Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 584 of 614 (746157)
01-03-2015 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 583 by RAZD
01-03-2015 1:50 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
RAZD writes:
It wasn't the possibility of a crane that was raised as an issue, though the one pictured in the AIG drawing is far too modern. ...
But is that what is actually being used on site or just a painting?
Being used on site? I wasn't aware construction had started. As far as I know, it's just a painting or drawing.
I've already seen images like those you posted, which is why I suggested you look them up. They don't look at all flimsy.
It's your claim to defend.
You're the one claiming that the boom of a crane in an artists conception of the construction of Noah's ark doesn't defy reality. All I was saying originally is that not only is the depicted construction of the ark ridiculous, so is the crane depicted helping in the construction. Why that boom looks possible to you, why you even think it bears any resemblance to any of those images you posted, I have no idea. Let's put a couple booms side-by-side:
The boom in the left image is constructed of two massive beams relative to length and with no joints, and it has support both at the top and in the middle. The one on the right is constructed of small beams relative to length connected by innumerable small pieces of wood creating a huge number of joints. The boom on the right would buckle the first time it was hoisted into place. Except that the mast, which I haven't mentioned before, would break first.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2015 1:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 586 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2015 3:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 585 of 614 (746158)
01-03-2015 3:04 PM


How many built the ark?
Here's a different image from ArkEncounter.com:
This image depicts cranes more consistent with both reality and the period, but...
It shows approximately 23 people. How many sons did Noah have?
I found a slightly different image of the other drawing at a webpage over at Patheos, here's a magnification of the crane:
What looked like a fairly robust mast is now revealed to be half the width with a rope alongside. The boom is now two pieces of long narrow beam with some unknown material filling the space between (the pulley near the top of the boom is obscured by this material). Speculating too much about this drawing doesn't seem worth the time, it's obviously impossible as drawn.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by jar, posted 01-03-2015 3:43 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 588 of 614 (746163)
01-03-2015 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by RAZD
01-03-2015 3:28 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
RAZD writes:
... The one on the right is constructed of small beams relative to length connected by innumerable small pieces of wood creating a huge number of joints. ...
You *know* this how? The posts supporting the hull are ~1/2 the length of the boom ...
As with Ringo, I'm again beginning to wonder if we're talking about different parts of the image. I've been talking about the boom and just the boom. I've circled a section of the boom that contains many of the cross members I've been referring to:
The boom in the image looks like an attempt to mimic in wood the lattice of the boom of a modern crane like this one:
This kind of lattice made out of wood would crumble into a pile of matchsticks.
What I am concerned with is the intellectual honesty...
Really?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2015 3:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 589 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2015 5:20 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 590 of 614 (746176)
01-03-2015 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by RAZD
01-03-2015 5:20 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
RAZD writes:
What I am concerned with is the intellectual honesty...
Really?
Yes: do the calculations: show me
If you assume the cross members are actually just image artifacts that aren't really there, and that the boom is actually an A-frame that isn't in the image, then of course my objections disappear. But you only just now introduced these possibilities, and your questioning of my intellectual honesty is inexplicable and hurtful. I thought we knew each other better than this.
But anyway, let's shift to the higher resolution image I found:
I see no A-frame. I see a boom consisting of two parallel and unconnected beams.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2015 5:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by Coragyps, posted 01-03-2015 9:12 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 594 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2015 11:40 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 596 of 614 (746263)
01-05-2015 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 594 by RAZD
01-04-2015 11:40 AM


Re: booming right along ...
RAZD writes:
If you assume the cross members are actually just image artifacts that aren't really there, and that the boom is actually an A-frame that isn't in the image, then of course my objections disappear. But you only just now introduced these possibilities, ...
See Message 583 ...
You said "lighting highlights" and added later, "Note the sunlight to the right and a shadow on the lower end of the boom?" I had no idea you were trying to say that those cross members were image artifacts and were not actually present in the original drawing.
But I agree now that the cross members are probably image artifacts. The boom still has problems, as you note later, but not the ones I thought it did, so there's not much point in further discussion.
Sorry, but you made a claim that the boom would be too flimsy and would collapse. All I have asked you to do is make the calculations to show this, which you have resisted doing so far. Curiously I am not convinced by opinion, and without the evidence you have made your case -- you have not provided the evidence to support your claim.
You constructed some hoops, demanded I jump through them, then became personal when I instead tried to establish if we were really looking at the same thing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2015 11:40 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2015 9:16 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 599 of 614 (746290)
01-05-2015 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 598 by ringo
01-05-2015 10:41 AM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
ringo writes:
You're making far too much of a drawing. It's a drawing.
Yes, I was poking fun at a drawing of Noah's ark under construction by focusing on a lattice boom constructed of wood. I wasn't making very much of the drawing at all except as an object of ridicule, but you and RAZD both insisted that the crane boom could very easily be real. You thought you saw an A-frame that clearly isn't there (we're viewing the boom from below for much of its length and there are clearly no cross members between the two beams nor do they form an "A" - the two beams are not side-by-side, nor do they ever come together to form an "A"), and RAZD demanded calculations.
Anyway, you've read forward by now and have discovered that what I thought were innumerable cross members in a wooden lattice boom (the most overtly apparent ones circled in red here):
Were actually image artifacts. But I think both you and RAZD would have to concede that the wooden lattice boom I thought was in that image really *is* impossible. Although somehow I don't think you will.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by ringo, posted 01-05-2015 10:41 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2015 11:24 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 601 by ringo, posted 01-05-2015 11:27 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 602 of 614 (746297)
01-05-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 601 by ringo
01-05-2015 11:27 AM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
ringo writes:
My only point here is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the picture.
If you interpret the cross members (that we now know are image artifacts) as real then you've got a wooden lattice boom with square (instead of triangular) lattice that would collapse into a pile of matchsticks when hoisted into place, let alone trying to lift something with it:
Once you know the cross members are actually image artifacts then you have an exceedingly odd looking boom that I originally noted in Message 590 and some of whose problems RAZD enumerated in Message 594, as we see in this higher resolution image:
Notice how the region between the two beams of the boom appears to be whited out? This is especially apparent near the top of the boom where the whiting out has caused most of the pulley to be missing. If it is "whiting out" then it might have been done because whatever was originally drawn there looked worse than having nothing at all. I don't think it's a case of missing and eventually forgotten details that were intended to be added later, because if that were the case then the pulley would be fully represented instead of being mostly missing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by ringo, posted 01-05-2015 11:27 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by ringo, posted 01-05-2015 12:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 605 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2015 12:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 607 by Tangle, posted 01-05-2015 5:31 PM Percy has replied
 Message 611 by Tangle, posted 01-06-2015 3:31 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 608 of 614 (746346)
01-05-2015 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 607 by Tangle
01-05-2015 5:31 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
Tangle writes:
I think you're seeing things that aint there. The beam is single as you first thought with a pulley cut into it midline at the top. The line that I think you are seeing as the outside edge of a second beam is actually the pulley rope of the winch.
I see the pulley rope going right over the pulley, so I'm not mistaking the pulley rope for the outside edge of a second beam. Let me color code this:
[list][*]Red:        Pulley rope
[*]Green:      Top beam of boom
[*]Light blue: Bottom beam of boom[/list]
If the green beam and the light blue beam and the space in between is really just all one big thick beam, why is the region between the two beams the same color as the sky?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 607 by Tangle, posted 01-05-2015 5:31 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by kjsimons, posted 01-05-2015 7:58 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 610 of 614 (746356)
01-05-2015 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 609 by kjsimons
01-05-2015 7:58 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
kjsimons writes:
Percy, I actually think that the lightened area between what you call the top and bottom beam is actually just supposed to be light reflecting off a single cylindrical round beam. Note that this lightened area doesn't occur where the bulk of the ark would shade the boom. So I think this is just one mostly solid cylindrical beam.
If you look at the complete image you can see that if this were true then the wrong part of the boom is illuminated:
To be consistent with the light illuminating the beams of the ark, the bottom of the boom that is facing to the right should be illuminated, not the side facing forward. Still, you're saying the same thing RAZD said a while back, and it seems the most likely explanation, it's just that the artist added highlighting to the boom incorrectly.
Looking at the mast, its lighter portion must also be highlighting, and I wonder if that rectangular block about halfway down is the shadow of the weight hanging from the boom. If so it would mean that the sun is directly in line with the weight, the boom and the mast, more evidence that only the underside of the boom should be highlighted. Of course if they were all in line with the sun then that weight couldn't project a shadow onto the mast because the boom is in the way, so as several of us have said, who really knows.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by kjsimons, posted 01-05-2015 7:58 PM kjsimons has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 612 of 614 (746375)
01-06-2015 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 611 by Tangle
01-06-2015 3:31 AM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
You've gone back to my description from before I became convinced that the central light colored region of the boom is highlighting from the light of the sun.
It occurred to me earlier this morning what an interesting example this is of people's tendency to fill in details when presented with an ambiguous image.
I'm seeing a single beam shaped like a toothpick - similarly lit and shaded to the upright above the housing.
I could understand an analogy to a long, skinny, round unsharpened pencil, but not to a toothpick, which is tapered and sharpened at each end. It does appear to slightly taper from base to tip.
I couldn't figure out what "similarly lit" was similarly lit relative to, nor what "shaded to the upright above the housing" meant. I understand the "upright" is the mast atop the cab, but couldn't see what the boom being shaded to it was supposed to mean.
The 'whited out' part of the pulley is because the pulley is hung inside a cut out in the beam in the same way it is in the post above the housing - which is pretty clearly seen.
Yes. I acknowledged that the boom is likely a single solid beam in Message 610. It occurs to me now that a single rope holding such a long, solid beam would be insufficient. If that's the figure of a man on the crane's platform then the base of the boom is about 5 feet in diameter, and the end is maybe 3 feet. Assuming a boom 50 feet in length (at least - it's taller than the ark, which is at least 40 feet) yields a boom of around 15 tons for a wood like oak. There need to be additional ropes, a lot of them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 611 by Tangle, posted 01-06-2015 3:31 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by Tangle, posted 01-06-2015 7:23 AM Percy has seen this message but 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