Archimedes principle vs Atwood's principle

Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the discrepancies in calculating buoyancy forces using Archimedes' principle versus a concept attributed to Atwood's principle, leading to confusion about their validity. Participants express skepticism about the Atwood principle's relevance to buoyancy, emphasizing that the upward buoyant force is fundamentally tied to the weight of the displaced fluid. The conversation highlights the importance of distinguishing between static and dynamic buoyancy forces, with some arguing that the Wikipedia article on buoyancy contains misleading information. Concerns are raised about the reliability of Wikipedia as a source, with suggestions for verifying information through cross-referencing and examining article histories. Ultimately, the thread underscores the need for clarity in understanding buoyancy and the potential pitfalls of misinterpretations in physics.
  • #31
cjl said:
I'm not even convinced that that result is correct.
I didn't say so. I said that you cannot justify an equation even if it has some correct partial result.
So, I agree with your withholding of judgment.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
abdo799 said:
I read the talk page about the atwood's machine , he is saying that this concept puts in consideration the inertia of the moving fluid that replaces the volume of the object .
That is just the standard drag in a medium. It will not correspond to anything you can calculate with that Atwood approach.
The acceleration of objects in water can exceed g.
 
  • #33
mfb said:
That is just the standard drag in a medium. It will not correspond to anything you can calculate with that Atwood approach.
The acceleration of objects in water can exceed g.

I know, i searched about this atwood thing in a textbook, found nothing
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
606
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K