How was Mr. Burns overturned by an ant?

[Imaginym]

This has puzzled me for a while. One of the feats we cite for Mr. Burns's 10-C rating is him failing to crush an ant beneath his foot. We even show a GIF of it on his profile! It's the first in the slideshow, in fact!

But HOW did the ant do this?

Even a tiny, low average weight man with a height of only 137 cm (4'6") would weigh at least 28.5 kilograms! Even if we assume Mr. Burns is ridiculously light via possibilities like being devoid of body fluids, has hollow bones, little to no bones or muscle, & was short, etc., 1% of that low end average human male weight is 0.285 kilograms/285 grams.

The ability of worker ants to carry many times their own body weight is well documented, but new research on heavy-lifting ants reveals that the neck joint of a common American field ant can withstand pressures up to 5,000 times greater than its own body weight. (Although apparently, they used the Allegheny mound ant (Formica exsectoides), "a common ant not particularly know for its ability to lift", according to that article.)

"There are ants that weigh 60mg, but they're really the big ants," says Francis Ratnieks, Professor of Apiculture at the University of Sussex."The common ants which live in British gardens weigh about 1mg or 2mg."

"The common ants which live in British gardens weigh about 1mg or 2mg."

Even taking the high end from those figures above, assuming this is a HUGE ant weighing 60 mg, & assuming it can lift as much weight as it can withstand pressure on its heads (5,000 times, as is the case for the Allegheny mound ant.), it comes out to 310,000 milligrams, or 310 grams.

Even assuming using how much pressure they can withstand for their LS is okay, I'm confident that's still mixing species for a high end.

So even if Mr. Burns weighed 1% of the real world's low end average male human weight, even a big & particularly strong ant is barely lifting more than his body weight.

So it makes sense he got overturned, right?

Except, besides that the ant would be fighting against gravity (Albeit, possibly on a low amount.), but Mr. Burns was weighing clothes.

Supposing Mr. Burns was wearing dress shoes (I could believe that, as he is a well-dressed businessman. ...And also because finding masses is difficult.).... A pair of such shoes would weigh about 0.85 to 0.86 kg https://www.cockeyed.com/science/weight/shoes-mens-dress.html

And these late 90s, lightweight shoes could weigh as little as 0.320349611 kilograms.

320.349611 grams

Meaning even if Mr. Burns was naked (& we didn't account for his suit.) & 1% a low average human male's weight, at a scrawny 285 grams, the ant still shouldn't have been able to lift his shoe, let alone it AND him, given a light shoe might weigh more than most any ant can lift!


So HOW the heck did an ant overturn him with the weight of his body, his clothes & gravity? Was it exceptionally strong? Are ants in Simpsons stronger than real world ants?

Is Mr. Burns even MORE absurdly light than approximated? Even by what's above, a newborn baby girl (3.3 kg) would weigh MORE THAN ELEVEN TIMES that weight posited for Mr. Burns!


Or was it just a gag feat that doesn't hold up under scrutiny (Since the ant shouldn't have been able to lift his shoe, let alone him?) & shouldn't be a justification for him being 10-C because it doesn't make sense without unfounded assumptions?

For clarification, I don't disagree with Mr. Burns's 10-C rating (He has other feats within that tier.), just the ant overturning him being used as a justification.

 

[Jackythejack]

''Cartoon logic''

 

[Imaginym]

@Jackythejack: The cartoon logic in this case requires us assuming Mr. Burns is lighter than a newborn baby girl, & ignoring the weight of his shoes and his clothes.

And it isn't a power or ability, it's a feat being used as a justification for his tier, a tier being a rating for a certain amount of energy.

We're claiming he's weak enough to be overpowered by an ant, but the weight of his clothes are more than it should be able to lift, let alone accounting for gravity, momentum, leverage, etc.

MAYBE Mr. Burns can't exert enough force to crush an ant on his own power, but the ant would barely have been able to lift him naked, unless he weighs, like, 1000 times or more less than an average human male, & there's no way it could've lifted his clothes, either.

And I'm no physics expert, but again, even naked Mr. Burns would be difficult for the ant because of physics putting in gravity, momentum, & maybe leverage for Mr. Burns in his favor, or at least compensating for a mere 25 gram difference.

The ant's feat seems impossible, yet in spite of the impossibility of the feat, we use it as one of his many justifications for his tier.

Again, not disagreeing with his tier, just the use of this justification.

 

[Wokistan]

Burns is made of helium

The ant took 4 scoops of creatine


Only 2 choices

 

[Js250476]

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WritersCannotDoMath

This feels relevant here.

 

[Imaginym]

Yes, but we do math. Why are we using a feat as one of his many justifications for being 10-C when the math for the feat doesn't hold up?

 

[Js250476]

Probably cause it's a clear showing of Burns being 10-C and it's a comical way of showing it.

Plus like i said the writers obviously didn't look that deep into it they just wanted to show an example most would consider sub par (like getting overpowered by an ant.)

 

[The_Calaca]

I'm not in the mood to read the entire post, but looking for logic to these gags is pointless. Burns wearing a pijama flew like a leaf in the air when he jumped from his mansion, he also stated in one chapter that he only weights his clothes and keys and that isn't heavy enough to let him fall from that park game (dunno the english name of that thing).

 

[Imaginym]

Probably cause it's a clear showing of Burns being 10-C and it's a comical way of showing it.
Plus like i said the writers obviously didn't look that deep into it they just wanted to show an example most would consider sub par (like getting overpowered by an ant.)

I can agree it shows he's 10-C. But I'm skeptical that it can really be sensibly quantified, & I think that's a bit of a sore spot on something we're using to indicate a position within a mathematical range; If we want to show Mr. Burns is weak (& I'm quite sure we do.), he has a myriad of other 10-C feats to display.

 

[The_Calaca]

Going with that logic, the camera flash shouldn't have hit him either because light has no physical force and Burns weights around 3.3kg.

Don't look for logic. The Simpson show doesn't have any consistency in its continuity, let alone the power.

 

[Imaginym]

You say not to look for logic, but isn't our site based on on analyzing fiction from a logical perspective?

Is it the case her that it's inconsistent & we have feats with unquantifiable elements to them trying to justify a tier, which is generally based in math? If we have to base a rating in a mathematical range on unquantifiable or inconsistent things, what do we do? Say we don't know in spite of presenting feats? Assert that Mr. Burns exerted a negative amount of force trying to crush an ant or such?

 

[The_Calaca]

Yes, but there are things that lack logic to begin with.

Believe it or not, The Simpsons shows Toon Force from time to time, and some of the things we have listed on the profiles comes from there. Homer lifting a byke, climbing a cliff while fighting, walking with radiation covering his body like it's nothing, etc.

Toon Force feats can be quantified, yes, but looking for logic after gags is too much of a stretch. Should the ant be stronger than Burns in a logical term? Of course not, but this is a comedy with plethora of incoherent things that wouldn't work IRL.

On top of that, we list Burns as Varies because his feats and anti-feats are inconsistent. We have him being knocked out by photons and him surviving tons of rocks falling above his head and remain conscious.

 

[Mephistus]

He was wearing clothes when the apparently normal camera flash knocked him back too.

 

[Imaginym]

@The Calaca: While I agree the others are Toon Force, I wouldn't call lifting a bike an example of Toon Force, & it seems a little atypical for us to use Toon Force as a basis for impossibly WEAK feats.

I'd also disagree about looking for logic in gags; There should be some measure of logic applied, at least when calculating. Reasonable assumptions about height of things, types of explosions, assuming that physics work similarly to the real world (unless shown otherwise), etc.

And part of the issue isn't just "Should the ant be stronger than Burns in a logical term?"; It wouldn't matter if it was stronger than him because almost no ant could lift a human's shoe in that situation. "How could an ant lift that human's attire?"

Still, given what you've mentioned above, I feel I can somewhat see a case for allowing it as a justification.

 

[The_Calaca]

If we just ignore Toon Force then we can only conclude that this is one of the strongest average ants in fiction.

Meruem-sama would be so proud

Logically, the ant isn't capable of lifting anything of these proportions, but this is an animated comedy show where one of the characters' main gag is that he's old and weak. Being overpowered by an ant is a non-sense to begin with, but it happened, and as I explained before, there's a much worse case.

Just looking for logic in this anti-feat is absurd. The Simpsons usually defy the logic past S10, with the motorcycle example I gave before being one of the cases (because Homer is usually depicted as non-athletic and yet he lifted it and used it as a weapon).

 

[CuteAnimeNekoGirl99]

so burns is very very inconsistant there's times he was able to tank a hit from homer and abe then there are other times like the ant