Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!

quote:

---

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.

---

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. It's only going to be steam if it boils and we're not talking about boiling temperatures. We're talking temps that make lots of evaporation and makes mankind miserably hot.
2. 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.

Btw, there's little semblance of my hypotheses and "Snowball Earth." No way is this earth going to freeze up. It just ainta gona happen and there's no trend towards that.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-04-2003]

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? Which means, less water in the air than at boiling temperatures. This proves your point how? 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.

LOL, no, the fatal flaw is that Buz doesn't understand any of the physics at all. He's making things up out of pure ignorance. He has no idea how badly wrong he is.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.

A reply to messages #100, 101, and 103 would be much appreciated.Thanks in advance!

The dialogue with Buzsaw reminds me of this old joke: --Percy

lol ------------------

quote:

---

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?

---

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.

quote:

---

Which means, less water in the air than at boiling temperatures. This proves your point how?

---

Which means little rain producing bigtime drought, much evaporation and an expanding (more expansive) warmer less dense atmosphere and stratosphere.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not necessarily, because the present stratosphere is warmer than the present atmosphere. Yes, the higher you get in the lower atmaosphere, the colder, but with a hotter earth the overall temperature of the whole shebang is going to be warmer than at present. This is what you're not calculating into the picture.{quote
That appears to be the fatal flaw in your hypothesis. It's the "what goes up must come down" problem.[/quote]It depends. The satelites are still there, aren't they. Nobody's observed what is prophesied have they? So how do they/you know how it's all going to work out and what changes are going to factor in?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-05-2003]

quote:

---

With the recent observation allowed by the Hubble space telescope that the expansion of the universe is actually increasing, rather than decreasing, physicists are now realizing that we know even less about gravity than the little we thought we knew.

---

And you people are soooo critical of creationists because you think we know so little. Maybe you all are to be proven wrong on a whole lota other stuff you claim to be so down pat on. You're over critical of my point. We do know gravity exists and that it makes things fall toward earth. That's all we need to know for the purposes of this thread. Start another thread on gravity if you want to get technical about that subject.

quote:

---

Now, you say that Atomic theory is based upon observations, but nobody had ever directly observed an electron or an atom. They have all been inferred by experiment. On the other hand, we can and do directly observe evolution all the time.

---

Again, the topic of this thread is not about atoms and such. I'm simply too busy to deal with these tangents.

quote:

---

Lastly, you use the word "proven". There is no such thing as "proven" in science, at least not "proven" to such an extent that the concept becomes immune to new evidence.

---

That's nonsense, imo. It's a proven fact that hot air goes up under given conditions and cold air goes down under given conditions. Evolutionists don't like to admit there's proven things, because they teach so much that isn't that they want us all to believe nothing's proven.Schrafinator, There's just too much in your long post to deal with which is really not in topic for this thread. This's not about proving or disproving the flood and other things you've dealt with as it is about the future climate and conditions.

quote:

---

LOL, no, the fatal flaw is that Buz doesn't understand any of the physics at all. He's making things up out of pure ignorance. He has no idea how badly wrong he is.

---

That's a low blow and a personal insult. Why don't you stick to cut and past specifics and prove me wrong. The highest diploma I have is high school, so don't expect eloquent formulas of physics from me, but a lot of what I've posted is accurate physics and little that I have posted has been proven to be contrary to the laws of physics.

quote:

---

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 have responded to most of the critiques of my posts and so far seen little evidence that I've been proven to be non-physicesque (the new buzz word) . If you have a problem with a specific statement, bring it up and we'll deal with it.

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. 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. 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]

Buz
The request for the complete details of the calculations was directed at crashfrog not you. It is not an insult to call someone ignorant of something. It is not the same as stupid. No one knows everything about everything so we are all ignorant to some extent.In fact, it looks like you agree here "so don't expect eloquent formulas of physics from me". However, what you have posted isn't accurate physics.How likely is it that what you learned in high school will have taught you all you need to know about this area? Not likely at all is the answer. Your posts prove this and saying so it isn't a "low blow". You should take it as a warning that you need to be less arrogant and listen to what you're being told.

quote:

---

Howdy dudy n wowdy dowdy!! Talk about a problematic imaginary dream up. At least my story has a supernatural mind capable of making it happen. The folks that dream up this stuff and the ones who believe it are the ones of wild faith and imagination. Imagine, it's all froze up, it thaws it's self out, cooks itself up n out pops all this intricate, complex, orderly, beautiful amazing life. Smother the story in eons of time and lualla, you got a following. Aaaaaamazing!!

---

Oh please - did you actually read the article at all? Did you notice that the scientists built up the hypothesis using EVIDENCE? They did not simply think of some daft idea, then go looking for something to back it up - like so many creationists. Wild faith is only required where there is no scientific evidence of any kind to back up a theory - so if they only evidence you have for your theory is the "prophesies" of the Bible, it cannot withstand any kind of rational debate and your credibility is almost nil.Please bear in mind that Snowball Earth is still only a hypothesis. It is certainly not set in stone, and it has been heavily debated since it was first proposed. Can you even admit that your idea is only a hypothesis too, as it rests on such feeble evidence? But no, that would be impossible - because that would leave it open to debate, and introduce the idea that the Bible could be wrong.The Rock Hound

Some Creationists *do* know very little science, and to them almost any idea seems possible. Some Creationists know much science, and so in order to hold their views they must ignore much evidence, and in the case of YECs they must ignore much of modern science. The problem for Creationists is to develop a theory that explains rather than ignores the currently available evidence. Science is tentative (haven't we been over this?). Today's views may one day be found to be incomplete, naive, even wrong, but they're the ones best supported by currently available evidence, a claim Creationism cannot make.Your scenarios have two very significant problems:

• They violate known scientific principles.
  ​
• They possess no supporting evidence.

It is not possible that the 4.56 billion year history of the earth uncovered by modern science and the 6000 year history of YEC Creationism could have created identical worlds. The processes are too dramatically different. You should be able to easily identify evidence that, once found, would strongly support the YEC view. That that evidence is still lacking after a couple centuries of looking should tell you something.You're under no obligation to accept the explanations and information offered to you, but you should at least weigh them against your own lack of evidence.--Percy

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?"