Viviane

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 4,484 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Viviane

• 
  280

  the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

  by Crazyguy in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.. .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  You are entitled to think I do not understand the shell theorem. Not only does it seem quite pointless for me to correct that misconception, you seem so invested in it I cannot see how I could do it in principle. Would a derivation serve? At any rate this is not my main point. I was referring to the following exchange:

  You offered to "help" me with the math on something you had just discovered existed. Please, DO show me the math. It's a shame something that wasn't your main point has now become a focus, but, you brought it up, not me.

  Firstly, notice that as best as i can tell what you wrote is in no way in contradiction to what I wrote. I claimed the acceleration of an object inside a hollow sphere was zero and you wrote: it's not, as you said, "no acceleration in a hollow sphere". I am still puzzled where you think the contradiction lie.

  Because it's not "no acceleration on an object inside the sphere", it's "total acceleration is equal to zero". Very different things.

  The shell theorem describes the vector field of force (the gravitational field) in any point inside or outside the hollow sphere due to the gravitational attraction of the hollow sphere. Can we agree upon this basic point?

  YES. Now you are getting it.

  Thus, the radius of this sphere matters insofar as it determines when an object is inside or outside the hollow sphere, however asides this trivial point the only thing that matters is the mass of the hollow sphere (see the wikipedia description or my description).

  Please explain to me how the radius of a second body in gravitational computations that explicitly REQUIRE the radius of the objects in in question canbe trivial.

  There is furthermore no "other" radius as you seem to suggest ("that's the radius you were missing, the second body") since the geometry of the other object does not matter insofar as the shell theorem is concerned, as long as it is either inside or outside the hollow sphere (if it is on the boundary the shell theorem still applies to the parts on either side of the boundary seperately).

  Well, you were getting it. Read a paper on it rather than wikipedia.

  So you are comparing yourself to a hungry lion?

  No, I'm comparing you to someone that doesn't understand what's going on but should.

  Actually I would say there was no gravity inside the shell (or at the center of the earth), not just that it "cancelled" out, however clearly the answer depends on what we mean by there "being gravity"

  Again, there is not "no gravity". The total gravitational acceleration is zero.
• 
  30

  Article: If God saved an American doctor with Ebola, why did he let 1,200 Africans die?

  by AndersonsInfo in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/aug/25/ebola-africans-die-god-american-doctorif god saved an american doctor with ebola, why did he let 1,200 africans die?it must be lovely for people such as dr kent brantly to be so sure of god's existence.

  for the rest of us, it's not so easy.

  ebola survivor dr kent brantly.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Sounds to me like the doctor did just that. He accepted the vaccine twice.

  Or... he gave baby jesus credit for what doctors did. Twice. What an asshole.
• 
  280

  the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

  by Crazyguy in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.. .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Spreading ignorance under the guise of knowledge is never funny. Please stop doing it.

  And show the math out claimed to have done. Not one thing you've mentioned can be done without calculus. Please, proceed to educate us, prologos.
• 
  280

  the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

  by Crazyguy in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.. .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  To follow up, Bohm, you are extremely intelligent, everyone should be able to recognize that. What happened, in my opinion, and of course I could be wrong, is that you did not read the entire thread where I DID make a claim and show myself wrong with my own math. I'll go ahead and cut-n-paste it for you...

  In the meantime, the current gravitational acceletation for the surface of the earth is 9.8m/s^2 (including the water). The average density of the earth is 5.52g/cm^3. The average density of water is about 1 g/cm^3. The current volume of the earth is about 10.8e+12 m^3. Doing some quick work in Wolfram Alpha show that that to add enough volume to the earth to cover Mt. Everest would be a difference of about 4557e+12 m^3, almost as much mass as the Earth has, so therefore... hmmm, interesting. I'm wrong. By orders of magnitude.

  I am wrong about the gravity. The orders of magnitude are completely off on the density of mass without a corresponding or greater increase in the radius.

  ... and...

  Plugging the mass of the earth, additional mass of the water MINUS the approximate volume dry land on Earth PLUS the additional 8848 meters into Wolfram Alpha, shows a gravitational acceleration at Everest with all of the water as... 9.94 m/s^2, slightly higher gravity.

  I was still wrong, but at least I know know why. All of this, BTW, is rough math. Point out any errors I may have made...

  So, clearly I have done some math. I've shown myself wrong. What you missed is prologos making all sort of claims and saying he has done the math but, when asked to show it, claiming it's stupid to even be talking about his claims. So, when you pop in and say:

  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:

  ... you didn't read the thread, didn't know the context, weren't aware of the theorem you are so passionately discussing and what it's for, gave a snarky offer to "help" with math and then wondered what was going on when you got called out on showing math and extreme precision in a discussion where the very core of it is someone making claims, constantly switching terms and what they are claiming and making false claims about having done the math.

  It's like sticking your hand in between a hungry lion and a steak and wondering why your hand is missing.

  Now that I've said all of that, a conversation I had with my son the other day seems salient. He's extremely intelligent and has recently been caught saying he knows things he doesn't. I cautioned him on that, telling him that because he is so very smart, he doesn't have to work hard to keep up and can often jump in, catch up and pass everyone else in short order. I know I've been guilty of that in the past. The issue, as least as I framed it to him, is that day he gets caught because he does that to someone that is at least as smart as him and gets called out on it.

  If I am wrong, I am wrong. But you gotta show me.
• 
  280

  the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

  by Crazyguy in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.. .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Viv: i dont understand why you are so rude. yes, wikipedia use the word gravity (accurately) and i expressed the same using the word acceleration. Now you seem to claim i am wrong, or wikipedia, or both. why? I am very puzzled. You insist other should support their every claim with math, but you refuse to substantiate your point with anything but a snarl.

  You offer to "help" with the math as if I am too a poor little girl stupid to do it while not even understanding the problem you are offering to "help" with and now you take offense at asking to see the math you claimed you could do? Quite an interesting notion of being rude, asking to see what was offered.

  If you can't do the math, fine, but don't get upset because you made a claim you can't back up. If you HAD bothered to read the thread, you would clearly see I made a claim AND did the math AND proved myself wrong and admitted it. Sorry, that's not a snarl. Not even close.

  You're right, I do need you to show me the math. While I wait, I'll go back to helping my son understand how to calculate standard deviations for his homework. The other one is working on compound functions over time, I'll get to that after dinner.

  this is not the behaviour of an intelligent person pointing out a mistake, but of someone who cannot admit a mistake.

  It's a shame you didn't actually read the thread. It would show how utterly wrong you are.

  i only expect you to tell me what you think i have done wrong.

  You brought up shell theorem without understanding it.

  You hinted this had something to do with a radius and i asked the radius of what?

  YOU brought the theorem up AND even included it in some rudimentary equations you wrote down. I can't read the theorem for you!

  I asked because as you are hopefully aware the shell theorem is independent of the radius of the object, that is, the acceleration of an object inside a hollow sphere is zero Independent of the radius of the sphere.

  The shell theorem shows that gravitational acceleration between two bodies can be calculated using the center of those bodies because, effectively, the TOTAL gravitational acceleration inside nets out to zero as can be shown using two perfectly spherical but hollow bodies and how, relative to the internal coordinates, gravitational acceleration is calculated relative to ANOTHER body either inside or external to the spherical hollow mass (that's the radius you were missing, the second body). That doesn't mean there IS NO GRAVITY or that it is not stronger inside the body in one corrdinate than in another place. It just means that it NETS to zero.

  There is also a shell theorem application for electrostatic systems. A rough analogy would be that, inside the bubble of the universe, the total amount of energy = zero yet we can still utilize energy to get work done.
• 
  56

  Do you pay for air for your tires at your gas station?

  by jam in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this was on the news this morning.

  when you buy gas air is part .

  of the service, it should be free.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Yeah, I think that is dependant on where you live. That's not true where I live.
• 
  56

  Do you pay for air for your tires at your gas station?

  by jam in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this was on the news this morning.

  when you buy gas air is part .

  of the service, it should be free.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  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.
• 
  56

  Do you pay for air for your tires at your gas station?

  by jam in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this was on the news this morning.

  when you buy gas air is part .

  of the service, it should be free.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Viviane: the point, it is free they don't tell you that..

  OK, and?
• 
  56

  Do you pay for air for your tires at your gas station?

  by jam in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this was on the news this morning.

  when you buy gas air is part .

  of the service, it should be free.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  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.
• 
  109

  Topics I’ve Been Pondering On

  by JWINQUESTION in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  @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.