Warning: excessive laughter and/or headaches may arise. First, some background from a highly respected poster's first 3 flushes: Telman's stone count: Flush 1: 1 stone bigger than 2cm Flush 2: 1 stone bigger than 2 cm Flush 3: 1 stone bigger than 3 cm Since we learn in 3rd grade that the Volume of a sphere is 4/3(Pi)(r^3), we get Or about 30cm^3 of stones released per flush. Seems perfectly reasonable doesn't it? Now get ready... because your paradigm is about to be shattered: "Now keeping all this in mind let's consider large the gallbladder would have to be for this story to be true. Not even including the "sludge" and "gravel" he claims out the total size of the "stone" count would be over 125 centimeters or OVER 49 inches!!! In other words there would be no room for a liver, pancreas, intestines, hearts, lungs, etc. To hold that many REAL gallstones his gallbladder would have to be taking up all of his chest and abdominal cavity and then some!" WHOA! Did I miss something? "Again I love it when the LF supporters provide the proof to how bogus liver flushing really is. And it is so entertaining to see how gullible they really are to fall for such nonsense stories!!! Come on people use at least a little common sense. You have me laughing so hard I think I am going to rupture my 49 inch gallbladder!" Key words: entertaining, common sense, laughing " I know what volume is, but clearly you do not understand the concept so I am going to help you out. " OH MY GOD!!! HAHAHA!!! Wait, it gets better! "Now we have according to your ridiculous claims 49 inches of flat "stones" apparently. Since we know that they are not flat we will have to calculate based on assumed sizes. Now normally a real stone would have nearly the same length as height and width. But to make you look less foolish let's assume the height and width is only half the length. This would give us a total volume of 29,412.25 cubic inches. (HAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!! Try not to die laughing!!!!) So you are trying to claim that 29,412.25 cubic inches of real gallstones can fit in to a gallbladder with a capacity of only 4 cubic inches!!!! As you said: "Hhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaa!!!" Maybe some day the "liver flush" supporters will finally figure out how ridiculous they really are being!!!" Wait!!! IT GETS BETTER!!!!
20 stones bigger than 1cm
40 stones pea sized
13 stones bigger than 1.5 cm
24 stones bigger than 1 cm
34 stones of pea sized
1 stone bigger than 2 cm
9 stones bigger than 1 cm
35 stones pea sized
Stone count volume from 3 flushes:
1 stone bigger than 3 cm
= 14cm^3
3 stones bigger than 2cm
= 3(4.19cm^3) = 12.57cm^3
13 stones bigger than 1.5 cm
= 13(1.77cm^3) = 23.01cm^3
53 stones bigger than 1cm
= 53(.52cm^3) = 27.56cm^3
109 stones pea sized
= 109(.125cm^3) = 13.66 cm^3
For a Total Volume of 90.8 cm^3 from 3 flushes.
Maybe this guy needs to do a liver flush? It may *double* his IQ from 90 to 29,412!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAHHAHAHAAAAAAAHHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAAHAHAAAHAAAA!!!!!!!
What would the liver flush debate forum be without this guy?
Since we learn in 3rd grade that the Volume of a sphere is 4/3(Pi)(r^3), we get
Clearly you need to look up the definition of "sphere". After you do that look at some of the photos posted of these soap stones, such as the ones in this post:
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1848858#i
Note how so many of them are not even close to a sphere. In fact, large real gallstones do not really form true spheres either.
Maybe this guy needs to do a liver flush? It may *double* his IQ from 90 to 29,412
Being that I at least know what a sphere is then what does that say about your IQ? Of course if we look at your math above in which you claim 29,412 is 90 doubled I guess that already give us your IQ answer!!!!
Childish semantics to avoid your lack of scientific knowledge. Asteroids are often referred to as spheres even though they are irregularly shaped and oblong or ovate. However measuring an oval is only one additional step, (L+W)divide by 2, to that of a sphere, so obviously the final sum is very similar in volume and close enough to demonstrate the preposterous nature of your original statement.
Again you should have looked up the definition of sphere before making yourself look more foolish:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere
"A sphere (from Greek σφαῖρα—sphaira, "globe, ball") is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space, such as the shape of a round ball. Like a circle in two dimensions, a perfect sphere is completely symmetrical around its center, with all points on the surface lying the same distance r from the center point."
"Eleven properties of the sphere
In their book Geometry and the imagination[4] David Hilbert and Stephan Cohn-Vossen describe eleven properties of the sphere and discuss whether these properties uniquely determine the sphere. Several properties hold for the plane which can be thought of as a sphere with infinite radius. These properties are:
We are talking about geometry, not astonomy so you are showing even more of your ignorance on the subject unless you think you are passing ateroids during your "flushes". Being that I am a big meteorite collector I have also studied asteroids quite extensively. I have yet to hear of any asteroid to fit the 11 properties of a geometric sphere. Altering definitions to fit your needs just shows how little you really know and how desperate you really are. The same goes for all the people who pressed "agree" for your post.
More on the definition of sphere is relation to geometry, which is what is being discussed:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sphere
"
http://www.answers.com/topic/sphere
n.
If you are going to keep trying to dig yourself out of the deep hole you have dug yourself in to let me give you a tip. Digging yourself in deeper by trying desperately to change definitons to meet your needs is not going to do it. Again, we are talking about geometry and how it applies to volume, not heavenly bodies. Just like "sphere" can also be defined as a person's extent of knowledge. For example, your sphere of knowlege when it comes to "liver flushing" and science is null. So going from a geometric equation for "sphere" to astrological bodies also referred to as "spheres" just shows complete desperation due to a lack of knowledge on the subject!!!
"MB was certainly right about your IQ. In fact I think he was very generous giving you a 90."
Hahaha orginally I wanted to give him a 3!!! LOL!!!
It's ABSOLUTELY hilarious watching him post links to what a sphere is thinking that it will somehow help him. He is COMPLETELY oblivious to the fact that a spheroid or ellipsoid with a 1cm transverse diameter has a SMALLER VOLUME than a sphere with the same diameter. He is completely oblivious to the fact that his arguments are working AGAINST him and his "that cant possible fit in a gallbladder" argument. In other words if the stones were spheroid or ellipsoid their total volume would be LESS than 90cm^3, making him look even more like a fool. Unless he believes that the stones are coming out as CUBES or PRISMS. You can't use logic or reason to communicate to him.
LMAOROTF! I can tell you didn't understand a word I said. Cutting + pasting your answers exposes your ignorance in simple basic geometry. But isn't that what you do anyway, your whole forum is nothing but copy and paste answers.
MB was certainly right about your IQ. In fact I think he was very generous giving you a 90.
ROTFLMAO!!!! I am not the one that used a different definition of "sphere" after being caught in a mistake. Since I knew the difference between the use of the word "sphere" in relation to geometry, which is what is being discussed since you brought up "volume", and "sphere" as in astronomical terminology, which you then tried to apply after being caught in your error this shows I am smarter than you. So how low must your IQ be if you really think that my IQ is less than 90?!!! Sounds like a brain transplant from a dead person would raise your IQ significantly!!!
"lol! Face it fecal man you really exposed your ignorance when you made the m*o*o*nic statement of 49 inches of flat stones too express volume"
And I used the wrong quotient to express his IQ. It should have been 90cm
Face it fecal man you really exposed your ignorance when you made the m*o*o*nic statement of 49 inches of flat stones too express volume , no amount of cut and paste or throwing tantrums will ever let you live that down.
I did not say they were flat. I said according to the other poster's statement the only way that 49 inches of "stones" could fit in the gallbladder is if they were flat. Since you cannot even get that part right that calls the rest of your post in to question. I did calculate the volume, which by the way is not the same as area that would be measured by a flat surface. So you have that wrong as well. And as pointed out they are not spheres either so you have that wrong as well. Maybe you should spend less time trying to attack and spend more time learning to comprehend what you are reading and about the difference between area and volume so you don't make yourself look so foolish.
"Altering definitions to fit your needs just shows how little you really know and how desperate you really are. The same goes for all the people who pressed "agree" for your post."
OKAY! OKAY I ADMIT IT! YOU ARE RIGHT: THE STONES AREN'T SPHERES. I ALTERED THE DEFINITION OUT OF DESPERATION TO PROVE MY POINT!!!
THEY ARE CUBES.
Now here is a link for YOU
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nincompoop
AAAAHHHHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Altering definitions to fit your needs just shows how little you really know and how desperate you really are. The same goes for all the people who pressed "agree" for your post."
OKAY! OKAY I ADMIT IT! YOU ARE RIGHT: THE STONES AREN'T SPHERES. I ALTERED THE DEFINITION OUT OF DESPERATION TO PROVE MY POINT!!!
THEY ARE CUBES.
Hmmm.... For a second there I thought there may be some hope for you as you grew a pair. Brain cells that is!!!
At least your admission was the truth.
"Hmmm.... For a second there I thought there may be some hope for you as you grew a pair. Brain cells that is!!!"
A Neuron's diameter is 4 microns to 100 microns, and its length is a fraction of an inch to several feet. So how many THOUSAND cubic inches of brain is that?
Better check Math.com!!!
HAAAAAAAAaahahahahahahahahaaa!!! Nincompoop!
and flush some of that fecal soap out of your head while you're at it!
"Being that I at least know what a sphere is"
Slow down genius- before you search wikipedia to learn what a sphere is you must first grasp the concept of the 3rd dimension.
And that's one thing NOBODY can help you with!
HAAAAHAAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAHHAAAHAHAHHAA!!!!!!
"I just hate to see math abused as badly as you have done here."
math... ABUSED!!! haaaahahahahaha!!!!! Like beaten with a stick abused! But not only has he abused math, he has slung his greasy feces in the face of basic human logic and reason. Read the original posts to get a better idea:
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1852871#i
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1856932#i
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1857026#i
Math....ABUSED!!!! HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Ok, I followed you as far as calculating the 90.8 cc of stones. Assuming the stones are spherical is a reasonable simplifying assumption, but probably estimates a little high. Extrapolating from there to 125cc total volume? Probably not outrageously inaccurate.
You lost me on the conversion to cubic inches. 2.54 cm = 1 inch, so the conversion is 125/(2.54^3) = 7.6 cubic inches. The largest single flush, the second one, calculates to 44cc or 2.7 cu in.
If these soap stones were flat then you may be right, but they are not flat. Thus you have to take in to consideration their height and width to determine volume since they are not spheres.
The first flush came out to 52cm, or over 20 inches http://www.convertunits.com/from/cm/to/inches, in length alone (1 "stone" in excess of 2cm, 20 "stones" in excess of 1cm, 40 pea size "stones" that would each be approximately 0.75cm and "loads of gravel". Not counting the gravel we have 2cm+20cm+30cm=52cm in length. And again this does not even account for the "loads of gravel". And again, these soap stones are not flat, nor are they spheres. This also does not take in to account the height and width needed to determine volume. If they were spheres then the height, width and thickness would all be the same, which of course is not the case. So I reduced the expected height and width down to the estimated size, which reduces the expected volume if they were really spheres as some have claimed. For example, if the length, width and height were all the same to make it approximate a sphere then we would have over 8000 cubic inches (20 inches X 20 inches X 20inches) just in the first flush alone:
http://www.math.com/tables/geometry/volumes.htm
"Volume is measured in "cubic" units. The volume of a figure is the number of cubes required to fill it completely, like blocks in a box.
Volume of a cube = side times side times side. Since each side of a square is the same, it can simply be the length of one side cubed.
If a square has one side of 4 inches, the volume would be 4 inches times 4 inches times 4 inches, or 64 cubic inches. (Cubic inches can also be written in3.)"
This one "flush" alone produced well over what the gallbladder itself can hold.
In fact, let's go back to your math above. You said "
The second flush yielded a total length of 71.75cm, or over 28 inches, again not including the "load of gravel". And once again true spheres and true cubes both share the same principle of the same distance from center to outside and the same distance from edge to edge. So it really does not matter if we measure as spheres or cubes since these soap stones really are neither. If we base this on cubic inches and assuming these soap stones are all equal distance as with spheres and cubes we now end up with 21,952 cubic inches of material on the second flush.
Given that this volume is the result of 3 flushes, the stones wouldn't all have to be contained in the gallbladder at the same time, but the gallbladder may not empty completely in one flush, either.
And again, each "flush" produced significantly more than the gallbladder could hold to begin with proving these were not gallstones.
A quick internet search turned up figures for gallbladder volumes ranging from about 25-35cc for normal adults, to as high as 65cc for some obese people. 44cc is within this range.
I'm not saying flushing does or does not work. The jury is still out on that point, as far as I'm concerned. I just hate to see math abused as badly as you have done here.
The total inches of length given by the poster came out to about 49 inches. And as shown previously these soap stones are not really spherical, but rather most are more oblong. So to make it easy I underestimated the height and width of these soap stones to calculate the rough volume, which came out way higher than 7.6 cubic inches based on one "flush". I did it this way since something like 29, 412 irregular inches is not really proper, so I adjusted the measurements down somewhat to make it closer to the actual cubic inches that would have been derived.
But let's say that your calculation was correct for a second. The gallbladder still cannot hold 7.6 cubic inches of real gallstones. Furthermore, all of his "flushes" were done within a very short period of time. Yet, real gallstones are extremely slow to form. They cannot form in a week or two. So we also have to take in to account all of the other "flushes", which brings me back to my original point. The gallbladder cannot possibly hold that many real gallstones proving the "stones" were actually soap stones created from the flush itself.
And I did not even factor in all the sludge he also claimed to have got out, which would further increase the volume.
It's hilarious that you didn't have a clue as how to express volume in your original self exposing statement. At least this has forced you into learning something you obviously never had an interest in in the past! lol! Very entertaining stuff fecal soap man.
What is really funny is that I am the one that had to explain to the "liver flush" supporters the difference between area and volume, and had to explain to the same m*o*o*ns what a "sphere" was.
Even funnier is how I originally calculated the supposed volume based on the poster's claims of what he passed, then even posted for the LF fools how volume is actually calculated and they still have not caught on. The fact that they are spoon fed this information and still cannot figure out such as simple concept says volumes about why they would also believe in the fantasy of "liver flushing".
This is why not one of the posters attacking me have come up with any proof that the volume calculated was wrong. Instead they rely on unsubstantiated insults as usual since they have no evidence to present to the contrary. At least one poster made a half hearted attempt. But these people need to learn how to calculate the volume of irregular objects. They also need to learn the definition of sphere since the soap stones they are passing as well as real gallstones are not true spheres. Maybe if they spent all that time they waste attacking people and use it to actually study.........
"Math.com" is not going to help you.
You make Forrest Gump look like a particle physicist