This perfectly encapsulates how anti vaxxers and others think. "Ive thought it through and it cantnbebright". Its incredible how we can have access to vast amounts of information and yet live in an age of gleeful ignorance.
A common misunderstanding. Boats (made of rock) float due to gravity pushing the water up (as it bounces off the earth). Boats made of feathers (ducks) harness the same principle, as they are also filled with water.
Regardless of how it happened, (the plane hijackings Orchestrated by "ex" CIA operative Osama Bin Laden duh) 9-11 was used as an excuse to dissolve civil liberties at home and wage war abroad.
Well... When you put one of those huge tankers in the water, it will move a LOT of water out of the way.
As long as the tanker weights less than the weight of all that water it displaced, it will float.
As you keep loading up the tanker with more cargo, it will go deeper into the water right? But this means that it is pushing more water out of the way (the water that used to be where the boat now is), which balances out the weight because that creates more buoyancy.
A rock, on the other hand, is heavier than the water that it displaces, so it sinks like a tanker whose front fell off.
The tanker weights exactly as much as the weight of the water that it displaces. They are in balance. You describe it yourself. The tanker sinks deeper if it becomes heavier and swims more up as it becomes lighter.
The measure of "boat swims" is not the weight of the displaced water. It is wether there is some boat wall left sticking out of the water to keep more water from entering and displacing the air that keeps the submerged volume in weight balance with the water.
Since we're being extra pedantic, what I said was:
As long as the tanker weights less than the weight of all that water it displaced, it will float.
This is factually true, and you didn't disprove it.
As for "boat wall sticking out of the water", that's just grasping at straws man. If that boat is fully waterproof, like a submarine, the definition holds up. Or if you consider that water entering the boat adds to the boat weight, then again it will hold true as it will weigh more than the water it displaces.
Metal is heavier than water. Virtually every containber is fille to the brim with products, now I don't know you but most everything we buy is heavier than water.
It's clear they have some kind of extra propulsion in those, most likely magnetic anti gravitation.
As long as the tanker weights less than the weight of all that water it displaced, it will float.
But that's only because of the spell that the ancient Wizard Archimedes cast in the elder days. Archimedes didn't discover his principle, he molded reality to follow his rule.
I'm 100% convinced this was never a battle of airframes and manufacturers and simply was down to: "No, sir/ma'am, I will not fly the derpy plane into combat. Can't do it. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REST OF THE PILOTS WILL LAUGH AT ME"
Flaps. (As in, the hinged bits at the back edge of the wings, that essentially change the shape of the wing as required, not by flapping the wings; that'd be an ornithopter, as in Dune, not a plane.)
But... right-side-up, the plane fights gravity, has upward lift, according to Bernoulli principle. And even if we angle the flaps to decrease altitude, it's still not dropping like a rock, the wings still generate lots of upward lift.
400 ton plane, wings w 400 ton lift = flight
Now (before engaging flaps) those same wings upside down would be generating downward "lift" PLUS pull of gravity. So now the 400 ton plane is like an 800 ton plane. Can the flaps alone lift that? Or, said another way, if we gave the plane flat wings, no Bernoulli, and stacked another plane on top of it (to make 800 tons), could it fly right-side-up just using flaps?
Fair enough, yet unless I'm mistaken most planes don't rely on people throwing bricks at them (which would be quite risky anyway, for unless they throw them faster than escape velocity they're bound to come back down eventually).
No, but it took me ten minutes this morning to find where I’d randomly decided to put my keys on the floor next to the piano headphones, so that didn’t feel very functional.
it helps that the glue is hot enough to also melt the glued materials a little bit
Which is why most glues are really agressive towards the surfaces they adhere. Better bonding if it melts a littke into each other and then hardens together.
And they WOULD break, eventually, if they weren't engineered to a statistically determined inspection interval and replaced/repaired at the determined overhaul time.
Nono they're right about basically all but the no reason and ignoring gravity part. The fact that we can design an airframe that stays together under those kinds of forces is indeed absolutely crazy.
Well I must admit, when the plane is resting on the ground, the wings droop down a lot. Then when airborne it's the other way around, the wings curve upwards as the fuselage hangs from them. In my mind nothing that big made of metal should be able to flex that much.
But since I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I have learned about material science, airplane design and engineering. And I have found out that it does indeed flex that much. It also isn't that thick, since it's only a skeleton wrapped with a very thin layer of metal. In fact if it didn't flex as much, it would be weaker and not stronger.
So the thing I really learnt is never to trust intuition when it comes to things like this.
It’s so rough watching all of those competent professionals at work, knowing that there are VERY few adults left in the room in what used to be the most important organizations on earth.
I think large planes "look" like they can't work because their "relative speed" is really low --- that is, their speed relative to their length. We're used to seeing birds cover tens of lengths per second, whereas a large airliner covers ~1ish per second at takeoff.
Or not, but this always seemed like a plausible explanation as to why planes look impossible. (Though given that hovering birds don't look funny, maybe this is a silly observation...).
That's a really thoughtful take, I'm glad you shared. I think it has merit. I think proximity is a factor too. The public rarely gets up close to a jet, but I can attest from personal experience they seem much faster when you're closer during takeoff and landing.
Though given that hovering birds don't look funny, maybe this is a silly observation...
Birds flying against the wind and staying in the same spot as a result do look kinda weird though. Especially if you are not aware/don't notice there is strong winds
Helicopters leave the ground because God has gazed upon them, and became angered when He saw them among His beasts, on the lands of His creation. God then decided to expel the helicopters from His earthly kingdom to flutter helplessly in His skies. God did this to punish Man, whose hubris led him to climb into the unholy creation. The Lord would then strike down the abomination fluttering in His skies, condemning the heretics that had climbed aboard in the belief that they could fool Him.
Next time you see a plane imaging two hooks in the middle of the wings, a crane lifting up the plane with these two hooks and shaking it.
This give you a good approximation of what the forces in the plane are, and once you picture that you might think that there is no way the plane can hold up in this situation. Yet it does.
Well, I could've said male seahorses if that makes you feel better? Are they still submarines if you put them in an aquarium on a plane, but the plane crashes into the ocean?
Anon, it took one hundred years of trial and errors in design and mechanical failures, resulting in hundreds of deaths, to perfect the dark arts of aviation.
Well, I mean, those flat earth idiots clearly have never flown, so I wouldn't be surprised if their digging down attitude would include planes. They already think the moon landing is fake, don't they?
Actually that's something I don't understand, they think the moon is a sphere about 100 miles across about 1000 miles above the flat Earth. Why couldn't humans have flown that short distance?
it depends on your flavor of flat-earther. for the religious types, the firmament is supposed to be in the way. for secular flat-earthers, I think they just like being contrary?
Hey now. Let's not blame gay people for the common-sense-defying demon-wizard sorcery that engineers get up to when someone threatens to take away their calculators and caffeine.
I don't know how you got to "culture war and homophobia"? It's literally a meme phrase that's used (often sarcastically) in response to stories on the internet. Saying something is "fake and gay" is literally shitposting, I think interpreting any deeper meaning into it is a bit of a stretch.
Edit: I just realised that this is a greentext community... half the comments here are either fake or gay, and OPs post is most definitely both.
This perfectly encapsulates how anti vaxxers and others think. "Ive thought it through and it cantnbebright". Its incredible how we can have access to vast amounts of information and yet live in an age of gleeful ignorance.
I remember this classic philosophical quandary of our time, but in a different form.
Classic.
debt: am I am joke to you?
Rich people never pay off debt.
They let the poor pay it off for them
Future economists are going to make so much fun of us for thinking $1000 was created here.
No, ocean water can't sink steel boats
It's a well known fact that steel weighs the same as feathers
A common misunderstanding. Boats (made of rock) float due to gravity pushing the water up (as it bounces off the earth). Boats made of feathers (ducks) harness the same principle, as they are also filled with water.
But it melt steel beams?
Regardless of how it happened, (the plane hijackings Orchestrated by "ex" CIA operative Osama Bin Laden duh) 9-11 was used as an excuse to dissolve civil liberties at home and wage war abroad.
Patriot Act
Well... When you put one of those huge tankers in the water, it will move a LOT of water out of the way.
As long as the tanker weights less than the weight of all that water it displaced, it will float.
As you keep loading up the tanker with more cargo, it will go deeper into the water right? But this means that it is pushing more water out of the way (the water that used to be where the boat now is), which balances out the weight because that creates more buoyancy.
A rock, on the other hand, is heavier than the water that it displaces, so it sinks like a tanker whose front fell off.
But steel is heavier than water
If you take 1kg of steel and 1kg of water, which is heavier? That's right, steel is heavier.
If she weighs more than a duck, then she’s made of wood.
And therefore?
... A WITCH!
We shall use the larger scales!
A steelogram of kilo is feather than heaviers
https://youtu.be/-fC2oke5MFg
Now this guy knows what he's talking about
Ah, but boats aren't solid steel! It has lots of hollow spaces inside, making the volume up displaced water bigger, without increasing the weight!
And water is surprisingly heavy itself.
Since we are pedantic, what you say isn't true.
The tanker weights exactly as much as the weight of the water that it displaces. They are in balance. You describe it yourself. The tanker sinks deeper if it becomes heavier and swims more up as it becomes lighter.
The measure of "boat swims" is not the weight of the displaced water. It is wether there is some boat wall left sticking out of the water to keep more water from entering and displacing the air that keeps the submerged volume in weight balance with the water.
Since we're being extra pedantic, what I said was:
This is factually true, and you didn't disprove it.
As for "boat wall sticking out of the water", that's just grasping at straws man. If that boat is fully waterproof, like a submarine, the definition holds up. Or if you consider that water entering the boat adds to the boat weight, then again it will hold true as it will weigh more than the water it displaces.
So we have rising sea levels because there's so many big ships in the ocean, got it.
Xkcd did this one.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/33/
Metal is heavier than water. Virtually every containber is fille to the brim with products, now I don't know you but most everything we buy is heavier than water.
It's clear they have some kind of extra propulsion in those, most likely magnetic anti gravitation.
The bane of shipping is that a lot of money goes to shipping air around :)
But that's only because of the spell that the ancient Wizard Archimedes cast in the elder days. Archimedes didn't discover his principle, he molded reality to follow his rule.
🤔
Giant steel ship can transport the giant rock across the sea
Be human.
Have billions of tons of atmosphere directly above you
Don't explode
Make it make sense
It's not pressure under the wings, it's fucking Bernoulli sucking on top of them.
(So, yes, sure, it is gay, but it's not fake.)
When you nut, but Bernoulli keep sucking...
I'm 100% convinced this was never a battle of airframes and manufacturers and simply was down to: "No, sir/ma'am, I will not fly the derpy plane into combat. Can't do it. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REST OF THE PILOTS WILL LAUGH AT ME"
But then how can they fly upside down?
Flaps. (As in, the hinged bits at the back edge of the wings, that essentially change the shape of the wing as required, not by flapping the wings; that'd be an ornithopter, as in Dune, not a plane.)
But... right-side-up, the plane fights gravity, has upward lift, according to Bernoulli principle. And even if we angle the flaps to decrease altitude, it's still not dropping like a rock, the wings still generate lots of upward lift.
400 ton plane, wings w 400 ton lift = flight
Now (before engaging flaps) those same wings upside down would be generating downward "lift" PLUS pull of gravity. So now the 400 ton plane is like an 800 ton plane. Can the flaps alone lift that? Or, said another way, if we gave the plane flat wings, no Bernoulli, and stacked another plane on top of it (to make 800 tons), could it fly right-side-up just using flaps?
I'm not a geologist, but I think the planes that typically fly upside down, are significantly lighter than 400 tons.
Because air doesn't give a fuck about gravity
Actually, I studied aviation in university. It's literally just magic.
The absolute maximum that Bernoulli can suck is 14.7PSI at sea level. Not even your mother can generate a greater vacuum.
There is no fundamental limit to the pressure that can be generated under the wing.
With sufficient thrust and proper angle of attack, a brick can produce sufficient pressure underneath it to generate lift.
Fair enough, yet unless I'm mistaken most planes don't rely on people throwing bricks at them (which would be quite risky anyway, for unless they throw them faster than escape velocity they're bound to come back down eventually).
The funniest thing is that the aerospace engineers who made this possible are just as much hopeless dysfunctional wrecks as the rest of us.
With the low low down payment of lifelong burnout!
I wouldn't say being a furry automatically makes you a dysfunctional wreck.
No, but it took me ten minutes this morning to find where I’d randomly decided to put my keys on the floor next to the piano headphones, so that didn’t feel very functional.
Glue, is how the wings stay on, really good glue
hot glue or super glue? I mean super glue has super in the name
Welding is just extreme hot glue, the hottest glue
You will trigger a lot of people if you say that welding is gluing
It is gluing, but it helps that the glue is hot enough to also melt the glued materials a little bit.
Soldering and brazing really are pretty much gluing, though. Fancy hot glue metal with fine tuned properties for penetration and beading.
The glue is the melted metal of the pieces being glued.
Almost never.
You can do it but usually you feed in wire or a rod.
Which is why most glues are really agressive towards the surfaces they adhere. Better bonding if it melts a littke into each other and then hardens together.
Any type of glue is fine. Just stay away from the cardboard derivatives.
And if the wings should fail, unlikely as that may be, do be a dear and try to steer it away from the environment.
And they WOULD break, eventually, if they weren't engineered to a statistically determined inspection interval and replaced/repaired at the determined overhaul time.
This person's grasp of physics is like halfway there. Like one more module and they'd calm the fuck down.
‘flying for no reason’
‘ignoring gravity’
‘somehow joints don’t break’
Halfway might be overstating it
Nono they're right about basically all but the no reason and ignoring gravity part. The fact that we can design an airframe that stays together under those kinds of forces is indeed absolutely crazy.
Crazy, but not fake (or gay lol) 😉
Sorry. It's real but gay. Nothing as phallic as an airliner can be straight.
Not fake or gay? Sounds fake and gay
"A little knowledge" has never been more dangerous.
Wokeness is what keeps them in the air, which is why they're falling out of it now
i remember when i thought these jokes were funny. now i know tons of people actually think like this and it's depressing rather than funny.
Well I must admit, when the plane is resting on the ground, the wings droop down a lot. Then when airborne it's the other way around, the wings curve upwards as the fuselage hangs from them. In my mind nothing that big made of metal should be able to flex that much.
But since I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I have learned about material science, airplane design and engineering. And I have found out that it does indeed flex that much. It also isn't that thick, since it's only a skeleton wrapped with a very thin layer of metal. In fact if it didn't flex as much, it would be weaker and not stronger.
So the thing I really learnt is never to trust intuition when it comes to things like this.
You can observe on a small scale that many things made of metal do, e.g. a saw or a spring.
https://youtu.be/Ai2HmvAXcU0
Those wings can take a lot of abuse
It’s so rough watching all of those competent professionals at work, knowing that there are VERY few adults left in the room in what used to be the most important organizations on earth.
I think large planes "look" like they can't work because their "relative speed" is really low --- that is, their speed relative to their length. We're used to seeing birds cover tens of lengths per second, whereas a large airliner covers ~1ish per second at takeoff.
Or not, but this always seemed like a plausible explanation as to why planes look impossible. (Though given that hovering birds don't look funny, maybe this is a silly observation...).
That's a really thoughtful take, I'm glad you shared. I think it has merit. I think proximity is a factor too. The public rarely gets up close to a jet, but I can attest from personal experience they seem much faster when you're closer during takeoff and landing.
Birds flying against the wind and staying in the same spot as a result do look kinda weird though. Especially if you are not aware/don't notice there is strong winds
I remember a quote from an A380 pilot saying the plane doesn't look like it should be able to fly.
Even the people that fly them know they don't look like a flying object.
I get it. That plane is so disgusting the earth tries to keep it as far as possible from the ground.
No, thats the helicopter. It's said that it does not fly, but is repulsed by the earth because it is the hubris of man manifest.
Planes fly because aerodynamics.
Helicopters fly because money.
Helicopters leave the ground because God has gazed upon them, and became angered when He saw them among His beasts, on the lands of His creation. God then decided to expel the helicopters from His earthly kingdom to flutter helplessly in His skies. God did this to punish Man, whose hubris led him to climb into the unholy creation. The Lord would then strike down the abomination fluttering in His skies, condemning the heretics that had climbed aboard in the belief that they could fool Him.
Thus the name "Jesus nut".
No, it's called the Jesus nut because if it fails, only Jesus can save you now.
Next time you see a plane imaging two hooks in the middle of the wings, a crane lifting up the plane with these two hooks and shaking it.
This give you a good approximation of what the forces in the plane are, and once you picture that you might think that there is no way the plane can hold up in this situation. Yet it does.
It's more like putting the plane in a bowl of jello and then shaking the bowl.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=--LTYRTKV_A
Wait till this guy find out that there are more planes in the ocean than there are submarines in the sky
Well, technically pregnant women can be submarines
I've read your comment and I'd like you to know that I don't approve of it.
Well, I could've said male seahorses if that makes you feel better? Are they still submarines if you put them in an aquarium on a plane, but the plane crashes into the ocean?
Anon, it took one hundred years of trial and errors in design and mechanical failures, resulting in hundreds of deaths, to perfect the dark arts of aviation.
My faith in humanity is so low that I 100% believe there are planes are not real truthers that's out there.
Well, I mean, those flat earth idiots clearly have never flown, so I wouldn't be surprised if their digging down attitude would include planes. They already think the moon landing is fake, don't they?
Actually that's something I don't understand, they think the moon is a sphere about 100 miles across about 1000 miles above the flat Earth. Why couldn't humans have flown that short distance?
it depends on your flavor of flat-earther. for the religious types, the firmament is supposed to be in the way. for secular flat-earthers, I think they just like being contrary?
Don't forget about the screens they put in the windows
Hey now. Let's not blame gay people for the common-sense-defying demon-wizard sorcery that engineers get up to when someone threatens to take away their calculators and caffeine.
Bruh some of the earliest planes were literally called biplanes. The gay has been complicit in aviation demon magic since the very beginning.
G.I.N.A.S.F.S.
at takeoff i like to imagine that the plane is going into a massive underground subway network with really nice screens along the sides
I would be worried if the aeroplane goes down rather than up during takeoff.
The dude writes 'atleast' like it's a word. I've seen all I need to see.
Aye, good sir, I do most heartily concur; for 'tis a truth well settled that the tongue of man is fixed, unyielding, and shall ne'er be altered.
Whatever the fuck that last part means, how is it gay?
You are in the greentext community, this is the standard phrase used by 4chan people to call stuff they dont like or think is fake.
It is a traditional slang on 4chan (and somme parts of r*ddit).
Years ago there where a few sincere jokes with it now it is just straight up homophobia and culture war shit.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fake-and-gay
I see now, I don't know how I went through the 2000's without realizing this phrase was a meme until now.
I don't know how you got to "culture war and homophobia"? It's literally a meme phrase that's used (often sarcastically) in response to stories on the internet. Saying something is "fake and gay" is literally shitposting, I think interpreting any deeper meaning into it is a bit of a stretch.
Edit: I just realised that this is a greentext community... half the comments here are either fake or gay, and OPs post is most definitely both.
Same as the USA steel industry
https://media2.giphy.com/media/3o6MbdLmwT7jnSVcVa/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b9524iq79b1op0uebh0rnf6gxq1i8oqsybrysowsgj65&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
We just found a loophole in thermodynamics.