the glass jar is filled with water.\nthere might be a way of tampering with gravity thru physics or chemistry to execute this task. whatever it is, it has to be logical and clearly understood.thanks
201944
Put a rubber stopper or a lid on the glass jar.  You can turn the jar anyway you like, nothing will fall out.
23085
Contrary to what some science teachers and tour guides may say, glass is NOT a "slow-moving liquid". That's an urban legend.\n\nMany years ago, the method of making glass panes involved spinning a glob of glass on a flat disk until the glass flattened, which caused the outside edge to be thicker than the center. When the disk of glass was cut into panes, one edge was always slightly thicker.\n\n"Estimates of the viscosity of glasses at room temperature run as high as 10 to the 20th power Scientists and engineers may argue about the exact value of that number, but it is doubtful that there is any real physical significance to a viscosity as great as that anyway. As for cathedral windows, it is hard to believe that anything that viscous is going to flow at all.\n\nIt is worth noting, too, that at room temperature the viscosity of metallic lead has been estimated to be about 10 to the11th power, poises, that is, perhaps a billion times less viscous-or a billion times more fluid, if you prefer than glass. Presumably, then, the lead caming that holds stained glass pieces in place should have flowed a billion times more readily than the glass. While lead caming often bends and buckles under the enormous architectural stresses imposed on it, one never hears that the lead has flowed like a liquid."\n-Dr. Robert Brill, Corning Museum of Glass\n\n\np.s. \n\n1. The more viscous a liquid, the higher its resistance to flow - not the other way around. \n\n2. It's "Newtonian", not "Neutonian".\n\n3. Although glass exhibits characteristics of both liquid and solid, it's categorized as an amorphous or "pseudo" solid.
417234
I think this belongs in the Chemistry section.  I'm not a Chemistry buff, but if someone here is, I'm sure you'll get your answer.
662209
No realistic container is perfectly impervious to slow leakage, so the contents will always be lost over time.  However, with industry standard aluminum beverage cans, this should not happen within only a few months, or even a few years.  (Decades, maybe, but even that would be doubtful.)  So there *must* have been some form of leakage, albeit very small.  The fact that they were stored in a cupboard suggests that a tiny imperfection, most likely at a seam, was formed over time due to internal gas pressure.  Such a leak may still be so minute as to be unnoticeable via simple visual inspection, but still significant enough to allow slow evaporation over time, especially with the assistance of internal pressure.\n\nTry this:  Take one of those empty, seemingly-leakless cans and submerge it in water for a few days, or even a few weeks.  The deeper the water, the better, so that there is some pressure outside the can.  Then, take it out of the water and shake it a bit to see if perhaps a few drops have somehow found their way inside.\n\n(This all, of course, assumes that someone did not *intentionally* form a tiny leak and drink away all the contents.  It is possible to create a leak large enough for drinking [albeit very slowly], but small enough to be difficult to detect.  The easiest method is to make the leak at the top, usually where the pull-tab is anchored to the can, and then drink it upside down, shaking the can a bit to build up internal pressure and thus helping push the contents out more quickly.)
285125
It is a major puzzle, no one is quite sure. See the attached article for more details...
258433
I assume this is based on the principle of Osmosis. I would like a bit more data before answering further.
471613
um, i may be wrong(...)\n\n1. i dont get what the first one is saying...like what it means(?)\n2. well, first you'd tell the whole glass to STEP AWAY from the glass and orger any goofy silly kid to please get out or else they get seriously cut!\n    then with maybe the teachers help(or actually just ask the teacher to do it) with a paper or anything else thats hard and prevents you getting hurt..)\netc...continue from there...\n3.(water is a liquid).....(? is a solid). the mass.....OH YEASH!!!!\nwith liquids you pour a certain amount in a graduating cylinder and y-oh sorry ^^; that to measure something else...um....\nim sooo sorry !!! of course....\nMASS is measured by (with solids) with a triple beam balance.\ni guess one would measure mass with liquids like this: you er...put it in a gasllon,.....mass that gallon....mass the water(with the gallon) and when you get the mass you subtract it from the mass of the gallon(without the water)....\nbut then that way there'd be no difference......\n\n\nim horrible...im really sorry....
19029
Sorry, but with the time you spent typing these questions you could of looked them up in your physics book or googled them.  Sometimes getting others to do your leg work isn't always the best answer to a problem.  Good Luck in your new class!
1809
you either need more information, or this is a trivial problem. \n\ni am assuming the two surfaces of the glass are parallel to each other, so it's not a prism or lens, but a thin flat plate.\n\ntreating it very simply, you could argue that energy is conserved, so the irradiance (which is energy per second per square meter) must be conserved.  the speed of light is fixed in air, so the "per second" part is fixed too.  if the glass surfaces are not angled with respect to each other, then the light leaves the glass taking up the same area that it went in with.  this means the irradiances are the same.\n\nthis is a simplistic physical model, though.  realistically, you will get some reflection at the air-glass interface, reflection at the glass-air interface, and some absorption (both in the air and in the glass).  you need a lot more details about the problem to say anything meaningful though.
156041
Not trying to get some help with a chemistry homework problem, are you?\n\n\nOkay, my guess is that the molecules of one of the liquids fit into the "gaps" between the molecules of the other.  Kinda like mixing a quart of pebbles with a quart of bigger rocks.  Since some of the pebbles with fit between the bigger rocks, the combined volume will be noticeably less than two quarts.
22461
The same thing would happen if the table were metal!\nHeat energy in the table is absorbed by the cold glass. When the dew-point is reached underneath the table, the humidity in the atmosphere condenses on that surface as well as the glass on top.\n-it has nothing to do with similar materials-
400008
You need to match the resonant frequency of the glass, but you also need a large enough amplitude (i.e., volume) to get violent enough vibrations.\n\nYou might find out the resonant frequency (pitch) by striking the glass with a pencil or something. Hanging it from a string could help, because it might be dampened by whatever it's sitting on.
440332
Glass is made of sandstone.  Stone would be earth.
613555
mathematical dilemma. there is no answer to the question. Well at least none that are known. Just like the elements we know there out there but we have to figure them out first.  just like Einstein theory of fusion. its passable just not proved.
300826
I believe (depending on the pressure in the sealed container) that the water would just float in the shape of the container.  If the container was under pressure and the seal was broken, the water would instantly get sucked out of the container and float there.  Shaded from the sun it would freeze in that shape.  My guess.\n\n\nThis is what happens to lichens:\n\n"...Once in Earth orbit, the lid of the container opened and the samples were exposed to the space environment for nearly 15 days before the lid resealed and the capsule returned to Earth. \n\nThe lichens were subjected to the vacuum of space and to temperatures ranging from -20°C on the night side of the Earth, to 20°C on the sunlit side. They were also exposed to glaring ultraviolet radiation of the Sun...."
187783
Well if you are talkin about a mirror made of floated glass a layman can c the quality of it other wise ind. know how is required i think (i am not proffesional in it, just being in a float glass plant for a week). If it is a mirror and you c a distracted reflection then b sure that there is impurity in the glass, as well as the transparency of float glass is supposed to be very high compares to the conventional one.
579388
Interesting, though I would like to see it taken further (as to proofs, etc.).  If you liked that book, try reading "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar."  Sorry, I can't remember the name of the woman who wrote it.