Viviane

Joined

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

Posts by Viviane

• 
  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

  You won't hear any five-syllable swears

  You're not doing it right, then.
• 
  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

  Caedes: The intuition behind your argument is correct, however (by definition) the gravitational field on the inside of the hollow sphere due to the sphere is zero. The question is if a gravitational field of zero mean there is no gravity; I would tend to say yes because otherwise I would not know what no gravity means. Viv seem to distinguish between no acceleration and no total acceleration which is so silly I think it is beyond me to correct that misunderstanding.

  Show me, mathematically, how mass produces zero gravity and I'll agree. You promised math. We're waiting.

  Also, BTW, nothing here is "by definition". It's something that has been proven, it was not by fiat. Your statement shows you STILL are not grasping shell theorem. The entire point, again, is that the entirely of the mass of a sphere has a net gravitational effect internall of zero such that any calculations between two bodies can be done using center mass. It, in no way, doesn't, hasn't nor ever will say there is no gravitational field inside of a hollow sphere.

  Mass warps space. If you disagree, please, for the love of science, show us all how. I'm just guessing, but I will bet you will never ever do that and will continue to make smaller and smaller arguments until you eventually say the exact same thing I have been saying all along and simply claim I misunderstood and you were right the entire time.
• 
  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 quite plainly did not. That you insist you did, and are unable to substantiate your claims except insisting it is so is quite revealing.

  It reveals that you are out of your depth. However, since I'm such a giving person, I quote myself again for you. Seriously, try reading next time. You'll look less foolish. This is the second time you've claimed I didn't write something I did and you've been proven wrong.

  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.

  Also, you insinutated you could do all the math on this and that I couldn't. Please show your math.
• 
  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

  I notice you re-phrased what I wrote so as to create a strawman. Firstly, as is apparent in the context, I was treating the newtonian/relativistic example seperately. Secondly, you are talking about the effect of the mass *of an object inside the shell* whereas my statement was (and this is apparent if you read it) about the gravitational field *inside a hollow shell*. That you insert an object inside the hollow shell and discuss the gravitational effect *of that object* is the strawman

  Please show my strawman and the math you promised to help with. The shell theorem deals with BOTH mass internal and external mass. You specifically earlier claimed I was moving the goalposts by even mentioning GR, now I'm creating a strawman by literally quoting you and pointing out your error?

  Please, please, please show me where I, in any way, changed your words to create a strawman. The ENTIRE conversation has been about people saying "there is no gravity inside a hollow shell". The FIRST person to even mention that the whole point of the shell theorem is to be able to do grvitational computations between external bodies was me.

  So, your claim is that now, somehow, me talking about the point I brought up to explain shell theorem to you is somehow me creating a strawman?

  I would love to see the chain of logic that allows you to think that me bringing up my own point is turning your argument into a strawman.

  And you promised math and haven't delivered.
• 
  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

  So you disagree with this point? Can you eleborate then in what sense the radius of the second body enters into the derivation not covered by my description? Specifically, does the shell theorem in your oppinion not cover the case where a non-spherical body is inside a spherical shell?

  I already did. I'm not re-typing it because you didn't grasp, read my post it or read a paper on it.

  Interesting. There is some basic confusion here on the meaning of acceleration. Try to give a counter example. How does the "total" acceleration of a body differ from it's acceleration?

  I already gave an example in the form of an alalogy using the elctrostatic version of the shell theorem. I'm not re-typing it because you didn't read or get it, whichever it is.
• 
  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

  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, for there is no gravitational pull in either direction at the center of such an ideal sphere.

  Friction? Show me, mathematically, what that has to do with it? Friction from what? Air? Now the shell isn't hollow, there is mass inside and you're talking about a completely different thing that you were before. And, gravitational acceleration doesn't cease to exist, it's simply perfectly balanced in all directions.

  If you disagree, please show me how 1)air is not mass and 2) how mass can avoid warping space because it's inside of a shell.
• 
  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

  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"

  At the exact center of a perfect shell there is gravity, exactly balanced gravitational acceleration in all directions.

  If you disagree, please please please explain how mass can avoid warping space because it's inside of a shell. I await your math.
• 
  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

  Think about it this way. Let's say you were a computer scientist working on solving P/NP. Someone who has never heard of that problem decides to wade into a debate on it armed with literally what they just read on wikipedia and is constantly confusing terms.

  Would you take that person seriously? Of course not, bohm. That's what you are doing. You were genuinely confused by the relationship between acceleration and gravity. How do you expect to be taken seriously in this discussion?
• 
  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.