/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9964997]

Well?

[Anonymous No.9965006]

>>9964997
No

[Anonymous No.9965010]

>>9964997
Yes

[Anonymous No.9965018]

Maybe

[Anonymous No.9965022]

i dont know

[Anonymous No.9965025]

>>9964997
Can you repeat the question?

[Anonymous No.9965036]

Yes

[Anonymous No.9965047]

>>9964997
Thin one will have slightly less pressure on the rock, the point where it gets thin it has more container mass closer to the rock above it, thus the gravity will be slightly lower near the rock in the thin tube and thus the pressure will be less.

[Anonymous No.9965068]

>>9965006
>>9965010
>>9965018
>>9965022
>>9965025
WE DID IT REDDIT

[Anonymous No.9965095]

Obviously.

[Anonymous No.9965121]

>>9965047
>being this wrong
you do uhh realize that the weight of the water surrounding the opening of the narrow cylinder will spread evenly into the larger container because, well, it's a (((closed))) container.
Jesus christ like there are sometimes some very poor posts on this board, but a lot of them you can't tell if it's bait or not. This is blatant. Do you have any credentials at all? Have you finished highschool? Good lord. The gravity will be lower near the rock? What were you THINKING?

[Anonymous No.9965162]

>education level in basic physics
Pascal's barrel
experiment performed in 1646

[Anonymous No.9965164]

>>9964997
Same height of water, same pressure.

[Anonymous No.9965209]

This reminds me of a story
>fluid mechanics class
>professor tells the story about pascal and the barrel
>8/10 qt raises her hand
>'if the water could break the barrel, why didn't it break the tube?'
>the professor is astonished
>I don't think he had ever been exposed to such stupidity
>'well... I mean... it's assumed the tube was made of a material strong enough to withstand the pressure'
>days later
>tutorial session
>for some reason the TA decided to explain how hydraulic cylinders work
>same girl raises her hand
>'so, does that mean pascal's law doesn't work with square pistons?'

[Anonymous No.9965694]

>>9965121
Learn some fucking general relativity before posting again, even Newtonian gravity will work and might be simple enough for you to maybe understand. More container material nearer to the rock will cause a stronger gravitational force upwards which will cancel some of the earth's gravity and make it weaker, and in case you didn't know the pressure at the bottom of a liquid is a function of g, which will be slightly less, thus less pressure near the rock. Your post is the perfect example of someone being so much of a brainlet they don't even understand they are retarded.

[Anonymous No.9965715]

>>9965694
>Learn some fucking general relativity before posting again
why when it has nothing to do with the post

>More container material nearer to the rock
ok so the container's gravitational pull will have to outweigh all the upwards pull from the large amount of water above the rock that's missing in the thin container. how dense is this container we're imagining? is it made out of neutron star?

>in case you didn't know the pressure at the bottom of a liquid is a function of g
it's more a function of the integral of values of g between 2 heights

[Anonymous No.9965724]

>>9965209
post yfw she still graduated and got a better job than you because she has a vagina.

[Anonymous No.9965727]

>>9965209
idk, the questions are cute and more creative than stupid.

[Anonymous No.9965731]

>>9965715
>Why learn gravity?
>Rest of post talks about gravity
Wat

>Container outweigh water
The water will cause an upwards far rotational force, but at the same time (here's where GR comes in) the water will also feel a larger force down due to its own potential energy, the container being registered will not contribute to the pressure while this increase in the effective mass of the water will.

>More an integral
In general an integral of a function is dependent on the value of the function at a point.

[Anonymous No.9965750]

>>9965731
>Wat
general relativity is not gravity tho, it's the geometry of spacetime

>>9965731
>The water will cause an upwards far rotational force, but at the same time (here's where GR comes in) the water will also feel a larger force down due to its own potential energy, the container being registered will not contribute to the pressure while this increase in the effective mass of the water will.
i thought we were still using real physics. i'd reply but i can't follow it anymore :o

>In general an integral of a function is dependent on the value of the function at a point.
sure yes is agree

[Anonymous No.9965759]

>>9965724
Nice try, but I'm a minority.

[Anonymous No.9965783]

>>9965750
>General relativity is not gravity
Amazing post

[Anonymous No.9966232]

>>9965727
You only think that because she is pretty. Such injustices.

[Anonymous No.9966257]

>>9965010
>Yes
as counter intuitive as it may appear, the answer is yes.

[Anonymous No.9966261]

>>9965047
I recommend you reading halliday vol. 2, you don't take the gravity of the tube in consideration when solving these problems

[Anonymous No.9966263]

Try this one, OP.

>>9965164
This.

/thread

[Anonymous No.9966265]

>>9965783
It is a heavy subject.

[Anonymous No.9966267]

>>9966263
the answer is the same for A, b, and c
its whatever the you assume for the unit weight of water times the volume of the container.

[Anonymous No.9966268]

>>9966263
same amount of archimedes displaced

2kg reading on all scales

also i can control the universe with my thoughts because of quantum

[Anonymous No.9966274]

>>9966268
>also i can control the universe with my thoughts because of quantum

[Anonymous No.9966635]

>>9966261
>Muh assume the tube is infinitely thin, and in a vacuum, and spherical, and not a tube but my anus, also assembly the water is a black cock and instead of being stationary moves up and down.

[Anonymous No.9966832]

Think about it this way, you have two large, flat rectangles of different surface areas at the same depth. One obviously has more water above the other due to its larger surface area, yet both are under the same pressure if they're at the same depth.

[Anonymous No.9966854]

to all saying no, if they were unequal you could make a perpetual motion machine this way
look up Boyle's flask

[Anonymous No.9966876]

>>9964997
No, that’s retarded. There’s less water in the right container so the amount of water pushing on the rock is less, therefore there is less pressure.

[Anonymous No.9966899]

>>9964997
Nope

[Anonymous No.9966992]

>>9964997
Yes.
>Pressure = Force/Area
>Force/Area = Density of water * volume of tube * gravity / cross-sectional area of the tube
>Cross-sectional area of the tube cancels out
>Pressure = density * gravity * height
The water in the tube on the left has more WEIGHT, but they both produce the same pressure.

[Anonymous No.9967377]

>>9966876
the amount of water pushing on the rock is the same

[Anonymous No.9967424]

>>9966268
Only based Mochizuki can do this

[Anonymous No.9967438]

>>9967424
i know (;

-M

[Anonymous No.9967448]

>>9966876
For anyone who isn't trolling and is just stupid.
Justify your answer in pic related.

[Anonymous No.9967605]

>>9967424
Foolish yokozuna, you know not the true power of the ashkenazi PHENOTYPE

[Anonymous No.9967832]

>>9967605

[Anonymous No.9968018]

>>9965164
this is a joke, right? This is what happens when autistic engineering students memorise a cheat sheet of formulas from each class and attain no critical thinking ability at all

[Anonymous No.9968041]

>>9967448
Water would start fountaining our of the small tube on the right until pressures equalized.

[Anonymous No.9968043]

>>9968041
kek
god damnit
this generation

[Anonymous No.9968045]

>>9965006
>>9965010
>>9965018
>>9965022
>>9965025
>>9965036
>>9965047
Redditfags are the most serious form of cancer. Each and everyone of you should absolutely consider suicide.

[Anonymous No.9968048]

>>9966257
Did you skip highschool science class? Gravity pulls on mass, the larger volume of water has greater mass, therefore the container on the left has greater pressure.

[Anonymous No.9968049]

>>9968041
>>9968043
the reason i say this is not because you're horribly stupid but because you're too horribly lazy to verify this irl. like, even a 3/4 full milk jug basically has the right shape to test this.

[Anonymous No.9968061]

>>9968048
>being this arrogant yet retarded at the same time.

[Anonymous No.9968084]

>>9968049
>milk jug basically has the right shape to test this
so does a bong

[Anonymous No.9968110]

>>9966257
>>9966263
>>9966832
>>9966992
are you for fucking real?
What if I make the column of water on the right arbitrarily thin? What if it's just a one atom thick stack lf water molecules? How could the pressure at the bottom still depend on the height of that column? Either you're wrong or I'm baffled.

[Anonymous No.9968157]

>>9968110
>>9968110
if this isnt bait, it should be. In case its not, fluid dynamics/statics works with the assumption that a fluid is a fluid all the way down, so its not valid on a scale where you start needing to care about individual atoms.

[Anonymous No.9968164]

>>9968110
was basically about to post a paraphrase of >>9968157

[Anonymous No.9968225]

>>9964997
If both objects increase their volume by dV, in both cases the same mass of water will be transported upward by the same height (same increase in energy).
Both cases require the same energy per volume to expand the objects, so the pressures are equal.
That's neglecting tiny differences in gravity.
In a real world scenario, the right tube would have to be less than 0.6mm in radius. Capillary forces ahoy.

[Anonymous No.9968230]

>>9966263
10 what deep

[Anonymous No.9968231]

>>9968225
>in both cases the same mass of water will be transported upward by the same height
wanna rephrase that?

[Anonymous No.9968246]

>>9966268
you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now, you're shifting now

[Anonymous No.9968259]

>>9968230
10'

[Anonymous No.9968261]

>>9968230
10 apostrophes

[Anonymous No.9968272]

>>9968231
>>9968231
I don't think there's a need to?
Water is completely homogeneous here, so I can treat all the water replaced by other water as just staying in place, and it's not like this will spawn a misconception.
If you want to rephrase this better, do it.

[Anonymous No.9968284]

>>9968272
dV/A is the height that the water is displaced, where A is the area of the tube cross-section

i guess this isn't a proper derivation anyway. note how the same amount of water is displaced no matter the height of the tube, but the pressure depends on the height of the tube

i agree that pressure is the change in energy dE over the change in volume dV, but the change should be done with other properties (V of container) held fixed.

[Anonymous No.9968567]

>>9968157
>>9968164
you didnt get my point its not about atoms, just make it 1mm in diametre. how could I crush something by only adding a tiny amount of water on top in a tall column?

[Anonymous No.9968600]

>>9964997
The mass of the water causes the pressure on the object right? If you put a hole in the bottom side of each of the tubes, water would flow out of the one on the right faster. So there's less pressure on the object to the left.

[Anonymous No.9968631]

>>9968567
stop this bait pls

[Anonymous No.9968632]

>>9968600

[Anonymous No.9968638]

>>9968631
Not him but i really dont get it either. Im borderline retarded so its no surpise but please explain.
How can 10mL of water exert the same pressure as a ton of water?

[Anonymous No.9968652]

>>9968631
fuck off please explain I want to understand how it is possible that the pressure can rise to say 100atm by just putting a very tall column of water which only adds say 1kg of weight on top of a container. That's what I understood would happen.

[Anonymous No.9968655]

>>9968638
imagine this then. There are 100 of people lying on the floor next to each other. a pack of tanks appears in the distance hurling towards the unsuspecting sleepers. one of them tanks stepps on your stomach and you spill out your supper. It wakes you up and you think to yourself "what in the hell...", but before you even get a chance to finish your thought another tank spills the guts of a guy 10 meters away. The question is does that hurt you more? answer is no.

[Anonymous No.9968656]

>>9968632
But where am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.9968714]

>>9968652
pressure is force over an area so mass as such is not really important to determine the pressure, but mass over an area (which is density * height of a liguid). F=m*g. F=p*A. p*A=m*g. p=m/A * g. m=ro*V. V=height *area. m=h*A. p=ro*h*A/A *g. p=ro*g*h

[Anonymous No.9968715]

>>9968656
it would run out faster means less time would be required for it to leave, not that it would have greater velocity. A huge difference and that's where you're wrong

[Anonymous No.9968812]

>>9968714
yes I know that but I dont *understand*.
Let's say I want to makena business out of crushing old submarines.
I out them.in a pool of water and close the top.
Then I drill a small hole and build a 1km tower with a 1mmx1mm column of water.
The weight is almost nothing but the pressure suddnly jumps to 1km underwater and the submarines gets crushed if it wasnt built for that depth?

[Anonymous No.9969008]

>>9968812
yes, remember that that little bit of water will continue to be pulled down until it reaches equilibrium with whats holding it up, that only happens when the pressure in the entire pool is high enough to counteract the gravity. If you had a thick column of water each unit of water in it would contribute less to the pressure in the pool before the pressure is high enough to counteract the downwards force of gravity on the water in the column, but it would end up at the same pressure.

[Anonymous No.9969017]

you are stupid, you know that, right?

[Anonymous No.9969064]

>>9969008
:( but how can I make a big impact with a teaspoon of water.....
Is this what it feels like to realize you're a brainlet? I never knew...

[Anonymous No.9969106]

>>9969064
If it makes it feel more intuitive, you will not be able to actually crush a submarine with just one teaspoon of water, if the submarine gets crushed 1mm the amount of water the pool holds will increase by more than a tablespoon, and all the water in your thin tube will run into the pool and stop crushing the submarine, while when you have a thick tube the water level in it will only slightly fall and continue to crush the submarine, to completely crush a submarine with a thin tube you will need to continuously refill it.

Its the exact same as with levers or gears, a long lever requires only a small force put you need to push it over a larger distance while a shorter lever needs a very large force over a very short distance. A thin tube with a little water applies the force over a small length (here the 1mm the submarine gets crushed) while a thick tube applies it over a larger length.

[Anonymous No.9969133]

As far as I know, the hydrostatic pressure is equal to the product of the density of the fluid, the gravity and the height of the fluid column, so the pressure is the same.

[Anonymous No.9969146]

>>9969106
thanks, that's what I needed.

[Anonymous No.9969204]

>>9964997
"preasure on object"
wtf is this meme
it is the same in an equal area

[Anonymous No.9969397]

Isn't the pressure on rock the same in both cases, because pressure only affects air

[Anonymous No.9969546]

>>9969397

Right, thats why submarines dont have crush depths

[Anonymous No.9969564]

>>9969204
pressure doesn't depend on area. you're thinking of force due to pressure

[Anonymous No.9969629]

>>9964997
I thought sci wasn't supposed to be filled with brainlets

[Anonymous No.9969643]

>>9968230
10 feet

[Anonymous No.9969645]

>>9969397
Correct.

[Anonymous No.9969655]

>>9969629
it would get applied to the entire exposed surface area of the object, not just the top.
but you're just baiting aren't you?

[Anonymous No.9969657]

>>9965759
Being asian or indian doesn't count

[Anonymous No.9969674]

>>9968638
The density of the water is the same, a wider container may have larger weight by volume, but it's spread across a larger area so for the same fluid the pressure should be the same.

[Anonymous No.9969704]

>>9966263
why would there much of any reading on the scales at all?
isn't the buoyancy pulling up on the scale also MOVING it up, thereby relieving most of the tension besides the friction of the water on the bottle?

[Anonymous No.9969708]

>>9969704
Holy fucking shit. Someone finally got it. 2 fucking years later. lol

[Anonymous No.9969710]

>>9969708

[Anonymous No.9969748]

>>9969704
i think the problem assumes the scale would be attached to something preventing its movement