Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 247 (41239)
05-24-2003 6:34 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.
That's ludicrous. Density doesn't work like that. No matter how much water you have, or how little rock, rock never floats. (Except for rocks less dense than water, obviously, like volcanic pumice.)
Anyway, you mean "70% of the earth's surface is water." By volume, the earth is almost totally silicon, except for the iron.
Of course, everything I know about deep planetary geology came from watching The Core...

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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 247 (41395)
05-26-2003 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by IrishRockhound
05-26-2003 11:20 AM


(Incidently I must warn people that The Core is total science fantasy - I have only heard about it, and I have already laughed my ass off several times over the plot.
I can't wait to see it )
My favorite glaring scientific error was the fictitious hull material they created that keeps the crew compartment at a cool room temperature by - get this, thermodynamics fans - by turning heat into energy! (Then they power the ship by soldering wires to the hull, as though any kind of energy will spontaneously turn into electricity.)
Nonetheless, it's fun to think about - travelling to the center of the earth. Not that you'd be able to see anything out the window, but it's a fun flight of fancy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by IrishRockhound, posted 05-26-2003 11:20 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 247 (41896)
06-01-2003 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Buzsaw
06-01-2003 12:36 AM


Re: Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!
Then the higher the heat raises it, the less effect the gravity has on it, so just as our space ships can orbit beyond the power of gravity to drop them, so the water vapor mist will be able to hang out there
There. Does that sound a little more scientific?
You've really never even bothered to find out how this stuff works, have you? (This will probably be off-topic, btw.)
Satellites don't float above the Earth. They're nowhere near far enough out that they're "beyond the power of gravity". What's happening is that they're moving so fast (as fast if not faster than a bullet from a gun) that they shoot over the curve of the Earth before they have a chance to drop to the ground. In a sense, the curved Earth is continually falling away from them as they shoot over the Earth.
They're still fully under the influence of gravity. They're falling down constantly (in "free-fall"). They just never get any closer to the surface of the Earth because the surface is continually falling away from them at the same rate that they're moving towards it.
Anyway, warm, water-bearing air rises because it's less dense than cooler air. Like a hot-air balloon floating in the air. It's the same reason ships float in the sea. But ships only float on the surface - since they're denser than air, they don't float up into the sky.
Warm water vapor-bearing air pockets can only go so high - only as high as their density allows. Gravity won't let them get any higher, and if they accumulate so much vapor that they're denser than the air surrounding them, guess what - it rains.
Honestly I don't see how you can accept these biblical models as scientifically accurate if you choose to remain totally ignorant of science. I'm not even talking about evolution - just basic physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 06-01-2003 12:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 93 of 247 (41902)
06-01-2003 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
06-01-2003 2:27 AM


Now, you say speed is keeping the space ship up there. Does the space ship need fuel to orbit the earth? Do satelites need fuel to orbit the earth? Isn't the speed for these furnished by the rotation of the earth?
Newton's laws of motion - an object in motion tends to remain in motion, discounting friction. No air in space so there's no air friction. Ergo, an object in motion in space stays in motion, just like a car in neutral coasts.
So no, the shuttle (in a stable orbit) doesn't need to use fuel to maintain orbital velocity. Their intitial speed is furnished by the rocket they got up on. But the satellite has to go way faster than the rotation of the Earth in terms of linear distance over time, even if it's matching the Earth in terms of rotation over time. I.e. a satellite that appears to "hover" over one point on Earth (aka geosynchronous) is travelling much faster (in terms of kilometers per second) than an object on the Earth's surface, even if they're making the same rotations per day. It's the same reason that the outside of a record travels faster than the inside, even if they're revolving at the same rate. It's the basics of angular motion.
Couldn't a speck of water, suspended at the same height as the satelite, orbit the earth as does the satelite?
Not unless it was travelling at the same speed as the satellite. If it's traveling slower than the satellite, it'll drop in orbital altitude until it's either at the proper altitude for its velocity or it crashes into the Earth's surface. If it decends low enough to enter the atmosphere the drag will slow it further and nothing except acceleration will keep it from falling back to Earth.
Where'm I goin wrong?
Where you're going wrong is that it's not height that keeps satellites up, it's speed. This is basic, fifth-grade, Newtonian mechanics. From the age you've hinted at in some of your other posts, I can appreciate that the fifth-grade is a little farther back for you than it is for some of us, but if you're going to try to support a point with science, wouldn't it behoove you to relearn some?
As for the climate stuff, I'm inclined to support the position that we simply can't know what climate change is meaningful change, and what change is cyclic. We simply haven't collected data for long enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 06-01-2003 2:27 AM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 123 of 247 (42130)
06-05-2003 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Buzsaw
06-04-2003 11:59 PM


1. You are skating around my statement that your physics calculations are for present conditions and do not factor in all that is different in this hypothesis.
Specifically, what are you referring to? Does your hypothesis posit radically different physical properties of matter, for instance? Different gas laws? What's so different that the extremely general gas calculations that we use everyday, in all kinds of situations and temperatures, don't apply?
We're talking temps that make lots of evaporation and makes mankind miserably hot.
Which means, less water in the air than at boiling temperatures. This proves your point how?
It doesn't make sense that no matter how high it goes, the pressure becomes unbearable, because the further out it goes, the less the gravitational pull on it and the less dense it becomes.
And the colder it gets, which would cause the water to fall back to earth. That's why water vapor on Earth doesn't shoot out into space, for instance.
That appears to be the fatal flaw in your hypothesis. It's the "what goes up must come down" problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 06-04-2003 11:59 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 06-05-2003 2:55 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 128 by Buzsaw, posted 06-05-2003 11:11 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 131 of 247 (42201)
06-06-2003 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Buzsaw
06-05-2003 11:11 PM


As you well know, I didn't refer to changing any laws. I am talking about different climatic conditions on earth which are unprecedented in recorded history.
Then you missed what we're talking about. We're not saying you're wrong because we know everything about all possible states of the Earth's climate.
But we do know almost everything about gasses at different temperatures and pressures, including how they behave at the temperatures you're proposing. The atmosphere is just gas, and it behaves like gas. For it to behave in the ways you're talking about, the properties of gases have to change.
Based on what we know about gases in general, we can pretty much be sure that the Earth's climate will never behave they way you're describing.
Which means little rain producing bigtime drought, much evaporation and an expanding (more expansive) warmer less dense atmosphere and stratosphere.
You misunderstood what I was saying. Not "less moisture than normal" but "less moisture than at boiling temperatures but still way more than normal." I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
It depends. The satelites are still there, aren't they.
They all fall down, eventually. It's called "orbital decay". It's the slight friction of the rarified atmosphere over time that robs them of the velocity the need to stay up.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Buzsaw, posted 06-05-2003 11:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2003 8:40 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 142 of 247 (42267)
06-06-2003 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Buzsaw
06-06-2003 8:40 PM


Unless the supernatural dimension kicks in as the prophecy states
If the supernatural kicks in, all bets are off. If you're just going to resort to the supernatural, why bother trying to support your ideas with science? At that point it's just religion in science clothing.
My point was that if they can stay up any length of time, the canopy can stay up indefinitely, and then it doesn't have to depend on speed to stay up there. The climatic conditions keep it there.
And we've used fifth-grade physics to show why this can't be scientifically true. If you think it'll happen anyway, that's a point of religion, not science.

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 148 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2003 10:15 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 143 of 247 (42269)
06-06-2003 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by NosyNed
06-06-2003 3:07 AM


The request for the complete details of the calculations was directed at crashfrog not you.
Wait, what? Which calculation did I make? I've been pretty careful to avoid actual calculations because my familiarity with physics is highly casual. If I've talked about calculations, I've been referring to the calculations of others, not any that I myself have made. Sorry if I haven't made that clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by NosyNed, posted 06-06-2003 3:07 AM NosyNed has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 145 of 247 (42271)
06-06-2003 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by NosyNed
06-06-2003 9:38 PM


Re: hi fi formulas
Crash did that, Noah is cooked.
Now I understand. Coragyps has been doing the calculating, not me. Much as I'd love to take credit, but...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by NosyNed, posted 06-06-2003 9:38 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by NosyNed, posted 06-06-2003 10:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 152 of 247 (42278)
06-06-2003 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Buzsaw
06-06-2003 10:15 PM


Did you read my opening post of the thread? If so, you knew from post one that that was a factor. This isn't something I've popped on you in desperation. This hypothesis has a prophetic premise, but has much to do with natural laws, the industrial revolution and climate as to how it is implemented.
I wasn't aware that you were proposing supernatural circumvention of natural law until now. If that's the case, why are we talking about science? If your religion compels you to believe in these things, that's fine. They're not scientifically possible. The rest of us believe that means that they won't happen. If you believe something else, that's fine, but you can't support it with science.
Please refresh me. Which post number/numbers refuted which of my statements by grade five physics?
Your statements (I'm paraphrasing, btw) that future conditions would lead to a significant fraction of the Earth's water being suspended in the atmosphere were refuted by the fact that the temperatures needed to suspend that much water would render the Earth uninhabitable by life. Since this is not an outcome predicted by your prophecy, but one that would have to occur, we can assume your prophecy is wrong.
Now, if you circumvent natural law wth supernatural interference, well, like I said, all bets are off. There's no way to predict what will happen then. At that point it's just your religion vs. mine. But if we're going to talk about natural laws, then you have to understand that they conclusively demonstrate that the kind of events you're referring to can't ever happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2003 10:15 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2003 4:51 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 158 of 247 (42289)
06-07-2003 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Buzsaw
06-06-2003 11:06 PM


Coragyps addressed the pressure comments, but I thought I'd jump in here:
Consequently, your formulas designed for present pressures, etc won't work. It the same ole same ole argument we creationists have with you people when we say your dating methods don't factor in the pre-flood conditions we assume, so it's all in how you interpret what is observed , etc.
See, what Creationists don't seem to realize is that a lot of those "assumptions" can be tested. For instance, you can assume a flood all you like, and explain how contradictory data is really just a matter of interpretation - but when we observe floods happening today, they leave evidence that they did. Floods in the past have left evidence of their time and place. We can find evidence of floods when they occur. floods aren't just assumptions, they happen, and when they do they leave unique signatory evidence.
There's no evidence that suggests a global flood happened (that can't be explained by more reasonable models). There's a lot of evidence thst says it didn't (places where there's not nearly enough sediment, animal survival, etc). So, what's more reasonable to believe? That an enormous global flood occured, but occured in such a way as to leave no positive evidence for it's occurance; or that it simply didn't happen?
I can "assume" that the Earth came from a giant egg, and interpret all data through that lens - but without positive evidence of that egg, why is it fruitful to do so?
We all need to understand more where each is coming from. Then we can understand more why we interpret as we do, what is observed.
Actually I think I understand very well where YEC's are coming from. They're coming from a place that demands that all physical evidence be either bent to support a literal reading of the bible or rejected entirely. That's not science, that's superstition and arrogance.

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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 159 of 247 (42290)
06-07-2003 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Buzsaw
06-06-2003 11:33 PM


I assuming you're calculations are not factoring in a more expansive higher atmosphere. Are you denying that a hotter climate will have that effect?
The size of the atmosphere doesn't matter. The pressure doesn't change with size. I think that's what he's talking about. That's why it's not in the calculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2003 11:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 178 of 247 (42347)
06-07-2003 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Buzsaw
06-07-2003 4:51 PM


You should've been aware that I wouldn't factor in the supernatural in my opening and simply ignore it thereafter to respond to critics.
Wait, now I don't understand. Are you resorting to supernatural circumvention of natural law in your model, or aren't you? To be fair, "resorting" is perhaps the word you object to. I will substitute "involving" to be more fair. Are you involving supernatural circumvention of natural law in your model, or not? First you said you were, and now it looks like you're implying you aren't. I'd honestly like a plain statement about this.
We are talking about science, because my hypothesis involves much of science and physics, such as evaporation, cause and effects, gravity, pressures and so forth.
Sure, those are science. But if you circumvent them with supernatural influence then we're not talking about science. We're talking about something else. Science doesn't play well with religion because science makes predictions on what can and can't happen based on universal natural laws. If those laws cease to be universal - some supernatural entity causes them not to apply to such and such a situation - then that situation is removed from the purview of science. Now, I'm of the opinion that the supernatural simply doesn't exist, so this isn't something I really worry about. But you have a real problem when you try and combine science and the supernatural, because by definition they don't mix.
My faith is the same in my religion as my faith in the bridges on the highways I cross over.
Faith is different than trust. You trust bridges, you don't have faith in them. You don't have faith in them because the bridge is avaliable for analysis, testing, inquiry. Can the same be said of your god? I doubt it. Lord knows (if he exists) that I've tried.
Maybe your problem is that that you don't want to be held accountable to a higher power.
Actually, it's more that I don't like the idea of being held accountable to somebody else's nonexistent higher power. I'm all about being held accountable to some greater power, so long as I know that power is itself held accountable too. This is why I submit to the laws of a just government, for instance.
You people simply choose to ignore documented supernatural phenomena such as fulfilled prophecy.
Prophecy if natural, non-supernatural events is not itself supernatural. For instance, it could be after-the-fact redaction, self-fulfilling prophecy, or even a lucky guess - none of which are supernatural.
Now, if there was a well-known prophecy of an impossible event, and then that event occured supernaturally, that would get my attention. That would be impossible to fake assuming the event in question was truly supernatural. Honestly if that happened I'd believe in your prophets and god. The resurrection of Jesus doesn't count, however (if that's what you were thinking), because there's no way to really know that happened.
You choose to either ignore or try to debunk such things as Carl Baughs man made artifacts in coal, etc. The supernatural dimension in the universe is just like any other data. If it is obervable and can be documented to exist it is unscientific to ignore it's existence as you have chosen to do.
There's no evidence of supernatural stuff. There's no evidence for god, there's no evidence for ghosts, there's no evidence for any of that. Next!
I'm not familiar with any coal-borne artifacts. I'm certainly not familiar with any that have been truly substantiated as non-fraudulent.
because the ratio of square inches on the surface of the earth to the square inches of the atmosphere diminishes the higher, less dense and greater the expanse of the atmosphere becomes.
Like we said, though, that doesn't change the pressure of the atmosphere. Pressure is not related to density or volume - it's weight over area (hence, psi - pounds per square inch). No matter how much the atmosphere expands, it still weighs the same and still covers the same amount of the Earth's surface (all of it). Hence the atmospheric psi is 14.7, no matter how large it expands or how hot it gets.
Anyway, atmosphere isn't measured in square inches, it's measured in cubic inches. Such a mistake suggests you don't understand the difference between area and volume.
you know the climate is going to change for the better eventually and you know what existed before the flood
But you don't know those things. Sure, the bible may say them, but the bible is wrong.
One thing that's been bothering me the most - you've described the pre-flood envrionment as being really good for life - in fact, you've described it as being like a greenhouse, I believe - all hot and balmy and humid. There are areas like this on Earth, already - tropical areas. Now, despite being the most like your perfect pre-flood environment, these areas of the Earth are known for the most diseases, the most parasites, and the shortest lifespans for human beings. Why would that be? Could it be that hot, humid conditions aren't the best for human habitation?
In fact you have far more data to go on than say, the silly snowball earth hypothesis.
I know nothing about this hypothesis. I won't defend it. As far as I see it's irelevant to our discussion; the merits (or lack thereof) of your model.
Sorry this post is so long; you gave me much to reply to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2003 4:51 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2003 2:51 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 184 of 247 (42375)
06-08-2003 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Buzsaw
06-08-2003 11:07 PM


has not my scientific ideology produced enough of a challenge to you all's scientific ideology to make this thread the hottest the busiest going concern in town?
Actually, to be honest (and I hope you can handle blatant honesty) we enjoy pointing out your ignorance. It makes us feel like know-it-alls.
It's common sense that if you have global warming, you're going to have hotter temperatures, more evaporation and less cooling so as to effect condensation.
Actually what your sources showed was that local temperatures led to local drought - and we countered with areas experiencing record rainfall as a result.
Local heat and local drought are something very different than global heat and global drought.
You folks refuse to factor in that hotter temps are going to raise the atmosphere higher, causing a chain reaction of the vapor rising higher into a warmer higher atmosphere, reducing the pull of gravity on the risen vapor, reducing the weight of the vapor on each square inch of earth's surface to finally reduce the likelihood of the vapor to condense and fall as rain. Just like the space ship. The higher it goes, the less it takes to keep it up there. The only difference is that the heat raises the vapor up and the fueled engines raise the ship.
We've explained over and over why this is wrong. I don't see how you could have missed it, except by ignoring arguments that you don't know how to counter. In particular I refer you to a number of posts by me that explained that it's not height that keeps the spaceship up, it's speed. If the ship stopped moving it would immediately plummet to the earth like a stone.
Plus don't forget that in my hypothesis, two miracle effecting men cause the rain not to fall, so if you want to discuss my hypothesis as I laid it out on day one, you've gotta factor that in.
Factor in the supernatural? The definition of the supernatural is that it can't be factored into scientific reasoning. It transcends science. (If it exists.) It can't be factored into calculations.
In Amos 9:13 we read that the "ploughman will overtake the reaper."
By way of illustrating the looseness of prophecy, when I first read this I assumed it was about population growth (represented by the ploughman - the farmer - growth, life, birth, etc) overtaking death (the reaper, obviously), leading to overpopulation.
Maybe God only wants those who search to find.
Maybe he wants you to use your god-given intellect instead of taking the 2000-year-old words of some dusty, all-too-human writers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2003 11:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2003 1:39 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 188 of 247 (42381)
06-09-2003 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Buzsaw
06-09-2003 12:22 AM


Re: proven or not?
Can you document modifications which are significant enough to factualize the theory of evolution to the degree that the earth's revolution around the sun is factual?
That's a pretty loaded question. A dishonest person could simply respond "that's not significant enough" to anything Schraf could produce. Perhaps you could make that question a litle more specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2003 12:22 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2003 12:45 AM crashfrog 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