Posts by Caedes

280

the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy in

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

Bohm,

I would say that the question of whether there is no gravity or it being cancelled out is at the outer edges of my knowledge. The reason I would tend to go with it being cancelled is because I am looking at it from an engineering problem point of view. Since gravity acts as if from the point centre of the mass then at a delta distance away from that centre there would be some very small gravitational force. This is because as per the shell theorem that mass beyond the radius of your test dummy does not act upon it. In other words if your test dummy was halfway to the centre of the earth all of the earth's mass that sits above that radius has no net effect on it.

On that point I would agree with Viviane that it is merely that your acceleration is zero. It would seem to me to be a fairly meaningless distinction from a practical point of view however since it is a single point in space.

280

the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy in

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

Because of any friction, the almost weightless floater would start falling from lower and lower heights from the center, would be moving slower and slower, come to a standstill or hangstill at the center, ceased to be accelerated, for there is no gravitational pull in either direction at the center of such an ideal sphere.

Prologos,

Not at all, as I have said previously your acceleration would be zero, however your velocity would be at it's maximum at the centre.

40

I phones...I dont understand it?

by new hope and happiness in

is it worth queing two weeks for a phone?

i mean why que two weeks for something we already have a phone?.

.

Caedes

You mean to tell me there is nothing in your life you are passionate about? I can't say I would ever queue up for a phone but I have camped out overnight to get tickets for a festival. I have sat on the computer waiting for gig tickets to go on sale. Other people might think that was a waste of time too. Perhaps some people spend a lot of time doing their garden or doing up an old car or knitting or painting. Some people spend a lot of time drinking and smoking, what makes one leisure activity acceptable and another not?

280

the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy in

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

So... how is there no gravity at the center if gravity is decelerating the object? See my previous post.

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.

Because at the instant you were at the centre (bearing in mind it's an instant due to your velocity) the gravity would be acting equally on each point of your body pulling towards a point you already occupy. The net effect would be that your acceleration due to gravity would be zero, not that there would be no gravity. Once your velocity is taking you away from the centre the acceleration due to gravity would be acting in the opposite direction (decelerating you) and reducing your velocity. Eventually that deceleration would reduce your velocity to zero and then start pulling you back towards the centre.

Obviously this is all assuming you can engineer a tube that could be run all the way through the earth of course! Which is quite impossible with any technology we currently possess.

21

poll, why would you hide it your buisness/job

by sowhatnow in

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?

Caedes

Caedes, what I'm noticing about WTWizard is how he (and others) take Jehovah's name in vain (jokehovian).

"...Jehovah will not leave the one unpunished who takes up His name in a worthless way." (Exodus 20:7)

A watcher,

Well I am an atheist so I am pretty unconcerned about the feelings of fictional characters. In fact I am fairly sure I have compared jehovah with santa claus and the tooth fairy in the past so you would have to include me in your list. I don't believe anyone benefits from having their ideas protected from criticism. Incidently quoting the bible isn't going to get people who don't share your beliefs to agree with you.

As I said WTwizards goes beyond that into actively being negative about individual witnesses, people who are as much victims of the cult as those who have escaped it's clutches. This negativity does nothing to help those who are new to the site and who may think we as a group agree with wtwizard's viewpoint.

My view is that a more positive view of jws as individuals is more helpful in coming to terms with our shared past. I think WTwizard would particularly benefit from shaking loose from the grip that the wbts clearly still have over him/her.

21

poll, why would you hide it your buisness/job

by sowhatnow in

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?

Caedes

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.

21

poll, why would you hide it your buisness/job

by sowhatnow in

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?

Caedes

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.

280

the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy in

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

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.

39

Glory of creation is still untouched!

by Pinku in

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].

Caedes

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?

280

the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy in

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

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.