More childrens’ stories physics.
Built on Facts: The Physics of Rapunzel
[T]he plot revolves around her letting down her hair. Hair has weight, and so she’s going to have to have some strength to hold up the weight of all that hair.
I have a cartoon for this, too, though not about the tensile strength of hair.
Chad points out the physics problem with Goldilocks in The Faulty Thermodynamics of Children’s Stories
The description provided of the other two bowls, though, is not consistent with known physics. The Mama Bear, as the other adult, ought to have the second-largest bowl of porridge, which, in turn, ought to be the second-warmest bowl of porridge (assuming that equilibrium has not been reached). But the story says that this bowl is too cold! Meanwhile, the Baby Bear, who ought to have the smallest portion of porridge, has a bowl that is “just right,” neither too not nor too cold. As the smallest bowl, though, the Baby Bear’s porridge ought to be the coldest of the three (until equilibrium is reached, of course). There is no way for the bowls as described to have the temperatures described, while being consistent with the known laws of thermodynamics.
So I decided to travel back in time to draw a cartoon depicting the problem.
Click the cartoon to go to XKCD. The hover tag is worthwhile, as usual.
TV isn’t real, especially when it comes to science. PhD comics gives an independent confirmation.
XKCD becomes a waking nightmare
I also have the one where I’m back in the navy, teaching, and no one is paying any attention.
(The only pyramid that can possibly work is the Fonzi scheme, where you convince everyone to be cool.)
I’m not surprised that there was a controversy over that cartoon which appeared in the Post (one link, in case you haven’t seen it). Al Sharpton, among others, has claimed racism, saying that the cartoon is “troubling at best, given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys.”
But what we have here is a failure of logic, combined with human bias. That some depictions using monkeys are racist does not mean that any depiction of a monkey is. Political cartoonists have a habit of using caricature, or when they don’t, of labeling the targets of their satire, neither of which happened in this case. The problem with this medium is that it’s subjective, and interpretations made by individuals reveal their preconceptions and biases — if we look too hard, we see things that aren’t there. I’ve seen it in my own cartoons, when people told me how clever/stupid/offensive I was for including some imagery, which was a surprise, since that’s not what the intent was. After that happened a few times, I realized that I wasn’t going to be held responsible for how someone (mis)interprets a cartoon. It’s rare that something can’t be misconstrued. Al Sharpton is an activist/protagonist. Of course he’s going to see racism.
Here’s another example — and you shouldn’t go below the fold if you aren’t willing to risk being offended.
Continue reading