Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 March 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 16

Church bells

I was in a town the other day and I kept hearing the sound of the church bell. It got me thinking, because obviously 6 o clock equals 6 knocks. But at 1 o clock, you'll only hear it once so it's harder to pay attention or even notice it. So my question is, are there any 24 hour church bells, wouldn't that be much better. 18 knocks for 6 PM. 1 knock for 1 AM when most people dont care anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.51.253 (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There's the clock of the Beata Vergine (later San Gottardo) in Milan, built around 1330, described at Striking_clock#Counting_the_hours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I see two parts to your Q:

1) Why not use a 24 hour clock ? This requires more strikes, would annoy people more, be more difficult to count, and the bells/ringer mechanism would wear out more quickly. And, since everyone knows the time within 12 hours, there's no need.

2) Why not ring the bells all night long ? This would seriously annoy people trying to sleep, even when there is only 1 strike. (Note that the 24 hour clock wouldn't change the number of strikes in the morning, but midnight would be painful, with 24 strikes, since you can't do 0.)

Also, since everyone has a watch or cell phone these days, the need to chime off the hours is gone, so most churches only chime on Sunday or special occasions. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The question, and Stu's answer, seem to be confusing church bells with church clocks. The church clock just down the road from here strikes every hour, (from 1 to 12, not 24), and is as far as I know fully automatic. (I suspect that nobody even needs to wind it nowadays, but I may be wrong). The church bells, on the other hand, I've not yet heard (I've lived here three months); but I'm told that they have a peal of six bells, and the bellringers do ring them. (I suspect they're short of bellringers, which is why I've not heard them) --ColinFine (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A clock with two bells could ring four times low and three times high, in 35 different sequences. —Tamfang (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

We have a grandfather clock at home - which was bought mostly for ornamental reasons - but I have to say that he solomn bong-bong-bong of the hourly chimes are useful. Many times, I'll be idly wondering what time it is - not being bothered to specifically look - and counting the chimes can be useful. But mostly these things are built traditionally - and as other have remarked, accurately counting 23 chimes is harder than counting 11 - and since you already know whether it's AM or PM, there isn't a need to know more. When bell-ringing church clocks first started to be used, the service was of huge value to the town. Pretty much nobody would have had clocks of their own - and you might easily be someplace where you couldn't see the church tower. So a system of chimes would be of enormous value for things like knowing when to start and end work, when to go to church services, when to meet someone at some pre-arranged place...that kind of thing. It's true that with more bells at different pitches, you could come up with more compact ways of communicating the time - but people were largely uneducated and being able to count to 12 is a skill that even the least educated could probably attain. So a "keep it simple" approach would probably have been preferred.

It's certainly true that more sophisticated chimes could - and have - been made, with little people popping out the front of the clock, hitting bells with tiny hammers and so forth. But there simply hasn't been a NEED to change from the traditional system of chimes.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm reminded of dual fire alarms/tornado alarms that use different tones for each, where many people don't know which is which. StuRat (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of comprehensiveness in bell-signaled time-reference consideration, see Ship's bell. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Plane speed

The other day I was on a plane and on my satnav I was watching the airspeed. Disappointingly, we rarely broke 500 mph. I was hoping for atleast 550 mph as a cruising speed. Obviously, 600 or even 700 mph would be preferable. The top end of subsonic. So why are air liners going so slow. I can understand the technical limitations of exceeding 720 mph hence the need for concord. But 460 mph, seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.51.253 (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't want to get close to mach 1, as there's a risk the measurements could be off, or if the plane goes into a dive for some reason it could pick up speed, and when you hit the speed of sound it might break up, if not designed for that. However, I'm not sure what the margin of error is that they use to avoid that danger, or if other reasons, like increased drag and heating of the fuselage figure in. There could even be a problem with the planes being too fast for the air traffic controllers, pilots, etc., to react (obviously they handled that with the Concords, but thousands of fast planes in the sky at once might be more problematic). Hopefully an expert will explain the precise reasons for keeping speed down. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Aerodynamic drag, which exerts a force on the aircraft in the opposite direction from the velocity, is a principal determinant of energy consumption. See Fuel economy in aircraft. AllBestFaith (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

500 mph is about Mach 0.73 (assuming a temperature of about -40 Celsius/Fahrenheit), which is normal for jet airliners. In cold air the speed of sound is lower than in warm air; at -40 degrees the speed of sound is about 307 metres per second (690 mph). When an aircraft flies faster than about Mach 0.8 (depending on design specifics), the airflow around some parts of the aircraft already reaches the speed of sound, increasing wave drag. This is called transonic flight. Jet airliners are designed to fly safely well into the transonic regime, but drag increases rapidly with increasing speed there, so they stay just below or in the lower part of it.

Actually 500 mph or Mach 0.73 is a bit slow for jet airliners. See cruise (aeronautics) or this article. But as Pius says below, the satnav is showing the ground speed, not the airspeed. Winds of 50 mph are not uncommon on some routes: look at airline schedules for eastbound vs. westbound flights between, say, England and North America and you'll see that more time is allowed for westbound ones. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, there's wind. The satnav measures speed relative to the ground, but the aircraft cares about the speed relative to the air. The difference between those is the wind. High-altitude winds can be very fast. PiusImpavidus (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It may have something to do with the fact that it is simply cheaper to fly slower. Those airlines are trying to make money, they don't care if you spend a couple of extra minutes on the plane. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The fastest ever subsonic airliner was the Vickers_VC10. 1962 technology. Manufacturers now know that slower is more efficient. Hayttom (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

old cabin crew

On the plane I was on, I noticed the cabin crew (women) all appeared to be within a small age range (18-38) and from what I understand, this is the usual practice within the aviation industry. How come you never see any older cabin crew members (65+)?! It's not exactly a physically challenging job like constructing yard work, car mechanics etc etc

looks like blatant discrimination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.51.253 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

From 2009, The Changing Demography of U.S. Flight Attendants --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

An easy undemanding job, you think? Try this interview question before looking at these career questions. Question: You are working onboard the aircraft when you are approached by a passenger who tells you he/she cannot sit in the seat they are assigned because of the ethnicity of the other passenger. What do you do? AllBestFaith (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

OR: Qantas seems to staff older flight attendants on domestic flights and younger ones on long haul, international ones. I wonder if it is to do with the more physically demanding nature of the long haul flights. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

On short haul flight it is easier for the staff to be older and still enjoy a family life unlike the younger unmarried singles on long haul. But there is another factor. Cabin pressure is between 6,000 and 8,000 feet. OK, the cabin crew may in time acclimatized to this in time but walking up and down the aisle can get exhausting at that altitude and by 35 you are over the hill. --Aspro (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Egad and gadzooks. 35 is over the hill? Do these attendants have to run the 40 in 4.4 seconds and wrestle recalcitrant luggage to the ground? It's a good thing Edmund Hillary made it to the top of one particularly tall hill before he suddenly became an old geezer less than two years later. Somebody tell Tom Brady he's not only over the hill, he's partway down the other side. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the logical fallacies where one compares one individual’s capabilities and assumes it applies to everyone else. Edmund Hillary visited my school (around the mid 1960's). He was far older than my PT teacher but one could sense, that if the two of them got into a scrap - Ed would win the day... easily. That above average physical fitness advantage (endowed thanks to genetics, combined with his active lifestyle) enabled him to achieve what he did, together with Tenzing Norgay (thanks to genetics combined with his active lifestyle/occupation). Look at an average 35+ security guard in a shopping mall and he gets out of breath just walking. Someone, who 45-ish and just retiring from the armed services might like comment on when he (no offence ladies by saying 'he', since a 45 year old would have entered a male dominated world back then) realized that he was over-the-hill and decided to let the younger ones do all the running around. Airlines recruit from the available employment pool. Extra achievers are not in there. They can find better and more rewarding thing to do and they only amount to 1:20 of the population ( $\approx$ 5%) . So I'm talking general, everyday Over-The- Hill, which may included you, before you know it ;-)--Aspro (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The average 35 year old does not have one foot in the grave and the other on a roller skate. And the physical requirements of a flight attendant are certainly not out of their reach, no matter how palsied that may be. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that 35 year olds have one foot in the grave The United Kingdom Special Forces Selection allows for recruits (cream of cream... the Hillary's of this world) up-to but not above the age of 35. Airline travel is very safe now and if anything goes really wrong the air crew usually can't do anything about it. Yet, say what if a window blows out – with rapid de-pressurization or some other emergency occurs, do you really think that a +35 year old air steward is suddenly endowed with the biological efficiency of someone ten years their junior. If you think so, then please tell, because it may give science the clue to ensuring eternal youth.--Aspro (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Historically in some places this wasn't just an accident but a requirement of the airline. See our article Flight attendant#Discrimination. Such discriminatory practices are unlikely to be legally allowed in most of the developed Western world although it's not always easy to prove illegal discrimination but still there is some risk to the airline [1].

However the situation with the Middle Eastern or a number of the Asian airlines may be less clear (where even if anti-discrimination laws technically exists, there's often limited enforcement or exceptions). This discussion about Emirates is very long [2] but I can't find mention of any official public policy there. However these admitedly non RS sources claim [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] claim official policies which effectively limit the maximum age of most flight attendants for both Singapore and Malaysian. These sources mention first application limits or other limits (unrelated to fitness) likely to limit the age of most flight attendants of various Asian or Middle Eastern airlines [9] [10].

The interaction between social factors and even resonable job requirements (unrelated to fitness) particularly for long haul flights may discourage some older (or at least 30 to middle age) flight attendants particularly females ones. As mentioned in the Emirates discussion, these will also apply to some extent to those like Emirates who are hiring a lot of foreign flight attendants. However these sources have some discussions on average ages (also some of the earlier ones), it sounds to me like the average ages in various US airlines aren't nearly as low as the OP statistics would suggest [11] [12]. I suspect the first source has similar stuff.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Death date for Antonin Scalia ?

He died overnight, and it's not clear if it was before or after midnight. However, doesn't there need to a be a specific legal death date assigned, since settling of the estate, etc., may have deadlines based on that precise date ? What did his death certificate say ? StuRat (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The laws could vary by state, but isn't the death date recorded as of when a guy is "pronounced dead"? I'm thinking of JFK, who was killed just after 12:30, but wasn't pronounced dead until 1:00, so his official time of death is 1:00, not 12:30. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The consensus in news articles appears to be February 13, and that is also the date listed at the official SCOTUS website. - Lindert (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the death certificate will have an approximate time of death on it, and I would assume that stands unless there is good reason to challenge it. On the other hand, Dorothy L. Sayers wrote The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club about just this problem (and it's worth a read). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. StuRat (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

God and Natural Disasters

Why does God allow natural disasters happen? Bonupton (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Define "God" before you make that claim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

For those who believe in such a being, the question is akin to the Problem of evil, consideration of which has provided employment for countless thousands over the years. For those who do not believe in god, the question is nonsensical. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not nonsensical. Not every definition of God requires that God micro-manage the universe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's still nonsensical if you don't believe in a god, as stipulated by Tagishsimon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, to a non-believer it's a meaningless question. But the either/or posed by Tag is also nonsensical. There are degrees in between. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You're seeing things which are not there, bugs. I discussed two classes: believers & non-believers. I did not exclude the possibility that there are other classes. So I'm unsure what, if any, worthwhile point you're trying to make. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That's too simplistic. Some believers believe God micro-manages the universe. Others do not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A couple common explanations:

1) To punish us. Lightning rods were once considered immoral, because they thwarted the will of God to punish people with lightning strikes. Sodom and Gomorrah and the Biblical flood are good examples, here. A problem with this explanation is that natural disasters do not appear to strike exclusively in places of evil.

2) To test us. Take the case of Job, for example. This explanation might work better, as it no longer requires that only evil people would be affected. However, it's still a mystery why God would choose to test some people in this way, and not others. StuRat (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Per Richard Dawkins: Because "the God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Or, with Tim Minchin, because God is "a sexist, racist, murderous cunt". Or, if one is assuming good faith, maybe because it is not really omniscient and omnipotent, and just doing the best it can. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Dawkins quote is apparently from The God Delusion. [13] Mitch Ames (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Dawkins gets carried away sometimes. The OP is basing his question on an assumption which is not necessarily valid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Point of order, this question needs to be moved. Questions about fictional characters go on Entertainment, not Misc. Fgf10 (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • You forgot to put that bit of atheist dogma in small print. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Kuzari discusses the interplay between God and nature, contending that God miraculously established the laws of nature and then lets them act independently. Much like human beings. Note: Why doesn't God prevent natural disasters is a different question altogether. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Consider the earthquake. The shifting of the tectonic plates is what builds mountains and such. Without earthquakes, there are no mountains. But a planet whose plates don't shift would be geolpgically dead, and we might well not exist. So it's a natural tradeoff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

But, if there is a God, he could just blink mountains into existence, with no need for plate tectonics. StuRat (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It depends on your definition of "God". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a god that could create the entire universe, but can't create a mountain. StuRat (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What if He just wanted a long byzantine backstory? (plate tectonics). That sounds like something God would do (wants sentient species (maybe just one): creates (near?) infinite space with unnecessarily-complex rules a 14 billion year backstory). Maybe the Garden of Eden was the backstory of the backstory and that universe was retconned out into our crap universe with our crap violent Bible when the fruit was touched and of course that was intentional too. Why? God only knows. Maybe He just likes the irony of creating the universe for sapient beings and free will and Godless non-supernatural human mediocrity in the same universe. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many possibilities here: "Why does God allow natural disasters to happen?"

• Perhaps (s)he/it only allows them to happen to incovenience/kill people who deserve it in some mysterious way? Did you properly believe that this piece of bread was the body of christ? Not really - not 100% convinced? Oh dear - now there will be natural disasters for you, your friends, relatives and innocents who happened to be standing nearby. There are precedents for this in the bible. Was there not one single good and holy person in the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and two neighboring cities, which were completely consumed by fire and brimstone? Not one, little newborn who was innocent of all bad things? This does seem to fit with Dawkin's view (as quoted, above).
• Perhaps (s)he/it isn't truly omnipotent and can't actually prevent natural disasters. This would seem to violate the very definition of a "god" - but maybe our definitions are incorrect?
• Perhaps (s)he/it doesn't care about the consequences of natural disasters...an uncaring god would be OK with innocent people dying in a thousand other horrible ways...even the most saintly people get horrific diseases and so forth.
• Perhaps (s)he/it makes mistakes sometimes. The christian God gives Moses a set of the 10 commandments - but "oops" he smashes them and has to come back and ask for a duplicate copy - and the second time around, the commandments are different. It's a mistake anyone could make...perhaps even a god.
• Perhaps (s)he/it likes to see innocent people suffer. There is no definitive proof that this is not the case - and there is plenty of evidence otherwise.
• Perhaps (s)he/it is really paranoid about people being able to conclusively prove his/her/it's existence. Most descriptions of god(s) seem to explain that concrete proof of existence would destroy the need for faith. Since scientists might detect "divine intervention" when there is a suspicious lack of natural disasters - this might be a way to prove that god(s) exist - and thereby destroy the need for "faith".
• Perhaps by allowing some small disaster to happen - a larger one is prevented?
• Perhaps there is no god and natural disasters are just...natural.

The problem here is that religions seem determined to place no limitations whatever on the power of their god(s) - and a consequence of that is they should be the cause of these kinds of disaster - or at least have the power to prevent them, but do not. The reason why religions believe this is unclear...at best they may claim that god told them this in some kind of divine revelation. But how do you know that god was telling the truth?

In any case where you have literally infinite powers and literally infinite knowledge (omnipotence and omniscience) there is no possible way to reason about the consequences. Literally anything could happen for any reason - cause and effect, experiment and conclusion, truth and fiction, faith and dogma, logic and intuition - are all completely meaningless concepts when literally anything can happen at any time...which is what you believe if you believe in an omnipotent/omniscient being exists in our universe.

So, believing in a god - and asking for any meaningful answers to any kind of question whatever - are inconsistent modes of thinking...which is why we can't ever give you decent answers to questions about "god"...and we probably shouldn't even try.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If a traditionally-imagined God existed, even Wikipedians would necessarily be of lesser intellect, so shouldn't be surprised that we don't understand what S/He/It/Xe/They does/do/doth wrought. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Believing in God and wondering about why God does certain things is not "inconsistent". It's a standard question addressed by any number of publications. And where does it say the second copy of the Ten Commandments differs from the first? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

In the Old Testament, Bugs! There are a number of differences. A word change in the Sabbath law, items outlined in the law on coveting. Check it out for yourself! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The 10 (-ish) Commandments appear in three places in the Bible: in Exodus, chapter 20 (Moses' first set - which he smashes) and again in chapter 34 (Moses' "do-over" set) and in Deuteronomy chapter 5. They are all three different...but the first two are the ones that I'm referring to above.

The difference between the first Exodus set and the ones in Deuteronomy explain why the Catholics and Lutherans are OK with "graven images" and instead have two separate commandments against coveting neighbors goods and wife where other christians sweep "wives" up into the general category of "belongings" and are consequently softer on divorce and such.

The Jewish version comes in part from all three - and adds "I am the Lord your God who has taken you out of the land of Egypt"...which comes from the first Exodus set - but doesn't exactly seem like a commandment - but it also lacks the "no graven images" thing. But all of the dietary rules come from the second set of Exodus commandments.

A bunch of other places add "The ten punishments" - which say things such as the need to put to death anyone who works on the Sabbath (Ex.31:15) and imposes the death penalty for cursing or hitting ones parents (Ex.21:15..17). Whatever you do, don't say "F**k you, God!" because that's also the death penalty. Mal.2:1..4 has some exciting stuff about spreading dung on priests faces for various improprieties. The set in Ex.24 (the replacement tablets after Moses wrecks the first set) are weird and patchy - so no more "Thou shalt not kill" - but instead a bunch of rules about dietary stuff and (oddly) "All the first-born are mine."

If you ever read the bible cover-to-cover (I have), you'll soon discover that it's a totally incoherent mess. Contradictions in God's various pronouncements are rife. SteveBaker (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Wording differences. It would be interesting to see which version (if any) that southern judge insisted on having a monument to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sort of Steve. Ex 34 is an account of the carving of the second set of tablets. I'm not aware of any denomination that regards the contents of that chapter as being a third version of the 10 Cs, but hey, everyone has an opinion. The main difference between the Exodus version and Deut version is that that section of Deuteronomy, in common with pretty much the whole dang book, is a speech by Moses, while Exodus is, if you believe it, a recording of God's original version. Commentators down the years have waxed lyrical on the reasons for the small differences between the two sets. They amount to the same thing, though. Whether you have to "remember" or "keep" the Sabbath day, it's still a biggie. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

In Exodus 20–24 God recites the famous ≈10 rules to Moses, then a bunch of additional rules. The famous 10 are described as debarim ("words"), in the sense that they're preceded by "God spoke these words". The rest are described as mishpatim ("judgments"), which is a subclass of mitzvot. Moses tells the debarim and mishpatim to the people (24:3). Moses writes down the debarim (24:4). God promises to give Moses stone tablets with the torah (law) and mitzvot (24:12). After Moses breaks those tablets, in Exodus 34, God says to Moses "I am making a covenant with you", then recites ≈10 rules which are a subset of those from Exodus 20–23, then says "write these debarim, for in accordance with these debarim I have made a covenant with you and with Israel", then "he" (probably God, not Moses) writes "the debarim of the covenant, the ten debarim" on the replacement tablets (the same words were on the original tablets according to 34:1). "Ten debarim" is translated as "ten commandments". This is the only occurrence of that phrase in Exodus.

In Deuteronomy, Moses mentions ten debarim, then talks for a while, then repeats the famous ≈10 from Exodus 20, then says "These are the debarim the Lord proclaimed [...] and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me." There's a final mention of ten debarim in Deuteronomy 10, referencing Exodus 34, and no other occurrences of that phrase in the Bible.

If you believe that Exodus and Deuteronomy are both correct, I suppose the best way to reconcile them is to assume that "God spoke these words" in Exodus 20 means that those words are what God put on the tablets. But the plain reading of Exodus seems to be that the words on the tablets are those in Exodus 34. -- BenRG (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Instead of speculating using our own opinions, we should provide the OP with the writings of others who have tackled this problem. The OP should research topics like Theodicy and the work of Max Weber who provides an interesting sociological basis for understanding how people interpret their circumstances against the background of their expectations of how they think God should work. --Jayron32 14:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What's the term for when everyone stands in a circle and puts their hand in the center?

It's the sort of thing a team does. Everyone puts their hand in the middle of the circle to indicate camaraderie or unity. 2605:6000:EDC9:7B00:1D02:6B06:BD6B:7201 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A huddle is when they all form a circle, but I don't know of any name for when they raise their hands. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the OP is talking about when they extend their hands into the circle and layer them together. I've seen it countless times, but I've never heard it called anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the version I've seen has them all put their hands together in the center, then raise them up above their heads, cheer and separate. StuRat (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Googling the subject "hands together in a huddle" is not much help. The closest thing I've spotted to a term is "hand-stacking". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe the general term for these sorts of practices are "breaks" or "huddle breaks", though it seems that even some coaches don't know what to call them. This book on quarterbacking in American football talks about the importance of breaking calls, though talks about the more typical "Ready? Break!" followed by a clap to release the players to their positions. From what these two links say, they work as both a way of ensuring everyone knows the huddle's about to end (so speak before we do the break or you're going to blow the play!) as well as giving a chance for some flair to work to rally the players and build unity right before the play. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

And after some searching, I think the term everyone uses to call for/describe this particular huddle break is called a "hands in". Google it, every image hit you get is a stock photo of that exact move. I don't think that's the "official name" of that move, but it certainly seems to be how everyone describes it... and the people who make it in stock photos have to know their stuff to get their images discovered. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Circle cheer. AllBestFaith (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

TV Tropes calls it a team hand-stack. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)