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:
Yeah, the seesaw diagrams make no sense at all. I mean, how can they lean like that and not fall off? :-P
HAHAHAHHA! Are you criticizing my work of art?
Just criticizing the physics :-P
Your question's not clear~~ :P
More of what--ummm...fats or whatever? Hehehehe...
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
I know! The so-called fatso's shadow is heavier than the other two combined! :P
I thought at least CY could answer me seriously...This is a serious question!
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?
Wow you're the only one to interpret it in such a complex way. No, this has nothing to do with physics.
Post a Comment