I haven’t checked to see if anyone else had posted on the following subject, but Mythbusters, a program which I believe is on the Discovery Channel, did a test on this “myth” and found that when buttered side is up on the table and the toast slips off the edge, it almost always does a one half rotation before hitting the ground. When dropped from high up, though, about 4 stories high, there was an even chance between either side hitting the ground. It seems that the counter tops of the world are the perfect height for that one half rotation and annoying outcome.
They did.
What surprised me was all the talk about the height of table when, as Slug so accurately depicted, the toast usually falls from a plate being carried to the table. Once the bread is securely on the table it rarely jumps off.
[QUOTE=Xijhing]
I haven’t checked to see if anyone else had posted on the following subject, but Mythbusters, a program which I believe is on the Discovery Channel, did a test on this “myth” and found that when buttered side is up on the table and the toast slips off the edge, it almost always does a one half rotation before hitting the ground. When dropped from high up, though, about 4 stories high, there was an even chance between either side hitting the ground. It seems that the counter tops of the world are the perfect height for that one half rotation and annoying outcome.
Xi
I watch MythBusters religiously, and this episode was on earlier this year. You might be lucky enough to catch a rerun of it … just watch the Discovery channel for announcements of episode reruns – they do mini-marathons occasionally. This was a really good one.
Episode 28: Is Yawning Contagious?
Using a specially fabricated chamber complete with two-way mirror and a hidden camera, Kari, Scottie and Tory set out to see whether a yawn, like a cold, truly can be caught. Next on the docket: Does toast really fall buttered-side down? Jamie and Adam are on the case, each building a rig to simulate toast being dropped from the dining room table. Finally, the whole team tests the myth that a toy car can beat a real car (in this case, a Dodge Viper) in a gravity slope race.
premiere: March 9, 2005
Curious…regardless of which side of the toast hits the floor (bare side or buttered/jammed side), why would anyone want to eat the toast once it’s fallen on the ground??
Well, I would certainly be more inclined to eat it if it landed butter side up, but the more important issue is how much easier it is to clean up after such an incident.
Just a little nitpicky aside. Mythbusters is fun to watch, and they do occasionally get it right. But, they don’t use anything resembling the scientific method in their research.
They don’t always check sources either.
When they did the piece on the “Chicken Gun” they had the story wrong. They used the wrong kind of airplane winshield, and they still called it busted.
My husband worked for the company that used it in the first place. He knows what it did and how it was done. It was nothing close to what they did.
There have been other episodes that were more about blowing stuff up than finding out what could really happen in a given situation.
I’m not saying Mythbusters are perfect, but your example is completely invalid. They admitted in the same show that the experiment with the small plane was invalid. Turns out small aircraft windshields aren’t rated for bird impacts, so the mythbusters had to try a different approach… or words to that effect.
They then shoot the chickens at a solid metal sheet, and meassure the time for impact. Based on that they (mistakenly) call the myth busted.
Later they took the myth to task again, because of extensive critisism of the first attempt, and found an approach that proved that, yes, frozen chickens have more penetration power.
[QUOTE=picunurse]
Just a little nitpicky aside. Mythbusters is fun to watch, and they do occasionally get it right. But, they don’t use anything resembling the scientific method in their research.
They don’t always check sources either.
I have to agree on the ‘MythBusters’ thing. I love the show, but I agree that they don’t always use science to “bust” their myths(Althought they seem to IMPLY this). For example: Last week I watched one where they ‘Busted’ the ‘Robin Hood Splitting the Arrow in Twain’ myth. In the FIRST place, they seem to be ignorant of the concept of fiction lately, but when they investigated this, they showed many instances of people splitting an arrow at the target range, and then decided to expand the criteria to make the deciding factor that the arrow be split ‘From nock to neck’, or something similar. They proceeded to do a million tests with target heads on the arrows, before deciding that a SHARP(Read: Broadhead) arrowhead might make a difference, and then the they decided to bunch a group of shafts together to increase the odds of a hit. The only problem is that they insisted on securing these shafts to each other with a rubber band so that they would all sway on their own. To do a TRUE test of if an arrowhead would travel ALL of the way down a shaft, they would need to hold the shaft completely rigid… I spent the ENTIRE time fretting that if they would just go to AutoZone and buy a simple Hose Clamp, I would be able to sleep that night…
They also spend half an hour examining a problem such as the ‘Jumping in a crashing elevator’ episode, that could be figured out by a High School Freshman with a halfway decent teacher in about 5 minutes…
