Barack Obama to appear on MythBusters in December

[Tony The Bot]

Barack Obama to appear on MythBusters in December
Posted via Canadian Content

In an effort to increase interest in science and engineering, US President Barack Obama is scheduled to appear on Discovery on December 8, 2010.

“The president is a fan of the show, which we’re tickled pink about,” co-host Jamie Hyneman told reporters outside of the White House after honouring students presenting science fair projects.

If you didn't know already, the show takes a look at common legends and myths and rigs up experiments to see whether they hold true.

The show is reportedly set to examine whether it was possible for Archimedes to set fire to the Roman fleet using only sunlight powered by mirrors -- the so-called Archimedes death ray thought to have been used against wooden ships.

The myth has already been 'busted' twice on the show.

The sudden interest in science comes from recent reports that the nations students lack enthusiasm in science, therefore slugging down the future of the economy.

“I thought we ought to do the same thing for the winners of science fairs and robotic contests and math competitions,” said Obama.


Original Article: http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/barack-obama-appear-mythbusters-december_1008.html

 

[Praxius]

If you didn't know already, the show takes a look at common legends and myths and rigs up experiments to see whether they hold true.

---------------

^ Yeah last I saw of that show, they ran out of myths and just digging up weird concepts their fans think up.

But I never liked the show personally, mostly due to how they approach their "Tests" which are usually some heavily scaled down simulation which they toss a bunch of numbers at and magically claim that their scaled down test would produce such and such results, while not factoring a number of variables along the way because they either didn't do a realistic test of the real thing or they used some off-shot test that focuses on something close to what they're looking for, but not exactly.

Then they base their final conclusions on their screwed up and limited tests and state if a myth is a myth or a fact as if they're the be-all, end-all say on the matter and nobody can do any better then themselves.

An example?

How about the whirlpool test to see if one could haul down a ship?

They used a big tank full of water and produced a mini whirlpool which they threw a plastic toy boat in to see if it would sink. To their surprise it didn't....... yet for some reason they seemed to not account for the fact that even though you scaled down the experiment to the power of a whirlpool equivalent to the size of the plastic boat, they can not scale down the water they're using on the particle level, let alone the surrounding oxygen to give the same outcome of buoyancy that a full 1:1 sized whirlpool would have on a full 1:1 sized tanker or large boat...... in other words, their test was a complete waste of time.

Though they did start to catch on when buddy took the very light plastic boat out and jumped in himself and started to get pulled under. His weight and mass based on the real 1:1 water and oxygen being used with the power being used to create the whirlpool showed that a small whirlpool could easily tire out and eventually haul a human down under the surface, which would conclude that a much larger, much more powerful whirlpool could do the same thing to a full size, much larger and much heavier boat.

^ They claim it's busted..... I claim they're idiots.

But besides all that, it is a nice gesture from Obama to appear on the show..... if it helps promote science (or whatever "Science" they claim to do on that show) and get people interested in science..... who am I to argue?

 

[lone wolf]

I'd love to see forums debunkers provide the same sort of entertainment....

 

[mentalfloss]

 

[Avro]

They should tackle the myth of AGW, polution and the so called negative effects of smoking.

While they are at it they should look into the myth of the Bamsters birthplace in Hawaii.

Hard to believe the public still believes he is US born.

 

[Praxius]

I'd love to see forums debunkers provide the same sort of entertainment....

Entertainment?

Pee Wee Herman was entertaining..... they're just a bunch of reject hacks that couldn't make it in any real scientific industry so they whipped up their own show and called it "Science"

But that's jmo.

 

[TenPenny]

They aren't scientists, they're special effects / stunt people. Their backgrounds are as movie effects people, stuntmen, model builders, etc.


All in all, though, Kari could bust a few myths.

 

[Praxius]

They aren't scientists, they're special effects / stunt people. Their backgrounds are as movie effects people, stuntmen, model builders, etc.

All in all, though, Kari could bust a few myths.

Agreed, they're special effects / stunt people..... yet every time I hear someone on a forum defend them, or someone reviewing the show in some web site or show, they all claim they're highly trained scientists, experts and pretty well the be-all, end-all in regards to solving any and all pointless mysteries very few really care about.

I still get a kick out of that time when they decided to see how ballistics are affected by water and they got the brilliant idea to make a very long, yet very very narrow acrylic container of water to shoot a shotgun into...... before they were even setup I knew they were going to make a huge and dangerous mess and sure enough..... BOOOM...... they blew the snot out of the container due to the shotgun spread..... which they seemed to have forgotten to calculate.

Now I'm not saying they know nothing about science and/or math.... I just wouldn't call them experts or rely solely on their say in regards to final answers on any subject..... just as I wouldn't expect anybody to rely solely on what I say as being biblical...... though it wouldn't hurt. ;-)

 

[mentalfloss]

I think the validity of this move depends on the content of that particular show. If it's something general and kid-friendly, then I don't think there is much of a problem here. If they're going to go on about Hawking's non-theism then this wouldn't be too wise.

 

[lone wolf]

Entertainment?

Pee Wee Herman was entertaining..... they're just a bunch of reject hacks that couldn't make it in any real scientific industry so they whipped up their own show and called it "Science"

But that's jmo.

We had one of those annoying Pee Wee types ... and he ended up banned.

 

[Praxius]

We had one of those annoying Pee Wee types ... and he ended up banned.

lol.... must have missed that person when I was out for a year..... or are you talking about me?

 

[#juan]

they all claim they're highly trained scientists, experts and pretty well the be-all, end-all in regards to solving any and all pointless mysteries very few really care about.

Actually, they say they know enough of what they are doing to keep things safe and they warn people not to
try their tricks at home.

 

[lone wolf]

lol.... must have missed that person when I was out for a year..... or are you talking about me?

He was here and probably circumcised ;-) before you signed on.

 

[DaSleeper]

He was here and probably circumcised ;-) before you signed on.

But he keeps comming back;-)

 

[GreenFish66]

Obama's on Mythbusters......So Watch it !..Don't be bad lippin' Obama ...Or All the ObamaManiacs will Zap you with their Mythbuster Obamanator Death Ray Guns.....Ah.. uh ..Is a good show, made even better when the President of the U.S is on it...

So Watch it!..:icon_smile:

 

[Tonington]

An example?

How about the whirlpool test to see if one could haul down a ship?

They used a big tank full of water and produced a mini whirlpool which they threw a plastic toy boat in to see if it would sink. To their surprise it didn't....... yet for some reason they seemed to not account for the fact that even though you scaled down the experiment to the power of a whirlpool equivalent to the size of the plastic boat, they can not scale down the water they're using on the particle level, let alone the surrounding oxygen to give the same outcome of buoyancy that a full 1:1 sized whirlpool would have on a full 1:1 sized tanker or large boat...... in other words, their test was a complete waste of time.

Umm, physics fail. You can't make a molecule of water any smaller...there is known physics at work here, and scaled models are used all the time, rather successfully. You don't launch a rocket, make a brand new ship hull, a brand new car, without small scale tests. It's simply too expensive to work out details that can be found in scaled tests. Wind tunnels, hydraulic scale models, computer models....it's pretty standard in science and engineering to use models.

 

[TenPenny]

And, CFD (computational fluid dynamics) is an accepted science for scaling fluid dynamics, whether it's a stock tank in a pulp mill, or a biofuels plant.

 

[Praxius]

Umm, physics fail. You can't make a molecule of water any smaller...there is known physics at work here, and scaled models are used all the time, rather successfully. You don't launch a rocket, make a brand new ship hull, a brand new car, without small scale tests. It's simply too expensive to work out details that can be found in scaled tests. Wind tunnels, hydraulic scale models, computer models....it's pretty standard in science and engineering to use models.

Indeed it is.... but not for the particular test they were conducting that I was talking about.

And that was my point that you can't make a molecule of water any smaller, which means the plastic boat and its weight/volume, etc. in combination with water that by the perspective of the boat is much larger on a molecule level and thus increase buoyancy and therefore would require more force in order to pull it down in the whirlpool compared to a real sized boat in the same type of water with the same scaled molecules in the water.

It's like trying to compare how fast a human would sink in water compared to a mosquito..... which can float easily on the surface.

Your findings would give you an inaccurate result for use in the real world.

You have to put yourself in the perspective of the scaled down model which is still based in our real world. If one was to scale a human down to the size of a thimble, we wouldn't be able to breath the air around us because our lungs weren't designed to process larger oxygen molecules..... and we'd die...... put the same process to water and you'd get similar differences.

Aerodynamics on models is one thing because those can be scaled decently and you can still see drag on a model as you'd see on the real thing and the aerodynamics in water such as testing the shape of a boat is similar..... but when it comes to something like this whirlpool test determining things like gravity, drag and buoyancy, you can't use a plastic toy boat in a mini whirlpool to get any real numbers that could be used as a reference to the real world...... and buddy jumping into the same whirlpool in a wet suit and being dragged down much easier then the plastic boat is proof enough of this...... yet they seemed to not clue in and basically stated their final conclusions based on the plastic boat experiment.

in my opinion, that's a fail.