|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2898 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I would suggest reading the section about ''structural safety'' then. I did; I don't think it answers my question. What it shows, if I'm reading it rightly, is that they could build a framework out of wood so that no particular beam would immediately snap under the stresses imposed. But this doesn't address the question of the "working"* of the ship. If the waves keep on flexing it, the structure starts working loose; and this has often been the problem with large wooden ships --- it isn't that they immediately snapped, but that they worked themselves apart.
* A technical term. It didn't have a mast ... Which means that it starts off in the position of a sailing ship that's been dismasted.
... and I would then suggest reading the section about overturning ability (I'm unsure what broaching means in this context) Broaching to is when a ship turns side-on to the waves. In a storm, this was often fatal. That's why sails were required --- the ship had to be kept sailing in the direction of the wind, and if the sail or mast carried away, you were in trouble.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
From which part did you get the idea that they were evaluating the stress on the individual beams ? If I understand how these calculations work, what you're trying to find out is if the stresses are such that any particular bit of it will snap. (Obviously if it does, that increases the stress on the other members, and you have a problem.)
Well, no, because it wasn't meant to sail, so it isn't a sailing ship. Yes, yes, you're missing my point. The point is that sailing ships only managed not to sink in storms by sailing. A ship that couldn't run before the wind broached and capsized. A ship which was designed not to sail at all would be at a distinct disadvantage.
Ok. And so the danger is to overturn ? Isn't that covered in the 'overturning stability' section ? I'll have another look at it ... currently I'm not sure I follow what they're doing when they write:
Although the information about the Ark is not enough to precisely predict the maximum wave height it could have navigated, we could roughly infer it from comparing the estimated ship responses to a modern passenger ship’s safety criteria. If not, how do mastless ships (modern) deal with this ? Do they use their motors to align themselves continually, or can't you simply shape the boat so that it aligns itself naturally ? I read here:
Most oceangoing powerboats have very deeply immersed bows, which is why the only storm tactic that they can employ is heading slowly into the waves. Any other tactic brings with it the potential for loss of control and broaching, with the attendant capsize risks. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I didn't think you believed in miracles. I don't, you great banana. But I do believe that the Bible says that the Ark floated, 'cos it does.
The first verse Genesis 7:17 you quoted said the ark was lifted up above the earth which would have been in the atmosphere. You think Genesis says that the Ark was flying? No, it's quite clear. It was above the earth, and on the face of the waters. It was floating.
The translators just did not believe God could do what He says He can do. Well it's not just the translators of the KJV. Everyone, including the Jews who read it in the original, has taken the Ark to be a sort of boat. Also, I don't think the translators of the KJV were noted for their skepticism. What do you make of the bit in Genesis 6 where Noah is told to caulk the Ark with pitch? This only makes sense if it has to be watertight, which it wouldn't if it was flying. And what about the statement that the waters "bare up the Ark"? This would not be true if it was levitating rather than floating --- it wouldn't have been borne up by the waters.
But as far as my statement that it did not have to float, I was refering to the fact that the door was 48' above the ground level. If the ark was sitting on the highest piece of dry ground on the face of the earth the water could have covered that spot by 30' of water and still had 18' to the door on the main deck. So why did it have to float? Again, you'd have to deal with "bare up the Ark" and "lift up above the earth" and "on [or, if you prefer, "above"] the face of the waters". You are right that according to the description of the Ark and the Flood it would have been practicable to build it on the tallest available mountain and have it sit there for the duration of the Flood, but that is not what the narrative says happened. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Don't you mean 9?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Take this article for instance: Yeah, let's take it. Then let's drive a stake through its black evil heart, cremate it to the finest ash, sprinkle it with holy water, lock the cinders in a leaden casket, bury it under ten feet of concrete, and just pray that that's enough to stop the stupid from leaking out.
If the Great pyramid was not there today but only written about, it too no doubt would be viewed as a "myth". The other six out of the seven wonders of the ancient world aren't there today*, "but only written about", and no-one calls them mythical.
* Unless you're using the list which includes the walls of Babylon. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Im not trying to debate the Great pyramid here at all. Maybe, though, there's a sort of lesson to be learned here about not citing articles that are completely wrong.
Im simply saying it's so great an accomplishment that no one would believe they built it back when they did if it wasn't still there and only documented in few texts. Yes, but since you can't read the minds of people in alternate realities this is pretty much of an empty assertion.
There is more but this isn't about the GP, only to show that when it comes to the Bible no matter what, it's denied but things we can see, are not. Things we can see are not denied? Tut tut, what is the world coming to? As for the Bible, what's with the "no matter what"? It's not like we're being skeptical about something plausible. When I'm told a story which, according to all reason couldn't happen, and which according to all the evidence didn't happen, then I'm skeptical. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Im not sure how accurate the articles were on the GP. I'll have to do more research on them, but my comparison wasn't meant to mislead. I did a few searcxhes and a lot of the info on the GP is the same. This is because misinformation gets passed around from crank to crank without them checking it. Kind of like creationist arguments ... I'll debunk some of the sillier bits if you like.
LOL. What evidence says the Ark was never built? Nor ever floated? I was talking about the story as a whole, not just the bit where someone built a big boat. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
There is SO much info on the GP. A lot of it references pii etc etc...some of it has to be true. Well, it's definitely a pyramid and it's certainly great. That much is true. I've picked out some of the more obviously silly aspects of the passages you quoted (I haven't looked at the whole article because my brain might die). Let's have a look, shall we?
Only a solid stone mountain could endure the Pyramid's immense weight. And indeed, a flat solid granite mountain happens to be located just beneath the surface of the ground directly under the Pyramid. Actually, what lies just under the Great Pyramid is limestone. In a flash of actual Ancient Wisdom, the Egyptians realized that if you want to build something out of limestone, it's a good idea to build it somewhere where there's plenty of limestone. It is true that if you dig down far enough you would hit granite, but this is true anywhere on continental crust, so the only way for this not to be true would be if the Egyptians had built the Pyramids at the bottom of the sea.
The Pyramid is located at the exact center of the Earth's land mass. That is, its East-West axis corresponds to the longest land parallel across the Earth, passing through Africa, Asia, and America. Similarly, the longest land meridian on Earth, through Asia, Africa, Europa, and Antarctica, also passes right through the Pyramid. Since the Earth has enough land area to provide 3 billion possible building sites for the Pyramid, the odds of it's having been built where it is are 1 in 3 billion I don't know of an easy way to check if this claim is true. A glance at a globe suggests that Egypt might indeed fit this description. However, the odds of the Egyptians building the pyramids in Egypt are not 1 in 3 billion. It might almost be considered a certainty.
Other numbers are also repeated throughout. Each of the Pyramids four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131 inches, for a total of 36,524 inches. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24. If this was true, then measuring the length of the solar year to five significant figures would have been the least of their achievements. Much more impressive would be their ability to travel forward in time to read the Weights And Measures Act of 1824 and to calibrate their instruments against the standard yard (kept in Guildhall, London) to ensure that they would be expressing the length of the year according to a standard of measurement which wouldn't be fixed for several thousand years. However, it is not in fact true.
The height of the Pyramid's apex is 5,812.98 inches [...] The average height of land above sea level (Miami being low and the Himalayas being high), as can be measured only by modern-day satellites and computers, happens to be 5,449 inches. That is the exact height of the Pyramid. I think they should make up their minds. The height of the Pyramid appears to vary by over 30 feet depending on what they want to prove about it. Did you not notice this? A google search shows that there are 6,730 websites which mention both figures as the height of the pyramid. Somewhere, Tim Berners-Lee is crying.
The average height of land above sea level (Miami being low and the Himalayas being high), as can be measured only by modern-day satellites and computers, happens to be 5,449 inches. That is the exact height of the Pyramid. But the average height of land above sea level is in fact 841 meters, which is over 33,000 inches.
All four sides of the Pyramid are very slightly and evenly bowed in, or concave. This effect, which cannot be detected by looking at the Pyramid from the ground, was discovered around 1940 by a pilot taking aerial photos to check certain measurements. As measured by today's laser instruments, all of these perfectly cut and intentionally bowed stone blocks duplicate exactly the curvature of the earth. The radius of this bow is equal to the radius of the Earth. OK. Let's take Cole's figure of 230,364 mm as the average length of a side. Let the radius of the Earth be ~ 6,371 km = 6,371,000,000 mm. Then using Pythagoras' theorem, we can see that the difference between a completely straight line and the alleged curvature of the sides would be just slightly over 1 mm (1.041 mm, to three decimal places) at the point where it was greatest. And this was supposedly discovered by someone taking aerial photographs in the 1940s? I'm not buying it, especially since the base of the Great Pyramid looks like this:
To say that this deviates from a straight line by one millimeter is sheer nonsense. It's so eroded that even if it did once no-one would be able to tell now. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You could measure 4 millimeters of curvature ... I think I know what you've done here, and the other given side of the right-angled triangle is half the length of the side of the Pyramid. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yes Dubya, that was exactly my point. Thank you for noticing it. Apperantly no one else did. We noticed what the point was, but we also noticed that it was bollocks, since the pyramids do not in fact "show the use, thousands of years ago, of technology and geological understanding which is likely beyond that of modern man".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
However I believe Chuck's point is that you can't use the fact that some think men in Noah's day didn't have the technological know-how to build the boat he built with the dimensions and requirements he had to adhere to to rule out its existence, since the pyramids show the use, thousands of years ago, of technology and geological understanding which is likely beyond that of modern man. Yeah, all we can do is stuff like this:
Whereas the mighty Egyptians could stack rocks on top of one another to almost a fifth of that height.
There are other cases of colossally huge stones perfectly fitted together centuries ago which still exist and surpass the technical know-how of modern man (in South America). Yeah, our lasers can only cut to a precision of 10 micrometers, whereas at Machu Pichu their lasers ... oh, wait, they didn't have any lasers. But they were still able to construct buildings over two stories high!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Really, how much does it cost to hire a family of eight people and buy some Bronze-Age tools? Has the price of bronze shot way up lately?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
As I see it, the main questions are: 1) Are they going to be able to raise the money? I doubt it. You are a prophet.
2) Isn't there a better Christian thing to spend the money on? I think so. Well, that too. Looking at their website, I see that a donation of $100 will enable you to sponsor ... a peg. For $1000 you can sponsor an entire plank. Yes, of wood and not of platinum encrusted with garnets and inlaid with unicorn ivory. No, you just pay them $1000 to be credited with the donation of a plank of wood. Actually giving them a plank is apparently not an alternative. They want your money, which apparently they convert into single bills, put through a pulping machine, and turn into chipboard by a secret Biblical process, nah, just kidding, they keep it. For $5000 you can sponsor a beam. You get a certificate and everything, so that you can prove to all your friends that you paid $5000 for a beam. Which is always good for a laugh. I wonder why Noah didn't think of this. "And for a donation of just 5000 sheckels, your name is guaranteed to appear in Genesis 8." Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I posted this on the other Ark thread, but on reflection it belongs here.
--- We'll find out tomorrow if the whole project is going to collapse.
Story here.
A Northern Kentucky theme park to be built around a full-scale replica of Noah’s Ark may sink unless investors purchase about $29 million in unrated municipal bonds by Feb. 6. In December, the city of Williamstown issued taxable debt for affiliates of the Christian nonprofit Answers in Genesis, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Even though $26.5 million of securities have been sold, the project needs to sell at least $55 million in total to avoid triggering a redemption of all the bonds ... This could be a bad week for Ken Ham.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024