Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Physics & Hairstyles {arithmetic lessons for adults, vol. 3]

First off, $50 doesn't even fill my gas tank anymore. This sure isn't the 90s, Britney.

Next up, today's sermon. I'm under the belief that if hairstylists paid attention to basic science laws then bad hairstyles could be avoided. By simply adding a few 101-Physics, Chemistry, and Biology sessions to the standard chop & clip courses then style snafus could go extinct.


A solid example of this would be the Marge Simpson hairstyle. For this to be functional, the force of hairspray must overcome the force of gravity. This is an unnatural situation involving both the density of the hair, the surface area required to be doused in spray, and the strength of the spray. All of this was evaluated out in a lengthy proof that I decided to spare you from [although, feel free to inquire within]. Just know that I began with the basic law where


F = G * [m1m2/r2]
if I had sub/superscripts powers I'd use them.


and resulted in the discovery of the spray constant. Because this spray constant must overcome the force of gravity it requires the force similar to what propels an airplane - a force to lift metal off of the ground and move at a rapid pace - which must be harmful, taxing, and expensive. And boy-oh-boy is that obvious - what split ends you have, my pretty! I will define both the spray constant and all of this other nonsense in my course book, the law of hairodynamics - but with all of this headache and drama, the Marge Simpson Hairstyle could have been avoided. If nothing else, it is an improbable situation.

Next, a mullet. Oh, the infamous mullet, the hillbilly mullet, the child mullet, and even, the five dollar bet DJ mullet. Now the thing about the mullet is that up front, it's so practical. It's like a reversible belt, a shampoo that is also a body wash, or a spork - two in one, but when you look closely, it's just kind of effing weird.  That's the situation here.

For the mullet argument, assume that the "party in the back" is a proton and the "all work up front" is an electron. If you examine the atom, the protons are in the nucleus, at the "hub" of the atom. The electrons are all flailing about on the outside, fooling around, trying to configure themselves. The protons are attracting other electrons, causing a big mess and identity crisis for the original electrons. That's like the mullet here - an avoidable, two-natured beast that cannot be tamed. Too much yin and yang - although admittedly, some are just born with the burn of the mullet inside of them.

Advanced courses could provide statistics of hairstyles -- ie, %age of year spend in humidity (Florida) vs reccomending getting a permanent (hellooo Missus Frizzus!), or perhaps general athleticism vs ability to (a) easily, quickly and effectively pull hair into a ponytail, under a helmet, etc.

Next up, last week's hypothetical situation. Another pick your winner deathmatch! Your contestants in this chaotic circus ring:

a)       Ronald McDonald
b)      Wendy
c)      Colonel Sanders
d)      “The King”
e)      The Dairy Queen Mouth

Cheers, Frizzettes. I have major plans in the works for this weekend. You'll see next week.

2 comments:

Allie said...

Such a science geek! I like the new background :)

Truckload (LTL) Shipment said...

The reason for the uproar is not because it simply does away with Einstein’s theory, it is largely because much of our understanding of the way our physical universe works is based on that one constant, that speed limit. Without it, much of physics over the last century will be undone completely.