So. Random times, I thought this was kind of funny, anyways.

So if a cat, always lands on it's 4 feet, and buttered toast always lands on the buttered side, then that means, if you strap buttered toast onto a cat, pick it up and drop it, it will spin forever and forever stuck in a loop!

I get paid 7000 dollars an hour to say "moo".

I'll find more of these later. For now, good night, seeya tomorrow!

RedLuck

Canada253 Posts

October 06 2010 04:53 GMT

I don't even... you should test and record this theory and post it on youtube for all to see imo.

mOnion

United States5657 Posts

October 06 2010 04:53 GMT

On October 06 2010 13:52 RyuChus wrote:
I get paid 7000 dollars an hour to say "moo"

i'll bite.

what?

Meta

United States6225 Posts

October 06 2010 04:57 GMT

On October 06 2010 13:53 mOnion wrote:

Show nested quote +

i'll bite.

what?

Assuming it takes one second to say moo, that's the equivalent of getting paid almost $2 for saying it once.

Either that or he's a liar.

RyuChus

Canada442 Posts

October 06 2010 05:00 GMT

glad to see people randomly puzzled.

DoctorHelvetica

United States15034 Posts

October 06 2010 05:18 GMT

omg so random xD lollll!!!!!

Jyvblamo

Canada13788 Posts

October 06 2010 05:22 GMT

Been done before.

[image loading]

AcrossFiveJulys

United States3612 Posts

October 06 2010 05:30 GMT

Assuming the original statements are true (that bread&butter lands on butter side, cat lands on four feet) merging the bread&butter and cat objects results in a new object, whose landing properties are not specified, since the "strap butter to cat" operation has not been properly defined in terms of the propagation of the arguments' landing properties.

As such, any landing result of the merged objects would not contradict the original statements. The cat could land on its feet with the bread strapped to its back, the butter could land on butter side with the cat upside down, or something else entirely could happen (cat/bread land on sides).

Lemonwalrus

United States5465 Posts

October 06 2010 05:36 GMT

AcrossFiveJulys after I read the OP i thought, "There is no way this thread can get less funny", but I'll be damned, you proved me wrong.

AcrossFiveJulys

United States3612 Posts

October 06 2010 05:41 GMT

#10

On October 06 2010 14:36 Lemonwalrus wrote:
AcrossFiveJulys after I read the OP i thought, "There is no way this thread can get less funny", but I'll be damned, you proved me wrong.

look bro just cuz you dont like logic dosnt mean u need to be trollin my shit. lemonwalrus psh dat account name dosnt even make any cence i cant belive how much of a noob u are.

Deleted User 3420

24492 Posts

October 06 2010 05:45 GMT

#11

On October 06 2010 14:30 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
Assuming the original statements are true (that bread&butter lands on butter side, cat lands on four feet) merging the bread&butter and cat objects results in a new object, whose landing properties are not specified, since the "strap butter to cat" operation has not been properly defined in terms of the propagation of the arguments' landing properties.

As such, any landing result of the merged objects would not contradict the original statements. The cat could land on its feet with the bread strapped to its back, the butter could land on butter side with the cat upside down, or something else entirely could happen (cat/bread land on sides).

yeah, well what if u take slices of buttered toast, and turn them into mitts for the cat with the butter on the inside

then drop the cat

AcrossFiveJulys

United States3612 Posts

October 06 2010 05:51 GMT

#12

On October 06 2010 14:45 travis wrote:

Show nested quote +

yeah, well what if u take slices of buttered toast, and turn them into mitts for the cat with the butter on the inside

then drop the cat

Ah, but you've missed the point. You haven't specified what the landing properties of the breadmittoncat are (like was specified for the bread&butter alone and for the cat alone), so no matter how the breadmittoncat lands it will not violate the original statements.

Deleted User 3420

24492 Posts

October 06 2010 06:02 GMT

#13

i did not miss the point, the toastmitton cat is still also separately toast(with butter) and a cat. the difference is that before the toast was on the cat's back, so the cat could land on the feet and the toast would not hit the floor. now either the cat must land on it's back, or the toast must contact the floor with the buttered part up.

AcrossFiveJulys

United States3612 Posts

October 06 2010 06:37 GMT

#14

Now, this is the story all about how
A breadmitton cat got dropped right on down
And I'd like to take a minute
Just sit right there
I'll tell you how breadmitton cat lands however he please

In west Philadelphia born and raised
In the alleys was where breadmitton cat spent most of his days
Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool
And all sipping some milk outside the pool
When a couple of dogs
Who were up to no good
Startin making trouble in his neighborhood
He got in one little fight and his owner got scared
She said 'You're goin' to the pound you ain't breathin' my air'

He meowed and pleaded with her the whole car ride there
And finally, she said 'oy vay!'
She opened the car window and let him fly.
breadmitton's life was flashing before his eyes.

he's flying into a buttered bread factory, yo this is bad
he was goin so fast he flew right through the glass.
But holy shit, he's still alive?
He lands on some bread, hmmmmm this might be alright.

But this isn't how breadmitton became all that
Sure, bread on his feet, he's one cool cat
But somethins missin
I'll get to it next
I hope you don't get too perplexed

Well uh, after breadmitton cat landed and when he came out
There was a dude in a robe who looked like a nerd standing there all cracked out
He ain't trying to do nothin,
He's just standing there!
Then all of a sudden he pulled out a wand and chanted 'butter feet'

He whistled and whined,
and breadmitton cat rose 100 feet into the air
he felt the bread on his feet get all buttery
And thought "I'm safe, I'll always land on my feet
and bread will always land on the butter"

The nerd in the cape grinned, and levitated breadmitton another seven or eight
And yelled to breadmitton ''Yo homes smell ya later'
breadmitton fell to the ground landing on his back
He was finally there
To sit on his throne as a cool pile of blood splattered on the ground...

... because even though the bread would individually have to land on the buttered side and the cat would have to land on his feet, nothing is said about what a combination of buttered bread and cat would have to do, so any scenario is valid unless you make assumptions about the landing properties of breadmitton cat.

Loser777

1931 Posts

October 06 2010 06:52 GMT

#15

The cat and butter exist in a quantum state where they land on BOTH the buttered side/feet

Necosarius

Sweden4042 Posts

October 06 2010 07:00 GMT

#16

Schrödinger's cat will land on both it's feet and on the bread.

NeoLearner

Belgium1847 Posts

October 06 2010 08:20 GMT

#17

On October 06 2010 15:52 Loser777 wrote:
The cat and butter exist in a quantum state where they land on BOTH the buttered side/feet

Yes, but once you actually look, you disturb that system and one single state will be chosen.

So you, as the observer, choose whether the cat falls on it's back or not. So logically this experiment is the same as actually throwing the cat into the ground yourself. Cat molester!