Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   About that Boat - Noah's Ark
John
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 296 (54167)
09-06-2003 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by allenroyboy
09-06-2003 3:03 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by allenroyboy, posted 09-06-2003 3:03 AM allenroyboy has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 296 (54168)
09-06-2003 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by allenroyboy
09-06-2003 4:25 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by allenroyboy, posted 09-06-2003 4:25 AM allenroyboy has not replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 296 (54199)
09-06-2003 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by allenroyboy
09-06-2003 2:31 AM


Re: first calculations
Allen, Have you ever taken a boatbuilding course. Have you ever been a part of a crew building any type of wooden vessel? Have you ever actually built anthing in wood by your own hands? Or are you just parroting information as it suits your needs? Do you even truely understand what you're regurgitating?
For almost 20 years I've sailed, built and worked on design teams for vessels of many sizes, wood, glass and steel.(not counting my time on 378' CG cutters.) I'm not sure where you are coming from so I thought I'd let you know where I'm coming from.
John has many points you are ignoring. Try reading and understanding what people who know are trying to tell you.
Bonobo out.
------------------
Reunite Gondwana!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by allenroyboy, posted 09-06-2003 2:31 AM allenroyboy has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 124 of 296 (54316)
09-07-2003 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by John
09-05-2003 7:24 PM


Re: Gravitational potential energy
quote:
Are you absolutely sure you know my allegiances?
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
quote:
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.
I wasn't arguing about the damage of a raindrop. I'm looking at the entire energy balance of the entire system, and pointing out that the energy has to go somewhere.
I seriously doubt you've seen, say, a 14 ft/hr rain (assuming 3 miles of rain needing to fall in 30 days). That's about an inch every 20 seconds. That's not a storm, it's a waterfall. It's a basic part of physics: if 1 kg falls 1 m at 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration (Earth), it gains 9.8 joules of energy. If 1kg of water falls 2,000 meters, it's gaining almost 20kJ of energy.
Lets put this into perspective here: every square meter of area on the planet, about every 25 minutes would have as much energy falling on it as a liter of gasoline contains (picture burning a new liter of gasoline on that plot every 25 minutes). A gun that is considered a "lethal weapon" to the US military delivers 122 joules of energy to their target. A square meter would receive that 191 times per second. Got a 100 watt light bulb in your room? Try 233 of them lit up constantly on every square meter. Every area that is 300m x 300m is constantly releasing the energy of Hoover Dam. We're talking about a huge amount of energy being released *everywhere*, for 30 days straight. (we're ignoring for now the fact that energy gets concentrated due to many factors).
Where is this energy going? Every square meter would receive a total of 6 Gj during the course of the rainfall. If it were going to heat immediately, clearly it wouldn't be raining - the water would vaporize If it were changing to heat, where it impacts a "surface" (be it water or land) would receive most of the heat. With even a fraction of this energy, even with much of the energy being somehow transferred to the water surface/land, it would be a steam cooker on the surface. The only way the ark would stand a chance is if the energy of the water remained in kinetic energy, and its energy was kept as such until God took the water way (where, again? To nowhere?), or it very slowly leaked off, or was used up in some other way (?).
So, how is God supposedly remedying this situation? Magically drawing heat away from the atmosphere? Or magically drawing kinetic energy away from the water around the boat, while having it carve out canyons and deposit mountains beneath? Leaving this little bubble of "miracle" floating around? Why bother to create a mockery of physics like that in the first place just to kill things?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by John, posted 09-05-2003 7:24 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Brian, posted 09-07-2003 5:55 AM Rei has not replied
 Message 127 by John, posted 09-07-2003 10:45 AM Rei has replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 125 of 296 (54317)
09-07-2003 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Bonobojones
09-05-2003 9:19 PM


Re: first calculations
I would add to that, that they have to build it out of available technology and materials. I.e., the boat would need to be sealed with pitch, planks would have to be cut by hand, any iron (let's say, nails) used in it would have to be forged, etc.
I would be impressed if they could even manage to cut all of the wood before it rotted away Even professional shipbuilding operations (up until the advent of large metal craft) - employing hundreds of workers - had trouble getting large ships finished before the wood began to rot away. Another miracle from God?
As to the other poster's remark about a keel that "rolls" in the water, have you *ever* tried stressing a piece of water-logged wood over a long period of time? Even fairly dry wood in short periods of time, when given large amounts of stress like you're describing, will warp (I'm being nice and assuming that it doesn't shatter outright). What do you think happens which a heavily loaded, pitch-sealed ship has its keel warp? What sort of pumping system do you think that Noah had on board? (of course, just to rid the boat of this immense rain and wave action - especially since the boat is supposed to be cooled by circulating air from the outside wind - would challenge even modern pumping systems)
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Bonobojones, posted 09-05-2003 9:19 PM Bonobojones has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 126 of 296 (54318)
09-07-2003 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Rei
09-07-2003 5:17 AM


Re: Gravitational potential energy
Hi Rei,
Just a quick word, I think it would be a good idea to read some of John's posts from various threads to get a true reflection of his stance. I think you have misunderstood John's position but I will let him explain, I'm off to hide in a nuclear shelter! LOL
Best Wishes.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Rei, posted 09-07-2003 5:17 AM Rei has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 296 (54340)
09-07-2003 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Rei
09-07-2003 5:17 AM


Re: Gravitational potential energy
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Rei, posted 09-07-2003 5:17 AM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by zephyr, posted 09-07-2003 12:20 PM John has not replied
 Message 129 by Rei, posted 09-07-2003 6:55 PM John has replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 128 of 296 (54343)
09-07-2003 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by John
09-07-2003 10:45 AM


Re: Gravitational potential energy
quote:
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.
Let us also keep in mind that YEC tends to claim the flood was so violent as to deposit the entire geologic column as observed today. The Grand Canyon, for example, is supposedly the result of runoff from the flood. Now we have someone whose ideas rely on the same flood claiming that it wasn't turbulent. Which way is it: was the flood gentle enough for the ark to survive, or violent enough to erode and re-deposit thousands of feet of strata?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by John, posted 09-07-2003 10:45 AM John has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 129 of 296 (54384)
09-07-2003 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by John
09-07-2003 10:45 AM


Re: Gravitational potential energy
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? My apologies if I misassumed from what I have read thusfar, but I don't have the time to go back and research every poster's history before I reply to them.
quote:
f 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.
If you'll notice, I was kind and assumed only 3 miles of water fell from rain. Mt. Everest, for example, is 5.6 miles above sea level, which is in turn 6.8 miles above Challenger Deep. 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? In the extreme case, a creationist could argue that the world was already a "waterworld", with only a tiny bit of land before the flood, and then God just removed all of the water that was intially there afterwards - but I haven't seen any creationist advocate anything *that* extreme.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by John, posted 09-07-2003 10:45 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by John, posted 09-07-2003 8:30 PM Rei has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 296 (54392)
09-07-2003 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Rei
09-07-2003 6:55 PM


Re: Gravitational potential energy
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Rei, posted 09-07-2003 6:55 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Rei, posted 09-08-2003 2:16 AM John has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 131 of 296 (54422)
09-08-2003 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by John
09-07-2003 8:30 PM


Re: Gravitational potential energy
Looking back through the history, I figured out what happened. I had initially replied to the wrong post My apologies.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by John, posted 09-07-2003 8:30 PM John has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 132 of 296 (72421)
12-11-2003 11:09 PM


*bump*
for those interested

kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 296 (89454)
02-29-2004 7:31 PM


NAVAL ARCHITECTS/MARINE ENGINEERS
I wanted to let everyone know that a firm which specializes in naval architecture/marine engineering looked at the Noah boat issue and thought the Lord was a good designer. Here is the webpage that goes into greater detail:
GoDaddy Security - Access Denied
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Coragyps, posted 02-29-2004 10:01 PM kendemyer has not replied

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


Message 134 of 296 (89477)
02-29-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by kendemyer
02-29-2004 7:31 PM


Re: NAVAL ARCHITECTS/MARINE ENGINEERS
Bonobojones, a poster on this very thread, would disagree. And he has the calculations to back his opinion up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by kendemyer, posted 02-29-2004 7:31 PM kendemyer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Bonobojones, posted 04-29-2004 9:33 PM Coragyps has not replied

kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 296 (89487)
02-29-2004 11:44 PM


Can I get a witness? Yes, and more than one!
To ALL:
Can I get a witness? Yes, and more than one!
re: accounts of ark sitings throughout history
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~arktracker/ark/Sightings.html
To: Coragyps:
I have done my due diligence regarding many Bible matters not concerning nautical engineering and the ark, and it is a firm foundation. I feel confident in going with the nautical arhitect/marine engineering company I cited.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-01-2004 5:45 PM kendemyer 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