Talk:Buttered cat paradox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28/3/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
From what I heard, the idea was this: you deliberately misbalance the cat and the toast in such a way as to cause the cat to continually revolve, thereby creating a perpetual motion machine. Rob 20:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do people keep using \ instead of /?
THIS ARTICLE IS POINTLESS. DELETE PLX.
Contents |
[edit] ?
This is a very silly article and I'm not sure if it is what WP is, but this part in particular is not IMO something WP should have: "If actually carried out, however, the buttered cat experiment will usually result in the cat landing on its feet with the buttered side of the toast facing upwards. This can be taken as evidence that the tendency for cats to land on their feet is stronger than the tendency for toast to land buttered-side-down."
I would guess that the cat would land on its feet more often than the toast on the butter in this case, but isn't this crystal ballery unless a reason can be given or a person cited? Additionally, if that were to happen, I'm not sure it would be evidence of the tendencies asserted. It's like comparing apples and oranges strapped to apples. Шизомби 14:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Resolution?
Here's a point - by attaching the buttered toast to the cat, are you not forcing it to land butter-side-up on the cat? DS 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not unless you're dropping the toast onto the cat. Attaching it and dropping it are two totally different things. What I'd like to know is what sort of butter is used. If the toast is too hot, the butter will melt and the centripetal force supplied by the butter vs its viscosity will result in the butter coming off and the cat landing on its back. Also, if the toast remains buttered for an infinite amount of time, will the cat/toast not spin faster and faster until you need something infinitely strong to keep the toast attached to the cat? Perhaps if a cat can be bred with a buttery, toasty back? Alastairward 14:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with your final suggestion and suggest immediate research. AKismet 00:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Resolution!
The Toast is attached to the cat and the cat is attached to the toast. Assume the unit is dropped. The component with the greater density would shift closer to the ground due to gravity. The cat is likely the more dense compnent. Thus it would take the role of landing. The cat would land on the ground - on its feet. But what about the toast? The toast didn't technically land. It's part of the greater unit, which was taken command by default of gravity by the cat.
[edit] Quantum Dynamical Resolution
Actually, the system will exist in both states simultaneously until an external observer measures the state. I.e. the cat will have landed on its feet and the toast will have landed butter-side down. These states will co-exist simultaneously. It is only the interference of an external observator that will force the system to manifest itself in one end-state or the other. See Schrödinger's cat
As for the rotational theories: they do not take conservation of rotational momentum into consideration. If the toast-cat system start to spin, it means some larger system must compensate for this. As there are no interacting forces between a falling toastcat and the rest of the universe, this would stipulate the existence of a here-to-fore unknown fifth basic force. Which, by Ockhams Razor, would be a Bad Thing (tm). -- 83.161.54.29 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Yes, that's me: diMario from #uncyc
[edit] The Stupid Truth
It becomes much easier if you break the cat's legs...
[edit] Solution
The cat sinks into the surface and eventually the bread is underneath, but landing "face down", albeit it from the floor up. The cat has already landed, so it is no longer an issue.
Why the HELL is there an article on this????
[edit] But why the Cat's Legs?
Theory 3: The cat creates a time paradox, and its resulting force breaks the cat's legs, turns them 180•, and forces them through the toast. Then they both land buttered-side up and cat's legs... on the the ground.
Paradox solved!
CAF51 17:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Notable?
I'm sorry, but how is a silly internet debate with no bearing on reality actually notable? This kind of thing is fine for Uncyclopedia or other humor web sites, but if Wikipedia wants itself taken seriously, this should not be on Wikipedia. Basically, if this is not deleted, I will consider it as Wikipedia giving me a big 'OK' to vandalize other pages by adding similar silliness. --136.176.96.47 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC) NMS
[edit] A hint
When the power of buttered cats is finally harnessed to create anti-grav vehicles, they will need some means of propulsion. I suggest research into the well-known effect of ketchup being attracted to newly washed shirts.
[edit] Alternatives
What would happen if you took the toast off and just cut the cat's legs off? It couldn't land on its feet because it doesn't have any. Alternately you could attach two cats together, OR double butter a piece of toast! 06:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)•○•○•SB•○•○•scooterboo
[edit] Reality
This will probably result in the cat staying in the air because it will be trying to remove the toast and/or trying to claw your arm off. Once it has successfully done this it will then climb down your back digging claws in painfully thus invalidating the paradox as it won't be falling. This also relates to Shrodingers cat in that a real cat trapped in a box will be dead, alive or furious. This last state invalidates the previous two because it will ignore being dead just for revenge. To correct for a real cat add a victorian collar and a robot to do the dropping. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.155.54.160 (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] When can we try again to get rid of this some of us regard as nonsense?
I note the last result of a nomination for deletion was 'no censensus' . Then we should perhaps try again in some time? How long to wait before we ask again? It's a year ago tomorrow. Thats not being disruptive...Greswik 18:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
