Threadless

uber oreo
uber oreo aka Mike is a 22.98 year old boy, has been a member since November 4, 2006, has scored 453 submissions, giving an average score of 2.68, helping 3 designs get printed.
I thought I was finally done with this god awful subject after having finished school. Then Threadless has the audacity to make a shirt that's all about it. On top of that travesty, I think the shirt is awesome. So that's.....something I can't even explain.

Holy crackers.....I think I actually have a test lying around where I had to graph out light waves. Oh Man, this just keeps on getting worse and worse.

FRICKINAWESOME
   FRICKINAWESOME on Jun 18 '07 at 1:50pm
Yeah, i remember the physics class where we discussed the trajectory of a satellite kite myself. And then the acid that was smeared all over the blackboard chalk we were touching took several days to wear off.
quixentric
quixentric on Jun 18 '07 at 6:42pm
I know exactly how you feel. I had the same thoughts when I saw this.
nonajean
nonajean on Jun 18 '07 at 6:56pm
Okay, I'm a physics teacher who loves Threadless, but hates all the science/math tees that just get it wrong. It's a pretty shirt, but 1) the x-axis should represent a distance, not time, if you're going to define a wavelength (hence waveLENGTH) and 2) a wavelength is defined as the distance between two identical points of a wave. The section called lambda in this graph is definitely not a wavelength.



Okay, done griping. It IS a pretty shirt.
llewllynn
llewllynn on Jun 19 '07 at 1:09am
nonajean, unfortunately this isn't the first time physics has been used in a threadless tee and ..well... not worked right. remember the science of sleep winner with the sheep representing mass? whoops.

still buying it.
infinitesimally
infinitesimally on Jun 19 '07 at 3:38am
Yeah, I was kind of confused by the... not so right physics, but I still like the design. I also got excited because I actually recognized that the physics stuff was wrong. I like it when I can apply things. Haha.
10 days later
rfriel
rfriel on Jun 29 '07 at 10:19am
The second point that notajean makes is spot-on. But about the first one: if we're in a unit system where c = 1 (commonly used in relativity), and we assume that the wave's speed is c (suggested by the equation in the lower left), then the wavelength of the wave would be equal to one over its frequency. One over the frequency is the period, which is what the section indicated as "lambda" DOES clearly represent. So it is also the wavelength in this system of units. (One could complain that the quantities marked should not depend on the unit system in use, but since this is a graph that doesn't seem reasonable. It'd make sense to mark the slope of a x-vs.-t line as "v" for example, even though that's only true in the unit system being used.)



Even better than applying physics is applying physics to conceptually rescue pretty shirts! :D
You must be logged in to leave a comment.

My gallery photos


All about me

Hey, Hello!
That's pretty much it.