> Just how many *more* instances of wasting time do you need in order to STOP searching for "the answer" and start aiming instead to *understand* what the question highlights? Because that's the very role of questions - to highlight something you don't yet understand, as a very first step towards gaining more knowledge, not more answers!

>That aside, the title IS tedious and annoying in the extreme, indeed.

I need no more instances because digging around for an immediate answer via waddling through the swamps of search engine html is frustrating and useless, whereas reading a good source and working towards understanding is pleasurable and rewarding.

@ Mircea Popescu

> Dude holy god omfg why the fuck would you discuss this problem in terms of... fucking mommentum ?!

In retrospect it is certainly the wrong way to approach the problem.

> There's two kinds of tools used in basic mechanics. On one hand the scalar tools : energy (mass * speed squared) ; mommentum / impulse (mass * speed), inertia (mass) etcetera. These are generally useful in conservative approaches. On the other hand the vectorial tools : velocity (distance/time IN A DIRECTION), acceleration (distance / time squared IN A DIRECTION), force etcetera.

I was thinking of momentum in terms of a vector, I'm not sure why you listed momentum in the scalar category. (Although you define it as mass * speed whereas I was thinking of momentum as mass * velocity)

> I am aware that you read a number, and on this basis assume the scale to be in the scalar business ; but IT IS NOT. The scale's in the vector business, because of how it's made, which is what decides these things. Not "how it looks", that doesn't matter. How it works, that's what matters. The fact that it's not practical to add the unit of the involved vector space next to the value measured dun change its universally omnipotent omnipresence one whit.

I understand that force is a vector.

> As the guy points out : the scale does not measure mass ; it measures... force. Force. ..(and on)

I state in my question as "the force read on the scale" to make this point clear. I should have clarified that this question is meant to focus on "when is one increasing the normal force on a surface?" rather than how does a specific implementation of a scale perceive that increase.

As for the scale being placed vertically on the wall, I did not take into account that since the scale is likely a spring of some sorts, once it is placed on a wall gravity will bend it downwards slightly to take the form of a soft dick. That aside, from my understanding extending your body while lying on the floor and pressing your legs against the scale will increase the normal force on the scale because there is friction between your body and the ground that applies a force in the direction of the scale.

You understand it's a problem of acceleration, not of mommentum, why then are you in the wrong branch of the tree (appart from sub-par education in basic science, such as one would be exposed for instance at MIT, resulting in cluelessness as to what the fuck anything is or how it works).

There's two kinds of tools used in basic mechanics. On one hand the scalar tools : energy (mass * speed squared) ; mommentum / impulse (mass * speed), inertia (mass) etcetera. These are generally useful in conservative approaches. On the other hand the vectorial tools : velocity (distance/time IN A DIRECTION), acceleration (distance / time squared IN A DIRECTION), force etcetera.

As the guy points out : the scale does not measure mass ; it measures... force. Force.

I am aware that you read a number, and on this basis assume the scale to be in the scalar business ; but IT IS NOT. The scale's in the vector business, because of how it's made, which is what decides these things. Not "how it looks", that doesn't matter. How it works, that's what matters. The fact that it's not practical to add the unit of the involved vector space next to the value measured dun change its universally omnipotent omnipresence one whit.

Force (which is a vector) equals mass times acceleration (also a vector), thus therefore anything that changes your acceleration wrt the scale changes your perceived weight. Scales are adjusted to measure ~normal~ force ~at rest~, and so if you hit them they give off results.

Try it yourself : get a weight, place it on the scale. Then get the same weight, and THROW it on the scale. Or drop it on the scale from a height. Stand yourself on the scale, then jump in the air and LAND upon the scale at speed. Then get a spring, fix it vertically, measure how far it extends on its own weight, add an extra weight, measure how far it extends now, then LIFT THE WEIGHT AND LET IT GO, watch the spring go into a series of attenuated oscillations until stopping at the previously measured position. For half the time, the object "appeared heavier", though, didn't it, by the simple measure of having the spring extend below the neutral position.

Now try something else, like say place the scale vertically against the wall, and lie down next to it such that your feet are on the scale. It'll show something other than your weight, because you've violated its constructive expectations like you have before, though technically in a different way : this time, instead of using it other than at rest, you're using it to measure other than normal forces.

Because, again, it measures a fucking vector, and in order for the measurement to be meaningful, the presuppositions it relies on must hold : normal force (that is, force perpendicular on a defined surface) at rest.

Stop reading fucking webpages, go read Feynman if you're actually interested in physics.

That aside, the title IS tedious and annoying in the extreme, indeed.