Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,356 Year: 3,613/9,624 Month: 484/974 Week: 97/276 Day: 25/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Hard Was it Raining During the Flood? Could the Ark Survive?
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4134 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 121 of 125 (341252)
08-19-2006 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by xXGEARXx
08-18-2006 11:21 PM


Re: lol...
And what do you think I was referring to?
Without the right amount of solar radiation, life as we know it would not exist. A ceasing of solar radiation would also mean the end of life was we know it. I don't see how something can be self sufficent when it relies on a outside energy source to sustain virtually all of its biomass. Your point only makes sense if you ignore where the energy for sustaining the cycle comes from.
Plants give out Co2 as well. They run the same cycle of breaking down molecules for energy as we do, they just happen to also run photosynthesis which produces 02 was a byproduct. Remove O2 and plants die.
I made the education point because you didn't seem to understand the solar radiation point as in the context of celetrial location.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by xXGEARXx, posted 08-18-2006 11:21 PM xXGEARXx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by AdminJar, posted 08-19-2006 1:04 AM obvious Child has replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 125 (341254)
08-19-2006 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by obvious Child
08-19-2006 12:53 AM


Topic folk
The last few messages have had NOTHING to do with the topic. Let's head back in that direction.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 121 by obvious Child, posted 08-19-2006 12:53 AM obvious Child has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 123 by obvious Child, posted 08-19-2006 1:19 AM AdminJar has not replied

      
    obvious Child
    Member (Idle past 4134 days)
    Posts: 661
    Joined: 08-17-2006


    Message 123 of 125 (341257)
    08-19-2006 1:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 122 by AdminJar
    08-19-2006 1:04 AM


    Re: Topic folk
    alright, so where did this 700,000,000+ cubic miles of water come from given that the earth has only around 320,000,000 cubic miles of water?
    What is the energy translation of 700,000,000+ cubic miles of superheated steam? Wouldn't that cook everything?
    Also, the pressure of 700,000,000+ cubic miles of superheated steam, wouldn't that easily break the crust of the planet? Where did this steam come from? There's no way that much pressure could be contained for several thousand years, therefore the water must have been added to the mantle regularly, or at one time until the breaking point. How does creation explain this problem?
    What is the mass of water? Can we compare the mass of 700,000,000 cubic miles to the known earth mass of 6E+24 kilograms?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 122 by AdminJar, posted 08-19-2006 1:04 AM AdminJar has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 124 by kuresu, posted 08-19-2006 1:44 PM obvious Child has not replied

      
    kuresu
    Member (Idle past 2532 days)
    Posts: 2544
    From: boulder, colorado
    Joined: 03-24-2006


    Message 124 of 125 (341396)
    08-19-2006 1:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 123 by obvious Child
    08-19-2006 1:19 AM


    Re: Topic folk
    mass of water is easy. it's density is 1.
    D = mass / volume. so we've got
    1 = x / 700,000,000
    anything divided by itself is one. so that means for every cc (cubic centimeter or millimeter), water weighs one gram.
    700,000,000 cubic miles. I convert it to cubic feet, which is 3.696E12. convert to cubic centimeters, and you've got
    1.04659065004E17. or 104,659,065,004,000,000. 104.5 quadrillion cm^3.
    just replace cm^3 with grams, yuo've got your wieght.
    it's
    1.04659065004E14, or 104,659,065,004,000 trillion kilograms.
    104.6 trillion kilograms < 6 heptillion (?) kilograms.
    the earth's wieght is 57,329,004,418, or 57 billion, times heavier.
    i think i got all my math right.

    All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 123 by obvious Child, posted 08-19-2006 1:19 AM obvious Child has not replied

      
    GlassSoul
    Inactive Member


    Message 125 of 125 (349885)
    09-17-2006 11:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 68 by Randy
    07-20-2006 9:53 PM


    Re: One commentary on the mountain height
    I always seem to show up on topics a day late and a dollar short, but here we go...
    The total latent heat released by this much water falling as rain would be 1.15x10^24 J. The problem is that this heat has to go somewhere. The energy is partially released as wind, which is what drives hurricanes so there should be mega-hurricanes all over the earth, but eventually nearly all of the heat will be absorbed by the air. The mass of the atmosphere is about 5x10^21 g and the heat capacity of atmosphere gases is only about 1 j/g so just one meter of global rain releases enough heat to heat the atmosphere by about 200 C. Of course that won't happen. As the air temperature rises the vapor pressure of water will increase and the rain will stop falling.
    I'm also wondering, as all of this is going on, what the effects would be upon the weather of having nearly the entire troposphere displaced upwards by the torential rains and rising flood waters into the area now occupied by the stratosphere. (I understand that the highest parts of Mount Everest may actually be in the stratosphere at times depending upon the weather.) It seems to me that this would cause already unimaginably freakish weather to become even more freakish. How freakish??

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by Randy, posted 07-20-2006 9:53 PM Randy has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024