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

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.

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

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.

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, 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?

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

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.

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. I wish tou would refrain from statements like " You have no understanding of physics at all", sweeping denigrading statements do not add to your credibility, a bit; but I agree, my writing style may make people at times swallow hard and scratch their heads. now: (sic)

Stop trying to pass off your word salad as rational scientific thought and I will stop poking holes in it. The reason some might scratch their heads certainly isn't because you are saying anything profound, what is much more likely is they are just trying to work out what you are talking about. I have no interest in your opinion of my credibility.

re: the "hang-still" statement. I describing the pendulum-like fall in an ideal, nearly-vaccuum-empty-(ideal) non-revolving shaft. During any such fall, the jumper is in weightlessness. (when diving on a 3 meter olympic board, the moment your toes are free, even on the 'up' portion, you are weightless, your blood ...(edited for space considerations)... Finally you come to a hangstill, floating still weightlessly, now at the center. This action is different from a push-away from the inside of an ideal shell, only initial, felt acceleration and impact on the other side, weightless all the way though.

I have explained this to you much more succinctly earlier in this very thread so why are you repeating it back to me very badly? See my post 1844 on page 6 of this thread. The fact that you would eventually stop is a trivial point and hardly relevent to the discussion.

I had hoped that you would have been able to read all this into the terse sentence in my previous post, having strong 'reading-BETWEEN-the-LINES skills.

I would agree your posts do generally look like someone removed some of the words and meaning from them.

re: pressure.-- You said " --is not related to movement"-- Surprise: pressure IS MOVEMENT. Pressure is the impact force from the reversed MOVEMENT exerted by the partcles of the compressed or heated material. (See BROWNIAN MOTION )

Pressure IS dynamic energy. speed of particles. but since it takes so much energy to create so little mass, energies contribution via pressure, speed, is very small. (e=mc^2).

You do not need movement of the fluid to change pressure you change it by changing the volume or temperature. Look up Boyle's law. I would agree that pressure is caused by Brownian motion however that wasn't what was being discussed. The problem with a water canopy is the potential energy it would have not it's Brownian motion.

re: Collapse of the water canopy so called. This event would be equivalent to the re-entering into the atmosphere of all that mass, described by a figure with 23 zeros for a 9km deep world-wide Ocean. Such an IMPACT would exert pressure on the surface, to say the least, generate heat (movement energy) and slightly increase surface gravity.

It is debatable whether the hypthetical collapsing, impacting water canopy altered that pressure at all,or very much.

So which are you claiming? That it would alter the pressure or wouldn't? Again you seem confused, almost as if you look this stuff up on the internet in an ad hoc fashion to try and convince others that you know what you are talking about. If you understood any of the principles that are being discussed you could explain it in your own words.

I said "debatable" because it all depends how high -in that fable-, all that water was supposed to be .

Have you got the calculations to back up this claim?

Why is this all relevant to the flood question?--, because it was asserted that there would be a DROP in temperature, a BIG drop in pressure, and as the physics and the math shows, the opposite would have been true.

Good grief, a point I can agree with.

The Flood story should not be part of "THE TRUTH". The tale of the falling canopy is a fallacy.

What truth?

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

I think you will find most of the answers you are looking for here... http://www.intelligentattraction.com/

That is certainly more intelligent than some of the comments I've seen on this thread.

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

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.

Bohm,

I have had a look at the link and it does say the field is zero but doesn't explain why the field is zero rather than simply being a result of opposing forces.

I will see if I can get hold of the book you suggest.

Thanks

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 rise of the atmosphere to everest, the increased gravity form the water canopy.

You really haven't understood any of the last half dozen pages have you?

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

PS: There is the thought that pressure is energy, movement, and energy is equivalent to mass and mass is accompanied with gravity. but even that small additional energy-related gravity would not push, but equally divide about the center of it all.

It is debatable whether the hypthetical collapsing, impacting water canopy altered that pressure at all,or very much.

Yes, pressure is energy but it is not related to movement other than the fact that movement could be used to produce pressure. After that everything else in that sentence is wishy washy non-scientific woo.

No, it is not debatable at all. It is clear from that statement that you have no understanding of physics at all.

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 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.

To add to that, during such a fall, inside a preferable evacuated shaft, the downward acceleration would be greatest near the surface, and at the center the traveller would be coasting. 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

Prologos,

Since you are questioning my reading skills I have quoted your earlier post where you claim that during such a fall you would come to a stop at the centre. You seem to be confused about the difference between acceleration and velocity. You also seem to have a very short memory. I didn't disagree with 'your' pendulum analogy at any point, perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.