The bar weighs nothing

How do you account for the weight lost from holes in plates? I feel like benching the bar with a small enough plate (say, 2.5lbs) means that the hole adds enough negative weight for the bench to have a negative total resistance. So it'd be easier to bench the bar + 2.5lbs plates because the lack of weight from the holes will make you bench -15lbs.

Here is the tldr:

>user benches only the bar
>Therefore it's 0pl8
>Therefore it doesn't weigh anything

Bulletproof

Yes, he is benching 0β but by your own formula 0β is 20kg

...

It was bad enough you were shitposting in my thread. Now you have to spread your cancer across Veeky Forums? Fug you and your beta symbol, faggot.

Despite this being a meaningless, semantic playing shitpost your equation for converting weight to pl8s is actually quite /comfy/, thanks user.

>W = 20 +40β
>β = (W-20)/40

anime posting idiot with epic /r/Veeky Forums fuel

XDDDD SIGN ME LE UP XDD SO EPICC HAHAYH UPBOAT U SURE SHOWED US XDDDD LELLLLL UPVOTE FOR MAYMSY DOOO EBINN XDDD SOOO FUNNY HAHAHA /R/HEDIDTHEMATH XD SO FUNNY MASTER CRAFT JUST LIKE RICK OFF LE RICK AND MEME

/r/theydidthemonstermath

...

who hurt you user?

LE CLOTHES ANIMEEE EPIKKK ECKSDEE SO COOL I AM LE VIRGIN AND I LE LUV LE KILL LE BURHER EATING ANIME GURL XD SO COOL AND EPIC XDDDDDDDD UPVOTE LE RIDDIT EWILL LE LUV THIS XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Are you feeling alright, user?

I dhing user is brogen :DDDD fug ged :DD helb user

Greedings anons, i'm here doday do bring you madhemadigal broof dhad dhe bar weighs nodhing.
do begin, leds firsd gome ub widh an equadion dhad breags down dhe weighd on a bar indo differend fagdors;
>w = b + 2(gsb)
widh w being dhe gonvendional dodal weighd of dhe lifd, b being dhe weighd of dhe bar, b being dhe weighd of dhe blades and gs being dhe number of blades.
b and b are gonsdands so we gan simblify dhe equadion do begome dhe following;
>w=20 + 40gs

ad dhis boind i suggesd a new unid of measuremend for /fid/: dhe bl8 (β). Dhe bl8 (β) is a gonversion from gonvendional mass do bl8 (β) unids. β gan now reblage gs in dhe above equadion;
>w = 20 +40β
now leds desd dhis equadion do mage sure ids solid, we all gnow 100gg = 2β, so leds inbud 100 for w, and if β gomes oud as 2 we will gnow if dhis equadion is valid;
>100 = 20 + 40β
>80 = 40β
>80/40 = β
>β = 2

now we gnow dhad dhe equadion is valid i will ged :DD do my boind; leds dhing of a hybodhedigal egsamble of an user who gan bengh only dhe bar - we gnow dhe bar gonvendionally weighs 20gg, so leds inbud 20 as dhe value for w.
>20 = 20 + 40β
>(20-20)= 40β
>(20-20)/40 = β
>0/40 = β
>0 = β

dhe user is dherefore benghing 0β
>dfw when dhe bar really does weighd nodhing
>mfw :DDDDDD

Holy fucking shit that made me laugh

why do faggots keep doing this. you're worse than the reddit fags. you're actually cancer

based finnpostter

...

>itt: retards taking the bait
Wew

t. salty user who can only bench 0β

Can someone debunk this for a meathead with /LowIntelligence/

The fact that user is benching 0 plates doesn't prove that the bar weighs nothing. This is not even funny nor intelligent.

the first equation basically is that if you dont put up any pl8s then you won't lift any plates. OP just removed the bar value from the second equation, by removing it's weight from both side, thus if you lift nothing(non even the bar since it is removed from the equation), then you lift nothing.
Really activated my almonds.

why is the writing behind her in german ?

...

>counting the bar
>counting the plates

you're supposed to only count the weight of your feels

Nene is best girl fucking fight me stupid aoba fags

>β = 2
>0 = β

Your math is wrong, you say that β is representative of the mass of the plates but substitute it in for only the number of pl8s. You should at least switch it out for (2x), although I don't know if that would give you the desired outcome

include me in the screencap

Also how do you account for the fact that the force of gravity on the weights is less the further you lift them from the surface of the earth?
What about the molecular forces acting between your fingers and the weights?
What about the ferromagnetism arising from the interaction of electrons in the weights with the Earth's magnetic field which causes an eddy current that resists the motion?
What about the Casimir forces between the floor and the weights the moment you lift it off the floor?
What about the fact that the universe is expanding and the distance through which you lift your weights are ever increasing?

Neck yourself, faggot.

tehehe

why are you guys letting my intellectual thread slide?

...

>/fitlit/ was 6 months ago

>/fitlit/ was destroyed
>/bant/ gets to stay
There is no justice.

>Grab empty bar
>Take it over to the gym scale
>Make sure the scale is zeroed properly first
>Put a 25lb plate on it; sure as fuck, it registers '25 pounds'.
>Take the plate off, put the bar on the scale
>Sure as fuck, it registers ACTUAL WEIGHT

***

>OP writes out all that autistic crap for a troll that never gets off the ground
GB2

is it necessary to have that many steps

mabhs :-DDD

I'm not reading this faggot fake math shit

yes, the bar would be equal to nothing if you were measuring in made up fairy units

OP says that:
W = B + 2(xP); B is a constant (the weight of the bar), x is the number of plates, and P is a constant of 20kg (the weight per pl8). W is the total weight of the bar plus plates. xP is doubled to account for the fact that you have even amounts of weight on either side.

Then, he fills in commons:
W = 20(kg) + 2(x20(kg))
After simplification:
W = 20(kg) + 40(kg)x

The only thing that OP really messes up is that he assumes that when x is zero (he calls it β ), the weight of the system is zero. In reality, when x is zero, the weight is the constant of 20kg, the bar.

From his example
>20 = 20 + 40β
>(20-20)= 40β
>(20-20)/40 = β
>0/40 = β
>0 = β

So, when plugging β back into the original equation to check we get:
20(kg) = 20(kg) + 40(0)
20(kg) = 20(kg) + 0
20(kg) = 20(kg)
Since we havent gotten anything fucky, this equation proves that the total weight of a bar when it has no weights is equal to the total weight of the bar.

Either way, all OP has done is make a neat little equation to tell how many pl8s are on a bar given the total weight and assumption that a standard bar is used and standard 20(kg) plates.

Tl;dr OPs equation proves that the bar weighs itself.

user, you literally shit the bed on this attempt. You didn't even try to hide your shitty math... 0PL8 =/= 0lbs. Not to mention you completely failed to address the physical side of the debate. We can all agree that barbells take up space; if an object takes up space, it has mass. If something has mass, it has weight. OP is a faggot, and a stupid lazy one at that.

>Tl;dr OPs equation proves that the bar weighs itself.
which could be nothing, riiiight?
0=0 riiiiight?
riiiiiight user?

Why do you talk like that?

I had a strooooooooooooke

>Multiple anons together recreate a Simpson's 'ment
We've reached maximum reddit lads

EPIK POST XDDDD /R/THEYDIDLEMATH INCLOOD ME IN SCREENCAP HAHAHA ECKS DEE LUUUUL LE MATH BAZINGA SO UPVOTE SO EPIC HAHAHAHAHAHA BRAINLETS BRFO U MAD U DUN UNDERSTAND MY HILARIOUS EQUATION XDDDD

Nope. The bar is defined (if you could read) as a constant B or 20kg. If the bar is equal to B and we maintain that bar is equal to the weight if the bar then:

B = B
With substitutions:
20kg = 20kg

Try harder.

HAHAHAHAHAHA HOLY SHIT UR SO FUCKIN FUNNY XDDDD LE UPVOTE WACKY ARGUMENTS JUST LIKE LE RICK AND MEMEY HAHAHAHAHA

You alright buddy?

stop. you come off as worse than reddit-style posters

> W = B + 2(xP)
> total weight of 100kg
> B = 20kg
> P = 20kg
> x = 4

So by your equation;
100 = 20 + (2(4x20)
100 = 20 + 160
100 = 180

Seeing as the initial equation you build on is completely flawed, the rest of your 'maths' is absolute wank. If Einstein saw this shit, he would be spinning in his grave so fast he could power most of Eastern Europe.

damn you're retarded nibba x = 2 not 4, 100 kg is 2plate not 4plate retard kill your elf

you're retarded. 100 kg is defined as 2 pl8, and always has been. hence the 2xP. 4 pl8 would be 180 kg, as you say

> 100kg
> 4x20kg + 20kg = 100kg

So youre telling me if youre using 20kg plates, and benching 100kg, there ARENT 4 plates on the bar..?

Einstein is a thieving fucking fraud who didn't understand 1/50th of the theories he stole and patchworked to his.

100kg is defined as 2pl8, as in 2 plate per side, for a total of 4 plates. Not my fault if you cant count lad.

>getting this triggered over anime
Normalfags try so hard

Calm down Szilard

mouthbreather. OP has defined beta from the getgo as 1 pl8 = 1 plate per side. if you want to do it your way, you remove the 2 infront of 2xP

> and x being the number of plates.

Says it right there in the OP. If he had put 'x being the number of plates PER SIDE', you would be correct. If an equation only makes sense under one subjective interpretation of its values, but not in objective mathematics, its flawed, i.e if you took that equation anywhere else but here, it wouldnt work. Not my fault you cant read, and OP couldnt make it objectively correct by adding 'per side'. Because as it stands, the amount of plates on 100kg barbell is 4 x 20kg plates + bar, thus x is 4. Its really not that hard to comprehend.

this is fit. 1 pl8 / plate has always been defined as one plate each side. or do you also go full autist mode when someone says "i bench one plate"?

>this is fit
Gee, thanks! I had no idea where I was for a minute!

> 1 pl8 / plate has always been defined as one plate each side. or do you also go full autist mode when someone says "i bench one plate"?
So wanting an equation to be objectively correct, as is a function in all maths, is autistic? As it stands, if a variable in an equation is 'x = number of something', you dont just half it because 'lel fit maymays'. If he had stated 'x = number of somethings per side' it would make sense. If you posted that equation anywhere else, it would be false, unless you added the notation of 'x = items per side', which would make it correct, but OP didnt, so its not. Hence why I said if an equation only makes sense in one subjective place but not objectively in all, its wrong.

Forgot how much i love triggering brainlets