Viviane

Joined

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

Posts by Viviane

• 
  39

  Glory of creation is still untouched!

  by Pinku in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  according to plato, the universe thrives on its own, dies and gets rebornall on its own and within itself.

  the wise symbolized this concept in ouroboros, a serpent eating its own tail.

  [even more wonderful is the marvel called a fruit-bearing treeit does not even eat its own fruit, but simply subsists on mostly what we may consider as dirt/refuse; and trees collectively perform yet another marvel of photosynthesis that make use of our wastes and give us oxygen, food, water, shelter, fiber..........................................[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0].

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Think of the 20-watts of energy as simply powering a projector.

  Religious drivel with idiotic pseudosceince. Deepak Chopra would be proud.
• 
  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

  Prologos, you've still made a lot of suspect claims and said math would prove it. Still waiting.
• 
  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, scratch that, I think I forgot to change an order of magnitude somewhere, as in forgot to change from meters to kilometers or something like that.

  Current mass of Earth is 5.9726*10^24 kg.

  Radius of the Earth is 6374500 meters, giving us 9.8 m/s^2 gravitational acceleration at the surface. Factor in the height of Everest (8848M) and it's about 9.7 m/s^2.

  So, water is about 994 kg/cubic meter, the average density of the earth is about 5500 kg/cubic meter.

  I am, using the standard formula 4*3.14159*r^3/3 for volume of a sphere, coming up with a 9% difference in volume between sea level and the height of Everest, or about 9.94*10^19 cubic meters, way less than the current volume of of earth (but still more water than there is on earth today)

  The problem is now...do we assume the water here today (about 1.38*10^12 cubic meters), was here, part of it was here, etc.? There had to be SOME water. Anyway, we do have to take our the volume of the dry land that is above sea level today. There are about 361 million km^2 of land times an average of 840 m elevation.

  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...
• 
  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

  At the end of the day, the math shows the volume of water needed to cover Mt. Everest is almost the same as the Earth is today and would require a greater volume of water than *is* on the earth today. If someone claims the water is still here, then we are left with an earth that was completely barren of water or an earth with no water on it at all and less rock and metal and therefore less gravity.

  OTOH, less gravity would mean humans, if they could survive without water could grow taller. I'VE JUST PROVEN NEPHILIM COULD EXIST! Checkmate, atheists!
• 
  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

  Gravity works at the inverse square of distance, and a close-by mass exerts much more power than a far away one, and

  the supposed water canopy was ABOVE the earth's surface , LESSENING gravity, or being gravitational neutral*, after the rains, all that mass is below the surface ADDING to the gravity.

  That's really not even an argument you can pretend to begin to make without knowing how far away the canopy was, how dense it was, or how much water was already on the earth.

  In other words, you don't have any basis for making that claim.

  Gravity at the summit of Mt Everest would have been greater at the peak of the supposed flood than before or after. Where there was air before,or since, during the flood there was the more dense mass. 2500 times heavier than air at sea level pressure! ADDED to the normal gravity at that heights!

  Greater where? Also, there was more mass, but less dense. Heavier isn't really a valid term in this sense. Also, all gravity is normal, there is no such thing as "abnormal" gravity.

  The flood water mostly came from above the surface ( the supposed canopy) they added to the surface gravity no matter how high that surface was lifted.

  Yeah, which has nothing to do with my comments but everything to do with yours. You're making claims about things you can't possibly know.

  * it can be mathimatically shown that in a sphere, any outside shell is gravitational neutral, neither adds nor subtracts from the interior gravity, at the center it becomes Zero.

  FANTASTIC! Show the math. I am incredibly curious to know how mass, a lot of it, is gravitationally neutral and won't affect anything near it. Besides, you inadverdently just destroyed your argument, the water would now be the shell and neutral, according to you.

  besides: the heat energy released by the descent of 8km of water from great heights would have never caused a decrease in temperature. picture trillions of hoover dams powering heating coils.

  The Hoover damn spins turbines. It's not even the same type of argument. You're so off, you're no even wrong.

  Do your math physics before. to repeat: gravity at the top of mt everest was greater during the flood than before and after.

  That doesn't even make sense. I would love to see that math.

  .PS. The question was about atmospheric pressure , new heights would have reduced it by not more than .5 %. Massive heating from the gravitational contraction of the high (fictional) water canopy.

  Only if you make up conditions about this water canopy. Go ahead. I'll wait.

  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.

  So there you go, I am wrong, but not for the reasons you said. Math is a wonderful thing. It shows us the shell is NOT gravitationally neutral. Without some more modeling, we can't tell what the temperature would be, but, it won't be, as you said, .5% decrease. There would have been a massive, massive increase in air pressure.
• 
  4

  Man-made predictions come true where as those of “spirit-guided org” were a flop!

  by Pinku in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  historian samuel p huntington (1927 2008) predicted a future with conflicts due to civilisational and cultural reasons rather than on grounds of political ideology and economics.

  and the ongoing conflict between the so-called islamic states and rest of the world seems to lend support to the late historian's controversial thesis.

  fulfillment of his prophecy is more than 100% (even journalists are being beheaded)!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  He predicted the different events might have different causes, just as had happened in the past? So?
• 
  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

  dark frosty, of all the arguments against the ARK story, your's is the one that hold no water, because

  *sigh*, here we go again...

  Like the rising tide that lifts all boats, the air would have been merely lifted up, and with a new sea level still be at it's maximum at that new lowest possible altitude, quite warm too with all that energy of motion.

  Yes, it would have been lifted, but not at the same density, because...

  mass now BELOW the ark would have increased the surface gravity, and with it the pressure and the temperature at the new sea level.

  Actually, the opposite would happen. The large large large majority of gravitational pull from earth comes from the denser rocks, metals, mantle, etc., not water. Adding 8800+ meters of LESS dense material will actually decrease the overall strength of the gravitational field over the given surface, not decrease it. It's the same reason Saturn, with much more mass than Earth, has about the same gravitional pull at the surface. It's all about density.

  Pushing the atmosphere that high while weakening the surface gravity would have allow massive amounts of the atmosphere to bleed off into space, lightening the atmosphere and making it much colder still that it previously would have been.
• 
  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

  I addressed that I'm just asking questions and spurring out thoughts that needs to come out. Of course for me, it is not okay to murder people, beat up people or for terrorist driving planes into towers.

  OK. How is any of that like being gay?

  It's good that you are seeing many perspectives and thinking. I would suggest you listen to the perspectives you hear and try to reconcile that with "Who is this hurting? Why should I care? Does this make the world a better or worse place? Why do I think that?"

  Start to understand why you are hearing certain opinions and perspectives. Think a little deeper.
• 
  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

  I can believe that some are born gay, but I still feel that the types of association, media and shows that portray gay life in a positive light plays a much larger role in whether a person becomes gay or not.

  The real question is why you believe that. Let's dig into that. Being gay isn't inherently bad, why should it be a problem how media portrays is?

  If, as you suggest, it IS a choice, what you are telling me is you just need to meet the right guy and have a drink with him. I suggest Grindr, http://grindr.com
• 
  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

  After reading the comments, I can basically pursue anything that would make me personally happy?

  What if a person found happiness and joy in murdering people or if a school bully found happiness in beating kids people up? Or terrorist found happiness and joy in driving planes through tall buildings? Would it be correct for them to pursue those things?

  Of course not. Why would you even ask that?

  So would it be natural if a human parent kill and eat their babies just how homosexuality is okay among the human species?

  Oh, I get it, you are trying to justify saying "gays are icky" by pointing out that we don't do certain things other animals in nature do.

  Sorry, I don't mean to offend people with my posts. I just so have many questions and writing them to get peoples responses.

  I don't think you do. You're trying to justify "gays are icky". But, just in case you are for realy, why don't you, personally, explain the difference between eating babies and being gay. Go on, give it a shot.

  So what if a persons being gay interferes emotionally or physically on a parent or loved one?

  Exactly, so what?