Well?

...

...

On one hand, bouyant forces don't apply to the heated gas in the bulb because glass is a very rigid structure. Also, the heated bulb gains a small amount of mass due to mass-energy equivalence.

However, the metal at the end of the bulb also expands a bit when heated, which adds a slight upward bouyant force that's almost definitely more than the mass due to heat energy.

So my answer is that the cold bulb weighs more, but the hot one has more mass.

Whatever the bouyant force is on one of them is the same as the bouyant force on the others.

A misunderstanding of the notions of entropy and information leads me to conclude that B is heavier.

I take two identical shits (molecularly so), but with the second shit I had a really hot dinner the night before. Which is heavier?

Yes.
Neither. They both weight the same.

Hot as in spicy or temperature hot?

The one that's turned on is losing photons

The belt cant stop the plane moving forward so the plane takes off

>planes fly because they stand still

>The one that's turned on is losing photons

The energy carried by a single photon is basically nothing in terms of mass.

It takes many, many, many years for a red hot object to radiate away all of its heat through light in outer space.

SOMEONE ANSWER TO THIS PLEASE, I NEED EXPLAINATIONS

>Imperial units

Both weight the same

Look up how hard drives work, it's by changing order, not by removing parts

dgfgh

Yes of course it can. It just needs to generate enough force to fly. It's not standing still, it's still moving you dumb shits.

But couldn't that theoretically change the mass a little bit coz magnets an sheit..?

Yea it can it was on Mythbusters OP

Is there also a consistent, 120+ mph head wind?

>a genuine and well thought out answer
This board isn't for you, friendo.

>hot one has more mass.
Not accurate, it has more volume. Thermal expansion is not the addition of mass, but the increase in distance between molecules in the structure. In fact, I would even argue that the hot one has less mass, as a result of any moisture or air that would normally adsorb to the surface of the glass bulb being repelled due to the thermal energy from the bulb itself.

Magnetostriction says you are wrong. The drive with the most 1s (on) will be heavier by volume than the drive with the most 0s (off).

Loss of friction..,

The conveyor is meaningless. The wheels would simply move faster as the plane still moves forward. The wheels on a plane have fuck all to do with the motion of the plane.

>as fast as the wheels
Then there is not enough friction to stop the plane from going forward.
It will take off.

Unless there is so much friction that the plane stands still, but then the wheels will burn.

>The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction.
So, it's just a normal runway then?

>by volume
so density changed, so what?, a mol of water vapor isn't lighter than a mol of ice, just different densities.

You need air speed in order to generate lift you dumb fucks; ground speed don't mean shit

Yes?

Yes, the wheels don't provide forward propulsion, the jet engines do. The wheels would just spin a lot, but the plane thrusts against, and relative to, the air.

Density is everything. While a ton of lead weighs the same as a ton of feathers, the same volume of each has different weights.

144p b8

>Yes
what? How can they become heavier if no mass is added or removed? Or do you count Energy-mass?

The age old question and the answer still remains the same:

The plane cannot fly unless it moves through the air so air flows over and under the wings. The jets in this example are only providing forward thrust for the plane to move - which would happen if it wasn't sitting on a fucking treadmill that's counteracting the potential forward motion of the aircraft because it's on wheels which are negating the forward motion by way of friction.

The plane never moves forward hence no air flows over/under the wings hence the plane cannot fly in this rather simple problem.

NO ACTUAL FORWARD MOVEMENT = NO ACTUAL AIR FLOW OVER/UNDER WINGS = NO ACTUAL LIFT TO GET THE PLANE OFF THE TREADMILL = THE PLANE CANNOT FUCKING FLY GIVEN THE PARAMETERS OF THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM

Deal with it.

You don't understand how hard drives work

>wheels which are negating the forward motion by way of friction
what?

The wheels are free to spin on their axes. They're not driven by the engines. They'd just move twice as fast.

>They're not driven by the engines
this
user, what do you think is the reason why planes can go forward only and have to be pulled to go backwards?

Since the wheels are spinning at ground speed + treadmill speed and the treadmill matches this speed you get a runaway effect as soon as the plane moves and the treadmill instantly accelerates to speeds that either destroy the wheels or throw the plane off the back of the treadmill.

Yo don't understand what "magnetostriction" is.

>Since the wheels are spinning at ground speed + treadmill speed and the treadmill matches this speed
That's not the premise. That literally makes no sense. Think.

>what is drag coefficient
The wheels spin, and their friction with the air brings the plane up. The wheels are then stored away with the same air, still spinning to provide lift throughout the flight. The plane lands by releasing the lift air as it opens the landing gear. The wings are to stop it from going to fast up and down

Not him, but static friction. Same as any wheeled vehicle

>It takes many, many, many years for a red hot object to radiate away all of its heat through light in outer space.
no it doesn't

it takes a couple weeks at most

aero dynamics, it needs to have speed of air in it also on way, so it wont broke as it hits the air,...

Both weigh just the same because even an "empty" hard drive is actually filled up with data from before that will be overwriten when you download something.

The wheels don't cause the plane to move the propeller does. Imagine a plane flying at 50mph and you attached wheels to it and raised an imaginary treadmill up to it so that it touched the wheels. The treadmill could be going 400mph but the plane would still keep flying. The planw flies because of the propeller. Put skis at the bottom of the plane and it'll still skid along the treadmill and take off. Has nothing to do with the wheels.

A belt moving so fast will create a strong gush of wind due to friction between air and the belt, which will create a pressure difference across the plane wings, and possibility lift it, only to glide gently back down..... did I mention that it would need to drive its wheels backwards?

Try this with a small plane with a very high wheel spin (backwards) and it might work dangit.

>drive its wheels backwards?

No, you don't understand how hard drives work.

>They'd just move twice as fast
Yeah, and then once they're moving that fast the treadmill catches up. And then the wheels must speed up more for the plane to move, and the treadmill would catch up again, etc. That's the point of the problem. Static friction keeps the plane from ever moving forward, so there's no airflow to provide lift.

As the plane goes faster, the wheels spin faster, which means the treadmill spins even faster, which means the wheels spin even MORE faster

until eventually they reach relativistic speeds and the treadmill is frame-dragging the wheels (and thus the rest of the plane) backwards

In practice, the wheels would explode before that happens.

If you were to assume indestructible wheels, it would be rather hard to actually make a treadmill which moves fast enough to stop a jet airliner from moving forward. You're talking about counteracting ~100 tonnes of thrust through the axle friction alone.