Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea level
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 77 of 86 (143576)
09-21-2004 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
09-20-2004 11:00 PM


Jesus, RR, you don't have a clue what's going on in this question, do you? It's a simple problem in angular momentum, one that a first-year physics major might encounter as a "refresher" on the first day.
Of I would have a clue, if was described right. I haven't had to do this problem before. But maybe for someone who went to college, and was taught this as a standard in problems, he would reconize it.
Shouldn't matter. Remember, you're the one that claimed that you could do just as well as "jerk scientists" equipped with nothing more than your own common sense.
Well, go to. Employ common sense and solve the problem as well as a first-year physics student.
A first year physics student would not have to figure the formulas out on his own. He would just apply the formulas that was taught to him. Some else did all the hard work for him already. Someone much smarter than him. I am telling you , that I can try and come up with the formula bymyself without anyones help, or college education. I'm sure the person who invented the formula for angular momentum didn't do it in 20 mintues.
You called it angular momentum, I'm calling resistance from getting the wheel in motion. Of course I was including that in my formula, that is so obvious. Thats why you included the radius, and the wieght on the block, so I would know how much torque is being applied to the wheel.
So if I figure this out, you gonna kiss my Christian ass right?
The odds are way stacked up against me. I've been thinking about it for the past day, how I am going to attack this. It's freaking driving me crazy, but I love a challenge. It might take me a while, but I promise I won't cheat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2004 11:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 09-21-2004 10:17 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 12:06 PM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 78 of 86 (143582)
09-21-2004 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by NosyNed
09-21-2004 3:35 AM


Re: refute a theory
Is there more? There is a huge amount of data that this can not explain. You may start with the sea shells which many creationists say is evidence for the flood being over the top of the mountains. So you should really go and argue with them to get your speculation accepted.
I asked someone here already if the areas where they are finding the seashells could have been the ocean floor already. And if it was wouldn't be easy to prove that, by examining the soil. I was told yes it was most likely ocean floor before. So I am not subscribing to what creationalist say. I do not stand by either camp. I do agree that both sides are scinece, and any science is good science because of the evidence it creates. I only believe in God.
No, they will not produce, or you haven't described how they could produce, what we actually see when examining the geological record. To do this you first have to learn what the geology shows us then and only then figure out an alternative explanation for how it got that way.
Agreed, can you point me towards some links?
Thats what I wanted to hear.
Then figure it out. You don't have a 'theory' if you don't do the calculations to show what would happen. You may start by calculating the rate of arrival of water on a mountain side, determing how fast gravity can move it off and by doing so determine the depth of water at each elevation down the mountain.
I was trying to find a program that would do this for me. Its out there already, so I wouldn't have to do all the work of figuring that out which would take me quite a while, and probably still not get it right due to all the variables. So I have contacted a water run-off specialist.
Then, if you want a 'theory', you would suggest what kind of specific evidence this would leave on all the high mountains of the world that could be looked for to check your hypothosis.
The evidence would be lack of soil on anything with a slope. Other than the accumlation of dust, or compost from the time of the flood until now. This amount should be the same throughout the world, I guess. I don't have these figures, but around here in NY, in the appalachian mountains there is very little compost, or dirt on the hills. The rock is very exposed.
If my theory was correct. ground water would rise so high that it pour out of every crack and crevis on a mountain, that it would wash away all dirt. *edit* I witness this first hand, it is my observation. It gets so bad after only one day and 5 inches of rain, that it washes out roads, and I see ground water shooting up through the cracks in the mountain. Even the cracks in my driveway.
I guess the only way there would be dirt on a mountain is if the mountain was formed after the flood.
Since you haven't done any of that you have nothing. The fact that you think you have is enough to engender significant disrepect of your abilities. I'm not the one who thinks they can contribute anything by making stuff up and not thinking it through.
I have thought this through for over 2 years. But only casually. I do not know all that is needed to prove that it happened or not. That is why I put it you guys, who I think are pretty smart.
I just don't appreciate the fact that you think I couldn't be smart too, just because I didn't go to college, or because I believe in God, and then proceed to insult me. I'll admit that typing, and vocabulary are not my strong points at all, and that can make it appear that I am not smart. It is an obsticle I've had to get over all my life. I am better at math and science than English, or history.
This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 09-21-2004 08:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 09-21-2004 3:35 AM NosyNed has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 79 of 86 (143586)
09-21-2004 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by IrishRockhound
09-21-2004 8:27 AM


Re: refute a theory
My main problem with scientists is that the make mistakes too. But that doesn't stop them from preaching what the think is true.
If you take offence I am sorry. You should know better if you are a jerk or not. I wasn't specifically calling anyone out, or trying to take away from the smart ones. I have a 80% rule in life. 80% of all people in all their respective professions aren't that good at what they do. This is a direct observation, and I have yet to see it fail.
Try to find a good mechanic to work on your car, try to find a doctor who can actually find out whats wrong with you. you understand my point?
I think if my theory was correct. that it would look more like a local flood, than anything else. Maybe there is another explanation? If you just kept it in mind, that would be awesome of you, thanks.
I doubt I would fully understand your field study, unless it was written in plain English. But I would like to try and read it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by IrishRockhound, posted 09-21-2004 8:27 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by CK, posted 09-21-2004 9:25 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 81 of 86 (143588)
09-21-2004 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by edge
09-20-2004 12:09 AM


Re: Hydroisostasy & LGM
What I am asking has nothing to do with a flood. I was mearly wondering if the level of the land where these seashells are found was once maybe ocean floor. Then the land was pushed up by other means, tetonic forces, or volcanic ativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by edge, posted 09-20-2004 12:09 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by NosyNed, posted 09-21-2004 2:04 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024