For anyone missing the show, there was a wonderful project called Streamlined Mythbusters where fans edited each episode down to remove the filler, pre and post ad recaps, etc. They usually also would reorder things so each individual myth was seld contained.
It’s wonderful, but some episodes legitimately got cut down to be 16 minutes long with no real content loss, which can be kind of jarring.
Oh god, I forgot, it was during the “REALITY TV!” boom where marketing and hype had more substance than the shows themselves, and if the show had substance… edit it like it is Reality TV…
I do not miss that.
There is also Smyths, which is the same thing.
Unfortunately Mythbusters edits have a tendency to get pulled from the typical video sharing sites rather quickly. I wish someone would make a torrent of the entire series edited this way, and call it a day.
What, like the pinned post on the smyths reddit page?
Boom De Yada: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_f98qOGY0
(for some nostalgic Discovery vibes)
The last comments in the image are exactly right.
It bothers me when I screw up and someone says “I fixed that for you” without explaining how I screwed things up, or how they fixed it.
If I’m wrong, I get it. I’m not always right, nobody can be right 100% of the time, IMO, that’s impossible. But when I’m wrong, let me learn so I can avoid being wrong in the same way twice.
IMO, schools have failed us, they teach us what we should know but don’t encourage us to always be curious and always be learning. It’s okay to make mistakes, and it’s okay to be wrong. What’s not okay is never learning from your mistakes, and being so stubborn that when you are wrong, you double down on being wrong instead of seeking more information so you can be correct next time.
Being wrong is always condemned. You get low grades, you fail and get held back in some cases… It’s been rare that any teacher I’ve ever had would review anything from a test after its over. A very small number went back and said “a lot of people had trouble with x question from the test, here’s the answer and this is why it’s the correct answer”. IMO, that should be way more common… Review the test after its over and let the class know that low marks are not the end, they’re a wonderful beginning to learning. If you know what you don’t know and you have even the smallest amount of ability and willingness to improve, with the addition of opportunities to learn that, then you will always succeed.
Be successful. Get a bunch of shit wrong.
Sometimes there’s a twitch stream of random mythbusters episodes. It’s so fun.
I wish they came back :/
Ive told people this many times, we need to create more room for failure. From school, to jobs, to building businesses, to loans, to health.
If we can try something because if we fail we can try something else, we would find a hell of a lot more to care about in this world.
And the most important thing we would care more about is ourselves
Mandatory Dwarf Fortress in every school.
Okay thats it im tired of people commenting about this Dwarf fortress. How much of my soul does it cost? Whats that in hours needed?
First, read Boatmurdered. Then realise it’s worth whatever the cost is
If you’re the type of gamer that gets sucked into Rimworld, then Dwarf Fortress will very likely consume you.
Yes. Be ready for the most fun you’ll ever experience in a game.
I cannot agree enough with this statement and especially love your closing. We definitely don’t tend to be able to take enough time to really care for ourselves and try and fail at new things.
Oh thank you very much
Science and academia, too. There’s way too few papers being published about failed experimemts. “I thought A, so I did B in order to achieve C, but it didn’t work out because of D.” is a very useful result.
Quoth Adam Savage: “It’s not ‘my experiment failed’, it’s ‘my experiment yielded data!’”
I miss Mythbusters. These days, the closest thing is Maker youtube channels like Failed Mythbuster Allen Pan, Simone Gertz, William Osman, StyroPyro, ElectroBoom, Stuff Made Here.
My favorite is the fan mounted to the boat blowing the sail causing the boat to move. I mean there are a shitload more experiments in fun episodes that are far better and more entertaining, but this one is my favorite because it flies in the face of logic. It shouldn’t work. My brain rejects the possibility. But physics and fluid flow work otherwise and I found it pointlessly infuriating only because I’d been unassailable in my confidence that it couldn’t possibly work. Yet there it is with a perfectly logical explanation. I still find it irritating even if I accept the reality of it. (Episode 165 if anyone’s wondering)
That said, I still follow Adam on various platforms. That enthusiasm and joy of discovery is all still there, along with some maturity and some life observations. Literally the only celebrity figure I follow.
My fav was if you could shoot someone in water. Turns out that just 3 ft. of water was enough to stop a 50 cal! So as great of a film as Saving Private Ryan was, the opening scene where bullets wiz thru the sea killing soldiers was pure fiction.
It doesn’t matter how you run because ALLIGATORS WON’T CHASE YOU.
I used to live in Florida on the edge of a big lake where my landlord had carved out a lagoon that mama gators used to hatch their broods, so there would often be between 50 and 100 little alligators chilling out in my backyard sunning themselves. For fun I would try to sneak up on one of them and poke it on the head just to watch it and all the others scatter into the lagoon. Everybody I told about this thought I was absolutely batshit crazy, but I knew that at the time there had been something like 5 alligator attacks on humans in Florida since the 1940s, always on little children playing in water (I was obviously a little child mentally but physically I was a 200-pound adult man). So I knew I wasn’t risking life or limb doing this. For the record, my sneaking up technique was to stand stock still and only move a step or two towards the gator whenever the wind blew; it seems that the gators just took me for a swaying branch and ignored me.
What made me stop doing this was one day I happened to look down at what I thought was a big log and realized that it was actually the mama gator, about 12’ long from tip to tail and probably 2’ in diameter at her midsection. I was fairly confident that she wouldn’t attack me on land either - but not that confident.
but not that confident.
That’s how you bust myths!
So, we meet at last, Florida Man!
No way! I left and I still have all my teeth.
This is why most skepticism based programs don’t work, and Mythbusters did.
They didn’t try to be smug about it, they didn’t belittle people who believed in the myths, they never brought religion and politics into it, and the biggest pitfall they avoided: They never pretended that the “science was settled” and that they “already knew everything”, they simply did the research and went where the data took them.
Too many skepticism based programs seem to think the scientific method is running into a church, yelling “FAKE!”, and then running outside to hurl insults at passersby.
Mythbusters didn’t do that, they skipped the dogma and went straight to the science.
Also, most of the myths weren’t “serious”- it wasn’t like they were debunking flat earth or something.
it wasn’t like they were debunking flat earth or something
Though you could do that. And with equipment and a type of experiment that would make sense on their show. The experiment conducted at the very end of the documentary Behind the Curve is perfect. Great big lasers, a simple and easy-to-visualise pass condition. If they had wanted to, they absolutely could have done it.
Could’ve had an episode where they tried as many experiments as they could fit into a two-week production.
I hate that debunking flat earth is now seen as serious rather than a 5th grade science experiment.
Being excited about being wrong because either way it’s information
This literally is the basis of science that I think a lot of people misunderstand. Science doesn’t prove anything conclusively. What scientists try to do is disprove the leading theory and when they can’t, it adds to the pile of evidence that increases the likelyhood of the leading theory being correct. Even things that we’re very, very, very sure are correct are still like 99.99999999999…% confirmed.
A good example that’s often used to show how it’s more important to try to disprove a theory rather than trying to prove it is the existence of black swans. It was long thought that all swans were white and every time someone saw a white swan, that idea was reinforced. But when someone actually went out of their way to go looking for a black swan, they found a bunch of them!
I feel it is my pedantic duty to inform you that 99.9… is equal to 100.
Only if you’re rounding. 99.9 is still 1/10 of a digit separated from 100, but it’s not equal to 100 for good reason.
But the “…” matters.
It only signifies that the post-decimal nines are repeating infinitely. It still doesn’t make 99.99999…=100 unless you intentionally round the value for some nondescript reason, and even then, rounding off isn’t changing the value, only the perceived value for mathematical simplicity, not objective accuracy.
My favorite is planes on a treadmill.
Mostly because fans still argue about it and it’s hit the point they had to ban PoaT comments.
Which is insane as it’s not that difficult to understand. When a plane is on the ground, its gear/wheels will roll at ground speed, but the wings provide lift at airspeed.
If the ground is being moved under the plane (as on a treadmill,) the wheels will just roll faster.
Sure they’re not zero friction and some of that needs to be overcome; but this is something encountered on a daily basis all across the world- or rather, the opposite.
If the wind is coming from ahead, its airspeed is increased and the plane needs a lower ground speed to get into the air where if the wind is coming from behind, then they need more.
(This is why carriers set course into the wind when launching jets,)
At no point is ground speed and airspeed necessarily the same (i suppose you could have a calm day, but most days, the wind is blowing at least some.)
Which is insane as it’s not that difficult to understand
I found it hard to understand because neither they nor any of the other sources I’ve seen explaining this even attempted to answer what I thought was an incredibly obvious question: at what point does this become true? A stationary aeroplane on a treadmill will obviously move with the treadmill. I assume an aeroplane moving at like 1 km/h still gets pulled backward by the treadmill. At what point does the transition occur, and what does that transition process look like? Why can’t a treadmill prevent the plane from taking off by pulling it backwards by never letting it start getting forward motion? Where does the lift come from?
I can understand how a treadmill doesn’t stop a plane that’s already moving, but how does it get lift if it is prevented from accelerating from 0 to 1 km/h of ground speed (relative to the real ground—relative to the ground it experiences, it is moving forward at the same speed as the treadmill is moving backward), since until it starts getting lift, airspeed and ground speed are surely effectively equal (wind being too small of a factor)?
at what point does this become true?
It’s always true.
A stationary aeroplane on a treadmill will obviously move with the treadmill
What do you mean? The plane has its parking brakes on and moves with the treadmill surface? If you don’t have parking brakes engaged and start up a treadmill under a plane, the plane’s wheels will spin and the plane will stay pretty much in one place. Because the wheels are free to spin, initially that’s all that will happen. The inertia of the plane will keep it in place while the wheels spin. Over time, the plane will start to drift in the direction the treadmill is moving, but it will never move as fast as the treadmill because there’s also friction from the air, and that’s going to be a much bigger factor.
I assume an aeroplane moving at like 1 km/h still gets pulled backward by the treadmill.
Moving at 1 km/h relative to what? The surface of the treadmill or the “world frame”? A plane on a moving treadmill will be pulled by the treadmill – there will be friction in the wheels, but it will also feel a force from the air. As soon as the pilot fires up the engine, the force from the engine will be much higher than any tiny amount of friction in the wheels from the treadmill.
but how does it get lift if it is prevented from accelerating from 0 to 1 km/h of ground speed
It isn’t prevented from accelerating from 0 to 1 km/h of ground speed. The wheels are spinning furiously, but they’re relatively frictionless. If the pilot didn’t start up the propeller, the plane would start to move in the direction the treadmill is pulling, but would never quite reach the speed of the treadmill due to air resistance. But, as soon as the pilot fires up the propeller, it works basically as normal. A little bit of the air will be moving backwards due to the treadmill, but most of the air will still be relatively stationary, so it’s easy to move the plane through the air quicker and quicker until it reaches take-off speed.
The key insight is that the force a plane uses to move is independent of the ground, because planes push on the air, not the ground.
Imagine you put a ball on a treadmill and turn it on, what happens? The ball starts to spin and move with the treadmill. Now take your hand and push the ball backwards against the motion of the treadmill, and the ball easily moves in that direction. The force your hand put on the ball is exactly what planes do, since they push on something other than the ground (the treadmill) they have no problem moving, no matter how fast the treadmill is moving.
I think the confusion is that the conveyor belt is running at a fixed speed, which is the aircraft’s takeoff speed. That just dictates how fast the wheels spin, but since the plane generates thrust with its propeller, the wheels just end up having to spin at double takeoff speed. Since they’re relatively frictionless, that’s easy.
The more confusing myth is the one where the speed of the conveyor belt is variable, and it always moves at the same speed as the wheels. So, at the beginning the conveyor belt isn’t moving, but as soon as the plane starts to move, and its wheels start to spin, the conveyor belt movies in the opposite direction. In that case, the plane can’t take off. That’s basically like attaching an anchor to the plane’s frame, so no matter how fast the propeller spins, the airplane can’t move.
Except it’s not like attaching an anchor. The plane isn’t physically attached.
The wheels will just roll double whatever the current ground speed is. If the plane has enough thrust to take off with the treadmill moving an inverse of its take off speed, then it has enough force to start rolling, too.
At most, the force applied by the treadmill would be sufficient over enough time to lengthen the take off roll, but given enough space to do so, the plane will take off.
To keep the plane from rolling forward; the treadmill would have to be able to apply an equal force as the engines, it can’t do that through the wheels- the wheels can only apply a force equal to their rolling resistance and friction in its mechanics.
If the conveyor moves at the same speed as the wheels, it is exactly like attaching an anchor. That isn’t the myth they were testing, but it’s a more interesting myth.
it can’t do that through the wheels- the wheels can only apply a force equal to their rolling resistance and friction in its mechanics.
It can do that if it can spin the wheels fast enough. Picture the ultra-light airplane from the episode with big, bouncy wheels and a relatively weak propeller. If the treadmill was moving 1000 km/h backwards, that little propeller could never match the force due to rolling resistance from the wheels.
Just to clarify; you understand that because the engines are pushing on the plane itself and not the wheels, by the time the wheels start moving, the plane is already moving relative to ground and air alike.
Which, said another way, this thought problem appears confusing because it’s being considered from otherwise irrelevant reference frames.
An anchor sufficient to keep the plane from rolling forward is different because the force it is apply is significantly greater.
Sure, you can deflate the tires and increase the rate of spin on the wheels. But at that point, you might as well ask “can we creat a scenario where planes can’t take off”
To which the answer is definitely “Yes”,
And as a side note, if we assume the wheels are indestructible, which I’d argue is only fair, then even if what you’re saying is true and we ramp up the drag induced by the wheels sufficient to counter the engines… then the wind generated by the rolling treadmill would be producing a sufficient headwind for the plane to take off. (Remember, the air resistance of the treadmill’s belt moving will accelerate the air some.)
But again, the wheels have almost zero drag to begin with, the speed at which the roll is independent of both the actual groundspeed and the airspeed of the airplane.
If it has the thrust to over come friction at take off speeds, and at standing, then it has enough power to get to take off velocity eventually.
On the other hand, this entire conversation assumes the thrust to weight ratio is less than 1. If it’s more than one, well they just…. Go straight up.
I wish more people in general would be OK with being wrong. Noone ever learned something new without knowing they’d been wrong
Kind of related but there was a video on StarTalk a couple days ago on NGT rebutting a Joe Rogan interview with Terrence Howard. It’s was joyous watching a breakdown in how science works while very politely calling TH an absolute moron.
