swansont

The problem is that's not the situation you described. You need to have this container on all sides, so the water is not free to flow away from the object that is floating. You lose this once you "dig up in front of it" (P.S. I fixed the link in your post. URL shorteners don't normally fly here.)

I am talking about the scenario of the OP. I am not, and have not been, addressing any of the variants with new variables that others have introduced. You need to define your variables. What is D? The pressure in the fluid (above atmosphere) will be pgh, where p is the density and h is the depth of the fluid. In my example h is 10^-2 m. The pressure will be about 100 Pa. But your area is 10^-4 m^2. How are you lifting 5 N with that? Here's my brief thought: Archimedes principle says that the buoyancy force is equal to the weight of the liquid displaced. If you have a smaller mass displaced, the weight will be greater than the buoyancy force, and the object will sink. Now it's your turn: back up your claim. Where does the force come from to float the object?

Stability was not a criterion. You keep adding caveats. I'm pretty sure Archimedes needed a fluid. His tub was not empty when he shouted, "Eureka!" Explain to my why taller walls will not make the wood bottom out under the scenario I described. Where's the physics? Sufficient liquid? You said "Add a bit of water" - there was no threshold. No, and that's irrelevant. But they do run aground in shallow water, which is my point. If your assertion of "add a bit of water" was true, then they would not run aground.

Will making the walls taller do anything in my problem? Please explain how that makes any difference.

! Moderator Note "Your experience" doesn't really matter; it needs to be mainstream science if you're going to cite it in support of anything. Also, you posted this in philosophy, so you are expected to discuss philosophy. If you have a model of consciousness that you are willing to defend, post it in speculations.

Beware papers that reference the author a lot, and especially if one of the references is on the Alcubierre Warp Drive. Sonny White has a history of making fanciful claims. This isn't based on mainstream physics. Moved to speculations.

"Add more mercury" is a new item The OP had a fixed amount. There is no more mercury to add. It sinks less than a foot because the weight of the rock is less than the mercury it displaces. So if the rock is heavier, this is not the case. So you are giving a specific case where this works, and my objection is that there are conditions where it won't, specifically the scenario where "it would be theoretically possible to RAISE a rock, in a tight fitting container, with less than it's own weight of mercury, using the head of mercury to exert the required hydraulic pressure on the base of the rock" the problem being that this won't work under the parameters of the OP, since a tight fitting container is not the described scenario, and as such, you would violate Archimedes principle. As I stated. IOW, your counterexample is not one to which I was voicing an objection. Yeah, my bad on this in a previous post - I googled it and saw a different number. Doesn't change the overall issue, though, just the numbers. Let's say I have a 100cm tall pole with a 1 cm^2 cross section and I put it (long side up) in water, 1 cm deep. The mass of the water is, at most, 1 gram. The mass of the wood is, say 50 grams. You are assuring me it will float. Why does Archimedes principle fail in this case? If your assertion were true, ships/boats would never run aground.

How else do you get it to look like gravity, which has monopoles?

So where is this pump, in the OP? How do you lift the rock? All there is is the static pressure, as far as I can tell. And if it’s not that deep? Just tried it. Unsurprisingly it didn’t work. The wood bottomed out. Why do you think the wood would displace less than its mass?

Except that in hydraulics you exert a force via a source of external pressure which is lacking here, so it's really not.

If you had a rock on top of a fluid and there was no place for the fluid to go, then the rock would not sink. But that does not "lift" the rock. But you already said (I only quoted part of your post) you have a gap, so no, this does not work. But, again, your scenario (and the one in the OP) is not a tight-fitting container.

That violates Archimedes principle: an object will displace its own weight of the fluid. If it is less dense it will float, BUT there needs to be enough of the fluid present for this to happen. Otherwise it will bottom out. So 500 kg of mercury (a little less than 100L) will not float anything over 500 kg. exchemist notes this above.

That sounds like word salad. Explain what "limit momentum" is and show me where you used that phrase in this thread. Just posting this is insufficient. You need to make the connection between what you post and what you are responding to. You are rapidly using up any goodwill that this is a good faith discussion, and that this isn't just spamming nonsense.

“what causes the "Curved Fabric of Space" return to its previous state, into its unbent position?” is pretty clearly a question, albeit based on a physically unrealistic scenario

They had already appeared before the committee. It’s doubtful they would have let her testify if it wasn’t corroborated. The republican responses have not been under oath, and sometimes, like this, unattributed. Take them with a huge grain of salt. Pay attention only if they, too, testify under penalty of perjury

! Moderator Note If you were Spike Milligan offering his insight, it might mean something. ! Moderator Note Yes, exactly. It’s off-topic in a thread about depression, because as you have just admitted, it’s not about depression.

! Moderator Note Can we get back to the topic of the OP? Telling someone to smile, or to relax, is not dealing with depression

I just did a search, and “neutral” only appeared in this post. So how could you have explained it before?

They are indeed equivalent mathematically, which is why you can't say one has to be taken as true and the others as false. Meaning that the view that the cat is in a superposition of states and the wave function collapses is a valid way of looking at the problem. So that leads me to think that your view is not actually what the many-worlds interpretation actually says.

Do you have a credible source for this?

Many worlds is an interpretation of QM rather than being QM theory, but if you think the cat is in one state but we just don't know about it, that sounds like a hidden variable theory, and that runs afoul of Bell inequality experiments.

No. The neutrinos are oscillating between mass eigenstates, but if there were internal structure there would have to be component particles. There's no evidence of this.

What? Information is negative, somehow?

No. Fundamental/elementary massive particles show no evidence of having any internal structure. Electron, muon, tau, and the associated neutrinos, all the quarks.

At one time, yes. But then it was discovered that neutrinos oscillate between the different “flavors” which requires they have mass. The upper limit (measured in energy) is less than 1 eV