Nother physics question

**EJK** · 4th September 2009, 13:44

The answer is B) because I drank some on the way up Mt Everest because I was thirsty, and I spilt some when going down the mine shaft.

**Big Dave** · 4th September 2009, 13:46

Originally Posted by MisterD

Would've been the Keegan scale in them days BD...

Robson - it doesn't matter - the longer the season the longer the faces.

The Toon Scale.

**Metalor** · 4th September 2009, 14:11

Originally Posted by Marmoot

Don't forget that up the high mountain and down the deep mineshaft would have an effect on temperature. Temperature affects the weight.

So to determine whether the weight measured by the scale would be lighter or heavier, you need to first construct a mathematical model that incorporates the temperature effect as well as the gravity effect. Only after that would you be able to determine the total effect gained at each location and determine the correct answer.

Without knowing the actual height/depth of the place (in above-sea-level terms), I don't think you can form a conclusive answer.

Mate, it would affect the DENSITY.. .not the mass. The amount of water you had wouldn't change but it's VOLUME would.

**avgas** · 4th September 2009, 14:13

Lighter - if you walk up a moutain your going to drink the water.

**bogan** · 4th September 2009, 14:33

wikipedia tells us some shit

Gravity decreases with altitude, since greater altitude means greater distance from the Earth's centre. All other things being equal, an increase in altitude from sea level to the top of Mount Everest (8,850 metres) causes a weight decrease of about 0.28%. (An additional factor affecting apparent weight is the decrease in air density at altitude, which lessens an object's buoyancy.[3]) It is a common misconception that astronauts in orbit are weightless because they have flown high enough to "escape" the Earth's gravity. In fact, at an altitude of 400 kilometres (250 miles), equivalent to a typical orbit of the Space Shuttle, gravity is still nearly 90% as strong as at the Earth's surface, and weightlessness actually occurs because orbiting objects are in free-fall.

If the Earth were of perfectly uniform composition, during a descent to the centre of the Earth, gravity would decrease linearly with distance, reaching zero at the centre. In reality, the gravitational field peaks within the Earth at the core-mantle boundary where it has a value of 10.7 m/s², because of the marked increase in density at that boundary.[citation needed]

so theres at least three things in play, centripetal acceleration, gravitational accelleration, and bouyancy/density force

**Metalor** · 4th September 2009, 15:07

Originally Posted by Big Dave

It would be lighter at the top of the mountain because you'd spill some climbing it and also need a drink.

It would be heavier in the mine shaft because of the gold.

Best answer.

**LBD** · 4th September 2009, 15:42

And if the mass was in the form of a piano n yer dropped it down a working mine shaft, then at the bottom you would have ....A Flat Minor....

**Big Dave** · 4th September 2009, 15:43

Originally Posted by MisterD

Would've been the Keegan scale in them days BD...

Or - It quit mid season????

**Winston001** · 4th September 2009, 15:48

Originally Posted by Big Dave

This is not a mass debate.

Oh sorry, just the 5 minute argument then......?

**Big Dave** · 4th September 2009, 15:49

Originally Posted by LBD

....A Flat Minor....

I thought Gravity was the key.

**Winston001** · 4th September 2009, 15:57

Originally Posted by MattRSK

Gravitons.

Mmmmmm.........NOPE.

Actually we don't really know where gravity comes from. Einstein would say its an effect of space bending. But that's not exactly helpful.

I prefer to see it as tiny pixies tugging on stuff when you try to lift it. As you walk up the mountain, it gets colder and only the Sherpa pixies hang about, so the bucket gets lighter.

Going underground requires Dwarf pixies who are a grumpy lot so the woodland pixies leave them to it. The bucket once again gets lighter.

**Gareth123** · 4th September 2009, 16:37

WOOOOSSSSSH

This whole thread flew straight over my head. I read all the pages trying to understand and make my intelligence stretch just a little bit further. And stretch it did. Then it snapped back and I just have a headache.

If the conatiner was filled with beer you wouldn't even get a chance to weigh it, some plonker would come along and drink it.

**bogan** · 4th September 2009, 19:11

Originally Posted by LBD

seeing we liked the last one so much, heres another...

You have an accurate scale and a 10L container of water. At sea level this weighs (has a mass of) 10 kg precisely, and the scale reads 10kg.

You then climb a very high mountain with scale and water record the reading.

You then journey down a very deep mine shaft and take another recording.

Multi Choice, do the readings ON THE SCALES show...
a) Heavier both up the mountain and down the mine shaft
b) Lighter both up the mountain and down the mine shaft
c) Heavier up the mountain and lighter down the mine shaft
d) Lighter up the mountain and heavier down the mine shaft

I will give it a couple of days then if the correct answer is not posted with the explaination I will....

did some little bit huckery calculations (lots of bored waiting for windows 7 to instal) and looks to be B)Lighter both ways, regardless of mountain hieght of mine shaft size. Taking into account Displaced air bouyancy, gravity changes, and centripetal accleration.