The egyptians used a system of measure that gradually evolved into the imperial measurements anyway so they used a version of the inch and foot. By the time of the Romans we can see a system that closely matches the imperial system.
Posts by Caedes
-
8Come on, it is so simple people - Russell used Imperial measurements, but what did the Egyptians use?
by berrygerry inokay, russell based his measurements of the pyramid chambers using inches to determine 1914.. however, what if we used egyptian measurements?.
duh!.
.
-
-
-
12
Public Talk - Probe to Uranus
by berrygerry ini'm being deadly serious - many, many years ago, an english (uk) visiting speaker, giving a talk on science and the bible, made the statement:.
"as we speak, there is a probe that is nearing uranus.".
myself and one other brother were just dying trying to control an explosion of laughter.. i so desperately wanted to yell out: "and they're searching for klingons.".
-
-
-
31
Armageddon is next week... Are YOU prepared?
by Calebs Airplane inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjppkvhy79k#t=82.
.
.
-
-
Caedes
Less than 24 hours remaining in this wicked system of things...
Oh good, I hate it when these things drag on for centuries.
-
280
the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.
by Crazyguy inmy 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,
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
-
280
the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.
by Crazyguy inmy 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, 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.
-
280
the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.
by Crazyguy inmy 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 inmy 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 inmy 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 inmy 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 inmy 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?