Is a pound of feathers heavier than a pound of lead?

You'd be surprised at the number of people who do not know who is buried in Grant's tomb.

Are we talking weight or cost?

You see, feathers are pretty cheap at the mo, so if I spent a pound on feathers, I would get about half a ton.

I'll give the answer tomorrow: I will undertake a personal and scientific test tonight, namely sleep under feathers as well as the Missus under exactly the same weight of lead.

Costs are different, that's what I know definately sure by now.

Anxiously awaiting Walters results

(and a few words from the Missus!)

You can lead a chicken to a scale, but will it wait?

Well heavier usually relates to weight? How heavier are you - $200 - no it doesn't go, does it?

So a science forum, six replies, none on topic and none near correct.

Good work guys, I'm impressed!

Um, you asked "Is a pound of feathers..." in the title, but then followed it with "How many folk get this simplest of questions wrong?"

So, it sounds like you already know the answer and are smirking at how many people don't know the answer.

Are you saying you don't know the answer and would like some help?

Ask it in kilograms; it would make the question more interesting.

So eigth replies and no one got this yet - sensational! I'll try an easier question next time,

Squinney - I'm simply stating many folk get this wrong, and smiling bemusedly at how many people here are tap dancing around answering in case they try, get it wrong and look foolish.

DrewDad - you sure?

It's certainly not what I expected in the science section of this board.

Oh, we didn't talk about weighting that in a vacuum?

(But otherwise that would be "a pound of feathers including air".)

I'd describe this as the conceit of a twit--but i wouldn't want to violate the terms of service.

Did you expect this sh!t to be taken seriously . . . what a load of crap . . .

Lead has greater density than feathers.

I have yet to do a comparitive study of lead and crap. However, I assume the density of crap can also be fairly great.

The question should perhaps be in terms of "mass" not "weight" which is location dependent.

On the other hand if we accelerate a mass to a speed approaching that of light then the mass will increase.

So the answer seems to be "it depends on the acceleration frame" which would encompass differing gravitational fields.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him wear a swim suit.

Nor can you get him to feather the oars whilst rowing !

?????

Guys I said weight - so yes that implies a gravitational field - why not simply assume the same place on the surface of the Earth and thereby hold it constant and use an exotic device like say scales?

Also density or air pressure doesn't come into it if you shove a 100 pounds of gold onto large enough scales - then measure it, shove 100 pounds of feathers onto said scale etc. See which is heavier?

I can see alot of dodging - but no one prepared to say I think ... and chance being right or wrong...

Take a chance and rather than comment on my knowledge display your own. See if you're right, call it a challenge

define "heavier"

Define "is."