You should be able to solve this

You should be able to solve this.

Other urls found in this thread:

physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130688/which-way-does-the-scale-tip
abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec20.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The answer is: Shut the fuck up and suck my cok bitch.

not another one of these threads

They would displace the same volume of water, regardless of mass.

Solved. It's pretty much easy read the second sentence and work from there.

Solved ;)

tip to the left, the steel ball contributes nothing to the mass on the left, and
mass of ping pong+ mass of water>mass of water

also

it wouldn't change? Weight would only matter if the steel ball sunk, right? so if the balls have the same volume there shouldn't be any change

They displace the same amount of water, but the ping pong ball is connected to the container, meaning it would have more weight than the steel ball, so it would tip slightly in favor of the ping pong side

contributes nothing to mass of right*

FACTS:

1. Kurisu is the best girl

2. Science and religion can correlate and there are many successful religious scientists that existed

not a physic master here but i think it would tip to the left. Steel ball is hung, so it makes no pressure to right side, while ping pong ball is filled with oxygen that weights a bit.


But i may be wrong.

Retard here. I think it tips to the right, since the steel ball is being suspended, it shouldn't affect the weight. The ping pong ball is held by the crane, and since a ping pong ball is less dense than water, the buoyancy force should push it upwards right? Then shouldn't it be going to the right?

The whole scale floats away into the sky.

Engineer here. It tips to the left. Because of Newton's third law, the reaction force of the string that keeps the ping pong ball in place acts downwards on the scale, thus increasing its weight a bit compared to the steel ball, whose string has no impact whatsoever in the scale.

answer here

its both

physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130688/which-way-does-the-scale-tip

>Kurisu is the best girl
This will forever and always be the case.

It is scientifically proven.

We cannot get fully accurate answer
Whenever family get a boy, cycle stops, so there are always more boys than girls. Example by 6 families
1 B
2 G B
3 G G B
4 G B
5 B
6 G B

5 Girls 6 boys

But with 50/50 chance of birth, it may actually be
1 B
2 G G B
3 G G G B
4 G B
5 G B
6 G G B
so 10 girls 6 boys

I was never the best with
theory of probability so i wont do advanced math research, but this isn't fully solvable. We can just assume if this policy is worth the try.

It still exerts buoyant force on the right side you tards
Just because water is a liquid doesn't mean that it isn't effected physically by something submerged in it.

...

dumb

Build a wall
Deport illegals
Ban muslims

Depends. What is the population? How many children do we assume one woman can have? How many children does the average women have currently? What is the boy/girl birth ratio? This question seems kind of... incomplete.

So, Kurisu is a good character to shitpost natural philosophy with.

But which anime character is best suited to post philosophy in general with? (Cute girls preferred.)

Think you can assume the birth rate is 50/50 boys to girls ratio.

Don't think any of the others matter.

Note: I want to make images focused on problems outside of natural philosophy, like ethical or epistemological problems, but Kurisu and Professor Hakase don't quite fit, since Kurisu is merely a physics girl and Hakase just some sort of engineer.

I've had quite a hard time coming up with fitting characters, because philosophy in anime/manga tends to be shit.

>merely physics
>neuroscience major
>research career devoted to neuroscience

Physics is just a passing hobby.

...

Assuming both balls are the same size.

What do you think the words "same volume" mean?

Oh, she's a neuroscience major? The anime made me think of her as some experimental physics major, since we're only shown her teaching physics, and I played the VN only until she first shows up in Okabe's lab.

Left is slightly heavier, but the point of this image is that they are almost exactly the same.

it's nothing

The amount of water in the beaker.

>Did his plan work
I know the answer is no, but I don't know how to explain it.

>a steel ball of the same volume
>same volume refers to the water

But you said "same volume of water, regardless of mass", nowhere did you mention the balls.

I am not the same person.

I was referring to the size of the balls which is stated in the OP to be the same.

That makes more sense then.
Thank you for clarifying.

You should be able to solve this

It doesn't because it doesn't change the expected value.

At first glace, it appears to be helpful because it stops "runs" of the wrong gender. The problem is, each expected birth is still 50/50 boy/girl.

>natural philosophy
My God, just say science.

>ethical and epsitemological
Here are some: Why do we still use Newtonian physics when Einstein's Special Law of Relativity has proven them false?

Why is the scientific method often taught as indictivist? What are the problems with classical inductivism? Is there "a" scientific method to begin with?

What's the ultimate goal of science? Can it give us an accurate portrayal of reality or is it only tool by which we can understand it?

But that's forbidden love

Obligatory.

This can actually be solved if you draw additional lines. Don't believe the lies saying you can't solve it.

>implying neuroscience isn't just applied physics

Do they kiss?

I couldn't even solve it if she let me use trigonometry. I watch Chinese cartoons and am dumb as a box of rocks.

Very stupid questions
>Why do we still use Newtonian physics when Einstein's Special Law of Relativity has proven them false?
Newtonian mechanics isn't false you fucking retard.
>"special law of relativity"
>what are approximations
>what is an unnecessary waste of computational power
Stop fucking posting

it's impossible to solve and trig doesnt work since you dont have any side lengths

...

No. Taking it to its simplest form you will have at least 50% of the families only having boys, and of the remaining 50%, 50% of those will have 1 girl and 1 boy.

Thing is every family will have a God damn boy.

Place a ball in the water. Is its weight reduced? Yes, because it is being pushed up by the water. The force of buoyancy against the steel ball pushes down on the scale with a force equal to the displacement, as all the remaining weight is suspended by the string.

Therefore it tips fedora.

Well at least I feel a bit better about myself.

>My God, just say science.
I don't like that many Anglos refer only to natural philosophy with the term "science". The concept behind the German "Wissenschaften". Latin "scientia" and the Italian "scienzia" are much more befitting for that word, which is why I avoid using the term "science" if I am only referring to natural philosophy.

Monty Hall Problem

Sup Forums science threads are pure torture. I still remember this one idiot trying to argue that lone atoms couldn't be ions.

you're supposed to change. but what anime is this from? I remember seeing it not too long ago.

...

Steel ball pushes the water a little bit. The string takes most of the weight but just a little goes to the cup. so that one is a bit heavier than the ping pong ball cup.

You can try it by just putting your finger in a cup with water in it and checking the weight with and without your finger. It makes small difference.

And yes the same applies to a cup with air in it just a lot less of a difference. Also stop posting this shit.

Won't work.

50% of families will have 1 boy 0 girls.
25% of families will have 1 boy 1 girl.
12.5% of families will have 1 boy 2 girls.
6.25% of families will have 1 boy 3 girls.
Etc.

No. of boys/family: 1
No. of girls/family: 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 + 0.0625 + ... = 1

Should tip to the right.

Think about it - if you were weighed in a swimming pool, you'd weigh significantly less than if you weren't in water. Where do you think that weight goes?

Not quite. The Monty Hall problem has only three doors. This has four so it changes up the probability a little.

So, are you like in Physics II or something? I always thought that physics majors/engineers being dumb was a meme, but I am astounded.

The door you picked originally had a 1/4 chance of being the prize. Now that she's eliminated that one door, picking either C or D should give you a 1/3 chance of getting the prize so your luck should be JUST A BIT better than if you were to stay on door A

I know you can't bring up any counterarguments so why even respond? You've already shown your stupidity to be painfully obvious, why even reply at all and dismiss all doubt?

Maybe you should go there yourself to get educated, it tips to the right.

The steel ball displaces water, hence it does affect the system.

Wrong, the chance changed from 1/4 to 1/2.

I love how Sup Forums thinks arguing semantics is 'science'.

Change, obviously. You're switching from a choice of 1/4 to a 1/3 choice.

That decree is counterproductive. A decree ordering families to have no more children after having a daughter would increase the ratio of girls to boys, because every firstborn girl guarantees no more new boys, while every boy born can potentially be matched by a girl born after him. Short of actually controlling the sex at birth this is the best policy you can enact to get the results he wants.

One of you is a liar

>3 doors left
>chance of getting it right is now 1/2

???

That decree doesn't actually do anything.

Fuck this is pissing me off, does anyone have the answer for this? I remember enough about geometry to know what to do, but I simply cannot come up with the value I need to solve the question.

>I didn't understand the Monty Hall problem, but I learned the answer on youtube.

Impossible to solve, there is no way you can solve this without at least one value from the bottom right triangle

But what if a family just wants to have 1 kid, or 2? or doesn't want to have ~9 girls to make up for the 50% of families that all have 1 boy?

I assume you mean aside from C being 20 degrees, right?

This is one I just couldn't fucking solve without resorting to differentials.
How the fuck are you supposed to find it using only simple geometry? Is it even possible?

...

abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec20.html

Here you go. Space and time are not absolute. Do you think that light is corpuscular? Do you live in the fucking 1800s?

With their lips

...

/sci/ is actually too stupid for this.
Also, this has been tested experimentally to erase all remaining doubt, it's not like you can check it you on youtube or anything.

>Space and time are not absolute.
Didn't say they were you stupid idiot. Newtonian mechanics isn't incompatible with special relativity.
>what are Wick rotations
>doesn't understand that Minkowski space of SR is diffeomorphic to 4-dimensional Euclidean space in Newtonian physics

>Do you think that light is corpuscular
Except that this isn't incorrect either you fucking retard.
>what is the photoelectric effect
>what are photons

Fucking embarrassing.

I didn't even notice that, but it's not helpful anyway.

Also pisses me off that it is so blatantly not-to-scale.

>First triangle has 60 degress and 70 degrees
>The last angle is clearly more than 90 degrees

The fuck is this?

that loli is lying, the top left triangle's interior dimensions should equal up to 180 but the way shes labeled it is clearly wrong. The remaining angle would have to be 50 and that anlge is clearly obtuse.

My autism won't let me solve it with that sort of major issue just glaring at me.

The line should be much further down the left side but it's not like the lines need to be accurate for the math to work out.

The problem is both beakers have water in them. It should be urine.

Wait how can those 2 sides equal 19 and the last side equal 10?

>>what is the photoelectric effect
It is maybe not sufficient proof that light must be quantized, actually. Or so some argue. But maybe that's just pedantry.

Oh thank god. I was doing the same but since it was so off scale i assumed i was doing it wrong

That's literally false though. The wave nature of light cannot explain the photoelectric effect at all.

Yeah.

Too lazy to do actual number crunching but mental math says square root of 532, so like 23.something?
Unless I'm completely retarded and missed something.

That's a range of possible values, though. No clear value has been found.

It's neither 1/2 nor 1/3. The actual chance is 3/8.

If you switch, you have a 1/4 chance of neither door to switch to being correct (0%) and a 3/4 chance of one of those doors to switch to being correct (50%). So the overall chance is 1/4 * 0% + 3/4 * 50% = 3/8.

If you don't switch, the chance of picking the correct door is obviously 1/4.

Why not both?

19^2 + 19^2 = 722

so sqrt(722) which is about 26.87

two girls can't do that!