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

[_Drifting]

Why did you cut off your quote just before the statement that the effect of the geoid was exaggerated 7000 times in the animation? Lets see, if we did that with a person, they'd be 42,000 feet tall. I suppose if someone made an animation of that, you'd conclude that humans are taller than Mount Everest.

What's just been handed to subby...?

[_subgenius]

Why did you cut off your quote just before the statement that the effect of the geoid was exaggerated 7000 times in the animation? Lets see, if we did that with a person, they'd be 42,000 feet tall. I suppose if someone made an animation of that, you'd conclude that humans are taller than Mount Everest.

the "The surface in the video is the geoid amplified by a factor 7,000" had already been mis-cited by you and was unnecessary to the point.
While you are fixated on surface features, the issue is the actual shape NOT being spherical.
while i can agree that surface features, such as Mt Everest, would not be easily detected from "arm's length", it is misleading to assume the shape of a cue ball.
More revealing is that the text i did quote was conveniently omitted from your posting....and obviously overlooked by you.

For those working within certain fields, the effects of the geoid are significant. They are not significant for measuring how much water would be needed to cover the entire earth. Mt. Everest is just under 9000 meters. 100 meters represents about 1% of the height of Mt. Everest. In addition, because gravity would pull the water down at Mt. Everest relative to other places on the earth, it will take MORE water to cover the highest point than if you ignored the gravitational effects.

weird...gravity actually weakens with altitude...people (and water) weigh about 0.28% less on top of Everest than at sea level....in other words gravity pulls water "down" at sea level with greater force than at the top of Everest. This is also impacted by the change in air density...but what you are saying finally explains why people in orbit are always so heavy.
You have also, conveniently, ignored the proposition by science that the earth has been expanding over time.
Thank you for playing.

You're literally straining at a gnat.

which seemingly equates to the size of your grasp on the topic.

Local variations in topography (or bumps on the orange)cause fluctuations in the Earth's gravitational field, known as gravitational anomalies. Some of these anomalies can be very extensive and can result in bulges in sea level.

which, being just bumps on an orange, enables water to behave in very different ways across the surface...shallow and deep not solely due to its "bottom".
in other words...the flooding would not have to be concentric to your imaginary sphere....water would not have to be of a uniform "altitude" (ie top of Everest across entire planet) in order to cover the earth.

again, thanks for playing

[_subgenius]

Why did you cut off your quote just before the statement that the effect of the geoid was exaggerated 7000 times in the animation? Lets see, if we did that with a person, they'd be 42,000 feet tall. I suppose if someone made an animation of that, you'd conclude that humans are taller than Mount Everest.

What's just been handed to subby...?

you spoke too soon
awkward

at least now we know the real answer to your thread title....it is because you do not understand.....

[_Res Ipsa]

Why did you cut off your quote just before the statement that the effect of the geoid was exaggerated 7000 times in the animation? Lets see, if we did that with a person, they'd be 42,000 feet tall. I suppose if someone made an animation of that, you'd conclude that humans are taller than Mount Everest.

the "The surface in the video is the geoid amplified by a factor 7,000" had already been mis-cited by you and was unnecessary to the point.
While you are fixated on surface features, the issue is the actual shape NOT being spherical.
while i can agree that surface features, such as Mt Everest, would not be easily detected from "arm's length", it is misleading to assume the shape of a cue ball.
More revealing is that the text i did quote was conveniently omitted from your posting....and obviously overlooked by you.

For those working within certain fields, the effects of the geoid are significant. They are not significant for measuring how much water would be needed to cover the entire earth. Mt. Everest is just under 9000 meters. 100 meters represents about 1% of the height of Mt. Everest. In addition, because gravity would pull the water down at Mt. Everest relative to other places on the earth, it will take MORE water to cover the highest point than if you ignored the gravitational effects.

weird...gravity actually weakens with altitude...people (and water) weigh about 0.28% less on top of Everest than at sea level....in other words gravity pulls water "down" at sea level with greater force than at the top of Everest. This is also impacted by the change in air density...but what you are saying finally explains why people in orbit are always so heavy.
You have also, conveniently, ignored the proposition by science that the earth has been expanding over time.
Thank you for playing.

You're literally straining at a gnat.

which seemingly equates to the size of your grasp on the topic.

Local variations in topography (or bumps on the orange)cause fluctuations in the Earth's gravitational field, known as gravitational anomalies. Some of these anomalies can be very extensive and can result in bulges in sea level.

which, being just bumps on an orange, enables water to behave in very different ways across the surface...shallow and deep not solely due to its "bottom".
in other words...the flooding would not have to be concentric to your imaginary sphere....water would not have to be of a uniform "altitude" (ie top of Everest across entire planet) in order to cover the earth.

again, thanks for playing

Wow, the Dunning Krueger is strong with this one. I keep referring to the surface features only to illustrate what it means to exaggerate an effect by 7000 times. It's very simple: you keep referring to the animation as if it accurately displays the shape of the earth. It doesn't. Not even close.

You've admitted that it would be difficult to detect Mr. Everest at "arms length." Now, follow the simple math. If earth were a perfect sphere using sea level to set the size, Mt. Everest would be a little bump on the surface. Now, adjust the sphere to the geoid. The adjustment is about 1% of the altitude of Mt. Everest. If it's difficult to detect Mt. Everest at arms length, it's impossible to detect the effect of adjusting the sphere to the geoid.

I agree that the consequences of adjusting to the geoid is that the water will form a bulges in some places and a dip in others. But, to use the surface of the orange as an example, the bulges and the dips are a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than the bumps on the surface of the orange. Worse for you, the surface of the water at the highest point of land (Mt. Everest) is lower than it would be without taking into account the effect of gravity.

So, it's not sufficient to respond to the calculation of how much water it would take to cover the earth by saying "Ha! The surface of the geoid is not a perfect sphere. I win!" The question is "how much difference would that make?" The answer is: the amount of water necessary to cover the highest mountains on earth would increase by a negligible amount -- equivalent to adding approximately 50 meters to their altitude.

Oh now you're going to reach for the expanding earth silliness? Is this some sort of grand tour of crankdom?

[_subgenius]

I agree that the consequences of adjusting to the geoid is that the water will form a bulges in some places and a dip in others. But, to use the surface of the orange as an example, the bulges and the dips are a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than the bumps on the surface of the orange. Worse for you, the surface of the water at the highest point of land (Mt. Everest) is lower than it would be without taking into account the effect of gravity.

point being water does not "cover" the earth as the poster has speculated - when estimating how high water would need to be in order to cover Everest...the poster, many posts ago, assumed earth as a sphere and that a larger sphere of water (having uniform radius) would be required...thus making it an exercise in volume subtraction....clearly their method is flawed....and glad to see that you agree.

So, it's not sufficient to respond to the calculation of how much water it would take to cover the earth by saying "Ha! The surface of the geoid is not a perfect sphere. I win!" The question is "how much difference would that make?" The answer is: the amount of water necessary to cover the highest mountains on earth would increase by a negligible amount -- equivalent to adding approximately 50 meters to their altitude.

it is actually sufficient to respond that way when the response is for the previous described "sphere math". The assumption that in order for the earth to be "covered" by water the outer surface of that water must have the same radius (as measured from some assumed 'center') is ultimately false....in fact, the behavior of water could provide "coverage" though currently would involve a rather complicated mathematical model. (like how the moon pulls this water radius "out" across specific areas, etc..)
Though we all appreciate your 2 cents, it would seem that you would be familiar with the discussion before pitching them in.

Oh now you're going to reach for the expanding earth silliness? Is this some sort of grand tour of crankdom?

Yarkovsky, Tesla, Carey and Hilgenberg = crankdom got it!

The truly funny notion is that with all your posturing one can not reasonably deny that God, being God, could surely defy any current scientific probability in order to accomplish His will. Much like feeding a multitude with loaves and fishes.
The inability to discern the world as it exists beyond the limited view of science is a common shortcoming with many people...fortunately those people have been a minority throughout history and have never been too much of a hindrance to progress.

[_SteelHead]

Sub, the method is not flawed. It is an approximation. But at roughly 3 times the volume of water currently on the planet, you just keep on digging. Your response to the volume calculations was so mathematically wrong as to be laughable.

[_Res Ipsa]

I agree that the consequences of adjusting to the geoid is that the water will form a bulges in some places and a dip in others. But, to use the surface of the orange as an example, the bulges and the dips are a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than the bumps on the surface of the orange. Worse for you, the surface of the water at the highest point of land (Mt. Everest) is lower than it would be without taking into account the effect of gravity.

point being water does not "cover" the earth as the poster has speculated - when estimating how high water would need to be in order to cover Everest...the poster, many posts ago, assumed earth as a sphere and that a larger sphere of water (having uniform radius) would be required...thus making it an exercise in volume subtraction....clearly their method is flawed....and glad to see that you agree.

So, it's not sufficient to respond to the calculation of how much water it would take to cover the earth by saying "Ha! The surface of the geoid is not a perfect sphere. I win!" The question is "how much difference would that make?" The answer is: the amount of water necessary to cover the highest mountains on earth would increase by a negligible amount -- equivalent to adding approximately 50 meters to their altitude.

it is actually sufficient to respond that way when the response is for the previous described "sphere math". The assumption that in order for the earth to be "covered" by water the outer surface of that water must have the same radius (as measured from some assumed 'center') is ultimately false....in fact, the behavior of water could provide "coverage" though currently would involve a rather complicated mathematical model. (like how the moon pulls this water radius "out" across specific areas, etc..)
Though we all appreciate your 2 cents, it would seem that you would be familiar with the discussion before pitching them in.

Oh now you're going to reach for the expanding earth silliness? Is this some sort of grand tour of crankdom?

Yarkovsky, Tesla, Carey and Hilgenberg = crankdom got it!

The truly funny notion is that with all your posturing one can not reasonably deny that God, being God, could surely defy any current scientific probability in order to accomplish His will. Much like feeding a multitude with loaves and fishes.
The inability to discern the world as it exists beyond the limited view of science is a common shortcoming with many people...fortunately those people have been a minority throughout history and have never been too much of a hindrance to progress.

LOL. Of course I'm not going to deny that an all-powerful magical super being that can, by definition, do anything couldn't....well... do anything. If you want to fall back on magic for which there is no evidence, I'm good with that.

What I'm not good with is your disingenous misuse of science. The changing from a sphere to the geoid requires subtraction of water only if gravity makes the water bulge at the highest point of elevation. It doesn't. That is a simple fact shown by the animation. See that blue color? It means the gravity is pulling the water down over the Himalayas. That means MORE water is required to cover them. All your tap dancing doesn't change two simple facts: (1) more water is required to cover Mt. Everest if you take the geoid into account. (2) the difference in water is negligible -- equivalent to raising the altitude of Mt. Everest by a about 50 meters.

[_LittleNipper]

It seems a shame to me that the term "magical" and God would be used together in a sentence. God is not "magical." Harry Potter is magical. Hudini practices "magic." God is SUPERNATURAL. God created nature for our good and is above and beyond nature. Magic is an illusion.

[_Quasimodo]

It seems a shame to me that the term "magical" and God would be used together in a sentence. God is not "magical." Harry Potter is magical. Hudini practices "magic." God is SUPERNATURAL. God created nature for our good and is above and beyond nature. Magic is an illusion.

Nipper, even if you don't personally agree, you have to admit that MANY people think that God is an illusion and the result of magical thinking. From the point of view of those people, God and 'magical' are synonymous. I think it's fine to believe whatever one wishes, but you also have to grant that same right to everyone else.

[_Res Ipsa]

Magic is an illusion.

So is god.