en

# Golden Train on Springfield Squidport

## Replies

• 1807 posts Member
anaquarind wrote: »
Well, I didn't want to get into this, but here goes...

Actually a pound of gold (or stones, or lead) weighs more than a pound of feathers. I learned this on day one from my university physics professor. No tricks about this pound vs. that pound, just the application of Archimedes' Principle.

A pound is a measure of mass, not weight. The pound is defined against the kg, and for the remainder of this discussion I'll switch to the metric system (sorry, I'm Canadian) which will also nullify the troy-pound issue. Mass is a measure of "the amount of stuff" (in kg or pounds) and always stays the same no matter where you are, but weight is the downward force exerted by gravity (measured in newtons) and changes with location. For example, if you had a 1kg of feathers in space, it would still be 1kg, although it would have no weight.
Measuring the actual weight of a kg of feathers on earth would require the conversion of 9.8N/kg, so 1kgX9.8N/kg=9.8Newtons. The weight of a kg of gold would be 1kgX9.8N/kg=9.8Newtons... so they're the same right? Well, yes but it doesn't account for the counteracting force of buoyancy. Archimedes' Principle basically describes buoyancy in a fluid environment. The more volume an object displaces, the greater the upward force would be. It's the reason things float in water - if this upwards force is stronger than the weight pulling things down, things will float in water. Although you don't think about it, air is also considered a fluid environment, we just don't see helium balloons often enough to think about it. Since feathers take up more volume, Archemedes' Principle states that the upward force is greater than something small and dense like gold. So the 9.8Newtons of weight in feathers would be offset more by its buoyancy than the gold, so the gold weighs more.
(It's difficult to visualize, but think about weighing the pound of gold and feathers on land (for the sake of this argument let's say you measured weight in a complete vacuum where the same mass actually means the same weight), then trying to do the same thing underwater. Your feathers would probably float or at the very least weigh a fraction of what they do on land. Your gold would show up "weighing" much more. The same thing happens on land, except to a lesser degree, but the earth's atmosphere still acts like a fluid, and the same buoyancy principles apply.)

I've got to know... what is your educational background? What type of work do you do for a living? I'm extremely impressed!
You got a great looking town~168sean... Checked out your town, WOW! ~daved
• 1494 posts Member
Jonalinn wrote: »
anaquarind wrote: »
Well, I didn't want to get into this, but here goes...

Actually a pound of gold (or stones, or lead) weighs more than a pound of feathers. I learned this on day one from my university physics professor. No tricks about this pound vs. that pound, just the application of Archimedes' Principle.

A pound is a measure of mass, not weight. The pound is defined against the kg, and for the remainder of this discussion I'll switch to the metric system (sorry, I'm Canadian) which will also nullify the troy-pound issue. Mass is a measure of "the amount of stuff" (in kg or pounds) and always stays the same no matter where you are, but weight is the downward force exerted by gravity (measured in newtons) and changes with location. For example, if you had a 1kg of feathers in space, it would still be 1kg, although it would have no weight.
Measuring the actual weight of a kg of feathers on earth would require the conversion of 9.8N/kg, so 1kgX9.8N/kg=9.8Newtons. The weight of a kg of gold would be 1kgX9.8N/kg=9.8Newtons... so they're the same right? Well, yes but it doesn't account for the counteracting force of buoyancy. Archimedes' Principle basically describes buoyancy in a fluid environment. The more volume an object displaces, the greater the upward force would be. It's the reason things float in water - if this upwards force is stronger than the weight pulling things down, things will float in water. Although you don't think about it, air is also considered a fluid environment, we just don't see helium balloons often enough to think about it. Since feathers take up more volume, Archemedes' Principle states that the upward force is greater than something small and dense like gold. So the 9.8Newtons of weight in feathers would be offset more by its buoyancy than the gold, so the gold weighs more.
(It's difficult to visualize, but think about weighing the pound of gold and feathers on land (for the sake of this argument let's say you measured weight in a complete vacuum where the same mass actually means the same weight), then trying to do the same thing underwater. Your feathers would probably float or at the very least weigh a fraction of what they do on land. Your gold would show up "weighing" much more. The same thing happens on land, except to a lesser degree, but the earth's atmosphere still acts like a fluid, and the same buoyancy principles apply.)

I've got to know... what is your educational background? What type of work do you do for a living? I'm extremely impressed!

As you might imagine, I work in a lab - biomedical research. I did a Master's in cardiovascular pharmacology. Physics was just an undergrad elective, but I enjoyed it!
Always looking to add active forum members! But please PM me first.
• 4183 posts Member
anaquarind wrote: »
Well, I didn't want to get into this, but here goes...

Actually a pound of gold (or stones, or lead) weighs more than a pound of feathers. I learned this on day one from my university physics professor. No tricks about this pound vs. that pound, just the application of Archimedes' Principle.

A pound is a measure of mass, not weight. The pound is defined against the kg, and for the remainder of this discussion I'll switch to the metric system (sorry, I'm Canadian) which will also nullify the troy-pound issue. Mass is a measure of "the amount of stuff" (in kg or pounds) and always stays the same no matter where you are, but weight is the downward force exerted by gravity (measured in newtons) and changes with location. For example, if you had a 1kg of feathers in space, it would still be 1kg, although it would have no weight.
Measuring the actual weight of a kg of feathers on earth would require the conversion of 9.8N/kg, so 1kgX9.8N/kg=9.8Newtons. The weight of a kg of gold would be 1kgX9.8N/kg=9.8Newtons... so they're the same right? Well, yes but it doesn't account for the counteracting force of buoyancy. Archimedes' Principle basically describes buoyancy in a fluid environment. The more volume an object displaces, the greater the upward force would be. It's the reason things float in water - if this upwards force is stronger than the weight pulling things down, things will float in water. Although you don't think about it, air is also considered a fluid environment, we just don't see helium balloons often enough to think about it. Since feathers take up more volume, Archemedes' Principle states that the upward force is greater than something small and dense like gold. So the 9.8Newtons of weight in feathers would be offset more by its buoyancy than the gold, so the gold weighs more.
(It's difficult to visualize, but think about weighing the pound of gold and feathers on land (for the sake of this argument let's say you measured weight in a complete vacuum where the same mass actually means the same weight), then trying to do the same thing underwater. Your feathers would probably float or at the very least weigh a fraction of what they do on land. Your gold would show up "weighing" much more. The same thing happens on land, except to a lesser degree, but the earth's atmosphere still acts like a fluid, and the same buoyancy principles apply.)
What he said^
• 1166 posts Member
I'll just throw this into the mix.........it's a cartoon.
• 2021 posts Member
edited March 2017
AARONRTD wrote: »
1pillform wrote: »
Yeah, but how long is it going to support that amount of weight?
Especially since its gold, even more weight because of that. If we're being realistic about it lol....realistically a scummy wooden sea port could never hold something like that on it. But I'm glad we can put it there. Except I don't have much of a port. lol....I guess I could just place 3 squares and place it in the middle of my ocean lol

A gold train would weigh less than a steel train.
What weighs more a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?

A: a pound of feathers.
That's wrong. But whatever. lol

And what Rabbit said, its a cartoon so weight physics doesn't exist....
~Always be Designing~
Don't increase the Item Limit? Then I don't play. Period.
• 1494 posts Member
I'll just throw this into the mix.........it's a cartoon.

Agreed, that's why I was hesitating bringing this up. At any rate it's always funny to derail a train thread.
Always looking to add active forum members! But please PM me first.
• 2326 posts Member
anaquarind wrote: »
At any rate it's always funny to derail a train thread.

That's it, i'm out of here!
• 1878 posts Member
If EA gives us a future prize of a pound of feathers, you guys are in big trouble
• 644 posts Member
anaquarind wrote: »
A pound is a measure of mass, not weight.

Yes and no. If OP wanted to use it in that context, they would have said pound-mass. Hence by intention, they meant a unit of weight as we subjectively measure at 1G.

The term pound is in some circles ambiguous as you pointed out, but I think in this instance we know what they meant.
• 442 posts Member
perhaps the train is actually made of feathers, and just painted gold.
• 221 posts Member
It's not solid gold. It's styrofoam covered in gold leaf
• 644 posts Member
zlevell786 wrote: »
It's not solid gold. It's styrofoam covered in gold leaf

That true, it could be!

Or it might be an alloy of gold and some much lighter metal like magnesium... Doesn't say 24k gold train....
• 3090 posts Member
Or are we talking about British £? Cause that's an entirely different discussion!
• 1807 posts Member
anaquarind wrote: »

As you might imagine, I work in a lab - biomedical research. I did a Master's in cardiovascular pharmacology. Physics was just an undergrad elective, but I enjoyed it!

You got a great looking town~168sean... Checked out your town, WOW! ~daved
• 6445 posts Member
New Q: I have a balance scale. I put a pound of feathers on one side and a pound of gold on the other side. It balanced evenly. How?
All my designs look unfinished because i can't place as many plants, streetlights, and fences as i would like. PLEASE REMOVE THE LIMIT, EA!
• 442 posts Member
4junk3000 wrote: »
New Q: I have a balance scale. I put a pound of feathers on one side and a pound of gold on the other side. It balanced evenly. How?

Sorcery!
• 5912 posts Member
4junk3000 wrote: »
New Q: I have a balance scale. I put a pound of feathers on one side and a pound of gold on the other side. It balanced evenly. How?
Unless you had a MASSIVE scale, the feathers were condensed or compacted and goes back to the gravity, buoyancy theory.
DeesToonTown in Crawl to the Finish #The Grumple Is Free!
• 2408 posts Member
edited March 2017
4junk3000 wrote: »
New Q: I have a balance scale. I put a pound of feathers on one side and a pound of gold on the other side. It balanced evenly. How?

I guess the first question that comes to mind is: How do you know they each weigh a pound? If it is by measuring them on a scale, then it's not quite correct as the scale measures the net force on an object, not just the force of gravity. Since the buoyant force on the feathers would be greater than that on the gold, you would actually have a (very slightly) greater mass of feathers than of gold. So the weight, or force of gravity acting on the feathers, would be slightly higher than the weight of the gold, but the buoyant force cancels out the difference so the scale sees the same net force on each.

If, however, you mean to say that you have the same mass of feathers as gold and they both weigh one pound, then you must be somewhere where there are no other external forces (such as buoyancy) acting on either side, say in a vacuum.

The biggest confusion between weight and mass is that they are used almost interchangeably in everyday life. Your bathroom scale can read in pounds or kilograms, but the pound is a unit of force, whereas the kilogram is a unit of mass.

Edit: Of course, the other possibility is that the feathers were made of gold and the gold was in the shape of feathers!
• 6445 posts Member
A: I was in outer space!

You're over thinking this stuff! Less yappin and more tappin!

Lol I'm j/k have fun everyone
All my designs look unfinished because i can't place as many plants, streetlights, and fences as i would like. PLEASE REMOVE THE LIMIT, EA!
• 1494 posts Member
4junk3000 wrote: »
New Q: I have a balance scale. I put a pound of feathers on one side and a pound of gold on the other side. It balanced evenly. How?

Well, the short of it is that you didn't put 1 pound on each side of the scale. If you weighed the feathers and the gold in the conventional way, you ended up putting a bit more of the feathers until the weight (not mass) read a pound on your scale (ie a pound of feathers, plus a bit more to counteract the buoyancy). The buoyancy on everything you weigh is counteracting the downward weight, and making them "less heavy". In your example, if you balanced feathers and gold on a scale, you would find that if you were able to suck out all the air from the room and create a vacuum, the scale would suddenly not be balanced because you've taken Archemedes principle out of the equation. The gold, in this case would outweigh the feathers. Put another way, if you weighed both of these in a vaccuum separately (a true estimation of mass) and then put them on the same scale, the gold would weigh more in our open air scale.
Always looking to add active forum members! But please PM me first.