Existence of Noah's Ark

Well my point is that at that altitude one of two things are going to happen. The water is going to turn to ice, or it will have enough heat to boil off, or partially boil off. Remeber how cold it is up that high.Liek my last post, ice falls from clouds, so that water doesn't heat up enough to boil the earth.I am not sure here about this, go ahead and explain it to me if I am wrong.Not being an expert, but from what I have learned, the updraft in a thunderstorm carries the moisture up high enough for it to turn to ice. Then that ice falls without melting. I am guessing that on a larger scale this model would look different?

Hail falls from a thunderhead because those cumulonimbus clouds go up to 60,000 feet or more, and the temperature is way cold up that high. Relatively warm updrafts carry water droplets up there. They freeze and start to fall (they give up their 80 calories per gram of heat in the process of freezing, intensifying the updrafts.) If the winds are strong enough, the little sleet balls get blown up again, gathering ice as they travel.
I learned the calories and the how-long-it-takes-to-vacuum-transfer-a-gram-of-hexadeuterobenzene in college, and the ice in the car air conditioner part from not pumping the system down. Strictly shade-tree HVAC stuff, and now I leave it to you pros. Too much stuff to know how to do for me.And do any of you know what a cumulonympho cloud is?

And carries the rain upwards?
Doesn't that kind of go along with what I am saying?

Right, so probably, the mechanism that would cause such a rainfall, coming from the oceans waters as I am proposing, would carry with it a lot of heat, and do the same thing. Then all that heat from kinetic energy of a raindrop falling would be a non-issue.And congradulations, you might know more than some HVAC mechanics. You probably understand how it works more than most.

No.You seem to know more about basic HVAC than the rat, but I'll give him a point for mentioning Librant units as they are used in computer rooms. Nothing wrong with being ignorant as we all started that way. Claiming it's a virtue???

I think, without bothering to calculate it out, that the heat from kinetic energy probably isn't the big player here. Far more important in any *worldwide* flood is the means to drive such a huge heat engine everywhere at once. If it's raining all over the world (that was a song once, I think....) you must provide 540 calories of heat per gram of water you evaporate on the surface, you must get rid of that same 540 calories per gram up in the clouds as you recondense that vapor, and you somehow must transport the vapor up through the falling rain to where it can make more raindrops!And the size of this heat flow ain't 'zactly small - if we take your 4 inches of rain per hour, I calculate 100,000 grams of water per hour for each square meter of the Earth's surface. That comes to 54,000,000 calories for each of the (several!) square meters on Earth, each hour for forty days and forty nights, getting transferred from rock to water, and then from water vapor to outer space. In (physically) countercurrent flow. (I don't remember what calories come out to in Btu's, RR. Sorry.)Hurricane Ivan didn't have this problem. He was only a couple of hundred miles across, and had the whole warm Caribbean to wander on and suck heat and water vapor from. I'll bet, though, that the heat flow problems are precisely what keeps hurricanes from getting larger than they do - the physics of our atmosphere just won't allow them to.A cumulonympho? That's a f***ing thunderstorm!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What keeps the water pressed up against the side of the mountain in a flood of the mountain rather than draining away into the valley?

---

​

Its just amazing that you can't see what I am trying to say.
More water, fo rthe time that it is raining.

---

That isn't a flood. That's just rain.There is plenty of water to cover all the dry land with a fine mist. Hell, just take the water out of the atmosphere and you have enough water to cover the earth to a depth of one inch.That isn't a flood because it immediately runs to the lowest point. We need to cover the tops of the mountains and keep them covered after it stops raining.

quote:

---

I am not talking about after the rain stops.

---

Then you're not talking about a flood and have wasted everybody's time.

quote:

---

Try your little experiment, but first make the mass 25% the surface area of the tub, then pour a thimble full of water and watch it run off. This would represent a regular rainfall amount.
Now talk a small bucket and do the same, this would represent the rainfall amount I am talking about. For the period of time that it was raining, it would be flooded.

---

Incorrect.For a period of time, it would be raining. Quite hard at that. For it to be flooded, though, the water would have to remain covering the object after I stopped it on.Did you try the experiment I asked you to? I'm just asking for 20 minutes. Quite short as floods go. Do whatever you want with the water but then you need to stop, remove all paraphernalia, and let the water do whatever it wants.If, 20 minutes later, the object is still completely covered in water, then you can say you've got a flood.

quote:

---

And if you want to compare run-off rates to real life, you would have to make a scale time-clock to represent how fast it would run-off in full scale.

---

(*ahem*)Someone in this very thread gave you information about how to calculate runoff. Weren't you paying attention? Do you not remember that the runoff speed is related to the amount of water above the point of runoff? The more water, the faster the runoff.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Then the mountain isn't completely flooded and that is what you are claiming happened. If the highest part is sticking out of the water, then that highest part isn't flooded.

---

​

But a t rainfall rate of 4" per hour, it would be wet, running-off, and flooded

---

Incorrect. At that rate, you just have a hard rain. The water would easily runoff faster than the water is coming down.Question: How much is four inches per hour? On a practical visual scale, how much water is coming down at four inches per hour over a square inch?Let's assume it doesn't runoff and switch to the metric system since it's easier to visualize. According to SI, an inch is 2.54 centimeters exactly. Thus, a square inch is 6.4516 square centimeters. Therefore, a cubic inch is 16.387064 cubic centimeters and 4 cubic inches is about 65.5 cubic centimeters per hour.That's about 1.1 cubic centimeters per minute.That's about 0.018 cubic centimeters per second or about 18 cubic millimeters (a cubic millimeter is a microliter) per second over a 6.5 square centimeter area.You do know how big 18 microliters is, don't you? It's about the size of a single drop from an eyedropper.Do you seriously think that a rate of only 20 microliters per second per 6.5 square centimeters is sufficient downflow to keep the mountain top completely covered in water, or might the runoff velocity be much faster than that?

quote:

---

Can you explain your thought processs that leads you to do this?

---

Yes.Did you even bother to calculate it? Do you realize just how piddling a rainstorm 4 inches per hour is? I admit that I made a mistake in a previous post. In order to flood the earth as it is now up to Mt. Everest in 40 days, you don't need 4 inches per hour. You need about 5.5 inches per minute. You need a rate 60 times faster than what you have suggested.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

when the sun "goes down," does heat really become "lost to space?"Seems to me that radiation would take place at the atmospheric layer that is at a lower temperature. Not the edge of outer space, RR.

when the sun "goes down," does heat really become "lost to space?"Seems to me that radiation would take place at the atmospheric layer that is at a lower temperature. Not the edge of outer space, RR.

Heat is being lost to space from our atmosphere all the time - night and day. Much of it leaves as infrared and far infrared radiation - some as reflected visible light. If you want numbers, I can find some - it's been measured quite accurately by sattelites.

Heh, I just saw this thread today, lol. I've been gone for a while.Rrhain,I'm afraid you started this thread in vain--specifically pertaining to the objections you raise toward the Durunipar site near Dogubeyazit. Why? Because you have raised countless old-hat arguments that have thoroughly been demolished.For the latest news folks, a new book has been released by W.A.R., and along with Jonathon Gray's book "Discoveries: Questions Answered", Mary Nell Wyatt's new, just released book, "The Boat-Shaped Object on Doomsday Mountain" helps to obliterate all the cricisms ever made on this topic...revealing all the official data, and providing the names of all the Professors from various universities substantiating the site. Visit here to buy the book: Wyatt Archaeological Research It's advertized right on the front page.This book will now help me to add more valuable material to the massive upcoming post I still have pending. It totally will annihilate, obliterate, all the lame arguments ever raised in this forum about the site. I can see Charles Knight running down doggy street with his tail tucked between his legs. And guess what? I can take as long as I want with the post, because no matter when I post it, EvC will always be here! It's fun to watch critics jump in the water and start bringing all sorts of stuff they know nothing about. It's like watching them swim in a pool blindfolded, with their compass sitting on the edge of the pool and them not knowing where it is. ROFL!This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 02-23-2005 15:29 AM

---

~Lysimachus

Sure, but the problem with your lackadasical approach is that until you do actually demolish us with the brilliance of this oft-heralded superpost, this: looks a lot like the hollow boasting that conceals knowledge of defeat.You apparently don't get how it works - first you prove your point, then you get to celebrate your victory. You've got it all back-ass-wards.

quote:

---

This book will now help me to add more valuable material to the massive upcoming post I still have pending. It totally will annihilate, obliterate, all the lame arguments ever raised in this forum about the site. I can see Charles Knight running down doggy street with his tail tucked between his legs.

---

While it's nice to see you - it's just more of the same old shit. What do you think I made this comment back in SEPT!!!!

quote:

---

I would ask that Lysimachus refrains from saying to posters that they change their tune once the evidence turns up and so forth.

​

If he wants has some evidence that he wants to present -present it - I don't want jam tomorrow, I want it today. If the evidence is not in a fit state to present at the moment, don't bring it up.

---

http://EvC Forum: Lysimachus- Thread via backdoor -->EvC Forum: Lysimachus- Thread via backdoorWhy don't you make your next post "the massive post"? Give us something to work with?Piss in the pot or get off it.(it's nice to see that the crackpots over at WAR can still turn a dime now that the chief crackpot is wormfood. )This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 23 February 2005 16:43 AM

LOL...you crack me up Charles. I may still be the same old person, but so are you! So we're both "guilty", arn't we now?

---

~Lysimachus

... you will actually be able to show some evidence for the Ark. I don't think you'll find any of us will have any trouble accepting the existence of an Ark if you can really present some evidence.I think that the highest hurdle you'll have to overcome is explaining why anyone would build such a structure.But bring on your evidence, we will happily consider all of it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion