Talk:Buttered cat paradox/Archive 1

this is ridiculous
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)


 * Logic suggests the cognisant cat would use its knowledge of rotational forces (it's ability to self-right) to actively ensure it lands on its feet. The non-cognisant toast can't force itself to land butterside down (that's due to passive rotational forces, and the fact most toast slices fall small distances), and so the cat will win out, if enough height is given for it to do it.


 * I'd pull out my old Dr Karl Kruzelnicki (sp?) books, which actually explain why toast falls butterside down and cats land on their feet, but referencing would be a pain.

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
 * Is that blackmail? Remove this or I will vandalize? It is ironic how you are so critical of the existence of this article but take such liberties with your own behaviour. S Sepp 15:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And I have heard the buttered-toast-and-cat mechanism described as a joke — long before I came across the article here. — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It (this article) seriously gives a brief list and description of thought experiments undertaken in regards to this topic. It's a serious discussion of a non-serious subject.  If you require an example of how this sort of article could be important, think of a basic class in logic or philosophy, perhaps geared towards children.  While being amusing, it can also stimulate critical thought.  Khono 06:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned on mythbusters... Notable enough... --193.140.194.104 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC) this makes a mockery of WP, the same article is on uncyclopedia, and uncyclopedia is included as one of its references, this serves as no knowledge to anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igottwopeepees (talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

This theory was mentioned on a variety of shows, including mythbusters I belive.. --193.140.194.104 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems people are still arguing both sides. Why would you want to remove this article, anyway?  It's not hurting anything by being here, right?  Khono 08:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's fake, it's not real, it serves no educational value or information value, and as it has been mentioned time and time again, the almost exact same article can be found on uncyclopedia and other wikipedia knock-offs. Doesn't really say much for the real wikipedia by keeping it around. (24.171.81.191 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Please note, there was a decision to keep in the latest AfD in March of 2007, where the nominator essentially used your reasoning. Feel free to check the AfD for the counter-arguements that were presented. Best, -- B figura (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of junk on wikipedia, mostly in the form of articles on fiction, art, trivia sections, popular culture sections and so on. This article OTOH serves the useful purpose of stimulating basic debate, and presenting it in an engaging way, thus encouraging learning of real life skills.

Of course its not on a par with scholarly articles, but I'd say it deserves its place - far more so than a whole lot of other stuff on wiki. Tabby (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be kept. Even though it is nnonsense, it is pretty interesting and says that Wikipedia is pretty extendable if it talks about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouMoo! (talk • contribs) 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note: Cats don't have "feet", they have "paws", or "digits to that effect". This, I am sure is important (although it cannot be all that important). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.149.212 (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Broken Link
The link "lands buttered side down." doesn't go to the trivia anchor in the toast article, for it (the trivia section) no longer seemingly exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starcraftmazter (talk • contribs) 09:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Prod Removed
Hi there. I've removed the prod tag, following the addition of another print reference (see Science Askew). There are probably more references that can be found if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfigura (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Origin?
We need some info on the origin of this concept. "Don't Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability" has it as John Frazee in "The Journal of Irreproducible Results". 205.213.172.220 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It was written by John Frazee, a science buff and fulltime artist who lived in upstate NY and now resides in Boyton beach FL.

Apologies if I'm breaking protocol here; I'm new to editing wikipedia entries, but I believe the earliest mention of this concept came from comedian Steven Wright, in the early 1990s, as in this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVjVt98iHkQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstrohmeyer (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wave function
This cat is very similar to the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment of quantum mechanics in that the situation is a superposition of states and can only exist as long as it is not actually observed, especially by an animal welfare organisation. Upon being observed, the wave function will instantly collapse into one or other of the two states, cat side down or butter side down. I also think that the article should mention that the experiment does not work at all if margarine is used instead of butter.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  09:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Twin Cat Paradox
Here is a slightly different paradox that I have come up with. I am not sure if it exist anywhere else under a different name but so far I have not seen anything like it. For now we shall call it the Twin cat paradox because it involves a pair of cat. what if we have two identical twin cat (twin cat 1 and twin cat 2) that is taped together and is dropped from a certain height. Naturally both cat will twist and try to land feet first. So I ask which cat will land first? Under the assumption of Buttered Cat paradox that cat feet are attracted to the ground and buttered toast also attract to the ground and both will hover above ground producing anti gravity. So same can can applied here and two cat will hover above ground until the paradox is resolved.

In buttered cat paradox the left hand side force is the buttered toast and RHSF is the cat, We can't tell if both force are equal where here both LHSF and RHSF is identical cat and both will have equal force.

Also a extension on Buttered cat paradox. if it is true then we can tie them to a rode and have the rode power(spine) a electricity generator and we will have a permanent free electricity generator. Who cares about nuclear fusion/fission or solar power when you can just tie a pair of cat to a electricity generator

18:40 25/10/08Zhihao50 (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, clever! This is an example of why this article and others like it are appropriate for Wikipedia. It's thought provoking, and it encourages critical thinking. Now for my criticism -- I followed your logic until the free electricity bit. There you made a "perpetual motion" error in your logic. Generators need fuel, and in your example, someone would still need to fuel the generator with cat food and water. (Unless perhaps there was some really good catnip nearby...) ;o)

Dcs002 (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You can solve the generator problem by taping two slices of toast together instead of two cats. AFIK it is not necessary to feed toast to keep it alive.  This also has fewer issues with animal cruelty.  For the mass production model costs could be kept down by eliminating the tape and one slice of bread by the simple expedient of buttering both sides of the toast.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  08:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I got another problem. What happens if the toast gets moldy???
 * Conducting the experiment in a vacuum should solve that nicely. 109.65.57.181 (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What about a piece of bread buttered on both sides? 99.33.203.57 (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

discuss this diff
I reverted an edit that is resulting in mixed takes. One side says 'cat landing on feet is the simple solution'. The other is that 'neither is the RIGHT solution.' My take: The problem is, if the cat lands on its feet, the bread lands not-butter side on the cat's back. Just as if the butter lands down, the cat lands its back on the toast. I've tested this paradox somewhat extensively, my cat the unwilling participant, and the outcome is based on more outliers, such as height and velocity (I always tested over a mattress, to avoid harming him). To state one or the other MUST occur denies the paradox.  F ELYZA T ALK C ONTRIBS   10:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Detailed explanation of my argument why the cat landing on their feet does not 'solve' the paradox.
 * If the cat lands on its feet, the toast lands dry-side down on the cat.
 * If the toast lands butter-side-down, the cat lands on it's back on the toast.
 * As a cat must land on its feet, and toast must land butter-side down, neither can occur.
 * To argue that the cat landing on its feet and having the toast not land implies it is a cat wearing toast rather than a cat AND toast. F ELYZA T ALK C ONTRIBS   13:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the two objects does not have to touch the ground, and hence does not land. The one that does land can proceed to obey its law.


 * Detailed explanation of my argument why your argument doesn't rebut the initial solution.
 * The argument that both objects are landing is invalid. The toast is attached to the cat at the start of the experiment. It has not yet landed on the cat. When the cat is dropped, according to the adage it will and feet first. If it does, the toast has not touched the ground. Hence the toast has not landed on the ground. Saying it has landed on the cat is illogical. Prior to experimentation it was already attached to the cat. It could have landed to get there, but as it is butter side up we can exclude this option. Hence any relative motion the cat makes that does not separate the toast from the cat (like being dropped) will not force the toast to land again on the cat.


 * Saying that the toast lands on the cat, even though it was attached to the cat prior to it being dropped and was never separated from it is like saying a skydiver's head lands on his body when his feet touch the ground.


 * So we conclude that the toast has not landed on the floor, and has not landed on the cat. Hence no paradox can be created as no landing of the toast has occurred to disprove landing hypotheses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.66.70 (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Buttered Toast always land on the ground buttered face down
I dropped a toast with butter on one side and the unbuttered side landed on the ground, therefore, the statement thingamajigger is false.
 * Unless you can provide a reliable source, that's Original Research (worse than Original Sin here) WP:OR. Peridon (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

another nonsensical paradox
Um, cat/toast would land, as the side that should touch the ground is easily able to. The paradox should be with the toast's buttered side touching the belly of the cat. The anti-gravity forces of the cat's back and the toast's back would then keep it up...173.164.218.92 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What if you tied a magnet to the back of a cat, put something made of metal directly below and dropped the cat with the magnet facing towards the ground? Anybody ever think about that? Because cats have the natural ability to land on their feet, but magnets are attracted to metal. Which one with land on the ground? --Codyrox (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're joking, right? It depends on whether the magnet is strong enough to flip the cat or not. Also... the metal has to be ferromagnetic...Scyldscefing (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's a strong enough magnet, the cat will land feet down, but very flat... Peridon (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
How do I nominate this garbage for deletion again? Seriously. Here are my reasons:
 * Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline
 * Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

This article is unencyclopedic. It reduces wikipedia's credibility and how much the page as a whole is taken seriously. It's trivially provable that butter on toast has nearly zero effect on which side it falls on. There was even an episode of Mythbusters that proved this fact. Also it's trivial to prove that toast being tied to a cat's back has zero effect on the cat's ability to land on its feet. This is basically an article about a psuedo-nerdy joke that wasn't even funny to begin with, and is not notable enough in popular culture to warrant its own page. 184.88.239.64 (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the proposed deletion template you placed on the article. The prod process can only be used where there is no opposition to deletion.  It is clearly not suitable for an article that has previously been through a deletion debate and this one has survived two.  You are free to start a third debate at WP:AfD but I strongly recommend that you first read the previous two debates which are linked from the templates at the top of this talk page.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  08:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a great article and I would not support deleting it. MY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.16.3.247 (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If this article is deleted I will hew your wife in twain and turn your innards into poisonous snakes. --70.126.190.75 (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales
Interesting article in the Daily telegraph this weekend...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/8867079/Jimmy-Wales-Wikipedia-can-topple-tyrants.html

This is the favourite Wikipedia page of Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of the site. Food for thought for those who call for its deletion!!!Jtomlin1uk (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Logic
The cat lands on its side. 121.127.203.225 (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please protect this sentence!
"However, toast does not have the ability to right itself.[citation needed]" - Whilst probably correct (although missing citation), this also made me laugh. It would be a shame if this sentence was removed by some humourless robot before it got a chance for IgNobel prize consideration... 90.194.203.28 (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation Needed?
Do we really need a 'citation needed' for a sentence that suggests butter doesn't have special desires? I'm pretty sure Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia written to be read from the point of view of somebody who escaped into our reality from another one where the laws of physics didn't exist. I'm pretty sure we can get away with saying something like "Buttered toast doesn't have the desire to right itself" without academic sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:180:30:C135:73DC:C6DD:A7F6 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree, but Wikipedia has a real hangup about citing everything nowadays.  Spinning Spark  01:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I take this as a way of enhancing the humorous potential of that sentence. Think of it as someone saying something utterly nonsensical/obvious and then providing a 25-page thesis proving themselves correct. --86.135.158.235 (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Humour value is not a valid reason for requesting a citation.  Spinning Spark  07:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a clearcut case of WEATHERMAN; while I realize that MINREF asserts that tagging with citation needed is a sufficient criterion to qualify a statement as challenged, and therefore in need of citation, that a piece of buttered toast lacks any equivalent of the cat righting reflex should be known to anyone who has ever encountered toast. I wouldn't mind the section being rewritten (e.g. because the explanation of the buttered toast phenomenon given is subject to some dispute), but I would support dropping this particular Cn from the page. Robin Z (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Michael Davis
Michael Davis, a comedian/juggler/musician made this observation in 1988: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq0YjR11bx8 (at about 3:50)

I'm sure many could have come up with this independently, but that seems earlier than the citations here for this paradox. LaRoza (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article says anything about the origin of the paradox, although it has clearly been around for some time.  Spinning Spark  11:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Added point of information.
I have added the following:


 * A house cat typically weighs "about 8 to 10 pounds (3.6-4.5 kg)",[19] while as of 1957 it was noted that "a slice of bread weighs only about two thirds ounce and a pat of butter about one fourth ounce".[20] Therefore, attaching a buttered piece of bread to a cat would have a negligible effect on the movement of the much larger cat.

I believe that this observation is appropriate for the tenor of the article as a whole. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , as the editor responsible for adding this article to Simple English (remarkable I know, that Simple English Wiki could be interested, but I sneak rather complex concepts there as an amusing experiment), I agreed with your first addition and was going to thank you for it, before it was reverted. You have reflected the balance between science and humor, so I believe your addition should stay. I may add it to the Simple version; with attribution to you of course.  The only reversions I make here are the occasional 'citation needed' tags that show up for inanimate toast not having desires and ability...Echoing cheers!   ツ Fylbecatulous talk 13:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the toast thing is citable if we really wanted to. SpinningSpark 14:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder, do we really need a source for the proposition that a cat weighs substantially more than a piece of toast? The sources I have provided have been questioned. bd2412  T 02:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree! I just want to say "really"? regarding the challenge. This is similar to the obvious fact that bread is brain dead needing a citation...In the spirit of the tongue-in-cheek nature of this article based upon a joke, I say we do not need to cite scientifically that even a 7 pound cat (as mine is) weighs more than a piece of buttered toast. How many loaves with butter would it take? I say we can take this as a given. Not everything has to be cited.  Fylbecatulous talk 02:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , I was going to post on your talk page that I had indeed added my update to the Simple English Wiki article. I noticed you had provided some info on your talk page regarding these challenged sources. I have added what you stated there to here. ツ I did not cite the AMA journal using the cite template since I most likely do not have the required parameters. Hopefully this will allow your paragraph to reside in peace.  Fylbecatulous <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 16:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What I put in the simpler version states: Domestic cats usually weigh between 4 and 5 kg. A regular slice of bread weighs only one ounce and a pat of butter about one fourth ounce. So attaching a very small piece of toast with butter to a much larger cat would hardly have any effect on how the cat would move. I gave you attribution in my edit summary. All the best, <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 16:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but note that another editor has objected to the AMA Today's Health cite because I can't specify the volume number. I think it's silly to require a citation for buttered toast weighing very little relative to a cat, but I would still like to settle the objection. bd2412  T 16:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1957 would be volume 35 by extension from volume numbers I can see on gbooks (1969 = vol. 47 and 1954 = vol. 32). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be confirmed here. bd2412  T 01:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Why cite the weight of an average cat and a piece of bread in the first place? If it were me, I would not have bothered citing something that is obvious per WP:FACTS. The exact weights of the two objects are not very important when compared to the fact that the toast and/or butter are inanimate objects and that a cat would try to right itself when it perceive that it is falling.


 * Since you went through the effort of providing citation, why not cite sources that are easily available over the web, such as using the USDA website to get the weight of a piece of bread and using an online article about feline obesity to get the average weight for a domestic cat instead of citing articles in obscure pre-digital journals that would required a visit to a library or retrieving the article via interlibrary loan?


 * Has any of the other editors have even looked at the actual AMA article? If they have, they could easily provide the title of the article and the name of the author(s) plus the issue and volume numbers. This is only part of the information librarians required for retrieving journal articles via interlibrary loan (the same information used in the cite journal template). Incomplete library requests are usually rejected.


 * Part of the fun in reading a Wikipedia article is the ability to look at the actual sources that were cited. Has anyone actually read the Phylogeny and Speciation of Felids paper that was originally used? It is a very interesting paper that discuss the reconstruction of the phylogeny of the Felidae using a total evidence approach combining sequences from 12S rRNA, 16S rRNA, NADH-5, and cytochrome b genes. I doubt many editors could get beyond the first paragraph. The article does give the average weight range, but the reader would need to wade through 8 or 9 pages of scientific jargon before finding this information.


 * One good reason to avoid having incomplete citations to obscure sources is that it could be a sign of subtle vandalism that is hard to detect, which coincidentally happened to a citation in the List of Ig Nobel Prize winners article concerning the 1996 prize winner in Physics in which citation was changed to a non-existent article.


 * Another reason to avoid using incomplete citation is that those citations can be challenged and possible removed per WP:VERIFY. 107.205.136.8 (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does the USDA website provide the weight of a piece of bread? By the way, the relative weights are important. If you strapped a cat to a buttered piano, the cat would not be able to right itself no matter how reflexive the cat or inanimate the piano. If you strapped a cat to a tiger (which has the same righting reflex) the tiger would be the one to land on its feet. bd2412  T 03:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to see someone try to strapped a cat to a tiger... ;-) What would happen if someone strapped two cats of the same size and muscle tone back to back? Would they spin endlessly until they hit the ground on their sides?


 * As Jedi Master Yoda would say, "size is not necessarily everything". A severely obese Maine Coon Cat (a feline equivalent of Jabba the Hutt or Jon Brower Minnoch) would probably have no muscle tone and would probably would have lost its righting reflex a long time ago if it lost the ability to walk unaided.


 * In it publication "Whole Grain Resource for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs", the USDA says that a slice of bread that is needed to meet the requirements of the Federal school lunch program is 0.9 oz.


 * Cut and paste:


 * A piece of toast is made by driving off the water and caramelizing the carbohydrates, so it should weigh slightly less than that a piece of fresh bread. After adding butter, a rough estimate of 1 oz would be a good guess.


 * An article in the journal British Journal of Nutrition gives the average weight range for healthy domestic cats that is broken down by breed and gender. This article might be a better reference for cat weights since it is relatively easy to read and it could even help a reader to determine if it is time to place their overly large kitty on a diet.


 * Cut and paste:


 * Hope this helps. 50.195.224.153 (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've used those. Cheers! bd2412  T 03:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Being forced to cite that a cat weighs a lot more than a piece of toast is just plain silly. All the same, there is still OR there. The claim that it won't affect the movement of the heavier cat does need citing. Very small weights can make a big difference in gymnastics. If you are capable, for instance, of executing a spin on ice skates, then just try doing it wearing wrist weights and see what happens. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would think that how much can the piece of toast affect the movement of the cat depends on how hungry the cat is. Cat food pouche can make the cat sprint from other room, of course it usually contains meat so it's affecting the cat much more than toast and butter. Also, even if the toast would be spread with tuna, I would expect the cat to safely land first and start the movement to get it from her back to her stomach afterwards. -- Hkmaly (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

In reality..
I'm sorry, but is this section really needed? I understand this is an encyclopedia, but does the reader actually have to be told that butter toast does not, in fact, possess sentience? Or the dimensions and particulars of an average housecat to determine that, no, toast will not affect a cat's ability to land on its feet? I can understand if the intention was humor, but I didn't think that was Wikipedia's purpose, and so if it's not trying to be funny, then the whole section strikes me as heavily pedantic. 2601:3C7:8200:D757:7CAA:4B0D:EF91:31FB (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree the line that about toast "not possessing the ability or desire to right itself" is not necessary to tell the reader. However, as others have pointed out, it's a humorous line that exists in a humorous article.  Personally I found the joke rather forced and I think it distracts slightly from the rest of that section.

As for the rest of the section, I found it relevant and interesting that an experiment was conducted to determine that 81% percent of buttered toast dropped from a table landed butter side down, and I think it is also important to mention the cat righting reflex. So in my opinion, the section should be there.

But perhaps the joke about toast being sentient could be moved somewhere else in that section? Something like

"n reality, cats possess the ability to turn themselves right side up in mid-air if they should fall upside-down, known as the cat righting reflex. This enables them to land on their feet if dropped from sufficient height, about 30 cm (12 in).[17] This may be one of the origins of the ascriptions of nine lives, rather than one, to cats.

Toast typically lands on the floor butter-side-down due to the manner in which it is typically dropped from a table. As the toast falls from the table, it rotates. Given the typical speed of rotation for a slice of toast as it falls from the table and the typical height of a table, a slice of toast that began butter-side-up on the table will land butter-side-down on the floor in 81% of cases.[18]

Of course, toast, being an inanimate object, lacks both the ability and the desire to right itself.

Cats can weigh between 2.8 kg (6.2 pounds) and 6.1 kg (13.4 pounds).[19] A 25 g (0.9 oz) slice of bread[20] will have a negligible effect on the movement of the much larger cat[citation needed]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSevn (talk • contribs) 06:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Kid Paddle
re this deletion, no comment on whether this ought to be in the article, but it is undoubtedly true that Kid Paddle produced a strip on the paradox. The page has been reproduced on several sites including this one (direct link to image). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , I really love this article and one of my proudest accompishments is that I successfully adapted it for Simple Wikipedia, which meant I had to first write 'Cat righting reflex' and having them both explained in simpler terms without losing the physics and the tongue-in-cheek. I tried to find something tangible proving this episode exists, before removing it. I am an inclusionist and I am happy to swiftly replace the statement and haz done so. I kinda dislike 'cn" tags hanging around on articles, so I would even be willing to link to either the cartoon or the Shungon site or both. I am not a scholar. This reminds me of the discussions we have about 'tortitude' on Tortoiseshell cat. So if you want to add the links, or I can do. Thank you and giving you buttered paw pats for finding these.  ツ  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 20:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am going to remove the 'citation needed' flag and say 'please see talk page discussion'... happy editing.  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 20:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any of the sites that I found can be counted as reliable sources, and there is also the suspicion that they may be breaching copyright, so we shouldn't link to them anyway. However, it is my opinion that citation needed tags should not be used on anything that we actually know to be true (WP:WEATHERMAN). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, then, with both points. As with, 'tortitude', if any further fur ruffling occurs, we have concensus on the talk page. All good. <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 21:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can anyone read and write French reasonably well? Has anyone considered contacting the cartoonist Michel Ledent directly via his website? If the inquiry is phrased properly and politely in a language that he understands, he might consider posting the comic on his website and may even point out which book and page number in which that comic could be found for fans who want to purchase his book(s). Just throw out an idea that no one might have considered before. 108.71.214.235 (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)