all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 19 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

It would probably end up right next to the tape measure I've been looking for since Sunday.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    There was no depth where it floated? Interesting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Water's not compressible, so the density doesn't change with depth. Either the bowling ball is denser than water or less dense than water.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    Water does change density with temperature, so it is denser the deeper you go. I doubt there's a normal bowling ball weight that would have the right density for it to float at some random depth though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    because water is fairly incompressible, the density of sea water doesn't change much as you go down

    Therefore no there isn't a depth where the weight of the seawater above compresses the water to a density equal to that of the bowling ball

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago

    A diversion to average bowling ball but no tungsten bowling ball? Outrageous.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    Thanks. Now I know that bowling balls float.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    I was more interested if it would compress than where they floated

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I think these calculations could be wrong, considering that the ball would either absorb water and decrease in density or implode / break

  • source