The misery of school

[FALCON_12]

I take a pan scale. On the right I put an empty matchbox in which is placed a fly. On the other side I put a mass that balances the scale. The balance is therefore balanced.

The fly takes off and hovers in the center of the box. Does the scale stay balanced?

The answer is no, it tilts on the side of the balancing weight.

PS: assuming a hyper-sensitive Roberval scale of course, I read Izentrop's remark correctly

This is the whole failure of the school. Not only do we not see intuitively what is happening, but the simple and unstoppable theoretical reasoning which consists in saying that the mass and therefore the weight of the box+fly assembly has not necessarily varied since the fly is still in the box n was also not seen.

So here is a new demonstration of what I was saying: intelligences trained in scientific knowledge lack intuitive and theoretical evidence because their knowing "me" has been scratched.

It is not their intelligence that is lacking, it is only impeded. Prevented by the defense of self-images: "I am knowledgeable, I know what I am saying, I have such a diploma, I have done such studies, etc.". and whoever jeopardizes that attacks me. From there I defend myself as best I can and I use my knowledge to preserve this knowledge and the only thing that interests me is to be right, to patch up my "self" of cracked knowledge.

Our schools condition their students to positive or negative self-images through identification with knowledge, diplomas, successful or unsuccessful studies. "I am what I know, to touch my knowledge is to threaten me personally and I can come to verbal or physical blows" forum is filled with examples showing this toxic psychology.

[Ahmed]

I am not firmly convinced that the goals of the school are other than the development of technical skills (in the broad sense) necessary for the functioning of today's society, which requires more submission (or conformism, if you prefer) and of memory than of intelligence. Moreover, it also works by slicing up this knowledge and does not encourage a transversality that would contradict it.
I remember fellow students who got away with it very honorably by mechanically applying rules whose meaning they did not understand...
Later, questioned by teenagers on points of the program, I saw their interest disappear as soon as I had brought them enough elements to meet their teacher's requests... Everyone filled in their box and that's it for the rest!

[FALCON_12]

I am not firmly convinced that the goals of the school are other than the development of technical skills (in the broad sense) necessary for the functioning of today's society, which requires more submission (or conformism, if you prefer) and of memory than of intelligence. Moreover, it also works by slicing up this knowledge and does not encourage a transversality that would contradict it.

Still, whatever those goals, she induces those self-images by using a system of reward and competition that makes people think big heads or think bad things about themselves.

This I have observed a thousand times inside the school and outside among adults. It is also a real psychological massacre whose extent we do not measure.

The secret pride of people who have studied has the same absolute value as the disrepute of self that inhabits those who have not.

[izentrop]

This is the whole failure of the school. Not only do we not see intuitively what is happening, but the simple and unstoppable theoretical reasoning which consists in saying that the mass and therefore the weight of the box+fly assembly has not necessarily varied since the fly is still in the box n was not seen either

False, the fly floats in the air and its weight is no longer added to the box.

[Macro]

Have you ever found yourself in the airflow of a fan?

[Ahmed]

The means are hardly dissociable from their ends. The theoretical objective of the school is to put everyone on an equal footing to competitively create inequality for its benefit. In practice it is not even as ambitious since there is a cultural heritage that distorts the balance (Cf Bourdieu).

[sicetaitsimple]

This is the whole failure of the school. Not only do we not see intuitively what is happening, but the simple and unstoppable theoretical reasoning which consists in saying that the mass and therefore the weight of the box+fly assembly has not necessarily varied since the fly is still in the box n was also not seen.

Simple and unstoppable, Monsieur does not do lace! Anything again!
Certainly the ground effect exists, in the case of a helicopter it is sensitive up to a height of approximately the diameter of the rotor, that is to say that up to this height there will be a thrust upwards which will help the helicopter take off and stay in hover.
But it is the lift (the depression) generated by the rotor which will mainly make it take off, by a "suction" of the machine upwards.
Your fly, if it was "carried" only by the ground effect, it would not go very far....So it creates lift, and maybe but I don't know the characteristics of the flow of air generated by a fly when it takes off creates a bit of ground effect which will help it.
But the balance will tip, that's for sure. Otherwise prove the opposite, not by writing Not only do we not intuitively see what is happening...
Your "intuitions", we don't care.

[FALCON_12]

This is the whole failure of the school. Not only do we not see intuitively what is happening, but the simple and unstoppable theoretical reasoning which consists in saying that the mass and therefore the weight of the box+fly assembly has not necessarily varied since the fly is still in the box n was also not seen.

Simple and unstoppable, Monsieur does not do lace! Anything again!
Certainly the ground effect exists, in the case of a helicopter it is sensitive up to a height of approximately the diameter of the rotor, that is to say that up to this height there will be a thrust upwards which will help the helicopter take off and stay in hover.
But it is the lift (the depression) generated by the rotor which will mainly make it take off, by a "suction" of the machine upwards.
Your fly, if it was "carried" only by the ground effect, it would not go very far....So it creates lift, and maybe but I don't know the characteristics of the flow of air generated by a fly when it takes off creates a bit of ground effect which will help it.
But the balance will tip, that's for sure. Otherwise prove the opposite, not by writing Not only do we not intuitively see what is happening...
Your "intuitions", we don't care.

Has the mass of the box-fly assembly varied?
isn't the fly in the box yet?

[sicetaitsimple]

Has the mass of the box-fly assembly varied?
isn't the fly in the box yet?

The mass of the fly box assembly did not vary.
The fly is above the box, at least without contact with it..
And as it is hovering, its apparent weight is zero, due to the lift it generates with its small wings, perhaps helped a little by a ground effect.
So the scales tip .... You have to get used to it, unless you demonstrate the contrary.

[FALCON_12]

The mass of the fly box assembly did not vary.

So since g has not varied either the weight P = mg of the box-fly set has not varied
and the balance is still balanced.

The fly, since it remains at a constant altitude, transfers its weight to the ground by accelerating packets of air (air molecules) which collide with it and tend to push it back (increase in pressure) with a distributed force equal to his weight.

All this, if you had remained calmer and had not tried to maintain your image of knowing hurt
because his interlocutor did not mention this notion of apparent weight that you introduced in
the discussion, you would have easily seen it.

Reflect and rejoice that you have learned about yourself and how the world around you works.

Thank you for this discussion.