, yes you must be some kind of super genius because you can point out that the experiments in a show primarily about blowing stuff up are not always rigorously performed. Besides that, they do a pretty good job given the limitations of the medium: production time, budget and air time.


Except that they CONSTANTLY inform us that what they are doing is "science", followed by them immediately throwing the scientific method out the farking window.
 
2013-09-03 02:13:54 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Lol, I literally said "I don't care if you like it" in the post you quoted, yet you used that pic anyway.

You've been throwing a thread-long tantrum and throwing insults left and right. Damned right, I used it. Chill the fark down, dude, you're going to pop a vein.


Calmer'n you are
 
2013-09-03 02:14:25 PM  

PsyLord: China White Tea: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

[static.someecards.com image 420x294]

The graphic does get a chuckle from me every time I see it.  Look at the size of that huge cracker she's eating.


it's a piece of bread!

media.avclub.com
 
2013-09-03 02:14:34 PM  

viscountalpha: capt.hollister: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

They did not. If they had used modern reflective materials aimed at a stationary target, they would undoubtedly have succeeded in setting it on fire. That's not hard to do.

Now, try doing the same using only materials available to the ancient inhabitants of Syracuse and you will only succeed in elevating the temperature of the target after a very long time, but you will not succeed in setting it on fire. The Mythbusters did all they could, including concentrating all the mirrors on one stationary boat (remember, Archimedes' death ray was supposed to have sunk a whole moving fleet), and ignoring the fact that given the orientation of Syracuse's harbour, the sun would have been at his back.

One more thing: in TFA, the plastic mirrors did not catch fire, they melted, which can be done at temperatures much lower than those necessary to ignite wood.

Myth Busted !

I would rebut that to say Adam and Jamie are not achemedes nor are they a sniper or anything some of these extraordinary people.

There are situations that are IMPOSSIBLE to replicate in a lab. Strange shiat happens and its the stuff of legends.


They are not, but even a genius like Archimedes could still only have used technology which existed in his day. There is no magic.
 
2013-09-03 02:15:21 PM  

China White Tea: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

[static.someecards.com image 420x294]


I love that greeting card, except the kid's eating a piece of bread, not crackers.
 
2013-09-03 02:15:39 PM  

Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]


Her and her stand in when the babies are on the way(Jessi Combs) are the best parts of the show. The two dudes on the build team are cool, but Kari and Jessi make it worth tuning in for...
 
2013-09-03 02:17:14 PM  
I call shenanigans, the sun doesn't come out in London.
 
2013-09-03 02:17:24 PM  

Mikey1969: I agree though, it's like nails on a chalkboard when they call their crappy methods "science", my stepsons know not to take anything they say on that show as actual science, and if they have questions about any of the experiments, we can research them together, and most likely find more accurate results in our first Google search.


And THIS is why Mythbusters is important. It actually got your stepson interested in science, even if it was to disprove their "science". I applaud the show for getting kids interested in testing theories, coming up with solutions, etc.

It's why I find the Big Bang Theory hate on here to be so funny. That show has gotten tons of people interested in science and science fiction, but because it's on as a sitcom, it automatically gets hate. Some of the brightest minds on this planet absolutely love the show (Stephen Hawking, Neil Tyson, Brian Greene, Astronaut Mike Massimino) but Fark has to hate it because it's actually popular.
 
2013-09-03 02:18:40 PM  

Cyclometh: Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.


I'll just point out one thing, though. The modern mirrors were flat and aimed at the white sail. The soldiers were likely holding their shields backwards, with the concave side facing the ships (focusing the light), likely targeting the darker hull (where black tar was used to seal the seams), and there may have been a whole bunch more of them.
 
2013-09-03 02:19:02 PM  

Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...


Intelligent design is junk science. Myth Busters conducts real science with limited time and money. They can only do a limited number of attempts, they can't test every possibility, sometimes they get something wrong, but this is true of all science to varying degrees. It doesn't stop being science just because you think you're too cool for it.

/i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-09-03 02:19:13 PM  

Mikey1969: stamped human bacon: Paris1127: /also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

Did they ever do it with people in the boat?  Seems like you don't really need to catch the boat on fire, you just need to make the people on board feel like you can.

They made it start to smolder, which to me says that you could create the kind of panic that would keep people the fark out of your harbor...

Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

yes, yes you must be some kind of super genius because you can point out that the experiments in a show primarily about blowing stuff up are not always rigorously performed. Besides that, they do a pretty good job given the limitations of the medium: production time, budget and air time.

Except that they CONSTANTLY inform us that what they are doing is "science", followed by them immediately throwing the scientific method out the farking window.



I was watching a local tv teens show about science one Saturday morning.  The kids were broken out into teams measuring the gait of show horses or something to collect data and see if they could find optimal performance results vs data on the horse measurements.  Each team was allowed to collect their own data and work at it their own way.  It was trivial but much more scientific than anything seen on mythbusters.  They showed all the kid's data, represented out as graphs, tested the horses, etc...

Me and the SO were both of the opinion that a show like mythbusters, done similarly with better production values and topics, etc...  would be great.  And also would bring more people into the science folks as it would cross pollinate with the 'reality competition' tv lovers.

It'll never pass committee though.
 
2013-09-03 02:19:28 PM  
i, too, loathe all the mythbusters hatred.

i'm no scientist, but i think they do a great job doing what they set out to do, especially considering they are not, and do not pretend to be, lab-type scientists. they KNOW they are special effects guys.

they also seem to take criticism very well. viewers send in complaints all the time saying things like "hey, you did this wrong", or "you didn't account for __________", or in the case of one i watched yesterday, they retested crashes because jamie had said that 2 vehicles crashing head-on while each going 50 mph was like 1 hitting a wall at 100 mph. they indeed discovered the viewer(s) was correct by saying that it was actually like 1 vehicle hitting a wall at 50 mph.

also, my 3 year old son loves to watch them blow stuff up with me
 
2013-09-03 02:19:58 PM  
You know who would make some boring-ass TV shows? Farkers who criticize Mythbusters for lacking scientific rigor.

If somebody put a show on that showed actual science being performed, I'd go watch chicken parts thaw instead. Science is entertaining only when you boil down the executive summary of 20 years' research into a magazine article. And then only if you have really cool pictures of mutant octopi or something.
 
2013-09-03 02:20:30 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: This is what happens when you let pretentious assholes design.  They're too busy inflating their ego to take into consideration practical aspects of their design.


www.ketchum.org
 
2013-09-03 02:20:38 PM  

BafflerMeal: My favorite episodes:

1.  Did that car in that movie skip across water like a stone?  Let's not look at the film and ask everyone involved how they did it, let's just make stuff up and decide.

2.  There's this news story about a cop's gun that caught a bullet from another gun and is a matter of public record.  It's in the news so it must be fake.  Let's have a whole segment where we decide if the story and photos from the newspaper are a myth or not.

/the show would be much better if it was just a xkcd show of 'what ifs' and 'because we cans'.


Nah, you'd still hate it.
 
2013-09-03 02:21:18 PM  

Kit Fister: This. I've seen a solar collector in a fixed position turn steel into a liquid in seconds. It can be done. But not quite so simply if you've got a bunch of dudes holding a bunch of mirrors.


After learning about the antikythera mechanism, I'm willing to cut the historical accounts a little slack.
 
2013-09-03 02:21:18 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MooseUpNorth: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Lol, I literally said "I don't care if you like it" in the post you quoted, yet you used that pic anyway.

You've been throwing a thread-long tantrum and throwing insults left and right. Damned right, I used it. Chill the fark down, dude, you're going to pop a vein.

Calmer'n you are


Did you once really love Mythbusters and it broke your heart, or do you just derive great pleasure from thinking about and attacking or insulting people who enjoy entertainment you don't like? Or is it something else? Why even waste energy thinking about entertainment you don't like?
 
2013-09-03 02:21:51 PM  

Mikey1969: Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]

Her and her stand in when the babies are on the way(Jessi Combs) are She is the best parts of the show. The two dudes on the build team are cool, but Kari and Jessi makes it worth tuning in for...


FTFY
 
2013-09-03 02:22:36 PM  

CowardlyLion: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MooseUpNorth: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Lol, I literally said "I don't care if you like it" in the post you quoted, yet you used that pic anyway.

You've been throwing a thread-long tantrum and throwing insults left and right. Damned right, I used it. Chill the fark down, dude, you're going to pop a vein.

Calmer'n you are

Did you once really love Mythbusters and it broke your heart, or do you just derive great pleasure from thinking about and attacking or insulting people who enjoy entertainment you don't like? Or is it something else? Why even waste energy thinking about entertainment you don't like?


he's just sad someone pissed in his wheaties this morning. he's been shiatting all over threads all morning.
 
2013-09-03 02:22:48 PM  

Cyclometh: joeshill: "I hypothesize that it is impossible to set a ship afire with mirrors."
Later that same year: "Well, I tried a few different methods, and couldn't set the ship afire - therefore, my hypothesis is correct!"

That was never the hypothesis. You could set a ship on fire (or more likely start fires ON it) with mirrors if you set them up right. That's how heliostats work.

The actual myth was that a group of soldiers with polished bronze shields were able to act in tandem to set fire to an entire fleet of ships approaching to attack in a harbor by reflecting the light of the sun using their shields.

Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

At some point you can say "myth busted" with a high enough confidence factor.


That's not how science works.  A hypothesis remains such until it is falsified.  The very best you can say is "hmm, we couldn't find a way to falsify it.  For now it remains a hypotheis."  My problem, and probably others, is that they claim to be doing science.  They are not.  They are blowing shiat up while showing off Kari Byron's tits and calling it science.

Okay.  Fine.  Top of my head.  Early ships were sealed with pitch.  The flashpoint of pitch is anywhere between 81F-400F.  Aim bunch of mirrors at ship.  Raise pitch to flash point.  Much much much easier than igniting cloth.
 
2013-09-03 02:22:49 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse


STOP LIKING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!
 
2013-09-03 02:22:54 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Cyclometh: Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

I'll just point out one thing, though. The modern mirrors were flat and aimed at the white sail. The soldiers were likely holding their shields backwards, with the concave side facing the ships (focusing the light), likely targeting the darker hull (where black tar was used to seal the seams), and there may have been a whole bunch more of them.


Concave mirrors would be the absolute wrong way to do it if you were actually trying to weaponize solar convergence - they would require the target to be located more or less precisely at the focal point.

Flat mirrors independently aimed can achieve the same effect, but at a variable range - effectively the whole system is acting as one giant concave mirror, with an adaptable focal point.  

You'll occasionally see people make DIY solar furnaces by attaching small, flat mirrors to satellite dishes.  The independent mirrors are flat - the system of mirrors is concave.
 
2013-09-03 02:23:26 PM  

Mikey1969


Her and her stand in when the babies are on the way(Jessi Combs) are the best parts of the show. The two dudes on the build team are cool, but Kari and Jessi make it worth tuning in for...


I don't normally express strong feelings about this sort of thing, but holy friggity frakkity frak was Jessi annoying.

You may quote me on that. Or not. Either way is fine.
 
2013-09-03 02:25:20 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Cyclometh: Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

I'll just point out one thing, though. The modern mirrors were flat and aimed at the white sail. The soldiers were likely holding their shields backwards, with the concave side facing the ships (focusing the light), likely targeting the darker hull (where black tar was used to seal the seams), and there may have been a whole bunch more of them.


Damn.  I bothered to look up the flashpoint of pitch, and you beat me to the point.
 
2013-09-03 02:27:03 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Cyclometh: Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

I'll just point out one thing, though. The modern mirrors were flat and aimed at the white sail. The soldiers were likely holding their shields backwards, with the concave side facing the ships (focusing the light), likely targeting the darker hull (where black tar was used to seal the seams), and there may have been a whole bunch more of them.


Greek hoplite shields were almost all made of wood. They may have had a sheet of bronze on the  outer surface, but even that wasn't common. Bronze is too soft and heavy to make a good shield; one hit and it's deformed. Wood, possibly reinforced with bronze, would be much lighter and more effective.

And even the best case would mean a thin sheet of hammered bronze that might have been polished, and still would reflect like a sheet of bronze. There's no way it would work given our understanding of the technology available at the time.
 
2013-09-03 02:27:15 PM  

Paris1127:  but known by many Londoners as the "Walkie Talkie" for its distinctive shape.

[www.skyscrapernews.com image 572x643]
This is supposed to look like a walkie-talkie? I think this skyscraper in Santiago is way more walkie-talkie-esque:
[www.celebratebig.com image 425x640]

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.



www.trademarkia.com
 
2013-09-03 02:27:34 PM  
I like turtles
 
2013-09-03 02:27:37 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Cyclometh: Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

I'll just point out one thing, though. The modern mirrors were flat and aimed at the white sail. The soldiers were likely holding their shields backwards, with the concave side facing the ships (focusing the light), likely targeting the darker hull (where black tar was used to seal the seams), and there may have been a whole bunch more of them.


The back of a hoplon looks like this. The focal point can't be more than 10 feet from the shield; it's quite a deep dish. And of course, you'd have to remove all the hardware and polish it first. Which would be tough, as it's made of wood, sometimes covered on the outer face with a thin sheet of bronze. It would be quicker just to make bronze mirrors than to use shields.

war-ellada.narod.ru
 
2013-09-03 02:28:11 PM  

ManateeGag: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse

STOP LIKING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!


Mythbusters is a great show, very entertaining, gets kids interested in science, and has 'splosions.

There, that better?
 
2013-09-03 02:28:16 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: Mikey1969

Her and her stand in when the babies are on the way(Jessi Combs) are the best parts of the show. The two dudes on the build team are cool, but Kari and Jessi make it worth tuning in for...


I don't normally express strong feelings about this sort of thing, but holy friggity frakkity frak was Jessi annoying.

You may quote me on that. Or not. Either way is fine.


You say true, I say Thankee.
 
2013-09-03 02:29:55 PM  

born_yesterday: After learning about the antikythera mechanism, I'm willing to cut the historical accounts a little slack.


Check this out.
 
2013-09-03 02:30:29 PM  

joeshill: Cyclometh: joeshill: "I hypothesize that it is impossible to set a ship afire with mirrors."
Later that same year: "Well, I tried a few different methods, and couldn't set the ship afire - therefore, my hypothesis is correct!"

That was never the hypothesis. You could set a ship on fire (or more likely start fires ON it) with mirrors if you set them up right. That's how heliostats work.

The actual myth was that a group of soldiers with polished bronze shields were able to act in tandem to set fire to an entire fleet of ships approaching to attack in a harbor by reflecting the light of the sun using their shields.

Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

At some point you can say "myth busted" with a high enough confidence factor.

That's not how science works.  A hypothesis remains such until it is falsified.  The very best you can say is "hmm, we couldn't find a way to falsify it.  For now it remains a hypotheis."  My problem, and probably others, is that they claim to be doing science.  They are not.  They are blowing shiat up while showing off Kari Byron's tits and calling it science.

Okay.  Fine.  Top of my head.  Early ships were sealed with pitch.  The flashpoint of pitch is anywhere between 81F-400F.  Aim bunch of mirrors at ship.  Raise pitch to flash point.  Much much much easier than igniting cloth.


but they attempted a test with a ship sealed with period pitch, and it didn't light up. ..
 
2013-09-03 02:31:02 PM  

joeshill: A hypothesis remains such until it is falsified


Uh, no. It remains such until it is  proven. You can keep your hypothesis, and when you've proved that it's not, come back and I'll admit you were right.

Until then, I'm going to keep working with the assumption that nobody was setting fire to ships in harbors in 500 BCE with soldiers holding wooden shields covered in bronze.
 
2013-09-03 02:31:04 PM  

Paris1127: but known by many Londoners as the "Walkie Talkie" for its distinctive shape.

[www.skyscrapernews.com image 572x643]
This is supposed to look like a walkie-talkie? I think this skyscraper in Santiago is way more walkie-talkie-esque:
[www.celebratebig.com image 425x640]

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.


I didn't know that the Mythbusters were Republicans.
 
2013-09-03 02:31:21 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ManateeGag: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse

STOP LIKING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!

Mythbusters is a great show, very entertaining, gets kids interested in science, and has 'splosions.

There, that better?


No. stop being a douche.
 
2013-09-03 02:32:14 PM  

mbillips: You know who would make some boring-ass TV shows? Farkers who criticize Mythbusters for lacking scientific rigor.


Adam Savage actually made that very point (not the Farkers crack, but the rest of it) at a panel he did (I can't remember what year, or which con, but it's on youtube. For most of the panel, he talks about the making of their swimming in syrup episode...) Near the end of the Q&A part, someone asked him if they ever thought about publishing their work in peer review. He pointed out that nothing they did (except _maybe_ once) had the rigor for anything approaching peer review, although one thing they aimed for with their more interesting results was to invite actual science teams to do actual science experiments inspired by their 'experiments'. (Which actually happened, the swimming in syrup ep was inspired by a real experiment, which in turn apparently inspired the original science team to revisit their experiment with much thicker syrup.)

He was also asked about some of the other Mythbusters clones on Discovery and where he thought they were going wrong. IIRC, during this answer, he mentioned that while the show wasn't _totally_ unscripted, the narrative of the show was frequently tweaked and sometimes drastically changed while the experiments were taking place. Bad for testing hypotheses, but he pointed out that it made for more investment from the hosts, one of the things he thought was lacking in some of the other shows, that the hosts weren't all that interested in what they were doing.
 
2013-09-03 02:32:48 PM  

dittybopper: With enough mirrors in the right configuration, you could do it.


Which is the whole point. If you don't have ten thousand square feet of mirrored surface, you probably can't get enough focused sunlight to do the trick.
 
2013-09-03 02:32:57 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: jst3p: MooseUpNorth: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse

[pichars.org image 357x400]

This. Calm down Dow. It's just a TV show.

Alright fine but then you don't get to make fun of me for liking Jersey Shore. Deal?


I will make fun of you but I wont put nearly as much effort into making sure the internet knows how much I hate that show as you did.
 
2013-09-03 02:33:10 PM  
burning plastic on the jag u ar...plastic...this is not progress...

/that is all
 
2013-09-03 02:33:23 PM  

BafflerMeal: /the show would be much better if it was just a xkcd show of 'what ifs' and 'because we cans'.


So basically you want Dude, What Would Happen?
 
2013-09-03 02:34:21 PM  

joeshill: My problem, and probably others, is that they claim to be doing science.


Actually, they've said any number of times that what they're doing _isn't_ intended to be rigorous and _isn't_ intended to be peer reviewable.
 
2013-09-03 02:35:09 PM  
Outside of a pure lab environment and with the constraints they have, they do a pretty great job.  They freely admit they make mistakes and revisit them if they can.


And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.
 
2013-09-03 02:35:16 PM  

Kit Fister: joeshill: Cyclometh: joeshill: "I hypothesize that it is impossible to set a ship afire with mirrors."
Later that same year: "Well, I tried a few different methods, and couldn't set the ship afire - therefore, my hypothesis is correct!"

That was never the hypothesis. You could set a ship on fire (or more likely start fires ON it) with mirrors if you set them up right. That's how heliostats work.

The actual myth was that a group of soldiers with polished bronze shields were able to act in tandem to set fire to an entire fleet of ships approaching to attack in a harbor by reflecting the light of the sun using their shields.

Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

At some point you can say "myth busted" with a high enough confidence factor.

That's not how science works.  A hypothesis remains such until it is falsified.  The very best you can say is "hmm, we couldn't find a way to falsify it.  For now it remains a hypotheis."  My problem, and probably others, is that they claim to be doing science.  They are not.  They are blowing shiat up while showing off Kari Byron's tits and calling it science.

Okay.  Fine.  Top of my head.  Early ships were sealed with pitch.  The flashpoint of pitch is anywhere between 81F-400F.  Aim bunch of mirrors at ship.  Raise pitch to flash point.  Much much much easier than igniting cloth.

but they attempted a test with a ship sealed with period pitch, and it didn't light up. ..


And yet some MIT students performed a feasibility study in 2009, and achieved ignition.  And they address pitch in their FAQ (hypothesizing that it might darken the wood increasing heat absorption, and that the volatiles might play a part).

http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/deathray/10_ArchimedesResul t. html
 
2013-09-03 02:35:30 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Cyclometh: Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.

I'll just point out one thing, though. The modern mirrors were flat and aimed at the white sail. The soldiers were likely holding their shields backwards, with the concave side facing the ships (focusing the light), likely targeting the darker hull (where black tar was used to seal the seams), and there may have been a whole bunch more of them.


The inner surface of a shield was typically wooden, not bronze.  the metal sheeting was usually only on the outside, if it was there at all.  Assuming the inner surface was mirrored, the radius of curvature for the concavity would have to be VERY large for it to make the problem easier.  If the target was more than twice the radius of curvature away, using the curved surface would just make the problem worse.
 
2013-09-03 02:35:45 PM  

Kit Fister: Kit Fister: dittybopper: Paris1127: /also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

With enough mirrors in the right configuration, you could do it.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x480]

Didn't I liberate this building for the NCR after the Brotherhood of Steel had been holding it?


Or you could have blown it up completely if that was your choice. Either way it was pretty good fun.
 
2013-09-03 02:35:53 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

yes, yes you must be some kind of super genius because you can point out that the experiments in a show primarily about blowing stuff up are not always rigorously performed. Besides that, they do a pretty good job given the limitations of the medium: production time, budget and air time.


I enjoy the show.. I do.  Yet it does slightly bother me, as a scientist that  they continue to spread the idea that science is quaint and "interesting from afar" and the only way to prove something is expirimentally... often with poor evidence.

Clearly they know 99.9% of the time whether something is going to succeed. Anyone in a highschool physics or chemistry class should be able to answer each show's premise within seconds and usually be right.

Just once I'd like to see an episode where they start out saying "clearly this isn't going to work because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but we'll do it anyway to prove it"  and they actually go past their 8th grade level of explaination of why.

I just wish the audience could be allowed to dive deeper if they wanted to.


/Old Episodes of Mr Wizard basically cover the same ground. Mr. Wizard's intended audience was squarely aimed at children though... rather than adults that think that Big Bang theory is really funny becuase.. you know... science!
 
2013-09-03 02:36:51 PM  
Maybe the ships were just hit with blinding light and the crew on deck was running around, in agony,  bumping into things and tended to knock over a torch near the tar storage. and the ship burns down that way instead of microwaving it.
 
2013-09-03 02:37:09 PM  

PanicMan: And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.


Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.
 
2013-09-03 02:38:37 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Mythbusters is a great show, very entertaining, gets kids interested in science, and has 'splosions.

There, that better?


It's unlikely the show's producers or hosts would ever claim anything more than that.

Often what they do isn't so much scientific investigaiton, but rather a demonstraiton of practical applications of science or pointing out that when yu look at something the proper way, the answer is obvious.
Two good examples:  Showing why hitting an oncoming car travelling at the same speed as you isn't any worse than hitting a wall - Basic physics, logically explained.    Airplane on a treadmill - Of course it takes off, you just have to undo the logic trick your mind is playing on you.

Hard-core investigative science?  Not really.  A good exercise in critical thinking and fun water-cooler stuff?  You bet!  All that, and a Walrus in a funny hat.  Who could ask for more?
 
2013-09-03 02:39:21 PM  

PanicMan


And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.


It would be awfully difficult to aim a bow with bright lights flashing in the archer's eyes. That drastically reduces the effectiveness of the attackers' ranged weapons and forces them to rely on melee once they land.

Heck, it's possible that someone got temporarily blinded, dropped a torch, and set his own damn ship on fire, and Team Archimedes mis-interpreted the events.
 
2013-09-03 02:39:44 PM  

Gosling: BafflerMeal: /the show would be much better if it was just a xkcd show of 'what ifs' and 'because we cans'.

So basically you want Dude, What Would Happen?



Yes.  That's more or less what the show is now, it would just be more honest with less hand waving.  It could also be:  "Dude, How did they do That? Let's Try!"

images4.static-bluray.com
 
2013-09-03 02:40:27 PM  

huntercr: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

yes, yes you must be some kind of super genius because you can point out that the experiments in a show primarily about blowing stuff up are not always rigorously performed. Besides that, they do a pretty good job given the limitations of the medium: production time, budget and air time.

I enjoy the show.. I do.  Yet it does slightly bother me, as a scientist that  they continue to spread the idea that science is quaint and "interesting from afar" and the only way to prove something is expirimentally... often with poor evidence.

Clearly they know 99.9% of the time whether something is going to succeed. Anyone in a highschool physics or chemistry class should be able to answer each show's premise within seconds and usually be right.

Just once I'd like to see an episode where they start out saying "clearly this isn't going to work because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but we'll do it anyway to prove it"  and they actually go past their 8th grade level of explaination of why.

I just wish the audience could be allowed to dive deeper if they wanted to.


/Old Episodes of Mr Wizard basically cover the same ground. Mr. Wizard's intended audience was squarely aimed at children though... rather than adults that think that Big Bang theory is really funny becuase.. you know... science!


Big Bang theory is very funny because they have great writers and an ensemble cast that "works". Your comment is like saying "Cheers" was funny because.. you know...  beer! I demand you retract your disparaging remark.
 
2013-09-03 02:40:49 PM  

Cyclometh: Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.


That's the same conclusion Jamie reached upon failure #3. It doesn't need to set you on fire if you can't see where you're going or where you're supposed to be shooting.
 
2013-09-03 02:40:56 PM  

Cyclometh: PanicMan: And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.


And Lo, a death ray myth is born.:b
 
2013-09-03 02:41:25 PM  

huntercr: rather than adults that think that Big Bang theory is really funny becuase.. you know... science!


Stephen Hawking
Neil Degrasse Tyson
George Smoot
Brian Greene
Michael Massimino

Each of them are 1000x smarter than you or I, yet they love the show because it gets people interested in science and science fiction.
 
2013-09-03 02:43:39 PM  

Cyclometh: Greek hoplite shields were almost all made of wood.


mbillips: It would be quicker just to make bronze mirrors than to use shields.


All fair points, although I'll point out that these may not have been conventional greek hoplite shields. I'm assuming Archimedes wasn't improvising on the spot...

China White Tea: Concave mirrors would be the absolute wrong way to do it if you were actually trying to weaponize solar convergence - they would require the target to be located more or less precisely at the focal point.


Also true, although if the harbor entrance has to be entered via a channel, you have an approximately known focal range.
 
2013-09-03 02:44:29 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:
They're third rate special fx nerds who fancy themselves genius scientists/inventors.

I haven't seen the show in a while but I don't remember them ever saying or implying that.

So I guess you could say that myth... has been busted?


http://instantyeah.org/
 
2013-09-03 02:44:37 PM  

Gosling: That's the same conclusion Jamie reached upon failure #3. It doesn't need to set you on fire if you can't see where you're going or where you're supposed to be shooting.


Indeed. And as someone else pointed out upthread, it's even plausible a fire got started accidentally by someone blinded and panicked on a ship. Although I'm not sure if navies at the time would have had open flames on board; mostly navies were used to ram or board, and fire would be inherently dangerous on a wooden ship.
 
2013-09-03 02:45:32 PM  
joeshill


Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.

Yet a segment of the geek (supposedly science-y) crowd have latched onto the clown of this show claiming adam is some kind of intellectual hero, when he's a fool.
 
2013-09-03 02:45:35 PM  
Brilliant.
 
2013-09-03 02:45:42 PM  
"...sometimes things go wrong which nobody would have envisaged, and this is one of them."

OK, so which part of this is what nobody would have forseen:
A) Creating a giant smooth seamless convex surface of highly reflective glass would result in a concentration/focusing of the sun's light creating extreme temperatures; or
B) There is ever any sun in London?
 
2013-09-03 02:45:47 PM  

scottydoesntknow


Each of them are 1000x smarter than you or I, yet they love the show because it gets people interested in science and science fiction.


Do they love the show because of where it may lead, or do they love the show as a show? I'll believe the former but will have a tough time with the latter.

I cannot watch the show because the braying of the laugh track live studio audience grates on my ears.
 
2013-09-03 02:45:54 PM  

Cyclometh: PanicMan: And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.


That wasn't in the story, though.
 
2013-09-03 02:45:59 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


They "bust" their own ineptitude?  They disprove their own ineptitude?  Wouldn't that mean they're proving their competence?  Is that what you were trying so ineptly (and ironically) to say?
 
2013-09-03 02:47:54 PM  

Aquapope: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

They "bust" their own ineptitude?  They disprove their own ineptitude?  Wouldn't that mean they're proving their competence?  Is that what you were trying so ineptly (and ironically) to say?


I am not a very smart person
 
2013-09-03 02:48:35 PM  

BafflerMeal: Yes. That's more or less what the show is now, it would just be more honest with less hand waving. It could also be: "Dude, How did they do That? Let's Try!"


No. Dude, What Would Happen's problem is the same as everyone else that's tried to follow Mythbusters: toning down of the science element and cranking up the in-your-face elements of the show. Dude, What Would Happen was staffed by a bunch of dudebros. You don't learn shiat. You're not motivated to learn shiat. There's nothing to argue with the show about regarding their results. It's just idiots doing stupid shiat and viewers fought with Cartoon Network for years before the network finally gave up and cancelled it because the network loved the show when nobody else did.

If you don't like the word 'myth', just substitute it with the proper scientific word: 'hypothesis'. That's something you're just going to have to learn to live with at this point because the name of the show isn't going away.
 
2013-09-03 02:49:52 PM  
Voiceofreason01 [TotalFark]
2013-09-03 01:35:30 PM


Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

yes, yes you must be some kind of super genius because you can point out that the experiments in a show primarily about blowing stuff up are not always rigorously performed. Besides that, they do a pretty good job given the limitations of the medium: production time, budget and air time.

They did 3 episodes (one being a full length campaign ad) "proving" the Archimedes claim busted, when there's a youtube video of some (HS?) science class actually doing it.


They get more wrong than right. A box of sock monkeys and a soiled diaper would get better results than these two morons.
 
2013-09-03 02:49:57 PM  

jst3p: Big Bang theory is very funny because they have great writers and an ensemble cast that "works". Your comment is like saying "Cheers" was funny because.. you know...  beer! I demand you retract your disparaging remark.


No, wouldn't it have been more like "Cheers wasn't funny because it glorified alcoholism and didn't accurately reflect what a real bar is like."
 
2013-09-03 02:50:18 PM  

Bag-o-Nugs: FarkinNortherner: I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They consistently do bad science.  I find the show entertaining, but their methods are abysmal.  Also, they sometimes confuse their ineptitude as scientists with busting a myth.  Then there's that whole argument people have that they aren't actually exploring myths so much as examining/recreating scenes from movies.


Bad science?! Really?! It's a farking TV show on the Discovery Channel! Not exactly a peer-reviewed science journal, now is it? Anyway, I am pretty sure the whole idea of the show is to get kids interested in science. They aren't exactly rigorous, but it's 45 minute show and I am sure producers have much to say about the content.

ITT: Butt-hurt armchair scientists.
 
2013-09-03 02:50:24 PM  
Every time they did Archimedes mirror they went about it in the laziest, most half-assed way possible.
 
2013-09-03 02:51:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: That wasn't in the story, though.


I didn't claim it was?
 
2013-09-03 02:52:57 PM  
I've heard some people claim that female orgasm is a myth. I would like to volunteer to work with Kari to prove its real. Don't worry, the science would be very rigorous, with multiple trials in all possible combinations.
 
2013-09-03 02:54:44 PM  

imnotadoctor: Bag-o-Nugs: FarkinNortherner: I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They consistently do bad science.  I find the show entertaining, but their methods are abysmal.  Also, they sometimes confuse their ineptitude as scientists with busting a myth.  Then there's that whole argument people have that they aren't actually exploring myths so much as examining/recreating scenes from movies.

Bad science?! Really?! It's a farking TV show on the Discovery Channel! Not exactly a peer-reviewed science journal, now is it? Anyway, I am pretty sure the whole idea of the show is to get kids interested in science. They aren't exactly rigorous, but it's 45 minute show and I am sure producers have much to say about the content.

ITT: Butt-hurt armchair scientists.


If the show is for children, shouldn't it be on Nick or Disney or Discovery Kids?
 
2013-09-03 02:55:22 PM  

Private_Citizen: I've heard some people claim that female orgasm is a myth. I would like to volunteer to work with Kari to prove its real. Don't worry, the science would be very rigorous, with multiple trials in all possible combinations.


Sure, but properly double blinding, you don't get to have sex with anyone.
 
2013-09-03 02:55:24 PM  

Private_Citizen: I've heard some people claim that female orgasm is a myth. I would like to volunteer to work with Kari to prove its real. Don't worry, the science would be very rigorous, with multiple trials in all possible combinations.


after being associated with that show for so long, she is certainly used to disappointment and things that fizzle instead of boom
 
2013-09-03 02:55:43 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ManateeGag: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse

STOP LIKING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!

Mythbusters is a great show, very entertaining, gets kids interested in science, and has 'splosions.

There, that better?


Can you GET any more passive aggressive?
 
2013-09-03 02:56:09 PM  

Guadior42: Mikey1969: Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]

Her and her stand in when the babies are on the way(Jessi Combs) are She is the best parts of the show. The two dudes on the build team are cool, but Kari and Jessi makes it worth tuning in for...

FTFY


No you didn't. Jessi Combs is not only hot, but she actually knows what she's doing. Kari was a street performer they hired for the show. Combs could actually do build out with any of the guys on the show.
 
2013-09-03 02:56:24 PM  

johnny_vegas: Private_Citizen: I've heard some people claim that female orgasm is a myth. I would like to volunteer to work with Kari to prove its real. Don't worry, the science would be very rigorous, with multiple trials in all possible combinations.

after being associated with that show for so long, she is certainly used to disappointment and things that fizzle instead of boom


Niiiiicccccceeeeeeeeeee.
 
2013-09-03 02:56:41 PM  
Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?
 
2013-09-03 02:57:47 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.


Because Mythbusters have made a bunch of people look like morons, so they feel like they have been validated whenever Mythbusters makes some clerical error.
 
2013-09-03 02:57:55 PM  

Mikey1969: No you didn't. Jessi Combs is not only hot, but she actually knows what she's doing. Kari was a street performer they hired for the show. Combs could actually do build out with any of the guys on the show.


Well, now Kari's been building stuff for the show for 10 years. Do those not count?
 
2013-09-03 02:58:49 PM  

vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?


encoremag.com
 
2013-09-03 02:58:56 PM  

BafflerMeal: Private_Citizen: I've heard some people claim that female orgasm is a myth. I would like to volunteer to work with Kari to prove its real. Don't worry, the science would be very rigorous, with multiple trials in all possible combinations.

Sure, but properly double blinding, you don't get to have sex with anyone.


That's not the way I would double blind it :)
 
2013-09-03 02:59:16 PM  
Archimedes   Ra: 1, Mythbusters: 0

That works too.
 
2013-09-03 03:00:11 PM  

ThatDarkFellow: Every time they did Archimedes mirror they went about it in the laziest, most half-assed way possible.


Yes, because they were supposed to be superserious about it in order to actually prove something in the most stringent way possible. *eyeroll*
 
2013-09-03 03:00:12 PM  

Cyclometh: PanicMan: And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.


Uh, have you seen polished bronze? At any distance at all, you'd barely notice the reflection. Even a modern lighthouse isn't blinding, at night, at any range over a mile. You have to factor in the RANGE at which Archimedes' weapon would have to work. In order to focus on a target at 100 meters, you'd need a mirror diameter of 200 meters, and unless you had tiered bleachers to work with, you'd have only a narrow band of focused light. And if the ships were closer than 100 meters, under oars, they'd cover the distance to the dock in a matter of seconds. Triremes are FAST. At better than 10 knots in a sprint, you'd have less than 20 seconds to start a fire. Even if you did set it on fire, it would be alongside and unloaded before it became dangerous to the ship. And all the other ships you WEREN'T focusing on would have unloaded their marines.

This one is too ludicrous to NEED busting.
 
2013-09-03 03:02:19 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: If the Mythbusters subjugated themselves to a couple physicists the show would have more scientific sway.


And you would never see it again after that episode.  Its ratings would drop into the toilet and the execs would pull it.

As they should.

If I want rigorous peer-reviewed science, I'll read a peer-reviewed journal.  It's not like there's a shortage of them.

Mythbusters is about a mindset that is sorely needed in the general population - that testing an idea is actually good.  Many organizations would prefer that people don't do this and take things at face value "because we told you so."
 
2013-09-03 03:03:03 PM  

vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?


I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

blogs.babble.com

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs
 
2013-09-03 03:03:08 PM  

Mikey1969: I fail to see your point. Is it the "stationary" thing? Do you know how slow those boats moved back then?


I'm gonna guess he meant the waves.  I've got an old fresnel lens you can melt a penny with.  But you've got to keep the "hot spot" right on the penny for several minutes-- lose your aim or focus distance even a little and you lose your heat.  If the hot spot wobbles around on the boat as it bobs in the waves, or worse, if the soldiers correct for this in a way that is not in perfect sync, it won't get concentrated enough to do much besides sunburn the sailors faster than usual.

I have no doubt you can melt things with reflected sunlight.  With modern gimbals and tracking on the mirrors, you could probably even melt holes in steel boats with reflected sunlight-- but I have my doubts you could ever train soldiers to be coordinated and steady enough to keep thousands of overlapping reflected spots in the same relative location on a bobbing target.
 
2013-09-03 03:03:34 PM  

OnlyM3: They get more wrong than right. A box of sock monkeys and a soiled diaper would get better results than these two morons.


I started watching the show with my 7 year old.

The Myth Buster:
1. Clearly state the hypothesis being tested.
2. Explain how they are going to test the theory and often, the limitations of their experiment.
3. They often graph out the results.
4. Then they get goofy and blow crap up.

I want my son to learn items 1-3 in that list. He likes item 4. I am not so interested in the scientific rigor of their experiments as I am in how they demonstrate the methodology.
 
2013-09-03 03:04:09 PM  
The beauty of Archimedes mirror weapon was that he just had to say that it worked.  Spread the news around the ancient world about this fearsome weapon that burns ships to a crisp.  The point is deterrence, not functionality.  It's not like they had the internet or TV news reports back then, everything was word of mouth.  You could dummy up one fake demonstration, burn a few ships in the harbor, claim the weapon destroyed them, and sit back in safety for generations.
 
2013-09-03 03:04:14 PM  

OnlyM3: Voiceofreason01 [TotalFark]
2013-09-03 01:35:30 PM


Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

yes, yes you must be some kind of super genius because you can point out that the experiments in a show primarily about blowing stuff up are not always rigorously performed. Besides that, they do a pretty good job given the limitations of the medium: production time, budget and air time.
They did 3 episodes (one being a full length campaign ad) "proving" the Archimedes claim busted, when there's a youtube video of some (HS?) science class actually doing it.



No, there isn't. Some students showed that they could hold modern mirrors in an array that would set pitch afire at close range. That translates to polished bronze shields setting moving ships afire at an effective range in no way at all.
 
2013-09-03 03:04:40 PM  
Given the concave design, did the architect not see this coming?  Is this architect a moron?
 
2013-09-03 03:04:40 PM  

BafflerMeal: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

[encoremag.com image 560x300]


Jesus...even airbrushing her to the Nth degree isn't enough to hide teh fugly
 
2013-09-03 03:04:43 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Mikey1969: I agree though, it's like nails on a chalkboard when they call their crappy methods "science", my stepsons know not to take anything they say on that show as actual science, and if they have questions about any of the experiments, we can research them together, and most likely find more accurate results in our first Google search.

And THIS is why Mythbusters is important. It actually got your stepson interested in science, even if it was to disprove their "science". I applaud the show for getting kids interested in testing theories, coming up with solutions, etc.

It's why I find the Big Bang Theory hate on here to be so funny. That show has gotten tons of people interested in science and science fiction, but because it's on as a sitcom, it automatically gets hate. Some of the brightest minds on this planet absolutely love the show (Stephen Hawking, Neil Tyson, Brian Greene, Astronaut Mike Massimino) but Fark has to hate it because it's actually popular.


A: Doing bad science and calling it science does more harm than good. Think of how many people out there just plop their kids down in front of this show without bothering to tell the kids that it's crappy science...

B: Big Bang Theory goes out of their way to actually include inside jokes for the science community, and when they discuss science related theory, they are accurate, it's not surprising at all that the science community loves the show. I can't understand the hate for that show either, maybe it's from people who don't know what a 'science' is...
 
2013-09-03 03:05:22 PM  
Some much MB hate... it's a goddamn TV show people. It's not "real science" obviously. Don't take it seriously and if you don't find it entertaining, don't watch it. I do sometimes yell at the TV at their methods but in the end I'm mostly watching for Kari and so I can watch their high-speed explosions frame-by-frame.

I totally buy their conclusions on this myth. Imagine you are a dude with a polished metal shield trying to angle the light at a moving ship some few hundreds of yards away. How do you even aim the goddamn thing, let alone keep your light aimed at a single point on a ship that is both moving through the water and constantly bobbing up and down in the swell. And even if you can manage that trick, how could you possibly do it in tandem with a few hundred other people all doing the same thing? With the entire ship illuminated you wouldn't be able to see the light from your shield painting the ship, assuming your shield is a good enough mirror to even cause a visible spot (which I think is highly doubtful).
 
2013-09-03 03:05:37 PM  

Mikey1969: Guadior42: Mikey1969: Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]

Her and her stand in when the babies are on the way(Jessi Combs) are She is the best parts of the show. The two dudes on the build team are cool, but Kari and Jessi makes it worth tuning in for...

FTFY

No you didn't. Jessi Combs is not only hot, but she actually knows what she's doing. Kari was a street performer they hired for the show. Combs could actually do build out with any of the guys on the show.


Actually, I believe Kari was working for Jamie @ M5 prior to the show, and they actually just asked her if she would be the "butt model" for the 'Stuck to an airplane toilet seat' episode.. She didn't come back to the show for a year or so, but continued to work for M5 in the meantime.

Yeah, just checked IMDB and between 7 March 2003 and 8 June 2004, she was just an M5 employee.
 
2013-09-03 03:07:15 PM  

Gosling: Mikey1969: No you didn't. Jessi Combs is not only hot, but she actually knows what she's doing. Kari was a street performer they hired for the show. Combs could actually do build out with any of the guys on the show.

Well, now Kari's been building stuff for the show for 10 years. Do those not count?


She really just dresses it up. Grant does most of the design and Tori(Or however they spell his name) does most of the heavy lifting. Kari may be able to assist, and might even be able to do some welding at this point, but she can't hold a candle to the stuff Jessi Combs can build. Watched that girl spec out and build an entire roll cage on her 4x4 show...
 
2013-09-03 03:07:57 PM  

Kit Fister: ThatDarkFellow: Every time they did Archimedes mirror they went about it in the laziest, most half-assed way possible.

Yes, because they were supposed to be superserious about it in order to actually prove something in the most stringent way possible. *eyeroll*


Heh, what? If they weren't going to take it seriously then they shouldn't have bothered.
 
2013-09-03 03:08:10 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

[blogs.babble.com image 286x400]

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs


same
 
2013-09-03 03:08:30 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: J. Frank Parnell: If the Mythbusters subjugated themselves to a couple physicists the show would have more scientific sway.

And you would never see it again after that episode.  Its ratings would drop into the toilet and the execs would pull it.

As they should.

If I want rigorous peer-reviewed science, I'll read a peer-reviewed journal.  It's not like there's a shortage of them.

Mythbusters is about a mindset that is sorely needed in the general population - that testing an idea is actually good.  Many organizations would prefer that people don't do this and take things at face value "because we told you so."


I'd probably watch it, but woe to any business model that includes me.

Regarding your second point.
 
2013-09-03 03:09:05 PM  

GameSprocket: OnlyM3: They get more wrong than right. A box of sock monkeys and a soiled diaper would get better results than these two morons.

I started watching the show with my 7 year old.

The Myth Buster:
1. Clearly state the hypothesis being tested.
2. Explain how they are going to test the theory and often, the limitations of their experiment.
3. They often graph out the results.
4. Then they get goofy and blow crap up.

I want my son to learn items 1-3 in that list. He likes item 4. I am not so interested in the scientific rigor of their experiments as I am in how they demonstrate the methodology.



That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.
 
2013-09-03 03:09:40 PM  

Paris1127: but known by many Londoners as the "Walkie Talkie" for its distinctive shape.

[www.skyscrapernews.com image 572x643]
This is supposed to look like a walkie-talkie? I think this skyscraper in Santiago is way more walkie-talkie-esque:
[www.celebratebig.com image 425x640]

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.


Is that first pic shoppped??
 
2013-09-03 03:11:18 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: The beauty of Archimedes mirror weapon was that he just had to say that it worked.  Spread the news around the ancient world about this fearsome weapon that burns ships to a crisp.  The point is deterrence, not functionality.  It's not like they had the internet or TV news reports back then, everything was word of mouth.  You could dummy up one fake demonstration, burn a few ships in the harbor, claim the weapon destroyed them, and sit back in safety for generations.


That works OK until the Romans show up. The Honey Badgers of the ancient Med did not care about your wunderwaffen.
 
2013-09-03 03:12:44 PM  

ThatDarkFellow: Kit Fister: ThatDarkFellow: Every time they did Archimedes mirror they went about it in the laziest, most half-assed way possible.

Yes, because they were supposed to be superserious about it in order to actually prove something in the most stringent way possible. *eyeroll*

Heh, what? If they weren't going to take it seriously then they shouldn't have bothered.


Given the conditions they were going for, I'd say they did it pretty damn well. They're akin to a backyard science fair. If you want to see the tests done to the level of, say, JPL or MIT, then by all means, tune into their productions.
 
2013-09-03 03:14:20 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

[blogs.babble.com image 286x400]

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs


don't forget about the post pregnancy boobs?
 
2013-09-03 03:14:21 PM  

Mikey1969: A: Doing bad science and calling it science does more harm than good. Think of how many people out there just plop their kids down in front of this show without bothering to tell the kids that it's crappy science...


Well of course, but that's when parenting actually steps in (like you and your stepson). The kids who become interested in science without the parental guidance are still interested in science, they'll just have to be corrected at the institutional level for their methods.

I still stand by the fact that any science is better than no science. Even crappy science leads the way to figuring out correct science (provided the person has the dedication to do so).
 
2013-09-03 03:14:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Cyclometh: PanicMan: And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.

That wasn't in the story, though.


Sure.  And I don't fault the Mythbusters for that, their experiement was very interesting and well done.  But just because something didn't happen exactly as the story, doesn't mean there's not some truth somewhere, or other possibilites they couldn't or didn't consider.  They maybe had a week or two to plan, resource, set up, and shoot the episode.    So for the most part I have very few issues with the show.

In my line of work we would call what they do "developmental testing".  And for not being testers, they do it very well.  The next step is "operational testing", which throws in all those real world effects (normal sailors, war conditions, multiple ships, etc).  But we would also classify this as "live fire" which you DO NOT do operationally, for obvious reasons.
 
2013-09-03 03:17:00 PM  
for the lulz...

news.gaeatimes.com
 
2013-09-03 03:19:13 PM  
Slight threadjack:

Anyone else find it funny that there's more history in one episode of Drunk History on Comedy Central than the entire line-up on the History channel?
 
2013-09-03 03:21:07 PM  
i just realized that most of the farkers hating on MYTHBUSTERS seems to have watch an awful lot of MYTHBUSTERS over the years

of course the same could be said of farkers hating on pretty much anything entertaining...like family guy and big bang theory
 
2013-09-03 03:22:11 PM  

capt.hollister: viscountalpha: capt.hollister: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...


There are situations that are IMPOSSIBLE to replicate in a lab. Strange shiat happens and its the stuff of legends.

They are not, but even a genius like Archimedes could still only have used technology which existed in his day. There is no magic.


Things Archimedes invented or discovered during the bronze age:
Catapult
compound pulley system
screw pump
a planetarium
naval engineering
the basis of modern geometry, calculus and physics
pi

Things the Mythbusters have invented in the Modern Era:

State of the art of architecture and craftsmanship during Archimede's era
www.mlahanas.de
 24.media.tumblr.com

The Mythbusters qualifications as: master builders; master coppersmiths; military sappers:


Archimedes' Human Capital:

25,000 men under arms(conservatively- Syracuse had a population of 300,000 when it was beseiged, and Archimedes was captain of the defenses)

The Mythbusters Human Capital:

two pairs of tits, four helpless dorks, and people from the internet that want to be on TV

I'd say Archimedes was sliiiightly more able to build a death ray than the Walrus and the Crapenter were.
 
2013-09-03 03:22:23 PM  

Southern100: Mikey1969: Guadior42: Mikey1969: Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]

Her and her stand in when the babies are on the way(Jessi Combs) are She is the best parts of the show. The two dudes on the build team are cool, but Kari and Jessi makes it worth tuning in for...

FTFY

No you didn't. Jessi Combs is not only hot, but she actually knows what she's doing. Kari was a street performer they hired for the show. Combs could actually do build out with any of the guys on the show.

Actually, I believe Kari was working for Jamie @ M5 prior to the show, and they actually just asked her if she would be the "butt model" for the 'Stuck to an airplane toilet seat' episode.. She didn't come back to the show for a year or so, but continued to work for M5 in the meantime.

Yeah, just checked IMDB and between 7 March 2003 and 8 June 2004, she was just an M5 employee.


She's an artist, does sculpting and photography. She graduated with a degree in film and sculpture. She got hired by M5 because she kept hanging around asking for a job. Sure, she's got talent, but the fact that her first paying gig was so they could use a nice mold of her ass says that she might be a little more eye candy than rigorous building capacity. Not that I dislike her in any way, I really like her a lot.
 
2013-09-03 03:22:23 PM  
All I know is that XKCD sucks way more than Mythbusters.
 
2013-09-03 03:22:49 PM  

Mikey1969: That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.


I want them to learn that claims must stand up to testing, which most kids don't get.  Shiat, most ADULTS don't get it.  This isn't about rigor, publishable process, or being "complete" or "uncontaminated".  It's a TV show, not a university science department.  It's about the basic idea that things have to be tested, and claims require evidence and have a basis in fact.

Mythbusters does more for intelligent thought than any television show out there.  Including the survey-style documentaries like Cosmos.  Those are just lectures.  Good lectures, yes, but they're just smart people in exposition.  This gets people interested, gets their hands in the experiments, and shows you how stuff works.  It's not perfect, it's not complete, but it pushes millions of people in the right direction.
 
2013-09-03 03:23:14 PM  

Mikey1969: GameSprocket: OnlyM3: They get more wrong than right. A box of sock monkeys and a soiled diaper would get better results than these two morons.

I started watching the show with my 7 year old.

The Myth Buster:
1. Clearly state the hypothesis being tested.
2. Explain how they are going to test the theory and often, the limitations of their experiment.
3. They often graph out the results.
4. Then they get goofy and blow crap up.

I want my son to learn items 1-3 in that list. He likes item 4. I am not so interested in the scientific rigor of their experiments as I am in how they demonstrate the methodology.


That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.


Yes. It is less than an hour-long show usually covering more than one experiment. Sure they could reproduce the sap-drop experiment and have an extra-special episode every couple of decades when something happens, but I don't think that would interest anyone in Science.

There are not too many programs or movies that inspire anyone by delving into the mundane details of their subject. Even Sagan's "Cosmos" didn't get into the detailed mathematical equations behind the topic of each show. This whole idea of "perfect or nothing" is why STEM education is falling off. The media can't portray anything scientific (or historical) without being nitpicked to death, so these things drop out of the popular culture.
 
2013-09-03 03:23:49 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Well of course, but that's when parenting actually steps in (like you and your stepson). The kids who become interested in science without the parental guidance are still interested in science, they'll just have to be corrected at the institutional level for their methods.

I still stand by the fact that any science is better than no science. Even crappy science leads the way to figuring out correct science (provided the person has the dedication to do so).


I understand that, I'm just worried about the adults out there who think these guys' science technique is 100% perfect, that's where the bad science can be really bad, that's the part that bothers me.
 
2013-09-03 03:25:43 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Slight threadjack:

Anyone else find it funny that there's more history in one episode of Drunk History on Comedy Central than the entire line-up on the History channel?


don't forget the Animal Channel....

http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/mermaids/videos/mermaids.htm
 
2013-09-03 03:25:49 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

[blogs.babble.com image 286x400]

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs


CSB time:  my red headed wife is preggo
 
2013-09-03 03:28:26 PM  

willfullyobscure: I'd say Archimedes was sliiiightly more able to build a death ray than the Walrus and the Crapenter were.


So, Archimedes wins because you (want to) believe he could have done it? And your supporting evidence is a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the question at hand?

Because that sure as shiat sounds like science to me!

No, wait- it sounds like  junk science, that's what I meant. Assuming a conclusion that you like and then finding stuff that looks like it could be supportive of it, but only if you don't look to closely.

/I'll have a steaming glass of that.
 
2013-09-03 03:28:50 PM  

Khellendros: Mikey1969: That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.

I want them to learn that claims must stand up to testing, which most kids don't get.  Shiat, most ADULTS don't get it.  This isn't about rigor, publishable process, or being "complete" or "uncontaminated".  It's a TV show, not a university science department.  It's about the basic idea that things have to be tested, and claims require evidence and have a basis in fact.

Mythbusters does more for intelligent thought than any television show out there.  Including the survey-style documentaries like Cosmos.  Those are just lectures.  Good lectures, yes, but they're just smart people in exposition.  This gets people interested, gets their hands in the experiments, and shows you how stuff works.  It's not perfect, it's not complete, but it pushes millions of people in the right direction.


But they "pass" and "fail" stuff based on bad methods. That does nothing to promote science. It's like lighting your farts, calling it 'science' and leaving it at that. Their testing would include whose farts were flammable and whose weren't.
 
2013-09-03 03:29:34 PM  
I don't get why architecture firms think this is such an impossible thing to think of happening.  The Disney Concert Hall was totally death raying shiat in LA when it was first constructed.  They had to sandblast it and put up netting.
 
2013-09-03 03:30:07 PM  

Mikey1969: Their testing would include whose farts were flammable and whose weren't.


Which, juvenile chortling aside, could actually lead to other questions and answers- like how diet affects it, etc.

Careful, or you'll find yourself doing science!
 
2013-09-03 03:30:35 PM  

Mikey1969: scottydoesntknow: Well of course, but that's when parenting actually steps in (like you and your stepson). The kids who become interested in science without the parental guidance are still interested in science, they'll just have to be corrected at the institutional level for their methods.

I still stand by the fact that any science is better than no science. Even crappy science leads the way to figuring out correct science (provided the person has the dedication to do so).

I understand that, I'm just worried about the adults out there who think these guys' science technique is 100% perfect, that's where the bad science can be really bad, that's the part that bothers me.


The people who believe their science is 100% perfect will never do anything to affect actual science because their belief in how the scientific process works is wrong. They'll either end up educating themselves or giving up.
 
2013-09-03 03:30:56 PM  

Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]


Good lord! Where is that from and are there more?
 
2013-09-03 03:31:10 PM  

scottydoesntknow: They'll either end up educating themselves or giving up.


ITT: The third option.
 
2013-09-03 03:34:46 PM  

johnny_vegas: scottydoesntknow: Slight threadjack:

Anyone else find it funny that there's more history in one episode of Drunk History on Comedy Central than the entire line-up on the History channel?

don't forget the Animal Channel....

http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/mermaids/videos/mermaids.htm


Pffft, Discovery also did that during Shark Week with the whole Megalodon fiasco. I would call them a bunch of dumbasses, but that award goes to the countless people who actually believed it was a real documentary and there are still Megalodon sharks that live in the oceans.
 
2013-09-03 03:38:00 PM  
I can't believe no one has posted the pick about the pull out method being busted.
 
2013-09-03 03:38:41 PM  
Ugh. Pic. Not pick.
 
2013-09-03 03:42:01 PM  

Cyclometh: willfullyobscure: I'd say Archimedes was sliiiightly more able to build a death ray than the Walrus and the Crapenter were.

So, Archimedes wins because you (want to) believe he could have done it? And your supporting evidence is a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the question at hand?

Because that sure as shiat sounds like science to me!

No, wait- it sounds like  junk science, that's what I meant. Assuming a conclusion that you like and then finding stuff that looks like it could be supportive of it, but only if you don't look to closely.

/I'll have a steaming glass of that.


So you have no cogent response to any part of my hypothesis that Archimedes possessed not only the resources, the demonstrable ability to engineer sophisticated large scale projects in any medium available, and the man power, not so say the innate mental ability, to create the death ray of legend,  and the two guys running a low budget reality tv show where not able to successfully formulate or test a comparable experiment?

How interesting.
 
2013-09-03 03:42:29 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: J. Frank Parnell: If the Mythbusters subjugated themselves to a couple physicists the show would have more scientific sway.

And you would never see it again after that episode.  Its ratings would drop into the toilet and the execs would pull it.

As they should.

If I want rigorous peer-reviewed science, I'll read a peer-reviewed journal.  It's not like there's a shortage of them.

Mythbusters is about a mindset that is sorely needed in the general population - that testing an idea is actually good.  Many organizations would prefer that people don't do this and take things at face value "because we told you so."


Exactly - the show isn't about scientific rigour.  It's about evidence based thinking - asking questions, forming (often multiple) hypothesis, testing them, refining (or abandoning) the hypothesis and/or experiment based on the results - rinse and repeat.   That's the core of science.  I also love the fact that they will often respond to criticism of their techniques and conclusions with an open mind and revisit past experiments with new information and techniques - this is something that some real scientific communities could do more effectively.

The one thing I wish they would do better would be to discuss the limitations of their experiments.  The error bounds are as important as the data point - the lack of rigour doesn't necessarily bother me if the limitations are understood.  And I could certainly do their homework a little better on some questions.  But those are teachable moments for my kids & I - explaining why the experiment may not really be proving things one way or another - and then they come back with a followup episode exploring those points reinforcing the whole evidence thinking bit (and making dad look good).

Could test these "myths" with all the scientific rigour, significant number of trials, well done error analysis, etc.?  Sure - but nobody would watch it or pay for it.
 
2013-09-03 03:43:27 PM  

Mikey1969: That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.


No.  I want my kid to have their interest sparked.  I would like the real teachers in their life (myself included) to show them the proper scientific methods when they do their own experiments.  I certainly don't expect an hour TV entertainment show to do anything more than start the learning process.  I also love when my kids see them do revisits.  It introduces them to the basic fact that an experiment can (in fact must) be used to refine a hypothesis and be done again.  Once again, it is the job of the real teachers (who hopefully spend more than one hour a week teaching their subject) to teach them the extent that this must be done in "real" science.
 
2013-09-03 03:43:56 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

[blogs.babble.com image 286x400]

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs


bigstickcombat.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-03 03:44:01 PM  

willfullyobscure: capt.hollister: viscountalpha: capt.hollister: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...


There are situations that are IMPOSSIBLE to replicate in a lab. Strange shiat happens and its the stuff of legends.

They are not, but even a genius like Archimedes could still only have used technology which existed in his day. There is no magic.

Things Archimedes invented or discovered during the bronze age:
Catapult
compound pulley system
screw pump
a planetarium
naval engineering
the basis of modern geometry, calculus and physics
pi

Things the Mythbusters have invented in the Modern Era:

State of the art of architecture and craftsmanship during Archimede's era
[www.mlahanas.de image 672x504]
 [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

The Mythbusters qualifications as: master builders; master coppersmiths; military sappers:


Archimedes' Human Capital:

25,000 men under arms(conservatively- Syracuse had a population of 300,000 when it was beseiged, and Archimedes was captain of the defenses)

The Mythbusters Human Capital:

two pairs of tits, four helpless dorks, and people from the internet that want to be on TV

I'd say Archimedes was sliiiightly more able to build a death ray than the Walrus and the Crapenter were.


Are you retarded? Yeah, right, the manpower is just the few in front of the camera. They don't have an entire team that they've shown behind the scenes in multiple myths. Did you also know that Ty Pennington build every god damn house himself with only a single hammer and some nails that Sears donated?
 
2013-09-03 03:45:04 PM  

GameSprocket: Mikey1969: GameSprocket: OnlyM3: They get more wrong than right. A box of sock monkeys and a soiled diaper would get better results than these two morons.

I started watching the show with my 7 year old.

The Myth Buster:
1. Clearly state the hypothesis being tested.
2. Explain how they are going to test the theory and often, the limitations of their experiment.
3. They often graph out the results.
4. Then they get goofy and blow crap up.

I want my son to learn items 1-3 in that list. He likes item 4. I am not so interested in the scientific rigor of their experiments as I am in how they demonstrate the methodology.


That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.

Yes. It is less than an hour-long show usually covering more than one experiment. Sure they could reproduce the sap-drop experiment and have an extra-special episode every couple of decades when something happens, but I don't think that would interest anyone in Science.

There are not too many programs or movies that inspire anyone by delving into the mundane details of their subject. Even Sagan's "Cosmos" didn't get into the detailed mathematical equations behind the topic of each show. This whole idea of "perfect or nothing" is why STEM education is falling off. The media can't portray anything scientific (or historical) without being nitpicked to death, so these things drop out of the popular culture.


This. Unfortunately when it comes to science, it is essentially a religion whereby the zealots biatch and moan if it's not exactly perfect and executed with MIT laboratory conditions.
 
2013-09-03 03:46:00 PM  

CrazyCracka420: IdBeCrazyIf: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

[blogs.babble.com image 286x400]

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs

CSB time:  my red headed wife is preggo


mmm.  Gingermilk.

Just sayin.
 
2013-09-03 03:48:16 PM  

baronbloodbath: "Wait, what?"

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]


Nicely done!
 
2013-09-03 03:56:29 PM  

CrazyCracka420: CSB time: my red headed wife is preggo


Pics or it didn't happen

ManateeGag: don't forget about the post pregnancy boobs?


This week on a very special MythBusters, we're going to testing someones bust. Does being left handed or right handed change the amount of milk a breast produces on that same dominate side?
 
2013-09-03 03:59:07 PM  

mbillips: Uh, have you seen polished bronze? At any distance at all, you'd barely notice the reflection. Even a modern lighthouse isn't blinding, at night, at any range over a mile. You have to factor in the RANGE at which Archimedes' weapon would have to work. In order to focus on a target at 100 meters, you'd need a mirror diameter of 200 meters, and unless you had tiered bleachers to work with, you'd have only a narrow band of focused light. And if the ships were closer than 100 meters, under oars, they'd cover the distance to the dock in a matter of seconds. Triremes are FAST. At better than 10 knots in a sprint, you'd have less than 20 seconds to start a fire. Even if you did set it on fire, it would be alongside and unloaded before it became dangerous to the ship. And all the other ships you WEREN'T focusing on would have unloaded their marines.

This one is too ludicrous to NEED busting.


Throwing both science and mythbusting completely aside, what I find most fascinating is the question of how this myth originated in the first place and why it is so pervasive. Something so obviously absurd and unworkable was accepted as part of the historical record for millennia. It's not like this account was alongside stories of Greek armies riding pegesuses..pegusi.. flying horses.

There are multiple historic references to Archimedes' defending Greece against the Romans with contraptions and and that he was responsible for setting their fleet on fire. Two second century A.D. writers, Lucian of Samosata and Galen of Pergamon, do say that Archimedes set fire to the Roman ships, but don't say exactly how. Zonares and Tzetzes writing in the 12th century quoted from an earlier work (now lost) called the Siege of Syracuse and said:

"At last, in an incredible manner, he burned up the whole Roman fleet. For by tilting a kind of mirror he ignited the air from the beam and kindled a great flame, the whole of which he directed at the ships at anchor in the path of the fire, until he consumed them all."

"[Archimedes] constructed a sort of hexagonal mirror. He placed at proper distances from the mirror other smaller mirrors of the same kind, which were moved by means of their hinges and certain plates of metal. He placed it amid the rays of the sun at noon, both in summer and winter. The rays being reflected by this, a frightful fiery kindling was excited on the ships, and it reduced them to ashes, from the distance of a bow shot. Thus the old man baffled Marcellus, by means of his inventions."


Note that there are specifics provided that involve neither polished mirrors held by soldiers or a single, giant parabolic mirror, though these are the most often presented options. Even the most illiterate peasant would likely have called bullshiat, and yet this account was treated as history, not myth for thousands of years. Even in the 12th century, and again in the 18th and even today, learned people are trying to figure out how it could have been done on the assumption that it MAY HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

"In 1973 a Greek scientist, Dr. Ioannis Sakkas, became curious about whether Archimedes could really have used a "burning glass" to destroy the Roman fleet and set up an experiment involving 60 Greek sailors each using an oblong 3' by 5' flat mirror to focus light on a wooden rowboat 160 feet away. According to sources he had no problem getting the wood to catch fire very quickly."

"In 2009, as an exercise in design, a class at MIT decided to try and reproduce the Archimedes weapon using 127 one foot by one foot mirrors. They were successful in getting a mocked up ship made out of red oak to start burning after ten minutes of exposure to direct sun."

I am MORE curious about the phenomenon whereby a patently absurd weapon, which has not been credibly reproduced in over two thousand years, persists as a possibly plausible weapon which people keep trying to "figure out" for thousands of years. It can't possibly work, and yet....
 
2013-09-03 04:01:49 PM  

jst3p: huntercr: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


/Old Episodes of Mr Wizard basically cover the same ground. Mr. Wizard's intended audience was squarely aimed at children though... rather than adults that think that Big Bang theory is really funny becuase.. you know... science!

Big Bang theory is very funny because they have great writers and an ensemble cast that "works". Your comment is like saying "Cheers" was funny because.. you know...  beer! I demand you retract your disparaging remark.


come on now...  be honest. The show is only the lightest of science/nerd/geek concepts/terminology and language. It's devoid of any real collegiate nerd/geek/science culture. It's so frequently the "least common denominator" humor ( but science! )  it's a little sad.
I challenge you to alternate episodes of "That 70's show" and "Big Bang Theory".
Try to spot the similarities...if you strip away the light surface of character background and tack on quirks, I have a hard time telling them apart.

I guess the thing about BBT that disappoints me is that it doesn't seem to even try to embrace real geekdom, or universe of wonderfully eccentric people in the world of hard science majors...  What they do do, seems so... hollow.  Granted, It is a sitcom and is  expected to keep the laughs running, but this   It's an area ripe for fantastic comedy and yet to me there's more true nerd/geek in any given old episode of News Radio than most episodes of BBT.
 
2013-09-03 04:02:15 PM  
What is the scientific method?

Ask a Question

Do Background Research

Construct a Hypothesis

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

Communicate Your Results

Do they do this on Mythbusters? Yes, in its simplest form they absolutely do. Therefore, they are following the scientific process.

Now the real argument is "does the experimental procedure have sufficient rigor to provide constant value and reproducibility?" In some experiment the answer is yes, on others it is clearly no. It really depends on the complexity of the hypothesis they are testing.I would say they do some great pilot studies, but I wouldn't let them test pharmaceuticals.


The need for rigor and constant value change based on the risk.If I am studying if raccoons will change their home range based on the availability of food, I don't need a control to run an ANOVA. What would that look like, a population denied any food? Food availability is the test treament here.


If I am testing whether a man-made chemical can cure cancer without seriously harming or killing the patient, I better have enough rigor to assure that under reproduction, the results maintain a constant value. The reality is


/funny thing is, the attacks on Mythbusters are the same as scientists make on each other

//as a scientist, I hypothesize this give validity to the claim they are scientists

///Control Group slashies for scientific rigor
 
2013-09-03 04:03:06 PM  

willfullyobscure: So you have no cogent response to any part of my hypothesis that Archimedes possessed not only the resources, the demonstrable ability to engineer sophisticated large scale projects in any medium available, and the man power, not so say the innate mental ability, to create the death ray of legend,


I'm sorry, in what world did I need to prove YOUR hypothesis?
 
2013-09-03 04:03:32 PM  

imnotadoctor: Bag-o-Nugs: FarkinNortherner: I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

They consistently do bad science.  I find the show entertaining, but their methods are abysmal.  Also, they sometimes confuse their ineptitude as scientists with busting a myth.  Then there's that whole argument people have that they aren't actually exploring myths so much as examining/recreating scenes from movies.

Bad science?! Really?! It's a farking TV show on the Discovery Channel! Not exactly a peer-reviewed science journal, now is it? Anyway, I am pretty sure the whole idea of the show is to get kids interested in science. They aren't exactly rigorous, but it's 45 minute show and I am sure producers have much to say about the content.

ITT: Butt-hurt armchair scientists.


Yes, really.  It's bad science.  Regardless, I was simply explaining some of the gripes people have about the show.  I did also say that I find the show entertaining.  Kudos to them for at least making ideas and experimentation accessible/entertaining to the unwashed masses and all that.

I'm not really sure how my statements qualify as butthurt, nor do I do my scientific research from an armchair so much as in the field.  Well played though I guess.  At least you elicited a response from me.
 
2013-09-03 04:04:44 PM  
Mythbusters sucks.  Call me when they're willing submit their findings to peer reviewed journals for analysis like REAL scientists!
 
2013-09-03 04:04:57 PM  
The really funny thing is real adult scientists either like or don't care much about shows like Myth Busters or The big bang Theory.  They either like that more people will actually pay attention after asking about their job or are in the field and they are lucky to have a shower once a month let alone cable TV.  With all the other crap on TV those two shows are pretty goddamned low on the scale of things that any rational human being could possibly find objection with.

I don't really like either show, and I don't generally find the time to 'hate' any TV show, and if I did it sure as hell wouldn't be one of those.  Seriously though if you don't like something, don't watch it.  I don't sit around watching honey boo boo or jersey shore just so I can impress some other internet users with how sophisticated I am because I hate the show.

TLDR:  There are much much worse shows on TV to get all huffy about and it's stupid to rail against any TV show anyway.
 
2013-09-03 04:05:26 PM  

Cyclometh: Even with optimal conditions and modern mirrors, it wasn't possible to do it with people holding the reflectors.


They'll eventually set the ship on fire, even if it takes mirrors with shaped charges blowing molten bronze at the boat.

Or they'll have the builders of this building construct their next test.
 
2013-09-03 04:07:13 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Great headline. Not sure about this whole 'REPEAT' thing, though.

Paris1127: This is supposed to look like a walkie-talkie?

Ever since 30 St. Mary Axe, which was rapidly gaining the moniker 'the dildo' until a bit of nimble PR coined 'the gherkin', new buildings in London seem to acquire vaguely descriptive, innocuous, nicknames before they're even out of the ground.

It's also a little stumpier than that rendering, in order (notionally) to reduce the visual impact on the nearby St. Paul's Cathedral.


30 ST Mary Axw:
3.bp.blogspot.com

That really does look like an expensive vibrator discretely sold in a high-end lingerie boutique.  But really if you want a building that actually looks like a DILDO as opposed to a generic sex toy you need the Chinese People's Daily Press building:
www.taipeitimes.com
 
2013-09-03 04:07:58 PM  
huntercr:

I guess the thing about BBT that disappoints me is that it doesn't seem to even try to embrace real geekdom,

I know, right?  It's almost like they actually need the majority of the audience to get the jokes or something.

/farking crazy.
 
2013-09-03 04:09:31 PM  

Cyclometh: willfullyobscure: So you have no cogent response to any part of my hypothesis that Archimedes possessed not only the resources, the demonstrable ability to engineer sophisticated large scale projects in any medium available, and the man power, not so say the innate mental ability, to create the death ray of legend,

I'm sorry, in what world did I need to prove YOUR hypothesis?


This world, son. You need to DISPROVE it, or your argument is made worthless by the exposition of your ignorance and faulty logic.
 
2013-09-03 04:10:57 PM  

BafflerMeal: I was watching a local tv teens show about science one Saturday morning. The kids were broken out into teams measuring the gait of show horses


upload.wikimedia.org

Now that's old-school science
 
2013-09-03 04:12:04 PM  

willfullyobscure: Cyclometh: willfullyobscure: So you have no cogent response to any part of my hypothesis that Archimedes possessed not only the resources, the demonstrable ability to engineer sophisticated large scale projects in any medium available, and the man power, not so say the innate mental ability, to create the death ray of legend,

I'm sorry, in what world did I need to prove YOUR hypothesis?

This world, son. You need to DISPROVE it, or your argument is made worthless by the exposition of your ignorance and faulty logic.


Way to shoot your whole argument in the foot by making yourself look like a complete ass.
 
2013-09-03 04:12:12 PM  

willfullyobscure: Cyclometh: willfullyobscure: So you have no cogent response to any part of my hypothesis that Archimedes possessed not only the resources, the demonstrable ability to engineer sophisticated large scale projects in any medium available, and the man power, not so say the innate mental ability, to create the death ray of legend,

I'm sorry, in what world did I need to prove YOUR hypothesis?

This world, son. You need to DISPROVE it, or your argument is made worthless by the exposition of your ignorance and faulty logic.


I can't tell if you're trolling or impossibly stupid.
 
2013-09-03 04:12:14 PM  

Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...


http://xkcd.com/397/

/oblig
 
2013-09-03 04:12:40 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...


Rev. Skarekroe: Mythbusters sucks.  Call me when they're willing submit their findings to peer reviewed journals for analysis like REAL scientists!


etc etc

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-09-03 04:13:06 PM  

willfullyobscure: This world, son. You need to DISPROVE it, or your argument is made worthless by the exposition of your ignorance and faulty logic


So... you have a hypothesis, and I have to disprove it, or it is assumed to be true?

That's not how it works.

And frankly, if the best you've got is "Archimedes was smart and had lots of people to help him", you've got a long way to go to demonstrate any support for your idea.
 
2013-09-03 04:14:01 PM  

Egoy3k: Way to shoot your whole argument in the foot by making yourself look like a complete ass.


Well, to be fair he didn't have much of an argument to begin with.
 
2013-09-03 04:14:20 PM  

huntercr: jst3p: huntercr: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


/Old Episodes of Mr Wizard basically cover the same ground. Mr. Wizard's intended audience was squarely aimed at children though... rather than adults that think that Big Bang theory is really funny becuase.. you know... science!

Big Bang theory is very funny because they have great writers and an ensemble cast that "works". Your comment is like saying "Cheers" was funny because.. you know...  beer! I demand you retract your disparaging remark.

come on now...  be honest. The show is only the lightest of science/nerd/geek concepts/terminology and language. It's devoid of any real collegiate nerd/geek/science culture. It's so frequently the "least common denominator" humor ( but science! )  it's a little sad.
I challenge you to alternate episodes of "That 70's show" and "Big Bang Theory".
Try to spot the similarities...if you strip away the light surface of character background and tack on quirks, I have a hard time telling them apart.

I guess the thing about BBT that disappoints me is that it doesn't seem to even try to embrace real geekdom, or universe of wonderfully eccentric people in the world of hard science majors...  What they do do, seems so... hollow.  Granted, It is a sitcom and is  expected to keep the laughs running, but this   It's an area ripe for fantastic comedy and yet to me there's more true nerd/geek in any given old episode of News Radio than most episodes of BBT.


And yet some of the brightest minds on this planet love it and laud it for getting people interested in science.

And what exactly is "real geekdom"? Can you provide a definition? Because I've found that any person who uses the "Well it's not what I consider X" is just one of those sad purists who hates the fact that they're bringing science fiction out of the basements and making it accessible to the general population.
 
2013-09-03 04:14:58 PM  

Cyclometh: willfullyobscure: This world, son. You need to DISPROVE it, or your argument is made worthless by the exposition of your ignorance and faulty logic

So... you have a hypothesis, and I have to disprove it, or it is assumed to be true?

That's not how it works.

And frankly, if the best you've got is "Archimedes was smart and had lots of people to help him", you've got a long way to go to demonstrate any support for your idea.


The correct answer was, "There's a dragon in my garage."
 
2013-09-03 04:15:13 PM  

Magorn: But really if you want a building that actually looks like a DILDO as opposed to a generic sex toy you need the Chinese People's Daily Press building:


I dunno, that looks a lot more like a Cawk Cage than a dildo.

Or at least as they've been described to me...
 
2013-09-03 04:16:47 PM  

GameSprocket: There are not too many programs or movies that inspire anyone by delving into the mundane details of their subject. Even Sagan's "Cosmos" didn't get into the detailed mathematical equations behind the topic of each show. This whole idea of "perfect or nothing" is why STEM education is falling off. The media can't portray anything scientific (or historical) without being nitpicked to death, so these things drop out of the popular culture.


Dude, have you ever tried to understand any of the equations used in astrophysics?  Astrophysics is farking hard, even if you already have a PhD in math or some other branch of physics.  If your target audience was people who could get anything from flashing the equations on the screen, Cosmos would have had about 80 people watching it, max.
 
2013-09-03 04:17:08 PM  

jruland: IdBeCrazyIf: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

[blogs.babble.com image 286x400]

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs

[bigstickcombat.files.wordpress.com image 450x332]


I'm not in any way in favor of smacking a woman, but damn if there isn't a look of utter satisfaction on that dudes face....
 
2013-09-03 04:17:53 PM  

China White Tea: Cyclometh: willfullyobscure: This world, son. You need to DISPROVE it, or your argument is made worthless by the exposition of your ignorance and faulty logic

So... you have a hypothesis, and I have to disprove it, or it is assumed to be true?

That's not how it works.

And frankly, if the best you've got is "Archimedes was smart and had lots of people to help him", you've got a long way to go to demonstrate any support for your idea.

The correct answer was, "There's a dragon in my garage."


How the hell did you know that?

/his name is George.
//he's a nice dragon.
 
2013-09-03 04:18:14 PM  

willfullyobscure: capt.hollister: viscountalpha: capt.hollister: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...


There are situations that are IMPOSSIBLE to replicate in a lab. Strange shiat happens and its the stuff of legends.

They are not, but even a genius like Archimedes could still only have used technology which existed in his day. There is no magic.

Things Archimedes invented or discovered during the bronze age:
Catapult
compound pulley system
screw pump
a planetarium
naval engineering
the basis of modern geometry, calculus and physics
pi

Things the Mythbusters have invented in the Modern Era:

State of the art of architecture and craftsmanship during Archimede's era
[www.mlahanas.de image 672x504]
 [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

The Mythbusters qualifications as: master builders; master coppersmiths; military sappers:


Archimedes' Human Capital:

25,000 men under arms(conservatively- Syracuse had a population of 300,000 when it was beseiged, and Archimedes was captain of the defenses)

The Mythbusters Human Capital:

two pairs of tits, four helpless dorks, and people from the internet that want to be on TV

I'd say Archimedes was sliiiightly more able to build a death ray than the Walrus and the Crapenter were.


Silver/Glass mirrors weren't invented till the 19th century

Polished bronze and/or iron is all they had for mirrors.  They may also have used glass beakers w/ water for optical lenses, they however did not have anything resembling modern day lenses
 
2013-09-03 04:19:26 PM  

Cyclometh: Gosling: That's the same conclusion Jamie reached upon failure #3. It doesn't need to set you on fire if you can't see where you're going or where you're supposed to be shooting.

Indeed. And as someone else pointed out upthread, it's even plausible a fire got started accidentally by someone blinded and panicked on a ship. Although I'm not sure if navies at the time would have had open flames on board; mostly navies were used to ram or board, and fire would be inherently dangerous on a wooden ship.


It is, but navies would occasionally defend by launching a burning ship into enemy lines.
 
2013-09-03 04:21:38 PM  

Magorn: FarkinNortherner: Great headline. Not sure about this whole 'REPEAT' thing, though.

Paris1127: This is supposed to look like a walkie-talkie?

Ever since 30 St. Mary Axe, which was rapidly gaining the moniker 'the dildo' until a bit of nimble PR coined 'the gherkin', new buildings in London seem to acquire vaguely descriptive, innocuous, nicknames before they're even out of the ground.

It's also a little stumpier than that rendering, in order (notionally) to reduce the visual impact on the nearby St. Paul's Cathedral.

30 ST Mary Axw:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 475x555]

That really does look like an expensive vibrator discretely sold in a high-end lingerie boutique.  But really if you want a building that actually looks like a DILDO as opposed to a generic sex toy you need the Chinese People's Daily Press building:
[www.taipeitimes.com image 480x315]


I submit to you the Blue Sky Tower in Ulaanbataar, Outer Mongolia:
www.blueskytower.mn
The locals call it "the boob building."
 
2013-09-03 04:25:44 PM  
I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!
 
2013-09-03 04:31:08 PM  
willfullyobscure:
State of the art of architecture and craftsmanship during Archimede's era

They were way ahead of London.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-03 04:31:18 PM  

RobSeace: /I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!


Their forum thread on it was something like 500+ pages of people misinterpreting the other sides argument.
 
2013-09-03 04:34:11 PM  

bhcompy: Given the concave design, did the architect not see this coming?  Is this architect a moron?


But you're being redundant.
 
2013-09-03 04:37:43 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: mbillips: Uh, have you seen polished bronze? At any distance at all, you'd barely notice the reflection. Even a modern lighthouse isn't blinding, at night, at any range over a mile. You have to factor in the RANGE at which Archimedes' weapon would have to work. In order to focus on a target at 100 meters, you'd need a mirror diameter of 200 meters, and unless you had tiered bleachers to work with, you'd have only a narrow band of focused light. And if the ships were closer than 100 meters, under oars, they'd cover the distance to the dock in a matter of seconds. Triremes are FAST. At better than 10 knots in a sprint, you'd have less than 20 seconds to start a fire. Even if you did set it on fire, it would be alongside and unloaded before it became dangerous to the ship. And all the other ships you WEREN'T focusing on would have unloaded their marines.

This one is too ludicrous to NEED busting.

Throwing both science and mythbusting completely aside, what I find most fascinating is the question of how this myth originated in the first place and why it is so pervasive. Something so obviously absurd and unworkable was accepted as part of the historical record for millennia. It's not like this account was alongside stories of Greek armies riding pegesuses..pegusi.. flying horses.

There are multiple historic references to Archimedes' defending Greece against the Romans with contraptions and and that he was responsible for setting their fleet on fire. Two second century A.D. writers, Lucian of Samosata and Galen of Pergamon, do say that Archimedes set fire to the Roman ships, but don't say exactly how. Zonares and Tzetzes writing in the 12th century quoted from an earlier work (now lost) called the Siege of Syracuse and said:

"At last, in an incredible manner, he burned up the whole Roman fleet. For by tilting a kind of mirror he ignited the air from the beam and kindled a great flame, the whole of which he directed at the ships at anchor in the path of the fire, until ...


Well, IF it did happen, either:

A) Archimedes actaully used two mirrors and a big ass ruby rod and somehow got his hands on a Xenon flashtube

or
Archidmedes used something more prosaic like seeding the harbor with naptha, and the legend just grew up around that.

And it seems to me there's a dirt simple way of proving this.  If Archimedes did consume the roman fleet at Syracuse then an archaeological expeidition should be able to find some evidence of charred roman-era Triremes in the silt of the modern day harbor, no?
 
2013-09-03 04:37:51 PM  

RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!


I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.
 
2013-09-03 04:40:27 PM  

tripleseven: RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.


But other than that, I do like the show, it's entertainment.

The funniest thing was, after the pickup tailgate MPG myth, they had so much crap from nutbags on the intertubes that they just said "Hey, don't listen to us, drive whichever way you like!"
 
2013-09-03 04:40:48 PM  
Archidmedes used something more prosaic like seeding the harbor with naptha, and the legend just grew up around that.

i.lv3.hbo.com


Who you callin' prosaic?
 
2013-09-03 04:41:50 PM  

tripleseven: 2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.


Matching the speed of what exactly?
 
2013-09-03 04:44:19 PM  

tripleseven: RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.


Prop vs Jet won't matter. The idea is the same.
The speed of the conveyor is irrelevant as the plane is pulled through the air and the wheels are just resting on the ground. You can spin those wheels as much as you want and it won't affect the plane taking off. So if you match the speed of the conveyor to the plane, so what...the wheels just spin twice as fast. Planes fly because of airspeed not ground speed. They couldn't give fark all about it.

Think of a situation where we use a "conveyor" to help a plane fly. An aircraft carrier is a great example. And if you look at how the catapults work, they attach to the landing gear, which is fixed, and thus can pull the plane along. We don't use a conveyor belt because the wheels would just spin.
 
2013-09-03 04:45:06 PM  

tripleseven: RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.


None of which mattered.  It's another one that's really high up on the list of, "shiat that didn't actually need busting."

The wheels are free-spinning.  The thrust is acting against the plane.  The only counterforce caused by the conveyor is equivalent to that which can be imparted on the plane by way of friction between the wheels and the plane, i.e., very little relative to the thrust of the prop (or jet engines).

The net effect is that the wheels just spin a bit faster than they would on a static runway.  Virtually none of that force is transferred to the plane body.
 
2013-09-03 04:45:14 PM  

tripleseven: RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.


You do, of course, know that airplanes, prop and jet, derive locomotion via thrust from the engines pushing against the air, right?
 
2013-09-03 04:46:31 PM  

tripleseven: MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.


1) Totally irrelevant.
2) Also irrelevant.

The plane is not getting its thrust from the wheels; it is pushing against the air. By rolling backwards against its wheels, you're not countering its thrust and the wheels don't provide enough resistance to reduce it appreciably when the engines are pushing on it.
 
2013-09-03 04:47:15 PM  

China White Tea: It's another one that's really high up on the list of, "shiat that didn't actually need busting."


Given how many people passionately argue that the plane would stand still, yes, it needed busting. A myth is a myth based on how many people believe it, not on how false it is.
 
2013-09-03 04:47:26 PM  
Meh.  Mythbusters never had enough people trying it.  How many soldiers are in a legion?  How many legions of highly trained and disciplined men used to shiatty slave work and who were ordered to stand around did Archimedes have at his disposal?  More than a couple of classes of science geeks, that's for sure.
 
2013-09-03 04:49:04 PM  

itsdan: China White Tea: It's another one that's really high up on the list of, "shiat that didn't actually need busting."

Given how many people passionately argue that the plane would stand still, yes, it needed busting. A myth is a myth based on how many people believe it, not on how false it is.


That was one of their better myths that they busted. And was done fairly well.
Lately, they've just regressed into testing movie/tv tie-in "myths" because they get a ton of cash for it.
 
2013-09-03 04:50:31 PM  

scottydoesntknow: huntercr: jst3p: huntercr: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


/Old Episodes of Mr Wizard basically cover the same ground. Mr. Wizard's intended audience was squarely aimed at children though... rather than adults that think that Big Bang theory is really funny becuase.. you know... science!

Big Bang theory is very funny because they have great writers and an ensemble cast that "works". Your comment is like saying "Cheers" was funny because.. you know...  beer! I demand you retract your disparaging remark.

come on now...  be honest. The show is only the lightest of science/nerd/geek concepts/terminology and language. It's devoid of any real collegiate nerd/geek/science culture. It's so frequently the "least common denominator" humor ( but science! )  it's a little sad.
I challenge you to alternate episodes of "That 70's show" and "Big Bang Theory".
Try to spot the similarities...if you strip away the light surface of character background and tack on quirks, I have a hard time telling them apart.

I guess the thing about BBT that disappoints me is that it doesn't seem to even try to embrace real geekdom, or universe of wonderfully eccentric people in the world of hard science majors...  What they do do, seems so... hollow.  Granted, It is a sitcom and is  expected to keep the laughs running, but this   It's an area ripe for fantastic comedy and yet to me there's more true nerd/geek in any given old episode of News Radio than most episodes of BBT.

And yet some of the brightest minds on this planet love it and laud it for getting people interested in science.

And what exactly is "real geekdom"? Can you provide a definition? Because I've found that any person who uses the "Well it's not what I consider X" is just one of those sad purists who hates the fact that they're bringing science fiction out of the basements and making it accessible to the general population.


That's not what I mean at all. BBT always take the cheap shot... the shallow easy joke.
They try for the joke about Uranus instead of saying something like "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the precipitate".  Or if they did do a Uranus joke, it should be what happens to everyone who's ever been a TA in an astronomy course: there's always some idiot who has realized this for the first time, and no matter what you say it will cause a cascade of laughter eventually.

In Gradschool there are amazingly eccentric and eclectic people that you meet. They are themselves fascinating and hilarious. Geekdom/embracing the nerd is different in different disciplines, but there core of it is appreciating the eccentric and embracing it in a warm "laughing with" sort of way. BBT is mostly a  "laughing at", outside looking in sort of humor. It's writers used to sit next to geeks in college in the student union, rather than being geeks.

/It's a little like if they did a show about Fark and the only joke was people saying vodak over and over and laughing to themselves and huffing gold paint.

// oh well.. to each his own
 
2013-09-03 04:50:48 PM  

Magorn: Archidmedes used something more prosaic like seeding the harbor with naptha, and the legend just grew up around that.

And it seems to me there's a dirt simple way of proving this. If Archimedes did consume the roman fleet at Syracuse then an archaeological expeidition should be able to find some evidence of charred roman-era Triremes in the silt of the modern day harbor, no?


I'm inclined to go with the "everyone is right!" explinayion which goes like this:
Archimedes had a buncha stuff in play to fend of the Romans, from giant pincer claws to steam canons, to catapults, to flashing mirrors to greek fire to who knows what all.

So he probably had a mirror contraption to blind the oncoming sailors, and some Greek fire launchers. Those watching the battle would see the mirrors turned on the boats at about the same time they burst into flames, and viola! Burning mirrors.

There isn't really any dispute that the Romans attacked Syracuse in 212 B.C. and were defeated with their navy in fiery ruins. And finding remnants of burned wooden ships underwater from two thousand years ago is no easy thing. Extraordinarily rare that we find even a few scattered pieces, and unlikely if we did that we could conclusively tie it to this particular event anyway.
 
2013-09-03 04:51:01 PM  

kidgenius: Lately, they've just regressed into testing movie/tv tie-in "myths" because they get a ton of cash for it.


Some of those I don't mind, I was surprised how close Titanic was with the way they were supported, and Breaking Bad I liked but maybe just because I like Breaking Bad. The curving bullets one was dumb.
 
2013-09-03 04:52:25 PM  

gadian: Meh.  Mythbusters never had enough people trying it.  How many soldiers are in a legion?  How many legions of highly trained and disciplined men used to shiatty slave work and who were ordered to stand around did Archimedes have at his disposal?  More than a couple of classes of science geeks, that's for sure.


Actually, armies weren't all that large back then compared to modern ones, and most weren't what we consider professional standing armies. Sparta had about 2000 men in its army and it was one of the only "standing armies" there were. Most of the Greek city-states had very small armies unless they were in a war, in which case you had citizen-soldiers making up the bulk of the forces.

These weren't SEAL Team Six. And even at the height of the wars against Persia, the Greeks fielded about 40 thousand men- which took pretty much all of them working together.

And lastly, "legion" is a Roman unit. ;)
 
2013-09-03 04:53:22 PM  
You want science? This guy has it:
www.popsci.com

You want entertaining fails and kablooey?
You get Hyneman and Savage.


What I don't get is their solution. No parking instead of forcing them to fix an inherent flaw in the building design. How many sunburns in the nanny state will it take before the building is demolished in the interest of public safety?

/hot like burning chemicals
 
2013-09-03 04:54:12 PM  

tripleseven: RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.


Not that I really want to get dragged into such an argument, but...

It doesn't matter one bit... The key part of the myth is believing that the conveyor belt matters at all... It doesn't... The wheels on the plane are just free-spinning and if you spin up the belt to match take-off speed, then the wheels will simply spin twice as fast as they normally would on normal ground... Yet, the plane would still continue moving forward at the same speed as it would on normal ground... Because, the propelling action that's moving it forward has nothing to do with the wheels' contact with the ground (minus some minor friction slowing it down a bit)... It's all about air movement, whether with a propellor or a jet engine... So, I can't see how it would make any difference to the outcome...

People think that if you move the conveyor belt fast enough, you'll inhibit the plane's forward motion... If you could do that, yes you'd prevent it from taking off... The thing is though that you can't do that via a mere conveyor belt, no matter HOW fast you spin it... At best, you might cause the wheels to self-destruct from spinning far faster than they were designed to... But, otherwise, they're just going to spin as fast as the belt + however fast the plane's thrust is pushing it forward, and the plane will still move forward roughly as per normal...
 
2013-09-03 04:54:20 PM  

huntercr: In Gradschool there are amazingly eccentric and eclectic people that you meet. They are themselves fascinating and hilarious. Geekdom/embracing the nerd is different in different disciplines, but there core of it is appreciating the eccentric and embracing it in a warm "laughing with" sort of way. BBT is mostly a "laughing at", outside looking in sort of humor. It's writers used to sit next to geeks in college in the student union, rather than being geeks.


What you are looking for would not make it past the pilot episode. Poking fun a geeky stereotypes is going to be much funnier to more people than the show you wish it were.

It can still be funny.
 
2013-09-03 05:04:06 PM  

RobSeace: People think that if you move the conveyor belt fast enough, you'll inhibit the plane's forward motion... If you could do that, yes you'd prevent it from taking off... The thing is though that you can't do that via a mere conveyor belt, no matter HOW fast you spin it... At best, you might cause the wheels to self-destruct from spinning far faster than they were designed to... But, otherwise, they're just going to spin as fast as the belt + however fast the plane's thrust is pushing it forward, and the plane will still move forward roughly as per normal...


I think the reason this shorts so many people's brains is because it's wheels and not a fixed point on the plane. I was able to get a friend to get it this way:

Look at it taken to absurdity: If the plane had its belly on the conveyor belt, it would absolutely prevent flight because the friction of what is now effectively an inverted belt sander could counteract the thrust. Make sense?

But if you put an exactly equally fast conveyor belt on the bottom of the plane, and set that ontop of the ground conveyor belt the plane would stay perfectly still, right?

So imagine that plane with a conveyor belt on it's underside instead of landing gear was perfectly timed with the ground conveyor belt and the plane is nice and stable above the belts spinning away....

Now you turn on the airplane engines and you get thrust. Of course the plane is going to move forward.
 
2013-09-03 05:04:50 PM  

RobSeace: tripleseven: RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.

Not that I really want to get dragged into such an argument, but...

It doesn't matter one bit... The key part of the myth is believing that the conveyor belt matters at all... It doesn't... The wheels on the plane are just free-spinning and if you spin up the belt to match take-off speed, then the wheels will simply spin twice as fast as they normally would on normal ground... Yet, the plane would still continue moving forward at the same speed as it would on normal ground... Because, the propelling action that's moving it forward has nothing to do with the wheels' contact with the ground (minus some minor friction slowing it down a bit)... It's all about air movement, whether with a propellor or a jet engine... So, I can't see how it would make any difference to the outcome...

People think that if you move the conveyor belt fast enough, you'll inhibit the plane's forward motion... If you could do that, yes you'd prevent it from taking off... The thing is though that you can't do that via a mere conveyor belt, no matter HOW fast you spin it... At best, you might cause the wheels to self-destruct from spinning far faster than they were designed to... But, otherwise, they're just going to spin as fast as the belt + however fast the plane's thrust is pushing it forward, and the plane will still move forward roughly as per normal...


Did I say what end of the myth I believed?  No, I never did.  Only that they tested the myth slightly different than I had read it.

However, you and the other 4 intertubes physics GED holders could not wait to prove me wrong.

That's kinda why I love this place, it's things like this that just amaze me.
 
2013-09-03 05:05:28 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse


Somebody is mad they didn't get the internship they wanted....
 
2013-09-03 05:07:23 PM  

itsdan: kidgenius: Lately, they've just regressed into testing movie/tv tie-in "myths" because they get a ton of cash for it.

Some of those I don't mind, I was surprised how close Titanic was with the way they were supported, and Breaking Bad I liked but maybe just because I like Breaking Bad. The curving bullets one was dumb.


The Breaking Bad one was good, only because the premise from the show had "some" basis in reality. It may have been exaggerated, but it wasn't completely made up.

The curved bullet thing had absolutely no farking basis in reality.
 
2013-09-03 05:07:50 PM  
But can we all at least agree that XKCD sucks?
 
2013-09-03 05:09:54 PM  

Cyclometh: And lastly, "legion" is a Roman unit. ;)


what a Roman unit may look like:

www.theoi.com
 
2013-09-03 05:12:02 PM  

tripleseven:
Did I say what end of the myth I believed?  No, I never did.  Only that they tested the myth slightly diffe ...


You said they did it "wrong" which would imply that if they did it "right" then the outcome would be different.

We were merely saying that it doesn't matter, therefore nothing wrong with is being tested differently.
 
2013-09-03 05:12:35 PM  
I just watched the machine gun arrow thingamajig this weekend.  I enjoyed watching it.  that is all.
 
2013-09-03 05:15:13 PM  

huntercr: In Gradschool there are amazingly eccentric and eclectic people that you meet. They are themselves fascinating and hilarious. Geekdom/embracing the nerd is different in different disciplines, but there core of it is appreciating the eccentric and embracing it in a warm "laughing with" sort of way. BBT is mostly a "laughing at", outside looking in sort of humor. It's writers used to sit next to geeks in college in the student union, rather than being geeks.


Odd, how many geeks (myself included) see it as "laughing with".  I laugh at the jokes because I am capable of laughing at myself (several jokes have me and my geek-wife pointing at each other saying "that one's about YOU"), and I see it as plenty warm-hearted, seeing as how the main characters enjoy their lives and are enthusiastic about their pastimes.  Those who disparage them are typically "villains" (like Penny's hulking ex-boyfriend) or idiots.

They try for the joke about Uranus instead of saying something like "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the precipitate".

So?  They sometimes joke about my field (psychology) and often bypass "real" insider jokes ("Why did David Buss become a social psychologist?" "Chicks dig it.") in favor of obvious stuff like Sheldon trying operant conditioning (extra credit points for those who noticed Sheldon's misuse of the term "negative reinforcement" in that episode) and Leonard's mother issues.  Tell the truth; how many "real geeks" do you think would GET the David Buss joke?  Even if "real geeks" were the target audience, the jokes still have to be broad enough that the D&D player who is not an anime fan would still get most of the anime jokes, and the trekkie who is not a comic book geek can get the Flash jokes, and the physicists can get most of the psychology jokes, and the microbiologists can get most of the astrophysics jokes.
 
2013-09-03 05:16:40 PM  
tripleseven:

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.


As already pointed out, you've failed Thinking shiat Thru 101. They could've pulled the belt in the *same* direction the plane was taking off, causing the plane to have ZERO, or even NEGATIVE ground speed (with the wheels to spin *backwards*), and it wouldn't have made two-shiats of difference. The wheels are only there to prevent the plane's body from dragging on the ground, which would create too much friction for the engine to overcome.
 
2013-09-03 05:20:42 PM  

ZeroCorpse: But can we all at least agree that XKCD sucks?


Time to change bait.
 
2013-09-03 05:24:07 PM  

BafflerMeal: ZeroCorpse: But can we all at least agree that XKCD sucks?

Time to change bait.


You'd think that with nary a nibble the first go-round there would have been a bait change, but nope, keep casting that old worm.
 
2013-09-03 05:29:10 PM  

tripleseven: RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

Wheels are not essential for flying....
 
2013-09-03 05:29:58 PM  

tripleseven: Did I say what end of the myth I believed?  No, I never did.  Only that they tested the myth slightly different than I had read it.

However, you and the other 4 intertubes physics GED holders could not wait to prove me wrong.

That's kinda why I love this place, it's things like this that just amaze me.


Most of us, myself included were pointing out that the props vs jets complain you put forward was horseshiat.  We weren't taking issue with which side you fell on.  You either don't agree with the outcome or you put forward a complaint knowing that it made no difference in the outcome. Either way you are the one with issues here, not us.
 
2013-09-03 05:31:00 PM  
I thought the Mythbusters said it would be impractical for a bunch of guys with enough mirrors and precision to pull off.  Some conditions you immediately improve with a structure of this size.  Am I remembering the episode wrong?
 
2013-09-03 05:31:46 PM  

huntercr: That's not what I mean at all. BBT always take the cheap shot... the shallow easy joke.
They try for the joke about Uranus instead of saying something like "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the precipitate". Or if they did do a Uranus joke, it should be what happens to everyone who's ever been a TA in an astronomy course: there's always some idiot who has realized this for the first time, and no matter what you say it will cause a cascade of laughter eventually.


Ahhh so it's because they aren't doing the jokes the way you want them to do the jokes?

huntercr: BBT is mostly a "laughing at", outside looking in sort of humor. It's writers used to sit next to geeks in college in the student union, rather than being geeks.


Yea, except for the physicist they keep on staff who's present at every filming to ensure all the jokes, formulas, theories, etc are scientifically correct. I'm pretty sure he is one of those geeks. Ohh and Mayim Bialik, who has a PhD in neuroscience.

I really don't know where you get the "they're laughing at us, not with us!" attitude.
 
2013-09-03 05:37:41 PM  
For the record I don't mind Mythbusters. I was just really tired. I took a nap and am now in a much better mood.
 
2013-09-03 05:38:53 PM  
Unless you were back there with Archimedes, you have no clue what type of mirrors or configuration he was doing. It's all guessing.
 
2013-09-03 05:43:13 PM  

JC22: Unless you were back there with Archimedes, you have no clue what type of mirrors or configuration he was doing. It's all guessing.


images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-09-03 05:43:45 PM  

Khellendros: spawn73: Paris1127:

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.

Mythbusters is prepared lines and pandering to the lowest denominator.

They haven't ever busted shiat, even when trying to look past all their bullshiat, the holes in scientific methods is obvious. If your understanding of authorities of science relies on them, you'd be a moron, which is probably also why their show is doing so well, alongside "Here comes Honey Booboo".

And yet, they still do more for science and intelligent thought than people biatching on the internet.


"why not fo both"
 
2013-09-03 05:45:46 PM  
Meh, wake me when the building reaches out and grapples cars.....

games.qq.com
 
2013-09-03 05:46:29 PM  
Mythbusters is the most scientific show on TV. Unlike other so-called "scientific" or "skeptical" schlock shows like Ghost Hunters, these guys actually do real experimentation. They also admit their failures.
 
2013-09-03 05:46:52 PM  

Mikey1969: Gosling: Mikey1969: No you didn't. Jessi Combs is not only hot, but she actually knows what she's doing. Kari was a street performer they hired for the show. Combs could actually do build out with any of the guys on the show.

Well, now Kari's been building stuff for the show for 10 years. Do those not count?

She really just dresses it up. Grant does most of the design and Tori(Or however they spell his name) does most of the heavy lifting. Kari may be able to assist, and might even be able to do some welding at this point, but she can't hold a candle to the stuff Jessi Combs can build. Watched that girl spec out and build an entire roll cage on her 4x4 show...


Yeah...but the star tattoo in her armpit is just strange
 
2013-09-03 05:47:41 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Slight threadjack:

Anyone else find it funny that there's more history in one episode of Drunk History on Comedy Central than the entire line-up on the History channel?


THIS! hic!
 
2013-09-03 05:54:09 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Yeah...but the star tattoo in her armpit is just strange


Looks like it was painful as fark, too... I was a little confused by that one, also.
 
2013-09-03 06:02:27 PM  
I have seen with mine own eyes on two occasions where woofers busted out car windows at a competition.  Their ridiculously oversized cartoonish woofer they destroyed a car with was an idiotic and clownish attempt to bust that "myth."  They didn't even consider the resonant frequency of the windows and went full tard out of the box.
Sometimes entertaining, but overall, it is a bad show.  Stuntman does not equal scientist.
 
2013-09-03 06:03:34 PM  

Publikwerks: jst3p: Big Bang theory is very funny because they have great writers and an ensemble cast that "works". Your comment is like saying "Cheers" was funny because.. you know...  beer! I demand you retract your disparaging remark.

No, wouldn't it have been more like "Cheers wasn't funny because it glorified alcoholism and didn't accurately reflect what a real bar is like."


Cheers glorified alcoholism as much as Fark glorifies alcoholism.
All comedy shows would be worse if they reflected what x is really like (Friends, TheOffice, AlwaysSunnyinPhil, MalcomintheMiddle, FamilyGuy, BobNewhart Show, Portlandia, or whatever odd comedy you watch).
Cheer is like Fark in more ways than pro-beer/alcohol.  You get to see unreal comments on subjects from outrageous characters.  See your quote above.
 
2013-09-03 06:05:48 PM  

mbillips: scottydoesntknow: Slight threadjack:

Anyone else find it funny that there's more history in one episode of Drunk History on Comedy Central than the entire line-up on the History channel?

THIS! hic!


Of THIS! huius!
 
2013-09-03 06:09:47 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

[blogs.babble.com image 286x400]

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs


If you honestly didn't expect that reaction - I think the term you're looking for is surprousal

http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-words-that-someone-should-have-invente d- by-now/
 
2013-09-03 06:22:36 PM  

RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!


would this be a good time to start a heated discussion about the 'downwind faster than the wind' controversy and divide everyone into warring factions?
 
2013-09-03 06:27:56 PM  

Cyclometh: sjmcc13: The biggest problem with their death ray tests is the people they had aiming the mirrors, Archamedes would have had people with the profesionalism of soldiers, they used high school/university students doing it for a laugh.

I used to be a soldier, and I can tell you that it wouldn't have made any difference. Professionalism can't overcome biology for more than a few seconds; even if you had the hands of a surgeon, your own heartbeat and breathing would be enough to disrupt it at any range- like, say the distance to a ship in a harbor.

And ancient Greece didn't have the type of mirrors you'd need.


You can always tell when someone has never been a soldier by how superhuman they think soldiers are.

"Oh yeah well a SOLDIER could've done it!" Yeah, just as poorly as anyone else.
 
2013-09-03 06:34:21 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: MooseUpNorth: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Have you seen an episode lately? They don't even bust "myths" anymore, just random potholes from shiatty 80's movies.

Pedantically criticizing the title of the show is totally a real point and not at all you mindlessly sticking to a broken talking point in a blatant plea for attention.

It's a horrible show, but it's fine entertainment for the tards. I don't give a shiat if you like it, just don't pretend it's anything but a couple goofballs breaking shiat in a warehouse

Lol, I literally said "I don't care if you like it" in the post you quoted, yet you used that pic anyway. Typical Mythbusters level of intellect...


"I don't care if you like this, but you're a retard if you do."

"Ah wtf why would you still be mad, I said I don't care if you like this!"

/Come on, man, don't be this stupid.
 
2013-09-03 06:42:54 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: tripleseven: RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 276x183]
[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 275x183]

Wheels are not essential for flying....


Although friction is.
 
2013-09-03 06:52:37 PM  

ReverendJynxed: JusticeandIndependence: tripleseven: RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 276x183]
[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 275x183]

Wheels are not essential for flying....

Although friction is.


Friction between what?  I hope you're just trolling and don't actually think the wheels need traction for a plane to lift off.
 
2013-09-03 07:04:56 PM  
Mythbusters is the "Honey Boo Boo" of science.
 
2013-09-03 07:17:21 PM  

albert71292: Mythbusters is the "Honey Boo Boo" of science.


Then answer me this:

"Honey Boo Boo" is the WHAT of WHAT?
 
2013-09-03 07:18:21 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.


Watch an episode from the first season, then watch one of the current episodes.  The first half of an old episode was research (calling experts on the phone, visiting the morgue, etc.), while experimentation happened during the second half.  Only one or two myths were tested.  A current episode is 1/2 wearing funny hats/painting things, 1/4 recap, 1/8 product placement, and 1/8 experimentation.  To make things worse they try to cram too many things in, so they are constantly jumping between myths.  I probably wouldn't mind Mythbusters so much if I was only exposed to new episodes without knowing what they had been.
 
2013-09-03 07:19:30 PM  

Philip J. Fry: ReverendJynxed: JusticeandIndependence: tripleseven: RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 276x183]
[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 275x183]

Wheels are not essential for flying....

Although friction is.

Friction between what?  I hope you're just trolling and don't actually think the wheels need traction for a plane to lift off.


No. He's pointing out that your two examples have far greater friction than wheels. For instance, your seaplane would have a hell of a time taking off in an extreme current.
 
2013-09-03 07:26:04 PM  

Philip J. Fry: ReverendJynxed: JusticeandIndependence: tripleseven: RobSeace: I'm convinced that everyone that now hates Mythbusters was on the wrong side of the "airplane on a conveyor belt" myth, and is still bitter over losing that battle...

/I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

I do have an argument on that one:

The question I read was that it was a jet airplane, and the conveyor was going the exact same speed to match the thrust of the plane.

MB did it wrong in 2 ways:
1) they used prop planes
2) the conveyor was not matching the speed.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 276x183]
[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 275x183]

Wheels are not essential for flying....

Although friction is.

Friction between what?  I hope you're just trolling and don't actually think the wheels need traction for a plane to lift off.


I think if treadmill-like surfaces made a difference one way or the other, we'd be using them on aircraft carriers.

It's pretty obvious that a treadmill moving backwards at say, 100mph and a plane using enough force to move forward at 100mph isn't going to cancel each other out, it's just going to make the wheels go 200mph and the plane is still going to move forward at 100mph, as the speed of the wheels have no correlation on the forward force of the plane. If anything, a small amount of additional force might be necessary to overcome the weight of the friction on the wheels, but that weight would only be a small fraction of the overall weight of the plane.

(Picture a 2 ton plane on a conveyor belt tied to a tree; how much force would be exerted on the tree in order to keep the plane stationary on the conveyor belt? Not 2 tons worth, that's for sure. The wheels might be moving at 100mph, but put a force gauge on that rope attached to the tree, and it probably wouldn't take more than a couple hundred pounds of force to keep the plane stationary.)
 
2013-09-03 07:37:13 PM  

willfullyobscure: capt.hollister: viscountalpha: capt.hollister: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...


There are situations that are IMPOSSIBLE to replicate in a lab. Strange shiat happens and its the stuff of legends.

They are not, but even a genius like Archimedes could still only have used technology which existed in his day. There is no magic.

Things Archimedes invented or discovered during the bronze age:
Catapult
compound pulley system
screw pump
a planetarium
naval engineering
the basis of modern geometry, calculus and physics
pi

Things the Mythbusters have invented in the Modern Era:

State of the art of architecture and craftsmanship during Archimede's era
[www.mlahanas.de image 672x504]
 [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

The Mythbusters qualifications as: master builders; master coppersmiths; military sappers:


Archimedes' Human Capital:

25,000 men under arms(conservatively- Syracuse had a population of 300,000 when it was beseiged, and Archimedes was captain of the defenses)

The Mythbusters Human Capital:

two pairs of tits, four helpless dorks, and people from the internet that want to be on TV

I'd say Archimedes was sliiiightly more able to build a death ray than the Walrus and the Crapenter were.


And that's your problem. You fail to take into consideration that inventions do not come fully formed out of nothing. That would be magic. New inventions are always built on the back of previous inventions.  For example, to build a catapult you have to have the tools to fell trees, you must have the tools and know-how to shape and fasten beams. You must have the materials, tools, and know-how to fabricate ropes, etc... had he lived in the stone age, not even Archimedes could have invented a catapult.

If Archimedes were alive today, he might very well have the ability to invent a device using modern materials that would enable him to sink Roman ships at a distance. Without advanced mirrors and a highly precise way to focus them and keep them focused, even he could not do it using only bronze age technology. Like it or not, he only had polished bronze to work with, catapults would have been more effective.
 
2013-09-03 07:49:29 PM  

capt.hollister: And that's your problem. You fail to take into consideration that inventions do not come fully formed out of nothing. That would be magic.


Well, that's not what Steve Jobs told me when they came out with the iPhone!
 
2013-09-03 07:55:57 PM  
www.paranormalpeopleonline.com
 
2013-09-03 07:58:34 PM  
Whats with all the myth busters hate?  That show single handedly inspired me to go into engineering.
 
2013-09-03 08:00:27 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: albert71292: Mythbusters is the "Honey Boo Boo" of science.

Then answer me this:

"Honey Boo Boo" is the WHAT of WHAT?


fc06.deviantart.net
 
2013-09-03 08:06:56 PM  

kidgenius: tripleseven:
Did I say what end of the myth I believed?  No, I never did.  Only that they tested the myth slightly diffe ...

You said they did it "wrong" which would imply that if they did it "right" then the outcome would be different.

We were merely saying that it doesn't matter, therefore nothing wrong with is being tested differently.


Actually, a jet, versus a forward wing mounted propeller would make a difference.
 
2013-09-03 08:08:04 PM  

tripleseven: kidgenius: tripleseven:
Did I say what end of the myth I believed?  No, I never did.  Only that they tested the myth slightly diffe ...

You said they did it "wrong" which would imply that if they did it "right" then the outcome would be different.

We were merely saying that it doesn't matter, therefore nothing wrong with is being tested differently.

Actually, a jet, versus a forward wing mounted propeller would make a difference.



Ok, I'll bite. Why?
 
2013-09-03 08:10:36 PM  

tripleseven: kidgenius: tripleseven:
Did I say what end of the myth I believed?  No, I never did.  Only that they tested the myth slightly diffe ...

You said they did it "wrong" which would imply that if they did it "right" then the outcome would be different.

We were merely saying that it doesn't matter, therefore nothing wrong with is being tested differently.

Actually, a jet, versus a forward wing mounted propeller would make a difference.


Why does engine type/placement matter?

Are you trying to claim that the propeller is pushing air back over the wings to generate lift?
 
2013-09-03 08:15:34 PM  

BafflerMeal: tripleseven: kidgenius: tripleseven:
Did I say what end of the myth I believed?  No, I never did.  Only that they tested the myth slightly diffe ...

You said they did it "wrong" which would imply that if they did it "right" then the outcome would be different.

We were merely saying that it doesn't matter, therefore nothing wrong with is being tested differently.

Actually, a jet, versus a forward wing mounted propeller would make a difference.


Ok, I'll bite. Why?


He's probably thinking something like the plane being pushed instead of pulled.... Which still wouldn't matter
 
2013-09-03 08:25:17 PM  

RogermcAllen: tripleseven: kidgenius: tripleseven:
Did I say what end of the myth I believed?  No, I never did.  Only that they tested the myth slightly diffe ...

You said they did it "wrong" which would imply that if they did it "right" then the outcome would be different.

We were merely saying that it doesn't matter, therefore nothing wrong with is being tested differently.

Actually, a jet, versus a forward wing mounted propeller would make a difference.

Why does engine type/placement matter?

Are you trying to claim that the propeller is pushing air back over the wings to generate lift?


The plane didn't sit in one place on the conveyor belt and take off; it still had to move forward at 60+mph to generate the lift needed to get the plane in the air.  The difference is that the *wheels* were free-turning at 120mph on the conveyor belt, as it was moving 60mph in the opposite direction.
 
2013-09-03 08:26:57 PM  

tripleseven: Actually, a jet, versus a forward wing mounted propeller would make a difference.


No, it would not.
 
2013-09-03 08:33:19 PM  

Philip J. Fry: Friction between what? I hope you're just trolling and don't actually think the wheels need traction for a plane to lift off.


The prop/turbine and the air. If there were no friction, the device would just cut through the liquid and never move it.

kidgenius: No. He's pointing out that your two examples have far greater friction than wheels. For instance, your seaplane would have a hell of a time taking off in an extreme current.


Planes don't typically take off or land in fast moving rivers or in avalanches. I would consider that a different experiment than a plane and conveyor belt.
 
2013-09-03 08:36:51 PM  

ajgeek: Philip J. Fry: Friction between what? I hope you're just trolling and don't actually think the wheels need traction for a plane to lift off.

The prop/turbine and the air. If there were no friction, the device would just cut through the liquid and never move it.

kidgenius: No. He's pointing out that your two examples have far greater friction than wheels. For instance, your seaplane would have a hell of a time taking off in an extreme current.

Planes don't typically take off or land in fast moving rivers or in avalanches. I would consider that a different experiment than a plane and conveyor belt.


Why? Same principle.
 
2013-09-03 08:38:22 PM  

Burr: Sounds like the car owner got screwed....


He did buy a Jaguar, after all.
 
2013-09-03 08:40:33 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: albert71292: Mythbusters is the "Honey Boo Boo" of science.

Then answer me this:

"Honey Boo Boo" is the WHAT of WHAT?


Honey Boo Boo is the butt juice of America's anus.
 
2013-09-03 08:41:26 PM  

Kit Fister: joeshill: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


Mythbusters, whose motto is: We couldn't figure out how to do it, therefore it cannot be done.

For both of you:

[imgs.xkcd.com image 599x524]


I love that!
 
2013-09-03 08:44:14 PM  

PsyLord: That's what happens when you let Ford

Tata take over Jaguar... or something.

Ftfy.
 
2013-09-03 08:50:49 PM  

ajgeek: Planes don't typically take off or land in fast moving rivers or in avalanches. I would consider that a different experiment than a plane and conveyor belt.


They don't do that because it's dangerous to do so for reasons other than being able to achieve takeoff speed.
 
2013-09-03 08:56:52 PM  

Southern100: RogermcAllen: tripleseven: kidgenius: tripleseven:
Did I say what end of the myth I believed?  No, I never did.  Only that they tested the myth slightly diffe ...

You said they did it "wrong" which would imply that if they did it "right" then the outcome would be different.

We were merely saying that it doesn't matter, therefore nothing wrong with is being tested differently.

Actually, a jet, versus a forward wing mounted propeller would make a difference.

Why does engine type/placement matter?

Are you trying to claim that the propeller is pushing air back over the wings to generate lift?

The plane didn't sit in one place on the conveyor belt and take off; it still had to move forward at 60+mph to generate the lift needed to get the plane in the air.  The difference is that the *wheels* were free-turning at 120mph on the conveyor belt, as it was moving 60mph in the opposite direction.


I don't see what point you are trying to make.  To make a plane fly air needs to move past the wings faster than the stall speed (60mph in this case).  This is literally all that needs to happen to achieve flight, the ground doesn't matter.  For example:
-A 60mph wind blowing at a plane tied to a tree would make the plane fly
-A truck towing the plane at 60mph in still air would make the plane fly
-Dropping the plane off a cliff and letting gravity accelerate it to 60mph would make the plane fly
-A propeller pulling the plane forward through the air such that the air moving past the wings reaches 60mph will make the plane fly
-A jet engine pushing the plane forward through the air such that the air moving past wings reaches 60mph will make the plane fly
 
2013-09-03 09:17:30 PM  

RogermcAllen: Southern100: RogermcAllen: tripleseven: kidgenius: tripleseven:
Did I say what end of the myth I believed?  No, I never did.  Only that they tested the myth slightly diffe ...

You said they did it "wrong" which would imply that if they did it "right" then the outcome would be different.

We were merely saying that it doesn't matter, therefore nothing wrong with is being tested differently.

Actually, a jet, versus a forward wing mounted propeller would make a difference.

Why does engine type/placement matter?

Are you trying to claim that the propeller is pushing air back over the wings to generate lift?

The plane didn't sit in one place on the conveyor belt and take off; it still had to move forward at 60+mph to generate the lift needed to get the plane in the air.  The difference is that the *wheels* were free-turning at 120mph on the conveyor belt, as it was moving 60mph in the opposite direction.

I don't see what point you are trying to make.  To make a plane fly air needs to move past the wings faster than the stall speed (60mph in this case).  This is literally all that needs to happen to achieve flight, the ground doesn't matter.  For example:
-A 60mph wind blowing at a plane tied to a tree would make the plane fly
-A truck towing the plane at 60mph in still air would make the plane fly
-Dropping the plane off a cliff and letting gravity accelerate it to 60mph would make the plane fly
-A propeller pulling the plane forward through the air such that the air moving past the wings reaches 60mph will make the plane fly
-A jet engine pushing the plane forward through the air such that the air moving past wings reaches 60mph will make the plane fly


Right, but none of those forces have any relation to how fast the wheels on the ground are spinning.

Think of it like this - in some airports, they have these really long "moving sidewalks". If you walk 5mph on the side that's moving 5mph in the opposite direction than you are, you basically "stand still".  But if you put a bicycle on the same sidewalk and walk alongside it while holding it (so that it's on the sidewalk but you aren't), you and the bike will be moving forward at 5mph, but the bicycle tires will be moving at 10mph in relation to the sidewalk, since the sidewalk is traveling at 5mph in the opposite direction.

As far as the bicycle is concerned, it doesn't matter how fast the wheels are spinning (even if the sidewalk is moving at 50mph) - the wheel speed has no correlation as to how fast the bicycle itself is moving forward due to the external force that you're applying to the bicycle.

I'm sorry, it's clear in my mind, but it's difficult to verbalize.
 
2013-09-03 09:32:15 PM  

Southern100: Think of it like this - in some airports, they have these really long "moving sidewalks". If you walk 5mph on the side that's moving 5mph in the opposite direction than you are, you basically "stand still". But if you put a bicycle on the same sidewalk and walk alongside it while holding it (so that it's on the sidewalk but you aren't), you and the bike will be moving forward at 5mph, but the bicycle tires will be moving at 10mph in relation to the sidewalk, since the sidewalk is traveling at 5mph in the opposite direction.

As far as the bicycle is concerned, it doesn't matter how fast the wheels are spinning (even if the sidewalk is moving at 50mph) - the wheel speed has no correlation as to how fast the bicycle itself is moving forward due to the external force that you're applying to the bicycle.

I'm sorry, it's clear in my mind, but it's difficult to verbalize.


Another example that comes to mind - a motorcycle with a sidecar (or a car itself) - 2 wheels on the ground, and the motorcycle sidecar (or the right 2 wheels of the car) on the moving sidewalk.  The sidewalk is moving @ 50mph in the opposite direction, but the motorcycle or car is moving forward @ 50mph.  2 of the wheels on the motorcycle (or left side of the car) will be moving @ 50mph in relation to the ground, and the wheel on the sidecar (or the right 2 wheels on the car) will be travelling at 100mph in relation to the moving sidewalk.

As far as the car or motorcycle is concerned, the same amount of force is required to move the vehicle forward @ 50mph, even though the wheel(s) on the sidewalk are actually spinning @ 100mph (since those wheels aren't part of the drive train and are free-turning).

In the case of the plane, the force is applied to air, but as the wheels are still free-turning it still only takes the same amount of force to move the plane forward @ 60mph, even though the wheels themselves may be spinning @ 120mph.
 
2013-09-03 09:46:33 PM  

Southern100: RogermcAllen: Southern100: RogermcAllen: tripleseven: kidgenius: tripleseven:
Did I say what end of the myth I believed?  No, I never did.  Only that they tested the myth slightly diffe ...

You said they did it "wrong" which would imply that if they did it "right" then the outcome would be different.

We were merely saying that it doesn't matter, therefore nothing wrong with is being tested differently.

Actually, a jet, versus a forward wing mounted propeller would make a difference.

Why does engine type/placement matter?

Are you trying to claim that the propeller is pushing air back over the wings to generate lift?

The plane didn't sit in one place on the conveyor belt and take off; it still had to move forward at 60+mph to generate the lift needed to get the plane in the air.  The difference is that the *wheels* were free-turning at 120mph on the conveyor belt, as it was moving 60mph in the opposite direction.

I don't see what point you are trying to make.  To make a plane fly air needs to move past the wings faster than the stall speed (60mph in this case).  This is literally all that needs to happen to achieve flight, the ground doesn't matter.  For example:
-A 60mph wind blowing at a plane tied to a tree would make the plane fly
-A truck towing the plane at 60mph in still air would make the plane fly
-Dropping the plane off a cliff and letting gravity accelerate it to 60mph would make the plane fly
-A propeller pulling the plane forward through the air such that the air moving past the wings reaches 60mph will make the plane fly
-A jet engine pushing the plane forward through the air such that the air moving past wings reaches 60mph will make the plane fly

Right, but none of those forces have any relation to how fast the wheels on the ground are spinning.

Think of it like this - in some airports, they have these really long "moving sidewalks". If you walk 5mph on the side that's moving 5mph in the opposite direction than you are, you basically "stand st ...


That's exactly the point.  Flying an airplane has absolutely nothing to do with the wheels or the ground.

/I'm not even sure if we are arguing against each other, or just using poor examples to say the same thing
 
2013-09-03 10:15:06 PM  

mbillips: Cyclometh: PanicMan: And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.

Uh, have you seen polished bronze? At any distance at all, you'd barely notice the reflection. Even a modern lighthouse isn't blinding, at night, at any range over a mile. You have to factor in the RANGE at which Archimedes' weapon would have to work. In order to focus on a target at 100 meters, you'd need a mirror diameter of 200 meters, and unless you had tiered bleachers to work with, you'd have only a narrow band of focused light. And if the ships were closer than 100 meters, under oars, they'd cover the distance to the dock in a matter of seconds. Triremes are FAST. At better than 10 knots in a sprint, you'd have less than 20 seconds to start a fire. Even if you did set it on fire, it would be alongside and unloaded before it became dangerous to the ship. And all the other ships you WEREN'T focusing on would have unloaded their marines.

This one is too ludicrous to NEED busting.


Or, you know, a hill. But they probably didn't have those either, right?
 
2013-09-03 10:18:45 PM  

capt.hollister: Without advanced mirrors and a highly precise way to focus them and keep them focused, even he could not do it using only bronze age technology. Like it or not, he only had polished bronze to work with, catapults would have been more effective.


these people built infrastructure and tools and art that wouldn't be equaled for another 1800 years, dude. We're not talking magic AT ALL.

Polished bronze has an albedo almost as good as that of silver, and not quite as good as mercury; all are better than steel. There's a reason people used it for mirrors for five thousand years, YOU CAN SEE YOUR FACE IN IT PRETTY GOOD.

Between the construction and craftsmanship techniques available to Archimedes at the time and the demonstrable ability to execute large engineering projects, he could have probably created a 10 story mirror array you aim with one hand. Or a firing array that would ignite solvents in the air or water, or poured on to ship- I daresay a plume of white hot smoke boiling through a focused beam would look like "the air was on fire" as the ancient reports go.

But don't take it from me. Put your faith in a hammy reality show or, y'know take it from some actual scientists and engineers that did the math.

boom goes the dynamite
 
2013-09-03 10:24:28 PM  

ZeroCorpse: But can we all at least agree that XKCD sucks?


Not nearly as much as you do
 
2013-09-03 10:29:27 PM  
So this is the 'haters gonna hate' thread for this week?
 
2013-09-03 10:32:50 PM  

willfullyobscure: capt.hollister: Without advanced mirrors and a highly precise way to focus them and keep them focused, even he could not do it using only bronze age technology. Like it or not, he only had polished bronze to work with, catapults would have been more effective.

these people built infrastructure and tools and art that wouldn't be equaled for another 1800 years, dude. We're not talking magic AT ALL.

Polished bronze has an albedo almost as good as that of silver, and not quite as good as mercury; all are better than steel. There's a reason people used it for mirrors for five thousand years, YOU CAN SEE YOUR FACE IN IT PRETTY GOOD.

Between the construction and craftsmanship techniques available to Archimedes at the time and the demonstrable ability to execute large engineering projects, he could have probably created a 10 story mirror array you aim with one hand. Or a firing array that would ignite solvents in the air or water, or poured on to ship- I daresay a plume of white hot smoke boiling through a focused beam would look like "the air was on fire" as the ancient reports go.

But don't take it from me. Put your faith in a hammy reality show or, y'know take it from some actual scientists and engineers that did the math.

boom goes the dynamite


This is farking retarded. They're talking about setting a ship on fire at 100 feet. A trireme can cover 100 feet in about 6 seconds. Who cares if you start a small fire on the hull in that amount of time? I'm already aboard your pier and stabbing your ass with a nine-foot spear.
 
2013-09-03 10:35:49 PM  

Dr. Picklebacon: mbillips: Cyclometh: PanicMan: And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.

Uh, have you seen polished bronze? At any distance at all, you'd barely notice the reflection. Even a modern lighthouse isn't blinding, at night, at any range over a mile. You have to factor in the RANGE at which Archimedes' weapon would have to work. In order to focus on a target at 100 meters, you'd need a mirror diameter of 200 meters, and unless you had tiered bleachers to work with, you'd have only a narrow band of focused light. And if the ships were closer than 100 meters, under oars, they'd cover the distance to the dock in a matter of seconds. Triremes are FAST. At better than 10 knots in a sprint, you'd have less than 20 seconds to start a fire. Even if you did set it on fire, it would be alongside and unloaded before it became dangerous to the ship. And all the other ships you WEREN'T focusing on would have unloaded their marines.

This one is too ludicrous to NEED busting.

Or, you know, a hill. But they probably didn't have those either, right?


Again, who gives a shiat? Given ideal conditions, with a REALLY sunny day, your massive array of mirrors might start a small fire on one trireme as it gets super close. Which accomplishes nothing, as the the other 100 triremes unload hoplites and kill your silly ass.
 
2013-09-03 10:40:57 PM  

Lsherm: BojanglesPaladin: albert71292: Mythbusters is the "Honey Boo Boo" of science.

Then answer me this:

"Honey Boo Boo" is the WHAT of WHAT?

Honey Boo Boo is the butt juice of America's anus.


LEAVE HONEY BOO BOO ALONE!
 
2013-09-03 10:58:36 PM  
Seriously? Someone designs a parabolic curve building on a south-facing side and nobody sees this coming?

I see an unemployed architect in the near future.
 
2013-09-03 11:04:39 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Great headline. Not sure about this whole 'REPEAT' thing, though.


Maybe because of the similar issues at that concert hall in LA?

After the construction, modifications were made to the Founders Room exterior; while most of the building's exterior was designed with given a matte finish, the Founders Room and Children's Amphitheater were designed with highly polished mirror-like panels. The reflective qualities of the surface were amplified by the concave sections of the Founders Room walls. Some residents of the neighboring condominiums suffered glare caused by sunlight that was reflected off these surfaces and concentrated in a manner similar to a . The resulting heat made some rooms of nearby condominiums unbearably warm, caused the air-conditioning costs of these residents to skyrocket and created hot spots on adjacent sidewalks of as much as  140 °F(60 °C). There was also the increased risk of traffic accidents due to blinding sunlight reflected from
thepolished surfaces.

After complaints from neighboring buildings and residents, the owners asked Gehry Partners to come up with a solution. Their  response was a computer analysis of the building's surfaces identifying the offending panels. In 2005 these were dulled by lightlysanding the panels to eliminate unwanted glare.
 
2013-09-03 11:13:33 PM  

Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]


www.lesliensinvisibles.org
 
2013-09-03 11:31:02 PM  
Having read the monotonous haterade for Mythbusters, I'll throw in my 2 cents:

They do an incredible job, but are way too quick to call something "Busted", when often the myths involve the "winning the lottery" odds that all the random events needed to make something fantastically improbable happen come together at the right moment and all the scientific experimentation in the world isn't going to be able to replicate it.

They need an "Improbable" tag to go along with the "Plausible" tag.

I'm still pissed at their methods for testing the eelskin wallet myth. They never tried sliding one in and out of a back pocket hundreds of times to see if they can generate a magnetic field that would erase the credit cards.
 
2013-09-03 11:46:30 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: "[Archimedes] constructed a sort of hexagonal mirror. He placed at proper distances from the mirror other smaller mirrors of the same kind, which were moved by means of their hinges and certain plates of metal. He placed it amid the rays of the sun at noon, both in summer and winter. The rays being reflected by this, a frightful fiery kindling was excited on the ships, and it reduced them to ashes, from the distance of a bow shot.


This. A real quote from an historical source. The bit about the soldiers' shields could have spawned after a few jumps of word of mouth. Or, there could have been a kernel of truth to it: the mention of hinges and metal plates... the soldiers have this nifty wooden 'coaster' strapped to their arms, they could have used their shields to re-position the satellite mirrors - rest the shield edge on your shoulder, everyone get under, straighten your legs and walk until the boss says put it down. Yes that's a stretch, but it could honestly be something simple that's been lost.

As far as fast moving ships in the harbor, I've read numerous accounts of just-under-the-surface booms/barriers strung across ancient harbors making it difficult for the attacking fleet to disembark their forces - and make them relatively immobile.

The mirror part - I honestly don't know. Hero or Alexander figured out specular reflection, but that was like a couple hundred years after (along with steam engines, sharp guy).

But in Archimedes  palimpsest he used Riemann sums and a real working 'method' of integral calculus (he didn't get differentiation) that was... what 1800 years or so ahead of Newton and Leibniz. If I had to bet there was a guy alive at the time that could have figured out a way, I'd bet on him. BTW, if that document hadn't been 'lost', the world would be a much different place - not certain we'd still be here.

Historical accounts indicate the fleet burned, and that Archimedes was responsible. I'd rather the MB team had done a show on the possible composition of 'Greek Fire'. (Maybe they have, I haven't watched it in a long time.)

highendmighty: Their ridiculously oversized cartoonish woofer they destroyed a car with was an idiotic and clownish attempt to bust that "myth."  They didn't even consider the resonant frequency of the windows and went full tard out of the box.


Lol - that was the last episode I watched. It's funny, they had some really entertaining pieces, but then something would annoy the snot out of me - the woofer episode being the last straw.

But hey, that's not the show, that's me. It's the same thing with a show like Star Trek. I'm perfectly capable of suspending my disbelief and accepting interstellar communication and transportation, willing to accept the ridiculous time issues... But then they screw up or ignore some basic law of physics and I'm lit. Lol - the wife makes fun of me all the time.

My son liked the show until he hit about 9, then switched to Science Channel's: How It's Made. Their latest episodes on dream cars I thought was way cool.

/no axe to grind, no dog in this race...
//As a rule I'd rather get my teeth drilled than watch BBT. Sorry. I'm more in the 'feels like laugh at than with' category, but most of my geeky friends love it.
///I liked Buffy/Angel/Firefly (except for the Fred/Wash part, broke my heart dammit), do I get to keep my geek/nerd card?
 
2013-09-03 11:53:29 PM  

mbillips: willfullyobscure: capt.hollister: Without advanced mirrors and a highly precise way to focus them and keep them focused, even he could not do it using only bronze age technology. Like it or not, he only had polished bronze to work with, catapults would have been more effective.

these people built infrastructure and tools and art that wouldn't be equaled for another 1800 years, dude. We're not talking magic AT ALL.

Polished bronze has an albedo almost as good as that of silver, and not quite as good as mercury; all are better than steel. There's a reason people used it for mirrors for five thousand years, YOU CAN SEE YOUR FACE IN IT PRETTY GOOD.

Between the construction and craftsmanship techniques available to Archimedes at the time and the demonstrable ability to execute large engineering projects, he could have probably created a 10 story mirror array you aim with one hand. Or a firing array that would ignite solvents in the air or water, or poured on to ship- I daresay a plume of white hot smoke boiling through a focused beam would look like "the air was on fire" as the ancient reports go.

But don't take it from me. Put your faith in a hammy reality show or, y'know take it from some actual scientists and engineers that did the math.

boom goes the dynamite

This is farking retarded. They're talking about setting a ship on fire at 100 feet. A trireme can cover 100 feet in about 6 seconds. Who cares if you start a small fire on the hull in that amount of time? I'm already aboard your pier and stabbing your ass with a nine-foot spear.


Look who doesn't know that Syracuse had a 100 ft high seawall of polished stone as a primary fortification and that the sea battle took place within 100 yards of two small fortified harbors!!

look, look!

(oh boy are you gonna be MAD about the tower crane Archimedes invented that jerked whole ships out of the water!!)

(so MAD u guise!)
 
2013-09-03 11:55:08 PM  

mbillips: Dr. Picklebacon: mbillips: Cyclometh: PanicMan: And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.

Uh, have you seen polished bronze? At any distance at all, you'd barely notice the reflection. Even a modern lighthouse isn't blinding, at night, at any range over a mile. You have to factor in the RANGE at which Archimedes' weapon would have to work. In order to focus on a target at 100 meters, you'd need a mirror diameter of 200 meters, and unless you had tiered bleachers to work with, you'd have only a narrow band of focused light. And if the ships were closer than 100 meters, under oars, they'd cover the distance to the dock in a matter of seconds. Triremes are FAST. At better than 10 knots in a sprint, you'd have less than 20 seconds to start a fire. Even if you did set it on fire, it would be alongside and unloaded before it became dangerous to the ship. And all the other ships you WEREN'T focusing on would have unloaded their marines.

This one is too ludicrous to NEED busting.

Or, you know, a hill. But they probably didn't have those either, right?

Again, who gives a shiat? Given ideal conditions, with a REALLY sunny day, your massive array of mirrors might start a small fire on one trireme as it gets super close. Which accomplishes nothing, as the the other 100 triremes unload hoplites and kill your silly ass.


Perhaps you've heard of cliffs? It's like a REALLY steep hill. You've been outside, right?
 
2013-09-04 12:01:33 AM  

willfullyobscure: Syracuse had a 100 ft high seawall of polished stone as a primary fortification


but... TRIREMES!!
 
2013-09-04 12:06:51 AM  
Oh, and if I was going to make another request to MB since they've been doing movie plugs:

Expand to other 'media',  Like:
How the hell did Spike survive the fall from the cathedral window?
There were several InuYasha fights I have no idea how he pulled it off.
Oh, and don't even get me started on Death Note...

/I keed. Although the Spike one bugs me.
 
2013-09-04 12:08:27 AM  

FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.


Well, take for instance the shark episode. They tested whether or not the shark in 'Jaws' could actually ram a hole in a boat. How? Well, they figured the shark in Jaws was 20-something feet, so they decided to use a much smaller dummy shark (in the teens of feet long). That right there invalidates that whole thing. They then towed it thru the water at a significantly slower speed than the shark in jaws swam, and rammed it into a completely different kind of boat.

Other than those little details, they got it pretty spot on.
 
2013-09-04 12:19:49 AM  

scottydoesntknow: Ohh and Mayim Bialik, who has a PhD in neuroscience


That bugs me, because she uses her PhD degree to justify her quackery, like her anti-vax positions, her beliefs about parenting that run counter to current scientific research (like advocating practices that increase the risk of SIDS), or her advocacy of homeopathy (Really?! Homeopathy? Come on!), and her popularity with the TV show means that more people will listen to and believe her.

I'm really happy that a celebrity went on to go into the sciences (especially a woman, as we need more women in the STEM fields), but I wish she would stick with current research and not preach things that are harmful or counter to what the best of science says is true (vaccinations are important, and it is not equally ok to vaccinate or not vaccinate).

Regarding BBT, the first time my wife and I saw BBT, it was an episode where the main guy was trying to prove a theorem that had been proved many many years ago, and they were treating it like it was cutting edge science.  I don't remember what it was in the show, I only remember that it bugged us both.  That kind of killed the show for us both; but much like how I'm not fond of CSI, I understand that many people enjoy the show. I am happy that it at least helps make science more popular, I'm just afraid it'll popularize science the way CSI popularized forensics: with misinformation and inaccuracies both on and off the set.
 
2013-09-04 12:34:36 AM  

mgshamster: That bugs me, because she uses her PhD degree to justify her quackery, like her anti-vax positions, her beliefs about parenting that run counter to current scientific research (like advocating practices that increase the risk of SIDS), or her advocacy of homeopathy (Really?! Homeopathy? Come on!), and her popularity with the TV show means that more people will listen to and believe her.

I'm really happy that a celebrity went on to go into the sciences (especially a woman, as we need more women in the STEM fields), but I wish she would stick with current research and not preach things that are harmful or counter to what the best of science says is true (vaccinations are important, and it is not equally ok to vaccinate or not vaccinate).


I did not know that. That is pretty weird.

mgshamster: Regarding BBT, the first time my wife and I saw BBT, it was an episode where the main guy was trying to prove a theorem that had been proved many many years ago, and they were treating it like it was cutting edge science. I don't remember what it was in the show, I only remember that it bugged us both. That kind of killed the show for us both; but much like how I'm not fond of CSI, I understand that many people enjoy the show. I am happy that it at least helps make science more popular, I'm just afraid it'll popularize science the way CSI popularized forensics: with misinformation and inaccuracies both on and off the set.


If it was Leonard, he's constantly getting hounded on for proving theorems that have already been proven by others. His mother gets on him especially about it. And like I said, they've got a physicist on staff (David Saltzberg) who double checks pretty much everything, so the risk of popularizing misinformation is very low.
 
2013-09-04 01:16:53 AM  

scottydoesntknow: If it was Leonard, he's constantly getting hounded on for proving theorems that have already been proven by others. His mother gets on him especially about it. And like I said, they've got a physicist on staff (David Saltzberg) who double checks pretty much everything, so the risk of popularizing misinformation is very low.


It was the autistic guy. I thought he was the main character?

I'm happy that they actively work to reduce misinformation.  From what I can tell with a quick online search (for example, there's a website dedicated to pointing out the errors in the show), there aren't that many mistakes.  This is good. I'm happy about that.

CSB:  One of the teachers during my master's degree in forensics was offered a job to work on the set of the original CSI (before it ever aired) to help them keep the show accurate to the field. She turned it down because she thought the premise was horrible and that such a show would never become popular.  She didn't want to quit her day job for it.
 
2013-09-04 01:46:32 AM  

willfullyobscure: capt.hollister: Without advanced mirrors and a highly precise way to focus them and keep them focused, even he could not do it using only bronze age technology. Like it or not, he only had polished bronze to work with, catapults would have been more effective.

these people built infrastructure and tools and art that wouldn't be equaled for another 1800 years, dude. We're not talking magic AT ALL.

Polished bronze has an albedo almost as good as that of silver, and not quite as good as mercury; all are better than steel. There's a reason people used it for mirrors for five thousand years, YOU CAN SEE YOUR FACE IN IT PRETTY GOOD.

Between the construction and craftsmanship techniques available to Archimedes at the time and the demonstrable ability to execute large engineering projects, he could have probably created a 10 story mirror array you aim with one hand. Or a firing array that would ignite solvents in the air or water, or poured on to ship- I daresay a plume of white hot smoke boiling through a focused beam would look like "the air was on fire" as the ancient reports go.

But don't take it from me. Put your faith in a hammy reality show or, y'know take it from some actual scientists and engineers that did the math.

boom goes the dynamite


Boom, indeed. Those were MIT students and their instructors.
a) They used modern mirrors. No one doubts the capacity of tightly focused modern mirrors to ignite a wooden target.
b) They calculated it would "only" take minutes to reposition and refocus the mirrors on a moving target...
c) They used a stationary target on land. Even so, they had to repeat the test because of clouds. Maybe it was a cloudy day in Syracuse all those years ago since the Romans did not lose their fleet and they did manage to capture the city...
d) The author's instinct, not the math, tells him that an anchored ship would have remained sufficiently stationary. This is a remarkable statement. He's saying that for their modern version of the heat ray to have worked as a weapon, the attacking ships would have had to be at anchor. The Romans were not great sailors, preferring to fight on land, but I'm pretty sure even they did not attack a harbour by anchoring their ships. Even then it's only the author's gut feeling that any one ship would have been sufficiently stationary for the focused mirrors to build enough heat to ignite the ship.
e) In the end the author offers only speculation as to whether the MIT team could have ignited a floating ship using their modern mirrors, let alone using mirrors available to the ancient Greeks. We do not know the answer because that is not what they tested. What they tested was whether it is possible to ignite a wooden silhouette of a boat on the roof of a Boston building using hand focused modern mirrors. And the answer is yes.

To me, the most damning bit regarding this legend comes from a reading of Italian literature regarding Archimedes. Italians love and venerate Archimedes like one of their own. He's considered the greatest inventor of all time. In Italian literature he is rightfully remembered (and even immortalized in comics) for his many and important inventions. Particular attention is paid to the many advanced weapons he deployed in the defence of Syracuse. Absent from that list is the supposed heat ray.  Why ? because the legend of the heat ray was not added to Archimedes' biography until centuries after his death ! It is apparently a Roman literary invention to embellish the story of a man who caused great difficulty to Roman invaders. Makes the Romans seem all the greater for having defeated him...
 
2013-09-04 02:04:22 AM  

scottydoesntknow: mgshamster: That bugs me, because she uses her PhD degree to justify her quackery, like her anti-vax positions, her beliefs about parenting that run counter to current scientific research (like advocating practices that increase the risk of SIDS), or her advocacy of homeopathy (Really?! Homeopathy? Come on!), and her popularity with the TV show means that more people will listen to and believe her.

I'm really happy that a celebrity went on to go into the sciences (especially a woman, as we need more women in the STEM fields), but I wish she would stick with current research and not preach things that are harmful or counter to what the best of science says is true (vaccinations are important, and it is not equally ok to vaccinate or not vaccinate).

I did not know that. That is pretty weird.

mgshamster: Regarding BBT, the first time my wife and I saw BBT, it was an episode where the main guy was trying to prove a theorem that had been proved many many years ago, and they were treating it like it was cutting edge science. I don't remember what it was in the show, I only remember that it bugged us both. That kind of killed the show for us both; but much like how I'm not fond of CSI, I understand that many people enjoy the show. I am happy that it at least helps make science more popular, I'm just afraid it'll popularize science the way CSI popularized forensics: with misinformation and inaccuracies both on and off the set.

If it was Leonard, he's constantly getting hounded on for proving theorems that have already been proven by others. His mother gets on him especially about it. And like I said, they've got a physicist on staff (David Saltzberg) who double checks pretty much everything, so the risk of popularizing misinformation is very low.


David Saltzberg is also the man who fills the white boards that can be seen in the background of Leonard and Sheldon's apartment and offices. They always contain accurate formulae or esoteric bits of info. As a WWII aviation buff, I once recognized the ingredients for the Me263 rocket airplane's fuel. IIRC, it was the show that recounts how the guys all met. In the show Leonard is mixing a batch of the top secret new rocket fuel he's working on for the government which he's going to give to Howard to propel his model rocket.
In another instance, the white boards apparently contained the answers to the test he had given his students that same day.
 
2013-09-04 02:48:05 AM  

itsdan: RobSeace: /I've seen people nearly come to blows arguing over that one before!

Their forum thread on it was something like 500+ pages of people misinterpreting the other sides argument.


So...like Fark with longer threads?
 
2013-09-04 07:07:11 AM  

Kit Fister: Why? Same principle.


Yes and no. Yes, the same principles are at play. No, the friction acting on the plane's wheels from the conveyer belt is quite small, much smaller than the ability of the engine to generate thrust. You might need a little more throttle, but the friction involved is nearly negligible.

Seaplanes have to deal with much greater friction. Enough to matter. It's easier for conditions to create enough friction (strong adverse current, waves) that a plane with an inefficient float shape and/or weaker engine might be unable to build enough airspeed to take off.

I _think_ skiplanes fall somewhere in between in terms of friction, but I'm not sure enough to be assertive on that.
 
2013-09-04 08:44:53 AM  

highendmighty: I have seen with mine own eyes on two occasions where woofers busted out car windows at a competition.  Their ridiculously oversized cartoonish woofer they destroyed a car with was an idiotic and clownish attempt to bust that "myth."  They didn't even consider the resonant frequency of the windows and went full tard out of the box.
Sometimes entertaining, but overall, it is a bad show.  Stuntman does not equal scientist.


Really late on this one but... glass is a hard (brittle) material and has a relatively high resonant frequency.  As such it's unlikely that any of the windows that you have witnessed failing we due to resonance from the bass (low frequency) in the car.  It's much more likely that they had a chip or crack or other defect that acted as a localized stress raiser and failed due to simple pressure waves.
 
2013-09-04 09:09:39 AM  

fredklein: They then towed it thru the water at a significantly slower speed than the shark in jaws swam


The shark in Jaws was not real and did not actually swim.

Other than those pesky details you got it pretty spot on
 
2013-09-04 09:16:54 AM  

johnny_vegas: fredklein: They then towed it thru the water at a significantly slower speed than the shark in jaws swam

The shark in Jaws was not real and did not actually swim.

Other than those pesky details you got it pretty spot on


The shark in the movie was a real shark. And thus, in the movie, it did swim. In real life, it was animatronic.

Don't be stupid.
 
2013-09-04 09:23:39 AM  

fredklein: Don't be stupid.


i won't if you won't....oops, too late
 
2013-09-04 09:52:51 AM  

ajgeek: Philip J. Fry: Friction between what? I hope you're just trolling and don't actually think the wheels need traction for a plane to lift off.

The prop/turbine and the air. If there were no friction, the device would just cut through the liquid and never move it.

err - no
Friction has nothing to do with the functioning of a airfoil to create lift.

 
2013-09-04 10:40:36 AM  

Mikey1969: Guadior42: Mikey1969: Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]

Her and her stand in when the babies are on the way(Jessi Combs) are She is the best parts of the show. The two dudes on the build team are cool, but Kari and Jessi makes it worth tuning in for...

FTFY

No you didn't. Jessi Combs is not only hot, but she actually knows what she's doing. Kari was a street performer they hired for the show. Combs could actually do build out with any of the guys on the show.


I haven't read the rest of the thread yet but:
She was a regular on one of the Spike-TV car shows... Extreme 4X4 I think.  She is a very capable builder/fixer/welder/fabricator from what I've seen.  (Don't judge me, the power-block is good mindless hangover TV on Sunday mornings)
 
2013-09-04 11:36:07 AM  

SharkaPult: I haven't read the rest of the thread yet but:
She was a regular on one of the Spike-TV car shows... Extreme 4X4 I think.  She is a very capable builder/fixer/welder/fabricator from what I've seen.  (Don't judge me, the power-block is good mindless hangover TV on Sunday mornings)


Nope, it was a great show, and she knows what the fark she's doing. Actually, with her gone, I stopped watchign it, the guy on there was still cool, but it was nowhere near as good. She isn't just eye candy. She graduated from WyoTech, and 4x4's are apparently in her blood. Her grandmother won an off-roading race back in the day in whatever state she was from. The girl's pretty damn bad ass, and hot as well, my wife acknowledges that she is on my "list"... ;-)
 
2013-09-04 01:17:48 PM  

Magorn: BojanglesPaladin: mbillips: Uh, have you seen polished bronze? At any distance at all, you'd barely notice the reflection. Even a modern lighthouse isn't blinding, at night, at any range over a mile. You have to factor in the RANGE at which Archimedes' weapon would have to work. In order to focus on a target at 100 meters, you'd need a mirror diameter of 200 meters, and unless you had tiered bleachers to work with, you'd have only a narrow band of focused light. And if the ships were closer than 100 meters, under oars, they'd cover the distance to the dock in a matter of seconds. Triremes are FAST. At better than 10 knots in a sprint, you'd have less than 20 seconds to start a fire. Even if you did set it on fire, it would be alongside and unloaded before it became dangerous to the ship. And all the other ships you WEREN'T focusing on would have unloaded their marines.

This one is too ludicrous to NEED busting.

Throwing both science and mythbusting completely aside, what I find most fascinating is the question of how this myth originated in the first place and why it is so pervasive. Something so obviously absurd and unworkable was accepted as part of the historical record for millennia. It's not like this account was alongside stories of Greek armies riding pegesuses..pegusi.. flying horses.

There are multiple historic references to Archimedes' defending Greece against the Romans with contraptions and and that he was responsible for setting their fleet on fire. Two second century A.D. writers, Lucian of Samosata and Galen of Pergamon, do say that Archimedes set fire to the Roman ships, but don't say exactly how. Zonares and Tzetzes writing in the 12th century quoted from an earlier work (now lost) called the Siege of Syracuse and said:

"At last, in an incredible manner, he burned up the whole Roman fleet. For by tilting a kind of mirror he ignited the air from the beam and kindled a great flame, the whole of which he directed at the ships at anchor in the path of the fire, until ...

Well, IF it did happen, either:

A) Archimedes actaully used two mirrors and a big ass ruby rod and somehow got his hands on a Xenon flashtube

or
Archidmedes used something more prosaic like seeding the harbor with naptha, and the legend just grew up around that.

And it seems to me there's a dirt simple way of proving this.  If Archimedes did consume the roman fleet at Syracuse then an archaeological expeidition should be able to find some evidence of charred roman-era Triremes in the silt of the modern day harbor, no?


No. Wood-boring worms tend to eat exposed wooden hulls. That's why marine archaeologists generally only find the keel/bilge area of wooden shipwrecks, because those areas silt up and/or dig into the mud when they reach bottom. The rest becomes worm poo.
 
2013-09-04 01:47:35 PM  

RogermcAllen: FarkinNortherner: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...

I honestly don't get the Mythbusters hate. Yes, they sometimes screw up but an army of nerds calls them on every failing and the revisits are not infrequent.

Watch an episode from the first season, then watch one of the current episodes.  The first half of an old episode was research (calling experts on the phone, visiting the morgue, etc.), while experimentation happened during the second half.  Only one or two myths were tested.  A current episode is 1/2 wearing funny hats/painting things, 1/4 recap, 1/8 product placement, and 1/8 experimentation.  To make things worse they try to cram too many things in, so they are constantly jumping between myths.  I probably wouldn't mind Mythbusters so much if I was only exposed to new episodes without knowing what they had been.


A million times this.

It *used* to be great because they did their homework and talked to SMEs *before* building their experiment. So they didn't immediately run into pitfalls that would be obvious to any high school physics class.

Now they just come up with an idea and immediately run off to build something without thinking it all the way through. I am not a physics genius, but in their past couple of seasons, it's not hard to identify what critical variables they've missed, and what failure mode that's going to induce in the test.

Then when you factor in the recaps and trying to do too much in each episode, it just becomes an exercise in boredom.

I liked the show, and would like to enjoy it again. But I can't see them returning to the older, more thoughtful approach. Obviously blowing up more shiat makes for better ratings.
 
2013-09-04 08:33:52 PM  
What the hell? The owner of the Jaguar was understanding? I thought when something didn't go your way, you were supposed to jump up and down and whine and demand millions of dollars for the emotional damage. This guy wouldn't make it two days in America.
 
2013-09-04 09:06:28 PM  

Southern100: In the case of the plane, the force is applied to air, but as the wheels are still free-turning it still only takes the same amount of force to move the plane forward @ 60mph, even though the wheels themselves may be spinning @ 120mph.


The wheels are not free turning, though. Even if you assume a zero friction bearing system at the axle, you still have angular momentum. The conveyer belt is pushing backwards on the bottom of the wheel, which applies a backwards force at the axle even without friction at the axle.
 
2013-09-04 09:43:18 PM  
Subs, you realize Mythbusters never built a 40 story building, right?

Point? You're an idiot.
 
Displayed 395 of 395 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report