What Myth would you want to see busted?

D.P. said:
It is a shame that Glaucus is wrong because he was more correct in understanding the physics than more or less everyone else.

Most of the people saying Glaucus was wrong believe that a plane could not take off from a conveyor belt, and thus are truly ignorant of the physics.


if you had a a pair of rotor attached with frictionless bearings to a shaft connected to a rotating turntable, then the rotors wont rotate, merely the the shaft with the bearings. This case is like the plane on a conveyor, the rotors being unattached to the shaft.
Click to expand...

How was he more correct with the physics? He belived that rotating an engine could magically change the engine's rpm.

And as for your second point I most definetely agree that the plane would take off.

This whole "yeah, you were right, but you are ignorant of the physics" stance annoys me.

I'm far from ignorant of the physics, I have a very good knowledge of aircraft and engine mechanics, I thank you very much :)
 
[FnG]magnolia;21281947 said:
Two sandwiches. Two. They're distinct and discrete from one another.
Click to expand...

I think people should be less concerned about mine and Glaucus' mistake with the helicopter and more concerned about magnolia's obvious error when it comes to sandwiches!

:D

Where's that thread from a few years ago, this argument went on for ages!
 
Is it along the lines of cutting a sandwich in half produces 2 sandwiches instead of 2 halves of a sandwich..

If so that annoys me too. If not, then that annoys me.
 
If my kids asked for 2 sandwiches and I made them one, cut in half, and told them it was 2, they would go mental. My kids' judgement is final! ;)
 
If there ever was a myth that people on internet forums always agree on things, then this thread has well and truly busted it :)
 
Liampope said:
...

not completely independant of each other with no 'force link' as Glacus was suggesting - if that was the case no engine/motor could produce any torque.

...
Click to expand...

That's what I thought, but I couldn't be sure as I don't know anything about how drive shafts and cranks shafts are connected and thought I might be missing something.
 
LordSplodge said:
All this arguing over helicopters. I take it nobody saw the plane on a conveyor belt episode then? Same principle and it still takes off.
Click to expand...

Er no - not the same. But been done to death now - see above.

Anyway - sandwiches :). Well clearly if you cut a sandwich in half, the two halves both still meet the definition of a sandwich (two bits of bread with filling between) so you can call each half a sandwich in its own right. So you have two sandwiches. Exactly as, for example, a piece of wood. If you cut a piece of wood in half you now have two pieces of wood. Sandwiches, wood, many more - yes. Cars, humans, etc - no. The two halves would not still meet the definition of the object. Not a difficult one, that one. :)
 
[FnG]magnolia;21281654 said:
This is a fact rather than a myth but if I have one sandwich and then I cut it in half, I now have two sandwiches. Where did the other one come from?
Click to expand...

Your missus? :p
 
Liampope said:
Anyway - sandwiches :). Well clearly if you cut a sandwich in half, the two halves both still meet the definition of a sandwich (two bits of bread with filling between) so you can call each half a sandwich in its own right. So you have two sandwiches. Exactly as, for example, a piece of wood. If you cut a piece of wood in half you now have two pieces of wood. Sandwiches, wood, many more - yes. Cars, humans, etc - no. The two halves would not still meet the definition of the object. Not a difficult one, that one. :)
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that if you cut a piece of wood in half then you have a saw. :p
 
Liampope said:
Er no - not the same. But been done to death now - see above.

Anyway - sandwiches :). Well clearly if you cut a sandwich in half, the two halves both still meet the definition of a sandwich (two bits of bread with filling between) so you can call each half a sandwich in its own right. So you have two sandwiches. Exactly as, for example, a piece of wood. If you cut a piece of wood in half you now have two pieces of wood. Sandwiches, wood, many more - yes. Cars, humans, etc - no. The two halves would not still meet the definition of the object. Not a difficult one, that one. :)
Click to expand...

I beg to differ!! What if one side of the sandwich that you cut has all the meat on it then that is the sandwich and the other half is just a waste. Similarily if you cut a person in half on a cellular level then perhaps you could have another person!? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom