4 ms·
Your conclusion is incorrect given your assumptions. You are assuming no floor, in which case all the weights will rise. Only the man will fall. I think the
by brlewis 16y ago
Your conclusion is incorrect given your assumptions. You are assuming no floor, in which case all the weights will rise. Only the man will fall. I think the problem was intended to include a floor that simply isn't drawn.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y agoDo you really want me to write the full six page analysis? No, I didn't think so. Unfortunately, concise replies such as the one I gave and which require the reader to think a little often result in replies such as yours where it is difficult to discern whether you are being deliberately clever, deliberately trollish, or genuinely confused. Let me expand. I only assumed the weights were unsupported, not the man. I did that to assist the reader in understanding the analysis. I did not assume the man was unsupported - I had hoped my initial description of what happens implied that. Possibly it didn't. I would expect that the problem is intended to include the floor - that's not my point. Having made the analysis for the unsupported weights, the evolution of the situation when there is a floor becomes obvious. So I hope you were joking, and not a troll.
- brlewis 16y agoI'm not trolling, and only half joking. Your first paragraph where you talked about the heavier weight falling seemed like a joke about the drawing not including a floor. Which would be fine, except someone making that silly assumption should go all the way with it and assume the man is unsupported too. Now I understand that you were helping people understand the analysis, and I'm sorry my reply sounded trollish.
- henrikschroder 16y agoNot if he weighs less than 60kg. :-)