how many people on here who were or are jws, owned or ran a buisness who would not willingly let people at the k hall know, maybe to avoid feeling like you had to give your fellow brothers and sisters a discount, or free help, or out of fear of being judged.
did you only help out the pioneers?
and not the poor ones?
Apognophos,
You have me there!
To be fair my post was not really aimed at WTwizard but to lurkers who might think we all agree with him/her. Most people do ignore WTwizards posts but that could give an unfair impression to anyone who wasn't a regular.
how many people on here who were or are jws, owned or ran a buisness who would not willingly let people at the k hall know, maybe to avoid feeling like you had to give your fellow brothers and sisters a discount, or free help, or out of fear of being judged.
did you only help out the pioneers?
and not the poor ones?
WTwizard,
Your negativity towards individual witnesses never ceases to amaze me. You sound like you are deliberately trying to makes ex-JWs look like petulant idiots. I wouldn't want active JWs to see your posts since you embody all the negativity that the WTBS try to tar all ex-JWs with.
my question is since it looks as though mammoths were alive after the flood and we know elephants are then how much food was needed to feed just these four animals for the time they were on the ark.
also was the ark, 500 feet long, big enough to hold the amount of food needed for just these 4 animals.. .
.
Caedes, point well taken but it is a language issue, in short terse sentences, only the bare essentials of a thought are expresses. When I mean gravity-neutral, I talked about the effect inside an onion-like layered entity. If you
Follow the the graph line of the strength of the gravitational pull from the maximum at the surface (if any) to the zero at the center, one realises there is a steady or incremental decline. This means that the layer above, like layers down a mine shaft have CRASED to contribute to the strength of the downward pull. how otherwise could the force have declined? It follows that if the inner layers of your choice could be removed, there would be no gravity force left. (sic)
in other words no acceleratin in the center of earth and less acceleration in a mineshaft. Also no acceleration inside a hollow sphere. Hope that clears something up. (sic)
If you were in a shaft leading to the centre of the earth your acceleration would be at a maximum at the surface and would gradually reduce to zero at the centre. Your velocity would start at zero at the surface and increase until you reached terminal velocity (assuming there is air in your shaft of course), you would then travel at that velocity until you got to the centre. Once past the centre your velocity would decrease as gravity started to decelerate you. Eventually the gravity would reduce your velocity to zero and then would start accelerating you back towards the centre. Hence your velocity would still be at it's maximum when you go through the centre.
So Bohm is correct, however Prologos, you are still forgetting the scenario you are actually discussing, the earth is still at the centre. Your water canopy is not gravity neutral because it can't be considered on it's own. The fact that the earth wouldn't feel any gravity effects from the water canopy does not make the canopy gravity neutral, in fact the water canopy would very much feel the effects of it's own gravity along with that from earth.
according to plato, the universe thrives on its own, dies and gets rebornall on its own and within itself.
the wise symbolized this concept in ouroboros, a serpent eating its own tail.
[even more wonderful is the marvel called a fruit-bearing treeit does not even eat its own fruit, but simply subsists on mostly what we may consider as dirt/refuse; and trees collectively perform yet another marvel of photosynthesis that make use of our wastes and give us oxygen, food, water, shelter, fiber..........................................[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0].
That is what is called special pleading.
So why should I not say that the same applies to the universe? We could just say that since energy can neither be created nor destroyed then the energy in the universe is eternal and that the question of who created the universe doesn't arise. Or is that answer wholly insufficient?
creation can be done either by the Father God, or by his children gods
What evidence do you have for that? If I claim to have a dragon in my garage would you believe me?
my question is since it looks as though mammoths were alive after the flood and we know elephants are then how much food was needed to feed just these four animals for the time they were on the ark.
also was the ark, 500 feet long, big enough to hold the amount of food needed for just these 4 animals.. .
.
The fact that an overhead layer in a sphere is gravity neutral.
That isn't correct, you may be confusing the hypothetical mass inside a hollow sphere. It is correct to say that the mass does not experience any affects from the gravity of the sphere. Even in that specific scenario the sphere would be subject to it's own gravity acting on itself so it would not be 'gravity neutral'. Plus of course in the case you are suggesting there is a planet inside the sphere so the gravity of earth would act on your sphere as well.
The fact that planets are near perfect spheres shows how effectively gravity acts to pull even rock and metal into a spherical shape. That alone should be enough to put paid to any nonsense about a water canopy.
Mash,
Sadly, I suspect you may be right.
my question is since it looks as though mammoths were alive after the flood and we know elephants are then how much food was needed to feed just these four animals for the time they were on the ark.
also was the ark, 500 feet long, big enough to hold the amount of food needed for just these 4 animals.. .
.
Prologos,
But you are not talking about an empty hollow sphere you are talking about a hollow sphere with a whole planet inside, unless I am missing something. You were talking about the water canopy above the earth right?
If this was just a hypothetical thought about what happens inside an empty hollow sphere then I owe you an apology.
one thing i would like to say is will the union jack be changed because the scottish flag is incorpreted in it.
if the union jack is changed will we change our australian flag because the union jack is in our flag?
even hawawi has the union jack also fiji and many other commonwealth countries.. .
Good point caedes although somewhat romantic.
I've been accused of many things on this forum but never that...
my question is since it looks as though mammoths were alive after the flood and we know elephants are then how much food was needed to feed just these four animals for the time they were on the ark.
also was the ark, 500 feet long, big enough to hold the amount of food needed for just these 4 animals.. .
.
It's interesting that the adding water to the height of everest has such a negligible affect on gravity, in fact the variance is within the range of the value of gravity across the surface of the earth without adding any fictional flood waters!
As for prologos' hollow sphere with no gravity inside, I have some pretty deep mine shafts near me. You could come and put your hypothesis to the test! My money is on gravity having her way with you all the way to the bottom no matter how deep you went!
according to plato, the universe thrives on its own, dies and gets rebornall on its own and within itself.
the wise symbolized this concept in ouroboros, a serpent eating its own tail.
[even more wonderful is the marvel called a fruit-bearing treeit does not even eat its own fruit, but simply subsists on mostly what we may consider as dirt/refuse; and trees collectively perform yet another marvel of photosynthesis that make use of our wastes and give us oxygen, food, water, shelter, fiber..........................................[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0].
Therefore an external input is needed to sustain any closed loop cycle. So, how does the Universe thrive? Here is where Materialists bring in a STRANGE logic: There is someone [a cause] behind every equipment/device, but when something is too big as universe, there requires no Cause! [In other words, insignificant things need a creator whereas big things do not need a Creator] It’s like making a fuss about an insignificant item that has been stolen, but not being bothered at all about something very valuable that was stolen.
So what about the creator for your god, who created him? And who created his creator? etc etc.
It seems your criticism can be turned straight back at you, after all why are you worried about who created the universe when that gods creator must have been even more powerful? It’s like making a fuss about an insignificant item that has been stolen, but not being bothered at all about something very valuable that was stolen.
It is either elephants all the way down or you start special pleading. So which is it?
just curious to see how many on here like to carve up roads.
if so what type of bike and where do you ride.. 1987 yamaha fj1200.
1986 yamaha fj1200.
Honda CBR 600 although i have ridden various other bikes as well.
