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.. .
.
Caedes: No, you are correct to say there are two forces on the ping-pong ball. However when we are talking about the gravitational field we have to keep in mind what the gravitational field IS.
To compare to the ping-poing ball, the "field" would be an "effective field" composed of the force of air and gravity. That field would be zero at the ball, hence no field.
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.. .
.
Caedes: The gravitational field doesn't vanish at all interior points, no.
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?
Disclaimer: I have a degree in physics
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.. .
.
Caedes:
I feel quite confident on this point:
I think you are confusing the derivation of the shell theorem by the physics; the shell theorem can be derived from geometric considerations (cancellation of forces), but the physical statement is the gravitational field is zero, fullstop.
We can perhaps agree you are correct under a newtonian formulation of physics and I am correct under laplaces more modern formulation.
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: Except the NET gravitational effect is zero. That in no way means there is no gravity.
..it means the gravitational field is zero. You do not have to insert "net" or "effect". I have already demonstrated this:
You 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.
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: 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.
As I have made clear many times we should distinguish between the GR treatment of this subject and the newtonian treatment.
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.
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?
Now moving two pages back you wrote:
It's still not true. Please do show the math. I would suggest you pick the exact center of the sphere and, for a good distribution of test points, five random places inside the hollow sphere and run the math. Oh, and please be sure to use relativity when describing the gravity.
I have now done the math in the newtonian case. The acceleration of five test points inside a hollow sphere due to the hollow sphere will be zero. They wont move. If you assume the points have mass and they are present at the same time they will attract each other. Care to do the math in the relativistic case? (hint, use Birkhoffs theorem I wrote about on the previous page)
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.. .
.
Caedes: As I wrote in my previous posts, it depends on the definition of when there is gravity. 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.
One thing to ponder is in this case the following question: what is the gravity (exactly) inside the sphere? Notice in this respect that the gravitational field is a single vector-valued function over space. Is "gravity" also such a function? Is it a superposition of such functions? I would normally say "gravity" is either the phenomena, or an informal way to talk about the gravitational field.
Before any of the above is taken out of context i wish to add i am talking in the newtonian case.
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: Mass warps space. If you disagree, please, for the love of science, show us all how.
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.
I'm just guessing, but I will bet you will never ever do that and will continue to make smaller and smaller arguments until you eventually say the exact same thing I have been saying all along and simply claim I misunderstood and you were right the entire time.
I have just proven this wrong by my previous post. please oh pretty please don't move the goalpost.
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:
It [shell theorem], in no way, doesn't, hasn't nor ever will say there is no gravitational field inside of a hollow sphere
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
The shell theorem plainly state the gravitaional field of a hollow sphere will vanish in all points on the inside of the sphere. I notice you have begun to slip in the gravitational effects of other objects; sure, if you add other objects they too will have a gravitational field. You can have fun knocking down that strawman, it is as accurate as saying the gravitational field of the sun is not spherically symmetric because there is also the earth, the other planets and the milky way galaxy. Certainly this is a nice strawman!
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: 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?
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: Show me, mathematically, how mass produces zero gravity and I'll agree. You promised math. We're waiting.
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:
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:
Viv: Because it's not "no acceleration on an object inside the sphere", it's "total acceleration is equal to zero". Very different things.
