Ellen's facts wrong?

flavious27

Well-Known Member
I'm sure there's a way to inspire while keeping scientifically accurate as well. If you say it's not up to date then that's a valid statement, but saying anything else doesn't really fit. :shrug:

It is a disney ride at EPCOT, the only facts that need to be accurate are what is mentioned in the ride and the direct questions that she answered. The brainpower is the most unlimited source of power is to inspire us as the morale of the ride.
 

ABigBrassBand

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
It is a disney ride at EPCOT, the only facts that need to be accurate are what is mentioned in the ride and the direct questions that she answered. The brainpower is the most unlimited source of power is to inspire us as the morale of the ride.
I think most unlimited is just an oxy moron...the thing is, they could have ended it in other ways, such as "what is the only form of energy that helps innovate/utilize other forms?" or other things, and the same answer could have been "brain power"
 

flavious27

Well-Known Member
I think most unlimited is just an oxy moron...the thing is, they could have ended it in other ways, such as "what is the only form of energy that helps innovate/utilize other forms?" or other things, and the same answer could have been "brain power"

to-may-toes, to-mah-toes.
 

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
If we're going to parse the statement to this degree, would brain power even be considered a form of energy at all? :shrug: :lol:
 

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
Well the human body is, haven't you seen the matrix?
It's been a while. :lol:

I know the body is a machine in some sense, but I would think the nutrients contained in food would qualify as energy in the traditional sense, more so than the processes of the brain. Aside from electrical impulses, what about "brain power" actually qualifies as energy in the same way as petroleum and nuclear power?

(To be clear, I DON'T want to debate this issue specifically because it's just not that important to me. I'm just trying to illustrate the extent to which this statement was not meant to be parsed in a literal way, and the issues you can trip over if you do take it too seriously.)
 

flavious27

Well-Known Member
It's been a while. :lol:

I know the body is a machine in some sense, but I would think the nutrients contained in food would qualify as energy in the traditional sense, more so than the processes of the brain. Aside from electrical impulses, what about "brain power" actually qualifies as energy in the same way as petroleum and nuclear power?

(To be clear, I DON'T want to debate this issue specifically because it's just not that important to me. I'm just trying to illustrate the extent to which this statement was not meant to be parsed in a literal way, and the issues you can trip over if you do take it too seriously.)

oh i know. i think it is about potential energy. the hamburger that you eat has less potential energy then oil that weights just as much. our body breaks down that potential energy into, oh screw it. I am out of school and don't really need to care about this.
 

reactortrip

New Member
I wish I could remember this ride. Last time I rode this, it was with a group of about 25 electrical engineers that work in various generation fields from nuclear to wind when we were there for a work conference. We were all pretty hammered from a little international drinking, but I remember us laughing at Ellen a ton for her opinions. This ride is in a definite need of an upgrade. It's got too much of a political slant to it.
 

Phonedave

Well-Known Member
oh i know. i think it is about potential energy. the hamburger that you eat has less potential energy then oil that weights just as much. our body breaks down that potential energy into, oh screw it. I am out of school and don't really need to care about this.


Actualy if they 'weigh' the same, they have the EXACT same total potential energy. The correct statement would be if the have the same mass, but if we are measuring weight and mass under the exact same gravitational influence, then that point is moot.

One happens to have it in a more readly accessable form than the other, thats all.


-dave
 

flavious27

Well-Known Member
Actualy if they 'weigh' the same, they have the EXACT same total potential energy. The correct statement would be if the have the same mass, but if we are measuring weight and mass under the exact same gravitational influence, then that point is moot.

One happens to have it in a more readly accessable form than the other, thats all.


-dave

this has to the geekiest thing I have debated in awhile, I blame my upbringing and home state.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom