How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

I am sure the textbooks agree with you in science just as much as they agree in creationism...

That doesn't change the fact that density is the determining factor for whether something sinks or swims.

You are right. The terms are often used interchangeably .
Please call 911 if you feel like you are going to have a heart attack

originally posted by: Phantom42338

You are right. The terms are often used interchangeably .
Please call 911 if you feel like you are going to have a heart attack

Where does it say that in the textbooks? You were harping about getting chemistry textbooks and now they prove you are wrong.



"heaviness" isn't even mentioned in the index or glossary. Nowhere does it say density and heaviness can be used interchangeably

I am at an airport Will answer tomorrow when I have a computer.

a reply to: cooperton

a reply to: cooperton
I already linked a textbook that showed that.

What is your problem?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
I already linked a textbook that showed that.

It doesn't say heaviness is interchangeable with density. It referred to density as how heavy something is for its size. 'for its size' is referring to volume, and 'heavy' is referring to mass. density = mass /volume. It was explaining the formula.

What is your problem?

I already told you. Slanderous remarks against my character. People who go around spouting lies have to be called out.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
I already linked a textbook that showed that.

It doesn't say heaviness is interchangeable with density. It referred to density as how heavy something is for its size. 'for its size' is referring to volume, and 'heavy' is referring to mass. density = mass /volume. It was explaining the formula.

What is your problem?

I already told you. Slanderous remarks against my character. People who go around spouting lies have to be called out.

You make your position even more difficult to defend. Nobody argues against what density is and what is he determining factor on whether an object will sink or float in water.

It's the terminology that is commonly used which maybe different. Heavier is used quite often instead of more dense the same way weight is used instead of mass. It's quite common to ask what is your weight and been given an answer in Kilograms or pounds. But that's the mass of an object. Given that mass and weight are only separated by a constant (gravitational field strength) these terms are used interchangeably.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
You make your position even more difficult to defend.

Are you still taking the stance that density is not the determining factor if something floats or sinks?

originally posted by: cooperton
It doesn't say heaviness is interchangeable with density. It referred to density as how heavy something is for its size. 'for its size' is referring to volume, and 'heavy' is referring to mass. density = mass /volume. It was explaining the formula.

It explains the formula by using heavy and light because they are interchangeable.

It ain't rocket science.

I already told you. Slanderous remarks against my character. People who go around spouting lies have to be called out.

And you keep proving them right.

I linked a textbook using "heavy" and "light" to indicate density so what is your problem?

You got it wrong, why can't you cop to it?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
You make your position even more difficult to defend.

Are you still taking the stance that density is not the determining factor if something floats or sinks?

Never did.
See post above.

Never even entered this ridiculous conversation and hypothetical debate you try to have. You are having this 'debate' with the other two posters who argue on the terminology used. And they are correct and you are wrong (as usual).

originally posted by: cooperton
Are you still taking the stance that density is not the determining factor if something floats or sinks?

Nobody has said that. We are saying that heaviness and density are interchangeable when volume isn't given.

Steel is heavier than water, balsa wood is lighter than water. There are no semantic errors in those two statements. If there are prove it.

originally posted by: Venkuish1 Heavier is used quite often instead of mire dense the same way weight is used instead of mass.

It doesn't appear once in my chemistry textbook to refer to density. It is used often by lay-people who don't know the basics of science. That is fine, and I would normally never ridicule anyone for such a thing, but phantom puts herself on a pedestal, making condescending remarks, while making such novice errors as mistaking weight for being the determining factor of something floating or sinking. When I call her out on it, normal people would admit they made a mistake, it's no big deal, and it has no bearing on what we were even debating. But she doubles down, calls me a liar and a fraud, so yeah, I am going to keep digging in to prove a point.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1 Heavier is used quite often instead of mire dense the same way weight is used instead of mass.

It doesn't appear once in my chemistry textbook to refer to density. It is used often by lay-people who don't know the basics of science. That is fine, and I would normally never ridicule anyone for such a thing, but phantom puts herself on a pedestal, making condescending remarks, while making such novice errors as mistaking weight for being the determining factor of something floating or sinking. When I call her out on it, normal people would admit they made a mistake, it's no big deal, and it has no bearing on what we were even debating. But she doubles down, calls me a liar and a fraud, so yeah, I am going to keep digging in to prove a point.

You keep going about this strawman argument.
Nobody has claimed an alternative definition for density and weight.

Given that you have this conversation with the other two posters I have to say the terminology is slightly different in every day life and you don't have to be a layman to use it. Everyone does it at some point.

The chemistry book may not refer to it as being heavier but I doubt you have a chemistry book... The points made by the other two posters are clear and there is no disagreement on the definitions but the terminology used.

a reply to: cooperton
They never said weight, you do know bearing false witness is a sin...

...2nd.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
They never said weight, you do know bearing false witness is a sin...

...2nd.

Heaviness measures weight.

"Newton (N) is the SI unit for weight. Weight is also measured in kilograms (kg) when used to determine the heaviness of an object."

This is different than density

originally posted by: daskakik

Steel is heavier than water, balsa wood is lighter than water. There are no semantic errors in those two statements.

That statement would technically be referring to a sample of steel that weighs more than a given sample of water, and a sample of balsa wood that weighs less than a sample of water. To correctly refer to the density of an object, the determining factor if something sinks or floats, you say density.

originally posted by: Venkuish1 And they are correct and you are wrong (as usual).

What are they correct about? 'Heavy' is not interchangeable with 'density'. Heavy refers to N, whereas density refers to m/V. They're not interchangeable

originally posted by: cooperton
That statement would technically be referring to a sample of steel that weighs more than a given sample of water, and a sample of balsa wood that weighs less than a sample of water.

Derpy, derpy, derp, that is what I have been telling you all along. Without a volume given it is taken that we are talking about equal volumes.

You seem denser than osmium.

originally posted by: daskakik
Derpy, derpy, derp, that is what I have been telling you all along. Without a volume given it is taken that we are talking about equal volumes.

No if you want to refer to the density of an object you refer to density, not heaviness. You guys would re-write textbooks rather than just admit it was an error.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: cooperton
Are you still taking the stance that density is not the determining factor if something floats or sinks?

Nobody has said that. We are saying that heaviness and density are interchangeable when volume isn't given.

Steel is heavier than water, balsa wood is lighter than water. There are no semantic errors in those two statements. If there are prove it.

ROFL a lot of chemistry class flunkies have starred your post.

Steel isn't heavier than water. What's heavier, a pound of steel or a pound of water?? LOL. See how that works now? Density is different like Cooperton said above.

There is a lot of entertainment here on ATS, but you just made the next level!
Just brush up on the three big ones- mass/density/ and your favorite, 'volume', and when to use them.

originally posted by: cooperton
No if you want to refer to the density of an object you refer to density, not heaviness. You guys would re-write textbooks rather than just admit it was an error.

Nope, i did just that in the first post of this page.

You don't own the language, you can't tell people what they can and can't use, especially when everyone who isn't butthurt has no problem with it.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Double derp:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's like the trick question of which is heavier a pound of feathers or a pound of steel. They both weigh a pound but have different volumes.

When someone says gold is heavier than lead, it is understood that if you have equal volumes, the gold will be heavier because it is denser.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Double derp:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
"It's like the trick question of which is heavier a pound of feathers or a pound of steel. They both weigh a pound but have different volumes.

When someone says gold is heavier than lead, it is understood that if you have equal volumes, the gold will be heavier because it is denser."

When you had mentioned that earlier I thought it was odd because it did prove my point, as nocorruptionallowed just said. It proves the ambiguous nature of referring to weight when talking about if something is going to sink or swim.