Well, I am a bit torn if I should try to answer this question since I feel i am being trolled to hell on this thread and everything I write will be given a negative spin
Thank you for your answer it was a genuine question on my part if that helps.
the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.
by Crazyguy 280 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Caedes
-
Caedes
Caedes, You could be going on nit-picking like this on and on. The collapse of the water canopy from any heights would have the results that the Brownian motion of any particles AFTER the impact, -on the surface and the water-, would have been accelerated, and the observed emitted radiation from there seriously shifted from Brown toward the ultra-violet.
It is a constant wonder how you can make so many words mean so little.
Remember, that the average reader here is better entertained by colourful descriptions rather than formulae and equations, so post THEM together with your challenges, to educate,-- for we agree on the results.
There is very little we agree on, to educate the first thing you need to do is be accurate so by that score 90% of your posts fail wildly. Posting word salad on a subject over which you have the most tenuous grasp is not educational in the slightest. In fact as someone who does know something about this subject I would say your object seems to be to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
In other words, if you make the extraordinary claims, that the RESULTS of the flooding, fall from orbit DESCRIBED are wrong, YOU show the math why.
You are the one that can't decide what you think the results will be, see the point I made in my last post to you. So how exactly is it educational to propose two entirely opposed positions in the same thread?
Then you would educate rather shift the discussion about SUBSTANCE, relevant science to demeaning personal attack.
Post something of substance for once then.
Very few are interested to which low level of pettyness you can descend.
I thought you were opposed to demeaning personal attack?
-
Caedes
I'm truly puizzled why you and I can plainly realize that field, the sum total of it's forces, can have a net effective value of zero yet the things that make it up not be zero and watch this simple concept truly escape others.
Viviane,
That is still my understanding of it, and the understanding of three other engineers whose opinion I have asked. But the caveat to that is that I and most engineers (one of my colleagues does have a a physics degree) would have a very Newtonian view of physics. I can see the point Bohm is making, although it is counterintuitive to my way of thinking, and as I have said this stuff is at the edge of my understanding of physics. It is usually one of my go to points that the theory of gravity is less well understood than that of the theory of evolution so I'm not sure that Bohm couldn't be right in this regard. Especially since Bohm does seem to be saying that the Newtonian view of this example is also correct. I respect both your contribution to this site as well as Bohm's and I will have to respectfully bow out of this argument at this point.
-
prologos
Caedes, re: personal attacks, sorry, but I only returned the favours, reacted to -expanded on-your " I am not interested in--" remark.
I really hoped that real "meaty" science results on gravity during the flood ,-right to the center of it all- would have resulted, rather than the needless pages after pages in off-topic attempts to score points, or just disrupt, by irrelevant nit-picking.
-
Caedes
Prologos,
I see that as per usual you have missed the point. It is not nit-picking to point out that your woo, nonsense and bad attempts at poetry corrupt any sensible discussion.
-
prologos
Caedes, for me a sensible discussion would be focussed on clearly CORRECTING, not only berating bad science, bad astronomy, and please dont hurt my feelings, I am aspiring to make it for one of the poetry prizes. so:
If you think my zero-gravity, lifted atmosphere flood remarks are woo,
show me how, your correction, logically, yes, please do.
-
bohm
Caedes: the dialog is like this:
- Bob: george bush is six feet tall
- alice no!
- bob: how tall is he the?
- alice: you understand nothing. He is not six feet tall
- bob: this book sayes: "george w bush is six feet tall"
- alice: you are taking it out of context. You are a joke
- bob: but how tall do you think he is?
- (two pages later)
- alice: his net effective height is six feet
- bob: ...so you agree?
- alice: no! You understand nothing!
- Bob: wth.
- alice: i win!
around here bob realise that alice sees george bushs height as being composed by the distance from his toes to waist and from the waist to head, and so she is insisting we should say his net total height is six feet and not just his height is six feet, as if these were different things. I think viviane started out with a genuine disagreement with me four pages back (see the insistence the shell theorem involved two radiuses), but she realised this was not a good point and so settled for the above tiresome discussion.
Returning to the effective grav field vs just the grav field. I think we agree this is entirely about semantics at this point, which is not to say i am changing my mind. However here is a point to consider wrt the hollow sphere: if we use the term effective field, what does that mean? My intuitive notion is we might call it the effective field because it is a superposition of smaller "true" fields, however what are those fields? The system only consists of a spherical mass density, and so any insistence on a true division into finitely many "true" fields that are non-zero is both arbitrary and false. for this reason i think the word "effective" should be considered to have roughly the same status as another qualifier like "large", and i suggest this may be a reason it is avoided in a context where exactness matters like in the book cosmology. This may be reading to much into the text though.
Comparing the situation to electrostatics the situation here is simpler: we could say the electric field is that due to a single electron, and the effective field is then the superposition of many simpler fields. This is simpler and more sensible, however i am sure your three friends often use the word "electric field" to describe the field of something more than a single electron!
the point i return to is this: if we insist the use of "the gravitational field" is physically wrong, and not just a semantic difference, we need to endow the words "the gravitational field" and "effective grav field " with a specific meaning. I just cant tell what that should be in this context. If your friends have a suggestion i would be happy to hear it. Cheers.
-
Caedes
Caedes, for me a sensible discussion would be focussed on clearly CORRECTING, not only berating bad science, bad astronomy, and please dont hurt my feelings, I am aspiring to make it for one of the poetry prizes. so:
If you think my zero-gravity, lifted atmosphere flood remarks are woo,
show me how, your correction, logically, yes, please do.
That is why when I reply to your posts I go through line by line and highlight exactly what I don't agree with and why. In your replies to me you don't take the time to actually answer the points I make, that is obviously up to you but don't then complain that I haven't told you where you are wrong. It is entirely up to you to actually read my posts if you want my correction. There is certainly no point whingeing about there not being enough science in the conversation when you are the one filling it with bad poetry and not accepting it when people correct your bad understanding of science.
-
Caedes
Bohm,
As I said in my reply to Viviane earlier, I accept that my understanding of this is from a certain point of view and I also accept that you are more qualified than I am to weigh in on this subject. As I respect both your contribution and Viviane's I will respectfully bow of this argument and accept that you may be right. I will endeavour to read more on the subject.
Cheers
-
Mary
This should answer any questions about The Flood: