That reminds of R. G. LeTourneau and his reverse tithe.
(I think Wesley’s approach might be better… to not keep increasing your standard of living. 10% of LeTourneau’s later income would still have been pretty enormous, I should think… not at all that he would have spent it on himself. ; - )
You left off the critical phrase: “can function as a cross between”. How they discharge can be varied (I don’t claim any comprehension of how it works), and the default is behaving like a battery; the capacitor behavior has to be triggered somehow.
Then there’s the version someone achieved a bit accidentally: they can charge as though capacitors, meaning they can be charged much faster than batteries, but they discharge as batteries.
Any capacitor does – through a resistance (or a direct short). That latter would give you smoke faster for a large capacitance!
(A capacitor is analogous to a diaphragm across a pipe – a surge suppressor to ground if in parallel or an AC signal transmitter if in series, no net DC flow. A valve locking in pressure on one side, no flow, is like a charged capacitor, open circuit. A battery is analogous to a bladder tank with [chemical] resistance built in, like an orifice flow restrictor allowing DC current. It wouldn’t be completely wrong to say a battery is like a capacitor in that sense.)
A guy I knew in my university days had his own formula: whatever increase in income he got, he allowed up to 10% of that increase to go to his standard of living. So when he got a raise of $1 per hour he added $0.10 per hour to his budget – so in a month if he was earning $100 more his budget increased by just $10.
Did he quit jobs frequently? 
(Autofill and autocorrect are my worst enemas. ; - )
I remember from university physics that a capacitor discharges on a decreasing exponential curve while a battery discharges linearly. Capacitor discharge is thus, though not instantaneous, extremely rapid at first.
Pretty much. But with decreasing voltage across a fixed resistance, current would go down. (An ideal battery would have no voltage drop until it was completely discharged, so yes, that would be linear.)
Yes, but. We are talking about time constants, capacitance and discharge current relationships. A large capacitor with very little discharge current will still not see much voltage drop except over a longer period of time.
The temptation to conflate passages which embed theology by personalizing God’ will such as in the Flood is inescapable.
Avoiding this temptation is necessary.
Genesis, if taken literally i.e. as a full and satisfactory statement of Creation from the standpoint of science, tells us that Earth began submerged in vast waters, was dragged up from the deeps, and set amid the seas that remained after half the waters of Creation were set above the vault of the heavens, the firmament. The waters above the firmament are Day Two and Earth being pulled up is Day Three, which also includes God’s command that the earth bring forth all varieties of plants. Day Four sees the rest of the visible universe placed within the vault of the heavens.
Any well-equipped scientist would realize that the forever supply of rain up there needed to fall past anything within the vault of the heavens before striking the ground.
Creation as it reaches us today features Planet Earth as a sphere of iron, wrapped in magma, with a thin crispy crust (continents) with films of water surrounding them (seas) and in orbit around the nearest star, with the moon orbiting Earth.
This much should help worshipers of God’s Word to realize that Genesis is teaching us principles that go beyond the bits of scenery they are dressed in.
Main question: WHY WAS THERE A FLOOD?
The answer goes back to the context into which the Spirit revealed Genesis to the first Hebrews:
This shows it well, and even includes a calculator. Yes, rapid at first is a fair characterization, but relative.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capdis.html
(Five RC time constants is considered 100%.)
Rarely has there been a series of comments so completely full of nonsense. I have noted previously that God gave us two fantastic molecules, water and chlorophyll. Water on the second day, plants and chlorophyll on the third day. The plants were given a head start to begin making fossil fuels. Then came the moon to provide time, the shift in the earth’s axis to provide seasons, and a “Lesser light for night”. Only on the fifth day came animals.
Is there any record ever, anywhere, of an animal building a fire.
Why did God give Adam and Eve clothes??? To keep warm.
How have humans from the dawn of time kept warm? Burning fossil fuels, or primary wood from the third day. Standing wood would work to keep a few people warm, but with 8 billion people on earth, there is just not enough wood, hence the use of fossil fuels. Trying to equate Genesis 6 and burning fuels to keep warm with sin is PURE NONSENSE.
There was a research paper in the past several months that the body, given the twin problems of keeping warm and fighting infection, will chose keeping warm over fighting infection. Hence, more colds in winter time.
Are we to believe it is sinful to burn coal to keep warm? And keep infection down.
Fossil fuels are one of God’s great secondary gifts, following on the creation of plants on the third day. And, they are a specific gift to the creation of the sixth day, not the creations of the previous five days.
Burning olive oil can provide light…for the 10 virgins. But, there is not enough heat to keep us warm.
I don’t know what you’re reading, but it certainly isn’t Genesis.
Your entire argument depends on the assumption that keeping warm trumps the health of the environment, which is essentially saying that humans have the right to destroy the planet in order to stay comfortable.
Maybe if fossil fuels were mostly used to keep people warm you might have a tiny bit of a point.
When you use the phrase “destroy the planet”, you nave abandoned reason, scripture and almost anything sacred.
Seventh Day Adventists are not among that group of YEC evangelicals. We believe that it is Gods expectation that we do not engage in behaviours/habits that are harmful to the environment. The expectation is that we move towards greener and more sustanable use of the planets resources …( The Environment: Our Responsibility - Adventist.org 1995.)
Seventh-day Adventists believe that humankind was created in the image of God, thus representing God as His stewards, to rule the natural environment in a faithful and fruitful way.
Unfortunately, corruption and exploitation have been brought into the management of the human domain of responsibility. Increasingly men and women have been involved in a megalomaniacal destruction of the earth’s resources, resulting in widespread suffering, environmental disarray, and the threat of climate change. While scientific research needs to continue, it is clear from the accumulated evidence that the increasing emission of destructive gasses, the depletion of the protective mantel of ozone, the massive destruction of the American forests, and the so-called greenhouse effect, are all threatening the earth’s eco-system.
These problems are largely due to human selfishness and the egocentric pursuit of getting more and more through ever-increasing production, unlimited consumption and depletion of nonrenewable resources. The ecological crisis is rooted in humankind’s greed and refusal to practice good and faithful stewardship within the divine boundaries of creation.
Seventh-day Adventists advocate a simple, wholesome lifestyle, where people do not step on the treadmill of unbridled consumerism, goods-getting, and production of waste. We call for respect of creation, restraint in the use of the world’s resources, reevaluation of one’s needs, and reaffirmation of the dignity of created life.
[quote=“St.Roymond, post:18, topic:52762”]
IMO their view of God’s providence is equivalent to Jesus throwing Himself off the Temple and expecting God to let Him land lightly.
[/quote]]
]
Good point St Roymond. Its interesting though that i had a discussion just this last weekend with a fellow in my local hardware store trade area about climate change.
It all started when i pulled out my digital wallet to pay for the materials i had purchased (which i can do from my phone directly rather than go to the register), and found a leech attached to my phone. I was busily trying to squash the little blighter on the concrete when he walked up and we soon struck up a discussion.
The fellow was a wine maker and seemed to be somewhat of a chemist. i dont know what academic qualifications wine-makers need, however, in any case, our conversation soon turned to climate change as the controls of government on wine making were a hot topic for winemakers snd wineries it seems.
He was adiment that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere would not produce the outcome that we are being warned about.
His claim was that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would lower the thermal condensation layer, thereby causing an increase in precipitation, which in turn would also increase foliage growth due to more CO2 for plants to photosythesize, thus self regulating the effects.
Personally, I am not so sure i agree that this fellows view are right, although having flown over 1000 hours in paragliders and given my understanding from a practical point of view how to make use of thermals in flight, I do see his point, however, I am not so sure its quite that simple.
It’s already been learned that vegetables and grains do have increased growth due to increased CO2, but they also turn out to have less nutrition value per unit weight. In terms of how that affects animals, it means they have to eat significantly more in order to get the same nutrition. It’s the same result as if one put cardboard fiber into bread – you’d have to eat more bread in order to get the nutrition you used to. There’s also an economic effect: since vegetables tend to be sold by weight, the cost to get one’s necessary nutrition increases.
The only beneficial thing comes from the fact that this means there is more fiber per unit nutrition, so people will end up with a slightly increased intake of fiber – but only if they can afford the increased cost of nutrition.
There’s a certain amount of “self regulation”, but it turns out to not be enough to balance the equation, at least not given the rate of increase we’re causing. Spread this increase over a hundred thousand years instead of a hundred years and it might balance out, but in the present situation increased plant growth doesn’t even really have a measurable effect.
Just BTW, one of my botany professors back around the late 1980s was part of a research team where they actually covered a couple of acres of natural grassland (which included some woody plants) with plastic to isolate it from the atmosphere to measure some of these things.
I agree St Roymond. I tend to take what i think is a pretty visual approach to these things.
During the COVID lockdowns, i had the opportunity to fly paragliders on the coast of the city of Sydney. What really amazed me was how much less pollution there was in the air as i gazed back over the city. It is clear to me that less pollution has to be the right way to go in the debate about climate change.
For once I harmonize with you guys. AIG’s perspective on climate change is idiotic. I was reading an article they allowed to be published (which i think one must conclude means they are sanctioning the article) and i cannot agree with the claim of said articles author below
The contention that man’s activities are causing global warming, as described in the media and by its advocates, is a myth. There is no reason either biblically or scientifically to fear the exaggerated and misguided claims of catastrophe as a result of increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2). Proposed Bible-Science Perspective on Global Warming | Answers Research Journal
That just shows how dishonest AIG is – it’s not an outlier, it’s part of the core.
I have sometimes wondered about the description of the Valley of Siddim in Genesis 14. It is told that “the Valley of Siddim was full of tar pits”, so many that the escaping “kings of Sodom and Gomorrah … fell into them”. Apparently, ending up in a tar pit was deadly as the verse continues by describing what the surviving ones did.
I am not sure what is the correct interpretation of verse 3, is it that the valley with the tar pits is now beneath the Salt Sea, or that the tar pits were situated in the same valley as the Salt Sea. Anyway, there seemed to be plenty of tar in the pits.
I have not read elsewhere about tar pits in that region. Might be interesting to know what else have died in the tar pits, assuming any are left. They may have been utilized during the following millennia, or burned at the same time when Sodom and Gomorrah burned. If the story of the destruction of Sodom was inspired by the destruction caused by a space rock exploding above the valley as has been claimed, any tar pits in that area would probably have burned. Partially melted pottery in the ruins of a town in that area (Tall el-Hammam) suggests that the fire was very hot, temperatures were claimed to exceed 3600 degrees Fahrenheit (1900+ C). Genesis 19:28 tells that “the smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace”. Well, this is just speculation based on scanty data but sometimes I like to speculate 
.
Yes i have read a little about these tar pits.
As the bible stories about these are post flood in the bible canon, i would have no problem with the existence of tar at that time. In any case, I am assuming that we all agree that fossil fuels arise because of the same processes (eg burial, pressure, heat etc). The major point of contention would be how and when (but i dont want to descend into a YEC vs TEism debate here)…the main focus is the O.P_ question.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.