/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6147336]

Are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.6147346]

Oh lawd. Here we go again.

tl;dr the ping pong ball side raises upward.

[Anonymous No.6147365]

>>6147336
ping pong adds mass to the left side, left side goes down.

[Anonymous No.6147366]

left side goes down
anyone who disagrees needs to take baby physics

[Anonymous No.6147367]

>>6147365
wrong.

The bouyant force is greater than the mass of the ping pong ball, because it floats.

If the buoyant force is greater, then the right side will tip because the steel ball's bouyancy pushes down on the water.

[Anonymous No.6147368]

>>6147365
but ping pong balls float

[Anonymous No.6147370]

Left side goes down. Only way it would make it weight less overall was if it wasn't a ping pong ball but a helium filled ballon, then the whole system was be bouyant in the atmosphere, but if you did it in space, that side would go down again

[Anonymous No.6147372]

This thread again.

Has anyone actually built this experiment yet?

[Anonymous No.6147374]

Put glass of water on scale, stick finger in glass, notice scale doesn't change. Why would doing the same thing with a steel ball make a difference?

[Anonymous No.6147373]

>>6147370
can't tell if trolling.

[Anonymous No.6147376]

depends entirely if the ping pong ball is attached to the scale itself or the bottom of the cup.

[Anonymous No.6147379]

>>6147376
N....no it doesn't, you philistine.

[Anonymous No.6147387]

The bouyant force is internal on the left.

The bouyant force is external on the right.

The bouyant force is greater than the weight of the ping pong ball (because it's floating)

therefore, the scale will tip right, because the water pushes up on the steel ball -- so the steel ball pushes down on the water with force greater than the weight of the ping pong ball.

[Anonymous No.6147388]

>>6147374
REEEEEEEEEEEKT
SO FUCKING REKT
How doing it feel being uneducated?

[Anonymous No.6147389]

Each ball displaces the same amount of water and neither is adding weight, therefore nothing will happen.

[Anonymous No.6147391]

>>6147374
It will change because your hand is bouyant. The water pushes up on your hand, so you'll push down on the water.

[Anonymous No.6147392]

>>6147388
>>6147374
Told status:
Not told []
Fucking Told [x]

[Anonymous No.6147396]

>>6147388
>touching the bottom

Are you seriously this stupid? The point of the OP is that the heavier mass isn't exerting force on the container

[Anonymous No.6147397]

>>6147396
but it IS. The buoyant force!

are you seriously this stupid?

[Carbon No.6147399]

>>6147336
This thread?
Air is inside of the ping pong ball=less density
(see it as a plastic disk and bring water level down)

Now cut the size of the steel ball down a 3 and cut the scring, because bouyancy supports weight.

[Anonymous No.6147400]

>>6147396
If I put a boat in the container, it will push down on the vesel. If i close the boat and push it under the water, it will push down on the vessel.

It doesn't matter what's on the inside air, steel, or wood -- it will push down on the vessel because it wants to float a little bit.

[Carbon No.6147402]

>>6147400
Anon, he's right
>>6147396
A boat's weight doesn't simply disappear
What exactly do you think cancels out gravitational force on a boat in water?

[Anonymous No.6147405]

If something external was holding the ping-pong ball down then that side would be heavier, but the tension on the string it what is holding it down, so only the mass of the water plus the mass of the ping pong ball matter.

The buoyancy force on the iron ball pushes down on the bottom of the container. Without tension cancelling it out, the met downwards force is higher on the right hand side of the scale.

[Anonymous No.6147406]

>>6147405
>If something external was holding the ping-pong ball down then that side would be heavier
As heavy.

[Carbon No.6147465]

>>6147336
Does a teabag make a cup heavier when dipped into it?
Does ice make a cup heavier?
Why? Bouyancy?
How does the string affect bouyancy on the teabag? Does it fall in normally or more slowly? Why?

I'm just trying to deter trolls at this point.

[Anonymous No.6147471]

>>6147465
Equal and opposite forces dawg.
Buoyancy pushes down on the container but the string pulls up just as hard.

[Anonymous No.6147478]

>>6147365
This and only this.

[Anonymous No.6147490]

To my opinion, the steel ball adds no weight as it is already held by another string, and the pingpong does nothing to pull upwards the container

If both sides have the same amount of water, and the balls are the same size, the scale would keep still

[Anonymous No.6147498]

>>6147490
Close, but this does not consider the fact the ping pong ball (and string) add to the weight of the left one. Therefore the left will be slightly heavier.

[Anonymous No.6147502]

>>6147498
No, they dont put pression on the bottom of the container

[Anonymous No.6147507]

whales cant survive on land because they crush themselves to death.

the same thing applies to the steel ball. the water takes some of the weight off the string, transferring it to the scale.

[Anonymous No.6147510]

>>6147502
It has nothing to do with internal forces, if both beakers/jars weigh exactly the same and have the exact same amount of water in them, then one has a ping pong ball with string in it and the other doesn't, than the side with the ping pong ball will be heavier

[Anonymous No.6147511]

>>6147507
A whale in the ocean has the same mass as a whale on land, in the same way jumping in the pool doesn't reduce your mass to 0kg.

And no, the water is taking none of the load of the steel ball

[Anonymous No.6147543]

>>6147367
you are a fucking moron
the pingpong ball doesnt have negative mass
all that matters is the mass of the system, nobody gives a fuck about what happens inside

[Anonymous No.6147548]

>>6147387
the water also pushes down on the ball and ball pushes up on the water, retard

[Anonymous No.6147550]

>>6147388
hand =/= steel ball
gud 1 jeniuz

[Anonymous No.6147563]

>>6147550
The steel ball has buoyancy (not enough to make it float obviously) which causes more pressure on the bottom of the container. The bouyancy of the ping pong ball is cancelled out by the string.

It is the bouyancy force of the fluid displaced by the metal ball vs the mass of the string and ping pong ball.

[Anonymous No.6147569]

[Anonymous No.6147690]

The buoyancy wouldn't do anything. It's like having that magnet that pulls the car along in troll pictures

[Anonymous No.6147707]

>>6147397
>>6147400

>TOUCHING THE BOTTOM

Buoyant force is a thing, the point is that guy's photo didnt prove shit because he was pushing down on the scale itself like a retard.

[Carbon No.6147855]

>>6147471
so if you had a lever (say the kind they use at docks and lifeboats)
Do you think the water would end up supporting the weight of the boat with the lever still attached or the lever?
Or are you one of the aforementioned trolls

[Anonymous No.6147879]

>>6147855
Could you rephrase that? I can only speak english.

[Anonymous No.6147897]

the amount of water is the same on either side, so subtract it

then we are left with a pingpong ball on a string on the left, and a suspended steel ball on the right

since only the ping pong ball exerts extra mass on the scales, it will tip in favour of the ping pong ball

tl;dr: AIR IS ALSO A LIQUID

[Anonymous No.6147907]

>>6147690

No it isn't, the ping pong ball exerts an upwards force on the string which partially negates the force of gravity of the cup working on the left-side of the scale.

Imagine reaching into the glass and pulling the ping pong ball up, if you pull hard enough you'd lift the class and the scale would tip over to the right.

[Anonymous No.6147920]

So, if I had a helium balloon (representing the ping pong ball) in a closed container filled with air (representing the water), and the balloon was tied to the bottom of the container, and the whole container was in air, you are telling me that that thing could fly? OH MY GOD - LETS FLY TO THE MOON BY PULLING OUR HAIR UP.

[Anonymous No.6147924]

>>6147907
Though experiment time: create a huge, continent-sized raft floating on the ocean, now attach it to the bottom of the ocean with a cable that's just too short (causing the whole raft to be a few feet under the surface)

according to your principle, the raft is going to pull the earth away from its place.

Let's try another one: imagine a very thin and light cup, fill it with water, add the ball with the string. Is the cup going to float in the air?

[Anonymous No.6147925]

NIGGERS

[Anonymous No.6147932]

>>6147920

Yes, you fucking retard. Hint: There's no difference between a container filled with helium and a container filled with helium inside another container.

[Anonymous No.6147937]

>>6147907
>No it isn't, the ping pong ball exerts an upwards force on the string which partially negates the force of gravity

[Anonymous No.6147940]

>>6147924
>Let's try another one: imagine a very thin and light cup, fill it with water, add the ball with the string. Is the cup going to float in the air?
no because water is heavy.
fill the cup with air and have the ball with heilum however..... (lets say ball = balloon)

[Anonymous No.6147948]

>>6147940
if you use air then the cup must be in a vacuum, and then it will still fall to the ground.

[Anonymous No.6147945]

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/kitchenscience/exp/weighing-buoyancy/

[Anonymous No.6147949]

>>6147940
fine, fill the cup with nothing (aka air) and make the ping-pong ball vacuum inside. same principles apply: will the cup float into outer space?

[Anonymous No.6147950]

>>6147945
thats because fingers are bouyant.

steel ball is not


:^)

[Anonymous No.6147966]

>>6147336
the tension on the string attached to the pingpong ball only has to cancel out the force not already cancelled by gravity

[Anonymous No.6147974]

>>6147336
equilibrium

[Anonymous No.6147982]

Here is how you figure out what happens. The ping pong ball is completely internal to the system on the left so it is a red herring meant to confuse you. Reset the system so you have two cups with no spheres in either one. The water level in each cup will be equal and the scale will be equal.

Now, lower the steel ball into the right one. As you do this the water column height rises. The pressure on the bottom of a water column depends only on the height of the column, not the shape. As the pressure increases the cup on the right exerts more force on the scale and tips the right side down.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pflu.html

[Anonymous No.6147986]

>>6147950
It's external to the system, the density is irrelevant. Show a relevant calculation where the density of the displacing object affects the force in the video. You can't because it is displacing geometry that matters, no the mass or density.

[Anonymous No.6147995]

>>6147982
That's only related pressure on the glass though. Mass does not increase as pressure increases. The pressure on the glass would increase tho

[Anonymous No.6148027]

>>6147995
The pressure is how the mass of liquid is transmitting its weight to the glass. You integrate the pressure over the entire surface of the beaker. The pressure on the walls integrates to zero because it is symmetric. The pressure on the bottom does not, this is the force felt by the scale, it is what the scale measures.

[Anonymous No.6148077]

>>6147336
if buoyancy of steel ball > weight of ball + tether, it TIPS RIGHT
if buoyancy of steel ball < weight of ball + tether, it TIPS LEFT

buoyancy would increase with the density of the liquid
assuming the liquid is water, the buoyancy of the ball is probably greater than the weight of the ball + tether, so it should tip right.

[Anonymous No.6148229]

>>6147511
lol how can you be this fucking retarded?
How can you make claims with such conviction, and still be wrong. Which mean, you don't even consider the possibility that you're wrong. Wow, fuck people.

[Anonymous No.6148237]

What the hell do you people think bouyant force is? It doesn't add weight to the fucking water, it displaces the water's volume.

[Anonymous No.6148240]

>>6147569
This is the only correct answer.

The sum of forces on the right is greater than on the left.
LEFT: The string cancels the effect of the buoyant force on the left, so only the mass pushes down.
RIGHT: the water doesn't feel the ball's mass, but it does feel its buoyancy. This force is greater than the mass, because the pingpong ball is floating.

Therefore, it tips to the right.
someone prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.6148255]

>>6148237
If the water pushes up, then the water feels a force downward.

Equal and opposite, retard.

[Anonymous No.6148254]

Here's the solution. Save the fucking image and repost as needed. I'm sick of this shit.

Fucking faggot armchair adolescent physicists bickering about shit they don't understand without backup up their shit with calculations. All of you who do this are cancerous sciolists.

[Anonymous No.6148260]

>>6148255
But it doesn't add to the weight of the water, and pressure is a scalar, so direction doesn't even matter.

[Anonymous No.6148266]

>>6148254
Why did you even need to do conservation of energy?

A simple free body diagram would solve this issue.

[Anonymous No.6148267]

>>6148260
> pressure is scalar
hoy boy

[Anonymous No.6148272]

>>6148260
>and pressure is a scalar, so direction doesn't even matter

please be trolling

pressure is a scalar
pressure times surface area times surface normal (a vector) is a force, which is a vector, you fucking troll

[Anonymous No.6148273]

>>6148260
The pressure varies with height, this is why the buoyant force exists, and you /can/ model it as a force on the center of volume.

You must therefore conclude that there is a force downward on the water. If you place a submarine in a bowl of water, you feel its mass only because it happens to be equal to the buoyant force.

The vessel only sees the buoyant force at any given time, when a floating object is stationary, that's equal to the mass.

[Anonymous No.6148274]

>>6148267
Please elaborate on a situation where pressure has a defined direction.

Also, please don't confuse force (a vector) with pressure.

[Anonymous No.6148281]

>>6148274
The force due to a pressure is a vector which is in the direction of the normal of the surface.

Sure, pressures are scalars, but the buoyant force is a vector -- and in either case it doesn't matter..

The steel ball feels a force upward, so the water feels a force downward. If you don't get this, then you failed to understand day 3 of your first physics class.

[Anonymous No.6148285]

>>6148254
Wow, all that fucking work for the wrong solution. Good job.

[Anonymous No.6148291]

>>6148266
Conservation of energy is the source of the forces and it's easier to understand here. Look at all the idiots arguing about forces. Buoyancy is clearly misunderstood. Some cunt will keep bitching about the tension in the string and other bullshit because he can't understand the origin of the forces, what a closed system is, etc.

Thinking in terms of energy is usually easier (which is also why Lagrangian/Hamiltonian physics are superior to Newtonian physics). You would have to be a special kind of stupid to not understand this simple argument.

[Anonymous No.6148293]

>>6148272
>pressure times surface area times surface normal (a vector) is a force, which is a vector, you fucking troll
How does this mean pressure isn't a scalar? The steel ball increases the pressure of the water, yes, but not the weight of the water. The weight of the steel ball is equal and opposite to the tension of the string holding it up.

>>6148273
>The pressure varies with height
Correct, but that doesn't mean it's a vector. It's still undefined in any direction, it just happens to be a function of height.

>>6148273
>You must therefore conclude that there is a force downward on the water. If you place a submarine in a bowl of water, you feel its mass only because it happens to be equal to the buoyant force.
That's from the weight of the water, not the pressure. The submarine floats because the bouyancy force, but the "weight" added to the water is because of gravity, not because of bouyancy.

[Anonymous No.6148297]

>>6148285
>hurr durr the math doesn't support my conclusion, so the math must be wrong

show me what's wrong with the calculations

protip: you can't

suck it, you faggot troll

[Anonymous No.6148301]

>>6148291
Fair enough. When I first learned this back in high school my teacher always stressed that bouyancy was difficult to understand. I thought it was pretty obvious, but I guess I understand what he means now.

[Anonymous No.6148305]

>>6148293
>The submarine floats because the bouyancy force, but the "weight" added to the water is because of gravity, not because of bouyancy.
Correct, and the force downward in the case of the steel ball is because of gravity, too.

1) the steel ball weighs 2 newtons
2) the bouyant force is equal to 1 newton
3) the string therefore feels only 1 newton because the water is supporting the rest of the weight from gravity.

[Anonymous No.6148308]

>>6148281
>The steel ball feels a force upward
Correct, from the tension in the string. The weight of the steel ball is completely negated by this tension. Because the density of steel is greater than the water.

But I guess I see your confusion, you don't understand bouyancy/

[Anonymous No.6148312]

>>6148297
I did this: >>6147388
I didn't press on the bottom.
Also, this: >>6147945

Damn, only I can see your position and where you truly stand. While you are delusional about your own position. It's kinda great, but sad at the same time.
You think you know higher math and it gives you better solution, and yet, you don't understand it well enough because you came up with the wrong answer.
The math isn't theoretically wrong, it's your understand and application that is.

Good day, you faggot.
Engineer signing off.

[Anonymous No.6148315]

>>6148308
Quit trolling. it's from both the string and the buoyant force on the steel ball.

[Anonymous No.6148321]

>>6148293
>How does this mean pressure isn't a scalar? The steel ball increases the pressure of the water, yes, but not the weight of the water. The weight of the steel ball is equal and opposite to the tension of the string holding it up.

If the pressure at the bottom of the beaker increases, then the force exerted on the bottom of the beaker in the downward direction increases. This contributes to the weight of the beaker. Again, pressure times the surface area at the bottom times the surface normal (straight down) is a force. Any pressurized fluid will exert a force against the walls of its container, in a direction perpendicular to the wall at the point at which it acts.

This should be intuitive. Pressure in an open container is the way in which the gravitational force is conveyed to the container.

[Anonymous No.6148322]

>>6148308
The fact that it's more dense than water doesn't mean the buoyant force disapears -- it means that the buoyant force isn't enough to overcome gravity.

Buoyant forces exist in everything whether it sinks or floats and is always in the direction opposite of gravity.

[Anonymous No.6148333]

>>6148297
>>6148312
Wow, how does it feel getting so fucking told?

[Anonymous No.6148340]

>>6148312
I think you've made a mistake. You two are agreeing with eachother. He said the left side will raise, the right side is "Heavier"

I'm so confused.

[Anonymous No.6148341]

>>6148315
>>6148321
>>6148322
>>6148281
>>6148305
>>6148255

Holy shit I'm retarded. I'm so sorry everyone. Yes, part of the weight of the steel is taken by the bouyancy of the water, this portion of the weight is greater than the the weight of the ping pong.

I'm so sorry, I wasn't trolling, I just had a brain fart. Please forgive me

I fully support this solution as correct: >>6148254

[Anonymous No.6148348]

>>6148341
Holy shit. someone on the internet admitting fault.

Also, <3

[Anonymous No.6148350]

>>6148340
Oh shit, lol. For some reason I read it as "The right side will move up"
nvm brah

[Anonymous No.6148351]

>>6148312
>I did this: >>6147388

Huh? Did you misread my post or something? That image supports the math. The water displayed by the steel ball increases the pressure at the bottom of the container. That translates to a force. When the right side with the steel ball moves down, the steel ball moves up, relative to the water in the container. The pressure at the bottom therefore decreases (the water fills the volume where the steel ball previously was, which is at a lower level and thus lower in gravitational potential energy).

The side with the steel ball will move down. Wtf are you arguing about? Did you not understand the result of your own fucking image?

Fucking engineer. Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous No.6148356]

>>6148348
I just want troll threads on /sci/ to end, and I unknowingly contributed to trolling. I can't let that slide.

Again, I'm sorry everyone, but I only entered >>6148237 here, so everyone before that is either just as dumb as I was or trolling.

[Anonymous No.6148365]

>>6148350
ah, thank fuck

We really need to do something about the hostility of this board. Sorry about being a dick.

[Anonymous No.6148367]

Holy shit, look at sci kissing and making up.

[Anonymous No.6148375]

>>6148365
<3

[Anonymous No.6148378]

>>6148375
>>6148367
>>6148365
>>6148356
>>6148351
>>6148350
>>6148348
Haha, someone archive this.

[Anonymous No.6148379]

>>6148351
>Fucking engineer. Why am I not surprised?
Not him, but I think you need to apologize, that was uncalled for.

I know that we got a bit heated her, but in the end we all came to the same answer. Besides, we like engineers.

The true enemy is business majors, never forget it.

[Anonymous No.6148385]

>>6148254
Jesus Christ. You didn't need to make it that complicated. Just draw a free body diagram and you'll see that both plates have an equal weight of water and buoyancy force acting downward, but the left plate has a tension acting upward.

Does /sci/ know how to draw a FBD?

[Anonymous No.6148389]

>>6148378
We should archive this thread, and then update >>6148254 this picture to include the correct answer in BOLD HUGE FONT and a link to the archive showing that /sci/ agrees.

[Anonymous No.6148391]

>>6148379
Naw, he doesn't need to apologize. I'm >>6148312 and I was at fault due to my misreading. I was a bit harsh too. It's the fucking internet, come on!

[Anonymous No.6148392]

>>6148385
He intentionally went with energy conservation because it's easy to screw up and contest FBD's

[Anonymous No.6148394]

>>6148392
Except, it isn't screwed up and agrees with correct FBDs

[Anonymous No.6148397]

>>6148385
Hi, please read the thread. Free body diagrams are actually going to make it slightly more complicated because people (including myself) apparently don't understand bouyancy very well.

His solution is correct, that's all that matters.

>>6148391
Dawwwwwwwwwwwww, fuck this thread is making me so happy.

[Anonymous No.6148398]

>>6148394
Yea, but some people were contesting the force due to buoyancy on the right sided vessel. A FBD might not have convinced them.

[Anonymous No.6148400]

>>6148392
Really? I find FBD's really simple and hard to screw up, but maybe that's because I'm an engineering student.

[Anonymous No.6148401]

>>6148400
ENGINEER STRONG

[Anonymous No.6148405]

>>6148400
The problem is that people don't understand bouyancy very well, that's why this problem seems very difficult, when it is really a simple application of mechanics.

[Anonymous No.6148415]

>>6148272
>>6148267
You're wrong.

>>6148274
You're right. Pressure is a scalar. Force exerted on a surface due to pressure is a vector, but that's a force, not a pressure.

Just to make sure I'm not going batshit insane, I checked Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure#Scalar_nature

[Anonymous No.6148419]

>>6148415
Yeah but the pressure doesn't matter, the force does. I'm the guy who said pressure was a scalar, but that has nothing to do with the problem, the problem is with force, which does have a direction.

[Anonymous No.6148423]

>>6148405
Well, that makes sense. But can we at least agree that both objects have the same buoyancy force and the buoyancy forces act downward on the bottom plates? This might be the part that causes some confusion, but the easiest way to explain this is with Newton's third law. If we can agree on that, then we can agree on the FBD I suggested.

[Anonymous No.6148432]

>>6148379
already did before you posted
see >>6148365

Here's the solution again without the cropped line and with the solution in bold.

[Anonymous No.6148442]

>>6148423
The problem is that as the right side moves, the relative height of the steel wall will change. The change in height will result in a change in buoyancy as the buoyancy depends on the integral of the pressure over the surface of the ball. It's easier to think in terms of energy.

Both lead to the same solution but it's more intuitive for most people to reason about potential energy in this case. The system will move in the direction that reduces the height of the most mass.

[Anonymous No.6148446]

>>6148432
>pushing a car from the inside makes it move

[Anonymous No.6148452]

>>6148442
>steel wall
meant ball

[Anonymous No.6148464]

>>6148446
It does it your foot is outside the car.

[Anonymous No.6148467]

>>6148446
>misunderstanding the solution makes it wrong
>implying gravitational force is "pushing from the inside"

What part is unclear. Maybe I can explain it to you.

[Anonymous No.6148482]

>>6148464
Please don't. We know we have the right answer, lets try and explain it to him.

[Anonymous No.6148507]

>>6148442
>The change in height will result in a change in buoyancy
That's where our misunderstanding is. According to Archimedes' Principle, the buoyant force is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced, and does not depend on depth. It's equal to (the density of the fluid)*(the volume displaced)*(gravitational acceleration constant). Notice the depth of the object is not included in this equation.

[Anonymous No.6148523]

>>6148507
You're right.

The force then acts over a distance as the scale moves, which contributes to the change in energy.

I still think it's easier to think in terms of potential energy here.

[Anonymous No.6148541]

>>6148523
To each his own, I guess. Me, I'm just a simple-minded engineer. I like to draw pictures and sniff sharpies. I find drawing a few arrows with some letters beside them to be simple, but I guess we just think differently.

[Anonymous No.6148551]

>>6147336
There is more water in the right cup than in the left because there is more string on the left displacing more water.

[Anonymous No.6148574]

>>6148551
Okay fine, but why did you post that stupid ass picture?

[Anonymous No.6148576]

>>6148574
r-rude

[Anonymous No.6148577]

>>6147336
when you put a ball hanging in a rope into water, the tension on the rope will be less (exactly the weight of the water it pushes away) making the downward force on the right greater than a the other one with the ping pong ball
the fact that not every person on /sci/ knows this bothers me, this is elementary school physics. Archimedes realized this like 250BC

[Anonymous No.6148581]

>>6148574
>>6148576
Anyway the scale would tip to the right because there isn't an equal amount of water being displaced.

[Anonymous No.6148580]

>>6147336
First

[Anonymous No.6148583]

left goes down, you can't fucking lift yourself up by your heels

[Anonymous No.6148584]

you guys are so retarded I swear tonight I am doing this so I can put a rest to it once and for all

[Anonymous No.6148586]

>>6147336
Temperature analysis teaches us that white is the hottest heat, therefore, in time, the container on the left will have it's water evaporated. Allowing it to rise, and the left side to lower.

[Anonymous No.6148587]

>>6148584
Post pics.

[Anonymous No.6148592]

>>6148577
Don't be so quick to judge. Your explanation isn't right either. The right side has the same downward force as the left (weight of the water + buoyant force of the balls); however, the left side has an added force of tension in the upward direction.

[Anonymous No.6148593]

>>6148583
see
>>6148432
>Therefor right side will move down.
Hue.
Just found the thread now, all these posts are top kek. Srs, half of you should either lurk more or ge toff this board.

[Anonymous No.6148601]

>>6148587
In around 8 hours I'll take a beaker of water, weight it on my gram scale. I'll then tape something lighter then water to the bottom. Finally I'll fill that same something with quarters and do it once more, I'll take pictures of all of it with the readings. Hopefully the experimental evidence will put it to rest for the remainder of eternity.

[Anonymous No.6148603]

>>6148592
and how does that make my explanation incorrect?

[Anonymous No.6148606]

>>6148603
Because the mass of the ping pong ball isn't equal to the bouyancy force from the steel ball. We did the math, and the resultant bouyancy force from the steel ball is greater than the mass of the ping pong ball. >>6148432

[Anonymous No.6148612]

>>6148592
>Because the mass of the ping pong ball isn't equal to the bouyancy force from the steel ball
where did I say that it wasn't? all I said was the right side is heavier. and added a picture saying that if there was no ping pong ball the left an right were equal. are you retarded?
also
>We did the math
>We
way to take credit for something some random guy you don't even know did

[Anonymous No.6148620]

>>6148612
>all I said was the right side is heavier. and added a picture saying that if there was no ping pong ball the left an right were equal
But that's not correct. The right side would still be heavier without the ping pong ball. The math shows that in any situation the right side will move down, regardless of the density of the steel ball.

>>6148612
>way to take credit for something some random guy you don't even know did
I'm talking collectively as /sci/. Read this thread, almost everyone in here came to an agreement about the solution and how to derive it.

[Anonymous No.6148618]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.6148638]

>>6148620
your stupidity is so great that I'm literally starting to sweat. I think you are so stupid that not even Archimedes himself could convince you that you're wrong. I'm out

[Anonymous No.6148657]

It will tip to the left.

God damn, it is almost the same question as "there are parrots in a driving van, when the van breaks the parrots start flying. Has the mass of the Van changed when the parrots started to fly?"

Answer, no.

The same goes for her. Does not matter if it floats, the left side will still gain more massa and the scale will tip to the left.

[Anonymous No.6148665]

>>6148657
This is probably going to go over your head, but the scale doesn't measure mass, it measures weight.

[Anonymous No.6148691]

>>6148657
Why would the left side gain more mass? assuming the rope and pingpong ball is the density of water then the displacement is equal on both sides.

[Anonymous No.6148705]

>>6147388
you are clearly pressing against the bottom

[Anonymous No.6148709]

the ping pong ball is pulling the string taut so the upwards force is definitely stronger than the downwards force

[Anonymous No.6148711]

lol someone asked /g/

[Anonymous No.6148720]

>>6148711
Wow, those responses are actually more thought out than the ones on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6148723]

>>6148705
No I'm not.

[Anonymous No.6148725]

>>6148720
sadly, yes

[Anonymous No.6148730]

>>6148705
>Not understanding buoyancy
>2000+13AD
I shit fucking dig

[Anonymous No.6148737]

Water's are different, one has cum in it

[Anonymous No.6148743]

>>6147336
Has anybody asked if the steel ball is hollow?

[Anonymous No.6148755]

>>6148743
It doesn't matter. It is known that the steel ball tends to sink and the string is holding it up, so it will remain fully submerged (at least until the scale tips too much). Only the volume of the ball affects the buoyant force.

[Anonymous No.6148766]

>>6148743
if you knew more than grade school physics you would know that it doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.6148777]

>>6147707
no he wasnt
look closer

another way too think about it: the water is higher but the area of the bottom stays the same, so pressure and force on the scale must increase.

[Anonymous No.6148783]

>>6148755
This thread is really discouraging. How many people on a /sci/ board don't understand buoyancy.

It's not that they oversimplify the problem and make a mistake, but they hold their position firmly. They think that the weight of the steel ball defaults to being supported by the string exclusively.

Like, at this point it is no longer about how much high school physics you know, it's that you have preconceived notions that you are too stubborn to reevaluate. Isn't that fatal for a /Sci/entist?

I guess you just have too much faith in what you think you already understand.
I guess it's a combination of that and not wanting to be wrong.
I bet you would fabricate data too.

[Anonymous No.6148796]

>>6148755
I just thought if the ball was hollow enough, the weight of the water displaced would be greater than the weight of the ball and there would be a net upward force. But >>6148755 pointed out that from the picture you can tell that isn't the case.

[Anonymous No.6148806]

>>6148783
i'm a math person who was struggling to understand the intuition of why the steel ball side would be heavier, and thinking about how the steel ball, once immersed in the water, makes less of the weight be supported by the string was really helpful. thanks for that.

[Anonymous No.6148809]

>>6148783
This is a troll thread

[Anonymous No.6148811]

Obviously we are viewing the system in its equilibrium state.

Wait, what was the question?

[Anonymous No.6148816]

>>6148783
agreed, reading this thread is making me literally sweat and cringe. the amount of people in this thread that are taking a firm stance against almost grade school physics makes me think that this board is mostly made up of kids.

[Anonymous No.6148835]

>>6148806
No problem, engineers are always here to help. :^)

[Anonymous No.6148903]

>>6148620
Actually, that is correct. Look at the posted solution. If the ping-pong ball is removed, the scale is balanced.

>>6148657
You don't understand gravitational potential energy. Go read the solution. If you don't agree, state what you think is wrong with it. (hint: you can't, because it's correct)

You have two choices. Either realize that you do not understand the physics involved and make an effort to learn something, or keep pretending that the laws of physics will change if you put your fingers in your ears and scream loudly enough.

[Anonymous No.6148927]

>>6148583
You can't push yourself down by your heels either, but neither of those is what is going on. The force on the bottom of the left container is the net force that results from the pressure over the bottom surface MINUS the forced due to the tension in the string.

This is the same thing as saying that the weight of the container is the weight of the water plus the weight of the ping-pong ball. The pressure at the bottom only depends on the height of the water. If the water is filled to the same height without the ball, then the pressure is the same. But obviously the water with the ball will weigh less (mass of water > mass of ball). So, same pressure, but less force. The difference in the force is due to the tension of the string, which is in the opposite direction and thus subtractive.

Solutions have been posted both for energy calculations and for force calculations. The right side goes down. Stop being a troll and work through the math.

[Anonymous No.6148936]

>>6147543

what you don't know is that the pingpong ball is made of antimaterial god particles (higgs lepton look it up faget)

[Anonymous No.6148946]

>>6148254

><span class="math">gravitational[/spoiler] <span class="math">energy[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.6148951]

>>6148783
>They think that the weight of the steel ball defaults to being supported by the string exclusively
That's not what I was saying; obviously, there's a buoyant force acting up on it. When I said the string is holding it up, I meant the string was keeping the ball from sinking to the bottom.

[Anonymous No.6148961]

>>6148903
If the ping pong ball were removed, the scale would not be balanced. It would be balanced if the string were removed and the ping pong ball somehow remained fully submerged in the water.

[Carbon No.6148973]

>>6147879
If you drop a boat into water, will the water support the weight or would the line attached to the boat support the weight...

[Anonymous No.6148978]

>>6147569
This is about how I would explain it, but I wouldn't include the mass of the ball or string or the buoyant force twice. Instead I would just put a tension force in the upward direction, which equals (buoyant force - weight of ping pong ball).

I'm under the impression that the weight of the ping pong ball does not act on the bottom of the container, though it does affect the tension in the spring. Am I wrong here?

[Anonymous No.6148990]

>>6148903
>Actually, that is correct. Look at the posted solution. If the ping-pong ball is removed, the scale is balanced.
That's only assuming that the volume displaced by the ping pong ball is filled with water.

You can't just take the ping pong ball out and have the scales balance.

[Anonymous No.6148991]

>>6148946
>gravitational energy
gravitational potential energy

that extra word makes a difference

>>6148961
see >>6148432

Maybe we're just misunderstanding each other. If the ball were removed and replaced with water so that the height of the water remains the same, then it would be balanced.

If the ball were removed and the height of the water decreased then it would not be balanced (the right side would go down even faster).

[Anonymous No.6149007]

>>6148991
In that case, it was just a misunderstanding. I didn't get the implication that the water volume would be the same as if the ball were in it.

[Anonymous No.6149013]

>>6148978
>I'm under the impression that the weight of the ping pong ball does not act on the bottom of the container, though it does affect the tension in the spring. Am I wrong here?

Yes, you're wrong.

The ping-pong ball has mass and thus weight. Somehow that is transferred to the scale. The point of confusion in this thread is how.

If the ping-pong wall were replaced with water, then the force on the bottom of the container would be the mass of the water times gravity. This is transferred to the container via the pressure at the bottom. The pressure depends on the height of the water. The pressure times the surface area gives the magnitude of the force. That is equal to the mass times g. It's the same thing.

When you replace a sphere of water with a ping-pong ball of the same size, you're removing some mass and replacing it with other mass. The change in the force on the bottom will be plus the weight of the ball, minus the weight of the water removed.

The key is understanding how that change in force is transferred. The height of the water stays the same, so the pressure and thus the force on the bottom due to pressure is unchanged. The force is transferred via the tension in the string, which is equal to the buoyancy force minus the weight of the ball. This is exactly the change in the force of mentioned above.

Buoyancy is due to weight.

[Anonymous No.6149018]

>>6149013
If you replaced the ping pong with water then then the scale would be balanced.

[Anonymous No.6149031]

>>6149013
So, you're saying the weight is transferred via the tension in the string?

>which is equal to the buoyancy force minus the weight of the ball
That's exactly what I said. What I was saying is I think the weight of the ball is not acting DIRECTLY on the bottom of the container (though it does affect the total force on the bottom because it affects the tension in the string).

>Buoyancy is due to weight.
You do mean the weight of the water displaced by the ball, right?

[Anonymous No.6149126]

>>6149031
Here, expanded solution

[Anonymous No.6149131]

>>6149126
minus at least one typo

[Anonymous No.6149184]

>>6148254

>thinking LaTeX makes your solution correct.

top lel.

[Anonymous No.6149206]

>>6149126
A 'yes' would have sufficed, but good job getting it all down in an image.

[Anonymous No.6149353]

>>6149184
Hi. You seem to be new and thus unaware of how trolling works here. The goal is to get someone to engage you in an argument in which you are clearly wrong and you know it. You can then giggle and guffaw at how clever you are as someone wastes their time trying to correct you, even though you already know that you are wrong (haha, right?).

The problem with your last attempt is that it is too obvious that you are trolling. The name of the game is subtlety. You should make a statement that is plausible and hard to refute. I suggest that you lurk more and observe more experienced trolls before making a second attempt.

Of course, I don't want you to be discouraged from wasting your prime years trolling on an anonymous image board, so let me play along, for practice.

>The physics make the solution correct. Prove me wrong, faggot.

Is that about right?

Btw, "top lel" is outdated. You should be using "top kek", or maybe "shiggy", but that's on it's way out too.

Gold star for trying. Look at this long answer you got. The day has not been wasted. Keep it up and I'll see you back here tomorrow.

[Archie Medes No.6149373]

Still baffled by buoyancy? Go take a bath.

[Anonymous No.6149379]

I'm surprised so many people are trying to troll by saying the ping pong floating makes the jar heavier. No one's stupid enough to believe you.

[Anonymous No.6149382]

>>6149379
*lighter

[Anonymous No.6149415]

>>6149379
>>6149382
It doesn't. The difference between the weight of the displaced water and the ping-pong ball does.

If you're not trolling, explain what you think is wrong with >>6149131.

[Carbon No.6149474]

>>6147336
Can we please stop having this thread OP

wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
In science, buoyancy /ˈbɔJ.ənsi/ is an upward force exerted by a fluid that opposes the weight of an immersed object. In a column of fluid, pressure increases with depth as a result of the weight of the overlying fluid. Thus a column of fluid, or an object submerged in the fluid, experiences greater pressure at the bottom of the column than at the top. This difference in pressure results in a net force that tends to accelerate an object upwards. The magnitude of that force is proportional to the difference in the pressure between the top and the bottom of the column, and (as explained by Archimedes' principle) is also equivalent to the weight of the fluid that would otherwise occupy the column, i.e. the displaced fluid. For this reason, an object whose density is greater than that of the fluid in which it is submerged tends to sink. If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. This can occur only in a reference frame which either has a gravitational field or is accelerating due to a force other than gravity defining a "downward" direction (that is, a non-inertial reference frame). In a situation of fluid statics, the net upward buoyancy force is equal to the magnitude of the weight of fluid displaced by the body.[1]

[Anonymous No.6149476]

Let me understand this problem completely, assuming an idealized model:

Both sides of the scale contain containers of water which weigh the same.
The container on our left also contains a ping-pong ball and a string. This increases the relative weight of this container.
The container on our right contains a steel ball suspended from above the scale by a string.
The water-column below the steel ball pushes up on it as well however. This increases the relative weight of this container.
However the water-column above the steel ball pushes down on it as well. This decreases the relative weight of this container by an amount that cancels out the amount by the statement directly above.

[Anonymous No.6149490]

OK I don't know shit about physics. Why is so non-intuitive?

If you had only the left side by itself, it wouldn't start magically floating into space.

[Anonymous No.6149533]

>>6149474
> /sci/
> not troll physics
wutttttttttttttt

[Anonymous No.6149578]

>>6149476
>However the water-column above the steel ball pushes down on it as well. This decreases the relative weight of this container by an amount that cancels out the amount by the statement directly above.

Nope. See >>6149131


>>6149474
Save >>6149131, repost as necessary. It's all there.

[Anonymous No.6149586]

>>6149474
What's wrong with it is that buoyancy does not create an upwards force on the platform. I mean do you think that if you had a guy pulling a string attached to the bottom of the jar instead of a floating ping pong ball that it would cause the platform to go up? It's common sense. The balls have the same volume so they have the same buoyancy, but that's irrelevant. Buoyancy doesn't do shit and should be ignored.

[Anonymous No.6149590]

>>6149586
On the left side yeah. On the right side buoyancy is what makes this whole problem possible.

[Anonymous No.6149592]

>>6149490

don't worry this video made by British scientists should make it a little more intuitive for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfQXv2bOwmE

[Anonymous No.6149612]

>>6149592
This is so confusing.
How am I going to finish my engineering degree?

[Anonymous No.6149620]

>>6149592
fuck you asshole.

Fine. What is a good introductory physics textbook?

[Anonymous No.6149623]

>>6147346
just drew a free body diagram and I think this dude is right.
On the left side you have an extra force of tension from the string. The force of tension from the string on the right side isn't being weighed by the scale.

[Anonymous No.6149626]

>>6149590
Oh shit, now I get it. I feel dumb.

[Anonymous No.6149643]

What happens if the ping pong ball was neutrally buoyant like if the casing were made out of depleted uranium instead of plastic? Would it stay even then?

[Anonymous No.6149652]

>>6149643
>What happens if the ping pong ball was neutrally buoyant
see >>6149131

[Anonymous No.6149653]

>>6149643
Yes.

[Anonymous No.6149683]

>>6147346
Wrong

>>6147365
Right

[Carbon No.6149833]

.
>The balls have the same volume so they have the same buoyancy, but that's irrelevant.
Do you understand density?

>Buoyancy doesn't do shit and should be ignored.
Very wrong my friend, buoyancy is what is making this problem so faggy.
See>>6149131
(saved btw, thanks bro!)

[Anonymous No.6149834]

>>6149683
Wrong

How do you think buoyancy works?
There is a downwards force on the steel ball container opposite to the buoyancy experienced by the steel ball.

[Anonymous No.6149847]

>>6149131
use \left( and \right)
around the fractions to get the parentheses to auto-size
since I already started
\mathrm{d} for differential d
except negative $h$ because the right side
force diagram: bouyancy instead of buoyancy

[Anonymous No.6149855]

>>6149847
I got the force diagram from >>6147569. I don't feel like dicking around with gimp right now. If you fix provide a new force digram I'll include it.

I'm making the other changes now.

[Anonymous No.6149876]

>>6149855
Sorry bud, I was tired as heck when I made that (The diagram, not the infographic)

[Anonymous No.6149880]

the fact the ping pong ball is attached to the bottom of the beaker means nothing. The fact that the steel ball is a system different from the scale means it does nothing to the scale system.

If it were not a fluid, but say sand then the steel ball would affect the scale

[Anonymous No.6149884]

>>6149847
here

>>6149880
>the fact the ping pong ball is attached to the bottom of the beaker means nothing

wrong

read the last section of the image (upward force due to tension)

[Anonymous No.6149908]

>>6147388
You are exerting pressure onto the water because you're arm is rigid. The steel ball is not exerting pressure onto the water, as the string is not rigid.

[Anonymous No.6149924]

>>6149908
The steel ball exerts force by displacing water.
I doesn't matter if it is attacked to string, a rod or being suspended by fucking magnets, it is still displacing water.

[Anonymous No.6149926]

>>6149908
By your logic, the steel ball would fucking float.

This is how buoyancy works. When you immerse an object, you displace the liquid. That liquid moves up. The increased height increases pressure at the bottom of the container. That increases the force on the bottom.

You have to push your hand into the liquid to submerge it. You're working against the buoyancy force (action and reaction, sound familiar?).

This is why you have to hold a ping-pong ball down to keep it submerged. The weight of the steel ball is greater than the buoyancy force, so you don't have to hold it down, but the buoyancy force is the same as for the ping-pong ball.

I understand that you're probably in high-school, out of school, or in some non-science program, but read >>6149884 and try to understand it.

[Anonymous No.6149976]

>>6149926
Jesus christ, even the very first equation is wrong. Can't you do calculus?

[Anonymous No.6149981]

the answer is that the right side goes down and the left side goes up. the right side exerts a force on the scale that is greater than the left side by
(weight of the displaced water on right side) - (weight of ping pong ball and string)

what I'm interested in is making a statistical model of the success of these troll threads.
I'd estimate that if >=80% of the people here agreed on the answer, the size of this thread would not explode.

[Anonymous No.6149989]

>>6149976
haha, troll harder

[Anonymous No.6149998]

>>6149989
If the water has density "rho" and is in a container of radius "R" and height "H", then if the container is displaced vertically by a distance "h", its potential energy will be as shown.

I didn't bother subtraction out the sphere. I leave that as an exercise for anyone who passed Calc 1.

[Anonymous No.6150001]

>>6149998
Wow, sorry, that looks horrible. Here, have a bigger one.

[Buffalo Bill Codemonkey No.6150173]

>>6149490
>I don't know shit about physics. Why is so non-intuitive?
... because you don't know shit about Physics.

[Anonymous No.6150196]

Just a unrelated question:

100n/cm work is required to compress a spring 5 cm shorter that it's natural length, how much work would be needed to compress it 1 cm further?

So I've tried, but I don't understand whats wrong:
Hooks law: F=kx
100N/cm=k*5cm
k=20 N

So to compress the spring another cm the answer should be 120 right?

[Anonymous No.6150224]

>>6150196
the x value isn't work is it, isn't that like the spring constant or something. pretty sure you need a different formula

[Anonymous No.6150259]

This thread is really discouraging. How many people on a /sci/ board don't understand buoyancy.

It's not that they oversimplify the problem and make a mistake, but they hold their position firmly. They think that the weight of the steel ball defaults to being supported by the string exclusively.

Like, at this point it is no longer about how much high school physics you know, it's that you have preconceived notions that you are too stubborn to reevaluate. Isn't that fatal for a /Sci/entist?

I guess you just have too much faith in what you think you already understand.
I guess it's a combination of that and not wanting to be wrong.
I bet you would fabricate data too.

[Anonymous No.6150263]

>>6149681
see this thread, someone actually did it in real life and of course the right side was heavier

"imagine you increased the density of the ping pong ball on left until it was a dense as water and just remained suspended. It would clearly tilt to that side rather than the original ping pong ball. Imagine you continue increasing the density of the ping pong ball, but absorb any extra force downwards with a string. It would still lean to that side."

[Anonymous No.6150267]

Let's go through this.

Obviously the mass of the water and beaker on each side cancel each other out.

Now, forget about the strings for a moment (we'll bring the relevant one back in later). On each side, the system of water exerts a buoyant force on the ball on that side. Since buoyant force is only dependent on volume and the volumes of the balls are the same, the buoyant forces exerted by the balls on the water on each side also cancel.

The only relevant force we are left with is the tension in the string connecting the ping pong ball to the left surface. For the left side to dip down, this tension force would need to *push* on the left surface, but we know that in fact tension pulls, not pushes, the surface it is attached to. And the tension can't be zero, because then the ping pong ball would rise (the buoyant force on it is greater than the weight); but the left side must also then rise, since the two are rigidly attached, and if the tension is 0 then we have acceleration with no net force (we have already determined that the other forces cancel each other), which is obviously a contradiction. Therefore, the left side rises and the right side dips.

This is far from a rigorous analysis, but hopefully it's enough to make everyone understand.

[Anonymous No.6150270]

>>6150267
Left side would raise and the right side would fall until only a very small amount of the metal ball was submerged (enough to offset the mass of the ping pong ball and string)

[Anonymous No.6150333]

>>6150196
Think about what you've done in terms of units. You've plugged in a quantity measured in N/cm for force, which is measured in N. Of course it's wrong.

The relevant concept is potential energy (which would be measured in N*cm, incidentally, not N/cm). A spring's potential energy is given by (1/2)kx^2, where x is the displacement of the spring from its equilibrium position. So use the formula to find the potential energy at x=5, then do the same for x=6. The difference must be the work done on the spring between the positions.

[Anonymous No.6150431]

We don't know either the mass or the volume of the containers, nor the amount of water in them.

The question is fundamentally flawed.

[Anonymous No.6150437]

>>6150431
This is /sci/, not a quiz or some formal setting.

For a question such as this I think you could use a sliver of initiative and assume that there is the same volume of identical fluid in an identical pair of containers.

[Anonymous No.6150444]

The tension of the ping pong ball pulling upwards is cancelled by the jar pulling downwards. It's an internal force and the net force is zero.


The buoyancy of the steel ball is an external force, and is not being cancelled by any other, so the water will push the steel ball, thus tilting the scale to the right.

[Anonymous No.6150449]

>>6150444
buoyancy is the same as water weight missing with ping pong ball. They stay in equilibrium

[Anonymous No.6150451]

>>6150449

But the force of the ping-pong buoyancy is being cancelled by the string.

It doesn't matter if they're the same, one if being cancelled and the other isn't.

[Anonymous No.6150458]

>>6150451

see
>>6149131

[Anonymous No.6150461]

>>6150458
Oops, meant to refer >>6150449 to the image, I fucked up.

[Anonymous No.6150473]

>>6150458

That agrees with what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.6150475]

>>6150451
>one if being cancelled and the other isn't
they are the same and they cancel each other out, imagine if it wasn't string and a ping pong ball in water but 20 big muscular black guys playing tug of war

the ping pong team represent the ping pong ball trying to float to the top

the other team represents the strength of the string and its attachment to the bottom of the jug

these are all big guys, athletes, pushed to their peak, they are about evenly matched and as you see all these grunting sweating shirtless men with their flexing asses in tight cycling shorts that bring attention to their big crotches you realize there are 2 forces at play here and they cancel each other out because the rope isn't moving

[Anonymous No.6150482]

>>6150473
I accidentally referred you to that image instead of the post you were replying to.

[Anonymous No.6150524]

>>6150475
scienceboner

[Anonymous No.6150559]

>>6150475

Engineer?

[Anonymous No.6150564]

misposted this in a separate thread

new version clarifying origin of forces

[Anonymous No.6150676]

The steel ball side dips down.

You're an idiot if you think otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6150693]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJuqXpeB4uk

[Anonymous No.6151044]

>>6150693
/thread

[Anonymous No.6151710]

>>6150693

I'm currently taking Physics one....

I am fucking lost right now everyone's opinion keeps clashing.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ANSWER?

[Anonymous No.6151725]

>>6151710

see >>6150564
physical demonstration >>6150693

The right side goes down and the left side goes up. The people who disagree don't understand buoyancy.

[Anonymous No.6151736]

>>6150693
This has nothing to do with bouyancy, the object displaces water, raising the water level. This moves water farther from the fulcrum so the torque on the fulcrum goes up.

[Anonymous No.6152075]

>>6151736
are you intentionally being a retard to make people mad? you can't be this dense