the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy 280 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Viviane

  Viv: Visit youporn or something. ... I've instilled in them a respect for the elder generation

  i am sure you have. Do you tell them to visit youporn too when they disrespect you? Lol

  For the person who whined he was being misrepresented, that's a whopper you just told there.

  And to answer, nah, they don't disrespect me. OTOH, they could never respect a man that begs a woman to stop talking to him and then keeps trying to talk to her. If you like, they could offer you lessons on how to get respect.

  Viv, i acknowledge that is your oppinion. Meanwhile i think i have said the same thing for three pages. We disagree and you think i should watch porn. Lol

  You have said the same thing for three pages. You've been wrong for three pages, but consistently go. Keep it up if it's working for you.
• 

  Viviane

  It is a great framework to hang your ideas on, the simple math of physics.

  None of which you've been able to show, despite claims to the contrary.

  Sad.
• 

  Caedes

  Caedes: I do not insist you are wrong under all definitions of the word "gravity", but I think you are wrong under the simplest. It is at any rate completely accurate to say there is no gravitational field inside the sphere (it is zero).

  Bohm,

  That is funny, because I generally work on the principle that any understanding I have of physics is the simplest one!

  As I said earlier this is right at the edge of my understanding and you are correct I am looking at this from a purely newtonian point of view (as any engineer would)

  I have had a look through a number of my old text books and read through some of the stuff I found online but I can't find anything that specifically states anything other than what my current understanding of shell theorem is. If you could recommend something that explains the difference I would be most interested.

  Thanks
• 

  Caedes

  Caedes, you seem like a good egg. It was a pleasure conversing with you.

  Why, thank you viviane. It was a pleasure talking to you too.
• 

  Caedes

  Caedes, on the shaft: Of course the velocity of the falling object is at maximum at the center, like a pendulum which is falling too, just not as deep as THROUGH the center, but once ALL the potential energy of the falling object is converted into heat by friction, that maximum velocity is zero. The still pendulum, like all plum-bobs point to the center, where not just the side to side, but the up and down , ALL mass is balanced around them.

  Prologos,

  Since 'of course' the velocity at the centre is maximum why did you claim the opposite in your previous post?

  Or are you now claiming that, yes the velocity is maximum at the centre but that velocity is zero? Really? I reckon the velocity would be about 7900m/s assuming there was no air friction, perhaps Bohm or Viviane could give a more accurate answer or confirm mine?

  I have no idea what you are claiming to know about pendulums but my instincts are telling me it's probably wrong.
• 

  Viviane

  I came up with just over 11000m/s as final velocity when you hit the core, but, that's assuming gravitaional acceleration is constant throughout, which it isn't, so I know that answer is wrong.
• 

  prologos

  Caedes I am not questioning your reading skills, but I never said that the velocity of the faller in the shaft was zero at the center, The analogy to a pendulum is fitting, your protests only show your prejudices. The same formulae apply. Like a pendulum, the falling mass would oscillate with ever smaller amplitude and come to rest in the center, and then be un-moved, because it has found the one place all the plumb-bobs, or stopped pendulums pointed to: the center of no gravity, or balanced gravity if you will.

  The irony of the iron core:

  The center of mass is really the place of no effictive gravity.

  all that mass, and no gravity. it's all in the position, location location.
• 

  Viviane

  the center of no gravity, or balanced gravity if you will.

  Wrong again, prologos. Ask why the core is molten and hot.
• 

  bohm

  Cades: this textbook discuss the shell therem and say the gravitational field is zero At p 24.

  http://books.google.dk/books?id=BGYcivB1EtMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

  you can find a discussionon the difference with newtons and laplaces interpretation in most book on the history of science, iirc it is in b russels history of western phil. Great stuff.

  Re. The terminal velocity, by the argument a few pages ago the magnitude of the acceleration fall linear By the shell theorem. Since we know the boundary conditions, 0 and g, the force F at r must scale as

  F = -g r/R where R is the radius of earth. This is just hookes law so the properties follow from there.

  the velociry at center is about 8000 m per s according to my pen an pencil addled computation. Sorry ipad version.
• 

  bohm

  viv:You have said the same thing for three pages. You've been wrong for three pages, but consistently go

  interesting how i can say the same thing for three pages yet you accuse me of moving the goalpost lol.