What's wrong with this

[Floor]

@ MarkE

I think your living in a fantacy here. or is lying a part of the the scientific method,
you pretend to be defending, by posting here?

             floor


    not done yet

[orbut 3000]

@floor


Calm down, why are you so upset? Marke seems to be very polite and patient.

[tinman]

Tinman I am sorry but you are completely wrong on this point.  Something that has the same density as the surrounding fluid neither gains nor expends GPE moving up or down because for every gram of that something that moves up, a gram of the surrounding fluid moves down an identical distance, and vice-versa.  You are conflating the absolute GPE that the object has due to its height with the energy that is gained or lost by changing its height inside a fluid volume.
Well that creates an interesting riddle:  You get rid of something while keeping it.  Are you thinking that when you compress a gas that you are removing that gas?  n remains fixed.  PV and/or T change.And the answer remains the same:  If the mass is immersed in some fluid then moving the mass up or down requires doing the exact opposite to a volume of the surrounding fluid equal to the volume of the object you move.  It's important to keep the books straight.No buoyant object raises itself with buoyancy.  It is fluid that surrounds the submersible falling that causes the submersible to rise.  A submarine can cause that to happen by reducing its density:  IE blowing water out of its ballast tanks.That is a terrible analogy.  We have 2000 years of direct intimate experience with gravity and its dependent effect buoyancy.  In all that time the behavior has been evaluated countless times and always found to behave the same.I am sure that you sincerely believe that.  I am also quite sure that you are mistaken.

Maybe i didnt make myself clear on this point. Would it make it better and a little clearer if i said-what is the total energy of a 500 kilogram mass falling 3.2 kilometers and impacting the ground,and that same mass sinking 3.2 kilometers and impacting the sea floor. The total energy disipation in both cases would be the same. Now what would be the total energy of an applied force of 500kg's over a distance of 3.2 KM's?.

Quote:  You get rid of something while keeping it.  Are you thinking that when you compress a gas that you are removing that gas?
Yes-you get rid of something while keeping it. No,the gas is not compressed,it is removed,but can be made to reappear once the vessle hits the sea floor.This is not a riddle,it is a reality. And from this we can see that although we have 2000 years of direct intimate experience with gravity and its dependent effect buoyancy,not everything has been thought of yet.

[MarkE]

Maybe i didnt make myself clear on this point. Would it make it better and a little clearer if i said-what is the total energy of a 500 kilogram mass falling 3.2 kilometers and impacting the ground,and that same mass sinking 3.2 kilometers and impacting the sea floor. The total energy disipation in both cases would be the same. Now what would be the total energy of an applied force of 500kg's over a distance of 3.2 KM's?.

But they are not the same.  They only approach each other if the density of each mass approaches infinity.  Take 500kg of sea water and place it in a vessel with 1um thick walls.  The gravitational potential energy gained or lost moving that container of sea water up or down any distance in other sea water is negligible.  500kg of seawater in the container goes down a meter, displacing 500kg of surrounding seawater up for a net GPE difference in the system of nearly zero.  Or lift the vessel 1m and 500kg of seawater falls 1m.

Quote:  You get rid of something while keeping it.  Are you thinking that when you compress a gas that you are removing that gas?
Yes-you get rid of something while keeping it. No,the gas is not compressed,it is removed,but can be made to reappear once the vessle hits the sea floor.This is not a riddle,it is a reality. And from this we can see that although we have 2000 years of direct intimate experience with gravity and its dependent effect buoyancy,not everything has been thought of yet.

Where does this gas go when it is removed such that it can be reclaimed someplace else?  Are you proposing to condense the gas into fluid?

[tinman]

But they are not the same.  They only approach each other if the density of each mass approaches infinity.  Take 500kg of sea water and place it in a vessel with 1um thick walls.  The gravitational potential energy gained or lost moving that container of sea water up or down any distance in other sea water is negligible.  500kg of seawater in the container goes down a meter, displacing 500kg of surrounding seawater up for a net GPE difference in the system of nearly zero.  Or lift the vessel 1m and 500kg of seawater falls 1m.Where does this gas go when it is removed such that it can be reclaimed someplace else?  Ayou proposing to condense the gas into fluid?
re

As we are talking buoyancy here,the mass weigh's 500kg's while submerged in water(sea water). So the disipated energy of it's 3.2km fall to the ocean floor must take into account all factors-eg,the energy to move the water being moved around the mass(displaced),and the energy of the final impact on the ocean floor. A mass of the same 500kg falling 3.2km through a vacume and then impacting the ground will have only the energy disipation of the impact on the ground. The total disipated energy of these two situations will have the same net result.

This is why i said-a kg of grass weighs more that a kg of brick's,because your 500kg weighs more in a vacuum than it dose in water,where as my 500kg's of mass is relative to the enviroment in which it is in. So this brings to reason my question-what energy do we gain from a falling 500kg mass a distance of 3.2km,and what energy dose it take to raise a 500kg mass 3.2km. By my questions are based around that 500kg mass being in the same enviroment,where as you took them and placed them in two different enviroment's.

Quote: Ayou proposing to condense the gas into fluid?
Now your getting close,but no energy is required to condence this gas into fluid.