ou are free to insist there is still "gravity" inside it. I am free to insist there is an invisible dragon. From a newtonian POW both are equally undetectable.
Of course you are. You're wrong, but free to be so.
Viviane
JoinedPosts by Viviane
-
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.. .
.
-
-
Viviane
-
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.. .
.
-
-
Viviane
As I have made clear many times we should distinguish between the GR treatment of this subject and the newtonian treatment.
You keep saying that, you've no said why. You're acting as if Newtonian physics means "net effect = nothing there".
Now, to say there is no gravity in some area of space is not to deny that mass warp space in general. This ought be self-evident.
As predicted, you're agreeing with me.
Do we agree I have just demonstrated the gravitational field of a hollow shell vanish at all interior points of the shell? Do we agree this mean the acceleration of an object inside the shell will be zero?
No. You didn't show that at all. You showed the net effect is zero, not that there is no gravitational field.
Care to do the math in the relativistic case? (hint, use Birkhoffs theorem I wrote about on the previous page)
Nope, I have better things to do and, frankly, that math is beyond my skills. How long did it take you to find Birkhoff's theorem with google? There's also no need to suggest I need a hint from you. Anyone that knows what Birkhoff's theorem is absolutely would know shell theorem. Don't pretend like you aren't googling stuff.
Anyway, I WAS incorrect in something I said earlier. The net gravitational effect of any point inside the hollow sphere is zero. However, that does not, by ANY definition of gravitation or gravity, mean there is no gravity. I thank you sincerely for showing me that error in my understanding. An analogy would be to say that because you made $100 and had $100 in bills means you didn't earn any money.
-
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.. .
.
-
-
Viviane
Excellent, you cooking?!
I made pan sauteed chicken last night with a lemon,, butter, white wine and caper sauce last night, so... sure.
-
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.. .
.
-
-
Viviane
In my mind defining no gravity as meaning "the gravitational field is zero" is a reasonable definition, however you are free to disagree and say the phrase "no gravity" by definition refer to one being infinitely far away from any mass.
Except the NET gravitational effect is zero. That in no way means there is no gravity.
Before any of the above is taken out of context i wish to add i am talking in the newtonian case.
It still applies even in that case. It's simply more accurage in a reltavistic sense.
-
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.. .
.
-
-
Viviane
I have already discussed the diference and similarity with the GR and newtonian situation in my other posts. I do not claim mass do not warp space in general. Please show me where I made that statement as I think it is very dishonest of you.
And this is exactly why you are out of your depth. Saying "there is no gravity" is saying "mass doesn't warp space". It's not at all dishonest, you just don't truly grasp the subject.
I have just proven this wrong by my previous post. please oh pretty please don't move the goalpost.
Quite the contrary, you are now moving ever closer to saying the exact same thing I am. I predict it will take 10 more posts before you are agreeing with me and claiming I was wrong the entire time.
And seriously, please stop pretending all these logical fallacies are happening. You've yet to show where a single one occured.
-
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.. .
.
-
-
Viviane
The maths on that link is fairly straightforward and usefully it diagrammatically shows why your net force is zero. It isn't because there is no gravity it's because the forces are balanced.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
-
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.. .
.
-
-
Viviane
Meanwhile, in the real world:
2) If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.
Yeah, exactly, no NET force. If you can't grasp the idea of "not force" and compare that to "no NET force", I really can't help you. That's EXACTLY what I have been saying. Thanks for practically quoting me.
-
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.. .
.
-
-
Viviane
Viv: As I have now used math i assume it will be fair if I ask you to clarify a few of your more puzzling remarks "with math"? You know, if you insist it of others, i suppose that would only be fair?
You can assume anything you like. As I said, I've already done the math I argued about in the thread. It's not my issue if you are puzzled.
-
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.. .
.
-
-
Viviane
I did not claim this. I claimed the gravitational field exerted by a hollow sphere at an interior point was zero. Since you are so crazy that people ust show you math here is my derivation, properly there are a few constants wrong here or there:
Let's see. You wrote:
I will be happy to help you with the required integration if neccesary:
That's offering to do math. Not only have you not done it, you are denying that you ever offered. People do remember what you wrote, you know.
Now, could you be so kind as to explain what is wrong in this derivation and could you kindly (if you prefer, WITH MATH!!!111 and without the arrogance and name-calling) explain the meaning of:
There has been no arrogance or name calling. Stop with the butthurt and discuss like a grownup.
So, to answer, what is wrong with it? The opening statement. The whole point of shell theorem is to be able to calculate gravitational effects between two bodies. You ignore that and the entire point of it out of the gate. Anyway...
Your equations appear to be correct from a quick glance and show exactly what I said, net gravitaional effect is zero. It doesn't mean "no gravity exists". Explain how mass can fail to produce a gravity field. So far you're doing an excellent job of supporting me. I appreciate that, sincerely.
-
109
Topics Ive Been Pondering On
by JWINQUESTION inthis 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.
-
-
Viviane
You won't hear any five-syllable swears
You're not doing it right, then.