Mythbusters - "Mythmission Control"

[Trekker4747]

From TV.com:

Its Jamie vs Newton in a Newton Themed Myth.

Tory, Grant and Kari RETEST the Knock you Socks off Myth.

(Wikipedia lists at least two new episodes after this one, another Duct/k Tape hour next week and the week after "Waterslide Wipeout" with a myth-listing saying asking if making only right-turns can save you gas. Which... yeah. I've got theories on that to mention but we'll discuss that in a couple of weeks, I guess.)

 

[Christopher]

Re: Mythbusters - "Mythssion Control"

It's actually "Mythssion Control," but I'm not sure that's an improvement.

Impact force: I was going to say that the fans who objected to this were way off-base. There's no preferred frame of reference. It's all relative to what you choose to define as the origin of your coordinate system. If you define your coordinate system relative to the ground, then you measure two cars hitting each other at 50 mph each. If you define your coordinate system relative to a point inside one of the cars, then you measure the same impact as one stationary car being hit by another car moving at 100 mph. Therefore, the two situations are exactly equivalent. Jamie was right about that, and if the fans were objecting on those grounds, they were wrong.

But then it occurred to me... the amount of force may the same, but if you've got two pieces of clay being deformed by that force rather than just one, then each piece of clay will be deformed half as much. And the test bore me out. So the issue wasn't the amount of force involved in the collision, and it had nothing to do with the law of action and reaction as the fans claimed; but the key was whether you actually hit two cars (both elastic and deformable) together or just hit one into a rigid, non-deformable wall. In that case, each car only experiences 50 MPH worth of deformation even though the relative speed of the collision is 100 MPH.

So the result that "the fans" said should be the case is correct, though the reasoning attributed to "the fans" is completely wrong. You get that outcome for an entirely different reason. Now, if you hit a car moving north at 50 MPH into a wall moving south at 50 MPH (and if that wall experienced no deceleration in the impact), then it would be identical to a single car hitting a stationary wall at 100 MPH. But the car hitting the wall at 100 MPH is not equivalent to two 50 MPH cars hitting head-on.

Unfortunately, the episode didn't address this except very briefly at the end, acknowledging that the total force was the same but applied to twice the mass, so each car got only half of it. At least they did acknowledge it.


"Knock your socks off": This is one I was more sanguine about from the beginning, because I had some of the same criticisms. I though they should try old socks with loose elastic; I've had socks with elastic so worn that it was hard to keep them on.

I also wonder if it would've been easier if Buster had had shoes on; maybe the shoes flying off could've pulled the socks with them. Again, if the socks were loose enough around the legs.

It's a shame their sock-pulling tests were hairy-leg vs. smooth-leg, because I would've much rather looked at Kari's legs than Tory's. And because the idea of a machine repeatedly pulling clothing items off a (consenting) woman is rather appealing.

 

[Trekker4747]

It's a shame their sock-pulling tests were hairy-leg vs. smooth-leg, because I would've much rather looked at Kari's legs than Tory's. And because the idea of a machine repeatedly pulling clothing items off a (consenting) woman is rather appealing.

You and I think alike.

I was wonder why we couldn't have Kari's leg?!

As for your second thought, well, now you've fueled my dreams for the night and I thank you.

The Newton myth was interesting but, bah, it seemed like it was another one of those over semantics than anything else. It's likely when Jamie said that he "knew what he meant" it just got muddied somewhere between him thinking it up in his head and when he said and when it was too late to re-film it.

 

[Brent]

for an episode like this though I'm surprised they only showed 2 myths, especially with the secondary team, I thought they'd be revisiting like 2 or 3 myths at least.... surely fans have complained about much more, its obvious they are running out of ideas so why not just take suggestions from fans from here on out

 

[Roger Wilco]

I thought it was an excellent episode, I can't get enough of car crashes, that's much more interesting than the stupid explosions they do all the time.

 

[Scout101]

Is there really any reason to test the "Right hand turns save gas" 'myth'? Seems like, over the course of a day of driving, it should work out as a gain, because you remove all the time you'd spend waiting for a break in traffic to turn left, or for a green light, etc. (assuming right on red laws). Map it out so that you don't make the route all that much longer, and it should work out, and keep the truck moving more often. What's the myth part? I'm sure the team will find some stupid nuiance or other to over-focus on and then call it either busted or plausible, but they're really grasping for straws at this point, seems the show is running out of ideas...

 

[Christopher]

^Somebody should bust the myth that it's possible to write off an episode as worthless before you've even seen it.

 

[Scout101]

Just an observation, based upon how they USUALLY approach these things. And also questioning, I suppose, the criteria they use for calling something a myth in the first place. I'm sure they'll get JUST anal-retentive enough about it to give themselves something to look at, but I just don't see this one having much meat.

Didn't UPS already confirm the "myth" by actually implementing it, and then saying that it appeared to be saving them money in fuel costs? Unless it was a PR lie, either to appear "green" or to screw with Fed Ex...?

 

[Scout101]

This show has done PLENTY of interesting things, and selected "common" things that make you think (cell phones on an airplane, as a random example). Just seems that as the show has gone on, the material has really thinned out a bit. I'd have to go back and look at the write-ups for old episodes, but pretty sure there's gotta be at least a couple that you could write off as worthless before they aired. Stuff that's beyond common sense, or not actually a myth in the first place.

They always leave a LITTLE wiggle room, or there would be nothing to test, and no show, but I'd have to guess that the ability to largely write off an episode as pointless pre-airing has gotta be at least Plausible.

 

[Christopher]

But some of the most entertaining episodes have involved testing myths that were totally absurd or silly, or even testing adages like "A rolling stone gathers no moss." And it's often valuable for them to test things where the outcome is obvious to the educated observer (like whether a truck would weigh less if the birds within it were flying), because a lot of people out there aren't trained to think scientifically and buy into all sorts of nonsense. So even when the outcome seems obvious, the demonstration can still be worthwhile. The process matters more than the results.

Indeed, sometimes the tests can surprise you. Like I said, I thought the fans' objections on the car-crash thing were ridiculous, that it would be pointless to retest this one. But it turned out they were actually right, albeit for the wrong reason. Even though Jamie and I both had our physics right about the amount of force and kinetic energy involved, we both overlooked one key factor, whether that energy was delivered to one car or two. So you can never assume you know what the outcome will be until you test it. That's why it's worth testing myths when the outcome seems obvious. And that's why it's worth waiting until you've actually seen an episode before you judge its quality.

 

[firehawk12]

It just feels like the show has become an excuse to blow things up now... I don't know why but I just liked when things were smaller scale and they didn't have the budget to smash or explode things.

I don't mind because I'm still watching it I suppose, but I feel like it's lost most of its educational value and has simply become formulaic entertainment. That's not condemnation or anything, just mild disappointment.

 

[Hermiod]

It just feels like the show has become an excuse to blow things up now... I don't know why but I just liked when things were smaller scale and they didn't have the budget to smash or explode things.

I don't mind because I'm still watching it I suppose, but I feel like it's lost most of its educational value and has simply become formulaic entertainment. That's not condemnation or anything, just mild disappointment.

I have to say, I'm not enjoying the show as much as I used to. I had to fast forward through most of last week's awful pain endurance "experiment" which didn't seem to be based on any kind of real myth that needed to be busted.

 

[Christopher]

I had to fast forward through most of last week's awful pain endurance "experiment" which didn't seem to be based on any kind of real myth that needed to be busted.

I was familiar with the myths about women having more pain endurance than men (which is kind of self-evident given that men don't have to give birth) and the one about redheads being more sensitive to pain than others. And while I haven't heard "cursing lets you endure more pain" stated outright in that way, it seemed likely that it's been noted anecdotally. So they were all worth testing.

Still, their techniques aren't as good as they used to be. As I commented last week, they mishandled the redhead myth, testing endurance when the myth (and the increasing medical evidence supporting it) is about sensitivity. And although they demonstrated that cursing did seem to have an effect, they didn't discuss the science of why that would be, even though that actually gets into some very interesting psychology and neuroscience. (Or if they did discuss it, that got cut out of the US broadcast.)

 

[Hermiod]

I was familiar with the myths about women having more pain endurance than men (which is kind of self-evident given that men don't have to give birth)

Well, not really since, as I believe Cicero pointed out, a far larger, more focused study disproved that one and had a lot to say about the different ways men and women deal with pain.

and the one about redheads being more sensitive to pain than others. And while I haven't heard "cursing lets you endure more pain" stated outright in that way, it seemed likely that it's been noted anecdotally. So they were all worth testing.

The swearing one was the only one worth testing.

 

[Christopher]

^In your opinion. Mine differs.

 

[Hermiod]

^In your opinion. Mine differs.

So I gathered. No need to be like that.

 

[Christopher]

^From where I'm sitting, you're the one "being like that." Just because you personally didn't enjoy them, that doesn't mean they objectively weren't worth testing, so your curt dismissal came off as rude. I also felt it was directed personally against me because you went out of your way to contradict my statement directly.

But if we're both telling the other to be less rude, perhaps we're mutually misunderstanding each other's intent. Text communication lacks the nonverbal cues that ease friction and prevent such misreadings, so people online tend to jump to the worst conclusions about each other's intentions.

 

[Hermiod]

^From where I'm sitting, you're the one "being like that." Just because you personally didn't enjoy them, that doesn't mean they objectively weren't worth testing, so your curt dismissal came off as rude. I also felt it was directed personally against me because you went out of your way to contradict my statement directly.

But if we're both telling the other to be less rude, perhaps we're mutually misunderstanding each other's intent. Text communication lacks the nonverbal cues that ease friction and prevent such misreadings, so people online tend to jump to the worst conclusions about each other's intentions.

Sorry if I came off as rude, I didn't mean to be.

The gender one has been done far more conclusively, the one about red haired people seems way too obscure (though maybe that's because I'm not American), though the swearing one was more interesting.

I only mention this one because it's a good example of how less interesting to me the myths are becoming, really, which is very disappointing.

 

[Scout101]

And that's why it's worth waiting until you've actually seen an episode before you judge its quality.

Wasn't judging the quality of the episode, really, only as it pertains to the decreasing quality of the MYTHS they are testing. They usually find some angle to try and test, but the quality of the myths under test has been getting questionable lately. IMO, the right turns only myth doesn't seem all that in need of busting. They'll screw with it and distort things until they have SOMETHING to test (or get anal about letter of the law vs what the myth is actually about, as they do sometimes), but doesn't seem much fun to watch them test, either.

Couple weeks ago, was it really needed to test whether being hit with a full bottle imparts more damage than an empty one? Sure, maybe it would have suprised us if it was other than expected, but maybe they should field test some off screen before deciding to make an episode about it? Or they did, and just didn't have anything better to air?

I mean really, where was the myth that an empty bottle could cause more damage really coming from? Getting hit with something much more massive pretty much always results in greater trauma, doesn't it? Empty bottle will break a little easier, but that's akin to a crumple zone, so the non-breaking bottle will still be worse.

Not complaining about EPISODE quality, but about MYTH quality lately...

 

[Christopher]

^Well, I thought the bottle myth was worthwhile, and I'm genuinely interested in the right-turns myth because it's a concept I've never come across before and I'd like to see the topic explored. So different people can have different perspectives on whether a myth "needs" to be tested.