this was on the news this morning.
when you buy gas air is part .
of the service, it should be free.
The air is free. You're paying for them to provide a pump to compress it, the electricity to run the pump, the real estate for the car, the hoses, nozzle, etc.
If you can fill your tires with the free air all around you without their pump, by all means do so.
this is my first post on here so bear with me.
currently i am still an active jw with serious questions about the jw org.
i was hesitant signing up but really need as much input from the people on this forum to get a clear understanding on things.
@Syme I'm not racist towards gay at all. I don't know why my topic or statements are all that bad. I've been trying to be as tactful as I can like I keep saying.
Replace "gay" with female or Christian or black and see how the question sounds.
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.. .
.
Viv: did i write gravity? try and read my post. Where do you think i am wrong? Be specific. What was your point about the radius?
The lady doth protest to much...
external objects gravitationally as
gravitational pull
gravitationally stable
All things you posted there. You wrote it at least four times from just a quick scan. And you yourself brought up the shell theorem and talked about the radius of objects. Why do you have the expectation that I would explain it to you when you brought it up and pretended you knew what you were talking about?
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.. .
.
Of course that misterious high water was always part of the total attractor, when measured from the outside.
Maybe. How dense was it and where was it?
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.. .
.
he radius of which object? what part of wikipedia is wrong?
You brought it up. I can't help you if you didn't bother to do anything besides a cursory google search before claiming you knew what you were talking about. Try extra google?
Please dont shift the goal post by introducing qm or gr.
That's laughable. Suggesting you use a more accurate way to model the thing you are talking about is moving the goalposts? You must live in a very strange world...
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.. .
.
we agree the shell theorem is correct right? We also agree the shell theorem sayes there is no acceleration of an object inside a hollow sphere? ( point 2)
Yes. "No gravity" isn't what the shell theorem says.
I got no idea what you object to to be honest....
I know.
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.. .
.
BTW, for those about to say "B-b-b-but Shell Theorem!", it's got a LOT to do with the radius of the objet under questions. It's not as simple as reading Wikipedia.
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.. .
.
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... how is there no gravity at the center if gravity is decelerating the object? See my previous post.
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.. .
.
Well actually it is true (It is known as the "shell theorem" which I was not aware of when I wrote my post) and you can find a proof in any elementary book on classical mechanics, c.f. wikipedia. I will be happy to help you with the required integration if neccesary:
It's still not true. Please do show the math. I would suggest you pick the exact center of the sphere and, for a good distribution of test points, five random places inside the hollow sphere and run the math. Oh, and please be sure to use relativity when describing the gravity. Classical mechanics is so hamfisted at it.
Now, so returning to the mineshaft, if we assume the earth is a body of uniform density the gravitational pull at a radius r will (per 1 of the shell theorem) scale as the mass (proportional to r^3) divided by square of distance (newtons low of gravitation) and so scale as r.
So, even using classical mechanics, it's not, as you said, "no acceleration in a hollow sphere". Yeah, I did some gravitational math earlier on the thread. It's not very complicated.
Ofcourse if you make assumptions on the density of earth this may affect the result, however my comment was discussing the idealized situation and at any rate I wont look up the density of the mantle compared with the inner parts of the earth now.
Yeah, I did that the other day. It's a tougher number to find tham I thought it would be, lots of assumptions have to be made.
Anyway, at the exact center of a perfect sphere of perfectly uniform density in a non-moving system (that bit's important) with no other external forces whatsoever, there isn't "no gravity". There is equal acceleration in all directions. Any particle or body placed in and only in the exact center of a sphere under such conditions would experience the exact same gravitational acceleration in all directions and be held in place.
No gravity would mean it could float around and experience zero gravitational forces at all in any direction.
Hope that clears it up! Looking forward to seeing your math!
seeing various/changing laws on the same action, some may feel truth is relative, and there is no such thing as right and wrong.. yet a closer look at beneath the details would show that truth is not relative, and everyone knows what is right and wrong.. driving in the night by putting the head-light off is wrong, but right when country is in war with another country.
behind both the conflicting laws, the truth is same: safety and welfare of the people.
this is true of notion about what is right and wrong:.
Communication with spirit world is no longer a grand-mother tale.
Correct, it's 100% lies.
Unless, of course, you can tell us what "spirit" is made of and prove it. Then you might have a starting point.
