Physics of the Biblical Flood

Im sorry, this was rather funny so I hadda post it separately. Its like, " We all know the moon is made of green cheese so heres the recipe"

What's more sad than funny is that Gunga spends all his time trying to validate what is clearly Biblical nonsense, but he pointedly ignores the central message, 'Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself.' He spends a lot of time condemning those of other faiths, darker hues etc.

There is a good deal of entertainment value in this thread, and the appearance of Gunga Dim just ups the ante.

Not ALL other faiths, Poop. Just the ones which send their followers and acolytes out to murder innocents. You might want to try reading a newspaper once every other week or so...

Like Timothy McVeigh.

I'm not going to take any reading advice from someone who actually believes Peruvians used to ride around on dinosaurs.

There's stupid, then there's thick as mince, followed by thick as ****, then there's you, bringing up the rear.

i yam so with you on that point. Id pay money to listen to this

ou realize , of course , that all your doing is steeling his resolve to rehash the ratoons of the early crap of his own sowing. Gunga will buy anything that is suitably shiny and makes tinkling noises.


Technically, I guess you wouldnt rehash a ratoon, youd have to replant it first

To rosborne979:

I am sorry if I offended you. I want to keep this debate rational and I wish that we will all respect one another no matter what our religious beliefs are. Are you a scientist? In what field?
You asked me to provide empirical evidence to support my “conjecture” of a cosmic cloud interacting with the earth. I admit that I don't have that evidence yet. Cosmic clouds are usually observed if they are illuminated by nearby stars, if they scatter the light of stars behind them or if they posses hot material which radiates thermally. Most of the cosmic dust is assumed (by astronomers) to be undetectable with our present capabilities.
The specific cloud that I refer to in my theory was very small. I estimate that its diameter was less than 0.003 lightyears and its remains are located within a radius of 3.5 lightyears from Earth. I don't think that we can practically find it with our present technology, but if someone wants to try, it should be aligned with the ecliptic...
The cosmic cloud is mentioned in my book since I claim that the mass of its sub-portions generated extreme tidal heating within Earth's mantle, which caused the release of water from the “great depths”. In my research I searched for any previous research regarding the scenario of tidal heating by a cosmic cloud. I found none. To my best knowledge my research is actually the first that tries to deal with such a scenario. Even without the empirical evidence there is a theoretical value for this theory. We should know what should be expected if we encounter a cosmic cloud just like we should know what should be expected in an asteroid impact scenario. Physicists can test my theory in detail. They can prove or disprove it mathematically. For this reason alone the theory is worth scientific investigation even if the general flood scenario turns out to be wrong.
History is full of theories that were published without empirical evidence and later on turn out to be true. I think that any theory that is based on firm logic and may have public interest should be published and tested by others.

To Gungasnake:

I have spent a lot of time researching the exact quotes that you provided before the composition of my book. The 7 days of light that preceded the Biblical flood are merely the days in which the front of the cosmic cloud that approached Earth could be seen. According to the legends and Talmud the cosmic cloud approached from the direction of Saturn (after some great explosion that occurred there) became stronger and stronger until the flood began. Then darkness took over. If a cosmic cloud will approach Earth it would return the sunlight just like any other celestial body in our solar system does. But since it is a cloud and not just a planet or comet, then its light will cover a great portion of the sky. The historical evidence that you quoted strengthens my case.
Regarding your claim that the water originated from an extraterrestrial source: Where do you claim that the flood water is today?

To Farmerman:

I am not familiar with the work of Archbishop Ussher. My work is independent.
You doubted the existence of the 4.2 kilo year event. I have no doubt that you are a professional geochemist, but I think that you are unaware of the amount of evidence that has been collected in this issue over the last two decades. Maybe it is due to the fact that North America was less affected by the aridity phase and you specialize today in the North American geology (correct me if I'm wrong).

Anyway we will now begin to examine these findings together. Aridity does not necessarily precede a flood. But in this case there is evidence that it dose. I am aware of all the geological methods that you mentioned and I will use these exact methods in our discussion. The volume of the material that I have collected can easily fill up another book. In this forum I propose that we will proceed step by step. Let me provide you with one piece of evidence in each reply. Give me your professional opinion on my analysis. We will see what we can agree about and what not. If you will prove without any doubt that my analysis is wrong then I will declare here that my whole theory has been disproved. Otherwise we will continue to the next piece of evidence. If you want to show me your own evidence please do so but give me the link to the original article. One article each reply. If the data you want to present is not accessible without paying a fee, please sent it directly to my email (q.spacer@gmail.com) because my budget is very limited.

My theory does not demand that altitudes above 3-4 kilometers were submerged for more than several hours (during an extreme high tide that occurred on day 150 of the flood). But it does demand that all lower altitudes were submerged for weeks or months long. So if you can supply a proof that any particular site in an altitude bellow 3 kilometers was not submerged then you will indeed disprove my theory. Of course I am asking you to give me the chance to conduct my own research on any evidence that you supply before you make your final conclusions.

Now I want to direct you to the first piece of evidence. I could have began from riverine deposits which would make a great impression but I wish to start from the geo-archeological analysis that began the whole discussion regarding the 4.2 kilo year event. I am speaking about the following article from Yale's “Tel Leilan Project”: The Genesis and Collapse of Third Millennium North Mesopotamian Civilization. You can download the article (free) at the following link:
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Tel Leilan was an important city of the Akkadian Empire in northern Syria. Its altitude was several hundred meters above sea level. The detailed geological analysis presented on page 999 and onward shows that the city was abandoned at once due to an abrupt climate event around 2200 BC and was resettled only several centuries later. Most of the layer from this hiatus reveals the extreme aridity conditions that followed abandonment. But I want to focus on its very beginning which is described in the first paragraph in page 1000. Please read that paragraph.

It shows that the event began with a tephra fall that was mixed with mud from collapsing mud-brick walls due to rain. This layer is only 0.5 cm thick and was sealed (under pressure) into the previous layer. The researchers postulated that human trampling pressured the tephra into the previous layer. I interpret that the water pressure of the flood did that. The researches also postulated that the mud-brick collapse was due to normal rain that continued for a short while after the tephra fall and before the arid phase. I interpret that It happened in the first months of the flood before the city was submerged. Check if you can disprove my interpretation. The main importance of this evidence is to demonstrate the necessary high resolution that is needed to determine the cause of the 4.2 kilo year event what ever it is (flood or not flood).

Roi Lotan Glazer
The Physics of The Biblical Flood
(Google it...)

Archaeological evidence does not show a worldwide flood deposition layer, which would be quite distinctive. There are flood deposition layers in many places which have been near rivers or large bodies of water, but those layers were deposited at widely different times, not at the same time (because rivers, lakes, and seas flood, of course, but never all at the same time). And there are many areas of earth that show no flood deposition layers at all. Archaeological evidence doesn't support you. I've seen it with my own eyes (or rather not seen it, because it isn't there).
'

It's not enough to say "prove me wrong." You have to specify what evidence would prove you wrong. I think those who oppose the notion of a universal flood have already set out what evidence would disprove their position: sedimentary layers created at the same time and found everywhere, together with evidence of a massive terrestrial die-off at the same time. You, on the other hand, need to do likewise. And it's not enough to say "supply proof that any particular site below 3 kilometers was not submerged." You need to say what that "proof" would entail. In other words, what evidence would you accept that would "prove" that any particular site below 3 kilometers was not submerged?

You misunderstand me. I doubt the existence of a worldwide flood coinciding with the various aridity and cooloffs (Younger Dryas,Piora Oscillation, 8.2/5.9/4.2 "Kiloyears")
These are aridity boundaries that had some archeological effects that coincided with terminations of civilizations (NOT, as you seem to want to assert-thyat there was a FLOOD.

No , in this case there is no evidence ANYWHERE of a worldwide flood. Geological data of which Ive discussed briefly is loaded with evidence of the consistancy of the "EROSION PLAIN" that is mother earth. Youve said that a year of a flood wouldnt have any evidence left and I say, unequivocally, BULLSHIT. Bioturbation and chemical residues alone would have left a vast (or half vast) deposit of several key salts (pirrhsonite, sylvite, NAtron etc). Wherever these deposist occur, they occur in limited lakebeds that have since DRIED UP since the Dryas, with "spikes during 8.2/5.9/4.2/2.5 K events.
In AFrica, lets say, the evidence of footprints in volcanic ash that is UNHYDRATED (meaning it didnt get wet enough to change into a hydration pozzolonic structure). We have these footprints that extend back to over 2.8 MILLION years.
We have cave deposits of human habitation along sea side an Karstic terrains of Yugoslavia and Croatia where dry human habitation evidence goes back almost 100000 yeasr and the straw and fecal matter is dessicated, and fire pits are still aligned with remnant magnetism (fireplaces, when they get used, have a habit of forming a mineral "bloom" among the ash, and these blooms contain iron minmerals that align themselves with the THEN earths magnetic North. We see, all over Europe, Africa, and the Levant, evidences of firepits that all have THE SAME Northern orientation. How could that be with a flood sloshing things about??


. Tephra indicates a proximity to a volcano(which one is this article referring?). Ash falls generally are done with great energy and the energy released will form nucleation centers (rising air drops moisture). The big volcanoes (strombolis etc) can generate huge thunderstorms. BUT, do these tephra deposits show evidence of being hydrated in situ at depth and coincident with the time?

My discussions above have pretty much looked at readily available evidence that shows that civilizations and encampmenst have Holocene and earlier relics that are not flood moved or disturbed, and Im surelands below 3 to 4 K above se level would include places like most of California and most of the east coast of US and just look at maps of Europe Asia and Africa. SO, then, your worldwide flood really wsnt worldwide and we still are waiting for the real evidence that is not mere conjecture.
SO far, youve only been telling me what youre gonna tell me .

What if there was a flood, but afterwards there were loads of Dune type sandworms who could burrow through solid rock. These worms shot about all over the shop, eating all the soil and shitting everywhere. Then they would have died out because of something or other, probably all the worm ****. Apart from the ones in Tremors, and the Loch Ness Monster and his mates of course. That would have got rid of the flood evidence wouldn't it, especially if the worms got a bit constipated now and then?

Then that's a huge problem for your theory. You've built a house of cards, every piece of which is lacking in evidence, and the very foundation of which (cosmic cloud) has no evidence at all.

And that was just the first and most obvious piece of the puzzle that I chose to inspect. I could just as easily asked you to provide evidence that oceans of water have been squeezed from the Earth's mantle and then re-absorbed (disregarding the impetus for such an event) for which you don't have any evidence to support either.

so, instead, we should be looking for deposits of worm castings about the size of a Airbus. Ill get right on it.

They'll have broken down by now, little worms.

Hi everyone,

Amazingly my account was suspended for spam until the 8th of May despite the fact that the link that I provided in my previous reply was to an academic article in the web site of Yale university! It looks like the editor here is trying to prevent a genuine discussion. So now I am called "qspacer1" and I hope that the editor-dictator will not suspend me again.

To Farmerman:

You are speaking generally and mixing findings from many different eras together. Focus only on findings that relate to the 22th century BC or that describe some earlier phenomena that must have been altered if it was submerged later on. Please choose one example and refer me to an academic article or source that describes the findings. In order to prove your case scientifically we must check the details.
In addition, it seems that you didn't read the article that I referred you to. Maybe because the editor of this site erased the link that I gave you in the previous reply (although it is merely a link to an academic article within the web site of Yale university). Nevertheless, I am asking you to read this article. You can easily find it. Google the following web page: "Yale university Tel Leilan project publications". Within that web page you will find a link to the article from 1993:
"The genesis and collapse of Third Millennium north Mesopotamian Civilization. Science, 291: 995-1088." You can download the article for free. Focus more than all on the first paragraph of page 1000. Then please reply to what I asked you in my previous post.
Farmerman, I am providing you with specific evidence. I am asking you to do so too. In a genuine scientific discussion we should not disregard such detailed information. When you speak generally you can prove nothing specifically.

To everyone else (including the new archeologist in this discussion):

I have to prepare a big presentation for physicists (regarding the unification of relativity and quantum mechanics) until sunday. Hopefully, I will make time to supply you with detailed replies on Monday. Meanwhile, I am asking you to be patient. Don't underestimate my research when you don't have any idea how much evidence I have collected (geological, archeological, biological, historical and anthropological). I think we should all respect each other and be more cautious before we mock someone else.

See you on Monday.
Roi Lotan Glazer
The Physics of The Biblical flood
(Google it...)

You get mocked because you post bullsh*t for which you have no evidence, and make statements not only for which you have no evidence, but which are demonstrably wrong.

Now you attempting to establish yourself as an authority by oblique references to Yale Universtiy and your need to prepare a presentation for "physicists" (unnamed). I suspect you're attempting to lay the groundwork for making statements from authority which you suppose will obviate the need to provide evidence for your claims.

WAKE UP ! ! ! You're dreamin' . . .

You also continue to attempt to promote this silly book of yours through the medium of this thread. You must think everyone here is a rube . . .