the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy 280 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Caedes

  Caedes I am not questioning your reading skills, but I never said that the velocity of the faller in the shaft was zero at the center, The analogy to a pendulum is fitting, your protests only show your prejudices. The same formulae apply. Like a pendulum, the falling mass would oscillate with ever smaller amplitude and come to rest in the center, and then be un-moved, because it has found the one place all the plumb-bobs, or stopped pendulums pointed to: the center of no gravity, or balanced gravity if you will.

  To add to that, during such a fall, inside a preferable evacuated shaft, the downward acceleration would be greatest near the surface, and at the center the traveller would be coasting. 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

  Prologos,

  Since you are questioning my reading skills I have quoted your earlier post where you claim that during such a fall you would come to a stop at the centre. You seem to be confused about the difference between acceleration and velocity. You also seem to have a very short memory. I didn't disagree with 'your' pendulum analogy at any point, perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
• 

  Caedes

  PS: There is the thought that pressure is energy, movement, and energy is equivalent to mass and mass is accompanied with gravity. but even that small additional energy-related gravity would not push, but equally divide about the center of it all.

  It is debatable whether the hypthetical collapsing, impacting water canopy altered that pressure at all,or very much.

  Yes, pressure is energy but it is not related to movement other than the fact that movement could be used to produce pressure. After that everything else in that sentence is wishy washy non-scientific woo.

  No, it is not debatable at all. It is clear from that statement that you have no understanding of physics at all.
• 

  Caedes

  The rise of the atmosphere to everest, the increased gravity form the water canopy.

  You really haven't understood any of the last half dozen pages have you?
• 

  Caedes

  Cades: this textbook discuss the shell therem and say the gravitational field is zero At p 24.

  http://books.google.dk/books?id=BGYcivB1EtMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

  you can find a discussionon the difference with newtons and laplaces interpretation in most book on the history of science, iirc it is in b russels history of western phil. Great stuff.

  Bohm,

  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 will see if I can get hold of the book you suggest.

  Thanks
• 

  M*A*S*H

  I think you will find most of the answers you are looking for here... http://www.intelligentattraction.com/
• 

  prologos

  Caedes. I wish tou would refrain from statements like " You have no understanding of physics at all", sweeping denigrading statements do not add to your credibility, a bit; but I agree, my writing style may make people at times swallow hard and scratch their heads. now:

  re: the "hang-still" statement. I describing the pendulum-like fall in an ideal, nearly-vaccuum-empty-(ideal) non-revolving shaft. During any such fall, the jumper is in weightlessness. (when diving on a 3 meter olympic board, the moment your toes are free, even on the 'up' portion, you are weightless, your blood rushes to your head. (quality air time). so: during the fall, the ACCELERATION is greatest near the surface, and your downward speed (velocity) increases most. Nearing the center of the shaft, your accelration nears zero, but your speed is at max. As you now start to rise toward the antipodes, gravity starts pulling you back down,- you start to decelerate, out of that cellar, slowly at first, but you dont feel it, you are weighless. As you approach the opposite surface, the gravity pull-back or DECELERATION becomes MAX. speed or velocity( it is directed, in the shaft) approaches zero. but because of any friction, even space drag, you do not reach the same heights, and start falling again. These cycles repeat, but,- as I said above- FROM LOWER and LOWER heights, just like a pendulum . During those cycles, the Velocity or speed of the fall becomes lower and lower, since you are falling from lower and lower heights, and it IS ONLY THE SMALLER MASS BELOW YOU that acts as the attractor. Finally you come to a hangstill, floating still weightlessly, now at the center. This action is different from a push-away from the inside of an ideal shell, only initial, felt acceleration and impact on the other side, weightless all the way though.

  I had hoped that you would have been able to read all this into the terse sentence in my previous posts, requiring strong 'reading-BETWEEN-the-LINES skills.

  re: pressure.-- You said " --is not related to movement"-- Surprise: pressure IS the result of MOVEMENT. Pressure is the impact force from the reversed MOVEMENT exerted by the particles of the compressed or heated material. (See BROWNIAN MOTION )

  Pressure IS dynamic energy. speed of particles. but since it takes so much energy to create so little mass, energies contribution via pressure, speed, is very small. (e=mc^2).

  re: Collapse of the water canopy so called. This event would be equivalent to the re-entering into the atmosphere of all that mass, described by a figure with 23 zeros for a 9km deep world-wide Ocean. Such an IMPACT would exert pressure on the surface, to say the least, generate heat (movement energy) and slightly increase surface gravity.

  I said "debatable" because it all depends how high -in that fable-, all that water was supposed to be . Called the No-achian fable not for Noah, but the aches the impact would have given all of them.

  Why is this all relevant to the flood question?--, because it was asserted that there would be a DROP in temperature, a BIG drop in pressure, and as the physics and the math shows, the opposite would have been true.

  The Flood story should not be part of "THE TRUTH". The tale of the falling canopy is a fallacy.

  thank you for prodding me into explaining by your questioning.
• 

  Caedes

  I think you will find most of the answers you are looking for here... http://www.intelligentattraction.com/

  That is certainly more intelligent than some of the comments I've seen on this thread.
• 

  Caedes

  Caedes. I wish tou would refrain from statements like " You have no understanding of physics at all", sweeping denigrading statements do not add to your credibility, a bit; but I agree, my writing style may make people at times swallow hard and scratch their heads. now: (sic)

  Stop trying to pass off your word salad as rational scientific thought and I will stop poking holes in it. The reason some might scratch their heads certainly isn't because you are saying anything profound, what is much more likely is they are just trying to work out what you are talking about. I have no interest in your opinion of my credibility.

  re: the "hang-still" statement. I describing the pendulum-like fall in an ideal, nearly-vaccuum-empty-(ideal) non-revolving shaft. During any such fall, the jumper is in weightlessness. (when diving on a 3 meter olympic board, the moment your toes are free, even on the 'up' portion, you are weightless, your blood ...(edited for space considerations)... Finally you come to a hangstill, floating still weightlessly, now at the center. This action is different from a push-away from the inside of an ideal shell, only initial, felt acceleration and impact on the other side, weightless all the way though.

  I have explained this to you much more succinctly earlier in this very thread so why are you repeating it back to me very badly? See my post 1844 on page 6 of this thread. The fact that you would eventually stop is a trivial point and hardly relevent to the discussion.

  I had hoped that you would have been able to read all this into the terse sentence in my previous post, having strong 'reading-BETWEEN-the-LINES skills.

  I would agree your posts do generally look like someone removed some of the words and meaning from them.

  re: pressure.-- You said " --is not related to movement"-- Surprise: pressure IS MOVEMENT. Pressure is the impact force from the reversed MOVEMENT exerted by the partcles of the compressed or heated material. (See BROWNIAN MOTION )

  Pressure IS dynamic energy. speed of particles. but since it takes so much energy to create so little mass, energies contribution via pressure, speed, is very small. (e=mc^2).

  You do not need movement of the fluid to change pressure you change it by changing the volume or temperature. Look up Boyle's law. I would agree that pressure is caused by Brownian motion however that wasn't what was being discussed. The problem with a water canopy is the potential energy it would have not it's Brownian motion.

  re: Collapse of the water canopy so called. This event would be equivalent to the re-entering into the atmosphere of all that mass, described by a figure with 23 zeros for a 9km deep world-wide Ocean. Such an IMPACT would exert pressure on the surface, to say the least, generate heat (movement energy) and slightly increase surface gravity.

  It is debatable whether the hypthetical collapsing, impacting water canopy altered that pressure at all,or very much.

  So which are you claiming? That it would alter the pressure or wouldn't? Again you seem confused, almost as if you look this stuff up on the internet in an ad hoc fashion to try and convince others that you know what you are talking about. If you understood any of the principles that are being discussed you could explain it in your own words.

  I said "debatable" because it all depends how high -in that fable-, all that water was supposed to be .

  Have you got the calculations to back up this claim?

  Why is this all relevant to the flood question?--, because it was asserted that there would be a DROP in temperature, a BIG drop in pressure, and as the physics and the math shows, the opposite would have been true.

  Good grief, a point I can agree with.

  The Flood story should not be part of "THE TRUTH". The tale of the falling canopy is a fallacy.

  What truth?
• 

  bohm

  Cades (*):

  • 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.

  Well, I am a bit torn if I should try to answer this question since I feel i am being trolled to hell on this thread and everything I write will be given a negative spin, so I would like to start this post by saying this post is not meant to be water-proof to a hostile interpretation and is not intended for Viviane.

  The first (important) caveat is the reply is NOT taking into account relativity/quantum theory at all; if we should take this into account the proper answer is the gravitational field (as discussed in the section of "Cosmology" and by me) does not exist at all except as an approximation of limited validity.

  Secondly there is the issue of how physical concepts really "exists" (does e.g. "force" really exist? does "energy" really exist?). I will assume we can both agree that these questions have the common-sense answer that allow us to say these things exists.

  There are now two ways to discuss gravity in classical mechanics:

  • Using a description where forces (computing using newtons law of gravitation) pull in the object(s) and determine the dynamics (I will call this the ropes-and-pullies view on physics)*.
  • For each configuration of matter, determine the gravitational field and use this to compute the dynamics*.

  Both of these description raise a number of questions that has been important historically (what is the gravitational field really? does it really exist? vs. how do objects know which other objects pull them?) and are obviously in conflict with relativity*. The second approach (fields) is sometimes preferred to the first for a few reasons (this is in my oppinion why it is in a textbook like Cosmology*):

  1. it generalizes naturally to a description of electromagnetism in terms of the electric field of a static configuration of charges (compare to the gravitational field for a configuration of matter)*
  2. it blends more easily into more advanced physics like quantum-field theory or general relativity (with important and complicated differences)*
  3. especially in the case of electromagnetism the formulation in terms of fields is "nicer" to work with; for instance Maxwells equations describe the electric/magnetic field. It also allow one to describe gravity in terms of a (scalar) potential function and allow one to "solve" for the electric field.*

  This is not to say that the gravitational field "exist, period": In terms of more advanced physics it certainly do not*, and even in terms of Newtonian physics it should also simply be considered a convenient formulation*. However the "ropes-and-pullies" description of newtons law of gravitation, where one compute the force on an object by imagining it is connected by ropes to other objects that "pull" do not "exist, period" either for the above mentioned reasons*. The "ropes-and-pullies" view of gravity is also often very convenient for some computations and, at any rate, one often end up doing nearly the same computation (as in my argument for the shell theorem)*.

  ---

  Now to return to the question. Suppose we allow ourselves to describe the system in terms of a gravitational field (as the authors of "Cosmology" does)*. Then the gravitational field is something we associate with a particular configuration of matter (per definition*). There exist a principle* (the superposition principle) that allow us to compute the gravitational field by (1) dividing the configuration of matter into several parts (2) compute the gravitational field individually for each of these parts (3) then the complete gravitational field is the sum of the individual fields; in the derivation i posted a few pages this is actually what I did by the integration and a similar result holds for electromagnetism. This naturally agree with the fact forces can be superimposed as in your argument*.

  However in this case there is still just a single gravitational field for the final configuration: the gravitational field.

  Suppose we then say: no-no, this is the "net" gravitational field, the "total" gravitational field or somesuch, then we must define what the "net"/"total" gravitational field is formally if we really believe these are different from the gravitational field, i.e. as an actual numerical quantity. What should that numerical quantity be? How should it be different from the gravitational field? I can't think of any meaningful suggestions.

  Ofcourse you are free to say that as the gravitational field is just one way of phrasing the physics, and do not exist in the same way atoms exist, then we should define "no gravity" in terms of relativity/quantum gravity/string theory and take the discussion from there. Or you can say we should prefer the ropes-and-pullies version of newtons law and in this case "no gravity" can only be defined as the situation where we are assymptotically far away from any matter (as opposed to not being subject to acceleration due to gravity). I don't want to say these views are wrong which is also why in my original response to Prologos I formulated myself in terms of acceleration and not gravity except as a clarifying remark.

  ---

  * this statement like everything else is not troll-proof.
• 

  Viviane

  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.