Re-Upload - A musing (not to be confused with 'amusing')

[zunipus]

The classic example of twisted human reasoning is the paradox of Achilles running a race, as imagined by the Greek stoic philosopher Xeno (or Zeno) of Elea. It has been told different ways, but here is one fanciful version, using a workaround of YouTube's ban on URLs:

WWWdotMATHACADEMYdotCOMslash

PRslash

PRIMEslash

ARTICLESslash

ZENO_TORTslash

[katekosior]

I was super excited to see a new video from you and then I sat and listened to it and I thought, "Jeez, maybe I'm dumb! I have no idea!" :-D But my guess is it would weigh 101 kg. The fish isn't suspended above, it's suspended within, so wouldn't its mass be inclusive in the total? Unless the tank was empty and the fish was somehow floating in the air inside the tank, I think it is displacing 1kg of water by its own mass, thus adding to--oh, who am I kidding? 101, final answer :-D Hi Gary!

[deepinthewoods]

The fish plus air is less dense than water so it floats, but its still 1kg and isnt defying gravity - if you dropped the whole lot from a 10th storey window the fish would hit the pavement with a slurpy splat at much the same time as the splash and crash from the rest. Your scales are actually measuring the downward force in response to gravity and will read 101kg if accurate.

[Blinkazoid]

In spite of any reasoning to the contrary I'll still go with it weighing 101 kg. My brain hurts too much at the moment to provide any scientific explanation however.

Hmmm, I wonder where a bunch of Kilograms would go to die??? A mass grave I suppose:)

[CoZzMiX]

it all depends how much the fish had etan B4 entering the tank!

[CombatOasis]

Well, those are interesting questions, Gary. With things like that, I take the extremes: I imagine a huge heavy fish vs a tiny finsh and consider the differences. In your scenario I'm inclined to think it would be increased to 101 based on reading through some other comments, too. Would be interesting to hear what you figured out or you thought. Was that a lake behind you around 3:30? Great video, again, and looking forward to the next one! -Jim

[andymooseman]

I reckon that if it was a salmon, the tank would still have weighed 100kgs. Because the salmon would have jumped out ;)

[BradThunder]

@andymooseman I like your (lateral) reasoning! Thinking outside the box - or tank as it may be.

[OhCurt]

All this math is making my brains leak out my ears.

Ouch.

So my answer is:

D, all of the above

[TheMouthonWheels]

I have no answer, I just want you to know that a little bit of my brain died watching this. Haha

[BradThunder]

@TheMouthonWheels Funny, that happens to a lot of people when they watch my videos!

[TheMouthonWheels]

@BradThunder LOL that's just cos you were too damn smart for me :).

[anniehiggy]

My answer woud depend on one variable - how much water had the Spunj soaked up before we weighed? ;)

[LeSaMilano]

Gool ol' Archimedes! If something that is 1 kg is floating, it displaces 1kg of water. When an object doesn’t float, its weight is being supported by the tank, not the water: it displaces its volume, not its weight. But if you were to put the scale IN the tank & put the fish on the scale, it would read less than 1kg. The buoyancy remains even if the fish sinks. The downward force of the 1kg on the scale is decreased by the weight of the water that it is displacing.

[LeSaMilano]

@LeSaMilano or, as Brian pointed out, 42.

[BradThunder]

@LeSaMilano I suppose he gave it some deep thought.

[BradThunder]

@LeSaMilano Eureka-ka-ka-kaaa! Wait, didn't he invent the plughole?

[MrRandomWritings]

The answer is obviously 42.

So long and tanks for all the fish!

[BradThunder]

@MrRandomWritings Ah damn! I was looking into it too deeply, if I had dug less, I wouldn't have had the salmon of doubt!

[MrRandomWritings]

@BradThunder You see I am always willing to disalmonate my wondrous knowledge.

Was that a slartibartfast the dog did as he sat down or a hiccup in the audio? 

[fehquig]

The scales would read 101 kg... Why not try the experiment and make a video of it.

[BradThunder]

@fehquig I have neither the scales or the fish. Who as it happens, does.

[MentholSnuff]

I believe the 1kg fish, whatevever it's state of health, would add 1kg to the weight of the container of water. I'm a firm believer that we can combat rising sea levels by removing large whales, submarines and aircraft-carriers from the sea.

As a side note. Noboddy has reasonably explained, to me, why the non-stick stuff sticks to frying pans.

[NaturalTwentyFilms]

If the scales are measuring mass, it will read 101 kilograms. The fish has a bladder of air to give it buoyancy, making its own "weight" less but its mass remains the same. Also, the weight of the tank and the fish together also increases, even though measuring the fish's weight while buoyant would be less than if it were on the dry scales.