Hijack from What If the Earth needed Global Warming in its Atmosphere.

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

If water did not deviate from a straight or curved graph line of volume to temperature, the water at the poles would freeze solid to the bottom of the ocean. If water did not upon cooling below 38-40 degrees Fahrenheit, become less dense and float on the 38-40 degree water, to break all expansion to temperature rules of all other liquids currently known, the cold water would sink to the bottom of the ocean and freeze the ocean solid. It would not thaw during the summer, and ice caps would reach New York. Water is quite the substance. 

That is why we must keep the oceans free of pollutants that would destroy the water's remarkable ability to do this. 

Thank you for this response, which indeed contains much truth.

But there is also much missing from that analysis.

Further most of the comments in my post regard your discussion in this thread and you have not addressed these at all.

[Area54]

26 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

That is why we must keep the oceans free of pollutants that would destroy the water's remarkable ability to do this. 

Please specify which pollutants you refer and outline the mechanism by which they alter the behaviour of water as it approaches freezing point. Relevant citations to research papers would be helpful; vague arm waving wouldn't.

[MigL]

29 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

That is why we must keep the oceans free of pollutants that would destroy the water's remarkable ability to do this. 

What if we added Antimony to the water of the oceans ?
Would that help ?

I'm sorry, I'm being silly and facetious.
Seems to be a requirement in this thread.

[Bill McC]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

I can find the mass of something using a balance, and volume doesn't enter into the process.

If it's more dense than water, I can find the volume by how much water it displaces, which doesn't directly depend on the mass.

The ratio of those two values gives me the density, because density is define as that ratio.

 

 

If by this you mean you need to have a volume as a standard, yes, that's true. It's true of all measurement; it's not like volume is unique in this way.

I get if you substitute mass for weight and measure an object at room temperature at sea level, and divide the weight of the object by its volume you get density. But that seems a bit far from using that formula for its inertial value as “physics" often claims it is.

I am saying you need other inputs and values and standards to turn it into a volume if you only have inertia. You could convert inertia of a known substance to weight on earth and then divide by its volume to determine density but again not really a simple Density = mass/volume, in my opinion. But the formula would work for weight over volume equals density. So if it is implied in “physics” that mass means the weight of the substance the object is made of at sea level then sure you can use that formula. But it seems to me that mass is being used arbitrarily and incorrectly.  

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Please specify which pollutants you refer and outline the mechanism by which they alter the behaviour of water as it approaches freezing point. Relevant citations to research papers would be helpful; vague arm waving wouldn't.

Freezing point depression is real (as is boiling point elevation) but I, too, would like to know how this would keep water from expanding on freezing.

2 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

I get if you substitute mass for weight and measure an object at room temperature at sea level, and divide the weight of the object by its volume you get density. But that seems a bit far from using that formula for its inertial value as “physics" often claims it is.

Not sure why "physics" is in quotes, but physics indeed says density is mass/volume. 

No substitution necessary, since weight is not part of the definition. And, of course, you need to specify the ambient conditions because volume can change with temperature. Which is why you will often see a remark that the density of a solid is measured at STP, or a liquid's is given at the melting point, or some other temperature.

Density doesn't have any direct connection with inertia; mass is defined in those terms, but that doesn't come into play in just determining the value of mass.

You're tilting at windmills of your own making.

 

[Area54]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Freezing point depression is real (as is boiling point elevation) but I, too, would like to know how this would keep water from expanding on freezing.

Absolutely. The behaviour can be shifted around, but I know of nothing that can eliminate the behaviour that produces a less dense solid phase. Even if there is some chemical that produces such an effect then, firstly I would be interested to know the details and secondly I would like evidence that it is a common pollutant.

[studiot]

37 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

I get if you substitute mass for weight and measure an object at room temperature at sea level, and divide the weight of the object by its volume you get density.

No you most certainly do not.

You even commented the opposite yourself either backalong in this thread or its parent.

And you still have not addressed my comments here about the differences between objects and substances and their densities and specific gravities.

Edited April 28, 2021 by studiot

[studiot]

To supply some real hard information and equations to discuss here are details of a specific gravity balance available well before WWI, let alone WWII (ca 1890 to 1910).

It also shows why you are incorrect in you statement about density.

I apologise for the poor quality of the scan, but the book it came from is rather old and thick and I can't lay it flat.