It kind of does if you half the volume. If you end up with the hypothetical gas filled half of a giraffe then it’s less mass than if you end up with the meat filled half.
Unless you were only trying to convey volume to begin with then yes it doesn’t make a difference.
Which part of the giraffe is filled with gas though?.
Are we talking about a cube that is drawn around the giraffe for it’s volume or are we talking about the volume of the giraffe if you submerge it in wter and measure the displaced volume?
Surely a giraffe is nearly uniform density making the distinction between volume and mass irrelevant
Assume a spherical giraffe.
Even if it is not if you are just looking at the toal volume or mass it makes no difference when you halve it.
It kind of does if you half the volume. If you end up with the hypothetical gas filled half of a giraffe then it’s less mass than if you end up with the meat filled half.
Unless you were only trying to convey volume to begin with then yes it doesn’t make a difference.
Which part of the giraffe is filled with gas though?.
Are we talking about a cube that is drawn around the giraffe for it’s volume or are we talking about the volume of the giraffe if you submerge it in wter and measure the displaced volume?
No part, thats why I said hypothetical. But it’s the only way to make sense of the claim that volume Vs mass is an issue.
Hopefully we’re not imagining halving the bounding box around the giraffe including the air
An astroid the mass of the meat half of a giraffe and the volume of 5kg of somewhat dry duck feathers…
I’m beginning to think that it would more relatable if it was just stated in kg or m^3 instead