Moderator: Flannel Jesus
phoneutria wrote:are you assuming for some reason that the ball wouldn't immediately collapse into itself becoming once again density neutral?
Carleas wrote:phoneutria wrote:are you assuming for some reason that the ball wouldn't immediately collapse into itself becoming once again density neutral?
Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm picturing the material that the ball is made of as rigid and impermeable, and sufficiently so to keep the vacuum in place and not lose volume.
I'll edit the OP to make that clearer.
Carleas wrote:phoneutria wrote:are you assuming for some reason that the ball wouldn't immediately collapse into itself becoming once again density neutral?
Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm picturing the material that the ball is made of as rigid and impermeable, and sufficiently so to keep the vacuum in place and not lose volume.
I'll edit the OP to make that clearer.
If it collapses completely, no vacuum remaining then it does not float. If it does not collapse it will float. The ball, when not collapsed, is less dense than water. A ball filled with air rises because it is less dense. A ball with just a few atoms of oxygen nitrogen etc. inside it is even less dense and rises. A ball with a pure vacuum rises and is even less dense as a total object in the water.phoneutria wrote:Carleas wrote:phoneutria wrote:are you assuming for some reason that the ball wouldn't immediately collapse into itself becoming once again density neutral?
Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm picturing the material that the ball is made of as rigid and impermeable, and sufficiently so to keep the vacuum in place and not lose volume.
I'll edit the OP to make that clearer.
why should it behave any different if it collapsed or not, anyway
in both cases, it is filled with emptiness
or you can say it is emptied
the only properties at play are the properties of the ball's material
and if the material is density neutral
the whole set is in fact density neutral
phoneutria wrote:It's not less dense
The inside of it does not have the property of density
It's filled with emptiness
A helium balloon flies
An empty balloon does not
MagsJ wrote:I agree Surrep.. great question. What conjured up such a question, Carleas?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I wish you had responded to the middle step of having very few atoms.
phoneutria wrote:So if you can make a large enough container of a lightweight material able to withstand the pressure, and "fill" it with vacuum, will it launch into space?
Ecmandu wrote:Like I said before... weightless is a different concept than lesser or greater weight. It doesn’t effect the buoyancy of the object relative to its volume, mass or density.
phoneutria wrote:Hm I see your point, i wasn't considering the volume at all. I stand corrected.
So if you can make a large enough container of a lightweight material able to withstand the pressure, and "fill" it with vacuum, will it launch into space?
Ecmandu wrote:I agree with all that.
My issue is that a pure vacuum is undefined.
For example... does a black hole have more or less mass?
When you start talking about pure this and pure that... especially in physics, it gets really strange.
Is the pure vacuum going scrunch the ball or explode the ball??
That’s the question you should be asking
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: gib