MythBusters

[hdeck]

how about every stop posting until they air the episode, then everyone can bitch because they did it wrong.

 

[mwd410]

Originally posted by: mwd410
and that's what E=mc^2 means

the amount of energy in matter is the amount of mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. aka there is an astronomically enormous amount of energy in every atom.

in fact i believe i remember hearing something like in a hydrogen atom there's enough energy to make a grain of sand jump 1 cm. that's intense if you think about it..

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Cold Steel
Anyone else notice this? First, we had smackdown talking about power being confused with acceleration........

Originally posted by: smack Down


It doesn't take power for the car to drive at 1 m/s. Power implies an acceleration of the car . You are think of a car with its engine off now think of one with its engine on.

And in response, I posted this....

Originally posted by: Cold Steel
umm... no.

Acceleration is a change in velocity. Power is the amount of work being done over time. It takes power for a car to drive at 1m/s, but if the car is steady at 1m/s, there is no acceleration.

Then we had smackdown confusing work and potential energy.....

Originally posted by: smack Down

Work is the change in potential energy the potential energy of the car. There is no change when the car is driving at a constant speed on level ground.

To which I posted this....

Originally posted by: Cold Steel
Again, umm..... no. Potential energy is the energy stored by position. A drawn bow has potential energy. A car moving at 1m/s is not storing energy as a function of it's position.

And after that, no more discussion of power, acceleration, work or potential energy from the illustrious smackdown.

Now he wants to talk about censervation of energy, yet states that only non nuclear systems have conservation of energy followed by a statement that all systems have conservation of energy.

So, he goes from one physics law to another, only to be shown he is incorrect, clearly not understanding any of them.

WTF is your point. I didn't responded about the bow because we are not talking about bows. And you got me I didn't in every post use the full defintion of the law of conservation of energy again who gives a fuck. We are not talking about a nuclear system so the point is moot.

 

[mwd410]

no, his point is not that you are not using the whole definition every time, it's that you are consistently either using the wrong definition of a law, and/or using different definitions for each law each time you attempt to use it.

you would make a miserable physicist

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: mwd410
no, his point is not that you are not using the whole definition every time, it's that you are consistently either using the wrong definition of a law, and/or using different definitions for each law each time you attempt to use it.

you would make a miserable physicist

Edit does it make a difference if I had used the whole definition or the same definition? No then he has no point.

Gee, I guess I will have to settle for being a well paid engineer. If only I spent more time worrying about pointless distention in a definition I to could be an unemployed physics graduate.

 

[mwd410]

you're completely missing the point. you are sighting definitions that are plain wrong, and using them in a way that is plain wrong.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: mwd410
you are completely clueless. it is extremely evident that you have absolutely no solid physics knowledge whatsoever. there will never be any convincing you ever, and frankly i'm done trying. you, sir are the one who needs to take some physics classes, and you, sir, are the one who needs to come back to me when you actually understand anything you are talking about.

if you'd really like, i might be able to get one of my physics professors to explain in greater detail how you are wrong, would that satisfy you? probably not because you'd probably just say he was wrong.

Welcome to the "Smackdown cannot get off of the treadmill" club.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: mwd410
you're completely missing the point. you are sighting definitions that are plain wrong, and using them in a way that is plain wrong.

just give it up. Smackdown is just a troll.

 

[mwd410]

hey man i have like 3 hours of my life invested in this thread, i want the pain to admit he's wrong.


smack down, hypothetically.. what would happen if on myth busters, the plane were to take off? what would you do?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: mwd410
you're completely missing the point. you are sighting definitions that are plain wrong, and using them in a way that is plain wrong.

You can say that all day wrong but it doesn't make it true. I measured the starting energy of the system, compared it to the ending energy of the system, noted they where not equal which is a violation of the law of conservation of energy. You have yet to raise any valid disputes to either the starting or ending energy of the system. You said I was missing, heat, sound and friction I added them result did not change your theory is wrong.

 

[Cold Steel]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Gee, I guess I will have to settle for being a well paid engineer.

Why do I have serious doubts that this is a true statement? An engineer? In what dicipline, in what field?

BTW, I am still waiting for an answer..... What is your education?



Edit: How, exactly, did you "measure the starting energy of the system"?

 

[mwd410]

smack down, hypothetically.. what would happen if on myth busters, the plane were to take off? what would you do?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Cold Steel

Originally posted by: smack Down

Gee, I guess I will have to settle for being a well paid engineer.

Why do I have serious doubts that this is a true statement? An engineer? In what dicipline, in what field?

BTW, I am still waiting for an answer..... What is your education?



Edit: How, exactly, did you "measure the starting energy of the system"?

Simple my rocket car is perfect and doesn't waste any energy I let it run until it ran out of gas (1 second in my example) and measured the velocity of car. Using the velocity of the car it is trivial to calculate its energy.

 

[Cold Steel]

OK, so you're using a hypothetical rocket car with a hypothetical rocket. Great. What were your conditions? What was your answer? If you really did this, you'll have math to show for it. Let's see it.

And you STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS. What dicipline, what field, what education?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: mwd410
smack down, hypothetically.. what would happen if on myth busters, the plane were to take off? what would you do?

he would continue entertaining himself at your expense...

 

[Cold Steel]

Originally posted by: randay


he would continue entertaining himself at your expense...

Yeah. That's pretty much what I've concluded.

So smack down is a moronic troll, not an engineer, and has no clue. Got it. I'm out now.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: hdeck
how about every stop posting until they air the episode, then everyone can bitch because they did it wrong.

by then the thread will be a few pages back.

 

[mwd410]

frankly, i'm ok with that. yeah, i'm agreeing with Cold Steel here, i'm done with this thread until they actually air the episode.

 

[moparacer]

Who cares about the plane......

Just need more episodes with Kari in them!!!!!

Something about a chic working with ballistics gel turns me ON!!!!!

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: moparacer
Who cares about the plane......

Just need more episodes with Kari in them!!!!!

Something about a chic working with ballistics gel turns me ON!!!!!

That might possibly be part of the reason she was made a bigger part of the show - same reason Seven of Nine joined Voyager in her particular wardrobe, including super-efficient high-heel shoes.:roll: Yeah, a former Borg would wear that. But why do it? Ratings.
Kari's "debut" episode was when they scanned her butt for the airplane toilet suction myth. Welcome to the biz.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: mwd410
no, his point is not that you are not using the whole definition every time, it's that you are consistently either using the wrong definition of a law, and/or using different definitions for each law each time you attempt to use it.

you would make a miserable physicist

Edit does it make a difference if I had used the whole definition or the same definition? No then he has no point.

Gee, I guess I will have to settle for being a well paid engineer. If only I spent more time worrying about pointless distention in a definition I to could be an unemployed physics graduate.

Physics: D-
Grammar: F

tell me, from which primordial muck did your bloodline emerge such that you are the sole remaining vestige of the stuck-on-treadmill clan? how can you still be grounded on this thing, when the answer is so blatantly obvious?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: mwd410
smack down, hypothetically.. what would happen if on myth busters, the plane were to take off? what would you do?

he would continue entertaining himself at your expense...

winnar

 

[tranceport]

TOMMORROW!

 

[her209]

One more day.

 

[sandorski]

24 hours!