Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 3 of 247 (41229)
05-24-2003 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
05-23-2003 10:15 PM


. The weight of the huge volumn of water produced enough weight force to push the displaced molten earth core under the continents and raise up the mountain ranges. Thus the fact that most, I say most, are near the coasts.
Which has the higher density, water or rock? Can you propose some mechanism whereby water, density about 1.0 kg/liter, can flow into low spots and force rock, density 2.6 or more, upward by any significant amount? Try it on a seesaw at a local playground: do the experiment as to the depth of water required to raise a foot of rocks. Then compare your results to the bathymetry/altimetry of the west coast of South America, and get back to us on your results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 05-23-2003 10:15 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 05-24-2003 4:31 PM Coragyps has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 7 of 247 (41238)
05-24-2003 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Buzsaw
05-24-2003 4:31 PM


Yes, rock is far denser than water, but 70% of the earth is ocean. The volumn of water would've overpowered the density factor of rock. Then too, I would assume that hot liquid earth core would be somewhat less dense than cold hard solid granite and more suitable for uplift after which it would cool and harden.
"Overpowered the density factor?"!!!!
As you put this huge volume of water on land of gentle topography, it's going to cover all the topography in preference to displacing rock upward. If it does do any displacing, it will be in a ratio of around 1 meter uplift for every 3 meters of water depth - a ratio like those of the densities.
And if the hot liquid core were less dense than the rock on top of it, how would it manage to stay on bottom? The upper rock is capable of motion in your scenario, but it's just going to float there on something less dense than itself??
The Earth's core, in any case, has a density near 8 kg/L, as it's largely metallic iron. It's denser than rock - that's why it's at the core!
And "cool and harden" how quickly, do you think? Lord Kelvin, calculations on this, back in the 1800's well before radioactivity was discovered to be keeping the Earth's insides hot, indicated that 24,000,000 years was a minimum figure for cooloff to our present state. Don't you think that the scientists that study plate tectonics and earthquakes might have a few more current calculations on how fast 1000-km thick slabs of hot rock cool and solidify?
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 05-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 05-24-2003 4:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 21 of 247 (41344)
05-26-2003 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by NosyNed
05-26-2003 2:29 AM


Oceanic crust is also basaltic, and denser than continental crust. To a good approximation, except for areas like Scandanavia that were covered by 2 km of ice 12,000 years ago, all of the crust is floating at its equilibrium position - the ocean crust + water pretty much balances the continental crust + mountains.
Sweden, though, is rising at over a centimeter per year in places - the weight of ice is gone, and the crust is bobbing back to its "normal" position. It's taking thousands of years because the mantle that it floats on is very, very viscous - much thicker than molasses in January. Google up "isostatic rebound" if you want more, or I may be able to find a recent paper where they measured Scandanavia's rise by GPS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 05-26-2003 2:29 AM NosyNed has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 51 of 247 (41644)
05-28-2003 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by NosyNed
05-28-2003 4:19 PM


Re: Hydroplate Theory
Not to mention its inability to explain magnetic striping of seafloor or the massive amounts of very fine sediment in the Atlantic Basin. Though I do think Walt Brown's eruption of the "Fountains of the Deep" at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge violently enough to launch the asteroid belt would be a cute special effect in a very cheesy SF movie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NosyNed, posted 05-28-2003 4:19 PM NosyNed has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 110 of 247 (41972)
06-02-2003 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by John
06-02-2003 2:21 PM


The atmosphere won't hold that much water.
Sure it will! Just heat the whole atmosphere to 700 degrees F and it'll hold a bunch, just like it did right before the Big Flood! Of course, oxygen will only make up a fractional percent of that, but hey, if that didn't bother Noah, why should it bother us? And that 3000 psi atmospheric pressure won't be a problem, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by John, posted 06-02-2003 2:21 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by John, posted 06-02-2003 5:51 PM Coragyps has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 112 of 247 (41981)
06-02-2003 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by John
06-02-2003 5:51 PM


Heated to 700 the atmosphere will hold how much exactly?
Based on vapor pressure, it would hold about 9000 times as much as it would hold right now at worldwide 100% humidity. That's not even remotely enough to hold all the water in the oceans. 100% humidity at 70 degrees F is about 2.5% by weight water, so that 9000 times is 225 times the weight of our current atmosphere. IIRC, the hydrosphere is another couple of orders of magnitude more massive yet.
Buzsaw, I think you will find it difficult to come up with any mechanism to suspend any significant volume of water up above the surface while still allowing for life down here. The only way to put more water vapor up there is to increase the vapor pressure of water: the only way to do that is to heat it. And even if you find a miraculous way to suspend it all, how well do you think we'd like at atmospheric pressure a few hundred times today's? How did the pre-Noah folks cope with that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by John, posted 06-02-2003 5:51 PM John has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 115 of 247 (42029)
06-03-2003 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Buzsaw
06-02-2003 10:10 PM


OK, buz, let's send only 1% of the present volume of water on earth into the "canopy". That's 1.3 x 10^19 kg that we're canpoizing, compared to 5.1 x 10^18 kg total for today's atmosphere. You are welcome to go through my calculations to check them:
That's a 3.5-fold increase in total atmospheric mass. The new (or Noachian) atmospheric pressure would be 52 pounds per square inch, compared to the current 14.7. Oxygen content would go down from 21% to 6%. The contribution of water vapor pressure to total pressure would be 37 psi. This must correspond to a global atmospheric temperature of 262 degrees F, much more comfortable than 700 degrees, but still a little too warm for Eden-like or idyllic, don't you think?
And that's only 1% ......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Buzsaw, posted 06-02-2003 10:10 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Buzsaw, posted 06-04-2003 9:05 AM Coragyps has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 119 of 247 (42076)
06-04-2003 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Buzsaw
06-04-2003 9:05 AM


But once the heated vapor reaches the warmer stratosphere, wouldn't it warm the stratosphere and who knows how high it would go? I don't think your calculations can possibly factor in all the data, as no one knows what that data is but God.
It makes no difference "how high it goes" - if it's still gravitationally bound to the Earth, the pressures and temperatures I figured will still apply by any rules of physics I've ever seen. The data is very simple: 1% of the oceans as vapor leads to an atmosphere that's mostly steam.
If you want to bring in the supernatural, be my guest, but be sure to allow for the possibility that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (praise be unto Her Holy Hooves!) is pulling the strings instead of your Sky Guy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Buzsaw, posted 06-04-2003 9:05 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 06-04-2003 11:59 PM Coragyps has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 135 of 247 (42237)
06-06-2003 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by NosyNed
06-05-2003 2:55 AM


BTW, I don't think you have posted the complete details of your calculations including the basic formulae involved and the necessary constants and assumptions. Could you do that? Or point me to the posts.
I can do that! The total mass of the hydrosphere is 1.3 x 10^21 kg, and that of the atmosphere 5.1 x 10^18 kg - both numbers from science sites on the web. (I've seen very slightly different estimates, too.) One percent of that hydrosphere figure is 13 x 10^18 kg of water that we make into vapor - 2.55 times the mass of the present atmosphere. Our current surface atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch, so 2.55 times as much mass supported hydrostatically would add 2.55 x 14.7 = 37.5 psi, or a total of 52.2 psi.
Now in order for water vapor to exert a pressure of 37 psi, it must be warm enough to have at least that much vapor pressure - otherwise it will be liquid (or solid) and fall out of the atmosphere. Looking in any engineering handbook will find you a "steam table" which gives water vapor pressure vs. temperature - 37 psi corresponds to 262 degrees F. Any lower temperature and the vapor will condense.
Anyone want to try for a 5% "vapor canopy?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 06-05-2003 2:55 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2003 11:06 PM Coragyps has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 138 of 247 (42261)
06-06-2003 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Buzsaw
06-06-2003 8:40 PM


The climatic conditions keep it there.
Exactly. You are correct.
A minimum temperature of 262 degrees F will keep 1% of the present volume of the oceans suspended as vapor, either for the pre-Noah guys or for these two anti-rain tribulators.
I just don't think Methuselah and Co. enjoyed the weather all that much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2003 8:40 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2003 10:04 PM Coragyps has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 154 of 247 (42280)
06-06-2003 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Buzsaw
06-06-2003 10:04 PM


Simple as that aye? Over how long a time span did it rise and to what height did it go, creating what density?? Imo, you've gotta factor in that data in order to make a determination of temperature.
It's immaterial as to how long and how high, as long as it can still be considered gravitationally bound to the Earth. If you place one pound of water above one square inch of ground, it will give you one pound per square inch of pressure. It matters not whether it's liquid or vapor if that bottom square inch is holding it up.
If the water is in the atmosphere as a gas, I repeat, it must be at a sufficient temperature to keep it as vapor. If it's there as liquid or solid, it will soon fall. If there's enough water vapor to weigh 14.7 pounds over every square inch, the temperature MUST be at least 212 F. If, as in my "1% of oceans" example, there's enough to weigh 37 lb/sq in, you get 262 F. If it's 70 degrees F, only about 0.36 pounds of water will fit as vapor - any additional condenses and falls.
You may not like these facts, buz, but you likely will find them hard to escape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2003 10:04 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2003 11:33 PM Coragyps has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 157 of 247 (42283)
06-06-2003 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Buzsaw
06-06-2003 11:06 PM


So when evaporation ensues, it has more area for the vapor to expand into,
There might be more volume to expand into, but the surface area of the earth doesn't change. And pressure = weight/area. A one-foot column of liquid water will exert the same pressure as the one-mile column of water vapor you get from evaporating it.
I'm not trying to be arrogant - just to present the simple, unescapeable facts for this situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2003 11:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 173 of 247 (42337)
06-07-2003 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by NosyNed
06-07-2003 5:26 PM


I really don't know how to make it any simpler. Can anyone think of a way?
No, I despair. An old Spanish proverb comes to mind: "God preserve me from a man of only one book!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by NosyNed, posted 06-07-2003 5:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2003 6:54 PM Coragyps has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 206 of 247 (42424)
06-09-2003 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Buzsaw
06-09-2003 3:27 AM


The above link supports my contention that enough heat spread over the earth will keep a canopy of vapor up.
So we agree! That's exactly what I told you, and calculated for you, several pages ago: you can hold up 1% of the water now in the oceans by heating the atmosphere to 262 degrees F. Poached Noah, anyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2003 3:27 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2003 11:06 PM Coragyps has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 216 of 247 (42475)
06-10-2003 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Buzsaw
06-09-2003 11:06 PM


OK, buz. We'll only evaporate 0.1% of the oceans for your future event, and for Noah as well - even if that makes for a piss-poor pitiful little flood - maybe not even "worldwide". That'll only require a minimum temperature of 150 degrees F, at 100% humidity. That's even hotter than downtown Houston in August, and I don't think I would call it "survivable." Houston sure isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2003 11:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Buzsaw, posted 06-11-2003 12:54 PM Coragyps 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