Message 121 of 144 (507963) 05-09-2009 8:47 AM

Reply to: Message 118 by Son 05-09-2009 7:12 AM

I understand that. But I dont think it would be impossible for God to control such a reaction in such a way that the earth would not be harmed. *please note that I was speculating on the hydrogen and oxygen post, it isnt my set belief*

Message 123 of 144 (507968) 05-09-2009 9:51 AM

Reply to: Message 116 by Peg 05-09-2009 6:51 AM

Sorry, wrong again. Among several different greenhouse gases, and water vapor makes the most significant contribution, responsible for up to 2/3 of the greenhouse effect. Thus, if the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increased to the extent required by the water canopy fantasy, temperatures would rise by 100s of degrees, nothing at all like the "warm, humid" climate you imagine.

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Message 125 of 144 (507971) 05-09-2009 9:55 AM

Reply to: Message 121 by Peg 05-09-2009 8:47 AM

The properties of hydrogen and oxygen are completely distinct from those of water. None of your posts about them make any sense.

You still don't understand the reason that creationists proposed the vapor canopy in the first place. They knew they couldn't get flood geology into the classroom if it required miracles from God, so they proposed the vapor canopy as the source of water. The vapor canopy was proposed solely to remove God from the equation. Once you reintroduce God, which is what you're doing, then there's no longer any reason for the vapor canopy. God can do anything. God can make rain fall from an empty sky. God doesn't need a vapor canopy.

Is any of this sinking in?

--Percy

Message 126 of 144 (507975) 05-09-2009 10:24 AM

Reply to: Message 108 by Peg 05-09-2009 5:05 AM

The Thing:

A one inch square column of water sitting on the ground weighs about one metric ton per mile (with apologies to the purist who flinched at my mixing systems). Most plants and animals are not equipped to deal with multiple Mg/in² pressures. For very short periods of time a person can withstand about a third of a tonne/in², while other animals find foraging a more interesting pursuit and have yet to venture into competition deep diving.

However, is it possible that our column of water could be held in suspension in the atmosphere as a gas and not exert the same pressure on surface of the Earth?

The Experiment:

It is well known by any child playing in a pool that it is possible to lift a much greater weigh while it is below the surface than when it is above the surface with a transition that seem nearly magical. Most children are disillusioned in the seventh grade when they are told about buoyancy in an Earth Sciences class. When a toaster is immersed in a bathtub full of water, if one is not occupied by certain other effects, two things will be evident: the afore mentioned weight reduction and the rise in the level of the water. This rise in the water level is important. The amount of rise times the integral surface area through the rise interval equals the volume of the toaster. Eureka, if we weight that volume of water it will be gleaned that that volume of water weights exactly that of the loss measured in the toaster. We have located the repository of the missing weight of the toaster in the rise in the water.

I hope it is easily understood that the weight of the bathtub plus the weight of the toaster is equal to the weight of the bathtub and toaster. Similarly, the weight of our x miles high, inch square, column of air plus the weight of our y miles high, inch square, column of water equals the weight of our the weight of our combined x+18ky miles high, inch square, column of air and water vapor.

If this is not clear to you, Peg, I suggest you take a toaster with you next time you take a bath and see it for yourself. I'm sure you'll find the experiment enlightening.

AbE: Sorry folks. In my head my statement read "pre mile" and even after reading it a few times I still read it saying just that. I thought the ever-so-popular, super-adorable, mega-spootie, awesome NosyNed was referring to my not mentioning the total hight of the water of the flood. It has since been corrected. (And thanks for "buoyancy" too. I must have missed the "y" and my spell checker replaced it with bouncy. I too rarely question my SC's suggestions.)

This also removes the problem as pointed out by petrophysics1's post, but proof reading rather then dimensional analysis was the cause of the error; nevertheless, I did screw-up.

To one and all: I welcome any and all corrections/suggestions to/for my posts. Though most of my errors are due to impatience, I remain without a mentor and am attempting to guide my own education through these matters. It is a trail fraught with dead ends.

Edited by Admin, : Fix spelling, "bouncy" => "buoyancy"

Edited by lyx2no, : Per mile.

Edited by lyx2no, : Point out the point more clearly.

Message 127 of 144 (507978) 05-09-2009 10:54 AM

Reply to: Message 126 by lyx2no 05-09-2009 10:24 AM

Since the flud needs a lot more than that you number is too low, no?

The toaster 'joke' maybe cute but it obfuscates your point and I'm not sure that Archimedes is needed here anyway.

Message 128 of 144 (507981) 05-09-2009 12:20 PM

Reply to: Message 127 by NosyNed 05-09-2009 10:54 AM

Edited by lyx2no, : The gentler gamester is the soonest winner � Henry V.

Message 129 of 144 (507989) 05-09-2009 2:15 PM

Reply to: Message 128 by lyx2no 05-09-2009 12:20 PM

The pressure gradient for fresh water is .433 psi per foot. A 100 ft by 100 ft by 100 ft cube of water weights a lot more than a 1 foot by 1 foot by 100 ft column of water. The hydrostatic pressure is the same at the bottom, 100 ft of height X .433 psi/ft= 43.3 psi.

When doing physics problems always put in the units and then cancel them as you would do in basic algebra. If the resulting units don't match what your answer should be in, you did something wrong.

For example if you are looking for a velocity the answer must be in feet /sec, mph or something like that. If your answer is in feet, or seconds or hours or feet /sec/.sec.....you screwed up.

Weight is measured in pounds.....pressure in psi.

Got it?

Edited by petrophysics1, : typo

Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.

Message 131 of 144 (507999) 05-09-2009 4:51 PM

Reply to: Message 108 by Peg 05-09-2009 5:05 AM

No experiment is necessary. We understand water and water vapor (steam) and their properties under various conditions very well. The entire industrial world used to depend on that understanding, and much of it does still.

Geting any significant amount of water into the atmosphere requires temperatures and pressures that would wipe out all life except for a few thermophilic (heat loving) bacteria. Period. End of story. The fat lady has sung. Even those few creationists that have a rudimentary knowledge of thermodynamics realize that. From the Institute for Creation Research we find SENSITIVITY STUDIES ON VAPOR CANOPY TEMPERATURE PROFILES in which they tried to vary several of parameters to maximize the water in the atmosphere:

quote:

---

However, none of the effects was so dramatic that the concern over limitations on water content in the canopy by hot surface temperatures was eliminated. If all five parameters were introduced into the model simultaneously such that the surface temperature was minimized, it is estimated that the water content of the canopy could possibly be raised to as much as 1.0 meter. This is less than 10% of the water content suggested by Dillow (1982). Unfortunately, this amount of water in a canopy would not contribute significantly to the waters of the Genesis Flood or produce significant pressure and density effects. However, it would produce large differences in temperature, atmospheric stability, cloud formation, and precipitation from that experienced today.

---

In other words, a negligible amount of water could be in the atmosphere.

The Demise and Fall of the Water Vapor Canopy: A Fallen Creationist Idea is also worth reading.

Message 132 of 144 (508025) 05-10-2009 1:31 AM

Reply to: Message 107 by Peg 05-09-2009 5:02 AM

One major difference. I am mature enough to admit when I am wrong as opposed to pretending infallibility.

As I said in one of my immature rants, such ignorance is curable, however it requires an honest attempt to actually learn.

Of course you can produce water from hydrogen and oxygen, hasn't everyone here said that very thing.

At any rate, I am no longer interested in trying to embarrass you into some form of enlightenment as a person who already knows everything can't learn anything. I will leave the evidently hopeless job of trying to educate you or to get you to admit it when you are wrong to those more patient and kind than I am in this matter.

Edited by anglagard, : subtitle

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Message 133 of 144 (508031) 05-10-2009 2:24 AM

Reply to: Message 124 by Huntard 05-09-2009 9:54 AM

but thats the problem, the areas of earth that are currently under ice were at one time warm and not covered in ice.

So where did all that water that is there now, come from?

Message 134 of 144 (508032) 05-10-2009 2:32 AM

Reply to: Message 125 by Percy 05-09-2009 9:55 AM

but hang on a second.

the question was asked back on page 3 'What is the water vapor' and does the bible actually mention such a water vapor.

I replied with the scriptures that mention the water vapor to show that it actually is in the bible and not a creationist invention.

This is why I speculated as to how it may have existed in the atmosphere because the bible gives no other information about it except to say that it was 'water that was above the expanse of the area where birds fly'

I asked the question...'What 'form' may the water vapor have been'? Could it have been in the form of hydrogen and oxygen (which is what water is made from) I wasnt making any claim that it was...i was asking the question.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Message 135 of 144 (508034) 05-10-2009 2:42 AM

Reply to: Message 132 by anglagard 05-10-2009 1:31 AM

good idea.