Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_subgenius]

Radius of earth: 6371 km
Volume of earth: 1083250272904 cubic km

when looking at the earth as an oblate spheroid and calculating its volume one gets = 1,083,202,991,015 cu km
Your volume by "simplifying" the earth to an orange at arm's length has already added 5% more volume - and this is just working with an assumed "smooth" object in either case.

like i said - junk in means junk out

now, we also know that only about 29.2% of the earth's surface has land...or needs to be flooded...yet you insist, without justification, that the oceans also require additional flooding (weird).

like i said

your initial model is still flawed.

resolve that and then you may begin to understand how water behaves across the surface of the earth and within the scale of the planet and how your visualization can actually mature while your understanding of simple scientific concepts develops. I know full well that you see the trees, but we are talking about the forest.
my first suggestion is to put down your outstretched arm....and release the orange.

[_Res Ipsa]

Did you really just say this?

now, we also know that only about 29.2% of the earth's surface has land...or needs to be flooded...yet you insist, without justification, that the oceans also require additional flooding (weird).

Frankly, this finally proves to me that you just don't know what you are talking about. Do you really think you can just add water to the top of the land and not have it run down into the ocean? Is gravity part of the "junk" you are dispensing with? The way you cover the land is to raise the level of the ocean until it covers up all the land. That means you have to (duh) raise the level of the ocean.

(If you can't understand this try this experiment: Sit in your bathtub. Use your knees to make a mountain. Pour water on top of the mountain. Does the water stay there? Or does it flow down to the water level in the tub? The volume of water you need to increase the water level depends on the surface area of the water -- not the surface area of the "land.")

As I'm not getting much return here on being so generous to Noah, I'll make a more realistic assumption about the level of average sea rise. Using your figures, about 61% of the earth's surface is ocean. To calculate the maximum height of sea level rise we can get out of our 100 meters of additional water, we must assume that all the water goes onto the oceans. Why? Because if we allow the water to cover up land as we add it, the surface are of the ocean increases and reduces our bang for the buck for a given volume of water. So, we divide the 100 meters by .61 and get 164 meters. Again, this is a generous assumption for Noah -- it overstates the increase in sea level by assuming the surface area of the ocean will not increase as we add water.

Thus, the largest possible average increase in sea level using every drop of water in the earth system we can achieve is 164 meters. Yes, the rotation of the earth will redistribute it, but it's impossible to turn 164 meters into thousands of meters everywhere on the globe.

But let's address your concern about volume: assume (per steelhead) a perfect sphere with the polar radius of the actual earth. That sphere sits completely within the actual shape of the earth, correct? Now, picture it covered with a uniform layer of water. Okay, let's change the shape of the earth to its actual oblate spheroid shape. We have to do that by adding material to our spheroid. As we add matter to change the shape, the layer of water gets thinner. Why? Because we are increasing the surface area that the water has to cover. As a result, when we add water to our perfect spheroid, it overstates the increase in sea level height when compared with the actual earth.

That's why using a spheroid of the polar diameter is a perfectly appropriate assumption for this exercise. It is yet another assumption that favors Noah. It yields an average sea level that is higher than the actual sea level on earth.

So, go on, use the polar radius. Dump all the available water on the surface and tell me what the average increase will be. Whatever the answer, it will overstate the sea level increase that would occur with the same volume of water on the surface of the real world.

Now, I've made every assumption in a way that favors Noah. That's how I adjust my model to account for the fact that the model does not mirror the real world. If I make every assumption in favor of Noah, and I come up extremely short in the water department, I know I'm justified in concluding that there is not enough water.

[_DrW]

I will even waive the glaring bad-science of claiming that anything is impossible--

subgenius,

With the above quoted statement you have demonstrated, yet again, that you have a serious problem in distinguishing between science and magic, and may even have problems with objective reality itself. To claim that it is bad science to designate anything as impossible is beyond ridiculous.

There is a reason that the laws of nature are designated as "laws" and not as "guidelines" or "good ideas".

The laws of nature render certain events and phenomena impossible. Flooding of the entire Earth with liquid water in the last 10,000 years is one of these events.

In response to your question as to what constitutes a professional scientist, the term would certainly apply to an individual who has demonstrated scientific knowledge and skill by graduating from college in a science major, who has gone on to earn a Ph.D. at a major University, served an apprenticeship as a post doc at MIT, and thereafter been hired by a National Laboratory as a scientist, entrusted with high level DoD and DOE security clearances, and paid to conceptualize and execute technical programs that are of benefit to the US Government and humankind in general. The work of a professional scientist can be evaluated, in part, by the number and quality of peer reviewed publications, patents and books that scientist generates.

Would care to give us your definition of a professional scientist? (I can hardly wait.)

More importantly, would you care to provide any evidence that you have the background to understand what is being discussed on this thread?

[_LittleNipper]

I will even waive the glaring bad-science of claiming that anything is impossible--

subgenius,

With the above quoted statement you have demonstrated, yet again, that you have a serious problem in distinguishing between science and magic, and may even have problems with objective reality itself. To claim that it is bad science to designate anything as impossible is beyond ridiculous.

There is a reason that the laws of nature are designated as "laws" and not as "guidelines" or "good ideas".

The laws of nature render certain events and phenomena impossible. Flooding of the entire Earth with liquid water in the last 10,000 years is one of these events.

In response to your question as to what constitutes a professional scientist, the term would certainly apply to an individual who has demonstrated scientific knowledge and skill by graduating from college in a science major, who has gone on to earn a Ph.D. at a major University, served an apprenticeship as a post doc at MIT, and thereafter been hired by a National Laboratory as a scientist, entrusted with high level DoD and DOE security clearances, and paid to conceptualize and execute technical programs that are of benefit to the US Government and humankind in general. The work of a professional scientist can be evaluated, in part, by the number and quality of peer reviewed publications, patents and books that scientist generates.

Would care to give us your definition of a professional scientist? (I can hardly wait.)

More importantly, would you care to provide any evidence that you have the background to understand what is being discussed on this thread?

You may wish to read the following: http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/ooparts.htm
http://www.strangemag.com/erraticenigmatics.html

Science isn't about finding a "natural"reason for what it seen, but the truth.

[_DrW]

Science isn't about finding a "natural"reason for what it seen, but the truth.

Little Nipper,

Here are two concepts with which you really should become familiar:

Anomalous Evidence- 1. Evidence deviating from the general or common order or type;
2. Evidence that is equivocal, as in classification or nature

Weight of Evidence: A method or approach for selecting among alternative hypotheses by considering the amount a quality of evidence supporting each. The weight of evidence for each hypothesis can be be roughly determined by factoring the relative quantity with the relative quantity of the evidence for each.

Now, if you will read your "Ancient Wisdom" website, you will see the term "anomalous" used without reservation.

In a scientific undertaking, cleaning up the anomalous evidence after a determination has been made based on the weight of evidence (to a sufficient statistical level of confidence) is something that can take a lot of time and is seldom worth the effort. (UFO "research" is a prime example of such a scientific time waster.)

[_Franktalk]

DrW,

Just checking in. I read a bunch about helioseismology. What a fascinating study. Haven't got to dating things yet and I can see that much that can be learned has yet to be learned. Busy with other projects so it is a slow go.

[_SteelHead]

I am going to calculate a minimum of the water needed to cover the Earth to 8km above sea level. I am using 8km as it minimizes the volume required. Anything that lowers the radii involved lowers the over all volume needed.

Pay attention to the methodology.

dV = the minimum volume required to flood the Earth.
v2 = the volume at the minimum radius + 8km. Computed from r2, where r2 = r1 + 8km.
v1 = the volume at the minimum radius. Computed from the volume of a sphere for r1, where r1 is the minimum radius to the surface of the Earth.
vDisp = the volume displaced by topology.

For this exercise we are going to use the minimum radius of the Earth at its surface for r1. Why the minimum radius you ask? By using the minimum radius we can compute a lower bound of the volume. As volume increases at the cube of the radius (r^3), dV is minimized when r1 decreases. This lower bound will be independent of the actual variance of the surface.

In the egg drawing sub provided it would be equivalent to:



Using the radius of the lower (bigger) sphere inside the egg in the above image. This still computes a valid lower bound for this ovoid. The minimum is not the actual ammount needed, the actual value needed will be greater than this volume. But this model produces a value the would be the barest minimum needed if the longer radius of the oviod was only infinitesimally longer that the short one. As that variances increases in deviation from this minimum radius positively the over all volume required increases.

It is a valid lower bound. If you do not understand why this is a lower bound, let me know and we will fix the gaps in your education and/or reasoning.

The formula is dV = v2 - v1 - vDisp.

For vDisp we are going to maximize the impact of the topology of the Earth. How you may ask? By saying it is all at 8km above sea level. By using all of it at 8km above sea level we are maximizing the impact of the topology which in turn minimizes the volume of dV.

We are also going to say that this topology covers 30% of the surface of the planet.

So to calculate vDisp we use:

vDisp = .3(v2 - v1) if you don't understand why this is, just ask and we will walk you through the geometry and math.

so

dV = v2 -v1 -.3v2 - .3v1 = .7v2 - .7v1 = .7(v2 - v1)

Now lets plug in the numbers.

r1 = 6,353 km again remember that the smaller this number is the better as it minimizes dV.
v1 = 1074051671475 km^3
r2 = 6361 km
v2 =1078114273973 km^3

dV = .7(v2 - v1) = 2,843,821,748.6 km^3.
additional cubic kilometers of water as a lower boundary independent of the variances in the radius.

2,843,821,748.6 additional cubic kilometers of water as a lower boundary independent of the variances in the radius.

The USGS calculates the combined total of all water resources on the planet as 1,386,000,000 km^3 of water.

Again dV is a minimum bound of water required needed to raise the oceans an additional 8km, This is a minimum that grossly overestimates the displacement contribution of land by saying all the land is at 8km of elevation.

You need at a minimum 3 times the current volume of water on the planet to flood the planet to 8km above what we now have. Deal with it.

[_DrW]

I am going to calculate a minimum of the water needed to cover the Earth to 8km above sea level. I am using 8km as it minimizes the volume required. Anything that lowers the radii involved lowers the over all volume needed.

Pay attention to the methodology.

dV = the minimum volume required to flood the Earth.
v2 = the volume at the minimum radius + 8km. Computed from r2, where r2 = r1 + 8km.
v1 = the volume at the minimum radius. Computed from the volume of a sphere for r1, where r1 is the minimum radius to the surface of the Earth.
vDisp = the volume displaced by topology.

For this exercise we are going to use the minimum radius of the Earth at its surface for r1. Why the minimum radius you ask? By using the minimum radius we can compute a lower bound of the volume. As volume increases at the cube of the radius (r^3), dV is minimized when r1 decreases. This lower bound will be independent of the actual variance of the surface.

In the egg drawing sub provided it would be equivalent to:



Using the radius of the lower (bigger) sphere inside the egg in the above image. This still computes a valid lower bound for this ovoid. The minimum is not the actual ammount needed, the actual value needed will be greater than this volume. But this model produces a value the would be the barest minimum needed if the longer radius of the oviod was only infinitesimally longer that the short one. As that variances increases in deviation from this minimum radius positively the over all volume required increases.

It is a valid lower bound. If you do not understand why this is a lower bound, let me know and we will fix the gaps in your education and/or reasoning.

The formula is dV = v2 - v1 - vDisp.

For vDisp we are going to maximize the impact of the topology of the Earth. How you may ask? By saying it is all at 8km above sea level. By using all of it at 8km above sea level we are maximizing the impact of the topology which in turn minimizes the volume of dV.

We are also going to say that this topology covers 30% of the surface of the planet.

So to calculate vDisp we use:

vDisp = .3(v2 - v1) if you don't understand why this is, just ask and we will walk you through the geometry and math.

so

dV = v2 -v1 -.3v2 - .3v1 = .7v2 - .7v1 = .7(v2 - v1)

Now lets plug in the numbers.

r1 = 6,353 km again remember that the smaller this number is the better as it minimizes dV.
v1 = 1074051671475 km^3
r2 = 6361 km
v2 =1078114273973 km^3

dV = .7(v2 - v1) = 2,843,821,748.6 km^3.
additional cubic kilometers of water as a lower boundary independent of the variances in the radius.

2,843,821,748.6 additional cubic kilometers of water as a lower boundary independent of the variances in the radius.

The USGS calculates the combined total of all water resources on the planet as 1,386,000,000 km^3 of water.

Again dV is a minimum bound of water required needed to raise the oceans an additional 8km, This is a minimum that grossly overestimates the displacement contribution of land by saying all the land is at 8km of elevation.

You need at a minimum 3 times the current volume of water on the planet to flood the planet to 8km above what we now have. Deal with it.

Steel Head,

One simply cannot be any more generous to Noah's Flood and the Creationists than you have been here.

Great way to let subgenius out of the corner he painted himself into while still showing that there is simply not enough water on the planet to completely flood it. The amount of water still missing is substantial.

(Now just watch subgenius claim that your calculations are irrelevant to Noah's flood because the land on Earth in your model does not end up flooded.)

[_SteelHead]

now, we also know that only about 29.2% of the earth's surface has land...or needs to be flooded...yet you insist, without justification, that the oceans also require additional flooding (weird).

Great googley moogley!!!!!!! How did I miss this gem?

That has got to be the single most revealing statement of Sub's ignorance of basic physics and the properties of water. How can we even be engaging a guy who thinks it possible to flood the land masses to the point of innudating mountain ranges without raising sea level at the same time?

Sub..... to cover the landmass to 1 km of elevation above current sea level you have to raise sea level 1 km. Did you pass 3rd grade science?

At that point I estimate over 85% of the planets surface would be water covered.

[_ludwigm]

now, we also know that only about 29.2% of the earth's surface has land...or needs to be flooded...yet you insist, without justification, that the oceans also require additional flooding (weird).

Great googley moogley!!!!!!! How did I miss this gem?

That has got to be the single most revealing statement of Sub's ignorance of basic physics and the properties of water. How can we even be engaging a guy who thinks it possible to flood the land masses to the point of innudating mountain ranges without raising sea level at the same time?

Sub..... to cover the landmass to 1 km of depth you have to raise sea level 1 km. Did you pass 3rd grade science?

Why 1 km?
That way, god can cover all the dry land with an one meter thick water layer.
The animals can choke in it - if they were commanded to...