Re: Chez Watt: There can be no Evolution by natural selection DJT

the heekster wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:45:52 -0700, Rusty Sites
<SpameYouToo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

the heekster wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:47:43 -0700, Rusty Sites
<SpameYouToo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

the heekster wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:58:19 -0700, Rusty Sites
<SpameYouToo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

the heekster wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:19:29 -0700, Ken Shackleton
<ken.shackleton@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 21, 8:09 pm, the heekster <heeks...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:15:58 -0700, Harry K <turnkey4...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





On Oct 20, 6:28 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 20, 5:37 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <1192817121.229225.42...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Harry
K <turnkey4...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Oct 19, 10:21 am, John Vreeland <vreej...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:54:18 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx>
opined:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:10:44 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kent Paul Dolan
<xanth...@xxxxxxxx>:
File under "Anti-Eureka!":
OK I believe that also, but if Ice
shrinks when it melts the sea level
will become lower when the Ice shrinks.
hot higher..
Ye chaos, that such stupidity can even
support respiration...
I'd guess Archimedes is up to about 3000rpm by now...
I heard that Rush Limbaugh made this claim on the air, once.
For the record, when fresh-water ice (pack ice is fresh) melts in salt
water, the water level rises. Of course, most ice is land-locked,
anyway, so there is no question of its raising sea level when it
melts. And then, of course, the fact that warming water expands...
But if we want to indulge in exploring ephemera, how about the fact
that increased world-wide prosperity will result in more boats being
in the water, which can only result in more water being displaced?
Why is this cross-posted to misc.misc? deleted.
--
Two Creation Scientists can hold an intelligent conversation, if one
of them is a sock puppet.
---John Vreeland(IEEE.org) http://rtmabc.blogspot.com
See discussion with Ken Shackleton. Logic says that the level won't
change as the cube displaces enough salt water to balance the mass of
fresh water contained in the ice. Same happens after the cube melts.
I am setting up an experiment to try but would like a cite if there is
one.
Harry K
A thought experiment -
Consider a hundred square miles of ice of uniform thickness floating on
the ocean, coated by a rigid covering of negligible mass. The surface of
the ice is above that of the ocean, due its lower density. Then
instantly turn the ice to fresh water. Because its still of lower
density than the ocean, and is constrained from flowing away, the
surface of the fresh water is still above that of the ocean, although
lower than that of the ice. Finally remove the coating. The freshwater
will flow outwards raising the surface of the surrounding ocean.
--
alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ice floats with almost all of its mass under water. This a a rather
wierd way to look at it but it is accurate as to the result: The melt
water exactly fills the hole the ice occupied prior to melting. That
is true no matter what the ice is floating in.
Try doing the experiment.
Harry K- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
After rethinking that, the light dawned. Pictured cube floating in/on
mercury. Yep, the level rises.
Harry K
Consider that ice is about 8% less dense than water. For a freshwater
iceberg, and salt water, that difference is probably about 13% less
dense. This means that the berg will float higher in the water.

When it melts, it should fill the volume it displaced.
By your own numbers, there will be 5% left over once the "hole"
displaced by the iceberg is filled by meltwater.

Well, maybe so, but icebergs are even less dense than an ice cube,
because 'bergs have a lot of air trapped in them
Trapped air would make no difference. The iceberg would displace the same amount of water with or without the air and the air would escape into the atmosphere upon being released.
Displacement is a function of mass.

You appear to be arguing that trapped air in an iceberg is massless.

Displacement by a floating object is a function of its weight.
And weight is mass times the acceleration. Here, the acceleration is
gravity.

Air has no weight because it is floating.
Your education is sorely lacking. Air has mass, and consequently,
weight.
How would you propose to weigh air in air? I am educated enough to know that the weight of the atmosphere manifests itself in pressure. Pressure is a scalar.
I know that, but we are not talking about pressure. We are talking
about bouyancy, which is a vector.
We are also talking about the air in the iceberg. It has weight, and
the vector points to the center of the earth, the bouyancy vector is
180 degrees opposed to this.

The amount of fluid displaced by a floating object does not depend on how its mass is distributed through its volume.
No one said that it did.
My argument follows from that single fact.

That means you can move the air pockets around in the iceberg without changing the amount of water it displaces.
Chez Watt?

Move all the air to the top of the iceberg so that it has two layers.
This is absurd on its face.
It is demonstrating the absurdity of what you are saying.

Wrong answer.
I bet you can't do a ballistics problem that includes air resistance,
either.

You do not get to ignore the mass of the air in the iceberg.
It has ice below and air above. The amount of water displaced has not changed.
So, you change the density of the object, by removing the mass of the
air, and you think nothing has changed?
I didn't say nothing had changed. I said the amount of water displaced has not changed.

If you remove mass from the iceberg, the displacement changes. The
air has mass. Deal with it.

Since you have agreed that the distribution of mass in a floating object makes no difference, I could just declare any amount of air lying above an iceberg to part of the iceberg. Obviously, such a declaration does not change the amount of water displaced by the iceberg. If you don't like that, I could take a slightly more complicated approach. Suppose all the air in the iceberg is in one big pocket at the top. I will make the iceberg cubic for simplicity. Now suppose that there is a thin shell of ice around the top and sides of the pocket. If the shell is made thinner and the ice that is removed from the shell is placed somewhere else in the iceberg, only the distribution of the matter in the iceberg is being changed, so the amount of water displaced does not change. In the limit, as the shell becomes thinner and thinner, the air pocket just becomes part of the air. When does the amount of water being displaced by the iceberg change?

You are being disingenuous. The air in the iceberg is part of the
mass of the iceberg. In a conservative force field, this mass has the
attribute of weight.

Air is weightless in air just like water is weightless in water. Something more dense than water sinks. Something less dense floats. Something with the same density has neutral buoyancy. Same for air and air has the same density as air.


If you remove the air from the iceberg, you have reduced the mass of
the iceberg.

It is irrelevant.


The air is not in one big pocket.

The iceberg is not cubic.

There is no thin shell.

This matter if and only if the amount of water displaced by a floating object depends on the shape of the object and how its mass is distributed within its volume. Do you think it does?


You had a hell of a time in high school physics, didn't you?

I did a lot better than the other guy. You are having a hell of a time understanding the current topic.

.

Relevant Pages