J.C.MacSwell

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?

Surely now that he's no longer the president there can no longer be any overwhelming national interest argument to limit them.

Who said they were? You're the one suggesting there's conspiracy behind it all.

So...a bunch of white supremacists are conspiring to make it difficult for nonwhite fetuses to be aborted...that's quite a theory...

I wouldn't have known to look. That's why the thanks and +1. (for the quoted portion of your post, not the comment) Has anyone here advocated for that?

Well. That's beyond F'd up IMO and though I'm willing to acknowledge there is still latent racism everywhere, that sounds like conspiracy theory territory to me. Also off topic and not really relevant. I don't hear anyone advocating for different abortion rules for different races. Certainly not here.

I never actually used the term in this thread, at least to my knowledge. I have used the term "late term fetus", which I usually intended to mean full or near full term. But thanks Peterkin for the info, I will try to keep it in mind.

About 5,000 a year.

Your objection is silly. Lawmakers, not medical personnel, get to choose the guidelines of whether the rights of a fetus take precedence over that of the mother, or vice versa. If that was not the case, why would the Parties even attempt legislation on it? Now, the federal lawmakers could make laws to allow to allow medical professionals to abort with impunity, or some reasonable compromise so that your whole nation has access to abortions the way the majority think they should. But they haven't, and they haven't.

Trained engineers don't get to build bridges wherever they like, and medical associations can't grant themselves the right to allow abortions in any circumstances they choose. The rules should be left to lawmakers, scrutinized by the Judiciary, and the procedures executed by the medical or Engineering professionals based on their guidelines. They can't just do what they like, even as a professional group, just because they think they know best. Is this not obvious? If you can recognize this for restrictions on trade of organs, how can you not see that the same principle would apply for abortions? The federal lawmakers, with their all or none partisan positions, are the problem here, but just because they lack the competence to get the job done does not mean the medical associations get to determine the rules. That falls to the State lawmakers. Sucks that many of them will do no better, but that doesn't change the above.

LOL. Another legal opinion?

I think it was some paddling event: It's actually the topic

Right. Thus the requirement for restrictions on their options. Because being a medical professional does not automatically raise you above everyone else morally or ethically. Last I checked, they were human too. Should we leave it with Engineers what guns should be developed and made available? They are the ones required to put the limits in place, and outline the basis for what might be considered necessary and with that the procedures that may be allowed. (With them of course limited by any constitution and the Judiciary) Why would you suggest otherwise?