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  
•       •       •

31923 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 395 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report