Could Physics allow this....

[sleeping giant]

In the past , could the Earth have been surrounded by a blanket of water held up in the athmospere ?
Could this blanket of water have blocked harmfull rays from the sun ?
If this blanket did block harmfull rays , could this enable significantly longer life peroids ?

Would this blanket of water produce pressure which would make living things on Earth bigger ?

Please put all religious intollerance aside in this issue and just tell me what is wrong with the physics.

:hnet:

[Woody1985]

IMO it's more likely than some big invisible guy in the sky (space given there was no sky, right? :confused:) creating stuff with his giant invisible hands. However, I could be wrong. :devil:

Edit; on a more serious note. Where did you get this theory? Doesn't sound like something you thought up on a lunch break. :LOL:

[LiverpoolHibs]

In the past , could the Earth have been surrounded by a blanket of water held up in the athmospere ?
Could this blanket of water have blocked harmfull rays from the sun ?
If this blanket did block harmfull rays , could this enable significantly longer life peroids ?

Would this blanket of water produce pressure which would make living things on Earth bigger ?

Please put all religious intollerance aside in this issue and just tell me what is wrong with the physics.

:hnet:


Held up by what?

Why would producing pressure make things on earth bigger?

I'm not a scientist by any means but I'm not sure there's enough information there to make it actually disprovable - despite it being obviously ridiculous. What's the motivation for this (more than) slightly odd theory? :greengrin

[sleeping giant]

Held up by what?

Why would producing pressure make things on earth bigger?

I'm not a scientist by any means but I'm not sure there's enough information there to make it actually disprovable - despite it being obviously ridiculous. What's the motivation for this (more than) slightly odd theory? :greengrin

Held up with a magnetic field ang gravity maybe ?

Higher pressure would mean things would have to be larger if they were to move about maybe ?

I dunno:greengrin

Again please leave all religious beliefs to one side and just gives the physics!!

[sleeping giant]

IMO it's more likely than some big invisible guy in the sky (space given there was no sky, right? :confused:) creating stuff with his giant invisible hands. However, I could be wrong. :devil:

Edit; on a more serious note. Where did you get this theory? Doesn't sound like something you thought up on a lunch break. :LOL:


Its not a theory of mine. Its a question.
I will refrain from stating the source of my imagination at the moment:greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Held up with a magnetic field ang gravity maybe ?

Higher pressure would mean things would have to be larger if they were to move about maybe ?

I dunno:greengrin

Again please leave all religious beliefs to one side and just gives the physics!!

As I say, I'm not a scientist. So I'll step aside and watch with amusement and interest. :greengrin

The burden of proof should really be on the person with the theory and not the people disagreeing with the theory, such as it is... :wink:

[sleeping giant]

As I say, I'm not a scientist. So I'll step aside and watch with amusement and interest. :greengrin

The burden of proof should really be on the person with the theory and not the people disagreeing with the theory, such as it is... :wink:.

Im not trying to prove anything LH !!

I'm just asking if there is anything wrong with the science behind it

[Jack]

I’m not sure I’ve got this right. :confused:

Are you suggesting that you have like a donut where the hole in the middle is the planet earth, the donut is the atnesphere [sic:slipper:] and on the outside of the donut is a layer of water?

Surely with gravity this couldn’t happen as water is heavier than atnesphere?

[sleeping giant]

I’m not sure I’ve got this right. :confused:

Are you suggesting that you have like a donut where the hole in the middle is the planet earth, the donut is the atnesphere [sic:slipper:] and on the outside of the donut is a layer of water?

Surely with gravity this couldn’t happen as water is heavier than atnesphere?

Yes you have it right.:agree:

If the body of water was far enough from the Earth , would gravity not hold it in place ?

[Tomsk]

As I say, I'm not a scientist. So I'll step aside and watch with amusement and interest. :greengrin

The burden of proof should really be on the person with the theory and not the people disagreeing with the theory, such as it is... :wink:

It reminds me of the theory of the Brontosaurus in Monty Pythons.

Ahem ... it was thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and thin again at the other end.

[Phil D. Rolls]

See the problem with science? At some point you have to take the same leap of faith that you would if you were listening to a religious explanation.

I think Science is about as much use as religion - ~ Foucault. (Trying once again, but knowing that I am casting my seed on stony ground).

[Mibbes Aye]

In the past , could the Earth have been surrounded by a blanket of water held up in the athmospere ?
Could this blanket of water have blocked harmfull rays from the sun ?
If this blanket did block harmfull rays , could this enable significantly longer life peroids ?

Would this blanket of water produce pressure which would make living things on Earth bigger ?

Please put all religious intollerance aside in this issue and just tell me what is wrong with the physics.

:hnet:

Why should we put aside our intolerance of religion? :greengrin

In answer to your question, I'm no astrophysicist (although matters like this frequently cropped up on the sadly-defunct calendar thread) however.......

The atmosphere as it currently exists is kept in place by gravity. Assuming it was feasible for a blanket of water to exist there, then I'm guessing the level of gravity required to maintain it in place would have to be vastly increased. This would affect life on earth by essentially making us all shorter and denser (insert your own yam joke at this point).

This is ill-informed speculation but I'm guessing the magnitude of the difference between the levels of gravity would be such that nothing approximating human life would be able to exist (although some form of life would).

[Jack]

Yes you have it right.:agree:

If the body of water was far enough from the Earth , would gravity not hold it in place ?

If it was within the pull of gravity it would get pulled down through the air to the planets surface. If it was outwith the pull of gravity it would float away into space.

If it was somewhere in between it would be called rain :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

See the problem with science? At some point you have to take the same leap of faith that you would if you were listening to a religious explanation.

I think Science is about as much use as religion - ~ Foucault. (Trying once again, but knowing that I am casting my seed on stony ground).

Mon the Foucault :agree:

[Tomsk]

I’m not sure I’ve got this right. :confused:

Are you suggesting that you have like a donut where the hole in the middle is the planet earth, the donut is the atnesphere [sic:slipper:] and on the outside of the donut is a layer of water?

Surely with gravity this couldn’t happen as water is heavier than atnesphere?

I'm totally lost. Can we start again?

[sleeping giant]

If it was within the pull of gravity it would get pulled down through the air to the planets surface. If it was outwith the pull of gravity it would float away into space.

If it was somewhere in between it would be called rain :greengrin

The Moon does not fall to Earth or float away !:greengrin

[Woody1985]

The Moon does not fall to Earth or float away !:greengrin

Does the moon not determine Earth's gravitational force? :LOL: That might have something to do with it.

[sleeping giant]

Why should we put aside our intolerance of religion? :greengrin

In answer to your question, I'm no astrophysicist (although matters like this frequently cropped up on the sadly-defunct calendar thread) however.......

The atmosphere as it currently exists is kept in place by gravity. Assuming it was feasible for a blanket of water to exist there, then I'm guessing the level of gravity required to maintain it in place would have to be vastly increased. This would affect life on earth by essentially making us all shorter and denser (insert your own yam joke at this point).

This is ill-informed speculation but I'm guessing the magnitude of the difference between the levels of gravity would be such that nothing approximating human life would be able to exist (although some form of life would).

Great reply:agree:

I'm still waiting on a scientist though:greengrin

[Andy74]

I take it we are not just talking about clouds??

All the water that has ever been in our atmosphere is still here, in the same quantity, it may just be stored differentyl or have a different form.

How does that fit with your theory?

[Sylar]

It is possible, theoretically, but rediculously unlikely, considering thermal conditions, dynamic pressure, gravitational force and water ratios would all need to satisfy certain laws to permit its occurrence.

Does a water physicist count as a scientist SG? :greengrin

[sleeping giant]

I take it we are not just talking about clouds??

All the water that has ever been in our atmosphere is still here, in the same quantity, it may just be stored differentyl or have a different form.

How does that fit with your theory?

You dont know if this is true !! You dont know if or when water arrived on Earth.

I am going along the lines that the body of water held high above Earth in a gravitational/Magnetic manner emptied and filled our oceans.
All the water would still be here.

Its not my theory for the umpteenth time. Its a question about physics.

To clarify , im not talking about clouds. Im talking about a massive body of water encompassing the Earth high in the Athmospere.

[sleeping giant]

It is possible, theoretically, but rediculously unlikely, considering thermal conditions, dynamic pressure, gravitational force and water ratios would all need to satisfy certain laws to permit its occurrence.

Does a water physicist count as a scientist SG? :greengrin

You'll do:greengrin

I was trying to find you on another thread as i thought you would have a decent input:agree:


So in theory , its possible ?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Mon the Foucault :agree:

I'm so grateful, thank you. :pray:

[sleeping giant]

It is possible, theoretically, but rediculously unlikely, considering thermal conditions, dynamic pressure, gravitational force and water ratios would all need to satisfy certain laws to permit its occurrence.

Does a water physicist count as a scientist SG? :greengrin

Just as rediculously unlikely as life starting on this planet ?
All the elements for life have to be exact , and they are !

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm so grateful, thank you. :pray:

If only we had the power. Everyone would know about Foucault :greengrin

[Tomsk]

If only we had the power. Everyone would know about Foucault :greengrin

I was about to say I know Foucault about physics but I thought better of it.

[Andy74]

The Moon does not fall to Earth or float away !:greengrin

Is the moon not constantly falling towards the earth?

[sleeping giant]

Is the moon not constantly falling towards the earth?

The Moon is drifting away ever so slightly.

Edit. Just noticed i have contradicted myself :-)

Its drifting away at about an 1.5 inches per year.

[Jack]

The Moon is drifting away ever so slightly.

Edit. Just noticed i have contradicted myself :-)

Its drifting away at about an 1.5 inches per year.

For younger folk that dont understand what an inches is ... Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. :greengrin

[Sylar]

Just as rediculously unlikely as life starting on this planet ?
All the elements for life have to be exact , and they are !

Exactly - our distance from the solar radiation we receive from the sun is pinpoint. If we were any closer/further away from the sun, the thermal energy would alter the composition of the atmosphere and we'd end up in a situation more like Mars or Venus. If you haven't already, I'd suggest reading "The Goldilocks Enigma", which touches on this theory!

I'm guessing with this thread, you're alluding to the Canopy Theory, which many Creationists hold as the source of the 40 days and 40 nights of persistent rainfall which lead to the Great Flood?

If this scenario were true, there would be more physical evidence existing today. Consider the basic (I don't want to bore you) Greenhouse physics - in Layman's terms, it acts as a blanket, reflecting solar heat back to Earth. Now consider the absorptive properties of water - the amount of energy required to heat 1-ml of water is enormous, so such an absorption would mean heat which would otherwise heat the Earth, would be absorbed by any "canopy" of water. The climatic evidence for this would indicate a very cold environment indeed! Our oxygen isotope record (and sedimentary record) detail the previous Ice Ages and gradual transition into them. If there were a large canopy of water, the process into these climatic shifts would have been dramatic, which they weren't.

The other major issue with this theory is the global spread of coal and oil reserves. If it were a canopy which was elevated above the Earth, the spread would need to be uniform (going on the laws which maintain vapour as a constant presence throughout the atmosphere - there are no parts of the atmosphere where you suddenly find an altered state). If the presence was indeed uniform, then the deluge which followed from the sudden release would be uniform - imagine sheets of water filling a basin - the eventual effect is that the basin fills at a uniform gradient, assuming an even surface. As a result, if this sudden uniform release of the canopy consumed the entire planet (as it theoretically should (and did, according to the Bible)), then the volume of dead organic material at the base, in the form of vegetation, animals etc would see a global deposit of coal and oil - this is not the case.

So yes, possibly (in a highly theoretical sense) but improbable.

If you can't sleep tonight, read that a few times! :greengrin

[Future17]

I think Science is about as much use as religion - ~ Foucault. (Trying once again, but knowing that I am casting my seed on stony ground).


Mon the Foucault :agree:


I'm so grateful, thank you. :pray:


If only we had the power. Everyone would know about Foucault :greengrin


I was about to say I know Foucault about physics but I thought better of it.

Foucault?!? As in, you're gonna win Foucault?!?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[LiverpoolHibs]

See the problem with science? At some point you have to take the same leap of faith that you would if you were listening to a religious explanation.

I think Science is about as much use as religion - ~ Foucault. (Trying once again, but knowing that I am casting my seed on stony ground).


Mon the Foucault :agree:


I'm so grateful, thank you. :pray:


If only we had the power. Everyone would know about Foucault :greengrin

Pah, a poor man's Derrida!

No-one likes a nihilist...

:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

This has been my favourite thread in a long time. Well done SG :thumbsup:

Not just has it raised a serious science question which Scott has endeavoured to answer, it has also raised Foucauldian awareness, and re-opened that whole structuralist/post-modernist blah blah thing :thumbsup:

Plus it has opened up the whole 'Great Deluge' debate for the fundamentalists.

Quality :agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

Pah, a poor man's Derrida!

No-one likes a nihilist...

:greengrin

Derrida/Foucault or Foucault/Derrida??? We'll never know, as I think he/they pointed out. No room for obfuscation and obscurantism in the Scottish game that's for sure. And Petrie is sticking by Weber :agree:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Derrida/Foucault or Foucault/Derrida??? We'll never know, as I think he/they pointed out. No room for obfuscation and obscurantism in the Scottish game that's for sure. And Petrie is sticking by Weber :agree:

I've always seen Petrie as more of a Veblen-ite, what with his almost pathological opposition to 'conspicuous consumption'. The Theory of the Leisure Class is his Bible...

When can the comic potential of Lyotard be introduced? :dizzy:

[Jack]

This has been my favourite thread in a long time. Well done SG :thumbsup:

Not just has it raised a serious science question which Scott has endeavoured to answer, it has also raised Foucauldian awareness, and re-opened that whole structuralist/post-modernist blah blah thing :thumbsup:

Plus it has opened up the whole 'Great Deluge' debate for the fundamentalists.

Quality :agree:

Do we need to build an ark? :confused:

[Mibbes Aye]

I'valways seen Petrie as more of a Veblen-ite, what e with his almost pathological opposition to 'conspicuous consumption'. The Theory of the Leisure Class is his Bible...

When can the comic potential of Lyotard be introduced? :dizzy:

:agree: You would think. But Petrie's outseen the likes of the rise and eventual hegemony of capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, the 'Dark Ages' and before that for longer than the likes of you or I could imagine. He plays the long game :agree:

As for Lyotard, the differend ??? It has applications in every walk of Hibs life, indeed in football life I would have thought. Collins' (Mowbray's) team in the CIS final being a fine example.

[sleeping giant]

Exactly - our distance from the solar radiation we receive from the sun is pinpoint. If we were any closer/further away from the sun, the thermal energy would alter the composition of the atmosphere and we'd end up in a situation more like Mars or Venus. If you haven't already, I'd suggest reading "The Goldilocks Enigma", which touches on this theory!

I'm guessing with this thread, you're alluding to the Canopy Theory, which many Creationists hold as the source of the 40 days and 40 nights of persistent rainfall which lead to the Great Flood?

If this scenario were true, there would be more physical evidence existing today. Consider the basic (I don't want to bore you) Greenhouse physics - in Layman's terms, it acts as a blanket, reflecting solar heat back to Earth. Now consider the absorptive properties of water - the amount of energy required to heat 1-ml of water is enormous, so such an absorption would mean heat which would otherwise heat the Earth, would be absorbed by any "canopy" of water. The climatic evidence for this would indicate a very cold environment indeed! Our oxygen isotope record (and sedimentary record) detail the previous Ice Ages and gradual transition into them. If there were a large canopy of water, the process into these climatic shifts would have been dramatic, which they weren't.

The other major issue with this theory is the global spread of coal and oil reserves. If it were a canopy which was elevated above the Earth, the spread would need to be uniform (going on the laws which maintain vapour as a constant presence throughout the atmosphere - there are no parts of the atmosphere where you suddenly find an altered state). If the presence was indeed uniform, then the deluge which followed from the sudden release would be uniform - imagine sheets of water filling a basin - the eventual effect is that the basin fills at a uniform gradient, assuming an even surface. As a result, if this sudden uniform release of the canopy consumed the entire planet (as it theoretically should (and did, according to the Bible)), then the volume of dead organic material at the base, in the form of vegetation, animals etc would see a global deposit of coal and oil - this is not the case.

So yes, possibly (in a highly theoretical sense) but improbable.

If you can't sleep tonight, read that a few times! :greengrin

Superb stuff Scott:thumbsup:

Tis indeed the Canopy theory i am talking about.:agree:

While i am not religious in the slightest , YET:greengrin i wont discount any theory about creation .
IMO this theory hold as much water (see what i did there :-)) as the Big Bang theory.

I think science is geared towards trying to prove the big bang theory and that is not healthy.

The reason i was asking about pressure increasing size was tied into the size of the Arc and the Cubit. ie bigger men have bigger arms:greengrin

Back to the big bang ! This is just a cop out imo. The universe is expanding at this moment in time , this does not mean it has always been expanding.
Even if it has been expanding since the BB and will be contracting to oblivion , surely this would cause another big bang when all the matter in the universe condensed.
I could maybe give the multiverse a bit of time:agree:

The Big Bang is the scientists "God"

Dont even get me started on ElHomine (sp):greengrin

[sleeping giant]

Do we need to build an ark? :confused:

How big is your cubit ?:greengrin

[sleeping giant]

This is good watching (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esamersaliba%2Ecom%2F%3Fid% 3D29&feature=player_embedded):agree:

[Jack]

How big is your cubit ?:greengrin

Always hasta be a question? :wink:

[GlesgaeHibby]

Superb stuff Scott:thumbsup:

Tis indeed the Canopy theory i am talking about.:agree:

While i am not religious in the slightest , YET:greengrin i wont discount any theory about creation .
IMO this theory hold as much water (see what i did there :-)) as the Big Bang theory.

I think science is geared towards trying to prove the big bang theory and that is not healthy.

The reason i was asking about pressure increasing size was tied into the size of the Arc and the Cubit. ie bigger men have bigger arms:greengrin

Back to the big bang ! This is just a cop out imo. The universe is expanding at this moment in time , this does not mean it has always been expanding.
Even if it has been expanding since the BB and will be contracting to oblivion , surely this would cause another big bang when all the matter in the universe condensed.
I could maybe give the multiverse a bit of time:agree:

The Big Bang is the scientists "God"

Dont even get me started on ElHomine (sp):greengrin

Oh dear not somebody else taking in the nonsense that comes out of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham's religious propaganda machine.

I know 10 year olds that know more about science than Kent Hovind.

Kent Hovind and Ken Ham come up with ludicrous theories to try and convince fundamentalist Christians that the Earth is 6000 years old, which is completely ludicrous.

The theory of a blanket of water surrounding the earth falls apart under any serious scrutiny. Even a few basic questions; Why isn't it there now? How did it stay up there within the constraints of the Earths gravitational field?


Science unlike these nutjobs wants to answer the fundamental questions, if we make mistakes along the way we improve our theories and keep advancing.

The big bang model is the most complete theory of the universe we have just now, and is very well explained and fits all data currently observed.

[sleeping giant]

Oh dear not somebody else taking in the nonsense that comes out of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham's religious propaganda machine.

I know 10 year olds that know more about science than Kent Hovind.

Kent Hovind and Ken Ham come up with ludicrous theories to try and convince fundamentalist Christians that the Earth is 6000 years old, which is completely ludicrous.

The theory of a blanket of water surrounding the earth falls apart under any serious scrutiny. Even a few basic questions; Why isn't it there now? How did it stay up there within the constraints of the Earths gravitational field?


Science unlike these nutjobs wants to answer the fundamental questions, if we make mistakes along the way we improve our theories and keep advancing.

The big bang model is the most complete theory of the universe we have just now, and is very well explained and fits all data currently observed.

Oh dear. I was looking forward to your post after noticing you were browsing.:bitchy:

I am not taken in by anything !! I think its an interesting take on it and was wondering if the science could , if anyone would look at it without prejudice , be backed up.
I have already stated i am not religious.

My interest is not based on Hovind , even though he is a very interesting character current serving time .

I am interested in creation ! I am not scientific !

After a few years of googling the subject i have ended up with a bucket load of creation v science debates on my laptop which i watch while working away.
I also think Jordan Maxwell has some very interesting beliefs but this doesnt mean i believe what he says.

Quite dissapointed in your response to be honest GH.

[sleeping giant]

This is good watching (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esamersaliba%2Ecom%2F%3Fid% 3D29&feature=player_embedded):agree:
I also think its interesting that the editor of sceptic magazine in this debate wont be sceptical about evolution.

[RyeSloan]

SG..you compare the canopy theory with the big bang theory and ask for physics (or scientific for a more general phrase) evidence to prove one could actually possibly have happened when it is clear even to a lay man that it did/could not then dismiss one of the most scientifically debated and researched theories of all time as a 'cop out'....bizzare.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Oh dear. I was looking forward to your post after noticing you were browsing.:bitchy:

I am not taken in by anything !! I think its an interesting take on it and was wondering if the science could , if anyone would look at it without prejudice , be backed up.
I have already stated i am not religious.

My interest is not based on Hovind , even though he is a very interesting character current serving time .

I am interested in creation ! I am not scientific !

After a few years of googling the subject i have ended up with a bucket load of creation v science debates on my laptop which i watch while working away.
I also think Jordan Maxwell has some very interesting beliefs but this doesnt mean i believe what he says.

Quite dissapointed in your response to be honest GH.

Apologies, I didn't intend my post to sound the way it did, re reading it now it looks a bit off, and for that I am sorry.

I feel strongly against Hovind and his methods, because to anybody without a good science knowledge, some of his theories sound plausible because he presents what he calls facts to support them in a very articulate way.

[(((Fergus)))]

Three layman's question here for all the scientists out there:

1) what made the big bang happen?
2) if the universe is expanding, why do the stars stay in the same patterns?

and last but not least

3) what is the universe expanding into?

Thank you :greengrin

[sleeping giant]

SG..you compare the canopy theory with the big bang theory and ask for physics (or scientific for a more general phrase) evidence to prove one could actually possibly have happened when it is clear even to a lay man that it did/could not then dismiss one of the most scientifically debated and researched theories of all time as a 'cop out'....bizzare.

I'll admit i went on a bit of a tangent last night:greengrin

Regarding the "cop out" quote...
I just can't believe that nothing exploded and created all the matter in the universe.
It takes the same leap of faith as believing God did it.

This was meant to be a bit of fun to see if general science could give any credence to the theory.

I think a few posters are getting quite defensive regarding this.

I did not want to upset anyones scientific religion:greengrin


I believe 4000 years ago there was a flood...................................:devil:

[sleeping giant]

Apologies, I didn't intend my post to sound the way it did, re reading it now it looks a bit off, and for that I am sorry.

I feel strongly against Hovind and his methods, because to anybody without a good science knowledge, some of his theories sound plausible because he presents what he calls facts to support them in a very articulate way.

He also states he taught science for 12 years.
Aye , in his own school:greengrin



Good showman:agree:

[Darth Hibbie]

I'll admit i went on a bit of a tangent last night:greengrin

Regarding the "cop out" quote...
I just can't believe that nothing exploded and created all the matter in the universe.
It takes the same leap of faith as believing God did it.

This was meant to be a bit of fun to see if general science could give any credence to the theory.

I think a few posters are getting quite defensive regarding this.

I did not want to upset anyones scientific religion:greengrin


I believe 4000 years ago there was a flood...................................:devil:

Apparently so. Caused by a shifting in the tectonic plates flooding Atlantis for eternity and was the end of the the race of humans who had superior knowledge to us and built the pyramids etc.

either that or it was the aliens. :greengrin

[Sylar]

The Flood itself did happen and is well documented in most Quaternary/hydrology/climate textbooks and papers.

Not in the sense of a "global deluge", but an already existing presence of water submerging the land.

Whether anyone was smart enough to build an ark and have a bestiality party is another question...

[Andy74]

The Flood itself did happen and is well documented in most Quaternary/hydrology/climate textbooks and papers.

...

Really? A flood covering the whole world has been proven and documented? I wouldn't have thought so.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The Flood itself did happen and is well documented in most Quaternary/hydrology/climate textbooks and papers.

Where did the water go?

[(((Fergus)))]

Three layman's question here for all the scientists out there:

1) what made the big bang happen?
2) if the universe is expanding, why do the stars stay in the same patterns?

and last but not least

3) what is the universe expanding into?

Thank you :greengrin

Any takers?

[Darth Hibbie]

Three layman's question here for all the scientists out there:

1) what made the big bang happen?
2) if the universe is expanding, why do the stars stay in the same patterns?

and last but not least

3) what is the universe expanding into?

Thank you :greengrin


Any takers?

I'll try but please forgive the technical terms being used.

1. A big bomb
2. Clearly its the bit we can't see that is expanding
3. Into Nades stomach

[Darth Hibbie]

The Flood itself did happen and is well documented in most Quaternary/hydrology/climate textbooks and papers.

Whether anyone was smart enough to build an ark and have a bestiality party is another question...


Really? A flood covering the whole world has been proven and documented? I wouldn't have thought so.

I was under the impression that there was some evidence of large scale floods at various different points in the world from around the same time. Suggesting that there may have been some world event.

[Darth Hibbie]

Where did the water go?

Polar ice caps? :dunno:

[sleeping giant]

Three layman's question here for all the scientists out there:

1) what made the big bang happen?
2) if the universe is expanding, why do the stars stay in the same patterns?

and last but not least

3) what is the universe expanding into?

Thank you :greengrin

Assuming it did happen....

1) This would have been caused by the previous universe shrinking to a critical point.
2) We have only been observing the stars for 5-6000 years:greengrin so any difference in star patterns would be negligible.
3)The universe is expanding into the space that the universe is creating.

[Sylar]

Really? A flood covering the whole world has been proven and documented? I wouldn't have thought so.

I'm not going on the Biblical Story of the Great Flood, I hasten to add. The Great Flood as documented in numerous hydrogeology journals occurred millions of years before civilizations were around to discuss the event and write about it - pre Ice Age.

Prior to the formation of the Polar Ice caps and tundra climate zones, most of the land was beneath a great depth of water (as supported by sedimentary layers depicting stores of organic carbon). This then froze, leading to the Great Ice age. Consider the sheer magnitude of some of the glaciers developed during this time - evident in the steep sided valleys in the Scottish Highlands (as a local example!). These things can be hundreds of feet thick and carved away many of the local (and global) geological features we see today, all over the planet!

As the Ice Age came to an end and the Earth's climate became more temperate, then the Glaciers melted, and retreated, with most of the water entering the Oceans. Some remained locked up in the Polar Ice caps, and to this day, remain locked. The reason we're experiencing sea-level rise (which, if were to happen universally, would inundate many areas of the world) is because this locked storage of water is melting. The land is also no longer rebounding in many places (Isostatic rebound occurs post-glaciation - think of a rubber ball - you press it down for a while, when you take the pressure of, it will rebound). Scotland continues to rise, hence why sea-level change does not threaten us quite so directly (as we have had recent glaciation in the Loch Lomond dryas). But when the land reaches a point of rebound and stops rising, and all the Polar Ice Caps were to melt without prejudice, there's no argument we'd be under a significant magnitude of water again!

As for the biblical story of "40 days and 40 nights", combined with theories of water canopies etc, I can't subscribe to that.

[(((Fergus)))]

Assuming it did happen....

1) This would have been caused by the previous universe shrinking to a critical point.
2) We have only been observing the stars for 5-6000 years:greengrin so any difference in star patterns would be negligible.
3)The universe is expanding into the space that the universe is creating.

I preferred Maiden 666's answers but I suspect yours are closer to the textbook. :greengrin

1) What made the original universe or is the theory that there was no beginning?

2) Surely with the instrumentation we have today it must be possible to observe some divergence?

3) What was in the space before the universe created the space into which it is expanding?

[sleeping giant]

I preferred Maiden 666's answers but I suspect yours are closer to the textbook. :greengrin

1) What made the original universe or is the theory that there was no beginning?

2) Surely with the instrumentation we have today it must be possible to observe some divergence?

3) What was in the space before the universe created the space into which it is expanding?

Ha ha:greengrin

I dont know if you have noticed but i'm no scientist......................

1) The way i see it , they dont know. I could only guess at what could possibly make nothing explode. This IMO is where Scientists and Religion are similar , they BELIEVE. It fits the facts that have been studied to fit the theory .

2) I think they can observe some divergence at this moment in time.

3)There was no space to expand into.

[(((Fergus)))]

I'm not going on the Biblical Story of the Great Flood, I hasten to add. The Great Flood as documented in numerous hydrogeology journals occurred millions of years before civilizations were around to discuss the event and write about it - pre Ice Age.

Prior to the formation of the Polar Ice caps and tundra climate zones, most of the land was beneath a great depth of water (as supported by sedimentary layers depicting stores of organic carbon). This then froze, leading to the Great Ice age. Consider the sheer magnitude of some of the glaciers developed during this time - evident in the steep sided valleys in the Scottish Highlands (as a local example!). These things can be hundreds of feet thick and carved away many of the local (and global) geological features we see today, all over the planet!

As the Ice Age came to an end and the Earth's climate became more temperate, then the Glaciers melted, and retreated, with most of the water entering the Oceans. Some remained locked up in the Polar Ice caps, and to this day, remain locked. The reason we're experiencing sea-level rise (which, if were to happen universally, would inundate many areas of the world) is because this locked storage of water is melting. The land is also no longer rebounding in many places (Isostatic rebound occurs post-glaciation - think of a rubber ball - you press it down for a while, when you take the pressure of, it will rebound). Scotland continues to rise, hence why sea-level change does not threaten us quite so directly (as we have had recent glaciation in the Loch Lomond dryas). But when the land reaches a point of rebound and stops rising, and all the Polar Ice Caps were to melt without prejudice, there's no argument we'd be under a significant magnitude of water again!

As for the biblical story of "40 days and 40 nights", combined with theories of water canopies etc, I can't subscribe to that.

Isn't that flood you describe more likely to correspond with the first couple of days of Creation? If people weren't around to record it, then there must have been another flood otherwise they wouldn't have known to mention it in the Old Testament.

On the sea level thing, is there actual evidence that the sea level is rising globally? All the places I know as a child have the same high and low tides. I also found this satellite measurement from NASA (1993-2008) which shows that sea level has risen in some areas (red/white) and dropped in others (blue/purple)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_sea_level_change_trend.jpg

[sleeping giant]

Isn't that flood you describe more likely to correspond with the first couple of days of Creation? If people weren't around to record it, then there must have been another flood otherwise they wouldn't have known to mention it in the Old Testament.

On the sea level thing, is there actual evidence that the sea level is rising globally? All the places I know as a child have the same high and low tides. I also found this satellite measurement from NASA (1993-2008) which shows that sea level has risen in some areas (red/white) and dropped in others (blue/purple)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_sea_level_change_trend.jpg


There are flood tales in most civilizations .:agree:
Whether this is local flooding i cannot say.

[(((Fergus)))]

Ha ha:greengrin

I dont know if you have noticed but i'm no scientist......................

1) The way i see it , they dont know. I could only guess at what could possibly make nothing explode. This IMO is where Scientists and Religion are similar , they BELIEVE. It fits the facts that have been studied to fit the theory .

2) I think they can observe some divergence at this moment in time.

3)There was no space to expand into.


1) Why don't they just come out and say "we don't know"? I certainly would think more of them for that. The position of (some) religious philosophers on the other hand is that it appears as if the world has been made by some entity. What exactly that entity is, they say, we can never know just like a painting cannot conceive of its artist. Mainstream science on the other hand always seems to be on the brink of discovery but never actually gets there. Theories are proposed and these get taught in schools as fact on the assumption that someone somewhere has proved it. The theory is then superseded by something different.

2) That would be interesting to see

3) WTF is "no space"? :greengrin

[PeeJay]

[QUOTE=sleeping giant;2075095]Ha ha:greengrin

"1) The way I see it, they dont know. I could only guess at what could possibly make nothing explode. This IMO is where Scientists and Religion are similar, they BELIEVE. It fits the facts that have been studied to fit the theory."

Well there is however at least ONE major difference between scientists and those of any religious faith, surely? Scientists put forward a theory that is backed up with evidence that can be tried and tested by others time and time again. If any scientific theory is then found wanting because new evidence contradicts it, enhances it or whatever, the theory is then altered or discarded.
Those of a religious persuasion however do none of that, they just believe: no evidence is provided, nothing, zero, zilch ...!

That's a big difference if you ask me, and trying to place scientists and religious believers on a 'similar' level is to put it mildly disengenious, don't you think?:cool2:

[sleeping giant]

[QUOTE=sleeping giant;2075095]Ha ha:greengrin

"1) The way I see it, they dont know. I could only guess at what could possibly make nothing explode. This IMO is where Scientists and Religion are similar, they BELIEVE. It fits the facts that have been studied to fit the theory."

Well there is however at least ONE major difference between scientists and those of any religious faith, surely? Scientists put forward a theory that is backed up with evidence that can be tried and tested by others time and time again. If any scientific theory is then found wanting because new evidence contradicts it, enhances it or whatever, the theory is then altered or discarded.
Those of a religious persuasion however do none of that, they just believe: no evidence is provided, nothing, zero, zilch ...!

That's a big difference if you ask me, and trying to place scientists and religious believers on a 'similar' level is to put it mildly disengenious, don't you think?:cool2:

Yes i do:greengrin

Both still rely on faith though.
Whether the math has been done or not , to say that nothing exploded takes faith.

[(((Fergus)))]

[QUOTE=sleeping giant;2075095]Ha ha:greengrin

"1) The way I see it, they dont know. I could only guess at what could possibly make nothing explode. This IMO is where Scientists and Religion are similar, they BELIEVE. It fits the facts that have been studied to fit the theory."

Well there is however at least ONE major difference between scientists and those of any religious faith, surely? Scientists put forward a theory that is backed up with evidence that can be tried and tested by others time and time again. If any scientific theory is then found wanting because new evidence contradicts it, enhances it or whatever, the theory is then altered or discarded.
Those of a religious persuasion however do none of that, they just believe: no evidence is provided, nothing, zero, zilch ...!

That's a big difference if you ask me, and trying to place scientists and religious believers on a 'similar' level is to put it mildly disengenious, don't you think?:cool2:

well it seems there's no proof of the big bang theory and certainly no proof of darwinism, to mention just two.

[sleeping giant]

[QUOTE=PeeJay;2075110]

well it seems there's no proof of the big bang theory and certainly no proof of darwinism, to mention just two.


:greengrin

Who is first to volunteer to have their coxic bone removed:thumbsup:

[Jack]

You’ve got to remember the world was a lot smaller in biblical times, basically just round the Mediterranean, so when it rained on the whole world it was not as we would imagine it now. The rest of the world was only added on just before Columbus was born so he’d have somewhere to go and become famous. Its also important to remember that the world at that time was flat thereby allowing any flood water to run off the edge.


Fergus Q2. The earliest decent star charts, Egyptian I believe, are slightly different from today's which is why for the life of me some of the constellations don’t ever look like fish, spear chuckers, crabs and stuff.

[PeeJay]

[QUOTE=PeeJay;2075110]

(1) well it seems there's no proof of the big bang theory
(2) and certainly no proof of Darwinism, to mention just two.

1) Really - say's who?
2) So, what do YOU understand by 'proof'???
:confused:

[Sylar]

Isn't that flood you describe more likely to correspond with the first couple of days of Creation? If people weren't around to record it, then there must have been another flood otherwise they wouldn't have known to mention it in the Old Testament.

There have been floods of monumental proportion throughout history, so I don't doubt the biblical flood is a separate event in itself.


On the sea level thing, is there actual evidence that the sea level is rising globally? All the places I know as a child have the same high and low tides. I also found this satellite measurement from NASA (1993-2008) which shows that sea level has risen in some areas (red/white) and dropped in others (blue/purple)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_sea_level_change_trend.jpg

There are always going to be exceptions I guess, but the overwhelming trend in the map you've linked suggests a general rising limb. There are hundreds of papers/diagrams/maps etc which are far more detailed on the NOAA website, if you're so inclined.

[(((Fergus)))]

[QUOTE=Fergus;2075121]

1) Really - say's who?
2) So, what do YOU understand by 'proof'???
:confused:

1) If there is proof, I'd love to hear it
2) No one has shown how one species can mutate into a new one. No one has explained why if humans are evolved from animals, humans have free will and nothing else has.

[(((Fergus)))]

There have been floods of monumental proportion throughout history, so I don't doubt the biblical flood is a separate event in itself.



There are always going to be exceptions I guess, but the overwhelming trend in the map you've linked suggests a general rising limb. There are hundreds of papers/diagrams/maps etc which are far more detailed on the NOAA website, if you're so inclined.

Yes, whereabouts are they?

[PeeJay]

[QUOTE=PeeJay;2075132]

1) If there is proof, I'd love to hear it
2) No one has shown how one species can mutate into a new one. No one has explained why if humans are evolved from animals, humans have free will and nothing else has.

1) If you can't hear it, why not read about it - try Hawkins or any of the other scientific books out there.
2) So you haven't read Darwin either or investigated any of the documentatiion presented by the huge majority of the scientific community backing up his theory?

Maybe we should try it from another angle: what do YOU 'believe' then with regard to 1 & 2?

[(((Fergus)))]

[QUOTE=Fergus;2075149]

1) If you can't hear it, why not read about it - try Hawkins or any of the other scientific books out there.
2) So you haven't read Darwin either or investigated any of the documentatiion presented by the huge majority of the scientific community backing up his theory?

Maybe we should try it from another angle: what do YOU 'believe' then with regard to 1 & 2?

1) Rather than reading Hawkins, which to be honest, I don't hold out much hope for, I was hoping that someone would answer the three simple questions I had about it. If these could be answered, I would go and read more.
2) I have read some Darwin and Dawkins but nowhere did I see it demonstrated how one species becomes another. There is no experimental evidence that I have seen anyway. Also, I've never seen it explained how free will could just "evolve". To my mind, free will is the defining difference between human beings and all other creatures.

As for my own thoughts, I just look at the world around me, the interplay of the sun, moon, etc., the progression of the seasons, the way that everything supports and nourishes everything else, and it strikes me that this cannot have come about through "accident". By some theoretical law, it's probably possible to find a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost in the middle of the Gobi that assembled itself "by accident". It just seems very unlikely. Since - unless someone can answer my earlier questions to the contrary - the origin of the universe is unfathomable and the end of the universe is unfathomable, it seems logical to me that the cause of the universe is also unfathomable.

[PeeJay]

[QUOTE=PeeJay;2075159]

1) Rather than reading Hawkins, which to be honest, I don't hold out much hope for, I was hoping that someone would answer the three simple questions I had about it. If these could be answered, I would go and read more.
2) I have read some Darwin and Dawkins but nowhere did I see it demonstrated how one species becomes another. There is no experimental evidence that I have seen anyway. Also, I've never seen it explained how free will could just "evolve". To my mind, free will is the defining difference between human beings and all other creatures.

As for my own thoughts, I just look at the world around me, the interplay of the sun, moon, etc., the progression of the seasons, the way that everything supports and nourishes everything else, and it strikes me that this cannot have come about through "accident". By some theoretical law, it's probably possible to find a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost in the middle of the Gobi that assembled itself "by accident". It just seems very unlikely. Since - unless someone can answer my earlier questions to the contrary - the origin of the universe is unfathomable and the end of the universe is unfathomable, it seems logical to me that the cause of the universe is also unfathomable.

So without bothering to read (properly and fully) and disemminate the plethora of evidence to the 'non-prejudiced' mind 'you've simply decided that your 'evidence' or 'proof' or phlegmatism or whatever outweighs everything else and it's all therefore unfathomable - fair enough - have you ever read I. **** BTW?

Anyway, your piece on "free will" gave me the biggest laugh of the day though - so thanks at least for that, so are you a follower of Dr. Dolittle then?

Must go - :bye:

[Andy74]

[QUOTE=PeeJay;2075132]

1) If there is proof, I'd love to hear it
2) No one has shown how one species can mutate into a new one. No one has explained why if humans are evolved from animals, humans have free will and nothing else has.

Tell that to my cats.

[(((Fergus)))]

[QUOTE=Fergus;2075170]

So without bothering to read (properly and fully) and disemminate the plethora of evidence to the 'non-prejudiced' mind 'you've simply decided that your 'evidence' or 'proof' or phlegmatism or whatever outweighs everything else and it's all therefore unfathomable - fair enough - have you ever read I. **** BTW?

Anyway, your piece on "free will" gave me the biggest laugh of the day though - so thanks at least for that, so are you a follower of Dr. Dolittle then?

Must go - :bye:

Well seeing as you have done all the reading already, just answer those three simple questions earlier and I'll know whether it's worth pursuing.

I hope you're not doing a bunk btw :wink:

[(((Fergus)))]

[QUOTE=Fergus;2075149]

Tell that to my cats.

they wouldn't understand ;o)

[RyeSloan]

1) Rather than reading Hawkins, which to be honest, I don't hold out much hope for, I was hoping that someone would answer the three simple questions I had about it. If these could be answered, I would go and read more.
2) I have read some Darwin and Dawkins but nowhere did I see it demonstrated how one species becomes another. There is no experimental evidence that I have seen anyway. Also, I've never seen it explained how free will could just "evolve". To my mind, free will is the defining difference between human beings and all other creatures.

As for my own thoughts, I just look at the world around me, the interplay of the sun, moon, etc., the progression of the seasons, the way that everything supports and nourishes everything else, and it strikes me that this cannot have come about through "accident". By some theoretical law, it's probably possible to find a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost in the middle of the Gobi that assembled itself "by accident". It just seems very unlikely. Since - unless someone can answer my earlier questions to the contrary - the origin of the universe is unfathomable and the end of the universe is unfathomable, it seems logical to me that the cause of the universe is also unfathomable.

Away and bile yer heid man!!

3 simple questions...one of which is what started the whole universe the other what the universe may be expanding into...simple, aye right then.

There is hope for you though as there is undisputed evidence that the universe is expanding.

It's strange that you agree that everything around us cannot be by accident the frown upon those that agree with you and are actaully doing something about trying to understand it...from Newton to Hawkins the human race has constantly strived to do so and far from being unfathomable has gone a tremendous way on what is a stupendously long journey in starting to do so.

[barcahibs]

When I was a much younger hibbie I remember being told the story of noah and the flood and asking what happened to the whales and the sharks, how did they get them on the ark? I was big into my whales and sharks at the time, I couldn't understand how they could have got them and how they would have made the big tanks for them to live in.

Everyone laughed at me :boo hoo: Obviously they just swam about the place having a great time and poking all the stupid animals that couldn't swim. I felt very stupid. :greengrin

I've never really thought about that again til today, but now I come to think of it, if we're being scientific and not just accepting that the big G man did it...

What happened to all the whales and sharks and fishes and corals and stuff if there was a great flood? Was the flood salt water or fresh water? What temperature was it? If you've ever had an aquarium you'll know most things like it pretty specific.

Apologies for the hijack - I'm off to hunt down some people who laughed at me! :greengrin




To be honest I've got a limited understanding of the subject - not going to stop me having a go though :greengrin

It seems fairly obvious that if the earth is to be covered totally then above every point on the earth there would have to be 29,000ft (mt Everest height) of water suspended in the atmosphere pre flood - whether its vapour or not doesn't matter it still has to be there. What does 29,000ft of water weigh? a lot?

Wiki (yeah I know!) says that every 33ft of depth in water is equal to one atmosphere (the current amount of pressure we exist in at sea level) One atmosphere equals 14.7 pounds of pressure per square inch (psi).

29,000 / 33 = 879 so the pressure on the surface of the earth under all that water would be 879 times what it is today.

879 * 14.7psi = 12921psi - thats more than 6 tons of pressure - or almost 3 Christian Nades for our younger readers who probably don't use pounds anymore.

Now I happen to know (because I'm sad) that the maximum diving depth on a ww2 submarine was less than 1000ft - so a German u-boat (a great big hunk of steel) would be crushed under just 1000ft of water (30 times the pressure of the atmosphere on the surface or 441psi) I don't think anything we'd recognise as human could be walking around under 29 times that.

Currently water vapour makes up about 0.4% of the atmosphere (wiki again, bad me)
The earth's atmosphere is about 100,000ft high (very roughly) if, pre flood, 29,000ft of that was water then 29% of the atmosphere would be water vapour, how would you breathe that? Plus wouldn't it create one hell of a greenhouse effect? It would have to be pretty hot to keep all that water as vapour anyway wouldn't it?

Its going to be hot out. And humid, which is the worst kind of hot IMO. The cavewomen are going to be sweating in their furry bikinis.
I downed tools and refused to paint the garden fence a couple of weeks ago when we had that hot spell, I don't think I'd want to be out building an ark in temperatures which could probably steam cook me. :greengrin

(having looked above Scott M says the opposite and it would be very cold cos the water would absorb all the heat - he sounds more plausible than I do so if I were you I'd believe him over me!
Or maybe both are true and the Earth could be hot and cold at the same time - not impossible, the mrs combines the ability to have an upper body so hot at nights that I've seriously considered asking her to sleep outside and yet has feet so cold you could keep penguins on them)

If the water is outside the atmosphere then it isn't liquid water anymore. Its either water vapour which would disperse into the vacuum and disappear (to all intents) or its a great big chunk of ice which if it fell and hit the surface of the earth would do a lot more damage than the flood did. I think.

The next question is where did all that water go afterwards? Nowhere near enough room in the ice-caps - besides the ice-caps would have to have already existed back then otherwise where did all the polar bears and penguins and walruses and stuff live?

If someone wants to believe god did it then the simple answer is just to believe that god did it. Maybe he hid all the evidence and then faked the fossil/atmospheric/dendochronology records just to give us something to talk about on messageboards? He's the big G he can do what he likes, mysterious ways and all that. Why the need for the science?

I'm showing my ignorance now aren't I? Still it was more fun working that out than it was doing the essay I'm supposed to be doing :greengrin

N.B. All calculations carried out on the back of a fag packet - your actual mileage may vary.

[(((Fergus)))]

Away and bile yer heid man!!

3 simple questions...one of which is what started the whole universe the other what the universe may be expanding into...simple, aye right then.

There is hope for you though as there is undisputed evidence that the universe is expanding.

It's strange that you agree that everything around us cannot be by accident the frown upon those that agree with you and are actaully doing something about trying to understand it...from Newton to Hawkins the human race has constantly strived to do so and far from being unfathomable has gone a tremendous way on what is a stupendously long journey in starting to do so.

steady on :greengrin

they are simple questions in that any child can understand them

"There is hope for you though as there is undisputed evidence that the universe is expanding."

Great, what is it?

I wouldn't group Newton with Hawkins as, it seems to me anyway, a lot of contemporary scientists seem hell-bent on finding an "explanation" that does indeed "prove" it was all an accident that happened by itself. There is no evidence that I know of to exclude the possibility of an intelligent Creator, yet that theory is poo-pooed. I wonder why.

[Sylar]

Yes, whereabouts are they?

http://www.noaa.gov

You can find them yourself, i'm sure :wink:

[(((Fergus)))]

http://www.noaa.gov

You can find them yourself, i'm sure :wink:

the internet is so full of stuff, it's hard to find an authority in areas you don't already know about.

thank you for that.

[Mibbes Aye]

When I was a much younger hibbie I remember being told the story of noah and the flood and asking what happened to the whales and the sharks, how did they get them on the ark? I was big into my whales and sharks at the time, I couldn't understand how they could have got them and how they would have made the big tanks for them to live in.

Everyone laughed at me :boo hoo: Obviously they just swam about the place having a great time and poking all the stupid animals that couldn't swim. I felt very stupid. :greengrin

I've never really thought about that again til today, but now I come to think of it, if we're being scientific and not just accepting that the big G man did it...

What happened to all the whales and sharks and fishes and corals and stuff if there was a great flood? Was the flood salt water or fresh water? What temperature was it? If you've ever had an aquarium you'll know most things like it pretty specific.

Apologies for the hijack - I'm off to hunt down some people who laughed at me! :greengrin




To be honest I've got a limited understanding of the subject - not going to stop me having a go though :greengrin

It seems fairly obvious that if the earth is to be covered totally then above every point on the earth there would have to be 29,000ft (mt Everest height) of water suspended in the atmosphere pre flood - whether its vapour or not doesn't matter it still has to be there. What does 29,000ft of water weigh? a lot?

Wiki (yeah I know!) says that every 33ft of depth in water is equal to one atmosphere (the current amount of pressure we exist in at sea level) One atmosphere equals 14.7 pounds of pressure per square inch (psi).

29,000 / 33 = 879 so the pressure on the surface of the earth under all that water would be 879 times what it is today.

879 * 14.7psi = 12921psi - thats more than 6 tons of pressure - or almost 3 Christian Nades for our younger readers who probably don't use pounds anymore.

Now I happen to know (because I'm sad) that the maximum diving depth on a ww2 submarine was less than 1000ft - so a German u-boat (a great big hunk of steel) would be crushed under just 1000ft of water (30 times the pressure of the atmosphere on the surface or 441psi) I don't think anything we'd recognise as human could be walking around under 29 times that.

Currently water vapour makes up about 0.4% of the atmosphere (wiki again, bad me)
The earth's atmosphere is about 100,000ft high (very roughly) if, pre flood, 29,000ft of that was water then 29% of the atmosphere would be water vapour, how would you breathe that? Plus wouldn't it create one hell of a greenhouse effect? It would have to be pretty hot to keep all that water as vapour anyway wouldn't it?

Its going to be hot out. And humid, which is the worst kind of hot IMO. The cavewomen are going to be sweating in their furry bikinis.
I downed tools and refused to paint the garden fence a couple of weeks ago when we had that hot spell, I don't think I'd want to be out building an ark in temperatures which could probably steam cook me. :greengrin

(having looked above Scott M says the opposite and it would be very cold cos the water would absorb all the heat - he sounds more plausible than I do so if I were you I'd believe him over me!
Or maybe both are true and the Earth could be hot and cold at the same time - not impossible, the mrs combines the ability to have an upper body so hot at nights that I've seriously considered asking her to sleep outside and yet has feet so cold you could keep penguins on them)

If the water is outside the atmosphere then it isn't liquid water anymore. Its either water vapour which would disperse into the vacuum and disappear (to all intents) or its a great big chunk of ice which if it fell and hit the surface of the earth would do a lot more damage than the flood did. I think.

The next question is where did all that water go afterwards? Nowhere near enough room in the ice-caps - besides the ice-caps would have to have already existed back then otherwise where did all the polar bears and penguins and walruses and stuff live?

If someone wants to believe god did it then the simple answer is just to believe that god did it. Maybe he hid all the evidence and then faked the fossil/atmospheric/dendochronology records just to give us something to talk about on messageboards? He's the big G he can do what he likes, mysterious ways and all that. Why the need for the science?

I'm showing my ignorance now aren't I? Still it was more fun working that out than it was doing the essay I'm supposed to be doing :greengrin

N.B. All calculations carried out on the back of a fag packet - your actual mileage may vary.

:top marksGreat post barca :agree:

The calendar thread may be no longer but it's good to see its intellectual rigour being disseminated to the furthest reaches of the board.

And I can't help but feel the furry bikinis point is one worthy of greater exploration. :agree:

Empirically speaking, of course.

[Jack]

When I was a much younger hibbie I remember being told the story of noah and the flood and asking what happened to the whales and the sharks, how did they get them on the ark? I was big into my whales and sharks at the time, I couldn't understand how they could have got them and how they would have made the big tanks for them to live in.

Everyone laughed at me :boo hoo: Obviously they just swam about the place having a great time and poking all the stupid animals that couldn't swim. I felt very stupid. :greengrin

I've never really thought about that again til today, but now I come to think of it, if we're being scientific and not just accepting that the big G man did it...

What happened to all the whales and sharks and fishes and corals and stuff if there was a great flood? Was the flood salt water or fresh water? What temperature was it? If you've ever had an aquarium you'll know most things like it pretty specific.

Apologies for the hijack - I'm off to hunt down some people who laughed at me! :greengrin




To be honest I've got a limited understanding of the subject - not going to stop me having a go though :greengrin

It seems fairly obvious that if the earth is to be covered totally then above every point on the earth there would have to be 29,000ft (mt Everest height) of water suspended in the atmosphere pre flood - whether its vapour or not doesn't matter it still has to be there. What does 29,000ft of water weigh? a lot?

Wiki (yeah I know!) says that every 33ft of depth in water is equal to one atmosphere (the current amount of pressure we exist in at sea level) One atmosphere equals 14.7 pounds of pressure per square inch (psi).

29,000 / 33 = 879 so the pressure on the surface of the earth under all that water would be 879 times what it is today.

879 * 14.7psi = 12921psi - thats more than 6 tons of pressure - or almost 3 Christian Nades for our younger readers who probably don't use pounds anymore.

Now I happen to know (because I'm sad) that the maximum diving depth on a ww2 submarine was less than 1000ft - so a German u-boat (a great big hunk of steel) would be crushed under just 1000ft of water (30 times the pressure of the atmosphere on the surface or 441psi) I don't think anything we'd recognise as human could be walking around under 29 times that.

Currently water vapour makes up about 0.4% of the atmosphere (wiki again, bad me)
The earth's atmosphere is about 100,000ft high (very roughly) if, pre flood, 29,000ft of that was water then 29% of the atmosphere would be water vapour, how would you breathe that? Plus wouldn't it create one hell of a greenhouse effect? It would have to be pretty hot to keep all that water as vapour anyway wouldn't it?

Its going to be hot out. And humid, which is the worst kind of hot IMO. The cavewomen are going to be sweating in their furry bikinis.
I downed tools and refused to paint the garden fence a couple of weeks ago when we had that hot spell, I don't think I'd want to be out building an ark in temperatures which could probably steam cook me. :greengrin

(having looked above Scott M says the opposite and it would be very cold cos the water would absorb all the heat - he sounds more plausible than I do so if I were you I'd believe him over me!
Or maybe both are true and the Earth could be hot and cold at the same time - not impossible, the mrs combines the ability to have an upper body so hot at nights that I've seriously considered asking her to sleep outside and yet has feet so cold you could keep penguins on them)

If the water is outside the atmosphere then it isn't liquid water anymore. Its either water vapour which would disperse into the vacuum and disappear (to all intents) or its a great big chunk of ice which if it fell and hit the surface of the earth would do a lot more damage than the flood did. I think.

The next question is where did all that water go afterwards? Nowhere near enough room in the ice-caps - besides the ice-caps would have to have already existed back then otherwise where did all the polar bears and penguins and walruses and stuff live?

If someone wants to believe god did it then the simple answer is just to believe that god did it. Maybe he hid all the evidence and then faked the fossil/atmospheric/dendochronology records just to give us something to talk about on messageboards? He's the big G he can do what he likes, mysterious ways and all that. Why the need for the science?

I'm showing my ignorance now aren't I? Still it was more fun working that out than it was doing the essay I'm supposed to be doing :greengrin

N.B. All calculations carried out on the back of a fag packet - your actual mileage may vary.

Very well done that man! :spammy:

[sleeping giant]

When I was a much younger hibbie


That is superb BH:thumbsup:
Cracking arguement:agree:

[RyeSloan]

steady on :greengrin

they are simple questions in that any child can understand them

"There is hope for you though as there is undisputed evidence that the universe is expanding."

Great, what is it?

I wouldn't group Newton with Hawkins as, it seems to me anyway, a lot of contemporary scientists seem hell-bent on finding an "explanation" that does indeed "prove" it was all an accident that happened by itself. There is no evidence that I know of to exclude the possibility of an intelligent Creator, yet that theory is poo-pooed. I wonder why.

:greengrin Ok boiling your head might be a bit much! :wink:

A ultimate intelligent creator is not poo-pooed what is discarded is that any creator had earth and humans as it's central plank to the plan.

What Hawkins and his ilk has done is approach the subject of our existance in a rational and methodical way..this may involve as yet unproven theory (although science has given us many proven and undisputable evidence of many fundametals of life) but they use the physical universe around us as their testing ground..the pursuit of the 'theory of everything' and the many open and diverse options open to debate proves this continues.

Religion is the opposite, it asks for no investigation, no questioning just blind faith that words and documents laid down thousands of years ago, hundreds of years after the fact are somehow beyond reproach...people often quote the bible as the word of god when it's quite clear it is nothing of the sort.

The quest for knowledge via theories tested by evidence and questioned by many is the core of science...the same is not true for religion where questioning and asking for evidence is squashed, i know which will bring long term benefit to human kind and it sure as hell ain't believing in text adapted and translated over hundereds of years from people who believed the world was flat as being the 'gospel truth'!!

[(((Fergus)))]

:greengrin Ok boiling your head might be a bit much! :wink:

A ultimate intelligent creator is not poo-pooed what is discarded is that any creator had earth and humans as it's central plank to the plan.

What Hawkins and his ilk has done is approach the subject of our existance in a rational and methodical way..this may involve as yet unproven theory (although science has given us many proven and undisputable evidence of many fundametals of life) but they use the physical universe around us as their testing ground..the pursuit of the 'theory of everything' and the many open and diverse options open to debate proves this continues.

Religion is the opposite, it asks for no investigation, no questioning just blind faith that words and documents laid down thousands of years ago, hundreds of years after the fact are somehow beyond reproach...people often quote the bible as the word of god when it's quite clear it is nothing of the sort.

The quest for knowledge via theories tested by evidence and questioned by many is the core of science...the same is not true for religion where questioning and asking for evidence is squashed, i know which will bring long term benefit to human kind and it sure as hell ain't believing in text adapted and translated over hundereds of years from people who believed the world was flat as being the 'gospel truth'!!

The way you describe religion sounds like a lot of modern "science" ,i.e., both are open to abuse. Certainly if you question certain "Holy Cow" scientific theories - global warming, evolution - you are met with anger and denunciation rather than kindly and rational explanation. Perhaps both components - faith and investigation - are necessary and complementary within the full human being?

With this in mind, and regarding your final point, I would question whether mindless religion or faithless science ever brought any good into the world .

[Sylar]

:greengrin Ok boiling your head might be a bit much! :wink:

A ultimate intelligent creator is not poo-pooed what is discarded is that any creator had earth and humans as it's central plank to the plan.

What Hawkins and his ilk has done is approach the subject of our existance in a rational and methodical way..this may involve as yet unproven theory (although science has given us many proven and undisputable evidence of many fundametals of life) but they use the physical universe around us as their testing ground..the pursuit of the 'theory of everything' and the many open and diverse options open to debate proves this continues.

Religion is the opposite, it asks for no investigation, no questioning just blind faith that words and documents laid down thousands of years ago, hundreds of years after the fact are somehow beyond reproach...people often quote the bible as the word of god when it's quite clear it is nothing of the sort.

The quest for knowledge via theories tested by evidence and questioned by many is the core of science...the same is not true for religion where questioning and asking for evidence is squashed, i know which will bring long term benefit to human kind and it sure as hell ain't believing in text adapted and translated over hundereds of years from people who believed the world was flat as being the 'gospel truth'!!

I agree with your point in essence, but don't like the use of Hawkins as an example.

The crux of his argument and rationale is so childish:

"If God created everything, what created God".

That's not an avenue of disproof.

[RyeSloan]

The way you describe religion sounds like a lot of modern "science" ,i.e., both are open to abuse. Certainly if you question certain "Holy Cow" scientific theories - global warming, evolution - you are met with anger and denunciation rather than kindly and rational explanation. Perhaps both components - faith and investigation - are necessary and complementary within the full human being?

With this in mind, and regarding your final point, I would question whether mindless religion or faithless science ever brought any good into the world .

Most probably neither has brought any I would say!!

I'm not sure how you think that sceintific therories or law's are not subject to question....that's the underlying principle of science. I have seen plenty of questioning on global warming and a lot of scientists still disagree on it's cause, it's scale and even if it is happening at all and if it is if it's caused or exacerbated by humans. The same underlying principles cannot be said for religion where questioning and examining has been surpressed and even has it's own name...heretic.

Still the OP was looking for proof of a notion put forward by 'religion'...thankfully science has progressed far enough that someone like Scott can come along and present evidential proof that such thories are nonsense. Where science and religion depart is that even with such evidence some religions will carry on anyway no matter what evidence is presented to disprove their claims!

As ever with this world nothing is perfect but I feel science generally is geared to expanding and developing our knowledge while religions only seek to limit and control what we already know and to use our ignorance to futher their 'faith'.

[PeeJay]

I agree with your point in essence, but don't like the use of Hawkins as an example.

The crux of his argument and rationale is so childish:

"If God created everything, what created God".

That's not an avenue of disproof.

In Hawking's attempt to further mankind's knowledge of the world we live in he actually concludes with the following as to whether God had any choice in creating the universe, surely, i.e. that we live '... in a universe with no edge in space, no beginning or end of time, and nothing for a Creator to do'?

But then again maybe you mean Dawkins and not Hawking ... I fell in to the same trap earlier on one of my posts misspelling his name?

If you meant Dawkins, then it's hardly childish reasoning to wonder what preceded God, particularly when the religious minded always wonder what there was before the Big Bang, is it? Come to think of it: what is so childish about wondering what brought God into being?

[poolman]

In the past , could the Earth have been surrounded by a blanket of water held up in the athmospere ?
Could this blanket of water have blocked harmfull rays from the sun ?
If this blanket did block harmfull rays , could this enable significantly longer life peroids ?

Would this blanket of water produce pressure which would make living things on Earth bigger ?

Please put all religious intollerance aside in this issue and just tell me what is wrong with the physics.

:hnet:


Will this help


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uLiondNBSU :greengrin

[hibee62]

Three layman's question here for all the scientists out there:

1) what made the big bang happen?
2) if the universe is expanding, why do the stars stay in the same patterns?

and last but not least

3) what is the universe expanding into?

Thank you :greengrin

1) We don't know what caused the big bang: To study the universe scientists study light emitted from astronomical bodies such as galaxy clusters, supernovae etc... because these bodies are so far away from us, and light travels at a finite speed, when we look at the light emitted from a body we are looking at light that was emitted many years in the past, depending on how far away the body is. We are therefore able to effectively look back in time. However scientists are not able to look infinitely far back in time to study the past universe and determine what caused the big bang and what existed before it because of what are know as 'horizons' - because the universe is a finite age and light (electromagnetic radiation) travels at a finite speed at a certain point in the past the bodies are too far away for the light to have reached us, due to the expansion of the universe this light may never reach us.

2) The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, however stars are so far away from us and the light takes so long to get to us that in the short timescale that we are on this earth the movement is not noticeable.

3) Evidence from studies of Supernovae show that the current expansion of the universe is expanding, if this trend continues the expansion will overcome gravitational forces and eventually overcome forces binding matter together leaving a universe of radiation, i.e. everything would be ripped apart. If the expansion continued but did not accelerate the result would be a universe that is very cold. Two other possibilities are that the universe would cease expansion and just stay that way, or that it would collapse in upon itself. Which of these theories is most likely depends on the amount of matter and dark energy in the universe - dark energy exerts a negative pressure and forces things apart - increasing the rate of expansion, whereas the gravitational attraction between matter opposes the expansion.

I also just want to make the point that scientists still regard the Big Bang Theory as a theory, not absolute truth, it currently fits the observational evidence and predictions made by big bang theory such and the presence of background microwave radiation have been confirmed, however this does not mean that it is still not constantly challenged and questioned within the scientific community, other good theories such as the theory of inflation are put forward and studied. The technology available is always evolving and new techniques for studying the mysteries of the universe are being developed. Science is a constant search for proof and theories will continue to evolve and change until everything about them can be proven.

[(((Fergus)))]

1) We don't know what caused the big bang: To study the universe scientists study light emitted from astronomical bodies such as galaxy clusters, supernovae etc... because these bodies are so far away from us, and light travels at a finite speed, when we look at the light emitted from a body we are looking at light that was emitted many years in the past, depending on how far away the body is. We are therefore able to effectively look back in time. However scientists are not able to look infinitely far back in time to study the past universe and determine what caused the big bang and what existed before it because of what are know as 'horizons' - because the universe is a finite age and light (electromagnetic radiation) travels at a finite speed at a certain point in the past the bodies are too far away for the light to have reached us, due to the expansion of the universe this light may never reach us.

2) The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, however stars are so far away from us and the light takes so long to get to us that in the short timescale that we are on this earth the movement is not noticeable.

3) Evidence from studies of Supernovae show that the current expansion of the universe is expanding, if this trend continues the expansion will overcome gravitational forces and eventually overcome forces binding matter together leaving a universe of radiation, i.e. everything would be ripped apart. If the expansion continued but did not accelerate the result would be a universe that is very cold. Two other possibilities are that the universe would cease expansion and just stay that way, or that it would collapse in upon itself. Which of these theories is most likely depends on the amount of matter and dark energy in the universe - dark energy exerts a negative pressure and forces things apart - increasing the rate of expansion, whereas the gravitational attraction between matter opposes the expansion.

I also just want to make the point that scientists still regard the Big Bang Theory as a theory, not absolute truth, it currently fits the observational evidence and predictions made by big bang theory such and the presence of background microwave radiation have been confirmed, however this does not mean that it is still not constantly challenged and questioned within the scientific community, other good theories such as the theory of inflation are put forward and studied. The technology available is always evolving and new techniques for studying the mysteries of the universe are being developed. Science is a constant search for proof and theories will continue to evolve and change until everything about them can be proven.

Cheers, I've been reading a bit since I posted my questions and that more or less confirms what I've read

[(((Fergus)))]

Most probably neither has brought any I would say!!

I'm not sure how you think that sceintific therories or law's are not subject to question....that's the underlying principle of science. I have seen plenty of questioning on global warming and a lot of scientists still disagree on it's cause, it's scale and even if it is happening at all and if it is if it's caused or exacerbated by humans. The same underlying principles cannot be said for religion where questioning and examining has been surpressed and even has it's own name...heretic.

Still the OP was looking for proof of a notion put forward by 'religion'...thankfully science has progressed far enough that someone like Scott can come along and present evidential proof that such thories are nonsense. Where science and religion depart is that even with such evidence some religions will carry on anyway no matter what evidence is presented to disprove their claims!

As ever with this world nothing is perfect but I feel science generally is geared to expanding and developing our knowledge while religions only seek to limit and control what we already know and to use our ignorance to futher their 'faith'.

Of course there is an initial questioning process in mainstream science. However, once the accompanying industry starts depending on a theory, the theory evolves into fact (e.g., global warming industry [including eco-taxation], GM, pharmaceuticals, nuclear, etc.). As long as there is money or power to be derived from a theory - or an ego to be maintained - there will be a corresponding resistance to criticism and change.

Same thing happens when religion is perverted, as you point out. True religion should actually be about expanding the consciousness and thus facilitating understanding (AKA wisdom, the goal of all true religions). Some people in mainstream science seem to have a gut aversion towards the concept of a created universe and as a result they limit the scope of their inquiry. It's like looking at the world with only one eye or, more accurately, examining a living person and seeing nothing but a corpse.

[Sylar]

In Hawking's attempt to further mankind's knowledge of the world we live in he actually concludes with the following as to whether God had any choice in creating the universe, surely, i.e. that we live '... in a universe with no edge in space, no beginning or end of time, and nothing for a Creator to do'?

But then again maybe you mean Dawkins and not Hawking ... I fell in to the same trap earlier on one of my posts misspelling his name?

If you meant Dawkins, then it's hardly childish reasoning to wonder what preceded God, particularly when the religious minded always wonder what there was before the Big Bang, is it? Come to think of it: what is so childish about wondering what brought God into being?

Aye, sorry, I did mean Dawkins! Dunno why I mis-read/misused Hawking's name!

It's not a childish notion to wonder what preceeded God, but to use that sense of wonder as a method of disproof, then it falls flat on its arse - perhaps not in a qualitative philosophical argument, but Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, who should be using quantitative evidence and reasoning - not reverting to avenues of argument which a 7 year old in Sunday School could put forward.

Most people seem to think science focusses on "proving" theories, whereas disproof is much more common (anyone who has done statistics to a reasonable level will be familiar with the Null Hypothesis theory). To build a credible scientific argument for disproving the existence of a God, needs a lot more than "what created the Creator" style argument.

It's a shame actually, as Dawkins, as a scientist, is held in wide regard. I've spoken with him on two occasions at a seminar in Edinburgh and a seminar in Oxford, and his understanding of biological processes is superbly put forward. He's turned himself into a bit of an extrovert with his new angle of "science" of late.