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.
this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
479 points (96.0% liked)
Greentext
6261 readers
1467 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Wokeness is what keeps them in the air, which is why they're falling out of it now
This person's grasp of physics is like halfway there. Like one more module and they'd calm the fuck down.
"A little knowledge" has never been more dangerous.
‘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.
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...).
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 mstrong winds
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.
Be human.
Have billions of tons of atmosphere directly above you
Don't explode
Make it make sense
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?
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.
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.)
Actually, I studied aviation in university. It's literally just magic.
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?
A fighter jet is basically a fancy dart, and darts dgaf about gravity
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?
Because air doesn't give a fuck about gravity
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.
>Town of 100 people
>Everyone has $50
>Everyone stores Money In Town Bank
>Total bank balance of everyone: $5000
>Bank lends $1000 to a farmer to buy new equipment
>Merchant who sold the equipment deposits $1000 into bank.
>There is now $6000 total deposited in the bank
>1000 just came out of thin air
Money is fake and gay
I remember this classic philosophical quandary of our time, but in a different form.
Classic.
- A and B add 20 to Box. Both have -20 balance.
- A sells Box to B for 30. A has 10 balance and B has -50.
- A walks away with 10 Profit
- B takes cash out of box (40). Made 10 Loss.
debt: am I am joke to you?
Balance:
Each of 98 Townspeople: $50
The Merchant: $1050
The Farmer: -$950
So, the 98 towns people and the merchant all wants to withdraw.
???
Now you have a riot outside of a bank.
Congrats, you destroyed a Town with #Banking 🫠
Or alternatively.
The Banker just gaslight the town to mob-lynch the Farmer the good ol' capitalism way.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Also weird how giant steel tankers float on the ocean. Especially when they're weighed down by all that cargo. It's practically unbelievable. I throw a tiny rock in the ocean, and it sinks...but not those giant steel boats? /s
No, ocean water can't sink steel boats
It's a well known fact that steel weighs the same as feathers
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(20 replies)
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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!
Glue, is how the wings stay on, really good glue
And they WOULD break, eventually, if they weren't engineered to a statistically determined inspection interval and replaced/repaired at the determined overhaul time.
load more comments
(9 replies)
...fake and gay
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›