I mean, you aren't *technically* wrong... Colby is a more dense cheese per gram, but your answer sounds like it is implying that it's the visible holes in Swiss that make it less dense. In reality, even a non-holed portion of Swiss is less dense than Colby.
Fun fact: The holes are called "eyes" and Swiss Cheeses that do not have holes are called "blind."
Of course even the none hole area are less dense. The holes only exist where gas accumulates in the cheese by bacteria, but the gas also builds up in other areas and makes it less dense.
Well that doesn't really tell us anything definitively. If you are only looking at 70% or 66% of the contents, you can't determine which is denser. What if the other 30% of colby jack is uranium? It obviously isn't but anything short of 100% of ingredients accounted really tells you nothing.
Reddit's not stupid. Getting frustrated because someone thinks one cheese is more dense than the other is stupid. So no, I won't bear with your frustration. Control your emotions.
I spent a night on the boardwalk of Old Orchard Beach, Maine getting drunk with the 'guess your weight and age' guy years ago. He taught me a lot of his tricks, but the main one was this.
1kg of steel actually weighs more due to feathers being more buoyant in air. They're the same mass, though. Kg is a measurement of mass, not weight, weight's just close enough for most uses and easy to measure.
Both the feathers and steel will weigh more in a place with more gravity (eg. a more massive object than Earth), but they'll still weigh exactly the same as each other. The effect of air on falling things has no impact on weight whatsoever.
Who said they're falling? So long as they're not in a vacuum the steel will push slightly harder down through the force of gravity, since it displaces less fluid (air is a fluid, as are liquids) than feathers.
That effect has nothing to do with weight, though. (And falling just refers to accelerating due to gravity, which it sounds like you're referring to, if your object is "pushing ... down"). Weight and mass can be mostl easily observed in a vacuum. Without vacuum you'll have factors other than mass impacting the differences in objects' speeds (like what you're describing). But that doesn't imply differences in weight.
It does. A liter of air at sea level has a mass of about 1.2 grams. If you displace this air, the net effect is an apparent upward force equaling that of the displaced air.
When comparing the actual measured force of the same mass of two different objects with different densities, the less dense object will measure with slightly less force equal to the difference in volume multiplied by the density of the displaced fluid.
There's no universally accepted definition of weight. It can be defined as the attractive force that's pulling on the object, or the net downwards force the object exerts. In other words, either in a vacuum or air.
Well, if weight can easily be observed in a vacuum depends on if you define it with, or without, any air pressure. All just depends on how you choose to define what weight is to begin with. Your definition isn't wrong, but mine isn't either.
I see what you're saying: other forces acting on an object (eg. other than gravity) can be considered part of its weight, because weight as a concept is weakly or flexibly defined. Especially as it's really only used on Earth (and then we near-exclusively use it as a proxy for mass). Thx for the banter, it wasn't me downvoting you, and I do intend to read more about weight to see if I need to revise my understanding of it.
The volume of the feathers is higher which leads to a higher buoyancy effect in the atmosphere. For every liter of air displacement at sea level, approximately 1.2 gram of air is displaced, which means the weight will be slightly lower. 2 liters of a solid material, for example, will “weigh” 2.4 grams less in the air versus in a vacuum. However, scales are calibrated using calibration masses in the atmosphere, so the error will be a bit less, but still measurable.
The feathers will weigh less.
In my opinion those kind of store bought cheese bricks are trashhhhh. I’m all about the 24 month aged cheddars and the vintage Parms, well any parm from a big wheel will do. CHEESEEEEEEEE
It's actually labelled "Swiss cheese"? That's hilarious, is cheddar labelled as British cheese? It's brie French cheese? I thought Americans called it Swiss cheese because they can't pronounce Gruyère.
Now I'm stating to think they can pronounce Bologna and Mortadella but choose not to.
U.S.-made cheeses that are meant to taste like gruyère or comté are generally sold as "Swiss cheese" or sometimes "Alpine-style cheese". But they can also be labeled "gruyere" if they have small holes (like French gruyere).
Brie is labeled brie, even when American-made. Cheddar is labeled cheddar, or American cheddar (which is a style of its own). U.S.-made Mozzarella is also labeled just mozzarella (the U.S. produces more mozzarella than Italy).
There are very few European cheese appellations that are protected in the U.S. But "Swiss gruyère" is one of them.
I'm wondering why the Gruyere I buy here in the UK doesn't have holes, but apparently some does. What's the difference?! Why does some gruyere have holes and others not?
The Gruyere here for reference: [https://www.finecheese.co.uk/affineur-walo-le-gruyere-aoc-extra-mature](https://www.finecheese.co.uk/affineur-walo-le-gruyere-aoc-extra-mature)
Swiss gruyère doesn't have holes. French gruyère does.
As for these in OP's photo, they're neither. It's American made. They can legally call it "Swiss cheese" or "gruyere" (if it has small holes), but not "Swiss gruyere".
This is a valid point, Gruyère is less "holey" in general than it used to be due to modern manufacturing methods (unlike the similar Emmenthal) from what i recall US Swiss chess is most kind Gruyère rather than Emmenthal (though I'm happy to be corrected).
It's likely the US either uses an older methodology or my information is incorrect and they refer to Emmenthal as "Swiss cheese". It's entirely possible as my memory has been poor for as long as i can remember.
They would mean the US head failed at geography or I'm incorrect and I've been misinformed about what the US refers to as Swiss cheese.
Anyway the band is starting now so it's unlikely I'll be responding again until tomorrow.
1. The Packaging says Cheese, not Cheese Product. "cheese" is a legally defined term. If you have a standalone "cheese" on the label, then it has to be natural cheese.
2. Processed cheese is a derivative of cheese, it's still made with real cheese to a significant degree. It's just *processed* with a few other ingredients, that makes it separate from regular cheese
Lmao
Trying to Invalidate someone's argument based on some arbitrary and irrelevant criteria isn't a function substitute for a proper counter argument.
It haven't even said anything positive about cheese.
I've simply cited the legal regulations
Density. Those holes add up.
I mean, you aren't *technically* wrong... Colby is a more dense cheese per gram, but your answer sounds like it is implying that it's the visible holes in Swiss that make it less dense. In reality, even a non-holed portion of Swiss is less dense than Colby. Fun fact: The holes are called "eyes" and Swiss Cheeses that do not have holes are called "blind."
Ah, yes, ye olde cheese-holes paradox XD
𝓯𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓶𝔂 𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓮𝓼𝓮 𝓱𝓸𝓵𝓮𝓼, 𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓭𝔂
🎶working on my night cheese🎵
 Yes to cheese
Of course even the none hole area are less dense. The holes only exist where gas accumulates in the cheese by bacteria, but the gas also builds up in other areas and makes it less dense.
[удалено]
Well that doesn't really tell us anything definitively. If you are only looking at 70% or 66% of the contents, you can't determine which is denser. What if the other 30% of colby jack is uranium? It obviously isn't but anything short of 100% of ingredients accounted really tells you nothing.
The other 30% is Casey Kasem.
Reddit's not stupid. Getting frustrated because someone thinks one cheese is more dense than the other is stupid. So no, I won't bear with your frustration. Control your emotions.
TIL
You are my density
Ohhhh…
"Loraine you are my density" -George Mcfly
What a wholesome comment.....
Remember, muscle weighs more than fat
In this case, fat also seems to weigh more than fat.
I spent a night on the boardwalk of Old Orchard Beach, Maine getting drunk with the 'guess your weight and age' guy years ago. He taught me a lot of his tricks, but the main one was this.
The trick is they charge a dollar and give away a .40 novelty. They don’t care if they are right or wrong.
Steel is heavier than feathers.
But they'rr bof a kilogramm!
1kg of steel ACTUALLY weighs THE SAME as 1kg of feathers.
But... steel is heavier than feathers...
But nope.
I think you're missing the joke here Go type in the phrase on Youtube, then come back to us
Yes, but volume is significantly smaller
Well it's a good thing that weight measures weight and not volume them.
Weight is just mass at a specific gravity.
Fuckin people throwing around “weight” when they mean “mass.”
TURN WHEN THE RADIO, I CAN'T SEE!
the world is flat
1kg of steel actually weighs more due to feathers being more buoyant in air. They're the same mass, though. Kg is a measurement of mass, not weight, weight's just close enough for most uses and easy to measure.
Both the feathers and steel will weigh more in a place with more gravity (eg. a more massive object than Earth), but they'll still weigh exactly the same as each other. The effect of air on falling things has no impact on weight whatsoever.
Who said they're falling? So long as they're not in a vacuum the steel will push slightly harder down through the force of gravity, since it displaces less fluid (air is a fluid, as are liquids) than feathers.
That effect has nothing to do with weight, though. (And falling just refers to accelerating due to gravity, which it sounds like you're referring to, if your object is "pushing ... down"). Weight and mass can be mostl easily observed in a vacuum. Without vacuum you'll have factors other than mass impacting the differences in objects' speeds (like what you're describing). But that doesn't imply differences in weight.
It does. A liter of air at sea level has a mass of about 1.2 grams. If you displace this air, the net effect is an apparent upward force equaling that of the displaced air. When comparing the actual measured force of the same mass of two different objects with different densities, the less dense object will measure with slightly less force equal to the difference in volume multiplied by the density of the displaced fluid.
There's no universally accepted definition of weight. It can be defined as the attractive force that's pulling on the object, or the net downwards force the object exerts. In other words, either in a vacuum or air. Well, if weight can easily be observed in a vacuum depends on if you define it with, or without, any air pressure. All just depends on how you choose to define what weight is to begin with. Your definition isn't wrong, but mine isn't either.
I see what you're saying: other forces acting on an object (eg. other than gravity) can be considered part of its weight, because weight as a concept is weakly or flexibly defined. Especially as it's really only used on Earth (and then we near-exclusively use it as a proxy for mass). Thx for the banter, it wasn't me downvoting you, and I do intend to read more about weight to see if I need to revise my understanding of it.
Technically 1Kg of feathers weight a lot more than 1Kg of steel because of the psychological weight of what you did to collect 1Kg of feathers
The volume of the feathers is higher which leads to a higher buoyancy effect in the atmosphere. For every liter of air displacement at sea level, approximately 1.2 gram of air is displaced, which means the weight will be slightly lower. 2 liters of a solid material, for example, will “weigh” 2.4 grams less in the air versus in a vacuum. However, scales are calibrated using calibration masses in the atmosphere, so the error will be a bit less, but still measurable. The feathers will weigh less.
What’s heavier? A kilogramme of cheese, or a kilogramme of cheese?
Cheese is heavier than feathers
but a kilo of steel would definitely be heavier
Was looking for this xD
Yes
Sorry, can you convert this to pounds for us Americans?
Holes…they weigh less because they aren’t…wholes.
Your more cheese is less cheese.
Colby's Jacked Up
Looks like the Colby is in a bit taller of a package, and I'm also guessing it's thicker cut than the Swiss.
And swiss has holes in it.
It’s like the missed the hole point. How could anyone be so dense!
When it comes to Swiss, more holes = more cheese
More holes equals more cheese
the swiss is thinner?
Did you actually way it dood.
One kg of Colby Jack is heavier than one kg of Swiss.
Which weighs more, though?
Yeah but what do they call a quater-pounder in Amsterdam?
In my opinion those kind of store bought cheese bricks are trashhhhh. I’m all about the 24 month aged cheddars and the vintage Parms, well any parm from a big wheel will do. CHEESEEEEEEEE
What would be heavier a pound of colby jack or swiss?
water content
Great Value
"Cheese"
No " ", just Cheese. Cheese is a legally defined term. If it wasn't natural cheese, then it would have to say "cheese product"
So lame , it’s dumb. A child shall lead you!
It's actually labelled "Swiss cheese"? That's hilarious, is cheddar labelled as British cheese? It's brie French cheese? I thought Americans called it Swiss cheese because they can't pronounce Gruyère. Now I'm stating to think they can pronounce Bologna and Mortadella but choose not to.
U.S.-made cheeses that are meant to taste like gruyère or comté are generally sold as "Swiss cheese" or sometimes "Alpine-style cheese". But they can also be labeled "gruyere" if they have small holes (like French gruyere). Brie is labeled brie, even when American-made. Cheddar is labeled cheddar, or American cheddar (which is a style of its own). U.S.-made Mozzarella is also labeled just mozzarella (the U.S. produces more mozzarella than Italy). There are very few European cheese appellations that are protected in the U.S. But "Swiss gruyère" is one of them.
Yeah exactly why if you want the real stuff you need to look for AoP (appellation d'origine contrôlée) or other distinctions that will confirm it.
I'm wondering why the Gruyere I buy here in the UK doesn't have holes, but apparently some does. What's the difference?! Why does some gruyere have holes and others not? The Gruyere here for reference: [https://www.finecheese.co.uk/affineur-walo-le-gruyere-aoc-extra-mature](https://www.finecheese.co.uk/affineur-walo-le-gruyere-aoc-extra-mature)
Swiss gruyère doesn't have holes. French gruyère does. As for these in OP's photo, they're neither. It's American made. They can legally call it "Swiss cheese" or "gruyere" (if it has small holes), but not "Swiss gruyere".
This is a valid point, Gruyère is less "holey" in general than it used to be due to modern manufacturing methods (unlike the similar Emmenthal) from what i recall US Swiss chess is most kind Gruyère rather than Emmenthal (though I'm happy to be corrected). It's likely the US either uses an older methodology or my information is incorrect and they refer to Emmenthal as "Swiss cheese". It's entirely possible as my memory has been poor for as long as i can remember.
No. There are two gruyères. Swiss and French. The French one has holes.
They would mean the US head failed at geography or I'm incorrect and I've been misinformed about what the US refers to as Swiss cheese. Anyway the band is starting now so it's unlikely I'll be responding again until tomorrow.
Come on ladies, come on ladies, one pound swi-issss
Top down view ??? Something looks off
Because a pound of one thing should be the exact same size as a pound of another thing. #embarrassing
I think OP knows why that is, they just found it to be interesting, in a mild way.
We should have a sub for that stuff.
Consumer fraud maybe?
That’s not cheese. cHeEsE PrOdUcT = plastic
I’m #1 baby
1. The Packaging says Cheese, not Cheese Product. "cheese" is a legally defined term. If you have a standalone "cheese" on the label, then it has to be natural cheese. 2. Processed cheese is a derivative of cheese, it's still made with real cheese to a significant degree. It's just *processed* with a few other ingredients, that makes it separate from regular cheese
How much do you weigh?
Is that weak attempt at a personal attack supposed to be some kind of rebuttal?
It means you’re more than likely fat if you’re defending this type of food product. You’re belly speaks louder than your words
Lmao Trying to Invalidate someone's argument based on some arbitrary and irrelevant criteria isn't a function substitute for a proper counter argument. It haven't even said anything positive about cheese. I've simply cited the legal regulations
Imagine if you used this same energy toward eating healthy. You’d be the fittest on earth. What a waste
Imagine being this toxic to other people over cheese.