Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea level
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 76 of 86 (143573)
09-21-2004 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by coffee_addict
09-20-2004 10:53 PM


Of course in matters.
However small the effect. Air=resistance. It can be calculated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by coffee_addict, posted 09-20-2004 10:53 PM coffee_addict has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 77 of 86 (143576)
09-21-2004 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
09-20-2004 11:00 PM


Jesus, RR, you don't have a clue what's going on in this question, do you? It's a simple problem in angular momentum, one that a first-year physics major might encounter as a "refresher" on the first day.
Of I would have a clue, if was described right. I haven't had to do this problem before. But maybe for someone who went to college, and was taught this as a standard in problems, he would reconize it.
Shouldn't matter. Remember, you're the one that claimed that you could do just as well as "jerk scientists" equipped with nothing more than your own common sense.
Well, go to. Employ common sense and solve the problem as well as a first-year physics student.
A first year physics student would not have to figure the formulas out on his own. He would just apply the formulas that was taught to him. Some else did all the hard work for him already. Someone much smarter than him. I am telling you , that I can try and come up with the formula bymyself without anyones help, or college education. I'm sure the person who invented the formula for angular momentum didn't do it in 20 mintues.
You called it angular momentum, I'm calling resistance from getting the wheel in motion. Of course I was including that in my formula, that is so obvious. Thats why you included the radius, and the wieght on the block, so I would know how much torque is being applied to the wheel.
So if I figure this out, you gonna kiss my Christian ass right?
The odds are way stacked up against me. I've been thinking about it for the past day, how I am going to attack this. It's freaking driving me crazy, but I love a challenge. It might take me a while, but I promise I won't cheat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2004 11:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 09-21-2004 10:17 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 12:06 PM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 78 of 86 (143582)
09-21-2004 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by NosyNed
09-21-2004 3:35 AM


Re: refute a theory
Is there more? There is a huge amount of data that this can not explain. You may start with the sea shells which many creationists say is evidence for the flood being over the top of the mountains. So you should really go and argue with them to get your speculation accepted.
I asked someone here already if the areas where they are finding the seashells could have been the ocean floor already. And if it was wouldn't be easy to prove that, by examining the soil. I was told yes it was most likely ocean floor before. So I am not subscribing to what creationalist say. I do not stand by either camp. I do agree that both sides are scinece, and any science is good science because of the evidence it creates. I only believe in God.
No, they will not produce, or you haven't described how they could produce, what we actually see when examining the geological record. To do this you first have to learn what the geology shows us then and only then figure out an alternative explanation for how it got that way.
Agreed, can you point me towards some links?
Thats what I wanted to hear.
Then figure it out. You don't have a 'theory' if you don't do the calculations to show what would happen. You may start by calculating the rate of arrival of water on a mountain side, determing how fast gravity can move it off and by doing so determine the depth of water at each elevation down the mountain.
I was trying to find a program that would do this for me. Its out there already, so I wouldn't have to do all the work of figuring that out which would take me quite a while, and probably still not get it right due to all the variables. So I have contacted a water run-off specialist.
Then, if you want a 'theory', you would suggest what kind of specific evidence this would leave on all the high mountains of the world that could be looked for to check your hypothosis.
The evidence would be lack of soil on anything with a slope. Other than the accumlation of dust, or compost from the time of the flood until now. This amount should be the same throughout the world, I guess. I don't have these figures, but around here in NY, in the appalachian mountains there is very little compost, or dirt on the hills. The rock is very exposed.
If my theory was correct. ground water would rise so high that it pour out of every crack and crevis on a mountain, that it would wash away all dirt. *edit* I witness this first hand, it is my observation. It gets so bad after only one day and 5 inches of rain, that it washes out roads, and I see ground water shooting up through the cracks in the mountain. Even the cracks in my driveway.
I guess the only way there would be dirt on a mountain is if the mountain was formed after the flood.
Since you haven't done any of that you have nothing. The fact that you think you have is enough to engender significant disrepect of your abilities. I'm not the one who thinks they can contribute anything by making stuff up and not thinking it through.
I have thought this through for over 2 years. But only casually. I do not know all that is needed to prove that it happened or not. That is why I put it you guys, who I think are pretty smart.
I just don't appreciate the fact that you think I couldn't be smart too, just because I didn't go to college, or because I believe in God, and then proceed to insult me. I'll admit that typing, and vocabulary are not my strong points at all, and that can make it appear that I am not smart. It is an obsticle I've had to get over all my life. I am better at math and science than English, or history.
This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 09-21-2004 08:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 09-21-2004 3:35 AM NosyNed has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 79 of 86 (143586)
09-21-2004 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by IrishRockhound
09-21-2004 8:27 AM


Re: refute a theory
My main problem with scientists is that the make mistakes too. But that doesn't stop them from preaching what the think is true.
If you take offence I am sorry. You should know better if you are a jerk or not. I wasn't specifically calling anyone out, or trying to take away from the smart ones. I have a 80% rule in life. 80% of all people in all their respective professions aren't that good at what they do. This is a direct observation, and I have yet to see it fail.
Try to find a good mechanic to work on your car, try to find a doctor who can actually find out whats wrong with you. you understand my point?
I think if my theory was correct. that it would look more like a local flood, than anything else. Maybe there is another explanation? If you just kept it in mind, that would be awesome of you, thanks.
I doubt I would fully understand your field study, unless it was written in plain English. But I would like to try and read it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by IrishRockhound, posted 09-21-2004 8:27 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by CK, posted 09-21-2004 9:25 AM riVeRraT has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 80 of 86 (143587)
09-21-2004 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by riVeRraT
09-21-2004 9:23 AM


Re: refute a theory
quote:
My main problem with scientists is that the make mistakes too. But that doesn't stop them from preaching what the think is true.
we have a process called Peer-review that's pretty good at catching those things. The "scientists" you want to worry about are those who don't submit to peer-review. So next time you see one making fantastic claims - find out where they have published.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 9:23 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 81 of 86 (143588)
09-21-2004 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by edge
09-20-2004 12:09 AM


Re: Hydroisostasy & LGM
What I am asking has nothing to do with a flood. I was mearly wondering if the level of the land where these seashells are found was once maybe ocean floor. Then the land was pushed up by other means, tetonic forces, or volcanic ativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by edge, posted 09-20-2004 12:09 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by NosyNed, posted 09-21-2004 2:04 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 82 of 86 (143600)
09-21-2004 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by riVeRraT
09-21-2004 8:46 AM


riVeRraT writes:
A first year physics student would not have to figure the formulas out on his own. He would just apply the formulas that was taught to him. Some else did all the hard work for him already. Someone much smarter than him. I am telling you , that I can try and come up with the formula bymyself without anyones help, or college education. I'm sure the person who invented the formula for angular momentum didn't do it in 20 mintues.
Crash has already made his point, so there's no reason for you to continue trying to solve this problem.
Crash's point was not that scientists are smarter than you, but that they have received training. That's why the jerk physics major who perhaps can't find his way from the cafeteria to his office can solve the problem in a minute and you won't be able to solve it in your lifetime, unless you look up the equations in a book or on the Internet. If you like puzzles then keep working at it, but be forewarned that the derivations for rotational energy equations are far from simple.
This thread is more geology than physics, but the same principles hold. Geologists receive training. They know a great deal about how various forces shape the earth. And you can share in this knowledge simply by reading an elementary geology book, and then you'll be able to propose scenarios that are consistent with both the evidence and with the forces and timeframes necessary to produce that evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 8:46 AM riVeRraT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 83 of 86 (143644)
09-21-2004 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by riVeRraT
09-21-2004 8:46 AM


But maybe for someone who went to college, and was taught this as a standard in problems, he would reconize it.
I have no training in physics whatsoever - absolutely none - but I was able to recognize this as a problem in angular momentum.
So if I figure this out, you gonna kiss my Christian ass right?
No, I'm going to point out that, so far, it's taken you 2 days and 3 tries to do what first-year physics students do in 10 minutes.
The odds are way stacked up against me.
Yes, by virtue of the fact that you have no education in physics. But see, that's the point. Contrary to what you claimed, you're at a significant disadvanatge to all those "jerk scientists" you so casually dismissed.
Now that you've admitted that, the problem has served its purpose. You can solve it if you like, but you don't have to. If you do, though, show your work.
I've been thinking about it for the past day, how I am going to attack this.
I'll give you a hint. A wheel is just a round lever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 8:46 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 84 of 86 (143653)
09-21-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Coragyps
09-19-2004 10:53 PM


Re: Hydroisostasy & LGM
quote:
Sure it would be! That's what the geologists in England showed, quite conclusively, by about 1840. Based on the types of rocks, as well as fossils, they showed beyond reasonable doubt that England had been seafloor on several occasions, for huge periods of time, and that parts had been dry land at various times, too.
True.
quote:
The geologists since 1840 have been busy showing the same thing for most of the rest of Earth's surface
At completely different points in time, in some areas dozens of times, and in some areas, never. And many layers have shown quite clearly that they were *not* underwater, especially not under violent underwater conditions.
quote:
the top of Mt Everest, for instance, is made up of skeletal remains of sea critters that were compacted to limestone, buried tens of thousands of feet deep where it was hot enough to convert the limestone partially to marble, and then uplifted and the covering rocks eroded off to leave the tallest peak we have this millenium.
And for all of the people who think the K-T boundary was the flood boundary, the "seashells" are all well below the K-T boundary. Furthermore, much of the area is made of this limestone, which itself is a problem for a creationist stance. Limestone is made of calcium carbonate deposited by dead marine organisms. Care to postulate how the world's 5.1e19 kg of limestone came to be deposited in a YEC scenario?
quote:
Same sort of thing under my chair: there's a reef down there 6500 feet that grew in the Permian. It's covered up in rocks that formed in shallow seas that dried up on occasion - there's salt and gypsum beds to prove it.
Note the "on occasion". Creationism has yet to offer a good explanation for multiple layers of salt being "layed down" by a flood. And lets not even get into corals...

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Coragyps, posted 09-19-2004 10:53 PM Coragyps has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 85 of 86 (143656)
09-21-2004 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by riVeRraT
09-21-2004 9:29 AM


Exactly
What I am asking has nothing to do with a flood. I was mearly wondering if the level of the land where these seashells are found was once maybe ocean floor. Then the land was pushed up by other means, tetonic forces, or volcanic ativity.
Exactly. And this is far more than speculation.
If you'd like to discuss sea shells some more, say so, and I'll start a thread (I thought I had actually but it ain't there).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 9:29 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-21-2004 2:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 86 of 86 (143660)
09-21-2004 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by NosyNed
09-21-2004 2:04 PM


Another topic long out of contact with the theme
quote:
If you'd like to discuss sea shells some more, say so, and I'll start a thread (I thought I had actually but it ain't there).
A good theme for a new topic. That theme should not be lost in this topic.
For the record, Bill Birkeland (IMO) answered the topic title question back in message 14.
Closing this topic.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by NosyNed, posted 09-21-2004 2:04 PM NosyNed 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