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.. .
.
I have had a look at the link and it does say the field is zero but doesn't explain why the field is zero rather than simply being a result of opposing forces.
I'm truly puizzled why you and I can plainly realize that field, the sum total of it's forces, can have a net effective value of zero yet the things that make it up not be zero and watch this simple concept truly escape others.
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.. .
.
Q: is the gravitational field of a sphere at the center zero?
A: yes but no but yes but no but you are moving the goalpost!
And this is why. The concept field strength vs. net effective value is something you aren't grasping. Had you known anything about the subject prior to deciding to becomea Wikipedia-based expert on it, you probably would have gotten it.
Anywho, dear, you've just become boring at this point. I'm going to go make some soup and not waste anymore time on you. Toodles!
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.. .
.
you seem to have an awfull time explaining yourself despite being so certain lol
Not really, I'm just not wasting any more time explaing things over and over again to you.
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.. .
.
Non-zero.
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.. .
.
...sooo the field is zero? right? Lol. now it seemed to me you was in disagreement with me about something?
Of course the field isn't zero.
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, i will return to the sun, however at first please answer my question: what value is the gr avitational field of the earth is zero in the center?
The effective measurable net value of the force of the gravitaional field at the exact center is zero, of course. Why would you even ask such a basic question?
I claim zero, so does the authors of a textbook. What is it?
NOW you claim that. Your original claim is that there was no gravity in the center. As least now you admit there is a gravitionaly field. As predicted, now you are claiming the same thing as me but trying to pretend that's what you've been saying all along.
Such blatant dishonesty and inability to simply admit you were incorrect are really rather poor qualities in a person.
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.. .
.
It appears you do agree with me that the gravitational field of the earth is zero at the centre after all?
funny how you strawman me and then when i reject your strawman you claim i move the goalpost lol.
Nope. You just keep claiming that because you can't produce a viable argument in support of your claim.
gain you a strawmanning me. I never claimed such a thing, you are sinply substituting 'internal' for 'center'. This is why i dont want to write pms with you, you are not able to have a honest conversation.
Not in the least. You keep claiming there is no gravity in the center of a sphere, I am simply asking, if that is true, to explain the big orange thing in the sky that works because of gravity creating pressure of the center of the sphere. You can't, that's obvious. Simply whining that I'm creating a strawman isn't distracting from the issue, it's just demonstrating the vacious argument you are making.
jesus is a good example of this.
.
.
I'm gonna have some strong coffee and take a walk. Is it too early for a shot of Jack?
Why did you repeat yourself?
back in the old days i used to hear talk about these kings.
are they still teaching anything about these kings in daniel as it pertains to the " time of the end?".
.
Revered Prophet Phizzy
That guy rocks.
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, i said i was not goimg to talk with you using pms. But please lets keep to the physics.
Ah, well, perhaps I just got overly excited at the idea of your childish rants going away.
