An area where people are able to list misconceptions that they know.
Rules: Validate it if you are able to
As many as you like per post
If someones asks you to explain it, please do.
Thank you, and if you find a rather ambiguous one, please be sure to post it!

Men do not have a prostrate.

They will never be able to get prostrate cancer.

In some countries, dogs need a permit to, ah, well, you know, with cats.

It gets weirder though. If the law requires a permit, that means there should be a place to get such a permit.

Rayleigh Scattering and the Tynall Effect DO NOT make the sky blue. The sky is a blue material!

Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle.
However, the stability of a bicycle is improved by gyroscopic forces as well as by its geometry and the rider's ability to counteract tilting by steering.

Can i do a 40k related one? Or is that not Off topic enough?

Darkchild

No, this is the OT forum. This is for real life misconceptions.

um ok. Most berries are not berries.
Examples of true berries include tomatoes, grapes and the fruit of a potato plant.
Which will kill you.

Darkchild

Van Gogh did not cut off his ear.

It was his ear lobe.

Cracking your knuckles (or any of your joints for that matter) does not cause arthritis.

*phew*

That's a relief.

*crackle*

If you use a microscope to observe a chamber containing air and pollen grains floating in it, you will see the pollen grains moving around in a random manner.

This is the pollen grains hunting for food.

A manometer is an instrument used to measure pressure.

There is no such thing as centrifugal or 'center-fleeing' force.

It's merely a force vector of centripetal and lateral motion.

Life imitates art.
Art imitates life.

Centrifical Force.

Evolution.

Space isn't cold.

It can't have any temperature, temperature is a property of matter.

Coldness is the absence of heat. Since space cannot hold heat, it is necessarily cold.

I disagree.

By that logic every abstract concept is cold as well. And that's just silly.

Hot and Cold are defined by a high and low temperature, respectively, and their relation to one another. As temperature is an inapplicable metric for concepts that are not composed of matter those concepts cannot be hot or cold, and the question of whether they contain heat is invalidated by the absence of the metric used to determine the quality of "being hot".

Regwon wrote:Cracking your knuckles (or any of your joints for that matter) does not cause arthritis.

I heard this one the other day, and supposedly your not even cracking anything, it's just the sound of trapped air being released.


The great wall of china is the only man made object visible from space. For one it's only visible against a morning or evening shadow, and for another billions of lights are far more visible up there.

^^^^^^
We have our first debate!!


Anywhooo..I'll conrtribute.

America is a Christian Nation.


GG

Orkeosaurus wrote:I disagree.

By that logic every abstract concept is cold as well. And that's just silly.

Not silly, irrelevant. Its the same sort of argument that makes Communism atheist.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Hot and Cold are defined by a high and low temperature, respectively, and their relation to one another. As temperature is an inapplicable metric for concepts that are not composed of matter those concepts cannot be hot or cold, and the question of whether they contain heat is invalidated by the absence of the metric used to determine the quality of "being hot".

Are we discussing space in terms of literal emptiness, or space in terms of Dirac?

The whole "debate" is "irrelevant." Since it can bee seen as being implicit, rather than being a misconception.

whatwhat wrote:The whole "debate" is "irrelevant." Since it can bee seen as being implicit, rather than being a misconception.

So, the debate isn't irrelevant because there are multiple valid positions?

whatwhat wrote:The whole "debate" is "irrelevant." Since it can bee seen as being implicit, rather than being a misconception.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:The whole "debate" is "irrelevant." Since it can bee seen as being implicit, rather than being a misconception.

So, the debate isn't irrelevant because there are multiple valid positions?

Yeh but it's wholly irrelevant on the basis that a conclusion to said debate would do nothing than put a slight smirk on your or orkeo's face. Irrelevant.

whatwhat wrote:
Yeh but it's wholly irrelevant on the basis that a conclusion to said debate would do nothing than put a slight smirk on your or orkeo's face. Irrelevant.

No, that's not what irrelevant means. You've necessarily indicated that this debate is relevant to both Orkeo and myself, therefore it cannot be irrelevant in general. Are you referring to relevancy with respect to the thread (itself placed in the off-topic forum) or relevancy with respect to the people conversing?

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Yeh but it's wholly irrelevant on the basis that a conclusion to said debate would do nothing than put a slight smirk on your or orkeo's face. Irrelevant.

No, that's not what irrelevant means. You've necessarily indicated that this debate is relevant to both Orkeo and myself, therefore it cannot be irrelevant. Learn to speak English.

It's certainly not relevant to me, and the other however many people on this forum. No doubt now you will tell me how irrelevant is not a democratic word.

edit: Ironically I have now become involved in a debate which in the same way, to many people is completely irrelevant. Debate fail.

whatwhat wrote:
It's certainly not relevant to me, and the other however many people on this forum. No doubt now you will tell me how irrelevant is not a democratic word.

Democracy has nothing to do with this matter.

Do you discuss relevancy in all threads which feature comments that do not interest you? That must be quite the work-load. I mean, if I commented on all things which did not interest me I would have a very full day. Not to mention the conundrum that follows from being interested by that which is not interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
edit: Ironically I have now become involved in a debate which in the same way, to many people is completely irrelevant. Debate fail.

You failed as soon as you made your first post.

Blatantly you weren't taking me as seriously as was talking myself. Never mind squire.

In space, no-one can hear frivolous debate.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
It's certainly not relevant to me, and the other however many people on this forum. No doubt now you will tell me how irrelevant is not a democratic word.

Democracy has nothing to do with this matter.

Do you discuss relevancy in all threads which feature comments that do not interest you? That must be quite the work-load. I mean, if I commented on all things which did not interest me I would have a very full day. Not to mention the conundrum that follows from being interested by that which is not interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
edit: Ironically I have now become involved in a debate which in the same way, to many people is completely irrelevant. Debate fail.

You failed as soon as you made your first post.

Blatantly you weren't taking me as seriously as I was taking myself. Never mind squire.

whatwhat wrote:
Blatantly you weren't taking me as seriously as I was taking myself. Never mind squire.

Why would I ever take you seriously? You do two things: make illogical comments, and take offense. Neither of those things require seriousness in regard.

dogma wrote:Not silly, irrelevant. Its the same sort of argument that makes Communism atheist.

I don't see that argument as being valid either.

Religious belief is an inapplicable metric to Communism, and so no trait that is a function of religious belief can be said to be true, even if the traits are usually defined by the absence of one another in addition to their place on metric (i.e. Communism is neither atheist, nor non-atheist, but is both not atheist and not non-atheist, the difference being that non-atheist is a trait in itself, and to not be atheist is simply to be lacking in a trait).

Are we discussing space in terms of literal emptiness, or space in terms of Dirac?

I was discussing it in terms of literal emptiness, as I'm not skilled in quantum mechanics. And "outer space" does contain trace amounts of dust or gases in any sense, and those would be cold.


In other news, is an object which is completely immobile slow? I don't think so, as I would say that slowness is a property of speed, which is not present in an immobile object. Never mind, I don't think this works very well given that the concept of immobility presupposes movement as being a relevant concept with relation to the object. Perhaps I could ask "is nothingness slow?"

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Blatantly you weren't taking me as seriously as I was taking myself. Never mind squire.

Why would I ever take you seriously? You do two things: make illogical comments, and take offense. Neither of those things require seriousness in regard.

You have taken me seriously, that's my point. Squire.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Blatantly you weren't taking me as seriously as I was taking myself. Never mind squire.

Why would I ever take you seriously? You do two things: make illogical comments, and take offense. Neither of those things require seriousness in regard.

modquisition on.
Dogma this is flaming on a non serious thread. You might check out for a bit lest you continue down the path to suspension.

whatwhat wrote:


The great wall of china is the only man made object visible from space. For one it's only visible against a morning or evening shadow, and for another billions of lights are far more visible up there.

Sorry to bring this up again at this point whatwhat, but are you sure? Surely any manmade structure wider then the great wall would show from space? take for example the cheops pyramid; It may not cast as sharp a shadow, but if you can see the great wall, you could probably distinguish sharp edges and tell the shaded side from the sunlit side apart?

Mind, i'm not questioning you, you have gotten me genuinely curious as to how this works now.

What can be seen from space is a function of the resolution of the sensor.

Paul Atreides wrote:

whatwhat wrote:


The great wall of china is the only man made object visible from space. For one it's only visible against a morning or evening shadow, and for another billions of lights are far more visible up there.

Sorry to bring this up again at this point whatwhat, but are you sure? Surely any manmade structure wider then the great wall would show from space? take for example the cheops pyramid; It may not cast as sharp a shadow, but if you can see the great wall, you could probably distinguish sharp edges and tell the shaded side from the sunlit side apart?

Mind, i'm not questioning you, you have gotten me genuinely curious as to how this works now.

Yeh that's what I mean. The general conception that the great wall is the only mm object visible from space, is a misconception. As firstly it's barely visible, and other things are visible.

I was stating the misconception, the addressing it. That's where I think I have confused you.

For example, by the power of Google Earth (satellite photographs) I can see my house from space.

whatwhat wrote:
You have taken me seriously, that's my point. Squire.

It seems you lack the ability to detect sarcasm, though the nature of this medium leaves you forgiven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
modquisition on.
Dogma this is flaming on a non serious thread. You might check out for a bit lest you continue down the path to suspension.

Apparently none of the comments which refer to me as a 'squire' (clearly making whatwhat a 'knight') are flaming.

I call people 'squire' quite often when i first meet them, it's just another pronoun....

...besides, didn't Monty Python make use of that particular word quite often?

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
You have taken me seriously, that's my point. Squire.

It seems you lack the ability to detect sarcasm, though the nature of this medium leaves you forgiven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
modquisition on.
Dogma this is flaming on a non serious thread. You might check out for a bit lest you continue down the path to suspension.

Apparently none of the comments which refer to me as a 'squire' (clearly making whatwhat a 'knight') are flaming.

Esquire was often used by lawyers in the past and still occasionally so that would be a...no.

dogma wrote:Apparently none of the comments which refer to me as a 'squire' (clearly making whatwhat a 'knight') are flaming.

lmfao

Squire is slang for mate/friend. The subordinate connotations are just an added extra.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
In other news, is an object which is completely immobile slow? I don't think so, as I would say that slowness is a property of speed, which is not present in an immobile object. Never mind, I don't think this works very well given that the concept of immobility presupposes movement as being a relevant concept with relation to the object. Perhaps I could ask "is nothingness slow?"

I would say that it is. I see 'slowness' and 'coldness' as facets of experience, not objective reference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
lmfao

Squire is slang for mate/friend. The subordinate connotations are just an added extra.

Damn your English slang.

What's the difference?

(With regards to space being slow and cold, of course, not all of this Dungeons and Dragons nonsense!)

whatwhat wrote:

dogma wrote:Apparently none of the comments which refer to me as a 'squire' (clearly making whatwhat a 'knight') are flaming.

lmfao

Squire is slang for mate/friend. The subordinate connotations are just an added extra.

Evidently there was a misconception there.

Objectivity is the result of proven, or provable, fact. Experience is the aesthetic quality attached to it, in my cosmology, anyway.

Nothing ever touches anything. It is just the magnetic feilds touching eachother which means that there is a microscopic gap between everything thats is "touching".

cormz wrote:Nothing ever touches anything. It is just the magnetic feilds touching eachother which means that there is a microscopic gap between everything thats is "touching".

Misconception. Particles can in fact occupy the same physical space as long as they have different energy levels.

Babies don't smoke.

I don't know about ya'll...but I'm just glad Dogma and what what have made up, and we don't have to read anymore debate on relevant relevancy.

Or.. am I under a misconception?

GG

Khornholio wrote:Babies don't smoke.

Criticising Israel is not by definition or of itself 'racist' or 'anti-semitic'.

dogma wrote:Objectivity is the result of proven, or provable, fact. Experience is the aesthetic quality attached to it, in my cosmology, anyway.

Ah. Well from an aesthetic standpoint I much prefer to think of a vaccum as being neither hot nor cold, given that it's such a great insulator, and I like my definitions to be symetrical.

Khornholio wrote:Babies don't smoke.

Depends on how hot the fire is.

Orlanth wrote:Criticising Israel is not by definition or of itself 'racist' or 'anti-semitic'.

I heard that because Arabic is actually a semitic language itself, an Arab who hates Jews (but not other Arabs) can't truly be said to be anti-semitic.

(Don't know if this is accurate or not.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:Ah. Well from an aesthetic standpoint I much prefer to think of a vaccum as being neither hot nor cold, given that it's such a great insulator, and I like my definitions to be symetrical.

I would simply call it cold, but then I love my nominal referents.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I heard that because Arabic is actually a semitic language itself, an Arab who hates Jews (but not other Arabs) can't truly be said to be anti-semitic.

(Don't know if this is accurate or not.)

It is.

Abner Doubleday did not invent baseball.

I thought space was 3 degrees above absolute zero.

Am reliably informed that even a Canadian will wear a coat, hat, scarf and gloves in such conditions.

That is definitely cold

The daddy-long-legs (Harvestman) is the most poisonous spider in the world, but has fangs too small to bite.

The problems are, in order...
1. Harvestmen are not poisonous.
2. Harvestmen are not spiders.
3. Harvestmen fangs are not even able to inject anything; they're used like tiny claws.

Just don't eat them

This might sound dumb to some of you but here goes


Detroit really ISNT the capitol of Michigan. Its Lansing.

You have to change oil in your car every 3000 miles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have to change oil in your car every 3000 miles.

Blondes are dumb

This new technique/program will make your job easier

2nd edition 40k was the best

Saying you're against feminism makes you sexist.

It's a "moot" point. Not a "mute" point.

And "moot" actually means "has yet to be determined", rather than "is irrelevant" or "has already been found to be X".

Not that I care when I use it.

Redheads are in fact NOT going extinct, it is virtually impossible for genes to 'die out', yes they may become less common of the centuries, but in this case it requires BOTH parents to have the red hair gene and even then, it will sometimes skip a generation.

The 'air travels faster over the top of an aeroplane wing than it does under' theory is incorrect, that is in fact near-perfect zero flight conditions. All the wing has to do is force air downwards, this relies heavily on the angle of attack of the wing.

Everyone is unique and special.

If everyone was then everyone would be the same.

Am I doing it right?

Thanks whatwhat, now I get it.

nope
only the qualities of uniqueness and speciality would be generic.

Magic Mushrooms are not 'magic'.


:(

Newton's 3rd Law, Does not go: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction
It does in fact go: For every force there is an equal and opposite force

Kilkrazy wrote:For example, by the power of Google Earth (satellite photographs) I can see my house from space.

Ah but thats wrong, the lower down pictures are taken by planes and helicopters.

Also a vomitorium is not a place where romans go to vomit.

Christopher Columbus never set out to prove the world was round. This had been widely accepted (sort of, he believed it to be Pear shaped I believe) in his time. He was simply trying to find a new trade route to India.

Christopher Columbus never actually set foot on the Americas as we know them now, just a small Island.

Space is far from being a perfect vacuum anyway, so it was a moot argument.

Anyway - you are not weightless whilst floating in water, nor whilst circling Earth in orbit.

Western countries are 'democracies'.

Far from being a perfect vacuum... I guess. Supposedly, space is the closest we have to a vacuum, at such a large scale.

Maybe you are saying that no vacuum is a vacuum, or something. Could you explain a bit more?

A perfect vacuum would be a bounded region, whatever its size, in which there are quite literally zero particles of matter.

This is impossible to achieve. In terms of classical physics, it is theoretically possible, but practically impossible. In terms of quantum physics, it is even theoretically impossible as matter-antimatter pairs of particles will be constantly flicking in and out of existence.

Paul Atreides wrote:

whatwhat wrote:


The great wall of china is the only man made object visible from space. For one it's only visible against a morning or evening shadow, and for another billions of lights are far more visible up there.

Sorry to bring this up again at this point whatwhat, but are you sure?

It's not true.

You can see things like the International Space station.

If you stand on parts of our moon you could see an American flag, a plaque, several ( I think ) abandoned moon landers, same for moon buggies, and even perhaps several golf balls on the moons surface.

Further out of course, if one was to stand on Mars there's a few bits of man made things we've already started polluting worlds we haven't even been to yet, and of course in deep space there's things like Voyager.

And that's assuming we stick to the spectrum visible to eyes like ours. There's all manner of Terra originated radio and Tv etc etc transmissions arcing out across the cosmos.

As we "speak" right now vast, cold, alien intelligences much older than us could be watching old episodes of "Muffin the Mule", "Gunsmoke" and "The Lone Ranger" and wondering why we live in a monochrome world.

At least Buck Rogers and/or Lorne Green should scare them off.

*Bonanza theme tune sing along initiated"

Orkeosaurus wrote:Ah. Well from an aesthetic standpoint I much prefer to think of a vaccum as being neither hot nor cold, given that it's such a great insulator, and I like my definitions to be symetrical.

Well, in physics, temperature is defined as a vibration of particles. Add enough heat and the particles start vibrating so much that it loosens the intermolecular bonds. This is called melting. Add more heat, and said bonds are broken entirely. This is called boiling temperature. These are objective, measurable effects.
As hot or cold are normally the (subjective) outer ends of a range of temperatures that you find comfortable, a perfect vacuum, which contains 0 particles, which, being not there, can't vibrate and cause it to have a temperature.
So a vacuum cannot, by definition have a temperature, and cannot be hot or cold.
Outer space, although exceedingly empty, is not a vacuum; it contains on average one particle per square meter, and has a temperature of (as mentioned) roughly 3 degrees above absolute zero (or -270 degress Celsius). Absolute zero being the temperature at which particles cease to vibrate entirely.

(Interesting fun fact, extremely cold surfaces/substances can, upon contact with human skin, cause burn wounds exactly like those caused by extremely hot substances.)

On the original topic:
A human being will not explode due to the pressure difference upon being injected into a vacuum without a pressure suit. The pressure difference between normal earthbound conditions and a vacuum are (by defintion) 1 bar, and the human skin can easily cope with this pressure difference (or we would not be able to dive to depths greater than a few meters).
However, due to the third (or is it the first? I forget) Law of Thermodynamics, being exposed to a vacuum will cause the blood in the veins just under your skin to boil away. Rather painful.

Also, the saying "the exception proves the rule" is a phallacy. It is a mistranslation from the original, Roman saying, which went exceptio probat regulam. Probare, however, does not mean "to proeve", it translates more closely as " to test". So, the exception does not prove the rule, but rather the opposite; it puts the rule to the test.

Gravity in space is not weak, it is in fact very strong, for example when you orbit, you are not weightless because gravity is so weak, you are weightless because you are falling. How? Orbit is simply, when you are falling towards something but move fast enough sideways to continuously miss.

You do not poop on the Poop Deck.

You try not to make a mess in the mess hall.

More importantly do not poop in the mess hall

Fifty wrote:Space is far from being a perfect vacuum anyway, so it was a moot argument.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

dogma wrote:Are we discussing space in terms of literal emptiness, or space in terms of Dirac?

I was discussing it in terms of literal emptiness, as I'm not skilled in quantum mechanics. And "outer space" does contain trace amounts of dust or gases in any sense, and those would be cold.

Orkeosaurus wrote:And "moot" actually means "has yet to be determined", rather than "is irrelevant" or "has already been found to be X".

Bran Dawri wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Ah. Well from an aesthetic standpoint I much prefer to think of a vaccum as being neither hot nor cold, given that it's such a great insulator, and I like my definitions to be symetrical.

Well, in physics, temperature is defined as a vibration of particles. Add enough heat and the particles start vibrating so much that it loosens the intermolecular bonds. This is called melting. Add more heat, and said bonds are broken entirely. This is called boiling temperature. These are objective, measurable effects.
As hot or cold are normally the (subjective) outer ends of a range of temperatures that you find comfortable, a perfect vacuum, which contains 0 particles, which, being not there, can't vibrate and cause it to have a temperature.
So a vacuum cannot, by definition have a temperature, and cannot be hot or cold.
Outer space, although exceedingly empty, is not a vacuum; it contains on average one particle per square meter, and has a temperature of (as mentioned) roughly 3 degrees above absolute zero (or -270 degress Celsius). Absolute zero being the temperature at which particles cease to vibrate entirely.

(Interesting fun fact, extremely cold surfaces/substances can, upon contact with human skin, cause burn wounds exactly like those caused by extremely hot substances.)

On the original topic:
A human being will not explode due to the pressure difference upon being injected into a vacuum without a pressure suit. The pressure difference between normal earthbound conditions and a vacuum are (by defintion) 1 bar, and the human skin can easily cope with this pressure difference (or we would not be able to dive to depths greater than a few meters).
However, due to the third (or is it the first? I forget) Law of Thermodynamics, being exposed to a vacuum will cause the blood in the veins just under your skin to boil away. Rather painful.

Also, the saying "the exception proves the rule" is a phallacy. It is a mistranslation from the original, Roman saying, which went exceptio probat regulam. Probare, however, does not mean "to proeve", it translates more closely as " to test". So, the exception does not prove the rule, but rather the opposite; it puts the rule to the test.

Can you explain in pleb terms why the blood starts to boil? If Space is lacking in temprature, one can only assume the body does something weird?

Boiling is a process not a temperature.

Didn't you ever do that 'cold tea on mountains' thing at school?


BTW: Those Flash Gordon documentaries will only work until they see the 'Galaxy Quest' expose.

Not sure if this belongs here, but...
http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2009/02/41_of_museums_d.php

That's right.
On Mt Everest the boiling point of water is 23 degrees centigrade iirc.

Which is rubbish if you want a nice cup of Darjeeling.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Ah. Well from an aesthetic standpoint I much prefer to think of a vaccum as being neither hot nor cold, given that it's such a great insulator, and I like my definitions to be symetrical.

Well, in physics, temperature is defined as a vibration of particles. Add enough heat and the particles start vibrating so much that it loosens the intermolecular bonds. This is called melting. Add more heat, and said bonds are broken entirely. This is called boiling temperature. These are objective, measurable effects.
As hot or cold are normally the (subjective) outer ends of a range of temperatures that you find comfortable, a perfect vacuum, which contains 0 particles, which, being not there, can't vibrate and cause it to have a temperature.
So a vacuum cannot, by definition have a temperature, and cannot be hot or cold.
Outer space, although exceedingly empty, is not a vacuum; it contains on average one particle per square meter, and has a temperature of (as mentioned) roughly 3 degrees above absolute zero (or -270 degress Celsius). Absolute zero being the temperature at which particles cease to vibrate entirely.

(Interesting fun fact, extremely cold surfaces/substances can, upon contact with human skin, cause burn wounds exactly like those caused by extremely hot substances.)

On the original topic:
A human being will not explode due to the pressure difference upon being injected into a vacuum without a pressure suit. The pressure difference between normal earthbound conditions and a vacuum are (by defintion) 1 bar, and the human skin can easily cope with this pressure difference (or we would not be able to dive to depths greater than a few meters).
However, due to the third (or is it the first? I forget) Law of Thermodynamics, being exposed to a vacuum will cause the blood in the veins just under your skin to boil away. Rather painful.

Also, the saying "the exception proves the rule" is a phallacy. It is a mistranslation from the original, Roman saying, which went exceptio probat regulam. Probare, however, does not mean "to proeve", it translates more closely as " to test". So, the exception does not prove the rule, but rather the opposite; it puts the rule to the test.

Can you explain in pleb terms why the blood starts to boil? If Space is lacking in temprature, one can only assume the body does something weird?

The temperature of boiling water is relative to the pressure applied to it, so at sea level it may be 100C but the higher up you go, the lower the boiling point of the water. Since there is no vacuums have no temperature, in theory, it's boiling point would be near 0K.

.. so nothing can exist as a liquid in a vacuum?

Spitfires turned the tide in the Battle of Britain:

Nope. Hurricanes actually did most of the damage to the Luftwaffe in terms of materiel and personnel loss. The Luftwaffe was also poorly organised, overstretched, poorly led (by old fashioned flyboys with little real strategic grasp of what the changing of combined arms meant for the modern battlefield), and on a losing streak in terms of aircraft production vs. loss of aircraft - all meaning that if we'd just hung in there without any Spitfires, we would have still won because the Luftwaffe was destroying itself over Europe and Kent.

sA

Einstein was not a Mathmatical Genius and failed math as a child.
He actually was very good at math but realized he was better at theoritical math than 'pure' Math.

He wasn't very good at math. In fact, the notation flaws in his 'anus mirabilis' papers are the subject of much commentary.

Einstein was good at math in the sense that he was better than most people, but he was not good at math in the sense that he contested Alan Turing, or Marcel Grossmann.

smiling Assassin wrote:Spitfires turned the tide in the Battle of Britain:

Nope. Hurricanes actually did most of the damage to the Luftwaffe in terms of materiel and personnel loss. The Luftwaffe was also poorly organised, overstretched, poorly led (by old fashioned flyboys with little real strategic grasp of what the changing of combined arms meant for the modern battlefield), and on a losing streak in terms of aircraft production vs. loss of aircraft - all meaning that if we'd just hung in there without any Spitfires, we would have still won because the Luftwaffe was destroying itself over Europe and Kent.

sA

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Hurricanes did more damage because they outnumbered Spitfires two to one. Plane for plane Spitfires did more damage (the top three squadrons were Spitfire squadrons). Combined arms is irrelevant as only one arm was involved in the Battle of Britain. With or without Spitfires the plan was to hold out until the weather turned. Given how close the result was any loss of edge for the British could have turned the tide, although Operation Sealion would still have been a disaster for the Germans.

George Spiggott wrote:

smiling Assassin wrote:Spitfires turned the tide in the Battle of Britain:

Nope. Hurricanes actually did most of the damage to the Luftwaffe in terms of materiel and personnel loss. The Luftwaffe was also poorly organised, overstretched, poorly led (by old fashioned flyboys with little real strategic grasp of what the changing of combined arms meant for the modern battlefield), and on a losing streak in terms of aircraft production vs. loss of aircraft - all meaning that if we'd just hung in there without any Spitfires, we would have still won because the Luftwaffe was destroying itself over Europe and Kent.

sA

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Hurricanes did more damage because they outnumbered Spitfires two to one. Plane for plane Spitfires did more damage (the top three squadrons were Spitfire squadrons). Combined arms is irrelevant as only one arm was involved in the Battle of Britain. With or without Spitfires the plan was to hold out until the weather turned. Given how close the result was any loss of edge for the British could have turned the tide, although Operation Sealion would still have been a disaster for the Germans.

Hurricanes targeted the bomber formations while the Spits mainly intercepted fighter escorts.

German High command failed to judge the situation. They never properly targeted the Chain Home stations and listening posts and systematic destruction of airfields was not followed up on.

George Spiggott wrote:Boiling is a process not a temperature.

Didn't you ever do that 'cold tea on mountains' thing at school?


BTW: Those Flash Gordon documentaries will only work until they see the 'Galaxy Quest' expose.

Cheers fellas! Makes a bit more sense now!

George Spiggott wrote:That's a bit of an oversimplification. Hurricanes did more damage because they outnumbered Spitfires two to one. Plane for plane Spitfires did more damage (the top three squadrons were Spitfire squadrons). Combined arms is irrelevant as only one arm was involved in the Battle of Britain. With or without Spitfires the plan was to hold out until the weather turned. Given how close the result was any loss of edge for the British could have turned the tide, although Operation Sealion would still have been a disaster for the Germans.

They still numerically cost the Germans more than the Spitfires did.

Combined arms is also definately not irrelevant - the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht had breezed through most of Eastern Europe, the Low Countries, and Northern France with lots of fast air and fast ground manoueveres, and they were a well oiled machine working together. Stukas did not work on London like they did in Poland - why? They didn't have the ground support to take out AA. They were tactical aircraft - the Germans only rolled out a truely strategic bomber in '44. The Germans weren't going to win anyway.

You're right though, Sealion would have flopped. (Pardon the pun)

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:They still numerically cost the Germans more than the Spitfires did.

Combined arms is also definately not irrelevant - the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht had breezed through most of Eastern Europe, the Low Countries, and Northern France with lots of fast air and fast ground manoueveres, and they were a well oiled machine working together.

It's irrelevant to the battle of Britain where only the Luftwaffe were involved. As I say it's an oversimplification (not wrong). Hurricane casulties would have been much higher (and their respective kills lower) if the Spitfires had not been there to attack defending ME109 fighters at higher altitudes, altitudes that Hurricanes could not match. A combination of both aircraft or simply more Spitfires would work, just Hurricanes alone would not.

Stukas did not work on London like they did in Poland - why? They didn't have te ground support to take out AA. They were tactical aircraft - the Germans only rolled out a truely strategic bomber in '44. The Germans weren't going to win anyway.

Stuka's (along with Me110s) were pulled out due to casualties caused by intercepting fighters long before the attacks on London started. Poland and France both had much weaker Air Forces than Britain. Germany had the Grief HE177 heavy bomber in '42, they were planning to build it before the BoB but chose to build the JU88 instead.

George Spiggott wrote:It's irrelevant to the battle of Britain where only the Luftwaffe were involved. As I say it's an oversimplification (not wrong). Hurricane casulties would have been much higher (and their respective kills lower) if the Spitfires had not been there to attack defending ME109 fighters at higher altitudes, altitudes that Hurricanes could not match. A combination of both aircraft or simply more Spitfires would work, just Hurricanes alone would not. Stuka's (along with Me110s) were pulled out due to casualties caused by intercepting fighters long before the attacks on London started. Poland and France both had much weaker Air Forces than Britain. Germany had the Grief HE177 heavy bomber in '42, they were planning to build it before the BoB but chose to build the JU88 instead.

I'd say it wasn't too irrelevant because they were surely used to flying in with some measure of impunity while the Panzers fethed around with the opponent from below.

Otherwise, yeah, you're right

(Don't hear that often around here)

sA

The great fire of London ended the great plague.

It didn't. They still teach this in schools but the great fire did not burn all the rats or whatever they say. The plague epidemic had run its course anyway, it just coincides with the great fire.

Germany had the Grief HE177 heavy bomber in '42

They were tactical aircraft - the Germans only rolled out a truely strategic bomber in '44

The Heinkel He177 Greiff was actually a 4 engined aircraft despite the fact that it only appears to have 2.
It was originally going to be a conventional 4 engined heavy, but dive bombing (ie tactical) capabilities for the aircraft!

It would be like asking Avro or Boeing to give the Lancaster or Flying Fortress dive bombing capability!

Two engines powered a single propeller (technically for the purpose of this they were notorious for catching fire.

With regard to the Ju87 Stuka and Bf110
The former were taking heavy losses so were pulled out to save them when needed to attack the Royal Navy during Operation Sealion
Have recently found out that the Bf110 was used very successfully as a fighter bomber during the Battle of Britain from fairly early on. They required fighter protection, but I am now wondering if this is where the criticism of the fighter escort that needed a fighter escort originates.

Hitler retaliating the bombing of Berlin by ordering reprisals against London. This gave time for the RAF to recover. Also, it meant that 12 Group based further north had time to get airborne to engage the Luftwaffe.
Lots of factors contributed to the Battle going the way it did, but the Hurri is special.
The design was originally rejected in favour of the Spitfire, but Hawkers decided to go ahead without MoD support.
When they saw the Hurri they changed their mind and thankfully were able to get them on strength in time.
imho this did affect the outcome, as it is unlikely that there would have been enough Spitfires at the start of the battle

While able to develop the way the Spitfire did, the Hurricane went on to serve right through the war as a front line aircraft, and operated in every theatre.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The Heinkel He177 Greiff was actually a 4 engined aircraft despite the fact that it only appears to have 2.
It was originally going to be a conventional 4 engined heavy, but dive bombing (ie tactical) capabilities for the aircraft!

You've severely muffed up your quotes there, neither of us were suggesting that the He177 was a tactical or dive bomber. Indeed the Ju88 was chosen over it because it could dive bomb and the He177 could not.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:With regard to the Ju87 Stuka and Bf110
The former were taking heavy losses so were pulled out to save them when needed to attack the Royal Navy during Operation Sealion
Have recently found out that the Bf110 was used very successfully as a fighter bomber during the Battle of Britain from fairly early on. They required fighter protection, but I am now wondering if this is where the criticism of the fighter escort that needed a fighter escort originates.

Not so, the 110 'destroyer squadrons' were pulled out of the Battle of Britain very early on as it was totally outclassed by everything it encountered. They only returned when nocturnal attacks began.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:imho this did affect the outcome, as it is unlikely that there would have been enough Spitfires at the start of the battle.

True, aircraft production is not as simple as for every Hurricane built a Spitfire is not, and vice-versa. The air ministry looked into several aircraft and the shortage of aircraft only stopped being a major issue when production of aircraft outstripped supply of pilots.

reds8n wrote:

Paul Atreides wrote:

whatwhat wrote:


The great wall of china is the only man made object visible from space. For one it's only visible against a morning or evening shadow, and for another billions of lights are far more visible up there.

Sorry to bring this up again at this point whatwhat, but are you sure?

It's not true.

You can see things like the International Space station.

If you stand on parts of our moon you could see an American flag, a plaque, several ( I think ) abandoned moon landers, same for moon buggies, and even perhaps several golf balls on the moons surface.

Further out of course, if one was to stand on Mars there's a few bits of man made things we've already started polluting worlds we haven't even been to yet, and of course in deep space there's things like Voyager.

And that's assuming we stick to the spectrum visible to eyes like ours. There's all manner of Terra originated radio and Tv etc etc transmissions arcing out across the cosmos.

As we "speak" right now vast, cold, alien intelligences much older than us could be watching old episodes of "Muffin the Mule", "Gunsmoke" and "The Lone Ranger" and wondering why we live in a monochrome world.

At least Buck Rogers and/or Lorne Green should scare them off.

*Bonanza theme tune sing along initiated"

You can see most cities and towns from space easier than you can see a really long and thin wall.

I think we can assume that this means "with the naked eye".

Is that possible then?

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:I think we can assume that this means "with the naked eye".

Is that possible then?

sA

The great wall isn't really all that visible with the naked eye. It's much easier to see places like new york or significantly larger structures like the panama canal.

Hi George
The reason the He177 has 4 engines in two nacelles was purely due to the specification for the type to be used as a dive bomber. ie to allow it to be used in a tactical capacity if necessary. Barking mad but true.
For some reason the purely strategic role of the type was fudged by the top brass.

fwiw It wasn't my intention to contradict your statements but to add to them.

The Bf 110 was successfully used as a Jabo (fighter- bomber). Jabo raids often took place at low level and therefore under the radar.
The aircraft was not as successful, as you say, when used as an escort.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:fwiw It wasn't my intention to contradict your statements but to add to them.

I see. I think we're all in agreement then now.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The Bf 110 was successfully used as a Jabo (fighter- bomber). Jabo raids often took place at low level and therefore under the radar. The aircraft was not as successful, as you say, when used as an escort.

It is my understanding that the 110 performed well only during the hit and run stage (approx Dec '40 onwards). It's high speed allowed it to escape Blenhems night fighters (Blenheim kills were extremely low, in single figures IIRC).

The RDF (Radar) network only functioned over the coast. Inland, Observer Corps would track aircraft visually. Naturally this was impossible at night and as a result aircraft like the 110 operating alone performed well. It's one of the reasons Dowding was moved on from figher command after the Battle of Britain.

It is my understanding that the 110 performed well only during the hit and run stage (approx Dec '40 onwards).

That is what I thought and was surprised that the Bf110 was used in daylight Jabo raids as early as mid August during the Battle!


The early Aerial Radar sets were not very good and only had a range of a couple of miles, improved to four iirc.
This would not have been so much of a problem if the Blenheims could have been vectored by ground radar, but as you said, inland it wasn't possible.
In any case the poor Blenheims couldn't seem to catch the blighters!

But we all know that eating carrots improves your ability to see in the dark

If Germany didn't attack Russia or Africa do you think they would have conquered England?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:But we all know that eating carrots improves your ability to see in the dark

Yes, a fine misconception. "Spitfire pilots see better at night because they eat carrots."

Even if carrots did aid night vision (which I am to understand they do not) they would have been useless to Spitfire pilots as they did not fly at night. The exhaust of a Spitfire is mounted just in front of the cockpit and glows orange at night preventing the pilot from seeing out of the cockpit.

Cheesecat wrote:If Germany didn't attack Russia or Africa do you think they would have conquered England?

It's possible I suppose. It would have to have been a much, much better plan than Sealion. I don't think there was time to come up with a better solution by '41. The whole war is really about attacking the USSR to the Germans. Things could get very grim very quickly for everyone else if Germany and the USSR never fight.

Africa was a sideshow, there were never more than a couple of Divisions (most notably 15th and 21st Panzer) in Africa.

a few Spits were used in the nightfighter role -

though not sure about it being used as such in the Battle of Britain

The What If scenario is tricky. There are so many factors to take into account. Possibly in another thread?

"Germany would have done better if Hitler had listened to his generals."
Of course if he had, France would not have been steamrollered. All his generals said you couldn't send large mechanized forces through the Ardennes. So did all the French generals. Hitler disagreed, the French didn't.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:a few Spits were used in the nightfighter role -

though not sure about it being used as such in the Battle of Britain

According to the linked article, three squadrons (about 36 aircraft) for three months in 41-42, abandoned for multiple reasons (It does mention a solution to the exhaust glow though). Dowding refused to use Hurricanes as night fighter during the Battle of Britain and Blitz for similar reasons mentioned in the article (dangerous and ineffective).

Durzod wrote:"Germany would have done better if Hitler had listened to his generals."
Of course if he had, France would not have been steamrollered. All his generals said you couldn't send large mechanized forces through the Ardennes. So did all the French generals. Hitler disagreed, the French didn't.

Sort of. There was a general belief among the generals of all powers that a lightning war was impossible, that you couldn't deliver defeat of the enemy and resolve a war between major powers in a matter of weeks. WWI had stagnated as decisive victories were unable to be capitalised on, as rail could quickly reinforce defensive positions, while additional attackers were forced to march on foot to reach the breakthrough.

You are right that Hitler didn't fully agree with this, he wanted a quick victory in the Low Countries, which would fortify the Nazi position in the West and allow them to move into their invasion of Russia. For this reason he rejected the early plan for a direct assault through the low country. von Manstein proposed an attack through the Ardennes to threaten encirclement of the Allied forces in the Low Countries, Guderian made the genius suggestion of concentrating a large amount of armour in the Ardennes drive, and not look to encircle the Allied forces in the Low countries but to drive straight into the Allied rear, destroying their lines of supply and forcing a retreat.

There were discussions that if the plan went extremely well then a follow up attack on France could be possible, but this was not seriously considered or planned for. The plan did work, remarkably and completely, and the subsequent invasion and occupation of France was basically undertaken on an ad hoc basis, the Nazis were as surprised as anyone how effectively the drive through the Ardennes had collapsed the Allied fighting capability.


One of the big misconceptions is that Blitzkrieg was some kind of great new German plan. It wasn't actually something they talked about or even considered, they believed in manoeuvre warfare and rapid attacks, but this was only really considered on the tactical level. It was only after the armoured drive through the Ardennes worked so well at the strategic level that the Nazis began to consider it as part of their attack on the Soviet Union, and when executed there the Nazis were quite bad at it, insufficient communication and organisation between Nazi regiments allowed hundreds of thousands of Russian units to escape, troops which were vital in defending Moscow later that year.


Another classic misconception is the idea that the Russians won because they had so many men. At the start of Barbarossa the combined Axis fighting strength was greater than the Soviets. Despite the much higher quality of Nazi tactical capability, the Soviets won because they had a better war machine at the operational level – their operations at Stalingrad and Kursk to draw the Nazis in before counter attacking in force along the flanks were incredibly well executed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:If Germany didn't attack Russia or Africa do you think they would have conquered England?

Maybe, it's a tough question. Sealion would never have worked, but if the Nazis were serious about invasion they surely would have had a better plan than Sealion. That said, you look at the scale of D-day, and the difficulty of executing that even when you've got complete air and sea superiority, and then you look at the Nazis inability to achieve air superiority (or even meaningfully impact RAF air capability) and the impossibility of gaining any kind of naval equivalence, let alone superiority, and I'd have to say 'probably impossible' outside of a committed, multi-year operation - something the Nazis were not politically capable of.

Patton Oswalt is NOT funny.

No, it's a fact.

A duck's quack DOES echo, it's just that the nature of the waveform makes it hard to hear the reverberation.

Krellnus wrote:
The 'air travels faster over the top of an aeroplane wing than it does under' theory is incorrect, that is in fact near-perfect zero flight conditions. All the wing has to do is force air downwards, this relies heavily on the angle of attack of the wing.

Actually I thought it was the opposite. The air doesn't travel faster over the top but furtehr. creating less pressure to suck the plane up, rather than it sitting on denser air by being forced down. Hence a wing has a longer surface over the top than underneath.


another - you can dip your unprotect finger SAFELY into a beaker of liquid nitrogen as long as you don't leave it there too long. The heat in your finger causes the liquid to vaporise so your finger is in fact creating abubble around itself. however, as the air temp around your finger drops, the bubble gets smaller until eventually it touches. Then you're in trouble.

You can make dry ice with a CO2 extinguisher. Don't try it in a glass beaker though - our chemistry teacher demonstrated it that way and sent shards of glass flying across the room