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

[_DrW]

OK, let's do the math. (Please check my math -- it isn't particularly hard, but the numbers are pretty big)

First, and most importantly, we can look up the height of the geoid at a given latitude and longitude. http://www.unavco.org/community_science/science-support/geoid/geoid.html When we do that for Mt. Everest, we find the height of the geoid there is about 29 meters below sea level. So, even if we adjust for the effects of gravity (convert to the geoid), that adds to the water needed over steelhead's calculation. End of story.

But let's do a hypothetical for yuks. Let's assume that the geoid is at its maximum positive value over Mt. Everest. I've been rounding to 100 meters, but it's actually 85. Now, to give your position the maximum benefit of the doubt, let's add the 85 meters to the entire sphere. In other words, we'll assume that the maximum bulge exists everywhere.

How much water are we saving in volume? We're saving the difference between a sphere with radius 6371 km and 6371.1 km. That's the volume of water we're displacing with the extra 85 meters of radius. Now, do the math:

Radius of earth: 6371 km
Volume of earth: 1083250272904 cubic km
Radius of earth plus 85 meters: 6371.83 km
Volume of earth plus 85 meters: 1083250272904 cu km

Water saved by increasing radius 85 meters: 433,612,647 cu km

Additional water needed (per steelhead): 4,494,855,096 cu km
Water saved by 85 m increase: 433,612,647 cu km
Adjusted additional water needed: 4,061,242,449 cu km

Total water in, on, or above the earth: 1,386,000,000 cu km http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html
Total water, less ocean water: 48,510,000 cu km (because sea water is already reflected in current sea level)
Global flood water deficit: 1,337,490,000 cu km

So, even assuming the geoid is positive everywhere, which will give us a larger amount of water reduction than if it is only positive in some places, we'd need about 2x the total water in, on, or above the earth in order to cover Mt. Everest. Of course, the geoid isn't plus 85 meters everywhere, and in fact is negative over Mt. Everest.

As for your other links, yes, if the earth looked 4,000 years ago like these scientists said it was like billions of years ago, there might be enough water. But it didn't.

Brad and Steel Head demonstrate a great deal of patience with subgenius, and are doing a lot of work on his behalf. I hope subgenius appreciates it.

Someone needs to point out (yet again) one additional problem to subgenius, and it is this:

In order to get the amount of additional water needed into the atmosphere (troposphere) as water vapor, so that it could condense out and rain down for 40 days and 40 nights, the temperature in the troposphere would have to be well above the boiling point of water.

With that much additional mass in the atmosphere, the increase in the water vapor partial pressure would not be insignificant. Water weighs one metric ton per cubic meter and there are 1000 x 1000 x 1000 (10^9) cubic meters in a cubic km, so rounding to two significant figures, we have an addition mass in the atmosphere of 1.3 x 10^9 times 10^9 = 1.3 x 10^18 metric tons.

The mass of Earth's atmosphere now is on the order of 5.3 x 10^18 kg = 5.3 x 10^15 metric tons.

Things are not looking good.

The amount of additional water Brad calculated would increase the weight of the atmosphere by a factor of well over 200. (Brad actually did an MKS calculation as is proper, which when carried forward as I did yields mass and there may a difference, but it would be very slight.)

The current standard atmospheric pressure on Earth at sea level is 760 mmHg, or just over 1 bar, which is about 14.7 psi.

Multiplying 14.7 psi by 200 for a very rough (and conservative) estimate, gives a bone (and body) crushing number. (The actual calculation to work out the atmospheric pressure is more complicated than this and will yield a somewhat lower number that is temperature and gravity dependent, but this simple estimate indicates that the pressure would increase - substantially.)

Subgenius' antediluvian Earth is beginning to look a bit like our sister planet Venus, where the atmosphere weighs about 92 times what the atmosphere does on Earth and atmospheric pressure (not surprisingly) is 92 bar, (more than 1300 psi) with an atmospheric temperature that is a balmy 467 degrees C (827 degrees F).

Maybe all of that rain cooled things down a bit (not likely).

[_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.

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.

I believe in America, that atheists deserve no additional rights, that they do not wish extend to others. And I do understand that broad is the way that leads to destruction but the way that leads to the Lord is very narrow. I also realize that what many imagine to be pure coincidences are actually additional proofs that God exists. I do not believe all beliefs are of equal validity. Some are very harmful to children, one's mental and physical health, and detrimental to learning to be a rational thinker (which is achived by considering various avenues and their ultimate effects and not just one train of thought). To that regard, the public school system of the United States has proven to be a dismal failure everywhere government has clamped down on thoughts of God. In small towns and communities outside the prying eyes of the ACLU, children are more thoughtful ( on par with general education prior to 1963). As a result, there are TODAY seemingly educated individuals who equate God with a man who saws a lady in half and sticks her back together. I never witnessed God doing such physically. God makes himself known by changing lives from the inside out. He is more subtle when He saws a person in half and makes a NEW creature.

Please see: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ29.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some ... _of_school

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays ... cation.htm

[_Res Ipsa]

This is another conversation I'd be happy to have with you, but it's a derail in this thread. If you start a new one, I'll be happy to chime in.

[_subgenius]

OK, let's do the math. (Please check my math -- it isn't particularly hard, but the numbers are pretty big)

First, and most importantly, we can look up the height of the geoid at a given latitude and longitude. http://www.unavco.org/community_science/science-support/geoid/geoid.html When we do that for Mt. Everest, we find the height of the geoid there is about 29 meters below sea level. So, even if we adjust for the effects of gravity (convert to the geoid), that adds to the water needed over steelhead's calculation. End of story.

But let's do a hypothetical for yuks. Let's assume that the geoid is at its maximum positive value over Mt. Everest. I've been rounding to 100 meters, but it's actually 85. Now, to give your position the maximum benefit of the doubt, let's add the 85 meters to the entire sphere. In other words, we'll assume that the maximum bulge exists everywhere.

How much water are we saving in volume? We're saving the difference between a sphere with radius 6371 km and 6371.1 km. That's the volume of water we're displacing with the extra 85 meters of radius. Now, do the math:

Radius of earth: 6371 km
Volume of earth: 1083250272904 cubic km
Radius of earth plus 85 meters: 6371.83 km
Volume of earth plus 85 meters: 1083250272904 cu km

Water saved by increasing radius 85 meters: 433,612,647 cu km

Additional water needed (per steelhead): 4,494,855,096 cu km
Water saved by 85 m increase: 433,612,647 cu km
Adjusted additional water needed: 4,061,242,449 cu km

Total water in, on, or above the earth: 1,386,000,000 cu km http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html
Total water, less ocean water: 48,510,000 cu km (because sea water is already reflected in current sea level)
Global flood water deficit: 1,337,490,000 cu km

So, even assuming the geoid is positive everywhere, which will give us a larger amount of water reduction than if it is only positive in some places, we'd need about 2x the total water in, on, or above the earth in order to cover Mt. Everest. Of course, the geoid isn't plus 85 meters everywhere, and in fact is negative over Mt. Everest.

As for your other links, yes, if the earth looked 4,000 years ago like these scientists said it was like billions of years ago, there might be enough water. But it didn't.

wow
awkward...but wow
not really disputing your math
believe it or not, i know that 2+2=4.
still awkward though...because i clearly stated that the "math" is not the issue...
its the assumption that the earth's coverage with water must be accomplished by a "concentric" sphere of water, and that this concentric sphere must have a radius equivalent to the "highest" point on land that water must reach (ie Everest).
That assumption is erroneous, yet you insist on making it in order to "approximate" this or that.
This "assumed approximation" was further illustrated as inadequate by Mount Chimborazo.
Your methodology is sound but your model is flawed.
You have assumed, without justification, that water will have a consistent outer radius from the earth's core...which it currently does not...so to assume that is a flaw in my opinion.
Also
You model assumes average for everything except land elevations. You reduce the earth to a sphere in order to average the radius yet you adhere to the height of Everest. 29% of earth surface is land and mountains appear on 27% of that.
Quite obviously your model is flawed.

thanks for doing the math though...i notice you guys love the trees but never notice the forest

[Guest]

Sub,
If you care to read back in this thread I at one point ran the calculations with more than a km of slop and it still came out around twice as much water as exists on the planet. Try as you might to invalidate this model.... It is good enough for this calculation.

[_Res Ipsa]

What you studiously avoid is that you have not shown, and cannot show, that the use of the sphere as an approximation is material to the calculation.

Not. Enough. Water. Period.

I'm perfectly fine with the answer: godddidt. But you're just tap dancing now.

[_DrW]

What you studiously avoid is that you have not shown, and cannot show, that the use of the sphere as an approximation is material to the calculation.

Not. Enough. Water. Period.

I'm perfectly fine with the answer: godddidt. But you're just tap dancing now.

Subgenius is also avoiding the implications of claim that the flood waters rose to cover the Earth because of 40 days and 40 night of rain. Even if there were enough water on Earth (which there wasn't) it would not have been possible for this water (or even significant portion of it) to have been taken into the atmosphere and fall out as rain.

Subgenius should give it up. He continues to expend credibility he hasn't earned in the first place.

[_Tobin]

What you studiously avoid is that you have not shown, and cannot show, that the use of the sphere as an approximation is material to the calculation.

Not. Enough. Water. Period.

I'm perfectly fine with the answer: godddidt. But you're just tap dancing now.

Subgenius is also avoiding the implications of claim that the flood waters rose to cover the Earth because of 40 days and 40 night of rain. Even if there were enough water on Earth (which there wasn't) it would not have been possible for this water (or even significant portion of it) to have been taken into the atmosphere and fall out as rain.

Subgenius should give it up. He continues to expend credibility he hasn't earned in the first place.

Of course you could flood the Earth. Though the means would be rather devastating and I don't think anyone would survive the results. Just slam comets into it from the Oort cloud.

[_ludwigm]

believe it or not, i know that 2+2=4.

Not.

A laconic phrase may be used for efficiency (as in military jargon), for philosophical reasons (especially among thinkers who believe in minimalism, such as Stoics), or for better disarming a long, pompous speech (the most famous example being at the Battle of Thermopylae). Spartans were expected to be men of few words, to hold rhetoric in disdain, and to stick to the point. Loquaciousness was seen as a sign of frivolity, and totally unbecoming of sensible, down-to-earth Spartan peers.

[_LittleNipper]

What you studiously avoid is that you have not shown, and cannot show, that the use of the sphere as an approximation is material to the calculation.

Not. Enough. Water. Period.

I'm perfectly fine with the answer: godddidt. But you're just tap dancing now.

More than 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the surface of this planet is covered in water. That does not include the amount of water that is located under the surface of the land masses. So, I would question your opinion that there is not enough water to cover all the land 20 feet deep --- given a very valid possibility that the land masses were smoother and the oceans shallower, and the water came from outerspace (comets and ice meteors) and underground springs.