[guest39538]

pop.jpg (64.75 kB . 800x533 - viewed 4398 times)

On a set of scales in the above situation the plastic sweet corns mass is 0kg.   You can measure the mass on a set of scales before you submerge it, and you will measure a different mass when submerged.  Quantum buoyancy being new to you but surely you can understand simplicity?

[Bored chemist]

and you will measure a different mass when submerged.

No you will not.
You will measure a different weight, but the mass is still the same.

Since you do not understand what you are talking about there's no way you could be making sense; and you are not.

[guest39538]

You will measure a different weight, but the mass is still the same.

Kg is a measure used on a set of scales is not?  Mass is the same as weight which is Newtons of force.


The mass is not the same it would measure less kg so stop lying.

[Bored chemist]

Mass is the same as weight

No
Mass is not the same as weight.
Mass is measured in Kg and weight in Newtons (Or Kgf in some cases).

[The Spoon]

You will measure a different weight, but the mass is still the same.

Kg is a measure used on a set of scales is not?  Mass is the same as weight which is Newtons of force.


The mass is not the same it would measure less kg so stop lying.

No it is not. This is very basic first grade stuff you learn in science if you can be bothered to listen to other people instead of calling them names in a frankly hypocritical manner given how much you lie.

Mass is the amount of matter in an object and a measure of its resistance to acceleration. Mass is the same whatever the gravitational force acting on an object. Weight on the other hand is really a force and is proportional to an objects mass but is dependent on the gravitational force acting on it.

[guest39538]

For anybody who is interested there is a question.

In the observation of the plastic sweetcorn, why does the sweetcorn completely ignore the affects of gravity?  Gravity is not acting on the plastic corn in this situation.  Quite the opposite is happening, buoyancy is rather vague, can anyone explain on a Quantum level what is happening?

In physics, buoyancy ( /ˈbɔɪ.ənsi, -əntsi/[1][2] or /ˈbuːjənsi, -jəntsi/;[1][2]) or upthrust, is an upward force exerted by a fluid that opposes the weight of an immersed object.

Which makes absolutely no sense in regards to the situation. I feel the force exerted as nothing to do with the water.


airanwater.jpg (30.76 kB . 705x428 - viewed 4115 times)


Please explain in the above diagram where on Earth you are getting the opposite direction force from?

p.s My sweetcorn does not have a rocket  thrust.

p.s Like an electrostatic field can move water , the moon moves the oceans.

[Bored chemist]

ravity is not acting on the plastic corn in this situation. 

Yes it is.
In your diagram you show that the air is pressing down on the water.

Why isn't it moving down, and pushing the water out of the way?
Do you realise  it's because the water is pushing back up?
That is not only the answer to your question "where on Earth you are getting the opposite direction force from?"
 but it also explains why the corn doesn't move much. The buoyancy force and the weight  act in opposite directions and cancel out.

[guest39538]

The buoyancy force

So what is the buoyancy force on a Quantum level of understanding?

What is the force that can make the plastic sweetcorn underwater defy gravity?

What makes a thermo-cline decrease and increase in ''mass''?

What changes in a system like air when it is heated?

Why do gases and other expand when heated?

What mechanism is the driving force of repulsion when things are heated?

Do fields expand when things are heated pushing things  apart?

Why are objects equally attracted and equally repulsed as in the water pushes back?

Why do we say anti-gravity does not exist when anti means the opposite and up is opposite?

Everything is being pulled to the c.o.m , there should be nothing going in the opposite direction or opposing force in the opposite direction, q.f.s is why things push back, so how do I get this all to work!

[Bored chemist]

So what is the buoyancy force on a Quantum level of understanding?

You should probably try to understand it on a classical level first.
Try starting out by learning what weight and mass are, and what the difference is.

[jeffreyH]

There are things called molecules. They move about. In liquid water they are not moving fast enough to become a gas but have enough energy to support objects that have a lower density than the water. If you want a proper explanation of buoyancy search the forum. It has been discussed before.

[evan_au]

In modern science:
- the effects of large things that produce significant gravitational fields are best described by General Relativity (these things are too big to display quantum effects).
- the effects of small things that produce nuclear fields are best described by Quantum Theory (these things are too small to display gravitational effects)
- We don't (yet) have a theory that unites the two domains.

In-between, we have the familiar human-scale world where things don't produce much of a gravitational field, or display much quantum effects, but they are able to respond to external strong gravitational fields (eg the Earth's gravitational field).

So I think that it is pointless to describe the behavior of the float on your fishing line using either General Relativity or Quantum Theory. As BC says, use Classical physics.

I would apply the Thermodynamic principle which says that "Over time, things tend to approach the state of lowest energy".
- Water is denser than the float
- So in the Earth's gravitational field, the system is in a lower energy state if the water is on the bottom, and the float is on the top
      ... compared to the condition where the float is on the bottom, and the water is on the top
- So, on the Earth's surface, the state where the water is on the bottom, and the float is on the top is much more likely, over time
- In the ISS, where the acceleration due to Earth's gravitational field is cancelled by the ISS orbit, the two states have equal energy, and either state is equally likely.

[Bored chemist]

In modern science:
- the effects of large things that produce significant gravitational fields are best described by General Relativity (these things are too big to display quantum effects).
- the effects of small things that produce nuclear fields are best described by Quantum Theory (these things are too small to display gravitational effects)
- We don't (yet) have a theory that unites the two domains.

In-between, we have the familiar human-scale world where things don't produce much of a gravitational field, or display much quantum effects, but they are able to respond to external strong gravitational fields (eg the Earth's gravitational field).

So I think that it is pointless to describe the behavior of the float on your fishing line using either General Relativity or Quantum Theory. As BC says, use Classical physics.

I would apply the Thermodynamic principle which says that "Over time, things tend to approach the state of lowest energy".
- Water is denser than the float
- So in the Earth's gravitational field, the system is in a lower energy state if the water is on the bottom, and the float is on the top
      ... compared to the condition where the float is on the bottom, and the water is on the top
- So, on the Earth's surface, the state where the water is on the bottom, and the float is on the top is much more likely, over time
- In the ISS, where the acceleration due to Earth's gravitational field is cancelled by the ISS orbit, the two states have equal energy, and either state is equally likely.

Since  he doesn't understand the difference between mass and force, I suspect that trying to do thermodynamics isn't going to go well.

[guest39538]

In modern science:
- the effects of large things that produce significant gravitational fields are best described by General Relativity (these things are too big to display quantum effects).
- the effects of small things that produce nuclear fields are best described by Quantum Theory (these things are too small to display gravitational effects)
- We don't (yet) have a theory that unites the two domains.

Lots of little things make one big thing, a big thing is still little things , all things have fields regardless of the size. 

1+1=2

2 is greater than 1 so everything about 2 should be twice as much as one.  I don't see the problem of unification. 

A big thing is a little thing at distance.

[guest39538]

Since  he doesn't understand the difference between mass and force, I suspect that trying to do thermodynamics isn't going to go well.

Yes I do, what you don't understand is that mass is an ambiguity of weight.

[guest39538]

- In the ISS, where the acceleration due to Earth's gravitational field is cancelled by the ISS orbit, the two states have equal energy, and either state is equally likely.

Please tell me about the ISS, does it have a geostationary orbit where it moves with the earth rather than around the earth?

[guest39538]

There are things called molecules.

Gravity is cold , anti-gravity is hot?

[guest39538]

Do you realise  it's because the water is pushing back up?

At least get it right, the N-field pushes back, the water is just a difference in observation than the air, the air and water are just fields. 

You have really got stop looking at things as things and see them for what they are.   

[evan_au]

I think that it is pointless to describe the behavior of the float on your fishing line using either General Relativity or Quantum Theory.

Just after writing that comment, I received the following as a birthday present from my family - a surprisingly simple introduction to Relativity and Quantum theory, with thick, glossy, baby-proof pages!

Baby_Physics_small.jpg (76.48 kB . 640x361 - viewed 4216 times)
There is a series of these books, written by a physicist...

Please tell me about the ISS, does it have a geostationary orbit where it moves with the earth rather than around the earth?

The ISS orbits about 300-400km above the Earth, completing one orbit about every 90 minutes.

It is much easier/cheaper to get supplies into this Low Earth Orbit (LEO) than it is to reach geostationary orbit (about 36,000 km above the Earth's surface).

But in either case, the acceleration due to gravity is neatly balanced by the orbital velocity, leaving the interior of the ISS in a weightless state.

[guest39538]

geostationary orbit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

What stops the object falling to the ground?   

[Bored chemist]

Lots of little things make one big thing, a big thing is still little things , all things have fields regardless of the size. 

1+1=2

2 is greater than 1 so everything about 2 should be twice as much as one.  I don't see the problem of unification. 

A big thing is a little thing at distance.

Much as you might not like it, that's just not right.