I'm looking at the question Would an object at the bottom of the sea still experience buoyancy? and the answers/voting/general response is boggling my mind.
The question is asking about what would happen to the buoyancy force of a submerged object if it had no fluid beneath it, and therefore no hydrostatic pressure.
The first problem is that this is quite a hypothetical situation; and not much of an engineering question. I voted to close for that reason; but it doesn't seem to be gaining much traction.
The second problem is the answers and voting patterns. All the answers with positive score reach the same conclusion; but none of them justify that solution in an appropriate way. Buoyancy is not just due to a difference in density. It's due to the net hydrostatic pressure acting on the object because of that density.
There seem to be several questions in the Physics Stack Exchange that ask about this same question. 1 2 3 They all reach the exact opposite conclusion, i.e. if the objects face is experiencing no hydrostatic force, the object will not have a buoyant force upwards.
The third alarming thing was an approved edit to the question itself, which struck out the OPs own comment, because "Buoyancy and hydrostatic pressure are two separate effects". I've yet to see a single reference that says anything other than buoyancy is caused by the pressure the fluid exerts on the object, AKA hydrostatic pressure. (so I'm trying to revert the edit)
I know this seems ranty; but I feel like I need some calm heads to take a look at this question (because clearly I'm now too invested). To me the community consensus as of now seems to reject science or the premise of the question.