I say it would be 1g because the flies are in the air and therefore not exerting force on the scale.
>>8122148
Sealed container? Weight remains the same with only slight fluctuations, but still the average of the fluctuations remain the original weight.
High school science 101.
>>8122148
OH GOD YES, OH FU K YES I CAN'T WAIT, FUCKKKK YESS, YES
>>8122148
Protip: Gas is fluid. The atmosphere is being pushed down to the earth. Now, consider a jar of water in the ocean. It is clearly "heavier" than a jar of air in the ocean which would rapidly rise to the top. Therefore, the weight of the fluid inside the jar is significant.
If sealed, 1kg with negligible fluctuations
>>8122148
the flies (on average) have to create a force equal to m*g where m is their respective mass to fly. this force HAS to be transferred to the jar and therefore to the scale.
-> 1.5 kg
>>8122164
1.5 kg* pardon me
>>8122158
first day on /sci/ huh pardner?
lemme give ye a lil hint
gas aint no fluid
>>8122170
In my field, everything is a fluid, don't try to school me undergrad. Here's a line from wiki:
>In physics, fluid dynamics is a subdiscipline of fluid mechanics that deals with fluid flow—the natural science of fluids (liquids and gases) in motion.
>>8122178
listen 'ere pardner, i've been round a round, inventin' electricity with ben franklin, makin phones with graham, (I have a fucking p.h.d) and that is a wrong way of looking at it. Liquids and gases, although similar, still have critical different properties. The flies can easily generate horizontal propulsion. The gas can dissipate. It's 1 kg
>>8122193
Oh. Sorry for responding to bait. Carry on.
>>8122153
but what if container is, say, very long and the imparted momentum on the air molecules dissipates as random motion due to fluid friction?
>>8122158
But floating on water has to do less with weight and more with density, so salty sea water is more dense than distilled water, so the water filled jar will float I think... Assuming the flies wont touch the glass, I think they would weigh on the jar, but it wont reach 0.5 kg...
>>8122214
So the jar would weigh between 1 kg to 1.5 kg but niether of those weights...
>>8122197
Thats stupid... That energy has to go somewhere, it cant bump some air molecules and disappear... What you are saying would happen would cause additional weight...
A fly that weighs 100 grams can't fly, hence the scale will show 1,5 kg.
>>8122220
But the flies aren't touching the glass, that make no sense for them to weigh more on the jar if the force they apply is in wing faps alone...
>>8122223
You clearly did not read the thread linked, as flies touching the glass was one of two examples considered.
scale reads .5kg because you zeroed it with the jar before adding flies
>>8122238
>high school problem
>blackbody radiation and heat
Otherwise, excellent. Your scale is kind of misleading but meh.
Who in this thread doesn't have access to a jar, some flying insects and a scale?
Get to trapping, fagamuffins.
>>8122221
The only stupid thing is you. The momentum imparted on air becomes heat. The temperature of the air rises. Now, in the mass increase of hotter air in a relativistic view is negligible.
>>8122237
Read it, but still, the water the fish is in dishes out the fish's weight. Same with the air in the jar, that will dish out the weight of the flies, but only partially, and to that you have to add the force of the wing flaps
Just use Newton's third law. No matter what, there must be a force equal to 0.5kg*9.81 m/s^2 to hold those flies up in air. This force has to be connected to the ground somehow, and in this case it has to be transmitted thru the scale. Concusion is that the scale reads 1.5 kg taken that the flies are flying still in that container.
>>8122251
Heat=movment=energy=mass (ish)...
Dont call me stupid if you cant find a steady base for your argument
>>8122263
you are a retard, you do realise that relativistic mass increase would be impossible to measure?
>>8122249
If I hold a box of 1 kg with 0.5 kg of flies flying inside, not touching the wall, the would never weigh 1.5 kg
>>8122265
Still calling me retarded when you cant figure out it a fucking closed system...
>>8122271
yo, discuss
>>8122298
So you're saying the heat won't even reach the scale or the glass? You would need a very big jar...
>"science is better than liberal arts because science is objective "
>can't agree on the answer to a simple problem
Kys, nerds.
>>8122262
This is the best answer of the thread. Let me make it more clear:
Gravity going to exert a force on the system of the jar and the flies equal to (mass of the jar plus flies) (grav acceleration constant for Earth's surface). Given that the jar and flies are at rest (on average over long periods of time), therefore the net acceleration of the system is zero, and therefore the net force on the system is zero, and therefore there must be another force on the system to equal the force from gravity. The only other external force on the system is the scale pushing up on the jar, and therefore it must read 1.5 kg.
...
From more basic principles: I don't care about the composition of the jar and its contents. All that matters is its mass, which doesn't matter if the flies are "flying" in the box or touching the box. Internal changes to the configuration of the box and contents can change the readings of the scale over short periods, but if the box is stationary, then the long-term average of the scale will report the mass inside the box.
>>8122309
>/sci/ - Bait & Children
>surprised at lack of consensus
>only disagreement is either immeasurably small or requires infinite-height jar
>>8122308
Of course the heat would reach it. Now, listen,
>E=mc^2
>E=0,5*3e20=fucking ridiculous amount
You think, flies, in order to lift themselves up, produce such ammounts of energy?
