Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Pathways in the oceans


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 1792 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, LeslieDean said:

Interesting read LeslieDean, thanks for posting it up for us.

 

I understand how the 14.7 pounds per square inch at sea level work in drinking liquid, with a straw, from a container,  I am a little confused on how that works when a child is nursing.  

 

When you suck on a straw you lower the air pressure in the straw and air pressure acting on the surface of the liquid in the cup forces it into the lower pressure area in the straw,  eventually into your mouth. 

When a child is nursing,  he is pulling fluid from a gland inside the breast that is not exposed to the air pressure,  that seems to be a different scenario than the cup and straw.. I'm not sure I understand the difference, or, maybe better said, the likeness. . I guess I need to do some reading. ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, tekmantwo said:

Interesting read LeslieDean, thanks for posting it up for us.

 

I understand how the 14.7 pounds per square inch at sea level work in drinking liquid, with a straw, from a container,  I am a little confused on how that works when a child is nursing.  

 

When you suck on a straw you lower the air pressure in the straw and air pressure acting on the surface of the liquid in the cup forces it into the lower pressure area in the straw,  eventually into your mouth. 

When a child is nursing,  he is pulling fluid from a gland inside the breast that is not exposed to the air pressure,  that seems to be a different scenario than the cup and straw.. I'm not sure I understand the difference, or, maybe better said, the likeness. . I guess I need to do some reading. ..

Don't feel bad.  I breast fed 3 babies and I didn't understand that either.  It was a good reminder for me not to be so harsh in my attitude towards people who do not share my faith.  20 years ago I had a terrible disdain for people in Christendom .  I had to learn that even if we are not the same faith we can still learn from each other.  Not that I am trying to learn about other religions because I am secure you knowing I have the one, real deal.  I'm just thinking about men like William Tyndall, and others who fought for the Bible. They did not have accurate truth then. I think about the Proclaimers book and how our brother studied with Seventh Day Adventist and they shared and learned from each other. Even Christendom now has a few good things to share but no truth in their basic beliefs.  My sister, who is close to death, shared this with me and instead of cutting her short her showing her other areas where she is wrong, decided to just focus on this one thing.  Something we could agree on for a change.  And I concentrated on this particular man believing the Bible so knowing he findings should support the scriptures.  We had a nice conversation about this.  My last lunch with her she asked me if I would say the prayer to 'Jehovah'!  This through me for a loop since herhusband and 91 year old MIL was present.  Since I was taken by surprise, I quickly dismissed the idea of a head scarf because the plates were before us and we were seated at the table!  I did not want to go into a long explanation of submission headship principal and figured he didn't have the truth anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, tekmantwo said:

Interesting read LeslieDean, thanks for posting it up for us.

 

I understand how the 14.7 pounds per square inch at sea level work in drinking liquid, with a straw, from a container,  I am a little confused on how that works when a child is nursing.  

 

When you suck on a straw you lower the air pressure in the straw and air pressure acting on the surface of the liquid in the cup forces it into the lower pressure area in the straw,  eventually into your mouth. 

When a child is nursing,  he is pulling fluid from a gland inside the breast that is not exposed to the air pressure,  that seems to be a different scenario than the cup and straw.. I'm not sure I understand the difference, or, maybe better said, the likeness. . I guess I need to do some reading. ..

 I just found the answer!,,

Biomechanics of milk extraction during breast-feeding

David Elad, Pavel Kozlovsky, [...], and Liat Ben Sira

Additional article information

SIGNIFICANCE

We have resolved a century-long scientific controversy and demonstrated with a 3D biophysical model that infants suck breast milk by subatmospheric pressures and not by mouthing the nipple–areola complex to induce a peristaltic-like extraction mechanism. Analysis of ultrasound (US) movies demonstrated that the anterior tongue, which is wedged between the nipple–areola complex and the lower lips, moves as a rigid body with the cycling motion of the mandible, while the posterior section of the tongue undulates like a peristaltic wave, which is essential for swallowing. The computational simulations of breast-feeding successfully mimicked the dynamic characteristics observed in US imaging and also predicted the subatmospheric pressure required to draw the nipple–areola complex into the infant mouth during latch-on.

Keywords: submental ultrasound, sucking pressure, computational model, fluid-structure interaction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, tekmantwo said:

Thank you. .

I read it, I will have to read it again when I am a bit more awake and maybe I'll understand it...:sleeping:

 

The way I understood it was: sub atmosphere pressure blah, blah, blah, computational simulations, blah blah, during latch on.  The end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tekmantwo said:

Interesting read LeslieDean, thanks for posting it up for us.

...

When a child is nursing,  he is pulling fluid from a gland inside the breast that is not exposed to the air pressure,  that seems to be a different scenario than the cup and straw.. I'm not sure I understand the difference, or, maybe better said, the likeness. . I guess I need to do some reading. ..

Every thing not subject to a vacumn or other mechanical means is subject to air pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is indeed interesting.BUT I have a question, "Why would we be posting to a 'Creationist' Web page on JWtalk? The information is interesting, though I question  his first noting that air has weight, citing  his discovering of the wind having weight and citing that Job 28:25 informs us of that.

 

First: Whether intentionally or  not, the facts are being misconstrued. Rene Discartes wrote a paper on how to measure atmospheric pressure (not wind weight) in 1631. A first practicle method of measuring the weight of air was in 1643 by Evangelista Torricelli.

Secondly: A more proper translation of Job 28:25 NWT speaks of the 'force of the wind'. Had the intended meaning been the 'weight of the wind' a more likely translation would have been the 'weight of the fimament' as that is the closet description we have for atmosphere in the KJ languge.

(Job 28:25) 25 " When he set the force of the wind And measured out the waters". The force of the wind is something well understood by all, and only Jehovah can measure it out, ie control it. it is measured not directly with weight measures but by force measures, MPH, KPH, or force 5, force 6, etc.

 

Back to my opening comment, Please look at the source of cited material, if it comes from a Creationist Apologist WEB PAGE, best flee. If you cite it, the next person might wander over their arguements against Truth and not realize  they are entering dangerous waters . 

The term "Creation Scientist" come from the same mold as "Clean Coal". :)

 

Edit: I would like to add that when Matthew Maury was doing his search he was well aware that wind is force and not weight. The naval way to describe wind is by the force factor. He was a Naval officer. The the creationist author is actually telling untruth. (What do we call an untruth?) :D

Edited by Old
Note edit comment
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is indeed interesting.BUT I have a question, "Why would we be posting to a 'Creationist' Web page on JWtalk? The information is interesting, though I question  his first noting that air has weight, citing  his discovering of the wind having weight and citing that Job 28:25 informs us of that.
 
First: Whether intentionally or  not, the facts are being misconstrued. Rene Discartes wrote a paper on how to measure atmospheric pressure (not wind weight) in 1631. A first practicle method of measuring the weight of air was in 1643 by Evangelista Torricelli.
Secondly: A more proper translation of Job 28:25 NWT speaks of the 'force of the wind'. Had the intended meaning been the 'weight of the wind' a more likely translation would have been the 'weight of the fimament' as that is the closet description we have for atmosphere in the KJ languge.
(Job 28:25) 25 " When he set the force of the wind And measured out the waters". The force of the wind is something well understood by all, and only Jehovah can measure it out, ie control it. it is measured not directly with weight measures but by force measures, MPH, KPH, or force 5, force 6, etc.
 
Back to my opening comment, Please look at the source of cited material, if it comes from a Creationist Apologist WEB PAGE, best flee. If you cite it, the next person might wander over their arguements against Truth and not realize  they are entering dangerous waters . 
The term "Creation Scientist" come from the same mold as "Clean Coal". 

It's a good idea to explain what kind of website information is taken from or linked to. It will make it easier for the reader to weigh the material posted.


Johan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Old said:

This topic is indeed interesting.BUT I have a question, "Why would we be posting to a 'Creationist' Web page on JWtalk? 

.  My sister, who is close to death, shared this with me and instead of cutting her short or showing her other areas where she is wrong, decided to just focus on this one thing.  Something we could agree on for a change.  And I concentrated on this particular man believing the Bible, so knowing his findings should support the scriptures.  We had a nice conversation about this.  My last lunch with her she asked me if I would say the prayer to 'Jehovah'!  This through me for a loop since herhusband and 91 year old MIL was present.  Since I was taken by surprise, I quickly dismissed the idea of a head scarf because the plates were before us and we were seated at the table!  I did not want to go into a long explanation of submission headship principal and figured he didn't have the truth anyway. 

Quote

 

First: Whether intentionally or  not, the facts are being misconstrued. Rene Discartes wrote a paper on how to measure atmospheric pressure (not wind weight) in 1631. A first practicle method of measuring the weight of air was in 1643 by Evangelista Torricelli.

Secondly: A more proper translation of Job 28:25 NWT speaks of the 'force of the wind'. Had the intended meaning been the 'weight of the wind' a more likely translation would have been the 'weight of the fimament' as that is the closet description we have for atmosphere in the KJ languge.

(Job 28:25) 25 " When he set the force of the wind And measured out the waters". The force of the wind is something well understood by all, and only Jehovah can measure it out, ie control it. it is measured not directly with weight measures but by force measures, MPH, KPH, or force 5, force 6, etc.

 

Back to my opening comment, Please look at the source of cited material, if it comes from a Creationist Apologist WEB PAGE, best flee. If you cite it, the next person might wander over their arguements against Truth and not realize  they are entering dangerous waters . 

The term "Creation Scientist" come from the same mold as "Clean Coal". :)

As I mentioned above, it was trying to have a pleasant moment, a good memory, with my sister before her death.  

 

Like we are told weekly, you do not have to point out every wrong thought a person has that we are trying to reach.  Look for a common ground.  Look for something you agree on.  Just because they may have a clink in their  armour does not mean we agree with them. We are hearing what their beliefs are.  Does not mean they are ours.  

 

I pointed to the Proclaimers Book our history and the brother getting together with another denomination to study the scriptures. In the end the other was wrong on certain aspects but yet our brother acknowledged him and gave him thanks to helping him unsterstand certain aspects.  Just because some people have a wrong understanding (trinity, hellfire, resurrectionetc) does not mean they do not love the Bible.  They just don't know. Yet.  Thank ni about defenders of the Bible that gave their life. They did not have accurate truth but they loved the Bible.

 

i thought it was of note that a man would love the Bible and when he read a scripture he knew that his findings must agree with that.  Not long ago we thought the earth was flat.  Not a whole a lot of people fighting to establish the Bible recognized it as a globe, circle.

 

the quote on the statue I appreciated.  

 

Certainly did did not mean to ruffle feathers.  

Edited by LeslieDean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 22.1.2 (changelog)