Difference between revisions of "Talk:2681: Archimedes Principle"
(reply) |
(stress on Megan saying "in the bottom") |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:If the original crown was itself already fake then it might not be worth it (or have to lean towards the latter outcome with a bit of extra care not to 'upgrade' the fake) but that's probably covered by the typical Batman Gambit of a typical heist movie characterm [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.49|172.70.85.49]] 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC) | :If the original crown was itself already fake then it might not be worth it (or have to lean towards the latter outcome with a bit of extra care not to 'upgrade' the fake) but that's probably covered by the typical Batman Gambit of a typical heist movie characterm [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.49|172.70.85.49]] 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC) | ||
::The first of the two options makes way more sense. I don't like this plan at all though. How do you hide a colored shiny thing in a bucket of transparent water?!? I feel like we're missing something obvious. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.80|172.69.34.80]] 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC) | ::The first of the two options makes way more sense. I don't like this plan at all though. How do you hide a colored shiny thing in a bucket of transparent water?!? I feel like we're missing something obvious. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.80|172.69.34.80]] 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Megan says "hidden IN the bottom" , so I think there is some kind of false floor/double bottom at play here; allowing the fake crown to be hidden from view and allowing for a crown-swap in the middle of the demonstration. [[User:Flekkie|Flekkie]] ([[User talk:Flekkie|talk]]) 02:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:02, 6 October 2022
I started an explanation, but I can't really figure out what Archimedes' "plan" is. I guess it has something to do with swapping out the fake crown with the king's real gold crown. Heist movies and TV shows always confuse me (I liked "Leverage" for the characters, but could never understand the plans). Barmar (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Under the guise of demonstrating the displacement principle (the buoyancy effect has no real part in this, given the non-floating nature of any crown... I think the focus in the explanation should just be upon the displaced volume of liquid which traditionally would quantify the volume of an object of known weight and a density to be tested to ensure it is that of the purported substance) he will dunk the real crown in the water. Then either:
- extract the fake crown, now 'proven true', satisfying everyone but leaving him the really-true crown, or,
- extract the fake crown, possibly fudging the interpretation (how much water sloshes out) to make it seem like a fake crown went in (and the fake that came out can now be destructively examined to confirm this, now having just cause to utterly ruin the craftwork in the process, and framing the original artisan for fraud), again leaving him with the crown he was given for testing.
- If the original crown was itself already fake then it might not be worth it (or have to lean towards the latter outcome with a bit of extra care not to 'upgrade' the fake) but that's probably covered by the typical Batman Gambit of a typical heist movie characterm 172.70.85.49 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- The first of the two options makes way more sense. I don't like this plan at all though. How do you hide a colored shiny thing in a bucket of transparent water?!? I feel like we're missing something obvious. 172.69.34.80 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Megan says "hidden IN the bottom" , so I think there is some kind of false floor/double bottom at play here; allowing the fake crown to be hidden from view and allowing for a crown-swap in the middle of the demonstration. Flekkie (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
