|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: That boat don't float | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member (Idle past 1642 days)  Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 941 days)  Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pandion Member (Idle past 2537 days)  Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pandion Member (Idle past 2537 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
evolutionfacts Junior Member (Idle past 2053 days) Posts: 12 From: Long Beach, CA Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Portillo Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member  Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Portillo Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 21384 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 941 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 941 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi pandion,
Thanks for marking the sections you changed ... oh wait, you didn't .... Sorry, but I am not the one making stuff up, rather I am pointing out why your assumptions are tenuous at best, if not totally unfounded.
But, of course, all you have posted is unsupported assertion. Your time is better spent elsewhere. ... Amusingly, I got bored with the creationists around here at present, so I thought I would return to this issue to tackle an equally bad argument.
... Possibly a course in science at a college near you. Curiously, I already have. We've discussed this before. It appears you either have a short memory or do not read for comprehension. Try again.
You're making that up. No, I actually CALCULATED it from the available information using the engineering formulas for beam strength against moment stresses. We can go into this in more detail if you like and make better approximations of the Wyoming while exposing more of the lack of information on the purported ark to make similar approximations. I didn't do that for the simple reason that we don't have sufficient information on the purported ark to do a similar analysis AND because these rough calculations are sufficient to show that the ark could have been stronger than the Wyoming. More refined calculations would likely only make this worse. IF the calculations had resulted in a weaker ark THEN you might have had an argument. They don't ... so YOU don't. Because a weaker ship had certain structural problems does not mean that a stronger vessel would. Because one specific design had certain structural problems does not mean that a different design would. Because one specific design foundered under a certain set of conditions does not mean that those conditions would apply to the purported ark. Even at rest the rigging still loads the hull with tension in the stays and compression in the masts -- 6 in the case of the Wyoming. When the vessel was under sail she leaked, hogged and snaked, and this is when the vessel was under load from the rigging. In gale force winds, even with no sails set, there would be significant loading of the rigging being transmitted to the hull. These loads are not static, and the pulsing of loads causes more working of the hull than steady loads would. You have significant additional loads that just do not apply to the ark. You have an apples and oranges comparison.
Sorry, that's not the problem. Both the Wyoming and the Great Republic broke up while at anchor in the lee of an island. In other words, they weren't flying any sail. Amusingly, the documented facts concerning the Wyoming say otherwise: Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia
quote: (color for emphasis) Firstly, foundering does not mean the vessel broke up. The actual cause is unknown, and she may have run into a sandbar or broached. It does not appear that the wreck has been found, so we may never know. Secondly, the conditions encountered by the Wyoming at that time may not apply to the purported ark, the area involved is shallow and hazardous, much more dangerous than in the open ocean. For additional evidence we see that the Wyoming lasted 14+ years crossing the ocean, thus showing that the structure was not insufficient for those 14+ years of voyages. Thirdly, the location where the Wyoming appears to have foundered was not the lee of an island: http://www.vsa.cape.com/~harharb/lightships.html
quote: (color for emphasis) See Monomoy Beach (google maps) So the location where the Wyoming was believed to have foundered is ~3.5 miles offshore and to the east side of the exposed beach, which puts her in open waters exposed to a northeaster\gale, and NOT the lee of an island. In addition, as this is not technically in Nantucket Sound, she must also have weighed anchor (she wouldn't drift towing her anchor in this direction), and she likely had storm sails set for steerage. The lightships were there because of numerous sandbars and shifting shoals. There are many shipwrecks in the area, so the fact that the Wyoming foundered here is not necessarily due to her design. You just can't assume that because the Wyoming foundered in that location, that the ark -- a different design AND exposed to different conditions -- would. Especially since the Cora F. Cressy, a 273' five masted schooner by the same builders, survived the same storm by going to sea. It survived the same gale, so you need to account for this: you haven't. Haze Gray & Underway Photo Feature: Maine's Last Big Schooners
quote: (color for emphasis) So a second vessel foundered in the same gale, yet it did not have the structural problems of the Wyoming? Grounded on an exposed beach in Maine the hull remained intact for several decades (I saw it in late 1980's). The dimensions for the Cressy are listed in Lloyds: 273' length (deck) 43.4' beam, 27.9' depth.
quote: Note that this picture was taken in 1917, that the vessel was launched in December 1909, and foundered in March 1924 -- surviving 14+ years afloat, much longer than the ark needed to remain afloat, and she crossed the ocean several times. It would appear that the foundering was caused by the specific location and specific encountered conditions, not necessarily to the design of the vessel, as this is an area notorious for shipwrecks. You are conflating this particular shipwreck with the design of the vessel when that does not necessarily mean that the vessel was not safe for open ocean voyages. If the design was inadequate for ocean voyages then logically it would have broken up on one of the first of the many voyages it completed. This did not happen. Just to ram this home a little more, I will revisit the calculations and add the Cora F. Cressy to the mix: Bending stress of a beam = M/S (psf)Where M = moment =wL^2/8 (lb-ft) ∝ {L^2} w = load per foot of the beam, and L = length of the beam, and Sv = vertical section modulus = BD^2/6 (ft^3) ∝ {{BD^2} and Sh = horizontal section modulus = DB^2/6 (ft^3) ∝ {{DB^2} B = breadth of the beam, and D = depth of the beam, Thus vertical stress ∝ {L^2}/{BD^2}And horizontal stress ∝ {L^2}/{DB^2}
Now extrapolations are notoriously questionable, especially when conditions apply to two examples and not the third (the rigging loads, for example), however, in addition to these stress calculations we can also extrapolate linearly what they would be for a schooner with rigging based on Wyoming, Cressy and length: {L(Wyoming)-L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)-L(Wyoming)} = 2.14{Sv(Cressy)-Sv(Wyoming)}*{L(Wyoming)-L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)-L(Wyoming)} = 0.69 {Sw(Cressy)-Sw(Wyoming)}*{L(Wyoming)-L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)-L(Wyoming)} = 0.13 Sv(Ark) ≈ Sv(Wyoming)-{Sv(Cressy)Sv(Wyoming)}*{L(Wyoming)L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)L(Wyoming)} = 1.20 (> 1.14 from the block analysis) Sv(Ark) ≈ Sw(Wyoming)-{Sw(Cressy)Sw(Wyoming)}*{L(Wyoming)L(Ark)}/{L(Cressy)L(Wyoming)} = 1.23 (> 0.69 from the block analysis) Lower stresses means (a) more resistance to breaking up and (b) less working of the parts of the vessel. Note that in BOTH comparisons, the proportionate stresses for the purported ark are LESS than the Wyoming (as previously noted) and further that the proportionate stresses for the Wyoming are less than the Cressy. Both schooners were capable ocean crossing vessels, but the Wyoming was known for flexing and leaking underway compared to the Cressy. What was the difference? You have argued that it is due to the increased length of the Wyoming, however she also had 20%+ more rigging load than the Cressy, and you have not accounted for that factor. Apples and Oranges.
So now you are claiming that because the Bible gives such a simple design for the ark, that we can't know anything about it. No, please read for comprehension. What we can know about the purported ark is limited to what is in the bible, both in terms of vessel design and in terms of the conditions that were experienced. We don't know much more about the vessel design than overall length, beam and depth of the vessel. We don't know much more about the weather conditions experienced other than it rained: there is no mention of large wind, large waves, or of the vessel rolling over, so it is safe to say that you cannot assume that these were necessarily experienced, you need to actually demonstrate the flood and rain would cause these conditions. You haven't, you have only made assumptions that they do. The information available is just not sufficient to make the case that the vessel in question would roll over or break up:
Have you ever been in a forest with a wind blowing. Have you ever watched trees that were 2 ft. across sway in the wind. The fact is that ships are not constructed from the whole trunk of trees - they are constructed from plank on beam. What you are claiming is that Noah reduced the cargo capacity of the ark by about 20% because he used whole timbers in construction. Really? Would you care to quote the post where you think I claimed that? Or have you moved from making up stuff about the ark to making up stuff about my arguments? Reading for comprehension means reading and understanding what people actually say, not what you make up about their arguments. Curiously, it was common for the wooden schooner boat builders to use whole trunks or branches for structural members, such as transverse beams and knees.
That only increases the caulking problem - it doesn't stop the leaking. The bible does say that the purported ark is caulked, it does not say that the vessel leaked. There are many caulked wooden vessels that do not leak, so the fact that a vessel is caulked does not mean it leaks. The leaking and flexing problems encountered by the Wyoming was when she was under sail, and are highly likely to be due to the significant rigging loads of this type of vessel, rather than just to her size. The captains of the schooners were known for putting up as much sail as they felt the vessel could carry, and take routes known for winds, in order to deliver their cargo in the shortest possible time. Apples and Oranges.
We know the stressed encountered. Wooden ships leak beyond any means to stop it as they near 300 ft. They don't get stronger with size. We do know the stresses encountered by the Wyoming, we do know that it survived those stresses for 14+ years of ocean voyages, even with the high rigging loads, we do NOT know the stresses or conditions encountered by the purported ark. We do NOT know the characteristics of the wood purportedly used to build the purported ark, because "gopher wood" is not identified with any known species of wood. We don't know how it swells or how strong it is (modulus of elasticity, etc).
They don't get stronger with size. Sorry, this is a false statement as made: double the depth and breadth of a beam and you increase the strength by a factor of 16.
And you have absolutely no proof or documentation that the purported flood event actually occurred. Evidence presented in a number of other threads on this forum make it clear that the flood of Noah is a myth. Curiously, I never claimed that the flood actually occurred: in fact if you actually read my posts you will see that they are among the ones with evidence that contradicts the possibility that a flood occurred. The evidence for an old age for the earth is overwhelming, imho, and when coupled with a lack of evidence of a widespread flood occurring within those long ages, makes such an event highly unlikely, imvhasao. However this is a red herring, because you are arguing about the conditions that would theoretically occur during such an event: we are discussing your theoretical assumptions, not whether the flood actually occurred or not. AND, that still doesn't mean that I can't show your argument to be full of holes big enough to sink a battleship, with unfounded assumptions about things that don't necessarily apply.
Actually, heavy rains at sea produce huge waves. Since we're not talking about a river flood, your objection to that point is nonsense. We are talking about rains that equaled hundreds of feet per day, several feet per hour that went on for 40 days. ... Did you add this comment in your edit? Bad idea. Firstly, heavy rains do not produce waves, if anything they knock waves down. They provide no energy to cause waves. Secondly, you don't know how heavy the rains were -- not all the flood water is claimed to come from the rain: http://www.genesis.net.au/~bible/kjv/genesis/
quote: This says that there were "fountains of the great deep" in addition to rain, so you do not know how much of the purported flood can be attributed to the rain.
... And you're telling me that there wasn't any wind? ... I'm saying that there is no mention of great winds, rather the significant events noted are rain and flooding. Thus your job is to show that high winds must necessarily have occurred, rather than just assume it. You have not done this.
quote: Doesn't sound like gale conditions. You just can't assume gale conditions without some foundation and objective evidence to support your argument. This does not mean cherry-picked evidence of extreme conditions in specific locations, and assuming that they necessarily apply across the board.
quote: Those birds apparently had no trouble flying back to the ark. No gale winds.
... You're telling me that without any land to interfere with the wind blowing across the flat water that the seas were calm? (1) What causes that wind and how strong it is? The difference between heating and cooling of the land and water between day and night is the major cause of most wind we know. With no land masses you only have the heating and cooling of surface water between day and night, and this is significantly less than the effect of land heating and cooling. During the rain period there would be no daylight, and so there would be even less differential to generate wind. (2) There are patches in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans where there is little wind: ever hear of the Saragossa Sea? Thus open water on its own does not create high wind or waves. (3) What affects the air should also affect the water, and with no land masses there is nothing to block vast currents of water flowing around the earth in sync with the day\night cycle (think tides). Wind blowing with currents cause lower waves than when against them. (4) The long (infinite?) reach means that waves get longer wavelengths. Ocean swells, not whitecaps. You have not shown why the waves should be significantly different from normal ocean swells.
Isn't it great how creationists get to make it up as they go along? But that's not what I'm doing. You, on the other hand...
A bad argument is a bad argument, no matter who proposes it. You are comparing apples with oranges and assuming conditions that are not documented to have been experienced within the narrative, and with no reason given for making your assumptions.
The short answer is no. If it was longer than it was wide then it would be turned broadside to the waves. If the waves exceeded the width, it would roll. Amusingly, that doesn't answer the question actually asked. You keep making stuff up -- you don't know the wave height or length. You need to include what would happen when your if statements are NOT fulfilled to properly answer the question.
... If the waves exceeded the width, it would roll. Interestingly there are two dimensions to waves: wavelength and wave height. Wavelengths can be very long but with little height. These are well rounded waves without steep slopes. Such waves are normal and they are typical of ocean swells. Such waves would not roll the block of wood. Tsunami waves in the open ocean are only a few feet high and often pass unnoticed under ships, yet they are of extremely long wavelengths. Obviously there are other factors involved in creating waves that could roll over a solid block of wood with these dimensions, and you have not shown that they would exist in normal weather. In relative calm and long rollers the block would not turn over. Even in fairly nasty weather the block would not roll over. The tilt necessary is a function of the beam to depth and the location of the center of gravity. For a block of wood the center of gravity would be the center of the block. Fascinatingly, a block of wood can float in waves where the wavelength is many times the beam without rolling, and a block of wood can float in ocean swells with wave heights taller that the block of wood is wide without rolling. The rolling action you are talking about is caused by a number of additional conditions, not just wave size (height?). With a beam of 86 ft and a depth of 52 feet, the center of gravity would be at 26 feet above the baseline, assuming a specific gravity for the wood of 0.50 (it varies between 0.5 and 0.9 for most woods used on ships) this gives us 50% depth for draft (26 feet), and a fairly stable condition (common to many barges that don't roll over on ocean voyages). Why don't you do the math and tell me what is needed to actually roll that block over? My calculations show that you would need a wave slope > 25°, with one side of the waterline for the block (ie the wave) raised > 45 ft above the other, and this would only be the steepest portion of the wave shape, not the total height of the wave. Hurricane Irene did not generate waves this big. Hurricane Bob did not generate waves this big, although it did generate breaking waves that washed boats up onto shore. Hurricane Katrina did not generate waves this big, although it did generate breaking waves that washed many boats up onto shore along miles of the gulf coast. The reason that (navy etc) ships will put to sea when hurricanes are due to land is because the waves and other conditions are less severe in the open ocean than they are along a coast (ie -- again, for emphasis -- where the Wyoming was purported to be when she foundered). Please note that I specified normal weather. NORMAL weather does not include hurricanes, and does not have large steep breaking waves. The weather outside right now is NORMAL weather, and a block of wood with the dimensions of the purported ark would not roll over in these conditions. In fact the weather outside for the last 20 years would not have generated waves that would roll such a block over, including two hurricanes (Bob and Irene). Interestingly, the "area outside" I am talking about is Nantucket Sound ... you know, that area where the Wyoming was anchored? Seeing as that is much longer than the time period that the purported ark needed to survive, you cannot say that it would not have done so without showing that the weather necessarily was severly worse, and you have not done so and you have no information to base such an assumption.
But, then, I didn't need you to tell me that. I actually did some research and talked to a number of friends where are experienced sailors, including some who served on Navy ships. And yet they (gasp) survived sailing around on the open ocean? Do you understand that you are talking about people that survived extreme conditions, yet you cannot show that such conditions were necessarily experienced by the purported ark? And that you are now comparing anecdotal experiences of unknown\un-described ships? What is their stability compared to the purported ark? Totally unknown at this point. Apples and oranges again. Now, If I were a creationist, and if I was arguing that the conditions were necessarily calm and flat, you would likely scream bloody murder about unfounded assumptions, yes? Yet what you have done is assume an extreme set of conditions at the other end of the spectrum, and your argument is just as unfounded and just as spuriously self-indulgent as the example creationist one.
The short answer is no. If it was longer than it was wide then it would be turned broadside to the waves. If the waves exceeded the width, it would roll. This is you once again assuming an extreme condition, not a normal condition, not a common condition, not some intermediate position that would allow you to argue that "in most cases" your scenario would occur. This means your argument is of very little value, if any. If you wanted to prove that the vessel could not float, then you would need to show that this is necessarily so during the conditions that are the worst for your position: dead calm and flat seas. You have not done that. Curiously, I have shown that such conditions would be extremely hard pressed to cause the purported ark to break up, sink, roll or otherwise founder.
Epic fail. Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : english Edited by Zen Deist, : formula symbol fixby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Portillo Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Portillo Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
saab93f Member (Idle past 931 days) Posts: 265 From: Finland Joined: |
The flud apologetics is nothing but sad. It is one of the clearest indicators of how far people are willing to go to defend a lie.
It is nothing but baffling how grown-ups are in all honesty claiming that the ark was real and all the animals did in fact survive in it and Noah and his posse had no trouble looking after them. It has got to hurt (at least in the beginning) to say that the tigers ate grass as did the snakes so they would not hurt the bambi 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023
