I find that the Noahs Ark safety factor model is a bit on the unconservative side
1They dont consider ballast to dampen roll
2They use a standard seawater density, this is BS, they need to establish a range of expected temperatures (it was tropical) and salinities (Since it rained 40 days , the ocean salinity was more close to the 1.0000 value than an avg 1.025 (Beebe )
3 They designed Noahs ark as a "planing hull" , cant have it both ways. (Maybe it was a deep Vee)
Thats just lint, what really annoys me is the opening statement in thneir paper that states
Quote:There has been continuing debate over the occurrence of the Genesis Flood and the existence of Noah's Ark in human history. Even though many scientific researches on the occurrence of the Flood itself have been made by geologists and anthropologists, limited information is known about Noah's Ark
Ryan et al had showed the geophysics of the Pliocene infilling of the MEditerranean from sea cores and the post-Pleistocene flooding at the Black Sea. HOWEVER, NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE EXISTS that referes to a worldwide Biblical flood. This is all Creationist twaddle who try to get one to buy into the outrageous concept of a Flood as a given, then they have no problems with the rest.
No matter how anyone attempts to fiddle claims about the design of the putative "ark," the dimensions given, regardless of what "cubit" measurment one uses, are for a fatally unstable vessel. The proportions are 6:1 length to beam, and 10:1 length to draft "awash." A vessel of that enormous size (larger than any wooden vessel ever built in historic times) would need to draw far more water, and would have subject to stresses far in excess of those suffered by any wooden vessel known in historic times. In a light chop, it would have very likely foundered in short order. In a forty-day storm, it was doomed. Wyoming, at 450 feet stern boom to jib boom (and therefore much smaller than "the ark"), was the largest known wooden vessel. It had steel scantlings (internal supports to prevent the warping of the internal support structure), and still shipped so much water that it had a steam-power pump system which operated constantly to pump out the water which inevitably entered as the stresses "started" the seams of the ship's planks.
Leaving aside the ludicrously small space for all of the animals alleged to have been brought aboard, and their fodder (Genesis 6:21--And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. [them meaning the animals]), and the question of what was to be done with the poop, you have the problem that for a vessel to "swim" in rough seas, or even in mild seas, it needs to have some form of propulsion. None is mentioned in the Bobble, but then you run into exactly the problem that you have with the feeding the animals and shoveling the ****--you have eight geezers to do all the work. Noah, alleged to be 600 years of age (the text contradicts itself, once describing him as 600 years old, and elsewhere saying he was in his six hundredth year, which means he was 599), his wife, and his three sons and their wives.
With all the mountains of the world covered to a depth of 15 cubits (22 to 25 feet), the world wide ocean would have been a nightmare for a well-built ship, nevermind this nautical abortion. (Genesis 7:19-20--And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.) The Southern Ocean, which girdles globe north of Antarctica, and south of Africa, Australia and South America, is a night ocean even for modern vessels. Nothing stops the ground swell, with waves that completely circle the globe, and storms which raged unchecked by any land or the moderating weather influence of any land. This region is commonly referred to by sailors as "the Roaring Forties" (i.e., the fortieth and subsequent southern latitudes). With an ocean covering the entire planet, the effect would have been as bad, or worse. Yet we're expected to swallow the proposition that this geezer, his geezer wife, his geezer sons and their geezer wives were to feed the animals, shovel the ****, and either handle sails or use sweeps to keep that naval abortion pointed into the wind--because it would otherwise broach and drop like a rock.
There is a certain equilibrium of stupidity here though--whoever wrote that drivel knew no more about naval engineering and conditions at sea than the Bobble-thumpers do about science.
I've rarely seen such horseshit in my life. Did they examine the effects of hogging? Do these clowns even know what hogging is? Has anyone explained how the eight geezer crew were going to feed the inmates, shovel the ****, keep the nose pointed into the wind,
and bail the water which would have poured in with such an inherently bad design?
What modeling was done, and by whom? What basis did they use for estimating what the winds and waves would have been in a planetary ocean? What consideration did they give to the type of construction--
given that Genesis tells us nothing about the construction other than the dimension and a confused reference to gopher wood? What the hell is gopher wood? Biblical scholars can't agree on that.
You'll swallow anything, huh, BD?
One of the most significant problems for wooden vessels was "hogging."
[url=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hogging][b]The Free Dictionary-dot-com[/b][/url] wrote:n. (Naut.) Drooping at the ends; arching;-in distinction from sagging.
Hogging caused "starting." From the same source as the above:
Quote:v. start·ed, start·ing, starts v.intr.
6. To protrude or bulge.
When the planks of the hull "start," that is, bulge outward, the vessel ships water. This is why the wooden ship mentioned above,
Wyoming, had a steam pump in constant operation. The very dimensions of the "ark" would have exaggerated this effect.
U.S.S. Constitution was 204 feet in length, and 43.5 feet at the beam. This a ratio not quite as high as 5:1. Nevertheless, the problem of hogging, which it was known would occur, lead the designer of that line of frigates to put extraordinarily large and radically designed scantlings in
Constitution and all of her sister ships. The dimensions given for the "ark" are such that hogging would be an even more severe problem, never mind the hilariously stupid contention that she could safely have been a "drifting ship" (do these clowns make this **** up as they go along?) in such dangerous waters.
In the drivel which BD posted, they refer to 1/50th scale models. Oh? Were the planks of the models 1/50th as thick as the planks of the putative "ark" would necessarily have been? Are people so stupid that they think a 1/50th model, not built of the original materials, can realistically be subjected to the same stresses as a full-scale vessel of the reported dimensions?
Don't answer that last question, i already know the answer.
That bullshit which BD posted does not, as i suspected, even address the issue of hogging and starting, or how the bilge was to be pumped free of water. But one more significant load of crap they are peddling is the claim that the "ark" could have been built using 800 trees. Constitution, referred to above, which was much smaller than the "ark" was alleged to have been, was built from more than 2000 trees--yet these jokers expect someone to believe that a vessel more than twice as large as Constitution could have been built using 60% less wood.
Of course, they know their audience.
Didja read that, Cletus? Eight hundred trees!
Wow, Clem, that's a lotta damned trees, ain't it? Uhm . . . 'scuse my language.
From the United States Navy's official site for United States Ship Constitution:
Quote:1794-1797: USS CONSTITUTION is under construction. Being built to defend the young American nation, the ship is nearly as old as the historic document for which President Washington names her. Both the document and the ship have proven to be resilient symbols of America's strength, courage, and liberty.
USS CONSTITUTION is designed to be powerful enough to outfight any enemy warship approximately her same size, and yet fast enough to outsail a larger opponent. Built at Edmund Hartt's shipyard, in Boston, her construction team is made up of superintendent Capt. Samuel Nicholson, chief constructor Col. George Claghorne, and naval agent Gen. Henry Jackson. Initial funded appropriation is $115,000-although her final cost will be $302,700. Made from approximately 2,000 trees (with specialty woods obtained from Maine to Georgia), armed with cannons cast in Rhode Island, and fitted with copper fastenings provided by the famous Boston smith Paul Revere, the vessel is truly a "national" ship. Launched on October 21, 1797, she doesn't put to sea until 1798. But, having remained part of the U.S. Navy since her launching day, USS CONSTITUTION is today the oldest commissioned warship afloat in the world. (emphasis added)
From BD's bullshit source:
Quote:At that time, trees might have grown taller than 10 metres, and their diameters may have been larger than 1 metre as a result of the presumed more favourable natural environment. A tree could have weighed about 5 tonnes. About 800 trees might thus have been required to build the Ark, if the wood weight of the Ark were about 4,000 tonnes.
They use a cubit estimated to be 17.5 inches. That yields dimensions of 437.5 feet in length, and 73 feet at the beam.
Constitution had a length at the load water line of 175 feet, 204 feet overall (load water line is an expression of the length of the ship at the water line under normal lading conditions), and 43.5 feet at the beam. This is the structure shown at BD's bullshit site:
As one can readily see, there would be no significant difference between overall length and length at the load water line.
So we are to believe that a vessel more than twice as large as
Constitution was built with 60% fewer trees. More than that, they are assuming (once again, relying upon the credulity of their readers) that the trees used were no more than slightly over three feet in girth, and only slightly more than 30 feet tall. They even try to suggest, on no evidence at all, that such trees would have grown in an environment "more favorable," and yet have been that puny.
Jesus Christ, Hulk Hogan could punch a hole in the side of a vessel that flimsy.
All challenges can be solved with the assumption of magic, including the need to try to understand anything.
Setanta-
Why don't you inform your friends that when the carnally motivated slob with the thick lips and leer is creeping along the corridor towards the room in which the virgin is sleeping so innocently and the sinister music is slowly building that she is quite safe as there are cameramen and lighting technicians and grips and gaffers and directors and sound recordists all stood around and they would protect her to the last drop of their blood from the fate the viewer is so eagerly anticipating.
The Ark is a romantic story. Have you not worked that out yet. If you don't like it that's okay but why spoil other people's way of looking at things. Your appearences in public are a sort of story in mime and costume. Have we to dissect YOU? Scientifically!!
spendi, get yer head from out yer ass. Cant you see that this is fun?
You know, FM, i'm startin' to get cheesed off at you. You gave me Holy Livin' Hell for talking to that gobshite, and you natter on at him all the time. You gave me a raft of Hail Marys to say, and i had to make a sincere act of contrition. I suspect you're rackin' up years in Purgatory . . . big time.
You can dress 'em up, but you still can't take 'em anywhere . . .
fm wrote-
Quote:spendi, get yer head from out yer ass. Cant you see that this is fun
You don't think I play on here for any other reason do you?
But oh what fun it would be if we got pedantically scientific with Setanta's and your own personas on the dissecting table. A game of how to fluff self importance. The string of long-winded posts below don't look much fun.
Everybody knows what gopher wood is. It's what's between the ears of a sweeper up who makes suggestions about how General Motors should be run.
Shall we next have a discussion about the fossil evidence of vocal cords in snakes from the garden of eden.
Or shall it be the discovery of an old house in the woods with tree porridge bowls matching the description from Goldilocks. Hey, ya never know, science hasn't disproven the three bears story yet. Gotta keep an open mind. Many people have been laughed at in the past for things which turned out to be true, so you know what that implies about Goldilocks...
baddog1 wrote:How Could Saltwater and Freshwater Fish Survive the Flood?
because they are fish. They live in water. Floods are no problem, its lack of water that bothers fish. Get it?
well blame Joe for bustin chops. I was merely continuing in that spirit.
I shall now go and make a perefct act of contrition. First Ill have to google it.
Didnt they do away with Purgatory too? or was it just Limbao.
ok was going to say something very rude about ararat anomalies and people who think there is anything in them but discretion has the better of me.
spendius wrote:...But oh what fun it would be if we got pedantically scientific with Setanta's and your own personas on the dissecting table. A game of how to fluff self importance...
LOL
You'd hear some
belly-achin' then spendius! Scientifically speaking of course.
nice to read spendius has a fan
i do worry about him sometimes
not for long
Quote:In one 55-gallon experiment, a layer of freshwater floated on a typical layer of seawater. Several freshwater fish, saltwater fish, and other organisms placed in the tank lived in their respective environments for 30 days
. That means that the 1990 calculations of the bouyancy factor for the ark has to be way off (according to Ghyben -Herzberg principle). Of course youre saying that the mixing of SW and FW didnt occur while at the same time youre opining about 100 ft waves (natures Vitamix.)
Quote:Natural Selection. After 150 days (according to Genesis 8:3), flood waters began to drain into newly formed ocean basins. Fish trapped in continental basins were the potential ancestors of our freshwater fish. Rainfall over the next several decades diluted the salt concentration in most postflood lakes.4 Natural selection eliminated fish in each generation that could not tolerate the declining salinity. Those that could, had less competition for resources and could reproduce their tolerance for lower salinities. Because fish reproduce frequently and profusely, limited variations in each generation allowed rapid adaptation in their ability to control the water in their bodies. This is microevolution, not macroevolution. No new organs were needed.
So all post "Flood" lakes wsere originally salty? I guess thatd have to be your anser. I love how the (insert website name) try to use science to disprove science and exhalt their own mumbo-jumbo silliness.
