Mythbusters Fail

lmao mythbusters failed hard this time. they shot a cannonball from the bomb range, missed their target horribly, and sent the cannonball across a highway and through 2 houses
http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-features/60079-mythbusters-in-massive-cannonball-fail

Well, I think we've been waiting for something like this to happen, haven't we?

Glad no one was hurt or worse.

they kinda seem way too nice to have a bad karma accident where somebody was killed or hurt.

i actually have beef with several things i've seen on mythbusters. i'm glad no one died and all, but some of their attempts to replicate certain things are total bullshit. that's actually what i thought this thread would be about.

some examples that come to mind:

whether or not some fat lady was so fat she got suctioned to an airplaine toilet,
and the plants listening to music experiment.

with the fat lady thing, they assumed her ass got suctioned and they failed to duplicate it because the space between the seat and the bowl kept making a vaccum impossible. they NEVER explored whether the lady's fat was so soft and hangy that it actually hung over the seat and covered the gap. they used some stiff fat substitute that didn't move and didn't squish. they deemed it a busted myth but they failed hardcore. the lady who supposedly got stuck was super obese and the super obese DON'T HAVE STIFF FAT. their fat hangs, runs, and ripples.

they also claimed to debunk the "plants like music" so called myth, but they used cold weather crops like peas and tried to grow them on a los angeles rooftop in the summer. the whole thing was a fail from the getgo. they never explored whether the plants suffered because it was SUMMER IN LOS ANGELES, yet they were somehow able to make a musical connection.

i mean, i like the show. it's fun to watch. i just think a lot of their experiments are flawed.

While they try to be scientific about what they do, the bottom line is they just like blowing shit up, and people like to watch that. The show is meant to be entertaining and fun, not hard science

It is proven that plants do have a response to music. But we do not know what the response really means.

In one test there were 2 plants in a room. Sensors were placed on one of the plants. A person came into the room and cut up, damaged and killed the plant without the sensors. While the 'attack' was going on the unharmed plants sensors went off. Then the attacker left the room and then they had a series of individuals walk into the room. The unharmed plants sensors spiked only when the attacker entered the room. Theory at the time was that a chemical was released by the damaged plant and that it may have still been on the clothing of the attacker.

Those tests were done way back in the 1980's and early 1990's. Please don't ask me to find it, it would take hours for me to find it in my books.

Total Head said:

i actually have beef with several things i've seen on mythbusters. i'm glad no one died and all, but some of their attempts to replicate certain things are total bullshit. that's actually what i thought this thread would be about.

some examples that come to mind:

whether or not some fat lady was so fat she got suctioned to an airplaine toilet,
and the plants listening to music experiment.

with the fat lady thing, they assumed her ass got suctioned and they failed to duplicate it because the space between the seat and the bowl kept making a vaccum impossible. they NEVER explored whether the lady's fat was so soft and hangy that it actually hung over the seat and covered the gap. they used some stiff fat substitute that didn't move and didn't squish. they deemed it a busted myth but they failed hardcore. the lady who supposedly got stuck was super obese and the super obese DON'T HAVE STIFF FAT. their fat hangs, runs, and ripples.

they also claimed to debunk the "plants like music" so called myth, but they used cold weather crops like peas and tried to grow them on a los angeles rooftop in the summer. the whole thing was a fail from the getgo. they never explored whether the plants suffered because it was SUMMER IN LOS ANGELES, yet they were somehow able to make a musical connection.

i mean, i like the show. it's fun to watch. i just think a lot of their experiments are flawed.

Click to expand...

obijohn said:

While they try to be scientific about what they do, the bottom line is they just like blowing shit up, and people like to watch that. The show is meant to be entertaining and fun, not hard science

Click to expand...

Yeah I feel like when the show started they were doing a better job of proving things. Problem is now they've run out of myths and they are just choosing random internet videos to debunk. It's become totally ratings driven and will forgo some Of the credibility with the smaller experiments in order to have more money to eventually blow something up at the end of the episode. This time they just blew up some houses and a car...on accident! And to that, I applaud these gentlemen.

They better fucking put it on the show!

Just outta. Curiosity, I wounder how at fault these guys really are. I mean they were on a military test facility. They deemed this shit safe, they almost always have some pro that is helping them with shit like this. I don't think it was acctually a direct fail on Jaime and Adams part.

I think alot more people would complain if they deemed everything plausible or confirmed with 'soft' science. People say they don't test rigorously enough, but I think they do damn well taking on experiments some people deem not worth trying, and doing it so diligently. They usually blow shit up to replicate the desired result if they can't match it under the myth's original conditions. After all they are special effects guys, who don't profess to be 'proper scientists', but making very good use of their scientific knowledge.

they do lack adequate control experiments where it would be needed, but a half decent show nonetheless.

was anyone hurt by the cannonball?

Winter Woman said:

It is proven that plants do have a response to music. But we do not know what the response really means.

In one test there were 2 plants in a room. Sensors were placed on one of the plants. A person came into the room and cut up, damaged and killed the plant without the sensors. While the 'attack' was going on the unharmed plants sensors went off. Then the attacker left the room and then they had a series of individuals walk into the room. The unharmed plants sensors spiked only when the attacker entered the room. Theory at the time was that a chemical was released by the damaged plant and that it may have still been on the clothing of the attacker.

Those tests were done way back in the 1980's and early 1990's. Please don't ask me to find it, it would take hours for me to find it in my books.

Click to expand...

i completely agree that music has an effect on plants. my beef with the mythbusters take on it was that they claimed there was no musical connection based on a competely flawed experiment. i've actually gotten into it on this very site with people about the effect of music on plants, and their shining example to refute me was that horrible experiment. it's one thing to blow things up for fun, but when people start to think it's irrefutable science and start hurling insults at strangers over it, (especially in this wiki world of ours) it starts to bother me.

what music do plants like? i've heard they love hendrix but i had my suspicions he loved hendrix just as much. what effect does music have?

I don't remember that part. But, I bet it wasn't metal. I didn't take part in the experiment.

it´d be a cooler show if they had a larger team with scientists (and mostly crazy one´s to boot )

The experiment that is being referred to showed that plants did like metal a lot as well as classical (Beethoven). Specifically Metallica if I'm correct, damn off to go look now...

PeyoteReligion said:

The experiment that is being referred to showed that music did like metal a lot as well as classical (Beethoven). Specifically Metallica if I'm correct, damn off to go look now...

Click to expand...

I'm retarded when I'm high, my memory becomes dyslexic! Really!

Many scientific studies have been done regarding the effects of music on plants. The simple answer is that past studies have suggested hard rock or heavy metal music seems to have a detrimental effect on plant growth.

As long as the redhead chick is on the show, I'll watch.

PeyoteReligion said:

Yeah I feel like when the show started they were doing a better job of proving things. Problem is now they've run out of myths and they are just choosing random internet videos to debunk. It's become totally ratings driven and will forgo some Of the credibility with the smaller experiments in order to have more money to eventually blow something up at the end of the episode.
.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they are running out of myths, past few shows have been either best of or viewer requests. How long they been on, around 10 years? May be the show is reaching it's productive end

I found this. ----

Prince Charles may be right to have chats with plants, scientists say
Researchers exposed rice plants to noise while they monitored levels of gene activity.

Using 14 pieces of classical music, they were astonished to discover the noise triggered a response in two genes, rbcS and Ald.

Some frequencies made the genes more active, while others made them subdued.

Because the genes are known to be involved in the plant's response to light, the scientists repeated the experiments in the dark.

But the study, reported in today's New Scientist, found this made no difference to how the genes behaved.

The reason why and how plants might react to sound is unclear. It is possible that certain types of sound wave interfere with the normal behaviour of plant genes.

Genetics experts, however, are at a loss to explain what benefits 'hearing' could offer to plants.

The scientists, from South Korea's National Institute of Agricultural Biotechnology, hope their results could be used to help farmers.

Genetically modified plants could be grown which farmers could control - for instance to make them flower - by blasting sounds across their fields.

The claims, in the journal Molecular Breeding, have been greeted with scepticism by plant experts.

Dr Philip Wigge, of the John Innes Centre in Norfolk, said the researchers used dated techniques and took too few samples.

Even if sound did trigger genetic changes in a plant, it might be impractical to use in farms.

Wind also affects at least one of the 'sound-sensitive' genes, which might drown out the effect of blasting crops with noise.

Plants already have an armoury of senses to help protect them against predators, disease and the weather.

All plants react to light, with sunflowers tracking the movement of the sun across the sky every day.

Others 'feel' strong winds and stiffen themselves against buffeting.

Maize reacts to the 'taste' of a particular caterpillar saliva by releasing a scent to attract a parasitic wasp. The wasp lays its eggs inside caterpillars, which hatch and destroy the host from within.

Injured tomato plants can even 'talk' to other plants by releasing a chemical warning signal into the air.

Any tomato plants in the vicinity respond to the signal by releasing their own chemicals to deter attackers or attract insect predators.

so nobody knows then. ta lol

They said that they missed the target and I saw one of the clean up people packing one with a hole the same size as the cannon ball.
How about someone overloaded the cannon and it went bulistic lol = Too much Push Push makes BIG Boom Boom...