Displacement question.

[celtic]

Incred thread. Like a 'in the well' with me, but a bath instead.

For the record, I can't swim. I don't think I have ever floated unaided in my life.

Hope that helps

[arbboy]

Incred thread. Like a 'in the well' with me, but a bath instead.

For the record, I can't swim. I don't think I have ever floated unaided in my life.

Hope that helps

You float unaided through mtt's most times u play them! 

[teamonkey]

This stopped me going to sleep!!

I am wrong; if the bath was shaped correctly, taking into account the shape of Celtic while suspended in water, then yes, he could indeed float in a very small amount of water.

The reason for this is that his body will have effectively displaced the water by occupying the space the water would have been in.

I'm not sure of the exact minimum amount or thickness of the water layer required between Celtic and the bath wall, but I imagine theoretically he could float on less than a couple of mm of water.

He'd still get wet and cross at your experiments during his bath time

No. He wouldn't float unless the water he displaced was heavier than he was.

Unless the bath is big enough to hold his weight in water without it spilling over the edge when he gets in, he cant float.

Sorry Red, he will still float.

Best way to think about this is instead of something odd shaped like celtic, use something regular shaped like a cube, now for an object to float its density must be less than the medium it is floating in, so a cube of some non permeable plastic will do this, if the cube is 10x10x10 cm, when floating in the water 1cm is above the water level.

Put said cube into a full bath of water, Where it will float, with, as said before,  1cm showing, so it has displaced 10x10x9 cm of water. Measure this amount of water, which will be 900cubic cm of water.

Now take a bath that measures 11x11x10 cm, and fill in to the brim again with water. This time when you put the cube in the bath, you will see that it also floats, with the same 1cm showing out of the water, so again it has displaced the same volume of water, ie 10x10x9cm =900 cubic cm.

Repeat the experimeny by slowly making the bath smaller and you will see that an object will float in a very small amount of water indeed.

Substitute the regular shaped object and bath for celtic, repeat experiment, and you will find that celtic will float, and be hungry at the same time

Now, whats your thoughts on Schroedingers celtic, where if celtic and a plate of nandos chicken are placed in a box, the chicken could be both eaten AND untouched at the same time!

[RED-DOG]

This stopped me going to sleep!!

I am wrong; if the bath was shaped correctly, taking into account the shape of Celtic while suspended in water, then yes, he could indeed float in a very small amount of water.

The reason for this is that his body will have effectively displaced the water by occupying the space the water would have been in.

I'm not sure of the exact minimum amount or thickness of the water layer required between Celtic and the bath wall, but I imagine theoretically he could float on less than a couple of mm of water.

He'd still get wet and cross at your experiments during his bath time

No. He wouldn't float unless the water he displaced was heavier than he was.

Unless the bath is big enough to hold his weight in water without it spilling over the edge when he gets in, he cant float.

Sorry Red, he will still float.

Best way to think about this is instead of something odd shaped like celtic, use something regular shaped like a cube, now for an object to float its density must be less than the medium it is floating in, so a cube of some non permeable plastic will do this, if the cube is 10x10x10 cm, when floating in the water 1cm is above the water level.

Put said cube into a full bath of water, Where it will float, with, as said before,  1cm showing, so it has displaced 10x10x9 cm of water. Measure this amount of water, which will be 900cubic cm of water.

Now take a bath that measures 11x11x10 cm, and fill in to the brim again with water. This time when you put the cube in the bath, you will see that it also floats, with the same 1cm showing out of the water, so again it has displaced the same volume of water, ie 10x10x9cm =900 cubic cm.

Repeat the experimeny by slowly making the bath smaller and you will see that an object will float in a very small amount of water indeed.

Substitute the regular shaped object and bath for celtic, repeat experiment, and you will find that celtic will float, and be hungry at the same time

Now, whats your thoughts on Schroedingers celtic, where if celtic and a plate of nandos chicken are placed in a box, the chicken could be both eaten AND untouched at the same time!

Sorry tea, you're wrong.

Gravity us pulling the water towards the bottom of the bath. It is also pulling Celtic towards the bottom of the bath, but water, by volume, is heavier than Celtic.

If the size of the bath is reduced to a point where it won't hold more than Celtic's weight in water he cannot possibly float. Otherwise he would be able to float by wearing sweaty trainers.

[teamonkey]

This stopped me going to sleep!!

I am wrong; if the bath was shaped correctly, taking into account the shape of Celtic while suspended in water, then yes, he could indeed float in a very small amount of water.

The reason for this is that his body will have effectively displaced the water by occupying the space the water would have been in.

I'm not sure of the exact minimum amount or thickness of the water layer required between Celtic and the bath wall, but I imagine theoretically he could float on less than a couple of mm of water.

He'd still get wet and cross at your experiments during his bath time

No. He wouldn't float unless the water he displaced was heavier than he was.

Unless the bath is big enough to hold his weight in water without it spilling over the edge when he gets in, he cant float.

Sorry Red, he will still float.

Best way to think about this is instead of something odd shaped like celtic, use something regular shaped like a cube, now for an object to float its density must be less than the medium it is floating in, so a cube of some non permeable plastic will do this, if the cube is 10x10x10 cm, when floating in the water 1cm is above the water level.

Put said cube into a full bath of water, Where it will float, with, as said before,  1cm showing, so it has displaced 10x10x9 cm of water. Measure this amount of water, which will be 900cubic cm of water.

Now take a bath that measures 11x11x10 cm, and fill in to the brim again with water. This time when you put the cube in the bath, you will see that it also floats, with the same 1cm showing out of the water, so again it has displaced the same volume of water, ie 10x10x9cm =900 cubic cm.

Repeat the experimeny by slowly making the bath smaller and you will see that an object will float in a very small amount of water indeed.

Substitute the regular shaped object and bath for celtic, repeat experiment, and you will find that celtic will float, and be hungry at the same time

Now, whats your thoughts on Schroedingers celtic, where if celtic and a plate of nandos chicken are placed in a box, the chicken could be both eaten AND untouched at the same time!

Sorry tea, you're wrong.

Gravity us pulling the water towards the bottom of the bath. It is also pulling Celtic towards the bottom of the bath, but water, by volume, is heavier than Celtic.

If the size of the bath is reduced to a point where it won't hold more than Celtic's weight in water he cannot possibly float. Otherwise he would be able to float by wearing sweaty trainers.

Not sure if serious

[tikay]

And here he is.

[doubleup]

If you put Celtic into a large, (make that very large) bath and filled it with water he would float, but what would happen if you put him into a Celtic shaped bath with only a fag-paper thickness of clearance between his skin and the sides, so that you could fill the resulting gap with less than a gallon of water. Would he float then?

Have you tried emptying the bath and filling it up again?

[RED-DOG]

This stopped me going to sleep!!

I am wrong; if the bath was shaped correctly, taking into account the shape of Celtic while suspended in water, then yes, he could indeed float in a very small amount of water.

The reason for this is that his body will have effectively displaced the water by occupying the space the water would have been in.

I'm not sure of the exact minimum amount or thickness of the water layer required between Celtic and the bath wall, but I imagine theoretically he could float on less than a couple of mm of water.

He'd still get wet and cross at your experiments during his bath time

No. He wouldn't float unless the water he displaced was heavier than he was.

Unless the bath is big enough to hold his weight in water without it spilling over the edge when he gets in, he cant float.

Sorry Red, he will still float.

Best way to think about this is instead of something odd shaped like celtic, use something regular shaped like a cube, now for an object to float its density must be less than the medium it is floating in, so a cube of some non permeable plastic will do this, if the cube is 10x10x10 cm, when floating in the water 1cm is above the water level.

Put said cube into a full bath of water, Where it will float, with, as said before,  1cm showing, so it has displaced 10x10x9 cm of water. Measure this amount of water, which will be 900cubic cm of water.

Now take a bath that measures 11x11x10 cm, and fill in to the brim again with water. This time when you put the cube in the bath, you will see that it also floats, with the same 1cm showing out of the water, so again it has displaced the same volume of water, ie 10x10x9cm =900 cubic cm.

Repeat the experimeny by slowly making the bath smaller and you will see that an object will float in a very small amount of water indeed.

Substitute the regular shaped object and bath for celtic, repeat experiment, and you will find that celtic will float, and be hungry at the same time

Now, whats your thoughts on Schroedingers celtic, where if celtic and a plate of nandos chicken are placed in a box, the chicken could be both eaten AND untouched at the same time!

Sorry tea, you're wrong.

Gravity us pulling the water towards the bottom of the bath. It is also pulling Celtic towards the bottom of the bath, but water, by volume, is heavier than Celtic.

If the size of the bath is reduced to a point where it won't hold more than Celtic's weight in water he cannot possibly float. Otherwise he would be able to float by wearing sweaty trainers.

Not sure if serious

Lol. I am serious.


If you get into a brimming bath, you will push almost your weight's worth out. It will spill over the side.

A stone of water can't support 20 stones of Celtic.


Help me out here someone....

[RED-DOG]

Imagine sticking your finger into a thimble full of water. The water would get out of the way.

[bobAlike]

I'm no expert but this is all about volume and density and not weight. He would only float if there was enough water left in the bath for him to float in. i.e. Celtic was not touching the sides. Much like when he eats a Nandos.

[RED-DOG]

I'm no expert but this is all about volume and density and not weight. He would only float if there was enough water left in the bath for him to float in. i.e. Celtic was not touching the sides. Much like when he eats a Nandos.

Of course it's about weight. If he were made of polystyrene he would float in less water than if he were made of lead.

Floating is not about touching the sides, it's about not touching the bottom.

[RED-DOG]

.

[bobAlike]

I'm no expert but this is all about volume and density and not weight. He would only float if there was enough water left in the bath for him to float in. i.e. Celtic was not touching the sides. Much like when he eats a Nandos.

Of course it's about weight. If he were made of polystyrene he would float in less water than if he were made of lead.

Floating is not about touching the sides, it's about not touching the bottom.

Nope sorry Red you are wrong. The lead would sink because of its density and not because of its weight.  If you had a rock (lets call it a stone) that weighed 14lb and some polystyrene that weighed 14lb and placed it in a lake, the stone would sink but the polystyrene would float. The reason for that is density. The volume (size) of the polystyrene would be far greater.

If the bath was round would there still be a bottom? If the bath was square would the Nandos have to be medium?

[bobAlike]

I don't like that video. There are too many different variables for a straight comparison, solid objects, hollow objects all act different. The reason a ship doesn't sink is not because steel is lighter than water it's because the shape of the ship. If you melted a ship down and moulded it into a solid block it would sink.

[RED-DOG]

I'm no expert but this is all about volume and density and not weight. He would only float if there was enough water left in the bath for him to float in. i.e. Celtic was not touching the sides. Much like when he eats a Nandos.

Of course it's about weight. If he were made of polystyrene he would float in less water than if he were made of lead.

Floating is not about touching the sides, it's about not touching the bottom.

Nope sorry Red you are wrong. The lead would sink because of its density and not because of its weight.  If you had a rock (lets call it a stone) that weighed 14lb and some polystyrene that weighed 14lb and placed it in a lake, the stone would sink but the polystyrene would float. The reason for that is density. The volume (size) of the polystyrene would be far greater.

If the bath was round would there still be a bottom? If the bath was square would the Nandos have to be medium?

What if your 14lb stone was shaped like a 1mm thick 10ft diameter dish? What if your 14lb polystyrene was compressed to the size of a house brick?

Concrete barges float because they are lighter than the volume of water they would displace if they were submerged.

Celtic would displace more than the weight of a gallon of water.