Posts by Viviane

280

the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy in

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.. .

.

Viviane

Viv, i am happy to observe you do not violate the posting guidelines by posting pms

Of course I don't. Thanks for noticing!

however i wish you had not done so by continuing to misrepresent and make things up.

If there is something you think I made up, please address that specifically. Please note that doing so will be considered by me to be permission to post any parts of any PM you have sent me. Do you wish to proceed with your claim that I made up something you said?

You are free to believe you are right and i am wrong and i agree this conversation properly wont change your mind.

Again you are wrong. I said earlier I learned something and changed my mind. Do try to keep up, dear. This is the third time you've been wrong wrong regarding your claims about what I've said.

So, I will now admit to being wrong a fourth time. It took less than 10 posts before you were saying the exact same thing I was. Congratulations on learning somthing. It's a wonderful feeling.

I've no idea why you would thing you being wrong so often would change my mind. Strange, indeed.

8

Any Bone fans?

by Still Totally ADD in

my wife and i watch the new season of bones last night and they killed off sweets!!!

it just a tv show but this is one we have always enjoyed.

still totally add.

Viviane

I love a good bone.

Wrong question?

40

I phones...I dont understand it?

by new hope and happiness in

is it worth queing two weeks for a phone?

i mean why que two weeks for something we already have a phone?.

.

Viviane

I won't wait in a queue more than 5 minutes to even buy groceries. It it's more than that, I just leave.

280

the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy in

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.. .

.

Viviane

Caedes, you seem like a good egg. It was a pleasure conversing with you.

280

the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy in

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.. .

.

Viviane

Bohm, I truly do hope the PM you sent me, the one where you said I was rude, nasty, silly, defective, a troll, having inflated self-confidence, not suited to teach and ignorant of anything other than the barest of high school math, I really hope that made you feel better.

It really must sting you to have been taught about gravitation and shell theorem by one you regard in such low esteem. The pain will subside, I promise. I once held you in high regard for your knowledge and I thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for reminding me that education often does nothing to improve a person. You could not have written me a better message to show me what kind of person you are.

I truly and sincerely hope you have a great day, week, month and rest of year and happy holidays.

280

the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy in

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.. .

.

Viviane

This is what I have shown in my above derivation. The gravitational field is a function that maps points in space to vectors in space. What is the gravitational field if not zero?

What you have shown is the net effect is zero, not "no gravitational field".

Disclaimer: I have a degree in physics

That only furthers my surpise at your struggle to understand this.

280

the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy in

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.. .

.

Viviane

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.

280

the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy in

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.. .

.

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 in

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.. .

.

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 in

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.. .

.

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.