Fun with the Flood math.

2nd April 2003 at 06:45 AM Arikay said this in Post #120

Add on: If I did the math right, Around 306,147,198,884,132.6 Gallons of water had to fall on the earth every second for 40 days.
Thats aprox 173,935,192,421.5 Tons of water a second.

Click to expand...

But you forget that most of that water had to come from the ground. The question is how much. The answer is: we will never know. But if you make a eduacated guess I'd say about 1/4 to 1/8 came from the sky and the rest ame from the ground. so redo figures. I'm going to bed. Been doing my taxes while we chatted. And am tired. So see ya.

<P class=inside-head>Mount Waialeale, on the island of Kauai in Hawaii, is the wettest place in the world, receiving an average rainfall of 460 inches (about 1,168 cm) per year--more than an inch per day. The most rainfall ever recorded in 24 hours was 73.62 inches (about 187 cm), which fell on March 15-16, 1952, on an island in the Indian Ocean. The most rainfall ever recorded in one year was 1,041.78 inches (about 2,646 cm). It fell on Cherrapunji, India, from August 1860 to July 1861.

I guess no one here understands that when you put water under pressure it raises the boiling point of it.

Click to expand...

&nbsp;

I am quite&nbsp;familiar with the phase diagram of water.&nbsp;What you don't seem to understand is that after you reach a temperature of 374 C water is not liquid at any pressure. This temperature is called the critical point. Above the critical point water exists as supercritical steam even at thousands of atmospheres of pressure.

Frost says that solidified lava that has erupted at mid-ocean ridges contains glass that can be analysed for water content. His research team has calculated how much water the lava's parent material in the mantle must have contained. "It ends up being between 100 and 500 parts per million," he says. And if the whole mantle contained 500 parts per million of water, Frost calculates that would be the equivalent of 30 oceans of water.

Click to expand...

Note here that the lava erupted, it didn't somehow release its water from 400 miles below the earth.&nbsp; 500 parts per million is 0.05% so you need to erupt a lot of lava to get much water.

There is so much wrong with the "vapor canopy" that ICR and AiG gave up on it a long time ago.&nbsp;

When the fountains of the deep where broken up, I believe that it shook the earth so that the spin of the earth slowed up some what for a short period of time. And much like the ball and string spoke of earlier, if you don't keep the motion that is required to keep things suspended or in orbit they come down. I believe this is what happened to bring the water canopy down.

Click to expand...

No. You could stop the rotation of earth entirely and objects in orbit would stay in orbit.&nbsp; Have you ever taken a basic physics course?

Do you have any idea what having so much water in orbit above the earth would do to the world's weather? This is one reason that ICR and AiG gave up on water in the firmament version of&nbsp;the vapor canopy long ago. To get a kilometer of global rain you need about 5x10^20 kg of water.&nbsp; If you put that much water in orbit somehow&nbsp;very little&nbsp;sunlight will get to earth so things&nbsp;would get pretty cool.

However, it will warm up when the water falls.&nbsp; Falling water does heat up. It is generally too small an effect to measure but it is well known.&nbsp; Here is why. Objects above the earth have potential energy. When objects fall that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and ultimately to heat. The conservation of energy demands this.&nbsp; 5X10^20 Kg of water in orbit 200 km above the earth will have a potential energy of about 10^27 J. If the water falls the potential energy must be converted to kinetic energy and then to heat.&nbsp; If it starts as ice there will still be about 8 x10^26 J of energy left after the heat of fusion is absorbed to melt the ice.&nbsp; This is more than 1500 times the amount of energy needed to heat the atmosphere from an average temperature of 0 C to an average temperature of 100 C.&nbsp; Of course, the water must have a lot of kinetic energy to stay in orbit and I am ignoring that energy which will produce even more heat. Maybe I'll add it in later if I get time but there is already enough heat to cook the earth to death many times over and dead is dead.

That's all I have time for now.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

2nd April 2003 at 08:03 AM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #123

&nbsp;

I am quite&nbsp;familiar with the phase diagram of water.&nbsp;What you don't seem to understand is that after you reach a temperature of 374 C water is not liquid at any pressure. This temperature is called the critical point. Above the critical point water exists as supercritical steam even at thousands of atmospheres of pressure.



Note here that the lava erupted, it didn't somehow release its water from 400 miles below the earth.&nbsp; 500 parts per million is 0.05% so you need to erupt a lot of lava to get much water.

There is so much wrong with the "vapor canopy" that ICR and AiG gave up on it a long time ago.&nbsp;



No. You could stop the rotation of earth entirely and objects in orbit would stay in orbit.&nbsp; Have you ever taken a basic physics course?

Do you have any idea what having so much water in orbit above the earth would do to the world's weather? This is one reason that ICR and AiG gave up on water in the firmament version of&nbsp;the vapor canopy long ago. To get a kilometer of global rain you need about 5x10^20 kg of water.&nbsp; If you put that much water in orbit somehow&nbsp;very little&nbsp;sunlight will get to earth so things&nbsp;would get pretty cool.

However, it will warm up when the water falls.&nbsp; Falling water does heat up. It is generally too small an effect to measure but it is well known.&nbsp; Here is why. Objects above the earth have potential energy. When objects fall that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and ultimately to heat. The conservation of energy demands this.&nbsp; 5X10^20 Kg of water in orbit 200 km above the earth will have a potential energy of about 10^27 J. If the water falls the potential energy must be converted to kinetic energy and then to heat.&nbsp; If it starts as ice there will still be about 8 x10^26 J of energy left after the heat of fusion is absorbed to melt the ice.&nbsp; This is more than 1500 times the amount of energy needed to heat the atmosphere from an average temperature of 0 C to an average temperature of 100 C.&nbsp; Of course, the water must have a lot of kinetic energy to stay in orbit and I am ignoring that energy which will produce even more heat. Maybe I'll add it in later if I get time but there is already enough heat to cook the earth to death many times over and dead is dead.

That's all I have time for now.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Click to expand...

I still don't believe it. If it were that easy to produce heat from falling rain then every time it rains it should be hot not cool. I also know that certain circumstances can change the laws of science. But I guess because it might produce an absolute truth of something that's in the Bible, it would not apply here. Also with all that heat easily being produced how does snow or hail which falls faster than rain, ever reach the ground still frozen?

Here is were the laws of physics may change. Proving there are no absolutes in science. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1991223.stm

http://www.dawn.com/2001/08/17/int11.htm

Then there are assumptions made.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980308a.html

With answers to questions like this, no wonder the science world don't seem to understand. O well, can't teach an old dog new tricks.

2nd April 2003 at 07:30 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #125

Here is were the laws of physics may change. Proving there are no absolutes in science. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1991223.stm

http://www.dawn.com/2001/08/17/int11.htm

Click to expand...

Which law are you suggesting may have changed to support your theories? What law would change to cause friction not to create heat or potential energy not to be converted to kinetic energy as objects all?

2nd April 2003 at 07:20 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #124



I still don't believe it. If it were that easy to produce heat from falling rain then every time it rains it should be hot not cool. I also know that certain circumstances can change the laws of science. But I guess because it might produce an absolute truth of something that's in the Bible, it would not apply here. Also with all that heat easily being produced how does snow or hail which falls faster than rain, ever reach the ground still frozen?

Click to expand...

Every time it rains, the rain gains kinetic energy as it falls and causes heat due to friction. This is a no brainer. During average rainfall, the amount of heat is minimal because the mass of the water is small relative to the mass of water that canopy theories and flood theories need to be valid.

Feel free to call on changes in the fundemental laws of physics during the flood, but don't turn around and try to explain the flood using science. If you do, your changes in laws of physics when needed (miracles) are simply a God of the Gaps argument. This is the problem with many creationist explanations of the flood. They are ad-hoc explanations that will result to "changes in the laws of nature" (miracles) whenever they get into a corner. That is fine, but just don't call it science.

Ya Ya, I understand. Never let die the point that can't be explained. So ask another that can't be explained, then back it up with something that's always changing.
To answer your question with a question like you just did so you would not answer mine. If it so easy to have rain cause heat, then why is it always cool after it rains instead of being hot with all that kenetic energy and friction everyone is claiming was caused. Then all major rain storms should cause enough heat to bring summer in the middle of winter. Lets see, I drive my car from Florida to Califronia at 70 mph. According to kentics and friction my car should melt before I get there. Did I get it right?
I also see that tempature at which kenetic energy and thermal energy is made does make a difference. Tempature of air, water, ice etc...
For any object of mass "m" moving with a speed "v", the kinetic energy is 1/2 mv2.
The total kinetic energy of the molecules is the thermal energy.
The average kinetic energy of the molecules is related to the temperature.

[move]

2nd April 2003 at 06:35 AM Arikay said this in Post #119 Why was the barometric pressure higher back then?

Click to expand...

[/move]There was a super-conducting canopy of solid crystalline hydrogen back then. With the weight of that canopy pressing down on the atmosphere, the barometric pressure was certainly higher.

I don't think it rained at all before the flood because of the fact the rainbow didn't first appear until after the flood. In those days, a mist rose from the ground in the mornings to water the plant life. I will post some of what I have found;

Verse number 6 of Genesis 1 tells us, "And Elohim [God] said, Let there be a firmament91 in the midst of the waters, and let it divide between the waters and the waters." This firmament was a bubble of water above the surface and around the whole earth. The word for firmament in Hebrew is the word ['yqir; (rackiya) which is a very special word. The word means to compress, pound together and spread out into thin metal sheets.91

Researcher Dan Cook discovered that a complete metal canopy around the earth has to be taken literally as a metal canopy otherwise it would not be able to be suspended above the earth. This is because it would have to be conductive metal creating a repelling magnet effect against the magnetic field around the surface of the earth. This metal firmament around the earth would only need to be a few inches thick. This would be all that was necessary. It would also have to be pure clear metal. Metal in its pure state is transparent. Metal is ". . . any elementary substance as gold, silver, or copper, all of which are crystalline when solid and many of which are characterized by opacity, ductility, conductivity, and a peculiar luster when freshly fractured."92 Therefore, this canopy of metal would have to be of a crystalline structure and transparent. The visors of the astronauts on the moon had a thin layer of pure transparent gold.93 Josephus, the ancient historian of Jesus period, in his book Antiquities, Book One, Chapter One, mentions the Firmament as being Crystalline in structure.95, 90/47, 83

What metal was the firmament composed of? At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory they did some experiments with water. They compressed the water. The oxygen and hydrogen atoms separated and the oxygen was distinguishable by its blue color. The effect, however, on the hydrogen atoms, when compressed under super cold conditions and with energy added, was that the atoms bonded into a crystalline structure that was transparent with opaque veins of hydrogen throughout. Other laboratories followed up and confirmed this.94/25 They found that the transparent metal hydrogen was not conductive but that the opaque metal hydrogen was superconductive.96

Superconductivity is a very special phenomena. The firmament was transparent. The opaque hydrogen metal was only in thin veins throughout the firmament.96 The conductive hydrogen has a very special purpose in the firmament. Acting like a repelling magnet to the earth, these veins of opaque hydrogen held the firmament ten miles above the surface of the earth in suspension.97/Cover, 94/10

When crystalline hydrogen is energized it gives off a gentle glow that is 6365 angstrom magenta (pink). This color can often be seen at sunrise and at sunset as a pink glow. This happens as a result of water molecules in the atmospher becoming charged as a result of the lower level intense rays of the sun’s energy passing through them. As the sun’s rays pass through them you see blue sky because of the oxygen, but during sunrise and sunset, for a short period, because of these lower level intense rays of the sun, the energized hydrogen overpowers the oxygen and you see a pink glow in the horizon.97/19 What this suggests is that before the flood when the firmament was in place above the earth, you would see a pink sky instead of a blue one. Also on the dark side of the earth there would be a gentle pink glow at night.

The full article can be accessed at link

Footnotes;
10-The Holy Bible : King James Version.—Electronic edition of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.—Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995.

19-Swanson, James. New Nave’s / by James Swanson.—Revised and expanded; electronic edition.—Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1994.

25-Theological dictionary of the New Testament / edited by Gerhard Kittle and Gerhard Friedrich; translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley; abridged in one volume by Geoffrey W Bromiley.—Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1985.
47-Halstead, L.B. Nature. Nov. 20, 1980

83-Davis, Bennett. "Power Lunch," Discover. New York. Vol. 16, no. 3, March 1995.

90-Nakagawa, Kyoichi. "Magnetic Field Deliciency Syndrome and Magnetic Treatment." Tokyo: Isuzu Hospital Brief.

92-Stein,Jess, ed. The Random House College Dictionary. New York: Random House, Inc.; 1975.

93-National Geographic. Vol. 136, no 6, Dec. 1969. National Geographic Society: Washington, D.C.

94-"Metallic Hydrogen." Popular Science. Oct. 1989.

96-H.K. Mao and R.J. Hemley. "Optical Studies of Hydrogen," Science. Vol 244.

97-NASA Tech Briefs. Vol. 12, no. 4, April 1988 (Cover).


Now the ball is in your court. In order to properly debate this issue, you have to be knowledgeable in this subject. If you read it, you will be forced to do some cogitating. Have fun...

Hello Ikester!!!

2nd April 2003 at 08:01 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #128

Ya Ya, I understand. Never let die the point that can't be explained. So ask another that can't be explained, then back it up with something that's always changing.
To answer your question with a question like you just did so you would not answer mine. If it so easy to have rain cause heat, then why is it always cool after it rains instead of being hot with all that kenetic energy and friction everyone is claiming was caused. Then all major rain storms should cause enough heat to bring summer in the middle of winter. Lets see, I drive my car from Florida to Califronia at 70 mph. According to kentics and friction my car should melt before I get there. Did I get it right?
I also see that tempature at which kenetic energy and thermal energy is made does make a difference. Tempature of air, water, ice etc...
For any object of mass "m" moving with a speed "v", the kinetic energy is 1/2 mv2.
The total kinetic energy of the molecules is the thermal energy.
The average kinetic energy of the molecules is related to the temperature.

Click to expand...

The answer to this has been given and the mathematics bear it out. There is a vast difference between the mass of water in a typical snow or rain storm and that which is proposed for 40 days of rain world wide or the falling of a water canopy that could cause world wide flooding. The mass of a typical, short lived rainstorm is not high enough to cause massive heating. The mass of the water in a world wide flood is.

Your other examples are just plain silly. If you do the math or take measurments for any of your situations, the math and measurments will show heat generation and heat disipation. This is high school physics and is well understood.

2nd April 2003 at 08:10 AM look said this in Post #129

[move][/move]There was a super-conducting canopy of solid crystalline hydrogen back then. With the weight of that canopy pressing down on the atmosphere, the barometric pressure was certainly higher.


Now the ball is in your court. In order to properly debate this issue, you have to be knowledgeable in this subject. If you read it, you will be forced to do some cogitating. Have fun...

Hello Ikester!!!

Click to expand...

So now we have the canopy being composed of metalic hydrogen. In order to make water out of this hydrogen, we need to have it react with oxygen. During this reaction, heat is given off (the reaction is explosive!), and as discussed above, more heat is generated as the water falls to earth. Looks like we cooked the earth again.

2nd April 2003 at 09:35 AM notto said this in Post #131




So now we have the canopy being composed of metalic hydrogen. In order to make water out of this hydrogen, we need to have it react with oxygen. During this reaction, heat is given off (the reaction is explosive!), and as discussed above, more heat is generated as the water falls to earth. Looks like we cooked the earth again.

Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea that it had to react with oxygen? Do you not realize that there are vast pockets of liquid H2O under the earth? The water does not necessarily have to be contained via minerials. Your assumption is misleading.

2nd April 2003 at 09:45 AM look said this in Post #132

Where do you get the idea that it had to react with oxygen?

Click to expand...

Um, wouldn't this "hydrogen canopy" need to react with oxygen to turn it into water?

2nd April 2003 at 09:58 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #133



Um, wouldn't this "hydrogen canopy" need to react with oxygen to turn it into water?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, this assumption of the 'firmament' turning into water could not possibly work. If it did, then it would be impossible for hail or snow or sleet to form either. Let's not forget, for something to be a superconductor, it would have to be near absolute zero temperature. The canopy, as it fell in chunks, would have offset the temperature differential caused by the out jetting of superheated water shooting out of the ground. It was the water from the ground that started the hydrologic cycle. Also, 1 year should have been enough to restore a modicum of equilibrium to the atmosphere.

Let's not forget, if this canopy did react with oxygen to form all of this rain, the process would have sucked all of the oxygen right out of the atmosphere.

2nd April 2003 at 08:10 AM look said this in Post #129
As the sun’s rays pass through them you see blue sky because of the oxygen, but during sunrise and sunset, for a short period, because of these lower level intense rays of the sun, the energized hydrogen overpowers the oxygen and you see a pink glow in the horizon.

Click to expand...

This statement is complete bunk. It has nothing to do with "energized hydrogen overpowering the oxygen".

The atmosphere around the Earth is largely made up of two colorless gases: oxygen and nitrogen. Red and blue light reacts very different from each other to oxygen. Because the wavelength of blue light is roughly the size of an atom of oxygen, blue light interacts with the oxygen and is scattered by it, while red light, with its longer wavelength, goes right pass the oxygen atoms. If the Earth had no atmosphere, the sun’s light would travel directly from the Sun in a straight line towards our eyes and we would see the Sun as a very bright star in sea of blackness. But because the Sun’s blue light is scattered by the oxygen in the atmosphere, blue light from the Sun enters our eyes from all sorts of different angles and we see the entire sky as blue. The atmosphere scatters violet light even more effectively, but our eyes are more sensitive to blue. Wherever we look towards the sky, some light is bouncing off an oxygen atom and entering our eyes, making the sky appear to be blue.

Sunrise, Sunset
Who hasn’t enjoyed watching a sunset as the Sun’s red disk sinks below the horizon. Why does the Sun now appear red? During sunrise and sunset, the Sun’s light must pass a greater distance through the atmosphere in order to reach our eyes because instead of dropping directly through the atmosphere, it reaches the Earth at an angle. The same scattering effect on the blue light, also takes place, but the blue light is unable to pass through the extra distance and reach our eyes. This leaves only the red light which passes, unhindered through the atmosphere and reaches our eyes in a direct line with little or no scattering. We see the Sun’s disk red because its blue light has been blocked by the atmosphere. We don’t see the entire sky red because there is no scattering and the red light reaches us in a direct line.

http://www.sky-watch.com/articles/skyblue.html

2nd April 2003 at 11:07 AM notto said this in Post #136
This statement is complete bunk. It has nothing to do with "energized hydrogen overpowering the oxygen".

Click to expand...

While I agree as to the why the sky is blue now, I believe your ignorance is betraying you on the 'energized hydrogen'. If you are right, then why does the 'horse head nebula' glow a pinkish color? To look at it, see link

2nd April 2003 at 04:05 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #107




Let's put that theory to a test. Take a ball and tie a string to it. When you start to go around in a circle holding the string the ball will extend to the end of that string and stay suspended in air as long as you keep going in circles. This is the same princible that keeps the satalites in orbit. And was the reason the water canopy stayed in place and did not crush everything beneath it. It is the spinning motion of the earth and the object(water or satalite) that keeps things&nbsp;suspended.

Click to expand...

You're referring to angular momentum. You also left the effects of gravity, and the density of the water out of your experiment. Redesign you experiment with these factors and observe the results.

First, wouldn't you like to review my calculations before you attempt to prove me wrong.

I'm not too vain to accept being wrong. If you prove me wrong, I'll admit it, and embrace your findings. However, if I'm right, I expect you'll be noble enough to admit you're theory is wrong and my calculations were correct.

That is the nature of science.

Many Regards,
Smilin

I'll give you a hint in your experiment.

Attach small sticky balls to your yarn ball.
When you swing the ball around, you'll notice they
fly off. Why?

If small sticky balls aren't held in place on your ball or yarn..
then the simple rotation of the Earth around the sun acts to LAUNCH everything from the Earth not hold it in place.

What is missing from your experiment?

2nd April 2003 at 09:35 AM notto said this in Post #131




So now we have the canopy being composed of metalic hydrogen. In order to make water out of this hydrogen, we need to have it react with oxygen. During this reaction, heat is given off (the reaction is explosive!), and as discussed above, more heat is generated as the water falls to earth. Looks like we cooked the earth again.

Click to expand...

errr... wrong.. we didn't cook it..lol

First we froze it solid. Forgive me,,, but at what temperature does Hydrogen become 'crystaline' and at what temperature does it become superconductive?

First, we froze it solid, then when a spark generated,,, we didn't cook it... that much Hydrogen would have created a new asteroid belt.. (just a hunch).. I'm not gonna waste time calculating it...

But, grasping at straws still to prove the global flood (drizzle) myth?