Imagine that you go to the moon, and you find a 1 cubic meter homogeneous rock...

Imagine that you go to the moon, and you find a 1 cubic meter homogeneous rock, with a density of 8 grams for every cubic centimeter. What's the rock weight once on the earth surface. Consider g=9.8 and I can tell you the answer is not 78,4 kN. It has a numeric answer, no tricks. Te rock does not desintegrate or anything like that. Let's se how you do.

The weight is equal to the number that is displayed on the scale when placed on it.

Come on mate, you didn't even try

Are you really that bad at physics? I mean my hs classmates weren't very bright but even they could solve a meme problem like this. Consider dropping out.

8T

Weight, not mass

As an aerospace engineering graduate it's a bit late to drop out, consider trying to solve it or stop bitching

hey morty bbbbbbbbbbuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrppppppppp gods not real

the riddle is that the answer is 78.4 kg m/s^2

78.39 kN
(slightly less than 78.4 because you have to subtract the density of air)

congrats sir, first to answer

>with a density of 8 grams for every cubic centimeter
Its mass density doesn't change when you leave the moon, you chode.

>8 g/cm3 = 0.008 kg/cm3 = 8000 kg/m3
>the rock is 1 m3, so its mass is 8000 kg
>8000 kg * 9.8 m/s2 = 78400 kg m/s2 = 78.4 kN

It's this number that you divide by 6 if you want its weight on the moon.

A cubic meter of air on Earth's surface weighs 12.5 N, which would make the "weight" 78387.5 N. However, by definition, that is not weight. That's weight plus buoyancy.

Get to sophomore year before writing your riddles next time.

i'd personally be more concerned as to why it's a perfect cube.

But, a newton is a measure of force, not weight...?

I know i'm splitting hairs, but shouldn't this be in pounds instead of newtons?

Weight is force, not mass. Mass is mass.
Also pounds can be either a measure of force or a measure of mass (with a little trick).

>Weight is force, not mass. Mass is mass.

Yes, but typically weight is measured in pounds, I realize that it's just a gravitational force exerted by two masses with a seperation distance between their centers...

And that mass is a force-less property determined by volume and density...

But using newtons to describe "Weight" seems a little lazy to me...

Why not just convert the newtonian downward/upward force to pounds?

Step 1: given density and volume, calculate mass:

(8 g / cc) * (100^3 cc / m^3) * (1 m^3) = 8000 kg

Step 2: given mass, calculate weight on Earth:

8000 kg * 9.8 N/kg = 78.4 kN

> I can tell you the answer is not 78,4 kN

Yes, you can certainly tell me that. But you would be wrong, as I demonstrated above.

> It has a numeric answer, no tricks.

Very clever -- that statement has a trick embedded within it.

The question asked literally "what's the rock weight?" -- and that question cannot be answered with a "numeric answer". Do you know why?

Hint: Let's say I asked you what you weigh, and you respond by giving me the numeric answer "2650" -- I would reject your numeric answer and require you to provide an answer measured in units of force. Do you understand now?

Not understanding the difference between a scalar number and a force measurement is a babby-tier mistake in physics, and the fact that your question exhibits a babby-tier wording mistake makes it clear that you're not up to the task of asking a precisely-worded physics questions.

That mistake gives me the right to discard your entire question as not worthy of an answer. Be grateful that I ignored your mistake, and gave you the correct answer anyway. I did you the favor of answering your question because of your clever trick of claiming that there were "no tricks" -- but then in the very same goddam sentence you inserted a trick. That was subtle and innovative, which made me smile a little bit, providing me with some entertainment. (Although in reality, I suspect that you're actually just a physics babby and didn't really understand what you wrote.)

> Let's se how you do.

I spotted the mistake in the way the question was worded -- then I ignored the mistake and answered it correctly. So I did pretty well.

Excellent post OP...

Would you mind converting the Newtonian force answer to pounds?

17,637lbs

fucking peasants.

>But, a newton is a measure of force, not weight...?
>I know i'm splitting hairs, but shouldn't this be in pounds instead of newtons?

Weight is simply force in a downward direction caused by gravitational attraction. Because weight is a type of force, they are both measured using the same unit.

The word "pound" is complicated. It often represents a measurement of force, but some authors use it to represent mass (converted over using g). Some people believe that it's not "supposed" to be used that way, but that doesn't prevent other people from using it that way. The result is quite a clusterfuck, and the wisest way of dealing with that clusterfuck is to: (1) never use the word "pound" yourself if you care about precise communication, and (2) if someone uses the word "pound", then chill out, be mellow, don't argue, and just try to figure out from context whether they mean it as force or mass.

Samefag

>Samefag

did the trip give away my post ID?

You fucking retard?

Now, check and see if I was disagreeing with myself.

>>typically
Except metric >>>>>> Imperial

You dipshit.

>Except metric >>>>>> Imperial
>You dipshit.

And what difference is there between newton kilograms per Earth standard gravity well, and pounds?

Why the fuck to I care about the weight when mass is a more important property?

>calculate mass
>multiply by acceleration due to gravity
>receive force
remember your units because you might have to divide by Earth's gravity.

Also a cubic meter of solid rock is fucking goddamn heavy, jesus fucking christ do you even know? Even a cubic meter of styrofoam is heavy.

Is the engineering solution and is 100% correct.

The weight is 8.000 Kiloponds(Kp)

>meme and memety
>>>/leddit/