Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2015, 11:16 AM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2015 11:21 AM by natachan.)
RE: Question about flood
Since we're asking questions about the flood: what's gopher wood?

Also, apparently the water was only 15 cubits, which is 6 meteres. How exactly do 6 meteres of water cover mountains?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: Question about flood
(13-03-2015 10:32 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Here Chas, the atmosphere would be 7 km closer than it is currently with 8 km of flood water. That would decrease the air pressure, not keep it constant.

Math is in the attachment.

The math there is pointless. The entire atmosphere still exists and exerts the same pressure except for a tiny gravitational difference due to a greater diameter.

The column of air above a point is still the same.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-03-2015, 07:01 PM
RE: Question about flood
(13-03-2015 12:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 10:32 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Here Chas, the atmosphere would be 7 km closer than it is currently with 8 km of flood water. That would decrease the air pressure, not keep it constant.

Math is in the attachment.

The math there is pointless. The entire atmosphere still exists and exerts the same pressure except for a tiny gravitational difference due to a greater diameter.

The column of air above a point is still the same.

No chas, that math is not pointless. Are you seriously suggesting that 100 km of air has the same mass that 93 km does? The overall volume of the atmosphere is the same but the amount of air over a unit area is smaller with a higher inner surface, therefore less pressure would be exerted due to the smaller columm of air. You are basically saying that the pressure below the ocean at 100 ft is exactly the same as it is at 93 ft and that is simply not true. Look it up in any engineering textbook, you can treat air like a fluid. I'm not saying that it would be a huge difference, but 7% is hardly the same. I would agree with you that the gravitational difference would be tiny but there is WAY more going on with air pressure besides gravity.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2015, 07:03 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2015 07:07 PM by Chas.)
RE: Question about flood
(13-03-2015 07:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 12:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  The math there is pointless. The entire atmosphere still exists and exerts the same pressure except for a tiny gravitational difference due to a greater diameter.

The column of air above a point is still the same.

No chas, that math is not pointless. Are you seriously suggesting that 100 km of air has the same mass that 93 km does? The overall volume of the atmosphere is the same but the amount of air over a unit area is smaller with a higher inner surface, therefore less pressure would be exerted due to the smaller columm of air. You are basically saying that the pressure below the ocean at 100 ft is exactly the same as it is at 93 ft and that is simply not true. Look it up in any engineering textbook, you can treat air like a fluid. I'm not saying that it would be a huge difference, but 7% is hardly the same. I would agree with you that the gravitational difference would be tiny but there is WAY more going on with air pressure besides gravity. PV=nRT


The difference in the average diameter of the globe is miniscule, not 7%.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2015, 07:05 PM
RE: Question about flood
(13-03-2015 07:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 07:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  No chas, that math is not pointless. Are you seriously suggesting that 100 km of air has the same mass that 93 km does? The overall volume of the atmosphere is the same but the amount of air over a unit area is smaller with a higher inner surface, therefore less pressure would be exerted due to the smaller columm of air. You are basically saying that the pressure below the ocean at 100 ft is exactly the same as it is at 93 ft and that is simply not true. Look it up in any engineering textbook, you can treat air like a fluid. I'm not saying that it would be a huge difference, but 7% is hardly the same. I would agree with you that the gravitational difference would be tiny but there is WAY more going on with air pressure besides gravity. PV=nRT

It is not 93 km vs 100 km. None of the air has gone anywhere. All of the air is still there.

I know. Never said it did. The lesser distance comes from the increased size of the inner sphere. Volume of atmosphere was kept constant as was the number of moleculea in the atmosphere. If there was a math error, please point it out.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2015, 07:25 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2015 07:47 PM by Chas.)
RE: Question about flood
(13-03-2015 07:05 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 07:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is not 93 km vs 100 km. None of the air has gone anywhere. All of the air is still there.

I know. Never said it did. The lesser distance comes from the increased size of the inner sphere. Volume of atmosphere was kept constant as was the number of moleculea in the atmosphere. If there was a math error, please point it out.

The numbers in that illustration are wrong. I just checked them.

The depth of the before/after atmospheres are nearly identical.


Wait - I made one error - rechecking.

Assuming the numbers are more or less correct, the 7km difference is still nearly inconsequential because the air pressure is not a linear relationship, i.e. it is not a 7% difference.

80% of the atmosphere is in the first 12 km of the surface, 19% is below 50 km. That's 99% of the atmosphere.

The surface air pressure difference with 8 km of water covering the earth would be negligible.

There is no atmospheric pressure problem.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2015, 07:48 PM
RE: Question about flood
Assuming all this flooding happened, where did all that water go afterwards? Did it just float off into space?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2015, 07:19 AM
RE: Question about flood
(13-03-2015 07:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 07:05 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I know. Never said it did. The lesser distance comes from the increased size of the inner sphere. Volume of atmosphere was kept constant as was the number of moleculea in the atmosphere. If there was a math error, please point it out.

The numbers in that illustration are wrong. I just checked them.

The depth of the before/after atmospheres are nearly identical.


Wait - I made one error - rechecking.

Assuming the numbers are more or less correct, the 7km difference is still nearly inconsequential because the air pressure is not a linear relationship, i.e. it is not a 7% difference.

80% of the atmosphere is in the first 12 km of the surface, 19% is below 50 km. That's 99% of the atmosphere.

The surface air pressure difference with 8 km of water covering the earth would be negligible.

There is no atmospheric pressure problem.

Chas, I don't think you read what I wrote correctly. I said that there was a 7% difference in the atmospheric DISTANCE at 100 km, not the pressure. You are adding things in that I did not say, please reread the post. I am well aware that the pressure is not a linear relationship. I was merely pointing out that the atmosphere would slightly thin out if the height of sea level was 8 km higher. I was never saying that it was dropping to 500 mbar or anything like that. (although it would be a bit fun to determine that) I was merely saying that the statement of the pressure being exactly the same was, in fact, a slightly incorrect statement. It was. Do you agree that 93 km of air weighs less than 100 km no matter the magnitude of difference in weight? In retrospect, it is silly we are arguing this point. Almost like arguing whether you could really put a saddle on a triceratops. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2015, 09:01 AM
RE: Question about flood
(14-03-2015 07:19 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 07:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  The numbers in that illustration are wrong. I just checked them.

The depth of the before/after atmospheres are nearly identical.


Wait - I made one error - rechecking.

Assuming the numbers are more or less correct, the 7km difference is still nearly inconsequential because the air pressure is not a linear relationship, i.e. it is not a 7% difference.

80% of the atmosphere is in the first 12 km of the surface, 19% is below 50 km. That's 99% of the atmosphere.

The surface air pressure difference with 8 km of water covering the earth would be negligible.

There is no atmospheric pressure problem.

Chas, I don't think you read what I wrote correctly. I said that there was a 7% difference in the atmospheric DISTANCE at 100 km, not the pressure. You are adding things in that I did not say, please reread the post. I am well aware that the pressure is not a linear relationship. I was merely pointing out that the atmosphere would slightly thin out if the height of sea level was 8 km higher. I was never saying that it was dropping to 500 mbar or anything like that. (although it would be a bit fun to determine that) I was merely saying that the statement of the pressure being exactly the same was, in fact, a slightly incorrect statement. It was. Do you agree that 93 km of air weighs less than 100 km no matter the magnitude of difference in weight? In retrospect, it is silly we are arguing this point. Almost like arguing whether you could really put a saddle on a triceratops. Smile

Of course you can put a saddle on a triceratops. Angry We haz pitchas. Yes

My only point is that while there would be a difference, the difference would be hardly noticeable - hence, not a 'problem'.

There are those using some version of this as an argument against the Biblical flood story, but they shouldn't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-03-2015, 03:52 PM
RE: Question about flood
(13-03-2015 04:43 AM)Typho2k Wrote:  I asked a christian yesterday about how Noah and his animals could survive the altitude of 8000m and the oxygen problems.

He said "The sea could be at different heights/levels at different parts of the world as you don't need 8000m with water to cover England as an example."
"There can be local floods without other countries being flood, too."

Is this a valid arguement?
Could the waterlevel be different at different places in the world and therefore eliminating the altitude arguement?

If God was in control of the whole ordeal, then what is an "oxygen" problem?? Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: