Theoretically speaking, Gavin is right. If you hit an slope at the perfect angle, and it was gradual enough, it would slow you down. But the slope would have to be completely smooth (like a skateboard ramp). Otherwise you would be dead. The problem is there is no slope on earth, that is gradual and smooth enough to do this. But if there was, Gavin is technically right.
+Jake Belcher He's right in saying that it would slow you down but that attempt would be futile. Sliding on your back or something would probably be better than hitting the ground with your feet because you would immediately trip, break several bones and either die by landing on your head, bleeding out, or infection from all the wounds lol.
No, you forget that he was in a plane going about 550mph. There is no mountain on Earth that could match the angle of his vector. Even if there was a perfect mountain, he would still be squished from downward force or torn apart from the sideways force. If he jumped out of a stationary helicopter on wheels and a frictionless surface, it could be possible.
+UGSETH2 You don't understand, you cannot find a mountain on earth that has the right height and angle. Even if there was a mountain with the proper specifications, he would be both torn apart and smashed at the same time. The only possible way he could survive is if he is able to run at 120 mph and the mountain is actually a sponge.
I would love to see this as a phone/OS/wireless data commercial...featuring Gavin of course... "Siri, wot is the angle of Mount Everest, southern face?" "(Whatever angle that happens to be.)" "Siri won't help you run down a mountain to save your life from a fall, but thanks to Blah-Blah Wireless, you can at least try to run down it." Make it happen.
Michael DeLuco "CHURCH BEST BUDDY PLEASEEEE it would be fun." That is how I would imagine I would approach him about it. Or from his left side, I could approach him that way too.
So yeah, everything Gavin is saying is theoretically true, however in practice it just wouldn't work because you would have to land PERFECTLY on a perfect 45 degree angle mountain and have the friction be just enough that it doesn't rip your fucking legs off on impact.
CanadaFTW This is assuming that air resistance doesn't slow you down enough that you stop accelerating towards the direction of the plane you just jumped out of. It is theoretically possible, but it would never happen because of how exact this shit would have to be. You would need to have enough friction to slow you down, but not enough that your legs would fly off on impact, you need enough distance to decelerate, you would need the perfect angle, and you couldn't have any air resistance that could screw up your trajectory. It's theoretically possible, but also impossible.
"In 1972, Serbian flight attendant Vesna Vulovic was traveling in a DC-9 over Czechoslovakia when it blew up. She fell 33,000 feet, wedged between her seat, a catering trolley, a section of aircraft and the body of another crew member, landing on-then sliding down-a snowy incline before coming to a stop, severely injured but alive."
This is like referencing a car crash survivor to prove that you could be shot naked into a brick wall at 70 mph and survive. There is no equivalence between being inside a giant steel structure crashing and being unprotected.
Some time last year, the plane I was in had an impact with the ground. I was still strapped into my seat inside a section of the aircraft and I survived without any injuries. See, the crucial thing here is the section of the aircraft was the entire aircraft and the impact was less than 100 ft per minute vertically because it was a landing. Clarifying things a bit can make them a little less interesting, but it gets to the truth of the matter better. That situation doesn't sound like it's directly applicable here despite being a miraculous survival
exactly. it could never happen in actual real life however in a perfect controlled environment it would work. you would not run but you could roll out the fall or slide depending on how your angle is
its possible with a perfect slope, any sort of friction involved will have to be over a long period of time, slowing down the person. Damage to the individual caused by the impact will be spread out over the time spent slowing down and as such will not be fatal. Obviously such a mountain does not exist on earth but the situation is a possible one.
The real issue here is that they are all misunderstanding the point the other side is trying to make. Gavin is talking about hypothetically increasing your odds of survival, and he is correct- decelerating by rolling down a slope rather than hitting the ground head on is less likely to kill you. They are talking about realistically being able to survive falling out of a plane by looking for a hill, and they are correct- you are going to die. Gavin really is smart in the hypothetical situations he thinks about, but he lacks any sort of skill in communication what he really means.
Stoned Pony That's basically the summary of any moment featuring Gavin saying something retarded. "Gavin thinks philosophically, says something stupid when trying to explain his thought, perfectly good thought insulted, people move on." Same goes with Karl Pilkington. Maybe they're half brothers?
It's not smart to say falling down a slope will be easier to survive than falling straight down on a flat surface. That is common fucking sense. Falling out of a plane and running down a mountain to survive wouldn't work. Wtf.
Mr.Seaturtles See, the thing is, people have SURVIVED hitting the ground at terminal velocity. It DOES MATTER how you hit the ground. So on a slope, you would have a higher chance of survival. 2% compared to 1%.
Gavin is partially right about the mountain thing, F• (delta)t = m•(delta)v = impulse. The longer you can make your impact (hitting at a similar angle and going with your fall would do that) the less force would need to be applied to maintain the impulse. Since we're talking about a falling object in equilibrium, the impulse would be the same in either circumstance. So let's say for convenience sake, the Impulse has a value of 400, and the time it takes to impact perpendicularly is .5 seconds, the force would be 800 Newton's. Now let's say that the length of time it takes to impact going with the angle of the mountain is .8 seconds, that would reduce the force to 500 Newton's. When dealing with such large velocities and the momentum thereof, extending the time of impact by even a fraction of a second can have huge impacts upon the force applied to your body. This is why people in parachutes bend their knees upon landing and why people that roll onto the hood when they get hit by a car usually have a higher chance of survival and lower chance of serious injury.
I know this is an old post, but I'd like to point out that Gavin IS wrong. Would touching a mountain slow his descent? Yes. Would anyone survive it? No. You try to prove it using impulse, which only proves that the amount of force would be reduced, but the amount reduced falling at terminal velocity would be insignificantly small. And its easy to prove by using a free body diagram that it would be impossible to survive. First, we know there is a gravitational force acting on Gavin, pointing down, and the mountain is at an incline of some angle theta. If Gavin is falling at the same angle as the mountain, then there are two components to his vector force, one parallel to the incline and one normal to the incline. If he's traveling EXACTLY the same angle as the incline, then the normal force is 0 and all the force is going toward the ground waiting for him at the bottom of the mountain. In this case, Gavin will hit the ground at terminal velocity and die. In a second case, lets say Gavin is traveling at the angle of the mountain and decides to put his foot on the surface of the mountain. In this case, Gavin's foot would feel a force of friction equal to the normal force that he pushes on the mountain times the coefficient of friction. So the harder Gavin pushes on the mountain, the further he's going to tumble off course due to the force of friction acting on his foot, and most likely spin into the mountain and feel the full force of terminal velocity. If Gavin pushes too softly however, the force of friction won't be enough to counteract the force of gravity, and Gavin will just end up hitting the mountain at terminal velocity again. P.S. its also important to note that the only way Gavin can travel in a straight line is if air resistance is holding his velocity constant. So Gavin is going FAST before its even physically possible to fall at the angle of a mountain.
@@JITCompilation considering you seem to have ignored @Floor's comment (4 years before yours) I'll just copy paste it for you. Gavin is correct, and actually, people in real life have survived doing something like this. Even without a PERFECT angle, landing on a steep mountain greatly increases your chances of survival. The only problem is, no one's aiming. Landing on a steep mountain is called lucky. Surviving that fall is called logic. Also, even without a steep mountain, people survive high falls all the time. Shayna Richardson 10,000 feet Vesna Vulovic 33,000 feet (World Record) Michael Holmes 15,000 feet Ivan Chisov 22,000 feet Juliane Koepcke 10,000 feet Christine McKenzie 11,000 feet Nicholas Alkemade 18,000 feet Dave Hodgman and his friend 2,500 feet Alan Magee 22,000 feet Lareece Butler 3,000 feet Alcides Moreno 47 stories James Boole 6,000 feet Cliff Judkins 15,000 feet Steve Fossett 22,000 feet
Except they're in a world where a schoolgirl can, out of literally nowhere, produce a weapon three times her size and wave it around like a drinking straw. So I don't think it's the same set of physics.
if you were in a zorb ball you would probably get thrown around like a dog toy. at least if you werent and somehow there was negligible friction you could slide
@@PalPlays Just because people use them ironically now doesn't mean they lost thier meaning. You and 134 people understood what I said 2 years ago so that means it has meaning.
@@SimplyCanadian Your comment wasn't liked because you said the word "highkey." That's an awfully big stretch. The issue is that people have never understood what highkey and lowkey mean, and have always used it as a meaningless buzzword.
@@PalPlays Never said people liked it for specifically the word. I said they understood what I meant. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean others wouldn't ethier.
Gavin is correct. HOWEVER, the odds that you will be able to find a perfect, SMOOTH angle to catch without any rocks on it to kill you in impact are basically 0. In the hypothetical situation, yes, Gavin is right. But it could never actually happen unless it was staged.
The smoothness of the terrain has nothing to do with it. You can't run down a mountain because then you're pushing against the surface causing you to tumble. You also fall in a rather steep gradient because of gravity so you'll hit the mountain more or less perpendicularly.
LiqhterCA Well somebody is butthurt. Notice I said in the hypothetical sense. It will NEVER happen. However, if the conditions he described were to happen, it would be possible to survive with no injuries.
jijonbreaker No it's still wrong even in the hypothetical sense because even if you do get the perfect variables your legs would not be able to run fast enough to keep up with gravity. You would have to be able to run as fast as you are falling, and that's impossible... Unless you are Flash.
jijonbreaker In a false reality then yes you are correct but in a reality where eery little aspect of life and terrain play into surial, you'd become a nice little smear of blood against that mountain side. Gain proabbly didn't take into account the force of graiy along with the stopping force of the ground plus friction so yes if you do bounce, your legs or head are coming off.
terminal velocity: velocity at which the force of gravity and the force of air resistance are in equalibrium resulting in no net force and thus no acceleration (f=ma so a=f/m) your air resistance would be proportional to your velocity but the force of gravity on your body would be constant. I know this video is probably really old and that very few people will read this but I love physics so shush
TeRmInAl VeLoCiTy Is ThE sPeEd Of FaLl ThAt Is GuArAnTeEd To KiLl YoU - Bernie Maybe he didn't say that's what he believes but goddamn it is hard to make out exactly what he is saying. At 4:20 lol
Gavin theoretically is correct. The question is survival from the fall not walking away unscathed so he's Gavin in theory is right based on the fact that if you were to find a gentle enough hill with enough room before it levels out at a small enough slope then yes, chances are you would in fact survive. Broken legs, ankles, etc. doesn't matter. the question is survival and any way to slow yourself down at ANY rate would increase the chance of survival. Remember people it isn't the speed or fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop, if you don't stop suddenly but instead are constantly decelerating then your odds go up. All that said, don't try this but if it comes to this, be a Gavin not a Burnie because Burnie would just fall and die 99.99999999999999999% of the time whereas Gavin's is about 98.9999999998% that small change in possible survival is worth it if the alternative is death
You are going to die if you hit only a hill when falling at terminal velocity. The only way you could survive the initial impact would be if the hill is steep enough to limit the force project onto you. This hill would have to be so ridiculously steep that the roll itself down the hill would kill you. Since the initial impact didn't impart that much force on your body you would maintain much of the speed from the fall meaning that the slide down the hill would be your demise. A persons best bet at surviving a fall from terminal velocity would be aiming for very very dense shrubbery that may decrease the deceleration of your body. Anyway it really doesn't matter because even in perfect conditions a fall at that speed depends entirely on luck.
Problem is, most commercial flights operate at an altitude of 40,000 feet. Most mountains you'll be flying over are somewhere between 7,000 - 20,000 feet. You'll have several thousand feet of falling to lose all of your forward momentum by the time it comes to hit the mountain, unless you've already been trained on how to bend your body right to affect the angle of your fall.
Gavin's theory is essentially the same as the idea of a parkour roll. They both use the idea of transferring downwards momentum into forwards momentum instead. Parkour rolls work, so I can't see why, theoretically, Gavin's theory wouldn't work.
The timing while falling at terminal celocity wouldn't matter. While trying to get ready to roll, you'd start somersaulting uncontrollably in midair. Even if you get your arms forward to try and control your transition into your roll, your arms would be completely dislocated with your shoulders popping out of the skin. And assuming you did manage to roll perfectly, your velocity isn't being slowed in any way. You'll roll and fly off the ground again, because you'd be going so fast and you've angled yourself to the point that you'll bounce and the momentum will send you flying forward at still dangerous speeds. Gavin's running down a mountain could work in theory, but only if your feet are moving at a speed equal to terminal velocity and the angle of the mountain is constant. Too low and you'll skip a step and go flying. Too high and you'll trip and split your skull open.
^ that. Plus at terminal velocity you're pretty much falling straight down. You'd never be able to fall at an angle even close to that of a mountain and much less a hill.
MonsterTeegs you do realize people don't fall straight down. You flatten youe body straighten your feet and you will NOT fall straight down. It is basic physics do some research next time
TheUnKnownGamer I realize you can adjust your heading by flattening you body a la Skydivers, (which is why I said "pretty much") but the difference is so minute compared to the degree of a hill or mountain, especially if all you have is casual clothes. (the scenario being falling out of a plane) If you have research/proof that states otherwise please feel free to cite it here, otherwise don't presume you know basic physics because of watching action films.
If you hit the angle you're more likely to not die than just hitting a flat surface. Which is Gavin's point so he is correct. Now do I think that's humanly possible? Hell freaking no.
if you throw an egg at say 45 degrees to the ground, with nothing to interrupt its fall, it is likely to crack (of course not hard boiled...) but if you put a flat 45 degree ramp and throw it the same so the egg will meet it before it reaches the bottom of the ramp, its more likely to stay undamaged (still unlikely though). But if the ramp bends to meet the ground flush, like a quarter pipe, it will greatly increase the odds of survival for the egg. Obviously its a bit different with a human, considering they aren't round, but the concept still applies.
TysonRex37 only if the egg has no air resistance or downward acceleration, which in real life, it would so both rules apply to the egg in this example.
I actually agree with Gavin, that if you were falling and you happened to land on a slope that started parallel to you, and extremely gradually sloped downward, eventually you would come to a stop and live.
patrick watkins I realized my error after posting but was too lazy to remove the post. Unless it was literally the most slippery surface possible, in which case you might be able to slide down it considering it would be enormously long but eventually slow down once the steepness reduces to nearly flat. Also, in my head I pictured someone landing nearly perfectly parallel to it and sliding on their back, not running. Running would NEVER work.
Sorry that wasn't very smart of me lol, but mountains aren't exactly smooth, at that speed it would just tear right through your body. But yea with a ramp, it would definitely work.
My favorite thing honestly is the background guys listening in like at 2:55, guy on the right balcony is laughing his ass off with us while he just listens to this hilarity.
What Gavin's saying is true but the odds of it actually working are next too impossible, and you probably won't start running you'll break your legs and just roll
you need a mountain that is 10 times higher then the Mount Everest and if it can't even have a small hole or rock or else it will be sudden and kill you. but in theory it is possible. but only not on this planet
patrick thuis Not really, the idea is to slow you down from terminal velocity, as long as this occurs prior to your velocity being canceled by another object, you could survive. How and when this is achieved is immaterial, provided you slow down before stopping.
Gavin is correct, and actually, people in real life have survived doing something like this. Even without a PERFECT angle, landing on a steep mountain greatly increases your chances of survival. The only problem is, no one's aiming. Landing on a steep mountain is called lucky. Surviving that fall is called logic. Also, even without a steep mountain, people survive high falls all the time. Shayna Richardson 10,000 feet Vesna Vulovic 33,000 feet (World Record) Michael Holmes 15,000 feet Ivan Chisov 22,000 feet Juliane Koepcke 10,000 feet Christine McKenzie 11,000 feet Nicholas Alkemade 18,000 feet Dave Hodgman and his friend 2,500 feet Alan Magee 22,000 feet Lareece Butler 3,000 feet Alcides Moreno 47 stories James Boole 6,000 feet Cliff Judkins 15,000 feet Steve Fossett 22,000 feet
13:39 Can we have a science portion of the podcast called “Bollocks, and I’m Gonna Tell You Why” starring Gavin just explaining very niche hypothetical situations in his Gavin way?
+zz tarry Nah it's not. To find terminal velocity (on earth) you would first need to know the mass of the object in question. Then you would calculate the force of gravity acting upon it by (I think) multiplying the mass by the gravitational field strength or earth which is 10. Then you would need to know how much drag the object has and divide the force of gravity by the drag to find the terminal velocity.
If you guessed completely right, we are talking down to the millimeters, you could actually pull this off by sliding down the hill. The issue is, the hill would need to maintain a constant slope and not have a sudden stop or change
We're talking about a mountain. Not a perfectly smooth, virtually friction-less ramp. At terminal velocity a person falls at about 220 mph (98 meter/sec.), and with an acceleration of 0. At this speed the force would be absolutely enormous and absolutely impossible to survive by trying to run down a mountain. Each 'leap' would have to provide so much force by redirecting your mass in a different direction that it would shatter. A person would end up smeared down a mountain or tumbling downwards so quickly and violently that they would immediately die.
TooToxic21 I think for that to work the platform would have to be heavier than the amount of force your legs give when you jump, other wise you would keep falling at the same speed, and just propel the platform faster
Guys really? It wouldn't work because you would have to jump upwards at the same speed that you're falling down at. I.e. if you are falling down at 100km/h then you would have to jump up at 100km/h, which of course is impossible. And that's assuming that the object you are jumping off has enough mass that the force of you jumping up will not affect it much (for every force there is an equal and opposite force)(jonathan you were on the right track with that idea).
it most definitely would not work with your own two legs. But what if you had a skateboard or anything with wheels that were somehow indestructible to impact, and had a mountain like ramp that was insanely high like mount everest and was smooth so you can rise down it until it curves flat? Myth busters?
Dyslexic Brabderry oh well...yeah probably from all the force exerted when you hit the part of the ramp that's straightening out. But i'm talking about if you had a ramp that started out as almost vertical up in the air. So technically you can touch a solid ground without actually slamming into it.
Gavin is talking about a little thing called the angle of deceleration. Parachutes use this to stop us from dying. That being said terminal velocity would kill you on impact. They use this kind of theory on runaway trucks on the highway.
I want them to put together the plane ride and the jump point for Gavin, build a big ass ramp with the perfect angle that would dissipate all the terminal velocity speed he built up, the ramp would have the smoothest fucking surface in the world, calculate the optimal jumping time for him too, then 1 month after the jump his tombstone would have "IT WOULD WORK!" engraved on it.
The Game Corner yep, that's why I can die in Battlefield 10 times and not care, why I can unflip a car in GTA just by turning the wheel and survive a 5k drop in Just Cause by grappling to the ground faster
Gavin is actually right. And it's funny they bring up Travis Pastrana, as he himself fell from his bike on his first attempt of a double backflip, and when he hit the ground he rolled himself to a stopped, and lived with basically just the injuries found from a slow car crash (still hurt though, of course). And they said he survived because of the roll. Like Burnie LITERALLY brought up the perfect guy to disprove himself, but sadly Jack nor Gavin knew that much about Pastrana to bring that incident up (plus Burnie brought up the Army Ranger which also disproves himself, but still lol). And even still, Gavin was basically dead-on physics-wise about pretty much everything. Burnie was a douche, and everyone else I guess just doesn't have enough knowledge in the subject to understand Gavin's explanations, which for the record, weren't that bad. Brought up an argument, and played themselves from being too ignorant about it. I love it lol (no sarcasm, I legitimately find it hilariously awesome, but boy do I feel bad for Gavin most of the time).
Gavin is right with the aiming for something. As you fall down closer to the ground the aim window gets smaller and smaller but from the start when you're high up you can aim more precisely.
So in theory gavin is correct, in reality it would be practically impossible to pull off. You would need to land parallel to the mountain, the mountain would need to have no friction and have to be completely flat, you would need to continue running at terminal velocity and gradually slow yourself down, im sure theres a million other variables that im not considering but either way, if you were some sort of god, then maybe you could pull it off after a couple hundred attempts.
Here in Australia we have a place called questacon, where they have a vertical slide. You're about 5 metres in the air hanging from a horizontal pole and then you let go and fall. The slide underneath went from vertical to horizontal and is perfectly smooth. This is the basic principle of Gavin's idea however there is no hill big enough or smooth enough to survive.
10:37 Gavin is absolutely right there. When you jump out a plane heading East or so at 500 mph, you're also going to be going East at 500 mph. However because of relativity you would think you were falling straight down but that's not the case at all.
Colin Cootjans It's theoretical. Air Resistance would of course slow you down but you're still going to be moving in the direction you jumped out, this is assuming you didn't jump out on a super windy day.
+Ian Ferguson Yes you would initially be falling at the same horizontal speed as the plane, and yes air resistance would slow you down, but no you wouldn't always be moving in the direction you jumped out in. Air resistance is constantly decelerating you, and their is no force to counteract this, so you would lose all of your horizontal speed. The only reason you don't lose all of your vertical speed is because their is a force pulling you down (gravity) that counteracts the resistive force of air resistance.
Conman_123 Yeah, I was going completely theoretical. I have said this quite a few times but being theoretically possible is not the same thing as being possible. It's like the Speed of Light. It's theoretically possible to reach it but it would never happen.
theoretically it would work but the slope would have to be very gradual and you would have to have a thick layer of fabric around you so that you don't get any burns from the friction but you would get very hurt and there is only a very small chance of survival
In theory I think Gavin is right, in reality it's basically impossible. The angle 'hill' you would land on would have to be at 85° (so basically a cliff otherwise you would just break your legs when you land and most likely get killed by the sudden stop. furthermore, the slope would have to slowly even out very gradually so you can lose momentum from terminal velocity. Also if you jumped out of a plane at 30000 ft you would just suffer from hypoxia (unless you had an oxygen source) and pass out so it wouldn't really matter if it were possible because you would just rag doll to your death.
I like how they are talking specifically about the angle and terminal velocity to slide down a mountain, and no one is even gonna bring up the force of friction is going to rip you apart if you try that
in what world do you think the force of ripping your leg off would be less than the force of the gravel sliding under your foot? the shit your landing on unless its solid stone would move before your legs rip off and even then you have skin coming off then down to bone before itd just straight up desocket your legs
Gavin is trying to say "if you were falling and there was a perfectly smooth surface that was infinitely long, that if you fell at the right angle making as little contact as possible, the friction would eventually slow you down to a stop safely"
Except that it's not possible. First off you'd be hitting the mountain side at a velocity higher than your legs could possibly move to actually run, therefor you'd face plant the mountain side at an extremely high velocity killing you instantly. But that's assuming the kinetic energy wouldn't shatter your legs upon impact, in which case you'd still face plant and die instantly. It's absolutely 100% impossible to survive.
@@ThePandemic101 Gavin's saying that he would land perpendicular to a slope (pretend its perfectly smooth) and not technically run down, but keep tapping the floor in order to slow momentum until he wouldn't die but get injured
Gavin is right. You can choose where you fall. The point he was trying to make and failing is that the closer you get to the ground, the more precise you get. Bernie tries to compare it to shooting an arrow but you lose control of an arrow the minute you fire it, but falling you never lose control.
In Gavin's defence: Vesna Vulovic, Nicholas Alkemade, Ivan Chisov and Alan Magee. People who survived insane falls without parachutes. Also, I've always said if I'm going to die, falling from a plane would probably be my choice, just because I would at least enjoy my last few minutes.
Aren't there water slides that have you fall at terminal velocity and then slide down a water slide with little friction that has less and less of an angle until skidding off of a pool would slow you down enough?
Jack Lucas in WW2 was para trooping into a mission and his parachute failed to where he did what Gavin did and lived with no broken bones or anything. He wrote an autobiography on that as well as his grenade story. The book is called "Indestructible: The Unforgettable Story of a Marine Hero at the Battle of Iwo Jima".
It's actually kinda sad that from my perspective the others are looking like idiots. I completely understand what Gavin is trying to say. In theory he is correct. And that is the problem: "In theory". The others are all talking about it realistically while Gav is talking about it theoretically so of course they're not gonna find a compromise.
I can see the logic in gavins theory, yes its completely never going to work because of unpredictable variables but yeah i see where he is coming from.
Gavin is right. When you're high up you can move your body. Parachutists do it all the time before pulling their chute. Spread limbs slows down the fall, limbs close to body speeds up. I heard about a pilot that lost his parachute and aimed his body to a tree; he broke his bones but survived.
I agree with gavin's theory of aiming. if you have 10 degrees from a mile up, you still have 10 degrees once you go down to half a mile. Its not like an arrow where you aim and shoot, you can keep adjusting where you are aiming. This is really only true if you already know how to change where you are aiming.
If you ever hear somebody say that Gavin doesn't say stupid stuff, just point them to the part where he says that you could save yourself from free-fall by grabbing onto a drainpipe right before you hit the ground. He also thinks that you somehow have such amazing grip strength that you'd actually tear your own arms off but would save your own life. That is stupid. Plain and simple. There is no "technically, he's sorta right in this abstract way" loophole on that one.
IAMTHEJUGGERNATE if you locked fingers together, you wouldn't need to worry about "grip strength". The friction between your interlaced fingers and the speed at which you're falling would be enough to rip your arms off. Now surviving is different, idk about that.
Wow, Gavin is completely right during the 'landing on the x' debate. It initially starts off a little more difficult to hit your target, so you need to be precise and get yourself in an approximate area of the target. But as you get closer, your decisions will affect the outcome less. So as long as you think of it in chunks such that at the end of each distance marker there's a range of areas you can be in, you should be able to hit the target.
Gavin is explaining this badly but the principal checks out. Anything to lessen the amount of g forces you experienced on impact would help your chance for survival. You wouldn't be able to run down a hill but a very steep and long slope would be a lot better and would increase your chances hugely.
Type Name Here I think he means with ideal conditions, one could absorb the energy from falling with their legs multiple times and survive (but not be uninjured, obviously).
Grilled Salt Your legs will relay the energy of the impact throughout your body and everything inside of your body will cease to work in at most 2 milliseconds
Type Name Here But what he's saying is that because it's sloped, one could lessen the energy of each impact by hitting the side at less than full force and lose some momentum with each glancing step.
Answer for burnies death scenario: falling from 35,000ft. At least you can do cool shit like flips before you die, you can’t do cool shit while stranded at sea, you’d get sun burnt, heat stroke, dehydration, hypothermia, starvation, fuck that
I like how Gavin has valid points but explains them terribly
That is Gavin's entire existence
That's Gavin. He's wicked smaht, but like a lot of people he cannot explain what he's thinking properly.
No, he's just an idiot.
It's a fucking awful point
TheAbyssalTurtle that is very true about a lot of things Gavin talks about
did they ever make Gus float?
SrgtBarney don’t think so
J-JFarquhar
RIP Gus
We all float down here except Gus
@@Musashi.04 I just imagined the scene in it with all the kids floating in the air but Gus is just lying on the floor
STARSHEEP while everyone is just recording see I’m not floating 🤣
"You'd be a stain on the side of Mt. Everest" HAHAHAHAHA
I love those words being associated with that cat picture.
Theoretically speaking, Gavin is right. If you hit an slope at the perfect angle, and it was gradual enough, it would slow you down. But the slope would have to be completely smooth (like a skateboard ramp). Otherwise you would be dead. The problem is there is no slope on earth, that is gradual and smooth enough to do this. But if there was, Gavin is technically right.
+Jake Belcher He's right in saying that it would slow you down but that attempt would be futile. Sliding on your back or something would probably be better than hitting the ground with your feet because you would immediately trip, break several bones and either die by landing on your head, bleeding out, or infection from all the wounds lol.
No, you forget that he was in a plane going about 550mph. There is no mountain on Earth that could match the angle of his vector. Even if there was a perfect mountain, he would still be squished from downward force or torn apart from the sideways force.
If he jumped out of a stationary helicopter on wheels and a frictionless surface, it could be possible.
+Jake Belcher
you dont understand, after falling a certain lenght, you will be falling straight down..
+Jake Belcher myth busters should test this
+UGSETH2 You don't understand, you cannot find a mountain on earth that has the right height and angle. Even if there was a mountain with the proper specifications, he would be both torn apart and smashed at the same time. The only possible way he could survive is if he is able to run at 120 mph and the mountain is actually a sponge.
"...you're falling at the speed of fall..."
I hear summer's faster.
Corpse
Winter is sadly the slowest...
“You’d be a stain on the side of Everest!” Is one of those quotes that lives in the back of my mind eternally
Acknowledging that this is almost a decade old is giving me a severe existential crisis
9 years later and they still haven't tried to float Gus :(
@@_WeDontKnow_😂😂😂
Yeah, it can be quite shocking when time passes. A rare occurrence.
Her: He's probably thinking about other girls.
Me:
I would love to see this as a phone/OS/wireless data commercial...featuring Gavin of course...
"Siri, wot is the angle of Mount Everest, southern face?"
"(Whatever angle that happens to be.)"
"Siri won't help you run down a mountain to save your life from a fall, but thanks to Blah-Blah Wireless, you can at least try to run down it."
Make it happen.
You should work in the commercial business because that sounds epic.
That is a fucking amazing idea!
Reading this in Cabooses/Joel's voice, all I can imagine is him yelling at Burnie trying to make it happen
Michael DeLuco "CHURCH BEST BUDDY PLEASEEEE it would be fun." That is how I would imagine I would approach him about it. Or from his left side, I could approach him that way too.
+Michael J. Caboose I'd hire you.
its really interesting how they managed to have the exact same debate twice with both being documented on a podcast
So yeah, everything Gavin is saying is theoretically true, however in practice it just wouldn't work because you would have to land PERFECTLY on a perfect 45 degree angle mountain and have the friction be just enough that it doesn't rip your fucking legs off on impact.
Ian Ferguson Present that challenge to Gavin. He must accept it.
It's not theoretically possible. You would be travelling too fast that on that first contact to survive.
No, it's not possible.
CanadaFTW This is assuming that air resistance doesn't slow you down enough that you stop accelerating towards the direction of the plane you just jumped out of.
It is theoretically possible, but it would never happen because of how exact this shit would have to be. You would need to have enough friction to slow you down, but not enough that your legs would fly off on impact, you need enough distance to decelerate, you would need the perfect angle, and you couldn't have any air resistance that could screw up your trajectory.
It's theoretically possible, but also impossible.
no its not, jesus
"In 1972, Serbian flight attendant Vesna Vulovic was traveling in a DC-9 over Czechoslovakia when it blew up. She fell 33,000 feet, wedged between her seat, a catering trolley, a section of aircraft and the body of another crew member, landing on-then sliding down-a snowy incline before coming to a stop, severely injured but alive."
false. she was found in plane near the wings. she did not fall and catch in angle
Wrong Ryan, the whole plane caught the angle.
This is like referencing a car crash survivor to prove that you could be shot naked into a brick wall at 70 mph and survive. There is no equivalence between being inside a giant steel structure crashing and being unprotected.
Some time last year, the plane I was in had an impact with the ground. I was still strapped into my seat inside a section of the aircraft and I survived without any injuries.
See, the crucial thing here is the section of the aircraft was the entire aircraft and the impact was less than 100 ft per minute vertically because it was a landing. Clarifying things a bit can make them a little less interesting, but it gets to the truth of the matter better. That situation doesn't sound like it's directly applicable here despite being a miraculous survival
*slowmo guys gav*
"I'm absolutely genius and i can calculate anything"
*achievement hunter gav*
"Does rocks float on lava?"
Rock could float, but it's not really floating, as lava is still somewhat solid.
As always he's technically not wrong
exactly. it could never happen in actual real life however in a perfect controlled environment it would work. you would not run but you could roll out the fall or slide depending on how your angle is
yes he is wrong
It would not work because you would still fucking die whether you're rolling or not.
its possible with a perfect slope, any sort of friction involved will have to be over a long period of time, slowing down the person. Damage to the individual caused by the impact will be spread out over the time spent slowing down and as such will not be fatal. Obviously such a mountain does not exist on earth but the situation is a possible one.
Damian There was a woman who survived a fall of over 10 kilometers, clearly you can't definitively say that the person would die.
The real issue here is that they are all misunderstanding the point the other side is trying to make. Gavin is talking about hypothetically increasing your odds of survival, and he is correct- decelerating by rolling down a slope rather than hitting the ground head on is less likely to kill you. They are talking about realistically being able to survive falling out of a plane by looking for a hill, and they are correct- you are going to die. Gavin really is smart in the hypothetical situations he thinks about, but he lacks any sort of skill in communication what he really means.
Stoned Pony That's basically the summary of any moment featuring Gavin saying something retarded. "Gavin thinks philosophically, says something stupid when trying to explain his thought, perfectly good thought insulted, people move on."
Same goes with Karl Pilkington. Maybe they're half brothers?
It's not smart to say falling down a slope will be easier to survive than falling straight down on a flat surface. That is common fucking sense. Falling out of a plane and running down a mountain to survive wouldn't work. Wtf.
Stoned Pony EXACTLY
Hypothetical or not he would be dead even after increasing his odds he still has a probability of under 1
Mr.Seaturtles
See, the thing is, people have SURVIVED hitting the ground at terminal velocity. It DOES MATTER how you hit the ground. So on a slope, you would have a higher chance of survival. 2% compared to 1%.
Gavin is partially right about the mountain thing, F• (delta)t = m•(delta)v = impulse. The longer you can make your impact (hitting at a similar angle and going with your fall would do that) the less force would need to be applied to maintain the impulse. Since we're talking about a falling object in equilibrium, the impulse would be the same in either circumstance. So let's say for convenience sake, the Impulse has a value of 400, and the time it takes to impact perpendicularly is .5 seconds, the force would be 800 Newton's. Now let's say that the length of time it takes to impact going with the angle of the mountain is .8 seconds, that would reduce the force to 500 Newton's. When dealing with such large velocities and the momentum thereof, extending the time of impact by even a fraction of a second can have huge impacts upon the force applied to your body. This is why people in parachutes bend their knees upon landing and why people that roll onto the hood when they get hit by a car usually have a higher chance of survival and lower chance of serious injury.
nerd
Codie L this is beautiful
I know this is an old post, but I'd like to point out that Gavin IS wrong. Would touching a mountain slow his descent? Yes. Would anyone survive it? No. You try to prove it using impulse, which only proves that the amount of force would be reduced, but the amount reduced falling at terminal velocity would be insignificantly small. And its easy to prove by using a free body diagram that it would be impossible to survive. First, we know there is a gravitational force acting on Gavin, pointing down, and the mountain is at an incline of some angle theta. If Gavin is falling at the same angle as the mountain, then there are two components to his vector force, one parallel to the incline and one normal to the incline. If he's traveling EXACTLY the same angle as the incline, then the normal force is 0 and all the force is going toward the ground waiting for him at the bottom of the mountain. In this case, Gavin will hit the ground at terminal velocity and die. In a second case, lets say Gavin is traveling at the angle of the mountain and decides to put his foot on the surface of the mountain. In this case, Gavin's foot would feel a force of friction equal to the normal force that he pushes on the mountain times the coefficient of friction. So the harder Gavin pushes on the mountain, the further he's going to tumble off course due to the force of friction acting on his foot, and most likely spin into the mountain and feel the full force of terminal velocity. If Gavin pushes too softly however, the force of friction won't be enough to counteract the force of gravity, and Gavin will just end up hitting the mountain at terminal velocity again.
P.S. its also important to note that the only way Gavin can travel in a straight line is if air resistance is holding his velocity constant. So Gavin is going FAST before its even physically possible to fall at the angle of a mountain.
@@JITCompilation considering you seem to have ignored @Floor's comment (4 years before yours) I'll just copy paste it for you.
Gavin is correct, and actually, people in real life have survived doing something like this. Even without a PERFECT angle, landing on a steep mountain greatly increases your chances of survival. The only problem is, no one's aiming. Landing on a steep mountain is called lucky. Surviving that fall is called logic.
Also, even without a steep mountain, people survive high falls all the time.
Shayna Richardson 10,000 feet
Vesna Vulovic 33,000 feet (World Record)
Michael Holmes 15,000 feet
Ivan Chisov 22,000 feet
Juliane Koepcke 10,000 feet
Christine McKenzie 11,000 feet
Nicholas Alkemade 18,000 feet
Dave Hodgman and his friend 2,500 feet
Alan Magee 22,000 feet
Lareece Butler 3,000 feet
Alcides Moreno 47 stories
James Boole 6,000 feet
Cliff Judkins 15,000 feet
Steve Fossett 22,000 feet
"Aim for the bushes?"
"My man!"
Some of you will get that reference.
YES
THERE GOES MY HERO
To this day I still don’t know what bushes he was talking about...
Ahh yeah! The Pagemaster with Macaulay Culkin right?!? Love that movie.
Other guys is pure gold
In RWBY at some point Scarlet needs to fall out a Bullhead and proceeds to use this as his landing strategy.
agreed. and tai would have to keep telling him he's an idiot before he does.
woosh
Except they're in a world where a schoolgirl can, out of literally nowhere, produce a weapon three times her size and wave it around like a drinking straw. So I don't think it's the same set of physics.
I’m legitimately LEGITIMATELY disappointed this hasn’t been a thing yet.
Damn I miss landing strategies
Even if he did match the angle, it would be like falling off of a motorcycle at 220 mph with no protection.
Profit Lemon down a hill
Profit Lemon but... what if you were in a protective bubble?
Mister Milkshake
Actually...that just might work!
if you were in a zorb ball you would probably get thrown around like a dog toy. at least if you werent and somehow there was negligible friction you could slide
122mph
Gavin: The thing is, that would probably work!
Jack: Yeah
Everyone: *ignores jack*
Remember the five rules of skydiving kids
1. Squat
2. Pray
3. Leap
4. Aaahhh
5. Touchdown
Gavin is highkey correct.. The scenarios would improve likelihood of survival even if it by 0.0001%
SimplyCanadian the scenarios don’t exist so it’s still impossible either way
"Highkey..." Do you even know what you are saying? Highkey and lowkey don't have any meaning anymore; they are just things that people say.
@@PalPlays Just because people use them ironically now doesn't mean they lost thier meaning.
You and 134 people understood what I said 2 years ago so that means it has meaning.
@@SimplyCanadian Your comment wasn't liked because you said the word "highkey." That's an awfully big stretch. The issue is that people have never understood what highkey and lowkey mean, and have always used it as a meaningless buzzword.
@@PalPlays Never said people liked it for specifically the word.
I said they understood what I meant.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean others wouldn't ethier.
Thank you for posting these, it’s a good watch to reminisce now that RT is gone.
Gavin is correct. HOWEVER, the odds that you will be able to find a perfect, SMOOTH angle to catch without any rocks on it to kill you in impact are basically 0. In the hypothetical situation, yes, Gavin is right. But it could never actually happen unless it was staged.
Is it like communism
The smoothness of the terrain has nothing to do with it. You can't run down a mountain because then you're pushing against the surface causing you to tumble. You also fall in a rather steep gradient because of gravity so you'll hit the mountain more or less perpendicularly.
LiqhterCA Well somebody is butthurt. Notice I said in the hypothetical sense. It will NEVER happen. However, if the conditions he described were to happen, it would be possible to survive with no injuries.
jijonbreaker No it's still wrong even in the hypothetical sense because even if you do get the perfect variables your legs would not be able to run fast enough to keep up with gravity. You would have to be able to run as fast as you are falling, and that's impossible... Unless you are Flash.
jijonbreaker In a false reality then yes you are correct but in a reality where eery little aspect of life and terrain play into surial, you'd become a nice little smear of blood against that mountain side. Gain proabbly didn't take into account the force of graiy along with the stopping force of the ground plus friction so yes if you do bounce, your legs or head are coming off.
terminal velocity: velocity at which the force of gravity and the force of air resistance are in equalibrium resulting in no net force and thus no acceleration (f=ma so a=f/m) your air resistance would be proportional to your velocity but the force of gravity on your body would be constant. I know this video is probably really old and that very few people will read this but I love physics so shush
Nashyj495 Bothered me that they thought terminal velocity is a constant hahaha
TeRmInAl VeLoCiTy Is ThE sPeEd Of FaLl ThAt Is GuArAnTeEd To KiLl YoU - Bernie
Maybe he didn't say that's what he believes but goddamn it is hard to make out exactly what he is saying.
At 4:20 lol
@@Classified141 He ws saying that's what a lot of people on twitter think
I like coming back to these old videos from time to time. Things really seem like they were better then.
Audio is spot on!
Gavin theoretically is correct. The question is survival from the fall not walking away unscathed so he's Gavin in theory is right based on the fact that if you were to find a gentle enough hill with enough room before it levels out at a small enough slope then yes, chances are you would in fact survive. Broken legs, ankles, etc. doesn't matter. the question is survival and any way to slow yourself down at ANY rate would increase the chance of survival. Remember people it isn't the speed or fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop, if you don't stop suddenly but instead are constantly decelerating then your odds go up. All that said, don't try this but if it comes to this, be a Gavin not a Burnie because Burnie would just fall and die 99.99999999999999999% of the time whereas Gavin's is about 98.9999999998% that small change in possible survival is worth it if the alternative is death
You are going to die if you hit only a hill when falling at terminal velocity. The only way you could survive the initial impact would be if the hill is steep enough to limit the force project onto you. This hill would have to be so ridiculously steep that the roll itself down the hill would kill you. Since the initial impact didn't impart that much force on your body you would maintain much of the speed from the fall meaning that the slide down the hill would be your demise. A persons best bet at surviving a fall from terminal velocity would be aiming for very very dense shrubbery that may decrease the deceleration of your body. Anyway it really doesn't matter because even in perfect conditions a fall at that speed depends entirely on luck.
Brendan Maxwell it's good to see that people realize that it's possible to do it not humanly possible but the physics is very correct
Problem is, most commercial flights operate at an altitude of 40,000 feet. Most mountains you'll be flying over are somewhere between 7,000 - 20,000 feet. You'll have several thousand feet of falling to lose all of your forward momentum by the time it comes to hit the mountain, unless you've already been trained on how to bend your body right to affect the angle of your fall.
Gavin's theory is essentially the same as the idea of a parkour roll. They both use the idea of transferring downwards momentum into forwards momentum instead. Parkour rolls work, so I can't see why, theoretically, Gavin's theory wouldn't work.
The timing while falling at terminal celocity wouldn't matter. While trying to get ready to roll, you'd start somersaulting uncontrollably in midair. Even if you get your arms forward to try and control your transition into your roll, your arms would be completely dislocated with your shoulders popping out of the skin. And assuming you did manage to roll perfectly, your velocity isn't being slowed in any way. You'll roll and fly off the ground again, because you'd be going so fast and you've angled yourself to the point that you'll bounce and the momentum will send you flying forward at still dangerous speeds. Gavin's running down a mountain could work in theory, but only if your feet are moving at a speed equal to terminal velocity and the angle of the mountain is constant. Too low and you'll skip a step and go flying. Too high and you'll trip and split your skull open.
to add on if u survived the fall you would have to be able to run at the same speed you're falling at and then decelerate.... jesus gavin...
^ that. Plus at terminal velocity you're pretty much falling straight down. You'd never be able to fall at an angle even close to that of a mountain and much less a hill.
MonsterTeegs you do realize people don't fall straight down. You flatten youe body straighten your feet and you will NOT fall straight down. It is basic physics do some research next time
TheUnKnownGamer I realize you can adjust your heading by flattening you body a la Skydivers, (which is why I said "pretty much") but the difference is so minute compared to the degree of a hill or mountain, especially if all you have is casual clothes. (the scenario being falling out of a plane) If you have research/proof that states otherwise please feel free to cite it here, otherwise don't presume you know basic physics because of watching action films.
If you hit the angle you're more likely to not die than just hitting a flat surface. Which is Gavin's point so he is correct. Now do I think that's humanly possible? Hell freaking no.
18:20 Gavin: "Well that wouldn't make sense, that would be silly."
Me: "You have no right to say that."
if you throw an egg at say 45 degrees to the ground, with nothing to interrupt its fall, it is likely to crack (of course not hard boiled...) but if you put a flat 45 degree ramp and throw it the same so the egg will meet it before it reaches the bottom of the ramp, its more likely to stay undamaged (still unlikely though). But if the ramp bends to meet the ground flush, like a quarter pipe, it will greatly increase the odds of survival for the egg. Obviously its a bit different with a human, considering they aren't round, but the concept still applies.
eggs aren't perfectly round either, and humans aren't as fragile, but you are still correct
guy you dont know ok, a round egg XD the basic idea is there...
If the ramp and egg both fall at a 45° angle they would never meet, because their lines of decent are parallel.
TysonRex37 only if the egg has no air resistance or downward acceleration, which in real life, it would so both rules apply to the egg in this example.
Grantii Then you can't throw it at a 45° angle. You can only throw it along an asymptote.
This video helped me realize how I would best describe gavin: a D&D character with high int, medium cha, and low wis
Gotta love how over the course of 3 podcasts, the Run Down a Mountain thing suddenly became Gavin's Idea
4:30-4:38 in the bottom right corner there is a wild Michael
I actually agree with Gavin, that if you were falling and you happened to land on a slope that started parallel to you, and extremely gradually sloped downward, eventually you would come to a stop and live.
at terminal velocity? no. Regardless of angle you would break your legs the moment you hit the slope.
patrick watkins I realized my error after posting but was too lazy to remove the post. Unless it was literally the most slippery surface possible, in which case you might be able to slide down it considering it would be enormously long but eventually slow down once the steepness reduces to nearly flat. Also, in my head I pictured someone landing nearly perfectly parallel to it and sliding on their back, not running. Running would NEVER work.
Yea, in theory, but I don't think your legs can keep up with the speed
Artie Fishel In my idea of it you aren't running, you're sliding down on your back. Legs wouldn't even be involved.
Sorry that wasn't very smart of me lol, but mountains aren't exactly smooth, at that speed it would just tear right through your body. But yea with a ramp, it would definitely work.
My favorite thing honestly is the background guys listening in like at 2:55, guy on the right balcony is laughing his ass off with us while he just listens to this hilarity.
What Gavin's saying is true but the odds of it actually working are next too impossible, and you probably won't start running you'll break your legs and just roll
you need a mountain that is 10 times higher then the Mount Everest and if it can't even have a small hole or rock or else it will be sudden and kill you. but in theory it is possible. but only not on this planet
patrick thuis Not really, the idea is to slow you down from terminal velocity, as long as this occurs prior to your velocity being canceled by another object, you could survive. How and when this is achieved is immaterial, provided you slow down before stopping.
Thank you for mashing these up. It's enjoyable and I've subbed.
It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop
Gavin is correct, and actually, people in real life have survived doing something like this. Even without a PERFECT angle, landing on a steep mountain greatly increases your chances of survival. The only problem is, no one's aiming. Landing on a steep mountain is called lucky. Surviving that fall is called logic.
Also, even without a steep mountain, people survive high falls all the time.
Shayna Richardson 10,000 feet
Vesna Vulovic 33,000 feet (World Record)
Michael Holmes 15,000 feet
Ivan Chisov 22,000 feet
Juliane Koepcke 10,000 feet
Christine McKenzie 11,000 feet
Nicholas Alkemade 18,000 feet
Dave Hodgman and his friend 2,500 feet
Alan Magee 22,000 feet
Lareece Butler 3,000 feet
Alcides Moreno 47 stories
James Boole 6,000 feet
Cliff Judkins 15,000 feet
Steve Fossett 22,000 feet
Its not the jump that kills you its the landing.
its not guns that kill you its the bullet
Its not the bullet that kills you its the nipple
its not the nipple that kills you its the apple
Its not the apple that kills you its the chicken wing dipped in cheese.
Beijked It's not the cheese that kills you, its the diabetes
13:39 Can we have a science portion of the podcast called “Bollocks, and I’m Gonna Tell You Why” starring Gavin just explaining very niche hypothetical situations in his Gavin way?
Man these were the good ole days
Terminal velocity is when the forces pushing an object downwards are in equilibrium with the forces pushing upwards.
God this comment makes me feel like such a fucking nerd.
Hey, sum of forces equals mass times acceleration. Integrating terminal velocity was quite annoying.
+zz tarry Nah it's not. To find terminal velocity (on earth) you would first need to know the mass of the object in question. Then you would calculate the force of gravity acting upon it by (I think) multiplying the mass by the gravitational field strength or earth which is 10. Then you would need to know how much drag the object has and divide the force of gravity by the drag to find the terminal velocity.
+Bzorlan the force of gravity acting upon an object is always 9.8 meters per second squared.
Joe Beansman I said 10. We're not conducting an experiment at CERN.
4:45
"Moving at the speed of death."
Friction from impact would decimate your body. It would be like a human cheese grater.
TheMadKing I wonder how grated human is on pasta
Shad Mcderpin tastes like pork
Chongin it Mmm! Soylent pasta :)
TheMadKing He's not saying you would definitely survive, just improve your chances somewhat
MadKingIII
Being a motorcycle rider, I'm disappointed nobody else mentioned that.
What I'm getting from this is that Burnie thinks he's smarter than he really is.
Agreed! The man can't even pronounce the word GIF right.
No. He's right. Gavin is wrong. Gavin is always wrong.
@@BlueBird14095 Gavin is almost always right, just doesn't know how to describe it... Whereas Bernie is almost always wrong x)
@Michael Simmons theories shouldn't be taken seriously, noted... I'll be sure to let the field of physics and science know about your wisdom.
@@sinu0us He's not almost always right. He's right a lot, but the way he explains things make it seem like he's wrong. He's wrong in this instance.
If you guessed completely right, we are talking down to the millimeters, you could actually pull this off by sliding down the hill. The issue is, the hill would need to maintain a constant slope and not have a sudden stop or change
We're talking about a mountain. Not a perfectly smooth, virtually friction-less ramp. At terminal velocity a person falls at about 220 mph (98 meter/sec.), and with an acceleration of 0. At this speed the force would be absolutely enormous and absolutely impossible to survive by trying to run down a mountain. Each 'leap' would have to provide so much force by redirecting your mass in a different direction that it would shatter. A person would end up smeared down a mountain or tumbling downwards so quickly and violently that they would immediately die.
So much energy in this podcast. All time favorite
I've always thought of the idea of falling down on a platform then jumping right as you're about to hit the ground
You realise why it wouldn't work though, right?
TooToxic21 I think for that to work the platform would have to be heavier than the amount of force your legs give when you jump, other wise you would keep falling at the same speed, and just propel the platform faster
jonathanhart54 i doubt it would ever work because of your momentum
Guys really? It wouldn't work because you would have to jump upwards at the same speed that you're falling down at. I.e. if you are falling down at 100km/h then you would have to jump up at 100km/h, which of course is impossible. And that's assuming that the object you are jumping off has enough mass that the force of you jumping up will not affect it much (for every force there is an equal and opposite force)(jonathan you were on the right track with that idea).
Conman_123 thats what i mean by momentum, alot of force that you have to overpower
I didn't even realize there were people chilling in the background until Jack shouted to Kara at 6:12.
This conversation would go way easier with like a blackboard or a piece of paper.
This was my favorite podcast of all time
it most definitely would not work with your own two legs. But what if you had a skateboard or anything with wheels that were somehow indestructible to impact, and had a mountain like ramp that was insanely high like mount everest and was smooth so you can rise down it until it curves flat? Myth busters?
Che Alejandro pretty sure ur legs will still break
Dyslexic Brabderry oh well...yeah probably from all the force exerted when you hit the part of the ramp that's straightening out. But i'm talking about if you had a ramp that started out as almost vertical up in the air. So technically you can touch a solid ground without actually slamming into it.
Gavin is talking about a little thing called the angle of deceleration. Parachutes use this to stop us from dying. That being said terminal velocity would kill you on impact. They use this kind of theory on runaway trucks on the highway.
This needs to be in Lazer Team
I want them to put together the plane ride and the jump point for Gavin, build a big ass ramp with the perfect angle that would dissipate all the terminal velocity speed he built up, the ramp would have the smoothest fucking surface in the world, calculate the optimal jumping time for him too, then 1 month after the jump his tombstone would have "IT WOULD WORK!" engraved on it.
i would love to see an rtaa of this
My cousin was playing skate 3 and would jump off his board in the air and then roll down a hill, all I have to say is, it's all about technique
Yup game physics are the same as real life.
The Game Corner yep, that's why I can die in Battlefield 10 times and not care, why I can unflip a car in GTA just by turning the wheel and survive a 5k drop in Just Cause by grappling to the ground faster
Jayden Holzhauser He would going some where around 25mph right? Try doing that going 220mph then we'll talk
Gavin is actually right. And it's funny they bring up Travis Pastrana, as he himself fell from his bike on his first attempt of a double backflip, and when he hit the ground he rolled himself to a stopped, and lived with basically just the injuries found from a slow car crash (still hurt though, of course). And they said he survived because of the roll. Like Burnie LITERALLY brought up the perfect guy to disprove himself, but sadly Jack nor Gavin knew that much about Pastrana to bring that incident up (plus Burnie brought up the Army Ranger which also disproves himself, but still lol). And even still, Gavin was basically dead-on physics-wise about pretty much everything. Burnie was a douche, and everyone else I guess just doesn't have enough knowledge in the subject to understand Gavin's explanations, which for the record, weren't that bad. Brought up an argument, and played themselves from being too ignorant about it. I love it lol (no sarcasm, I legitimately find it hilariously awesome, but boy do I feel bad for Gavin most of the time).
Gavin is right with the aiming for something. As you fall down closer to the ground the aim window gets smaller and smaller but from the start when you're high up you can aim more precisely.
So in theory gavin is correct, in reality it would be practically impossible to pull off. You would need to land parallel to the mountain, the mountain would need to have no friction and have to be completely flat, you would need to continue running at terminal velocity and gradually slow yourself down, im sure theres a million other variables that im not considering but either way, if you were some sort of god, then maybe you could pull it off after a couple hundred attempts.
Here in Australia we have a place called questacon, where they have a vertical slide. You're about 5 metres in the air hanging from a horizontal pole and then you let go and fall. The slide underneath went from vertical to horizontal and is perfectly smooth. This is the basic principle of Gavin's idea however there is no hill big enough or smooth enough to survive.
I'm not great at physics so I can't confirm nor deny Gavin's theory, but man he sure does debate it well.
10:37
Gavin is absolutely right there. When you jump out a plane heading East or so at 500 mph, you're also going to be going East at 500 mph. However because of relativity you would think you were falling straight down but that's not the case at all.
Ian Ferguson You'd slow down because of air resistance
Colin Cootjans It's theoretical. Air Resistance would of course slow you down but you're still going to be moving in the direction you jumped out, this is assuming you didn't jump out on a super windy day.
+Ian Ferguson Yes you would initially be falling at the same horizontal speed as the plane, and yes air resistance would slow you down, but no you wouldn't always be moving in the direction you jumped out in. Air resistance is constantly decelerating you, and their is no force to counteract this, so you would lose all of your horizontal speed. The only reason you don't lose all of your vertical speed is because their is a force pulling you down (gravity) that counteracts the resistive force of air resistance.
Conman_123 Yeah, I was going completely theoretical. I have said this quite a few times but being theoretically possible is not the same thing as being possible.
It's like the Speed of Light. It's theoretically possible to reach it but it would never happen.
I really like Gavin's ideas...
We think alike
It's amazing how a conversation will be changed but come back out of know where really quick
theoretically it would work but the slope would have to be very gradual and you would have to have a thick layer of fabric around you so that you don't get any burns from the friction but you would get very hurt and there is only a very small chance of survival
At 4:25 you can see Michael in the bottom right corner of the screen.
In theory I think Gavin is right, in reality it's basically impossible. The angle 'hill' you would land on would have to be at 85° (so basically a cliff otherwise you would just break your legs when you land and most likely get killed by the sudden stop. furthermore, the slope would have to slowly even out very gradually so you can lose momentum from terminal velocity. Also if you jumped out of a plane at 30000 ft you would just suffer from hypoxia (unless you had an oxygen source) and pass out so it wouldn't really matter if it were possible because you would just rag doll to your death.
I like how they are talking specifically about the angle and terminal velocity to slide down a mountain, and no one is even gonna bring up the force of friction is going to rip you apart if you try that
wouldn't you leg literally just get ripped off due to the friction on the moment you stepped onto the mountain?
Kristofer Kravis Probably
in what world do you think the force of ripping your leg off would be less than the force of the gravel sliding under your foot? the shit your landing on unless its solid stone would move before your legs rip off and even then you have skin coming off then down to bone before itd just straight up desocket your legs
Earth.
Kristofer Kravis theoretically, but if you landed right you could possibly just break your legs or ankles and survive
Gavin is trying to say "if you were falling and there was a perfectly smooth surface that was infinitely long, that if you fell at the right angle making as little contact as possible, the friction would eventually slow you down to a stop safely"
The funny thing is, both of them are right. Gavin is right that it is possible, Burnie is right that it is really unlikely.
Except that it's not possible. First off you'd be hitting the mountain side at a velocity higher than your legs could possibly move to actually run, therefor you'd face plant the mountain side at an extremely high velocity killing you instantly. But that's assuming the kinetic energy wouldn't shatter your legs upon impact, in which case you'd still face plant and die instantly. It's absolutely 100% impossible to survive.
@@ThePandemic101 Gavin's saying that he would land perpendicular to a slope (pretend its perfectly smooth) and not technically run down, but keep tapping the floor in order to slow momentum until he wouldn't die but get injured
Gavin is right. You can choose where you fall. The point he was trying to make and failing is that the closer you get to the ground, the more precise you get. Bernie tries to compare it to shooting an arrow but you lose control of an arrow the minute you fire it, but falling you never lose control.
In Gavin's defence: Vesna Vulovic, Nicholas Alkemade, Ivan Chisov and Alan Magee. People who survived insane falls without parachutes.
Also, I've always said if I'm going to die, falling from a plane would probably be my choice, just because I would at least enjoy my last few minutes.
6:30 that Geoff getting wasted in the background?
"Why is the Skyscraper falling?" 😂
Like Jeremy Clarkson said “Speed has never killed anyone… Suddenly becoming stationary, however…”
Michael in the lower right when Burnie and Jack's cam is on ^.^ ^.^ ^.^
Holy shit that's pretty creepy.
Aren't there water slides that have you fall at terminal velocity and then slide down a water slide with little friction that has less and less of an angle until skidding off of a pool would slow you down enough?
This is iconic
Jack Lucas in WW2 was para trooping into a mission and his parachute failed to where he did what Gavin did and lived with no broken bones or anything. He wrote an autobiography on that as well as his grenade story. The book is called "Indestructible: The Unforgettable Story of a Marine Hero at the Battle of Iwo Jima".
It's actually kinda sad that from my perspective the others are looking like idiots. I completely understand what Gavin is trying to say. In theory he is correct. And that is the problem: "In theory". The others are all talking about it realistically while Gav is talking about it theoretically so of course they're not gonna find a compromise.
I miss this era
I can see the logic in gavins theory, yes its completely never going to work because of unpredictable variables but yeah i see where he is coming from.
Aaron smith he's not saying you could do it, but that it is in some insane way possible, like a 0.00000000000000001% chance you could do it
sorry is that not pretty much what i said?
"No Jack it's the fucking middle"
14:00 - It's unfortunate gavin argued it wrong, but it IS bollocks. You can't re-aim an arrow after you've fired it. :P
Gavin is right. When you're high up you can move your body. Parachutists do it all the time before pulling their chute. Spread limbs slows down the fall, limbs close to body speeds up.
I heard about a pilot that lost his parachute and aimed his body to a tree; he broke his bones but survived.
The key to surviving a fall is extended your time hitting the ground
I agree with gavin's theory of aiming. if you have 10 degrees from a mile up, you still have 10 degrees once you go down to half a mile. Its not like an arrow where you aim and shoot, you can keep adjusting where you are aiming. This is really only true if you already know how to change where you are aiming.
The main problem with Gavins explanations is, as always, Burnie.
its so funny looking at this convo and knowing gavin knows by far the most about science
If you ever hear somebody say that Gavin doesn't say stupid stuff, just point them to the part where he says that you could save yourself from free-fall by grabbing onto a drainpipe right before you hit the ground. He also thinks that you somehow have such amazing grip strength that you'd actually tear your own arms off but would save your own life. That is stupid. Plain and simple. There is no "technically, he's sorta right in this abstract way" loophole on that one.
IAMTHEJUGGERNATE if you locked fingers together, you wouldn't need to worry about "grip strength". The friction between your interlaced fingers and the speed at which you're falling would be enough to rip your arms off. Now surviving is different, idk about that.
Wow, Gavin is completely right during the 'landing on the x' debate. It initially starts off a little more difficult to hit your target, so you need to be precise and get yourself in an approximate area of the target. But as you get closer, your decisions will affect the outcome less. So as long as you think of it in chunks such that at the end of each distance marker there's a range of areas you can be in, you should be able to hit the target.
Gavin is explaining this badly but the principal checks out. Anything to lessen the amount of g forces you experienced on impact would help your chance for survival. You wouldn't be able to run down a hill but a very steep and long slope would be a lot better and would increase your chances hugely.
Still to this day, I never knew if that was a green screen or an actual bar
Technically, he's right.
If friction did not exist then he would be partially right
And the Negative G force would make you red out in around 30 seconds
Type Name Here I think he means with ideal conditions, one could absorb the energy from falling with their legs multiple times and survive (but not be uninjured, obviously).
Grilled Salt Your legs will relay the energy of the impact throughout your body and everything inside of your body will cease to work in at most 2 milliseconds
Type Name Here But what he's saying is that because it's sloped, one could lessen the energy of each impact by hitting the side at less than full force and lose some momentum with each glancing step.
Answer for burnies death scenario: falling from 35,000ft. At least you can do cool shit like flips before you die, you can’t do cool shit while stranded at sea, you’d get sun burnt, heat stroke, dehydration, hypothermia, starvation, fuck that