About that Boat - Noah's Ark

quote:

---

Pouring how much?

---

Hmmm... several times the current volume of the ocean. Surely you know that?

quote:

---

You seem to be under the impression that the Biblical Flood was caused by rain alone.

---

Really? In my post, I stated 'from whatever source.' You quoted the passage, so where did you get this idea?It does not matter what the source of the water was. That much water coming onto the surface in such a short period of time would create hurricane-like conditions. Temperature and pressure differentials would whip things into a frenzy. This on top of the more typical damge caused by the massive flash flooding. Have you ever witnessed a flash flood? These things topple concrete and steel structures.

quote:

---

The Bible mentions two other ingredients involved in causing the Flood: 1. The break up of the fountains of the great deep, and 2. The opening of the windows of heaven. Neither one of them need have anything to do with rain.

---

You are loosing credibility.1) ... a reference to an archaic cosmology, probably derived from the existence of water tables-- waters under the earth. I suppose we can call them springs. Water flowing rapidly out of a spring will cause just as much damage as rain. It isn't the falling rain that does the damage. The damage is done by water's piling up on the ground, flowing towards the low-points, causing mud-slides, and etc.2) What in the hell would you call water falling from the sky if not rain? Not to mention that God specifically threatens to make it rain-- Genesis 7:4.

quote:

---

I am not saying that there was no wind at all, but the Bible says that the big winds did not start until after the Ark was already ashore. That evidence alone should tell you that what ever the Flood was, it wasn't just another rain storm, or hurricane.

---

It tells me that the ancient Isrealites had a terrible understanding of meteorology.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I never said that there was no wind.
I never said that the seas were flat.

---

You certainly implied as much. Remember, you brought this up to counter that the ark met with rough seas.

quote:

---

I mearly pointed out that high winds did not begin until after the Ark has already landed.

---

The Hebrew is 'ruach.' The word has a great many connotations most of which do not concern wind per se but spirit. It is the same word used in Genesis 1:2. "And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters." Claiming this means 'high winds' is stretching it a bit. It would be more accurate, but less poetic, the translate it as "God's magic."

quote:

---

The breakup of the "fountains of the great deep" may be a reference to somekind of geologic disturbance that disrupts the status quo.

---

Or to the common knowledge that there is water under their feet if they dig a little.

quote:

---

The 'Windows of heaven' may be a reference to cosmic influence of some sort.

---

Come on! You are adding so much interpretation to the Bible I can hardly see the Bible any longer. The event occurs as a result of God's threatening to make it rain. Put the two together. That, and the windows idea is common to other mythologies of the time and place. It was believed that there were windows in the sky that keep water from falling down.

quote:

---

It is possible that the flooding may have been more the result of tsumai run up rather than rain.

---

And THIS would not be as damaging as a hurricane???? Bud, you've just said "It wasn't something rough like a hurricane, but rather something gentle like a TSUNAMI." Are you serious?

quote:

---

Who knows, that may have occurred.

---

It would have occurred. You'd have swells hundreds of feet tall-- just a guess.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Lets see... Right angles. That would be sideways. In other words, this type of load would be caused by waves smashing into the side of the boat. The only calculations you made, that I can tell, are of the boat's lengthwise bowing-- ie. bow to stern hogging.Also, I notice that the author is discussing beams, not the whole ship.

quote:

---

I don't indent to say much more about shear failure because bending moments rightfully demand the most attention in ship desin.

---

The author wouldn't be talking about steel would he? Steel has an enormous shear strength compared to wood. Shear may well be a minor problem with steel hulls. This does not mean it is minor with wooden hulls. Again, your are failing to consider the differences in materials.What happens when you bend a nail? It bends.What happens when you bend a toothpick? It breaks.See the difference?

quote:

---

I also calculated the shear forces for a box-girder design Ark and as you remember they are quite small.

---

As I remember you've ignored too many variables for any of your calculations to be worth considering.

quote:

---

I have focused most on the bending moments because those are the largest stresses any ship will encounter.

---

Maybe you need a primer on stress. Escorts Guide | London Escorts Guide | Cheap Escorts London------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I am not the only one to think so.

---

... you may be the only one since 1917.

quote:

---

So. This experienced naval architect and engineer shows that it is possible to design a wooden ship the same size as a steel ship and be able to successfully withstand the stresses.

---

... in 1917. I haven't seen any proof of his theories.

quote:

---

Economics evidently was not a problem for Noah, because he built one.

---

Lol.... so did Utnapishtim.Realistically, economics would have been a big problem for Noah. He and his sons couldn't have done it alone, and employees need pay. Even slaves need food. Noah was a nomadic herder. They are not known for accumulating wealth.

quote:

---

And somehow he solved the jointing problem, perhaps by using full length structural members.

---

Somehow? Not much of an argument. In fact, it isn't even admissable. The issue is whether or not the ark is possible. By claiming he must have solved the problem because he built the ark, is assuming that he built the ark and it worked. The argument is circular.By the way, where are those really big trees?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Indeed...------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Besides, you creationists...

---

Are you absolutely sure you know my allegiances?My comments about the falling rain not causing the damage was a response to the implication that the flood wasn't violent because not all of the water fell from the sky. Mine was a simple observation. Rainfall doesn't smash houses. One can stand in the heaviest downpours and suffer no harm, but that water accumulating on the ground and rushing downhill will cause damage. Thus, claiming the flood wasn't rough because it isn't all rain, doesn't work. The damage done by floods isn't the falling rain per se, but the collected water moving around on the ground. Of course, you are right. All that energy would add up to a lot, but I wasn't interested in getting that complicated. Several people have noted that all of this activity would whip up the mother of all hurricanes though.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Gee, that's a tough call.

---

Still, I haven't seen any proof of his theories. And, in fact, neither have you. What you've got here is basically an appeal to authority. No dice. By the way, as a carpenter, I have had more than one qualified engineer present me with diagrams of objects that are physically impossible to build in a three dimensional universe. And I have seen a lot more things on diagrams that are dead obviously moronic to anyone who actually has to build the damn thing. Guess what? New buildings and bridges fail. Those buildings and bridges were designed by qualified engineers and the numbers all worked out just fine. But they failed anyway. hmmm..... So, engineers aren't gods and I have little confidence in diagrams that have not been put to a real world test.

quote:

---

Just down the road from here is Petrified Forest N.P..

---

Big deal. I grew up around trees just as large. They aren't large enough to provide 450' timber. You point to a tree that starts at 4' and tapers to 2.5 over 120'. That is a 1.5' drop over its length. This means that at 240' the tree would be 1' thick and at 360 it would be -.5. We are still 90' short of 450'. How does this support your point? The six foot stump? It would be 4.5 at 120', three feet at 240', and foot and a half at 360'. A foot and a half is the one-cubit mark and, if I remember right, that is the width of your timber. Still 90' shy. At 480' we'd be at zero, so at 450 all you have is a twig. And that is assuming a constant taper all the way-- big assumption. Not a lot of trees follow that pattern.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

This statement, within context of diagrams in the text which I was not able to reproduce here, notes that the loading force is vertical and the stresses are normal to the loading force and lengthwise in the beam, not crosswise to the beam.

---

Then the author can't write, or you are confused. I'd bet on the latter. Tell me, the load is vertical. Right angles to vertical would be what? Lengthwise or crosswise. Now, imagine a 2x4 set on its edge and loaded at the middle. Is it stronger if you push on the ends and toward the center, or if you push sideways at the middle? Answer: It is strongest when you push at the ends and very weak when you push sideways at the middle. So, how in the hell is sideways not the weak direction. Lumber works this way, trusses work this way, I-beams work this way.

quote:

---

These are the typical compression/tension stresses that a loaded beam experiences.

---

It seems that you are talking about dead loads in a stable environment, not live loads in the equivalent of an earthquake. Why you think this is an adequate analysis is beyond me.

quote:

---

Again, the full context is a discussion of the whole ship as a beam.

---

You've got to scan those diagrams.

quote:

---

You cannot just take the material into consideration, you must also take into consideration its dimensions.

---

Well, no kidding!!! But scaling up does not alter the inherent properties of the material.

quote:

---

Maybe I just need to listen to those who know what they are talking about...

---

That would be a good idea, but you don't seem to be willing to do so.Here are some more things you've not considered. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/DANotes/buckling/intro/intro.html------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I've never met a person who believed in the flood who wasn't a creationist before - I'd be quite interested in knowing if you're a special exception

---

You REALLY should read some of my posts.

quote:

---

I seriously doubt you've seen, say, a 14 ft/hr rain (assuming 3 miles of rain needing to fall in 30 days).

---

If we are going to go with the Biblical account, we don't actually know how much rain fell. The Bible makes the weird statement that water rose from beneath the Earth as well. The objection was made-- not by me but by someone who really is a creationist-- that this water from the deep would negate the damage caused by the flood. Thus, my reply that with normal rainfall, the damage is not done by the falling rain but by the movements of water on the ground. Thus, water from any source would be damaging. This does not challenge any of your considerations and calculations, which I find interesting. I hadn't before thought of the sheer force of the falling water. However, it doesn't matter. Within the context of the discussion we can't assume that all of the water fell as rain. We can't really assume any figure for the rain or for the springs of water from the earth. All we know is that total volume must cover the Earth.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

John, do you realize how unrealistic it is to ask a newcomer to read through the entire archives as a prerequisite to discuss things with you?

---

I did not ask that. I wouldn't expect it. However, you missed the mark by so far, it leaves me a bit speechless. I can't imagine how anyone could take me for a creationists. I'm not angry about it. It is much to bizarre to make me angry.

quote:

---

Of course, in the extreme case, a creationist could argue that all of the water came from below - but why even bother talking about the rain from above at all if it is so imbalanced?

---

The case to which I was responding was dangerously close to what you describe, or seems so to me. So I cut to the chase and went with "even if the water started on the ground..."------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com