[Tiresias]

I once got in trouble for throwing my sister's cat off the roof of our house (It was fine). Today, it seems my actions have been vindicated:

Allow me to paraphrase an article from the New Scientist.

The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is 100 kilometres per hour. But the speed at which a cat would have to hit the ground to be killed is greater. Ergo, a cat can basically go base jumping without a parachute.

The catch: The cat must twist round, relax, and land on its feet so that the force of impact is absorbed by four legs and the soft tissue.

The problem is that cats only relax once they've reached terminal velocity—in other words, once their speed has stopped increasing and stabilized. It takes seven storeys for a cat to reach terminal velocity. And precisely here is the paradox of falling cat physics: It is more dangerous (for the cat) to be thrown off the sixth storey than the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, etc., because before they seventh storey they are still tense, their legs will not fully absorb the force of impact, and their heads will shatter on the concrete. (Admittedly, it is better still for the cat to be thrown off the first storey, or not at all).

I welcome you to disprove all this, either theoretically or... experimentally

Edit: Found it online. Enjoy.

I'm reminded of a study reported in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association in 1987 by WO Whitney and CJ Mehlhaff, two New York vets, entitled 'High-rise Syndrome in Cats'. The study was also summarised in Nature a year later. Briefly, the authors examined injuries and mortality rates in cats that had been brought to their hospital following falls ranging from between two and 32 storeys. Overall mortality rates were low, with 90 per cent of the cats surviving, a fact that supports the correspondent's ailurophobic friend. However, the study unexpectedly found that the incidence of injuries and death peaked for falls of around seven storeys, and then actually decreased for falls from greater heights. The Nature article presents three main variables that determine injury and mortality rate " the speed reached by the moggy, the distance in which said moggy is brought to a stop, and the area of moggy over which the stopping force is spread. While concrete streets work in nobody's favour when it comes to stopping falling items, cats suffer relatively little injury (compared to their owners) because they do indeed reach lower terminal velocities and absorb the shock of stopping so much better. A falling cat has a higher surface area to mass ratio than a falling human, and so reaches a terminal velocity of about 100km per hour (about half that of humans). They are also able to twist themselves so that the impact is spread over four feet, rather than our two. And, as they are more flexible than humans, they can land with flexed limbs and dissipate the impact forces through soft tissue. To answer the paradoxical increase in survival rates once seven storeys has been reached, the authors suggested that an accelerating cat tends to stiffen up, reducing its ability to absorb the impact. However, once terminal velocity is reached, there is no longer any net force acting on the cat, and so it will relax, increasing both its flexibility and the cross-sectional area over which the impact is dissipated once the cat hits the ground.

[sek929]

Yep all true, i saw a slo-mo video of a cat flipping itself rightways, very nifty animals.

Last year there was a story of a cat that got stuck 80+ feet up in a tree, it eventually fell out but when it hit the ground it simply landed....and then then hauled ass off camera. It was treated for dehydration and nothing else.

[OreoCookie]

Did you know cats use anholonomies to turn themselves? Sounds strange, but it's true!

[Railroader]

Most serial killers start off torturing animals.

[Mastrap]

While I agree with that statement, I don't know of a single child that hasn't tortured an animal at some time during it's early life.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

I welcome you to disprove all this, either theoretically or... experimentally

*Do not* strap buttered toast to the back of the cat whilst attempting this experiment.



(Seriously: Don't do it at all. Cats are nice. People who throw cats off buildings deserve to be shot. In the face. Nine times.)

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Last year there was a story of a cat that got stuck 80+ feet up in a tree, it eventually fell out but when it hit the ground it simply landed....and then then hauled ass off camera. It was treated for dehydration and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSmuD8IYG0

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

*Do not* strap buttered toast to the back of the cat whilst attempting this experiment.

The perpetual motion machine?

Most serial killers start off torturing animals.

And some animal torturers start off serial killing.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

While I agree with that statement, I don't know of a single child that hasn't tortured an animal at some time during it's early life.

I don't think I ever did. Don't remember ever doing it, anyway. I did like to (psychologically) torment other kids though. I once chased some kid around the block with an empty helium tank threatening to fill his underwear with helium so that he's float into the sun...

[lpkmckenna]

This theory is a classic example of an invalid argument. The problem:

Briefly, the authors examined injuries and mortality rates in cats that had been brought to their hospital following falls ranging from between two and 32 storeys.

Only cats that were brought to a hospital (i.e. were still alive after the fall) were part of the study.

In other words, there could be thousands of cats who have fallen from apartment buildings and died on impact, but they aren't accounted for here 'cause no one brings dead cats to the hospital.

Common sense: many cats who fall from lower heights aren't hospitalized because they aren't injured, while many cats who fall from great heights aren't hospitalized because they're too dead to bother. Vets aren't miracle-workers.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This theory is a classic example of an invalid argument. The problem:

Only cats that were brought to a hospital (i.e. were still alive after the fall) were part of the study.

In other words, there could be thousands of cats who have fallen from apartment buildings and died on impact, but they aren't accounted for here 'cause no one brings dead cats to the hospital.

Common sense: many cats who fall from lower heights aren't hospitalized because they aren't injured, while many cats who fall from great heights aren't hospitalized because they're too dead to bother. Vets aren't miracle-workers.

Exactly my thoughts. Nowhere in the quote reads that the scientists accounted all cats that weren't brought to the hospital.

To the original poster: will your kids get in trouble if they throw a cat off a building?

[pooka]

Either way I'd say this requires further research and study.

[Jawbone54]

This thread is worthless without pictures.

Note: the video doesn't count. I want the 12th story drop.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This theory is a classic example of an invalid argument. The problem:

Only cats that were brought to a hospital (i.e. were still alive after the fall) were part of the study.

In other words, there could be thousands of cats who have fallen from apartment buildings and died on impact, but they aren't accounted for here 'cause no one brings dead cats to the hospital.

Common sense: many cats who fall from lower heights aren't hospitalized because they aren't injured, while many cats who fall from great heights aren't hospitalized because they're too dead to bother. Vets aren't miracle-workers.

[Dakar²]

Fortune City? More like mis-fortune city.

[Jawbone54]

"To blaaaave!"

[Gossamer]

For some reason I'm hungry for a nice MLT...mutton, lettuce, and tomato.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

*Do not* strap buttered toast to the back of the cat whilst attempting this experiment.

They would levitate and spin at incredible speeds.

With a large enough array of butter/toast cats we could solve the world's energy crisis!

[Dakar²]

Fools! That would cause a rip in space-time and bring an end to all of existence!

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

I once got in trouble for throwing my sister's cat off the roof of our house

Why in the world would you do something like that?

[reader50]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

...
In other words, there could be thousands of cats who have fallen from apartment buildings and died on impact, but they aren't accounted for here 'cause no one brings dead cats to the hospital.
...

I don't know about this one. Take a drive around town, or on any crowded road, and you will be reminded that there are a lot of not-so-bright people in the world. They might even outnumber us.

I'd guess a good many do bring their Squashed Precious to the ER for resurrection.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

*Do not* strap buttered toast to the back of the cat whilst attempting this experiment.



(Seriously: Don't do it at all. Cats are nice. People who throw cats off buildings deserve to be shot. In the face. Nine times.)

End of discussion.

V

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

While I agree with that statement, I don't know of a single child that hasn't tortured an animal at some time during it's early life.

You've now met one. I am sure there are more out there.

[Dakar²]

Do insects count?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Do insects count?

Having a shortage of wit today?

[Dakar²]

Actually, I was being serious.

[Rumor]

That's a rarity.

[Dakar²]

Desperate times...

[Jawbone54]

This is horrible, and I am now ashamed, but my friend and I tortured a hummingbird that had exhausted itself trying to get out of his garage. We were about 12. I won't go into detail, but it was...eh...

[lpkmckenna]

MacDonald triad. (No, not hamburger, fries, and a Coke.)

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

While I agree with that statement, I don't know of a single child that hasn't tortured an animal at some time during it's early life.

Eh? I hope by "torture" you just mean something like a toddler thoughtlessly grabbing a family pet by the tail, rather than actual "torture" with intent to cause pain.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

MacDonald triad. (No, not hamburger, fries, and a Coke.)

Cruelty to animals. Many children can be cruel to animals, such as pulling the legs off of spiders, but future serial killers often kill larger animals, like dogs and cats, and frequently for their solitary enjoyment rather than to impress peers.

Whew! 12-year-old me is safe.

[Dakar²]

I've been known to choke a chicken in private.

Too easy?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Eh? I hope by "torture" you just mean something like a toddler thoughtlessly grabbing a family pet by the tail, rather than actual "torture" with intent to cause pain.

I can't read his mind, but I don't think that's what he means. When I was younger, most kids that I knew between the ages 8-15 did something to an animal that could be described as very cruel. I don't think they considered it "torture." I think it would be more accurate to describe it as morbid curiosity. Most of them feel bad later, and realize that they don't exactly get pleasure from it.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I've been known to choke a chicken in private.

Too easy?

I was wondering what took you so long.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I was wondering what took you so long.

Disobedient poultry.

[Jawbone54]

Brilliant.

[Rumor]

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

While I agree with that statement, I don't know of a single child that hasn't tortured an animal at some time during it's early life.

I don't know of a single child that has tortured an animal during my lifetime, and I'm almost 60. Hopefully you're still not associated with any of those people.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

While I agree with that statement, I don't know of a single child that hasn't tortured an animal at some time during it's early life.

I don't know exactly what you mean but I am definitely one who hasn't.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I can't read his mind, but I don't think that's what he means. When I was younger, most kids that I knew between the ages 8-15 did something to an animal that could be described as very cruel. I don't think they considered it "torture." I think it would be more accurate to describe it as morbid curiosity. Most of them feel bad later, and realize that they don't exactly get pleasure from it.

Well if that's what he meant, I definitely never did anything like that, nor did any friends of mine, but I did hear the rare story about kids doing it.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

While I agree with that statement, I don't know of a single child that hasn't tortured an animal at some time during it's early life.

[OldManMac]

My ex recently finished a ten year stint as a prison psychologist at one of the world's largest walled prisons, and she tells me that people who torture animals as children are some of the people she saw inside, as they develop into cold blooded killers, with absolutely no ability to empathize with others, and with no regrets over whatever they do. They don't always turn out to be killers or criminals, of course, but they still have no ability to really connect with others and often have trouble with long term relationships and are more likely to be abusers in relationships.

[BRussell]

Well if anything, we've learned something about Mastrap in this thread.

[OldManMac]

I'd almost be willing to bet that these guys tortured animals when they were kids. Very sad.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/16/vid...ing/index.html

[G4ME]

There is nothing I hate more than to see a filthy old drunkie, a-howling away at the filthy songs of his fathers and going blurp blurp in between as if it were a filthy old orchestra in his stinking rotten guts. I can't stand to see anyone like that, especially when they are as old as that one.

A bit of the old ultra-violence does a body good

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

Why in the world would you do something like that?

I was about 10. I'd just heard someone on TV say that cats always land on their feet. I was amazed. Was it true? At that moment Basil, my sister's cat, walked into the room.

We ascended to the roof together.

I held Basil by the back legs and flung him into the air. His rose, he spun, he plummeted. His fall described a graceful parabola. He twisted round, three times, like a trapeze artist, and landed square on his feet on the grass. He stood motionless for a moment, switched his tail, and then trotted off.

I have just described the experiment with rigorous exactitude. The cat was unharmed. How is that torture?

Now, if I'd heard that "cat's always land on their backs" and lobbed Basil off the roof onto concrete, it'd be a different story.

But if it makes you feel any better, my sister saw my experiment and became hysterical. My father gave me a sound thrashing with a wooden spoon.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This theory is a classic example of an invalid argument. The problem:

Only cats that were brought to a hospital (i.e. were still alive after the fall) were part of the study.

In other words, there could be thousands of cats who have fallen from apartment buildings and died on impact, but they aren't accounted for here 'cause no one brings dead cats to the hospital.

Common sense: many cats who fall from lower heights aren't hospitalized because they aren't injured, while many cats who fall from great heights aren't hospitalized because they're too dead to bother. Vets aren't miracle-workers.

There is a problem with the sample. But there is also a problem with your objection. We can't know how many cats died. Occam's razor demands that we eliminate them.

Alternatively, the cats that were not included in the samle (that is, the cats that were obliterated) are not important if the question is: "Can some cats survive such-and-such a fall?"

The article goes on. "Divide the animal's length, breadth, and height each by ten; its weight is reduced to a thousandth, but its surface only to a hundreth. So the resistance to falling in the case of the small animal is relatively ten times greater than the driving force. [...] You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard [3000 ft!] mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away."

You could also drop an insect from the edge of space—its terminal velocity is far less than the speed it needs to hit the ground to be killed.

So maybe it is possible to determine the maximum height from which a cat may plummet without being killed. I don't know.

[Mastrap]

Just to make this clear - I wasn't alluding to taking animals to a secluded spot and then torturing then for one's private entertainment, I was talking about casual cruelty.

To give an example, I remember getting into deep **** with my grandmother because I wanted to figured out if cats could swim. I grew up on a farm and had noticed that all of our animals (horses, cows, pigs, ducks) seemed to love the water. The only animals I never saw swim or taking a bath were the barn cats. So, in my three year old mind, I figured that I'd teach them. My grandmother saw me dunking cats and gave me a scolding that I didn't forget for a long time.

I stand by my statement that kids routinely torture animals that way. I've seen many a three year old try to disassemble an insect or caterpillar. I don't think there's any menace behind these actions, it's just curiosity.