J.C.MacSwell

How could any reasonable State law differ with that?

That was of course a rhetorical question.

Maybe they could suggest a part of Germany they could offer Putin?

I've worked in areas requiring tyvek suits in humid conditions. Hot enough to get myself to blow air up one leg of the suit using a vacuum in reverse.. Unbelievable cooling effect (though I've been generally drenched in sweat inside the suit before doing it). Looked like the michelin man as the suit expanded. I've also used positive pressure breathing apparatus powered by a battery strapped to my waist which gave a cooling effect as well, albeit just in the head area. I haven't done it but thought some combination of the two would work to good effect and be practical. Some sweating may still apply.

Better to name your kid Lee Harvey Booth?

Hopefully soon all the Ferdinand's remove Vladimir from lists of possible baby names as well...

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/asia/2022/07/08/attack-on-former-japan-pm-stuns-nation-known-for-gun-control.html Japan’s tight gun laws add to shock over Abe’s assassination "Abe’s security team may face serious questions. But because such attacks are extraordinary in Japan, relatively light security is the norm, even for former prime ministers."

Water has excellent heat capacitance, and it's cheap, so it's kind of a shame you can't use a preheat tank at low to usable temperatures for hot water. What you can do is have water storage tanks kept in a closed system that can be used for winter heating and/or summer cooling with a heat pump, especially if saved for times where the temperature differential makes heat pumps inefficient. Of course, the water may be cheap but the system and storage may not be. Not sure if it was here on this site, but I seem to recall discussing a small community version of this being potentially efficient and easier to insulate (cube square rule) where much of the insulation can then be the ground itself as long as there were no underground water flows near the reservoir to steal the heat. More or less an augmented geothermal system.

Rocks were much newer back then. A new ton could readily be moved with 102 gram force.

Surely that could have lead to a similar virus, if true, but would that be said to be covid-19?

Then why do they pass around that plate every Sunday?

The author has a point. I don't understand why evolutionists can claim it can all be done in the way they describe in just 6,000 years. If evolution is true you'd think it would have taken much longer. (Just kidding Truri...I will see myself out)

That of course was wishful thinking. I think Peterkin is right on the money on this part of this post: +1

Here's the assertion we've taken issue with. Can you now understand why it does not follow that "500 kg of mercury (a little less than 100L) will not float anything over 500 kg"?

That's the starting h. h raises until 1. the pole bottoms out, as you seem to realize.... OR 2. if the container is barely larger than your pole h raises enough to provide adequate pressure to float the cylinder. Not sure why you think that in 2. it would always require a mass of fluid greater or equal to the mass of the cylinder to allow the pole to float. Maybe if you used a less extreme example you could more readily see it I tried that here:

Exactly. As per my first post: I'm sure I could have stated it better, but I really thought that would be sufficient for most here.

Your claim was that you needed at least as much as the mass of the object. My bad for assuming you would immediately recognize that was not the case , after a brief thought. Apologies if I made you pull out a block of wood, stick it in a container, and add a bit of water to no avail. We're supposed to stand on the shoulders of giants to get further...not to drown them in the tub.

Now, we can consider scenarios of stability, density, shape...lack of gravity...or just recognize your assertion was not correct and let Archimedes rest in peace. He knew the displaced liquid did not need to be present. He doesn't need to wake up and rethink it. It will allow a greater pressure head to act on the bottom of the object, after sufficient liquid, which can be well under that of the mass of the object, is added.

Ships generally don't run aground in water deeper than their maximum depth I really thought I had given you enough to recognize your assertion was wrong. Have you recognized it yet? There is no theoretical minimum of liquid require to float an object...you just need the right container.

There is none. Good so far... You need sufficient mercury to get that pressure differential to be sufficient, and the smaller the container the less required. Wrong. That (the bold) is not what that means. Do you really think he tried it?

Archimedes is turning in his grave... A 20 cm x 20 cm x 10 cm high (approx 3.6 kg )block of ice will float in your bath tub..due to the pressure difference on the bottom from that of the top, which will be about 1 cm above the surface of the water. Now make a smaller tank 21 cm x 21 cm x 11 cm high. Add 1 litre of water (approx 1 kg). Water level approx 2.27 cm from bottom. Now carefully place into it the above 3.6 kg block, into the tank with the 1 kg of water. Water level will rise. The water level will be the same as for 4.6 litres of water, about 10.43 cm from the bottom, and the block will float about 1 cm above that, and with the top surface above the top of the tank. 1. It will float 2. It won't go to the bottom. 3. Only 1 litre of liquid water present 4. Archimedes would describe this as displacing 3.6 kg of water 5. Don't make me get him up

Try wood with a density lass than 1.0. I assure you it will float. Are you sure your tub was bigger in each dimension? Here's an experiment we've surely all done: Try filling a tub with water, freezing it, then letting it melt a bit. The ice will float well before half the ice is melted, therefore requiring less mass of water than the ice to make it float. (Or does the ice stay at the bottom where you live, until it knows the by the size of the container that it's allowed up?) Displace in this context doesn't mean you actually need the fluid to be present. There certainly needs to be enough, but enough can be significantly less than the mass of the object it makes buoyant.

Mistermack is correct. You don't need to "dis-place" the same mass if the container is just a little larger than the object, you just have "displace" it in terms of taking up the space with the right fluid head in place around it. Might want to rethink that. Think of putting a block of hardwood in a tub that's dimensioned slightly larger than the block. Add a bit of water and you will float it. If the tub was full of water from the start you would displace the weight in water as the water overflows but you get the same final result.

I do think they would be best to have a 99,9% slam dunk case, but if it's 90+ it's probably bad precedent if they don't follow through. I haven't been watching. I kind of hoped Trump would simply go away. It might be better if he just did. Can he plea bargain an agreement to STFU?