Newt

[MLD Woody]

What are you a consultant of by the way?

[Westside Steve]

Ahh yes.

I forgot that you were in the service, air force right?

But I think you know what I'm talking about.

And yes you did invest in that with your military service. It's part of the deal.

 

I'll get out to that farm 1 of these days.

 

WS

[calfoxwc]

That sodium chloride is more expensive under Obamao, you know....

 

And, Woody -

 

I am a corporate programmer/analyst to the point of a little business analyst tossed in.

Trouble is, for the second time in my career, software took a major shift,

with some things fading out, and others becoming the new thing.

 

Then, ya hafta morph/adapt into the new stuff.

There just isn't time or desire to start over again, so I'm obsolete, unless I let

one of the occasional headhunters talk me into going on a contract well across the country.

 

That isn't going to ever happen for a lot of reasons. Today I am going to order some seed for the garden,

and tomorrow the old farmer down the road will go with me to look at a little old combine..

 

I think aconcagua peppers are the best sweet peppers you can find.

 

That's our new career - farmin.

[calfoxwc]

I'll get out to that farm 1 of these days. WSS

************************************

Well, you will be welcome. But being an excellent tenor, and musically gifted,

 

you probly' won't get around to hangin with the farmin riff raff... @@

 

Let me know - I'll have the root beer on the rocks for ya.

[MLD Woody]

I would imagine its pretty difficult to stay on top of being a programming type consultant, with stuff changing quickly and easy. Not to mention everyone at Michigan seems to be an EECS or CSE major.

 

And to do all of that without understanding how polls work.....

[heckofajobbrownie]

My favorite ad of the campaign so far:

 

"As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney’s compassion for our seniors? Tuesday you can end Mitt Romney’s hypocrisy on religious freedom, with a vote for Newt Gingrich. Paid for by Newt 2012."

[MLD Woody]

I hate political ads

[VaporTrail]

At least they're better than the starving kids/abused animals commercials.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Lying about how Mitt Romney took kosher meals away from Holocaust survivors is uniquely pathetic, even for the low level of honesty we expect from a political ad.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I've decided I will never vote again. It's just fucking insane to vote for anyone. It doesn't matter who wins anyway. Look at the bullshit going on, and they talk about fucking kosher meals in nursing homes. Give me a fucking break.

[Westside Steve]

And that would have been hysterical. Because saying someone you don't like is gay? Comedy gold.

 

Heck there is not one single person here that I don't like.

And that is the sincere truth.

WSS

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here it is. It's something special.

 

[calfoxwc]

I voting for Santorum. The other two just are my guys. But Elmer Fudd would make a

better president than

 

stupid ass ObaMao ...

 

btw, the other day, Obamao called "Georgia" ... "Russia"....

 

57 states.... thought he was in Asia, but he was in Hawaii....

 

lies out his stupid arse.... RUBIO FOR VP,.

[VaporTrail]

I'm voting for Herman Caine.

[MLD Woody]

Newts just a douche.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Peter Beinhart:

 

"It’s too early to tell if Romney will prove a strong general-election candidate. He’s a hard guy to identify with, not only because of his wealth but because in our deeply religious country, candidates who try to keep their faith private (think Michael Dukakis) often struggle to connect emotionally with voters. His core convictions, if he has any, remain obscure. But the past few weeks have shown what the real-world Republican alternative to Romney is. And even liberals owe Romney a debt of gratitude for saving us from it."

[Pumpkin Eater]

Then by all means share your wisdom, because you're the one running your mouth with no sources to back you up. Wikipedia is often a valid source of information, but if that won't do it for you, then go ahead and find me a scholarly article that shows it's wrong.

 

Here's one article I found.

 

http://oud.scheldemond.nl/vakken/exact/na/lessen/tacomabrug/uitleg.pdf

 

If you really think that trumpets are going to cause any of the above type of physical phenomena, again, you're delusional. Furthermore, I'm pretty damn sure you still don't know what you're talking about. If you're an engineer, feel free to introduce some of these concepts to me, I did my undergrad in physics and I'll be able to, more or less, understand what you say. If you aren't, and you're not reading these scholarly articles, then yes, I do know more than you about these kinds of things. Sorry for the condescending tone, but you really haven't shown that you're much of a critical reader or thinker, as you just post quotes of things you don't appear to understand as they show up on google (Your list of scientific "evidence" in the bible). If the best you can do is attack me because I linked to information on wikipedia, you've got much to learn.

 

My biggest problem with what you said is this:

 

 

 

"Historically accurate" does not mean what you think it means. You can't come into this conversation with that attitude and especially that list you brought up and expect to be taken seriously.

 

Anyways, check this out, it's "The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation." The author claims that the walls of Jericho were used for protection against nature rather than enemies. It's an interesting and objective read.

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742981?seq=1

 

First off, let's hope you find another line of work. You're going to be a terrible medical professional. Good medical professionals need to be able to listen to their patients rather than dismiss their concerns (because you think you know everything) and demonstrate an air of superiority. The majority of Americans are Christian, so you had better learn to quell your idiotic hatred of the faithful. Are you going to insult any patient that talks to you about faith?

 

Regarding Jericho, Many "scholars" and atheists such as yourself didn't even believe that there were ever walls around Jericho until the 1950's, when excavations by Kathleen Kenyon revealed that walls had indeed existed during ancient times. The main point is that the walls did indeed exist, when atheist used to love point out that there was no evidence supporting walls ever existed around Jericho.

 

But, let's get the story of Jericho straight, shall we? The Israelites marched around the city once a day for six days. They marched around the city seven times on the seventh day. Then, the priests blew ram's horn trumpets while everyone else shouted, and the wall fell beneath itself.

 

The outer city walls were made of mud brick. Mud brick was not a kiln-dried brick and was usually made of mud, sand, and water, with a binding material like straw. The best ratio for superior mud brick performance is a 70% sand to 30% clay ratio. If the ratio of sand in the mixture is increased above 70%, the bricks demonstrate inferior mechanical properties. The lifespan of mud brick varies, according to a variety of factors: physical and mechanical properties of the soil used in their creation, the environment, the foundation of the structure on which they are used, and the variance of the grain sizes of the material within the mud bricks. A poor variation of grain sizes makes the material weak. A foundation that allows water from rainfall to splash back against the wall would cause erosion on the base of the wall.

 

Ok, so we know that the walls of Jericho were constructed of mud brick, but the exact physical/mechanical properties of the brick remain unknown. Mud brick is a weak building material in general, and it's doubtful that the best ratio for optimum mechanical performance was known in the times of Jericho. Quality control is also a possible issue.

 

Now, lets examine the concept of Mechanical Resonance. Every object has a unique natural frequency of vibration. A force that is vibrating at the same frequency as the natural frequency of vibration of an object causes the object to vibrate. This is called mechanical resonance. Vibrations can increase to the point of destruction. Walking around the city for seven days on the earth around Jericho could have caused a lot of mechanical resonance within the mud brick walls, especially since Jericho was built on silt, the worst kind of soil for stability, because it actually AMPLIFIES vibrations. Mechanical resonance can cause even bridges to fail, which is why marching Armies no not lock step across bridges. Thousands of men were marching in lockstep around Jericho on the vibration enhancing silt soils. They marched around the city a total of 13 times.

 

Now, let's examine Acoustical Resonance. Sound is vibrations in the air. Like mechanical resonance, sound can cause an object to vibrate. Consider the sound is transmitted through windows and walls. The Israelites blew their horns and shouted after walking around the city for seven days. By this time, due to mechanical resonance, the city walls could have been significantly weakened. We all know that acoustical resonance can shatter glass. It could have caused the the individual bricks to vibrate, causing their collapse.

 

So, to summarize:

 

-The outer wall of Jericho was built of mud bricks, a weak building material. The wall collapsed towards the inner stone wall, giving the Israelites a way to climb into Jericho.

-thousands of men walking around the city 13 times could have caused mechanical resonance within the mud brick walls. Jericho is built on silt, a soil type that can actually amplify resonance.

-The mechanical resonance could have severely weakened the mud brick wall.

-blowing the ram's horn trumpets and shouting could have caused acoustical resonance within the severely weakened mud brick wall, causing it's collapse.

 

Ancient ruins collapse for a reason. perhaps Jericho's walls were subjected to thousands of year's worth or stress in a seven day span. Perhaps the mud bricks within the wall were already nearing the end of their lifespan.

 

Quit being an asshole. Your world-view is not superior to that of any else. Your mind is more closed that those of fundamentalist Christians.

[VaporTrail]

First off, let's hope you find another line of work. You're going to be a terrible medical professional. Good medical professionals need to be able to listen to their patients rather than dismiss their concerns (because you think you know everything) and demonstrate an air of superiority. The majority of Americans are Christian, so you had better learn to quell your idiotic hatred of the faithful. Are you going to insult any patient that talks to you about faith?

 

Yes, I'm going to speak to them just like I do to you.

 

Regarding Jericho, Many "scholars" and atheists such as yourself didn't even believe that there were ever walls around Jericho until the 1950's, when excavations by Kathleen Kenyon revealed that walls had indeed existed during ancient times. The main point is that the walls did indeed exist, when atheist used to love point out that there was no evidence supporting walls ever existed around Jericho.

 

Did you even read the peer-reviewed article I linked? Apparently, not. Your point is moot. It talked about what the walls of Jericho really were. It was written in the 80's. I never said there were no walls. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

Now, lets examine the concept of Mechanical Resonance. Every object has a unique natural frequency of vibration. A force that is vibrating at the same frequency as the natural frequency of vibration of an object causes the object to vibrate. This is called mechanical resonance. Vibrations can increase to the point of destruction. Walking around the city for seven days on the earth around Jericho could have caused a lot of mechanical resonance within the mud brick walls, especially since Jericho was built on silt, the worst kind of soil for stability, because it actually AMPLIFIES vibrations. Mechanical resonance can cause even bridges to fail, which is why marching Armies no not lock step across bridges. Thousands of men were marching in lockstep around Jericho on the vibration enhancing silt soils. They marched around the city a total of 13 times.

 

Now, let's examine Acoustical Resonance. Sound is vibrations in the air. Like mechanical resonance, sound can cause an object to vibrate. Consider the sound is transmitted through windows and walls. The Israelites blew their horns and shouted after walking around the city for seven days. By this time, due to mechanical resonance, the city walls could have been significantly weakened. We all know that acoustical resonance can shatter glass. It could have caused the the individual bricks to vibrate, causing their collapse.

 

^^^This is not science. This is hearsay. The reason people break step over bridges is because of a misunderstanding of why the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed. Again, read the studies done in the 80's through 90's on it (I linked one of them). I started out my education as a civil engineer, and this was our first case study. The harmonic resonance explanation is a gross over-simplification of what really happened. See: http://www.engsoc.org/~leito/Billah-Scanlan.pdf

 

You're calling me closed-minded because I think your explanation of the fall of the walls of Jericho is bunk. I've showed you scholarly articles on the background of both situations we're talking about, which apparently you are not reading. If you aren't going to take the time to learn what you're talking about, and then you're going to assert that you are correct on the matter, that makes you delusional. I'm a-okay with being an asshole, and you're a-okay with being delusional. Start taking a look at evidence and then I'll start speaking to you with respect.

[Pumpkin Eater]

Did you even read the peer-reviewed article I linked? Apparently, not. Your point is moot. It talked about what the walls of Jericho really were. It was written in the 80's. I never said there were no walls. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

You just don't care to actually read what people write. To start with, I brought up Jericho, you did not. My point is not moot, because it remains true....at one time, certain people questioned the existence of the walls. It doesn't matter what you said after that....I brought the subject into the conversation. The article you mention focuses on a stone wall. However, it has been discovered that a mud brick wall on the outside of the stone wall was present. This is the wall that collapsed against the stone wall. The fallen mud brick allowed Joshua's army to climb right in.

 

^^^This is not science. This is hearsay. The reason people break step over bridges is because of a misunderstanding of why the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed. Again, read the studies done in the 80's through 90's on it (I linked one of them). I started out my education as a civil engineer, and this was our first case study. The harmonic resonance explanation is a gross over-simplification of what really happened. See: http://www.engsoc.or...lah-Scanlan.pdf

 

Regarding marching over a bridge in lockstep, in 1850 more than 700 French soldiers marched lock-step over the rope bridge of Angers. The bridge began to vibrate, collapsed, and 226 soldiers died. So it has happened. It's not just hearsay. Try bouncing on a suspended bridge. If you bounce in unison with the wavelength, it amplifies.

 

Are you really going to try to refute that mechanical resonance can cause destructive forces? Really?

 

About the bridge....experts disagree about the exact cause it its collapse, but they do know that the up and down "galloping" of the bridge (which would not have been allowed to such a great extent if the towers had not been placed at the precisely WRONG points on the wavelength of the deck of the bridge) caused one of the cable bands at mid span to slip, reducing the already weak torsional stiffness of the bridge. At this point, the bridge was allowed to twist, causing torsional forces. Vortex shedding also became more of a problem once this was allowed to occur because the two sides of the span could now move separately. Then, the deck went into torsional flutter (yep, those harmonic vibrations again) and again, if the towers had been placed somewhere else on the wavelength of the deck of the bridge, this might not have been allowed to occur. Here's an explanation from WDOT:

 

"Torsional flutter" is a complex mechanism. "Flutter" is a self-induced harmonic vibration pattern. This instability can grow to very large vibrations.

 

When the bridge movement changed from vertical to torsional oscillation, the structure absorbed more wind energy. The bridge deck's twisting motion began to control the wind vortex so the two were synchronized. The structure's twisting movements became self-generating. In other words, the forces acting on the bridge were no longer caused by wind. The bridge deck's own motion produced the forces. Engineers call this "self-excited" motion.

 

It was critical that the two types of instability, vortex shedding and torsional flutter, both occurred at relatively low wind speeds. Usually, vortex shedding occurs at relatively low wind speeds, like 25 to 35 mph, and torsional flutter at high wind speeds, like 100 mph. Because of Gertie's design, and relatively weak resistance to torsional forces, from the vortex shedding instability the bridge went right into "torsional flutter."

 

Now the bridge was beyond its natural ability to "damp out" the motion. Once the twisting movements began, they controlled the vortex forces. The torsional motion began small and built upon its own self-induced energy.

 

In other words, Galloping Gertie's twisting induced more twisting, then greater and greater twisting.

 

This increased beyond the bridge structure's strength to resist. Failure resulted.

[VaporTrail]

The article you mention focuses on a stone wall. However, it has been discovered that a mud brick wall on the outside of the stone wall was present. This is the wall that collapsed against the stone wall. The fallen mud brick allowed Joshua's army to climb right in.

 

The army marched right in most likely because the walls were designed to keep out floods, and therefore didn't even completely surround the city. The article mentioned that defensive walls were not a part of the contemporary nor regional city design. Walls existing around a city were rare at this time, this is probably why it was written about. The article I linked referenced maybe 5 other cities at most that had similar walls.

 

Are you really going to try to refute that mechanical resonance can cause destructive forces? Really?

 

No. You're putting words into my mouth again.

[heckofajobbrownie]

This is one of the stranger debates I've ever seen in here.

 

The Walls of Jericho story should be taken as literal history? Really?

[Pumpkin Eater]

This is one of the stranger debates I've ever seen in here.

 

The Walls of Jericho story should be taken as literal history? Really?

 

If found to be accurate, why not? I don't believe anyone has actually experimented with replicating the event, so who knows what really happened. The story's historicity certainly is a possibility, at least in my opinion anyway. Old stories should not be automatically dismissed just because they appear in the bible.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Maybe because they're meant to be taken as fable, not literal history.

 

Do you actually imagine that Noah collected two of every animal as well? That Jonah actually did live in a whale? That the world is 6,000 years old? Or, like the trumpets and the walls of Jericho, are these stories meant to be taken as fable?

 

Isn't that what separates Christians from fundamentalist Christians - the ability to understand that The Old Testament, while often referencing actual places and actual people, is mostly a book of lore?

 

There's a story in Kings where God sends bears to maul 42 children who have made fun of a bald man. Again, I'm not sure this actually happened, but your interpretation may vary.

[Pumpkin Eater]

So what are you saying? If something is proven to have happened as described in the bible, it should still be taken as a fable?

 

Tell me, do you believe Caesar's account of the Gallic Wars to be accurate?

 

It could be said that much of ancient recorded history was written by those with agendas.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I hadn't realized the trumpet story had been confirmed by scientists.

 

Perhaps my point is that instead of wasting your day trying to scientifically prove that an ancient wall so constructed could maybe, possibly, if you think about it, be brought down by a trumpet, why not accept that the point of the story doesn't not rely - nor was it suppose to rely - on its historical accuracy?

 

One should not look to the Old Testament for history. That's not its purpose. Unless, of course, you're a fundamentalist who believes it's all literally true.

[Pumpkin Eater]

Who said anything had been proven? No one. I was arguing that in the case something along those lines is proven, it certainly counts a history.

 

Along those lines, why even care about history at all? Why not just say "f" it and forget about it all.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Who said anything had been proven? No one. I was arguing that in the case something along those lines is proven, it certainly counts a history.

 

Along those lines, why even care about history at all? Why not just say "f" it and forget about it all.

 

Oh, come on. Maybe because there's history, and then there's the Old Testament, and they're two different things, even if the two sometimes overlap.

[VaporTrail]

PE, your problem is that you're treating the events of the Bible as historical fact, yet you refuse to look at the Bible with historical scrutiny. You're looking for evidence to fit your stories instead of fitting a theory to the evidence.

 

If found to be accurate, why not? I don't believe anyone has actually experimented with replicating the event, so who knows what really happened. The story's historicity certainly is a possibility, at least in my opinion anyway. Old stories should not be automatically dismissed just because they appear in the bible.

 

If they're found to be accurate. Which. Well. They aren't. Like I said earlier, just because we have historical evidence of a semi-walled city that fits the description of Jericho, it does not follow that trumpets brought down the walls. Again. I can't believe I have to explain that.

 

Tell me, do you believe Caesar's account of the Gallic Wars to be accurate?

It could be said that much of ancient recorded history was written by those with agendas.

 

No, I don't, and I doubt heck does either, but we look at those accounts under scrutiny. You're not doing the same with the Bible. Furthermore, I looked into soldiers in step and collapsing bridges and I couldn't find a single scientific article on it, it's all hearsay. On the last one that you brought up, wikipedia says that the engineers who built it used concrete as a rust seal, when it's permeable to water. In addition, all of these collapses that allegedly started from some type of harmonic motion are collapses of suspension bridges. So, even if we did find some solid evidence in each of these cases, you're comparing apples (suspension bridges) to oranges (a dirt wall).

[Pumpkin Eater]

Come on, vape. I know it seems unlikely to have happened. I'm not even saying it did happen. I'm saying it's possible that it COULD have happened. Strange things have happened throughout the long history of the world. Hell, strange things happen everyday. Bumblebees should not be able to fly according to aerodynamics. But they do. There is a chance that one time, sonic weaponry was used to cause the walls of a town to crumble. I'm not trying to say it's factual that it happened. I'm just saying it is possible. It would be nice to know if that's what might have happened. The bible is, after all, one of the most consistent (among ancient copies) books according to textual criticism. It's also the most popular book in the world.

 

I looked into soldiers in step and collapsing bridges and I couldn't find a single scientific article on it, it's all hearsay. On the last one that you brought up, wikipedia says that the engineers who built it used concrete as a rust seal, when it's permeable to water. In addition, all of these collapses that allegedly started from some type of harmonic motion are collapses of suspension bridges. So, even if we did find some solid evidence in each of these cases, you're comparing apples (suspension bridges) to oranges (a dirt wall).

 

But the resonance was still the ultimate cause of the bridge's failure. The Millennium Bridge in London experienced the same resonance when it was opened. It may be an apples to oranges comparison, but the ultimate point is that resonation from seemingly small sources of energy can cause catastrophic failure. The winds that TNB experienced that day might seem strong, but were relatively light compared to the wind forces that bridges normally face.

[Pumpkin Eater]

actually VT and heck I don't really care why the walls fell or what caused it. I do enjoy a challenge, which in this case was trying to prove that the biblical explanation was at least possible, even if under the perfect circumstances. Successful? I think so, you probably don't. To each their own.

 

I do think there is value in the true historicity of the times described in the Old testament.