this was on the news this morning.
when you buy gas air is part .
of the service, it should be free.
Viviane: Do you pay extra when you shop for for food?
How is that relevant?
I'm questioning what exactly the complaint it. That people are paying for something they can get for free? That a gas station is offering something for free but some people still pay for it? A lot of places have water fountains with free water but also sell bottled water.
this was on the news this morning.
when you buy gas air is part .
of the service, it should be free.
Viviane: the point, it is free they don't tell you that..
OK, and?
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.
