Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Myth busters

  1. Feb 11, 2008 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A sniper kills an opposition sniper by hiting his scope the bullet traveled through the scope and killed him.
    No way according to myth busters, even at point blank range the bullet does not make it all the way through the scope.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 11, 2008 #2
    They made it work, if I remember right. I don't see why they get a bad rap on this forum (I've seen it a few times), they stick to the scientific method and do things well, plus its entertainment and not meant to be absolute.
     
  4. Feb 11, 2008 #3
    They don't always think things through. Sometimes they miss obvious pitfall in their theories when they decide to test something out, and other times they decide something is plausible, without getting positive results, simply because they can't figure out why it wouldn't work.

    I'd still take that show over 90% of other "sciency" shows. Definitely take it over anything on the History channel. I can't believe how much it's fallen.
     
  5. Feb 11, 2008 #4

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    They seem to take great pains to get things right, on the same show they proved it plausable for a bullet from one gun to lodge in an empty chamber of another.
    I guess most people would think the lenses in a scope to fragile to stop a bullet but they sure did on this show.
     
  6. Feb 11, 2008 #5
    Yeah, it's been a while since there was a really good episode. Have you seen the new show "Smash Lab" its far, far worse, IMO.
     
  7. Feb 11, 2008 #6

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I only watch TV at my folks place so i am not up to date with shows.
     
  8. Feb 11, 2008 #7
    That's probably for the best.
     
  9. Feb 12, 2008 #8
    Yes. If I recall correctly, they had to use an armor piercing round to get through it (that was on the revisit because they used the wrong materials on the first try).

    I enjoy watching mythbusters even though they are sometimes inaccurate.
     
  10. Feb 12, 2008 #9
    The show jumped the shark after they hired the "cool kids". They are even worse about this than the 2 guys.
     
  11. Feb 12, 2008 #10

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It is an excellent show if for no other reason than that it strongly promotes and popularizes the disciplines of critical thinking, experimentation and the principles of the Scientific Method. What other show does this?

    Criticisms such as 'they got this wrong or that wrong' don't reflect poorly on the show at all, they encourage debate, re-evaluation, retesting and modification. To cast aspersions upon the show based on getting things wrong is like casting aspersions upon Newton for getting his theory of gravity wrong.

    How could any of us on PF consider anything less than throwing our full support behind - and giving a rousing "hear hear!" for - this show?
     
  12. Feb 12, 2008 #11

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    They could replace it with a more modern version where Simon Cowel + sharon Osbourne laugh at the ideas and then the viewers phone in on a premium rate number to vote on if the idea works or not.
     
  13. Feb 12, 2008 #12

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    At my work, we had an incident that resulted in changing the safety policy - we had to wear steel-toed boots. Several guys on the floor really resisted, because they believed that if you were wearing them and you dropped a heavy object on your foot, the steel cap would collapse and cut off all your toes.

    We tried to explain that if you drop happened to drop an object on your foot that would collapse a steel toe, you would probably loose your toes anyway - but they just wouldn't change their minds.

    Mythbusters did a show on it, showing that it is highly unlikely that toes would be amputated in that manner. That sealed the deal for them!
     
  14. Feb 12, 2008 #13

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I love that show, and not just because they blow stuff up. It's extremely entertaining and educational. The best aspect, though, is the extent to which they emphasize taking all possible safety precautions when mucking about with stuff. I'd still be alive today if someone had pointed that out before I started experimenting with bombs. :uhh:
     
  15. Feb 12, 2008 #14
    Some of the shows are a bit insulting to our intelligence, however. I still am in disbelief that Mythbusters had to do a show on the airplane on a treadmill situation.
     
  16. Feb 12, 2008 #15
    You wouldn't believe the fierce debates that have been held about that situation, though. There are lots of people who do need their intelligence insulted apparently. I'm glad they put that issue to bed so I don't have to keep seeing people argue it. You could tell they both knew the plane would still take off.
     
  17. Feb 12, 2008 #16

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You're an optimistic little bugger, aren't you? That argument will never stop no matter what happens. Stupid people will continue to argue their point, and intelligent people are too proud to let it go unchallenged.
    As for the 'insulting our intelligence' bit, I disagree. If the show were intended for the likes of us, then it would indeed seem condescending. Then again, if everyone was like us there'd be no market for the show in the first place. I'm probably the least-educated member of PF, and have no trouble not only following what they're doing but frequently anticipating the outcome. Keep in mind, though, that there are a couple of hundred million people not in PF who have access to the show. If a junior high student who can't read or write develops an appreciation for physics and engineering from watching them, and then strives to become educated because of it, then the show is worth its bandwidth in gold.
     
  18. Feb 12, 2008 #17
    Case in point. 604 pages and still going. I tried to put some logic in there for a couple of pages, then gave up.
     
  19. Feb 12, 2008 #18

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    As the saying goes, "I used to be disgusted; now I'm just amused."
     
  20. Feb 12, 2008 #19
    Hear, hear! And a hip, hip!

    I agree, I think that many of the things that look like carelessness are more from budget and time and film production constraints. They have to arrive at some sort of firm conclusion on each Myth (pretend that they at least covered their bases) and pretend like they've done something interesting, even if they simply wasted a ton of money and time. Once they've done all of their experiments they can't just throw all of the footage out.

    The guys on Top Gear waste considerably more money and do significantly stupider things and they're still interesting to watch.
     
  21. Feb 12, 2008 #20

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm sometimes astonished at the durations of some of their experiments. Some appear to require weeks of prep and construction, and some of the experiments last for several months.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Myth busters
  1. Hey buster, it's a myth (Replies: 61)

  2. Persistence of myths (Replies: 1)

  3. Decoherence - the myth (Replies: 131)

Loading...