Sunday, March 2, 2008

Fatso idea of a see-saw

I can never comprehend this. Look at the image below. It’s an adaptation of what academicians/books/notes/brochures used to specify which is more than the other (I'm not saying all but books/notes/brochures that I came across). Ok perhaps I shouldn’t have used human figures. Anyway just imagine they’re things labeled X and Y.

Say X is the single figure and Y is the double figure. Would you say there’s more of X or Y?



Common sense would tell you there’s more Y because it’s heavier right? Even if I only used to identical figures to represent X and Y, you would still say there's more Y right? But no, according to the sources I chanced upon, it’s actually the other way round. Which smartass came up with this!? I mean, don’t use a freaking see-saw if you wanna use height as a measure of quantity. Thanks for confusing all the kids about simple, basic physics.


9 comments:

joyfulchicken said...

Yeah, the seesaw diagrams make no sense at all. I mean, how can they lean like that and not fall off? :-P

runawaycat said...

HAHAHAHHA! Are you criticizing my work of art?

joyfulchicken said...

Just criticizing the physics :-P

宝茹 said...

Your question's not clear~~ :P

More of what--ummm...fats or whatever? Hehehehe...

runawaycat said...

KM - Oh no you too? Hmm...This means I have to elaborate more. I added a few sentences, either that will make things clearer or blur out every line :P

CY said...

I know! The so-called fatso's shadow is heavier than the other two combined! :P

runawaycat said...

I thought at least CY could answer me seriously...This is a serious question!

Arthur Bhenedict said...

Err...I don't get your question. Maybe they're talking about the physics of leverage? Like the one who's farther from the fulcrum would produce more torque hence lifting the 2 who are closer to it?

runawaycat said...

Wow you're the only one to interpret it in such a complex way. No, this has nothing to do with physics.