Check my kinetic energy calcs for biblical flood...

[Pablo Sanchez]

Then we get to the arguement I heard..

"Oh, it didn't flood *all* of the Earth.. just that part of it, which was all they knew of the world at the time."

That's probably what actually happened. There was an exceptionally wet year and the area between the Tigris and Euphrates flooded, and some local herdsmen saw a guy on a raft with his sheep, and it got passed down through the generations like a religious game of telephone.

[Enforcer Talen]

try saying that at rr

[Traceroute]

Then we get to the arguement I heard..

"Oh, it didn't flood *all* of the Earth.. just that part of it, which was all they knew of the world at the time."

Which begs the question ... How the fuck do you flood *part* of it??

I guess they could be referring to the Mediterranean coasts, but what would stop it from outflowing into the Atlantic? Oh, that's right, nothing.

er, I meant God. 'Cause God's great.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Which begs the question ... How the fuck do you flood *part* of it??

I guess they could be referring to the Mediterranean coasts, but what would stop it from outflowing into the Atlantic? Oh, that's right, nothing.

er, I meant God. 'Cause God's great.

There's a scientific justification, DAMNIT. The Atlanteans built massive walls around Europe and the near East, which held in the waters. It was the breaking of these walls that released the flood waters and sank Atlantis.

...

BTW, that's an interesting question. If the entire Earth was flooded... where the fuck did all that water go?

[Sea Skimmer]

...

BTW, that's an interesting question. If the entire Earth was flooded... where the fuck did all that water go?

Back into the massive subterranean caverns from which it came of course, after the lava rising up from hell that initially brought the flood upon the world sank back down.

[Vendetta]

Then we get to the arguement I heard..

"Oh, it didn't flood *all* of the Earth.. just that part of it, which was all they knew of the world at the time."

You mean that mad argument completely usupported by evidence of human habitation, including stone tools and remnants of structures, under three hundred feet of the Black Sea, twelve miles off the coast of turkey?

Conveniently situated close to what looks to all the world like another coastline?

Completely un-backed-up by fossil records that indicate that 7000 years ago the region suddenly* shifted from being freshwater to saltwater?

Of curse, glacial melt increasing the sea level of the Med to the point that it inundated the area behind the menai strait might well be translated as "big angry fucker in the sky" (or sea, greco-roman versions of the tale attribute Neptune/Poseidon/sea-god du jour for the flood) by people who have yet to figure out much beyond where the next meal's coming from, so any actual surviving story from that long ago would be laced heavily with made-up explanations....

*Suddenly on a geological scale, it would have taken many years, long enough for people, and their stories, to migrate away.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I posted this on kgivler. Guess what 1SuprJesusFreak had to say?

This reminds me of that joke Ben posted about the temperature in Heaven. It's possible that the flood was caused by nothing we posses the knowlege to calculate. It was an Act of God, that alone puts it far outside the human relm, and yet you think you can accuratly calculate it with human means? None sense!

Translation: I cannot give any reasonable arguement, so I must say that it is unexplainable.

Well then, concession accepted.

[neoolong]

I posted this on kgivler. Guess what 1SuprJesusFreak had to say?

This reminds me of that joke Ben posted about the temperature in Heaven. It's possible that the flood was caused by nothing we posses the knowlege to calculate. It was an Act of God, that alone puts it far outside the human relm, and yet you think you can accuratly calculate it with human means? None sense!

Translation: I cannot give any reasonable arguement, so I must say that it is unexplainable.

Well then, concession accepted.

If God's all powerful he would be able to cause it in the realm of human understanding.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Someone said that on the board too.

[LordShaithis]

Link me to this board. I'm kinda busy lately, but I wanna go knock some heads.

[Rye]

Link me to this board. I'm kinda busy lately, but I wanna go knock some heads.

http ://ww w.kgivler.com/teens/tboard/viewforum.php?f=16

without spaces

[htg]

Okay, one of you geniuses tell me if I'm doing this right, because I was never all that great at math:

Total surface area of Earth: 510,072,000 sq km
Highest elevation: 8.85 km

Thus:

510,072,000 * 8.8 = 4,488,633,600

Or four and a half billion cubic kilometers of water required to cover the earth deeply enough to submerge all land. A cubic kilometer of water ought to weigh a billion tons, so:

4,488,633,600 * 1,000,000,000 = 4.48e+18

Or four and a half quintillion tons of matter striking the earth. Assuming a terminal velocity of nine meters per second, which is what I found for the speed of a downpour-level raindrop, we use...

KE = 1/2 * M * V^2

This gives us an energy release of roughly 1.81e+23 joules. There are 4.184e+12 joules in a kiloton, giving us an energy yield for the flood equal to...

43,448,771,701

Forty three billion kilotons, or not quite three billion Hiroshima bombs, or a good half-dozen or so broadsides from an ISD.

Now let's see what this would mean in real life. If I figured it out right, this works out to approximately 85 kg of TNT for every square meter of the earth; more than enough to wipe away all non-aquatic life above the micro-biological scale. But let's look again:

The Grand Admiral figured 1.81e+23 joules. That works out to
1.81e+23 joules/510 072 000km^2 = 3.54e+14 joules/km^2
or 3.54e+8 joules/m^2

However, the entire area of the earth is now covered by a stack of water 8.8 km tall. It's quite reasonable to assume most of this energy remains confined to the water itself (other than the small fraction that's being used displacing the continental plates and whatnot).
(3.54e+8 joules/m^2) / 8800m = 40324J/m^3

So approximately 40 kJ of energy per cubic meter of water. Now it takes 4.186J to equal one calorie (one calorie being the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius.) That's roughly 9633 cal over the whole cubic metre, or 0.00963 Cal per cubic centimeter.

We've increased the temperature of the water all of 0.01 degree Celsius. Pretty pathetic, eh?

That was only the first of many, many over-easy generalizations I saw in this thread. I can't be bothered to point them all out. There's plenty of legitimate scientific reasons to doubt the flood account, but those did not make a strong showing here.

Henk G.

P.S. I hope someone's going to post my calcs on kgivler too? That'd only be fair, now wouldn't it?

[Darth Wong]

The Grand Admiral figured 1.81e+23 joules. That works out to 1.81e+23 joules/510 072 000km^2 = 3.54e+14 joules/km^2
or 3.54e+8 joules/m^2

Actually, his figures are grossly underestimated because he ignores the matter of gravitational potential energy. That much water falling from, say, 10km average (a gross underestimate, given the fact that the atmosphere can't hold that much water so it has to come from the infamous extra-atmospheric "vapour canopy") would carry some 4.5E26 J.

However, the entire area of the earth is now covered by a stack of water 8.8 km tall. It's quite reasonable to assume most of this energy remains confined to the water itself (other than the small fraction that's being used displacing the continental plates and whatnot).

That's hilarious; you think the continental plates can be "displaced" by a "small fraction" of 1.8E23 joules, which is less energy than the K-T extinction "dino-killer" asteroid possessed?

By the way, it is not "quite reasonable" to assume that all of the water's GPE goes exclusively into heating of the water itself. In fact, it is physically impossible for it to do so. Any idiot can see that the water will heat up the air on the way down through friction, ie- aerodynamic resistance. Heating of the air is precisely what we're talking about.

We've increased the temperature of the water all of 0.01 degree Celsius. Pretty pathetic, eh?

Yet it is still more than enough energy to wipe out all life on the surface of the planet, once you remove your asinine assumption that it will land with no surface effects or atmspheric effects whatsoever, with its entire energy converted into internal heating.

That was only the first of many, many over-easy generalizations I saw in this thread. I can't be bothered to point them all out. There's plenty of legitimate scientific reasons to doubt the flood account, but those did not make a strong showing here.

Based on your assumption that when rain falls, virtually all of its energy goes into heating itself? Do tell.

Henk G.

P.S. I hope someone's going to post my calcs on kgivler too? That'd only be fair, now wouldn't it?

Why? So they can laugh at them too? Or would they not see the obvious flaws in your reasoning?

Go beg a quarter off somebody and then buy a clue: the Earth's atmosphere has a mass of only 5E18 kg. Given a 9 m/s terminal velocity for rain, it would have 40 J/kg of KE at impact, which means that for an initial altitude of 100km (the famous "vapour canopy"), 99.996% of its gravitational potential energy will be dissipated by aerodynamic drag. Do the math, and for 4.5E21 kg of water falling down from stratospheric altitudes of, say, 100km (even if we assume that 90% of the aerodynamic drag heating goes into the water rather than the air), that's 90 MJ per kg of atmosphere. More than enough to heat up the atmosphere to the point that it would cook anybody trying to breathe it.

[Cyborg Stan]

Actually, his figures are grossly underestimated because he ignores the matter of gravitational potential energy.

Looking back, an easy calculation shows that he only used a little over 4 meters worth of potential energy. That's really low....

Another easy calculation using the mere 10km average fall figure and assuming quite unreasonably that the water somehow coverts all it's GPE into internal heat it would heat itself up by around 24 C (43 F).

A simple mental demonstration shows that for a 8.8km layer of water to average a 10km height, it would either have to be a solid block of ocean starting at 5.6 km or that the atmosphere would be close to 50% water at ground level, which would be a very strange state of affairs. Obviously, the water would be higher up in the atmosphere.

Given that I'm tired, I might not have gotten this right, but I calculated an energy release in the e28 J range for having that much water turn from vapor into liquid...... (4.5e9 km^3 * e12 km^3/l * 2260 kJ/kg)

[Cyborg Stan]

Somehow, it's giving me a mental itch that the last figure I gave may have looked over something very basic that may be infact may or may not be negated by something else extremely basic that I'm missing which I can't think properly because I'm tired and not fully in my right mind and would spend the next few hours awake trying to determine what I was thinking about, which being tired it would be like having a distorted reverse-black hole in the metaphorical space-time equivalent of my mind.

[Rye]

Wouldn't that amount of water displace the icecaps too? And i thought rainwater was a different isotope to oceanwater? Wouldn't all that freshwater have killed off all the fish, irrespective of the energy related stuff?

[htg]

Actually, his figures are grossly underestimated because he ignores the matter of gravitational potential energy. That much water falling from, say, 10km average (a gross underestimate, given the fact that the atmosphere can't hold that much water so it has to come from the infamous extra-atmospheric "vapour canopy") would carry some 4.5E26 J.

Good point. This doesn't change the fact the initial calculations showed a minimal effect.

That's hilarious; you think the continental plates can be "displaced" by a "small fraction" of 1.8E23 joules, which is less energy than the K-T extinction "dino-killer" asteroid possessed?

We have proof that the creation of large reservoirs for dams (such as Lake Powell) affect the local tectonic plate. What do you think an enormous stack of 8.8 km worth of water would do? I agree it's a bad assumption however, the energy for that would come from gravitational potential energy of the shifting water and plates. So we'll just have to stick all the terminal KE into temperature change of the water (which is what I did anyways).

By the way, it is not "quite reasonable" to assume that all of the water's GPE goes exclusively into heating of the water itself. In fact, it is physically impossible for it to do so. Any idiot can see that the water will heat up the air on the way down through friction, ie- aerodynamic resistance. Heating of the air is precisely what we're talking about.

You're correct. But again, that wasn't in the initial calcs. I should point out that after the first little bit, the rain drops will hit water already on the earth's surface, so all their KE will go to heating the water.

We've increased the temperature of the water all of 0.01 degree Celsius. Pretty pathetic, eh?

Yet it is still more than enough energy to wipe out all life on the surface of the planet, once you remove your asinine assumption that it will land with no surface effects or atmspheric effects whatsoever, with its entire energy converted into internal heating.

See above. I fail to see any other place for the KE to go once a layer of water's come down already, and the atmospheric humidity has reached 100%.

Based on your assumption that when rain falls, virtually all of its energy goes into heating itself? Do tell.

See above. Perfectly reasonable.

Go beg a quarter off somebody and then buy a clue: the Earth's atmosphere has a mass of only 5E18 kg. Given a 9 m/s terminal velocity for rain, it would have 40 J/kg of KE at impact, which means that for an initial altitude of 100km (the famous "vapour canopy"), 99.996% of its gravitational potential energy will be dissipated by aerodynamic drag. Do the math, and for 4.5E21 kg of water falling down from stratospheric altitudes of, say, 100km (even if we assume that 90% of the aerodynamic drag heating goes into the water rather than the air), that's 90 MJ per kg of atmosphere. More than enough to heat up the atmosphere to the point that it would cook anybody trying to breathe it.

Good. Calculations I can't easily ignore. If your presentation had been better I might actually respect you for that.

There's two potential errors I see here. One, that the average height from which the water will be falling is 100 km (I'll try find some information on what Creationists actually say about it). The other problem I see is the 90% assumption. The falling droplets will tend to maintain thermal equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere. This would result in the rain absorbing much more than 90% of the energy, given the mass ratio, 99.9%.

Let's see what it means in real life. For ease of calculating, we'll again assume all the energy goes into the water (the atmosphere doesn't mass much more than .1% of the water anyways). 90MJ per kg, at 10%, so 900MJ per kg air total. Multiply by mass of air, divide by mass of water, is 1MJ per kg of water. Calculated out, that's a temperature rise of almost 240 degrees Celsius (in liquid water). It'd be boiling hot (or steam) as it came down (if it came down at all, that is). That's all if a 100 km average altitude for the canopy is correct.

This still doesn't change the fact that the original calculations showed a less than negligible effect.

You also mistook my purpose for posting. I wasn't out to prove the Flood correct. It was to show that the calcs at the beginning proved nothing, and that's Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Henk G.

[Wicked Pilot]

The falling droplets will tend to maintain thermal equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere.

Bullshit, you must have never heard of this thing called specific heat. The specific heat of water is four times that of an equal amount of air. It would be quite hard for those droplets to maintain equilibrium considering that they will spend only one minute in the troposphere on their way down.

I wasn't out to prove the Flood correct. It was to show that the calcs at the beginning proved nothing, and that's Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

More bullshit you nitpicking little coward. We've seen your type before; the I'm not a creationist even though I argue for it. Why don't you contribute something to this board instead of constantly sniping from the sidelines.

[htg]

Bullshit, you must have never heard of this thing called specific heat. The specific heat of water is four times that of an equal amount of air. It would be quite hard for those droplets to maintain equilibrium considering that they will spend only one minute in the troposphere on their way down.

*sigh*
First. One minute. What's wrong with that figure? (hint: troposphere depth = 14 km. Terminal velocity of a raindrop is approximately 9m/s (at sea level, faster at progressively higher altitudes, obviously.))

Second, I really don't see the point of your statement. I've already proved that water falling in from 100km will heat up by the equivalent of 240 degrees Celsius vapourising most if not all of it. Whether the water temperature increases by 200 degrees and that of the air by 500 is extremely irrelevant. Either would kill any surface life that the flood had missed, even that protected in an ark.

Conclusion: any flood scenario that relies on 8.8 km worth of water canopy falling from an average height of 100 km is not likely to have actually occured, since drag friction would have heated the water and atmosphere to unsurvivable levels.

More bullshit you nitpicking little coward. We've seen your type before; the I'm not a creationist even though I argue for it. Why don't you contribute something to this board instead of constantly sniping from the sidelines.

To clarify:
1. My position: I am a YEC.
2. My contribution: See conclusion above. I believe that's approximately what Grand Admiral Prawn was originally trying to prove (with the proviso of the 100km estimate checking out.)

Henk G.

[Wicked Pilot]

First. One minute. What's wrong with that figure? (hint: troposphere depth = 14 km. Terminal velocity of a raindrop is approximately 9m/s (at sea level, faster at progressively higher altitudes, obviously.))

Much faster at higher altitudes. The atmosphere is at only half sea level pressure at FL 180 and tapers off quite quickly after that. Don't bullshit with someone who actually works up there.

And please, don't dodge the main point of the arguement which was the substancial differences between the specific heat of air and water. Your nitpicks fool no one.

I've already proved that water falling in from 100km will heat up by the equivalent of 240 degrees Celsius vapourising most if not all of it.

Oh really,

This still doesn't change the fact that the original calculations showed a less than negligible effect.

Which personality is doing the talking here?

To clarify:
1. My position: I am a YEC.

Good. Now that we got that out of the way, how about you grow some testicles and start making some arguements instead of being the little chicken shit sniper that you been for the past 12 post.

[Sir Sirius]

To clarify:
1. My position: I am a YEC.

Good. Now that we got that out of the way, how about you grow some testicles and start making some arguements instead of being the little chicken shit sniper that you been for the past 12 post.

Indeed, htg make a thread in which you defend the rather ludicurous notion that the Earth is only 6.000-10.000 old (I assume that is what you belief in, correct me if I'm wrong). We haven't had any good YECs in a while and you look like you could offer more of a sport then most. It would be definate be change to see Mike actualy have a though time debating a fundie...

[SirNitram]

I love how this YEC tries to dodge the friction point by simply pretending friction isn't at work when the rain fell, and by frantically trying to prove the energy went back into the water instead of radiating outwards. Of course, he fails to realize that if such an event occours, we don't get a Flood, but a Venusian level of cloudcover, incinerating all life as it traps in heat.

[Darth Wong]

He's a nitpicker. He's a YEC which means he disagrees with just about everything we're saying, but he carefully avoids a direct confrontation on the main issue of contention by picking at side issues, etc. Notice his careful use of language when he concedes that an 8.8km thick flood falling from 100km could not have happened. He obviously believes that there's some other configuration of global flood which could have happened, but he's too cowardly to come out and say it.