Talk:3087: Pascal's Law - Revision history

Calion: /* Error in explanation */ new section

2025-06-08T04:40:30Z

‎Error in explanation: new section

Seebert at 16:22, 13 May 2025

2025-05-13T16:22:37Z

Orenwatson: details of ruina montium

2025-05-13T14:37:26Z

details of ruina montium

Log of n at 10:47, 13 May 2025

2025-05-13T10:47:40Z

162.158.62.109 at 23:35, 12 May 2025

2025-05-12T23:35:32Z

162.158.63.90 at 23:33, 12 May 2025

2025-05-12T23:33:14Z

141.101.99.94 at 22:13, 12 May 2025

2025-05-12T22:13:56Z

SammyChips at 16:17, 12 May 2025

2025-05-12T16:17:04Z

172.69.43.162 at 08:33, 12 May 2025

2025-05-12T08:33:44Z

172.69.43.163 at 08:30, 12 May 2025

2025-05-12T08:30:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:40, 8 June 2025
Line 56:		Line 56:
	:Maybe not entirely congruous with what you describe, but the "{{w\|Argument from incredulity}}" is still somewhat similar. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.94\|141.101.99.94]] 22:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)		:Maybe not entirely congruous with what you describe, but the "{{w\|Argument from incredulity}}" is still somewhat similar. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.94\|141.101.99.94]] 22:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
	:Do you mean forming incorrect inferences by leaving out some of the facts? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.109\|162.158.62.109]] 23:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)		:Do you mean forming incorrect inferences by leaving out some of the facts? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.109\|162.158.62.109]] 23:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Error in explanation ==
		+
		+	> The bottom of this piston is fed by a narrow tube which rises to an opening, into which someone is pouring water, which fills the cylinder, raising the piston.
		+
		+	She is not pouring water; she seems to be depressing a small piston.
		+
		+	This effects the next section, which claims that the lift would not work as drawn. However, I don't know just how it affects it; would it actually work? --[[User:Calion\|Calion]] ([[User talk:Calion\|talk]]) 04:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!-- Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom. -->
 I remember learning about this and thinking it was intuitive, but I didn't really think of these consequences. Maybe everybody is making powerful lifting machines for lifting cars and houses with your bare hands, rather than explaining the article, that there isn't one yet. Pascal's law basically says that if you make one end of a container of fluid X times larger, then any force exerted on the small end is multiplied by X on the large end, so you can make it near-infinite by making the small end very small. But you'll need a little more machinery added (like a gear system) if you want the distance actually moved to be higher. Actually I think that might undo the gains in force entirely. That might be how it happens, it might swap distance for force so the same work is performed.
 Hey, remember that comic where Randall challenged people to fold a paper too small? This hand-makeable device could get farther on that!

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 :No idea, but I gotta say, that font or scan is unreadable. Some words are decipherable like הר גבוה and ובמקומו but damn, about half of it is just splotches. No idea how you could read that. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 05:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
 ::I hear. There's a transcript of it (though without the diagram) at https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%99%22%D7%9D_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%95%D7%91_%D7%9E%D7%91_%D7%99%D7%93. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.208|172.70.175.208]] 18:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
 Should there be a goofs section here, because the white board is drawn with perspective, but the picture on it is not. It will look odd, like the whole contraption is tilted, to the students[[User:Drkaii|Drkaii]] ([[User talk:Drkaii|talk]]) 09:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:47, 13 May 2025
Line 12:		Line 12:

	I have to wonder whether he has the same disbelief of, say, levers... which allow one to move the Earth. [[User:Jordan Brown\|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown\|talk]]) 23:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)		I have to wonder whether he has the same disbelief of, say, levers... which allow one to move the Earth. [[User:Jordan Brown\|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown\|talk]]) 23:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	I'm not sure, but he did make [[857: Archimedes]]
		+	[[User:Log of n\|Log of n]] ([[User talk:Log of n\|talk]]) 10:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

	Although some laws of physics are absolute and lead to extreme consequences, others are taught in a simplified form that can lead to wrong conclusions. For example, "Light and heavy objects fall at the same rate" can be used to prove that objects fall at the same rate on the Earth and the Moon - which is far from correct. If the Moon were somehow dropped onto the Earth, it would fall at a certain rate. The Earth dropped on the Moon would necessarily fall at the same rate. So if the Moon falling on the Earth fell at the same rate as a bowling ball, then the bowling ball would have to fall at the same rate on the Moon. When I read Heinlein's _The Rolling Stones_ as a pre-teen, where he describes things falling slower on the Moon, I applied this reasoning and concluded that Heinlein must have made a mistake. The solution to this paradox is that something as big as the Moon will not only accelerate toward the Earth, it will significantly accelerate the Earth toward it, so the Moon does not actually fall at the same rate as a bowling ball. [[User:Cphoenix\|Cphoenix]] ([[User talk:Cphoenix\|talk]]) 01:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)		Although some laws of physics are absolute and lead to extreme consequences, others are taught in a simplified form that can lead to wrong conclusions. For example, "Light and heavy objects fall at the same rate" can be used to prove that objects fall at the same rate on the Earth and the Moon - which is far from correct. If the Moon were somehow dropped onto the Earth, it would fall at a certain rate. The Earth dropped on the Moon would necessarily fall at the same rate. So if the Moon falling on the Earth fell at the same rate as a bowling ball, then the bowling ball would have to fall at the same rate on the Moon. When I read Heinlein's _The Rolling Stones_ as a pre-teen, where he describes things falling slower on the Moon, I applied this reasoning and concluded that Heinlein must have made a mistake. The solution to this paradox is that something as big as the Moon will not only accelerate toward the Earth, it will significantly accelerate the Earth toward it, so the Moon does not actually fall at the same rate as a bowling ball. [[User:Cphoenix\|Cphoenix]] ([[User talk:Cphoenix\|talk]]) 01:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:35, 12 May 2025
Line 50:		Line 50:
	I'm sure there must be a name for the belief of absurdity (or counterintuitiveness) due to ignorance or failure/refusal to understand the entirety of a circumstance, or overgeneralization of known outcomes that only partially match the circumstance in question. If there is, that should probably be mentioned in the explanation. Does anyone here know what that might be? [[User:SammyChips\|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips\|talk]]) 16:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)		I'm sure there must be a name for the belief of absurdity (or counterintuitiveness) due to ignorance or failure/refusal to understand the entirety of a circumstance, or overgeneralization of known outcomes that only partially match the circumstance in question. If there is, that should probably be mentioned in the explanation. Does anyone here know what that might be? [[User:SammyChips\|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips\|talk]]) 16:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
	:Maybe not entirely congruous with what you describe, but the "{{w\|Argument from incredulity}}" is still somewhat similar. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.94\|141.101.99.94]] 22:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)		:Maybe not entirely congruous with what you describe, but the "{{w\|Argument from incredulity}}" is still somewhat similar. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.94\|141.101.99.94]] 22:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
		+	:Do you mean forming incorrect inferences by leaving out some of the facts? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.109\|162.158.62.109]] 23:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 :Right. Archimedes's "Give me a lever long enough..." assumes that the lever is made of a material that won't buckle or snap under the weight of the Earth. If there were a material like that it would make building long bridges much simpler. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
 :It is also quite difficult to efficiently contain a fluid under pressure in a moving system. All considerations of innovation-stiffling aside, the same problem hindered the use of the Stirling engine untill very recently. Force applied to a rigid mediom is much easier to predict / monitor (a solid either holds or doesn't, but it doesnt leak -not in a way that would have been hindering the use in everyday life by "the ancients" anyway). To a certain extent it is also the reason why most common bikes still use cable brakes : sure it't less efficient but it's much cheaper and you can repair them in no time with common garden-shed-grade equipment.{{unsigned ip|172.71.232.101|22:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}
 ;Donald Knuth?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 12 May 2025
Line 48:		Line 48:

	I'm sure there must be a name for the belief of absurdity (or counterintuitiveness) due to ignorance or failure/refusal to understand the entirety of a circumstance, or overgeneralization of known outcomes that only partially match the circumstance in question. If there is, that should probably be mentioned in the explanation. Does anyone here know what that might be? [[User:SammyChips\|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips\|talk]]) 16:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)		I'm sure there must be a name for the belief of absurdity (or counterintuitiveness) due to ignorance or failure/refusal to understand the entirety of a circumstance, or overgeneralization of known outcomes that only partially match the circumstance in question. If there is, that should probably be mentioned in the explanation. Does anyone here know what that might be? [[User:SammyChips\|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips\|talk]]) 16:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
		+	:Maybe not entirely congruous with what you describe, but the "{{w\|Argument from incredulity}}" is still somewhat similar. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.94\|141.101.99.94]] 22:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:17, 12 May 2025
Line 46:		Line 46:

	Also don't forget that there was a Mythbusters episode to this effect (well, in reverse and with air, but same principle), it's possible to lift a car with a single household vacuum-cleaner just by splitting the hose into a few dozen rather large suction cups. More surface area = more force for the same pressure.{{unsigned ip\|162.158.3.106\|07:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)}}		Also don't forget that there was a Mythbusters episode to this effect (well, in reverse and with air, but same principle), it's possible to lift a car with a single household vacuum-cleaner just by splitting the hose into a few dozen rather large suction cups. More surface area = more force for the same pressure.{{unsigned ip\|162.158.3.106\|07:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)}}
		+
		+	I'm sure there must be a name for the belief of absurdity (or counterintuitiveness) due to ignorance or failure/refusal to understand the entirety of a circumstance, or overgeneralization of known outcomes that only partially match the circumstance in question. If there is, that should probably be mentioned in the explanation. Does anyone here know what that might be? [[User:SammyChips\|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips\|talk]]) 16:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 Should there be a goofs section here, because the white board is drawn with perspective, but the picture on it is not. It will look odd, like the whole contraption is tilted, to the students[[User:Drkaii|Drkaii]] ([[User talk:Drkaii|talk]]) 09:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
-I don't know how to write it, but someone should probably write the actual *point* of the comic: Randall coming up with ridiculous scenarios to disprove the theory, only to be informed that those scenarios actually happened.
+I don't know how to write it, but someone should probably write the actual *point* of the comic: Randall coming up with ridiculous scenarios to disprove the theory, only to be informed that those scenarios actually happened.{{unsigned ip|172.69.70.145|23:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}
-Also don't forget that there was a Mythbusters episode to this effect (well, in reverse and with air, but same principle), it's possible to lift a car with a single household vacuum-cleaner just by splitting the hose into a few dozen rather large suction cups. More surface area = more force for the same pressure.
+Also don't forget that there was a Mythbusters episode to this effect (well, in reverse and with air, but same principle), it's possible to lift a car with a single household vacuum-cleaner just by splitting the hose into a few dozen rather large suction cups. More surface area = more force for the same pressure.{{unsigned ip|162.158.3.106|07:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)}}