Remember me
▼ Content

Cool Experiment Idea


Cool Experiment Idea15-01-2021 19:04
James___
★★★★★
(4151)
deleted the experiment.

Edited on 15-01-2021 19:27
15-01-2021 19:38
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2018)
James___ wrote:
deleted the experiment.


How many fingers do you have left?


Showing up with a gun at all is just weird and gross.--tmiddles
15-01-2021 19:40
James___
★★★★★
(4151)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
deleted the experiment.


How many fingers do you have left?


Enough to hold a bacon cheeseburger.
15-01-2021 21:50
James___
★★★★★
(4151)
You guys might not get it but a lead weight shouldn't sink below a depth of 365 feet. At that point the pressure is greater than the density of lead. But the lead weight will sink all the way to the seafloor.
16-01-2021 05:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
James___ wrote: You guys might not get it but a lead weight shouldn't sink below a depth of 365 feet. At that point the pressure is greater than the density of lead. But the lead weight will sink all the way to the seafloor.


James__, pressure is not density.

Water does not compress easily. At a depth of 365 feet, the lead will still be more dense than the water, despite the water's increased pressure.

Ergo, the lead will continue to sink.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-01-2021 15:53
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3189)
James___ wrote:
You guys might not get it but a lead weight shouldn't sink below a depth of 365 feet. At that point the pressure is greater than the density of lead. But the lead weight will sink all the way to the seafloor.


Does pressure only effect water, and not the lead? Why one, and not the other? Maybe your Navy boat, just could dive any deeper than 365 feet... Pretty sure there have been cameras sent down much deeper, attached to lead weights...
16-01-2021 16:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
HarveyH55 wrote:Does pressure only effect water, and not the lead?

The pressure obviously applies to both the lead and the water. The mistake James__ made is by presuming that the water compresses with increased pressure like air does while intuitively recognizing that the lead will not compress any further.

Water does not compress like air. The lead does not therefore increase in buoyancy as the pressure increases.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 16-01-2021 16:05
16-01-2021 16:34
James___
★★★★★
(4151)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Does pressure only effect water, and not the lead?

The pressure obviously applies to both the lead and the water. The mistake James__ made is by presuming that the water compresses with increased pressure like air does while intuitively recognizing that the lead will not compress any further.

Water does not compress like air. The lead does not therefore increase in buoyancy as the pressure increases.



.



I didn't get it wrong. Read my post, I said the lead will keep sinking. Kind of why I know what is denser will sink. Pressure does not increase the density of lead just as it doesn't with water. And yet water pressure will act on both mediums equally.
And as the title of thread states, Cool Experiment Idea. Most people would think that buoyancy is based density which it is.
Even with pressurized air, the lead would still sink and that's if it becomes liquid oxygen. It's about density and not pressure. Just pointing out the difference.

To get an idea of what I was talking about, it's basically the same thing as the Brownian Theory of Motion. The difference is the particle is not suspended.

https://www.thoughtco.com/brownian-motion-definition-and-explanation-4134272

p.s., with the Brownian Theory of Motion, if a single particle is suspended, it will vibrate. This is because all collisions it has with the molecules around it on average the collisions will be equal on all sides. They just will not collide with the particle at the same time which is what would cause the vibration.
Edited on 16-01-2021 16:53
16-01-2021 20:16
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3189)
You just touch on why laboratory results, and real world results, are never the same... We live in a very noisy, dynamic world. All kinds of stuff moving around, by different forms of energy. Laboratories try to reduce the noise, and just focus on whatever it is they are trying to study, without the outside influences. The theoretical guys, just ignore everything, they subjectively determine, to no be of no consequence to the subject at hand.

Sure, you can warm CO2 in a jar, with infrared light. Of course, you are also going to warm the jar, the table it's sitting on, and everything else under the 'heat' lamp. We are on concerned about the CO2 warming, the table heating up, doesn't matter.

Past 365 feet, does the rate of the lead falling, increase or decrease, do to the pressure?
16-01-2021 21:11
James___
★★★★★
(4151)
HarveyH55 wrote:
You just touch on why laboratory results, and real world results, are never the same... We live in a very noisy, dynamic world. All kinds of stuff moving around, by different forms of energy. Laboratories try to reduce the noise, and just focus on whatever it is they are trying to study, without the outside influences. The theoretical guys, just ignore everything, they subjectively determine, to no be of no consequence to the subject at hand.

Sure, you can warm CO2 in a jar, with infrared light. Of course, you are also going to warm the jar, the table it's sitting on, and everything else under the 'heat' lamp. We are on concerned about the CO2 warming, the table heating up, doesn't matter.

Past 365 feet, does the rate of the lead falling, increase or decrease, do to the pressure?



Actually with your first part, I am pursuing an experiment, right? And it will be conducted outside with outside physically observable influences cancelled out.
And if as I suspect something happens when nothing should, for some people, that will be exciting. For people like you, just something else to complain about.
You say we are on concerned about CO2. The correct grammar would be we are all concerned. Myself, I really don't engage myself in the global warming debate.
My main interest is the ozone layer and if what I'm pursuing might help us to better understand atmospheric chemistry.
If you read my posts, I often cite that the climate has changed in the past as well. Kind of why I'll discuss the Gulf Stream and geology.
16-01-2021 21:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
You just touch on why laboratory results, and real world results, are never the same... We live in a very noisy, dynamic world. All kinds of stuff moving around, by different forms of energy. Laboratories try to reduce the noise, and just focus on whatever it is they are trying to study, without the outside influences. The theoretical guys, just ignore everything, they subjectively determine, to no be of no consequence to the subject at hand.

Sure, you can warm CO2 in a jar, with infrared light. Of course, you are also going to warm the jar, the table it's sitting on, and everything else under the 'heat' lamp. We are on concerned about the CO2 warming, the table heating up, doesn't matter.

Past 365 feet, does the rate of the lead falling, increase or decrease, do to the pressure?



Actually with your first part, I am pursuing an experiment, right? And it will be conducted outside with outside physically observable influences cancelled out.
And if as I suspect something happens when nothing should, for some people, that will be exciting. For people like you, just something else to complain about.
You say we are on concerned about CO2. The correct grammar would be we are all concerned. Myself, I really don't engage myself in the global warming debate.
My main interest is the ozone layer and if what I'm pursuing might help us to better understand atmospheric chemistry.

Buzzword fallacies. Word salad.
James___ wrote:
If you read my posts, I often cite that the climate has changed in the past as well. Kind of why I'll discuss the Gulf Stream and geology.


Define 'climate change'. You had better learn geography first.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-01-2021 23:06
James___
★★★★★
(4151)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
You just touch on why laboratory results, and real world results, are never the same... We live in a very noisy, dynamic world. All kinds of stuff moving around, by different forms of energy. Laboratories try to reduce the noise, and just focus on whatever it is they are trying to study, without the outside influences. The theoretical guys, just ignore everything, they subjectively determine, to no be of no consequence to the subject at hand.

Sure, you can warm CO2 in a jar, with infrared light. Of course, you are also going to warm the jar, the table it's sitting on, and everything else under the 'heat' lamp. We are on concerned about the CO2 warming, the table heating up, doesn't matter.

Past 365 feet, does the rate of the lead falling, increase or decrease, do to the pressure?



Actually with your first part, I am pursuing an experiment, right? And it will be conducted outside with outside physically observable influences cancelled out.
And if as I suspect something happens when nothing should, for some people, that will be exciting. For people like you, just something else to complain about.
You say we are on concerned about CO2. The correct grammar would be we are all concerned. Myself, I really don't engage myself in the global warming debate.
My main interest is the ozone layer and if what I'm pursuing might help us to better understand atmospheric chemistry.

Buzzword fallacies. Word salad.
James___ wrote:
If you read my posts, I often cite that the climate has changed in the past as well. Kind of why I'll discuss the Gulf Stream and geology.


Define 'climate change'. You had better learn geography first.



An example of climate change are the brown bears now found in territory that used to be exclusive polar bear territory. That demonstrates that that climate has changed. Brown bears prefer warmer weather while polar bears prefer arctic conditions.
That's like the white whale migrating from around the south of Greenland into the Hudson Bay which is fed by the cold Labrador Current. White whales also prefer arctic conditions.
Also sharks are now common off of Cape Cod in Massachusetts. When the movie Jaws was released in 1975, it was based on a shark attack, the shark killed quite a few kids in New Jersey in the early 1900s.
Just a rare event 100 years ago but today it has become normal for sharks to be further north. I think when the territory that fauna are found in changes that represents climate change.
You need to get out of Seattle more. The Pacific Northwest is a very beautiful area (maybe too many people live there now?) but other parts of the country/world are nice as well.


p.s., a live video feed of real polar bears enjoying arctic conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t1xGfgDPi8

p.s.s., the lead singer is Brazilian and the rest of the band is German. When fauna migrate from Brazil to that region of Europe, just another example of climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoPePwl5OKs
Umm, Brazil is in South America and Germany is in Europe, right? Is that the geography that you were talking about?
Edited on 17-01-2021 00:03
17-01-2021 04:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
You just touch on why laboratory results, and real world results, are never the same... We live in a very noisy, dynamic world. All kinds of stuff moving around, by different forms of energy. Laboratories try to reduce the noise, and just focus on whatever it is they are trying to study, without the outside influences. The theoretical guys, just ignore everything, they subjectively determine, to no be of no consequence to the subject at hand.

Sure, you can warm CO2 in a jar, with infrared light. Of course, you are also going to warm the jar, the table it's sitting on, and everything else under the 'heat' lamp. We are on concerned about the CO2 warming, the table heating up, doesn't matter.

Past 365 feet, does the rate of the lead falling, increase or decrease, do to the pressure?



Actually with your first part, I am pursuing an experiment, right? And it will be conducted outside with outside physically observable influences cancelled out.
And if as I suspect something happens when nothing should, for some people, that will be exciting. For people like you, just something else to complain about.
You say we are on concerned about CO2. The correct grammar would be we are all concerned. Myself, I really don't engage myself in the global warming debate.
My main interest is the ozone layer and if what I'm pursuing might help us to better understand atmospheric chemistry.

Buzzword fallacies. Word salad.
James___ wrote:
If you read my posts, I often cite that the climate has changed in the past as well. Kind of why I'll discuss the Gulf Stream and geology.


Define 'climate change'. You had better learn geography first.



An example of climate change are the brown bears now found in territory that used to be exclusive polar bear territory.

Bears are not climate. Define 'climate change'.
James___ wrote:
That demonstrates that that climate has changed.

Define 'climate change'.
James___ wrote:
Brown bears prefer warmer weather while polar bears prefer arctic conditions.

Brown bears appear normally in the Arctic circle.
James___ wrote:
That's like the white whale migrating from around the south of Greenland into the Hudson Bay which is fed by the cold Labrador Current. White whales also prefer arctic conditions.

These whales normally migrate.
James___ wrote:
Also sharks are now common off of Cape Cod in Massachusetts.

Sharks are everywhere.
James___ wrote:
When the movie Jaws was released in 1975, it was based on a shark attack, the shark killed quite a few kids in New Jersey in the early 1900s.

Great white sharks range everywhere too.
James___ wrote:
Just a rare event 100 years ago but today it has become normal for sharks to be further north.

Great white sharks range everywhere.
James___ wrote:
I think when the territory that fauna are found in changes that represents climate change.

Define 'climate change'.
James___ wrote:
You need to get out of Seattle more.

Already do. I actually travel quite a lot.
James___ wrote:
The Pacific Northwest is a very beautiful area (maybe too many people live there now?) but other parts of the country/world are nice as well.


In their own way. Some people can't stand the Pacific Northwest. The long dark gray winters kinda get to them.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-01-2021 04:37
James___
★★★★★
(4151)
Into the Night wrote:
In their own way. Some people can't stand the Pacific Northwest. The long dark gray winters kinda get to them.



OMG, what planet are you from? The Committee for a Lesser Seattle wants people to move. People say no. They say it's so beautiful there, lets ruin it's natural beauty.
Why spoil an area by having more people live there? It's just disgusting that people would rather live around the Salish Sea than visit there. What God are you talking about?
Seriously, a beautiful area to visit but do not live there. Why spoil its beauty?
Please, live somewhere else.
And in this ITN, there is eastern Washington. Why not there? They could visit the Salish Sea basin. Why not admire its beauty while living elsewhere?
And in this ITN, you are right, 100%.

And ITN, kind of doubtful anyone knows what we're talking about in here. They don't know Washington State or the Salish Sea. Just what they don't know but we do.
Edited on 17-01-2021 04:44
17-01-2021 04:46
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3189)
Most animal follow the food... Not all places produce food all year, for some animal, which usually end up as food, for some other species. Of course, you can hunt Kentucky-style, and just scrape up, whatever fuzzy, off the interstate...

It's not really the climate, it's the available resources, food, water, shelter. I'm down to one cat, the older hasn't been back since Christmas day, so he's probably gone for good. The you cat, stays indoors mostly, so no need to leave out food or water. Still have opossums, but no raccoons for a while. Fortunately, they found a more reliable source of food and water.
17-01-2021 04:54
James___
★★★★★
(4151)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Most animal follow the food... Not all places produce food all year, for some animal, which usually end up as food, for some other species. Of course, you can hunt Kentucky-style, and just scrape up, whatever fuzzy, off the interstate...

It's not really the climate, it's the available resources, food, water, shelter. I'm down to one cat, the older hasn't been back since Christmas day, so he's probably gone for good. The you cat, stays indoors mostly, so no need to leave out food or water. Still have opossums, but no raccoons for a while. Fortunately, they found a more reliable source of food and water.



You need to say what you're on about. I have 2 cats, a mum and her kit. The kit owns his territory. They're not mine though, they adopted me. Should be rules against that. I'm not their pet.
Attached image:

17-01-2021 23:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Most animal follow the food... Not all places produce food all year, for some animal, which usually end up as food, for some other species. Of course, you can hunt Kentucky-style, and just scrape up, whatever fuzzy, off the interstate...

Just cook it 'till the tire tracks are gone.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not really the climate, it's the available resources, food, water, shelter. I'm down to one cat, the older hasn't been back since Christmas day, so he's probably gone for good. The you cat, stays indoors mostly, so no need to leave out food or water. Still have opossums, but no raccoons for a while. Fortunately, they found a more reliable source of food and water.

Heh. The raccoons probably found someone else that leaves cat food out.



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit




Join the debate Cool Experiment Idea:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
not a climate scientist but just had an idea1907-02-2021 06:25
Experiment4429-07-2020 01:19
So I did a little experiment.......1711-07-2020 22:44
Quickest way to cool down the planet2007-06-2020 01:13
Poll:Good idea or bad idea?8510-03-2020 17:57
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact