PSA: Muscles do not weigh more than fat.
Replies
-
To push a V-hull boat under water, you have to submerge not just the material in the hull but the air and material contained within it. The density is all of these masses combined divided by volume. It still comes down to density, plain and simple. Perhaps your Google is broken.Wrong. Floating on your back has nothing to do with whether you sink or not. If you were to simply hold your breath and orientate yourself verticallly in the water, you would still float just like when you are on your back. The same mass of you would be above the water as when you were on your back. The reason floating on your back is preferred is because it keeps your face out of the water.
Humans, when their lungs are full, do not sink. It's when you exhale or worse displace the air in your lungs with water that you sink as you have changed your density since the air in your lungs was lowering your average density. Try it sometime in a pool.
It's called buoyancy. Please google it. I am apparently not doing a good job explaining it. Yes, density plays a factor but shape is more important. This is why iron ships float, yet a chunk of iron does not.0 -
7 pages on this? Seriously?0
-
7 pages on this? Seriously?
Some people take their densities very seriously.
I mean... destinies...0 -
To push a V-hull boat under water, you have to submerge not just the material in the hull but the air and material contained within it. The density is all of these masses combined divided by volume. It still comes down to density, plain and simple. Perhaps your Google is broken.Wrong. Floating on your back has nothing to do with whether you sink or not. If you were to simply hold your breath and orientate yourself verticallly in the water, you would still float just like when you are on your back. The same mass of you would be above the water as when you were on your back. The reason floating on your back is preferred is because it keeps your face out of the water.
Humans, when their lungs are full, do not sink. It's when you exhale or worse displace the air in your lungs with water that you sink as you have changed your density since the air in your lungs was lowering your average density. Try it sometime in a pool.
It's called buoyancy. Please google it. I am apparently not doing a good job explaining it. Yes, density plays a factor but shape is more important. This is why iron ships float, yet a chunk of iron does not.
What about boats without enclosed hulls? I maintain that floatation is not only dictated by density but by the shape of an object. Pretty sure I learned this in elementary school. I found this on a kids' website:The object is buoyed up (pushed up) by a force that is equal to the weight of the water that the object occupies that was previously occupied by the water. If you shape the object is in such a way that it occupies a volume of water whose weight equals that of the object, the object will float. If it occupies a volume of water whose weight is less than the weight of the object, the object will sink.
You can show this to yourself by taking a piece of aluminum foil and making a water-tight boat out of it. If you carefully put the boat in a dish or pan of water, you will see it float.
Now take the aluminum foil boat and crumple it up into a ball and put it back on the water. It sinks! There is the same amount of aluminum foil in both cases, but in the case of the boat, you shaped it so that it displaced a lot of water compared to the amount of water that is displaced when you crumpled the aluminum foil into a ball.0 -
7 pages on this? Seriously?
Some people take their densities very seriously.
I mean... destinies...
I believe Obi-Wan once said, "You cannot escape your density."0 -
What about boats without enclosed hulls? I maintain that floatation is not only dictated by density but by shape of an object. Pretty sure I learned this in elementary school. I found this on a kids' website:The object is buoyed up (pushed up) by a force that is equal to the weight of the water that the object occupies that was previously occupied by the water. If you shape the object is in such a way that it occupies a volume of water whose weight equals that of the object, the object will float. If it occupies a volume of water whose weight is less than the weight of the object, the object will sink.
You can show this to yourself by taking a piece of aluminum foil and making a water-tight boat out of it. If you carefully put the boat in a dish or pan of water, you will see it float.
Now take the aluminum foil boat and crumple it up into a ball and put it back on the water. It sinks! There is the same amount of aluminum foil in both cases, but in the case of the boat, you shaped it so that it displaced a lot of water compared to the amount of water that is displaced when you crumpled the aluminum foil into a ball.
Like a rowboat, for example?
What it's describing is still density. Imagine putting a layer of saran wrap over the top of the rowboat - you calculate the mass of everything inside the hull - people, coolers, fishing poles, and wood - and how much space it takes up. The ratio of mass to volume is its density.
If it's more dense than the water holding it up, it will push into the water far enough to let the stuff leak in over the hull, and bloop - she sinks.
If it's less dense, then all is well.
The difference between the foil boat and the foil ball is twofold:
1. The ball is smushed smaller, ergo less volume and higher density. (Sink)
2. The boat presumably has walls on it, which encompass air and produce MORE volume for the boat and therefore LOWER density. (Float)
Buoyancy, which I still cannot type to save my soul, is just a word intended to describe the float-or-sink tendency of an object. Whether or not it is buoyant is determined by its overall density.
I will part on this note: Often, websites and texts that are aimed at teaching kids how the world works will gloss over some critical terms and concepts. There still might be, from time to time, more to the story.
[EDIT, because I can never just be DONE with one post...]
"Displacement" can also be considered the same as "volume."0 -
7 pages on this? Seriously?
Sorry.
This is totally me right now:
Must walk away now.0 -
Glad we can re-hash this topic for the millionth time.
1lb of substance "A" isn't heavier than 1lb of substance "B"??? NO WAY!!! GET OUT ----> !!!
Maybe the forum search function was down?
Or maybe all of the other 999,999 times this has been discussed before, it spiraled out of control and was mod-deleted so search couldn't find it.
Or more likely, OP was just bored and she knew exactly how this thread would play out.
Yeah, I'm going with that last theory.
My cynicism agrees with yours.0 -
This debate will never go away! You just get used to it after a while :ohwell:0
-
You realized that people mean "by volume" when they say that right?
.
See? I weigh the same as I did when I was fat but now my volume is smaller.
Duh - of course you weigh the same in all four picture! A pound of you on any particular date = a pound of you on any other date. Therefore, you always weigh the same. I would have thought that would be obvious.
In fact, everyone on this thread weighs the same as everyone else!
;-)0 -
You are misinterpreting it. The shape of a standard hull forces the air inside it to be a part of its density calculation, thus lowering it's average density below that of the water that would displace it. If you made a boat of solid iron with the same exact shape it would sink like a rock as there would be no air or other lighter material (even wood is less dense than water) to lower its average density.
To push a V-hull boat under water, you have to submerge not just the material in the hull but the air and material contained within it. The density is all of these masses combined divided by volume. It still comes down to density, plain and simple. Perhaps your Google is broken.Wrong. Floating on your back has nothing to do with whether you sink or not. If you were to simply hold your breath and orientate yourself verticallly in the water, you would still float just like when you are on your back. The same mass of you would be above the water as when you were on your back. The reason floating on your back is preferred is because it keeps your face out of the water.
Humans, when their lungs are full, do not sink. It's when you exhale or worse displace the air in your lungs with water that you sink as you have changed your density since the air in your lungs was lowering your average density. Try it sometime in a pool.
It's called buoyancy. Please google it. I am apparently not doing a good job explaining it. Yes, density plays a factor but shape is more important. This is why iron ships float, yet a chunk of iron does not.
What about boats without enclosed hulls? I maintain that floatation is not only dictated by density but by the shape of an object. Pretty sure I learned this in elementary school. I found this on a kids' website:The object is buoyed up (pushed up) by a force that is equal to the weight of the water that the object occupies that was previously occupied by the water. If you shape the object is in such a way that it occupies a volume of water whose weight equals that of the object, the object will float. If it occupies a volume of water whose weight is less than the weight of the object, the object will sink.
You can show this to yourself by taking a piece of aluminum foil and making a water-tight boat out of it. If you carefully put the boat in a dish or pan of water, you will see it float.
Now take the aluminum foil boat and crumple it up into a ball and put it back on the water. It sinks! There is the same amount of aluminum foil in both cases, but in the case of the boat, you shaped it so that it displaced a lot of water compared to the amount of water that is displaced when you crumpled the aluminum foil into a ball.
From your citation:
This is density stated in another way.If you shape the object is in such a way that it occupies a volume of water whose weight equals that of the object, the object will float. If it occupies a volume of water whose weight is less than the weight of the object, the object will sink.0 -
No, that was Vader and he said "Luke, you need dentistry"7 pages on this? Seriously?
Some people take their densities very seriously.
I mean... destinies...
I believe Obi-Wan once said, "You cannot escape your density."0 -
This debate will never go away! You just get used to it after a while :ohwell:
I don't even know what the debate is about if you think about it. A pound is a pound is a pound... 16oz's = 1lb / 1lb = 16oz, it doesn't matter what substance it is. Now if you want to say for instance that 16 cubic-centimeters of substance "A" is heavier than 16 cubic centimeters of substance "B", no you're on to something. My favorite analogy is, if you were forced to choose between the two; would you rather get smacked in the face with a 36-inch aluminum baseball bat or 36-inch nerf baseball bat?0 -
Muscle and Fat weight about the same. If you are talking about density then that is a different subject.0
-
Isn't there a rule against divisive topics? Seriously, this topic should be banned. Each side knows what the other side means and the whole purpose of the thread is to start an argument. (At least I hope that's it, because otherwise people are even stupider than I thought.)0
-
You and I must weigh the same as well. After all, a pound of me weighs the same as a pound of you.Muscle and Fat weight about the same. If you are talking about density then that is a different subject.
"Muscle weighs more than fat" is not wrong, it's just a bit imprecise as the fixed constant (volume) is not specified. However, we imply things all the time in the English language and the world keeps right on turning.
Guess what? The statement "Muscle does not weigh more than fat" is equally imprecise as it also is missing context, in this case the constant is weight.
Of course, making the weight itself the constant when you are comparing weight is absurd. That's why the OP and others are completely off base with their assertion.0 -
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!0
-
Thank you, Captain Obvious!0
-
Silly Taso, everyone knows that copy paper is lighter than a dumbbell even if they weigh the same!
If they weight the same then one cannot be lighter than the other. Logic people.0 -
By this logic there is no difference between a feather and a pile of poop.
Oh, there's a difference. Has someone ever tried to tickle you with the latter?
Awesome!0 -
I'm going to go pull my hair out now.0
-
Ah-ha! Excellent point my friend, but a challenger appears! Take a piece each of fat and muscle, portioning equal volume betwixt the two. A square inch of muscle would indeed exert more gravitational force than a square inch of fat!
I have no idea why I typed like that, but I was really into it.
I applaud you, Miss.0 -
Isn't there a rule against divisive topics? Seriously, this topic should be banned. Each side knows what the other side means and the whole purpose of the thread is to start an argument. (At least I hope that's it, because otherwise people are even stupider than I thought.)
Ever hear of debate?0 -
I think this was already posted a while back. Could be wrong...............0
-
Isn't there a rule against divisive topics? Seriously, this topic should be banned. Each side knows what the other side means and the whole purpose of the thread is to start an argument. (At least I hope that's it, because otherwise people are even stupider than I thought.)
LOL!!!0 -
Yup I second the notion....Eat more than 1200 calories you're a man!Either way, the solution is obvious:
Eat 1200 daily calories.
The only question remaining is, what is the effect of eating back all, some, or none of my exercise calories?
please, eat more than that.0 -
Does a pound of dog crap weigh more than a pound of human crap?0
-
What about about a lb of copy paper vs a 1 lb dumbbell?
This... inquiring minds never got the answer to this one so long ago...0 -
A pound of muscles equals a pound of fat. However, muscle is denser than fat; therefore a pound of muscle takes up less space than a pound of fat.
Very interesting... I have never seen this topic here before.0 -
Isn't there a rule against divisive topics? Seriously, this topic should be banned. Each side knows what the other side means and the whole purpose of the thread is to start an argument. (At least I hope that's it, because otherwise people are even stupider than I thought.)
Ever hear of debate?
Debating on anything but Christianity is perfectly fine. But if you touch upon the Christian faith because of course that's the only religion in the world :noway: then the topic will get banned.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions