Noah and his ark?

[Orogeny]

C’mon Orogeny!

Let’s assume the earth was shifted at just the right acceleration to cause a massive tidal shift. Along with the tidal shift comes a sort of oozing of the groundwater. This oozing and shift does not have the agitation that a “fast flood” would have , rather like a glass of water being filled very slowly.

Is it possible?

Doesn’t sound particularly plausible to me. The energy released in such a collision would make the possible percolation of groundwater to the surface totally irrelevant.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

I’m not sure what the tides have to do with it

Why wouldn’t ground water be affected? What contains it?

The moon’s pull does affect groundwater.

Could someone with a supercomputer run this problem?

What amount of acceleration (jolt) is required to cause the oceans and groundwater to raise 10 feet to 30,000 feet?

Then we have to ask how does the earth’s rotation affect it?

 

[buffalo]

Doesn’t sound particularly plausible to me. The energy released in such a collision would make the possible percolation of groundwater to the surface totally irrelevant.

Peace

Tim

How so?

 

[Orogeny]

How so?

Think about it for a second. You just asked how much energy would be required to raise surface and groundwater 10 to 30,000 feet. It would obviously be a lot. And keep in mind, too, that groundwater would have to have a conduit to the surface. Something like a fissure. The energy needed to force it to the surface though the existing overburden would be very difficult to calculate. In fact, you would need to calculate the energy to lift the overburden as well in most cases.

Moving groundwater to the surface is not an easy thing.

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

C’mon Orogeny!

Let’s assume the earth was shifted at just the right acceleration to cause a massive tidal shift. Along with the tidal shift comes a sort of oozing of the groundwater. This oozing and shift does not have the agitation that a “fast flood” would have , rather like a glass of water being filled very slowly.

Is it possible?

Since an impact is one fast event how would that result in a slow oozing? where would the energy come from?

Freestanding water would be displaced by the impact and it would slosh back and forth a few times until the energy was dissipated.

Ground water can’t be displaced that rapidly except maybe in some limited karst environments (you’ll have to ask Tim). If it wasn’t excavated by the impact, the mechanical shock would just be transmitted through it (water being incompressible and all that). If the bottom of the crater was below the water table it would fill up but that would be only to the pre-impact water table level and not recede.

I imagine that in some rare case if a confining layer was broken through there could be some post-impact artesian flows. But the piezometric surface is determined by the elevation of the recharge area so I would not expect there to be sufficient volume or head to cause widespread flooding. The damage from the impact alone would far exceed anything you could expect from ground water and that water would once again not recede.

PS I’m a bit of a ground water geek. I’ve designed many a well.

 

[buffalo]

Think about it for a second. You just asked how much energy would be required to raise surface and groundwater 10 to 30,000 feet. It would obviously be a lot. And keep in mind, too, that groundwater would have to have a conduit to the surface. Something like a fissure. The energy needed to force it to the surface though the existing overburden would be very difficult to calculate. In fact, you would need to calculate the energy to lift the overburden as well in most cases.

Moving groundwater to the surface is not an easy thing.

Peace

Tim

Indeed. Let’s subsitute a strong gravitational force instead of an impact. Time plus gravitational influence.

When I was postulating the model I should have been more clear.

What force and time are necessary to raise the levels 10 feet? 50 feet? !,000 feet? 5,000 feet? !0,000 feet? etc.

 

[buffalo]

Then you can easily confirm your well water levels change with the moon., right?

 

[Orogeny]

Indeed. Let’s subsitute a strong gravitational force instead of an impact. Time plus gravitational influence.

When I was postulating the model I should have been more clear.

What force and time are necessary to raise the levels 10 feet? 50 feet? !,000 feet? 5,000 feet? !0,000 feet? etc.

Sorry, but gravity works on rock just as it does on water.

If there was enough gravitational force to lift groundwater from the ground, how did it rain? Why wouldn’t the rain drops fall up rather than down?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Sorry, but gravity works on rock just as it does on water.

If there was enough gravitational force to lift groundwater from the ground, how did it rain? Why wouldn’t the rain drops fall up rather than down?

Peace

Tim

It doesn’t ever rain at high tide?

 

[steveandersen]

Why wouldn’t ground water be affected? What contains it?

The ground it is in
Different formations have different permeabilities and transmisivities.

Just like water through a pipe it takes energy (a pressure differential) to cause a flow. If you don’t have a sufficient differential to overcome the resistance of the system then flow won’t occur.

The moon’s pull does affect groundwater.

yes a little

Could someone with a supercomputer run this problem?

What amount of acceleration (jolt) is required to cause the oceans and groundwater to raise 10 feet to 30,000 feet?

Don’t need no stinkin super computer.

The volume of the oceans is about 3.62 10^20 gallons
That is 3.010^21 lbsm
At the earth’s surface 1lbsm = 1lbsf
If you want to raise the surface by 29,990 feet (let’s keep it simple and assume a wave with a uniform triangular cross section which puts the centroid at h/3 = 9,996 feet)
That means you will require a minimum of 3.01 *10^24 ft-lbsf of energy to move that much mass into that shape. (that is around the same order of magnitude as the total energy received from the sun each year and a trillion times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb)

If the impact took place over one second that would be 1.67*10^27 hp

WOW (Does someone want to check my math? I was never very good at this stuff)

That kind of power will throw things into space and kill everything on the planet rather than move the oceans around like a wave.

The water at the point of impact would simply be vaporized rather than pushed aside

And is going to contain it in that shape?
Its own weight will cause it to collapse long before it got 30,000 feet high

Then we have to ask how does the earth’s rotation affect it?

There will be acceleration forces due to the earths rotation and a pull by the sun and the moon. But no more than are normally on the oceans.

 

[Orogeny]

It doesn’t ever rain at high tide?

You’re not talking about high tide. You are talking about a gravitational force above and beyond high tide. After all, water doesn’t get sucked to ground surface by the high tide or else we would all live in marshes during that time. A gravitational force great enough to lift groundwater OR surface water 30,000 ft would certainly do more damage than just flooding. In fact, I would guess that flooding would be the least of our concerns. Tides have an effect on our bodies as well as on water.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

The ground it is in
Different formations have different permeabilities and transmisivities.

Just like water through a pipe it takes energy (a pressure differential) to cause a flow. If you don’t have a sufficient differential to overcome the resistance of the system then flow won’t occur.

yes a little

Don’t need no stinkin super computer.

The volume of the oceans is about 3.62 10^20 gallons
That is 3.010^21 lbsm
At the earth’s surface 1lbsm = 1lbsf
If you want to raise the surface by 29,990 feet (let’s keep it simple and assume a wave with a uniform triangular cross section which puts the centroid at h/3 = 9,996 feet)
That means you will require a minimum of 3.01 *10^24 ft-lbsf of energy to move that much mass into that shape. (that is around the same order of magnitude as the total energy received from the sun each year and a trillion times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb)

If the impact took place over one second that would be 1.67*10^27 hp

WOW (Does someone want to check my math? I was never very good at this stuff)

That kind of power will throw things into space and kill everything on the planet rather than move the oceans around like a wave.

The water at the point of impact would simply be vaporized rather than pushed aside

And is going to contain it in that shape?
Its own weight will cause it to collapse long before it got 30,000 feet high

There will be acceleration forces due to the earths rotation and a pull by the sun and the moon. But no more than are normally on the oceans.

You are right. We don’t need no stinkin supercomputer!!!

Yes, I moved away from the impact scenario. How about a steady gravitational force. The moon causes oceans to rise by up to 30 feet or so. Hurricanse cause local surges of around 30 to 50 feet. Agreed?

Put that supercomputer brain to work. What size moon (mass) would it take to raise water levels 1,000 feet? Or what distance would the moon have to be from the earth to do so?

 

[steveandersen]

Then you can easily confirm your well water levels change with the moon., right?

I’ve seen changes in water level with changes in atmospheric pressure. The levels change because the well is open to the atmosphere. I’ve seen changes in level due to the operation of nearby wells. I’ve seen changes in level due to long-term drought. I don’t recall a tidal variation.

The only exception is that I’ve seen level changes in shallow formations adjacent to tidal areas because they were hydraulically connected to the open water.

Most formations aren’t that directly connected.

 

[steveandersen]

You are right. We don’t need no stinkin supercomputer!!!

Yes, I moved away from the impact scenario. How about a steady gravitational force. The moon causes oceans to rise by up to 30 feet or so. Hurricanse cause local surges of around 30 to 50 feet. Agreed?

Put that supercomputer brain to work. What size moon (mass) would it take to raise water levels 1,000 feet? Or what distance would the moon have to be from the earth to do so?

Well, gravity has an inverse square relation with respect to distance and is directly proportional with respect to mass
SO (assuming gravity is the major force in the tides) if you want to increase the tides 100 times you would need something 100 times more massive than the moon at the same distance the moon is currently or something the same mass of the moon at 1/10 the distance. Or some combination thereof

what that would do to romantic evenings I do not know.

“Look honey it’s a full moon!”
“RUN!”

 

[hecd2]

Yes, it was a science show. It certainly wasn’t a cooking show.

Not a science show - maybe a show about cranky ideas.

The man has a Ph.D. is Physics and has taught the subject on the college level according to his bio. I would suspect that makes him a little less than a “crank”.

Walt doesn’t have a PhD in physics unless you have turned yourself into a degree mill and awarded him one. But even if he did, that wouldn’t stop his hydoplate ‘theory’ (and several of his other ‘theories’ ) being a load of unsupportable bunkum.

Of course I will. I’ll take God’s Word and that of a “questionable” scientist over “reputable” scientists any day of the week.

Except that Walt is not a scientist at all - never has been and never will be. He is an apologist for literal creationism who invents ridiculous ideas to attempt to support biblical literalism.

Just because we lack enough information to understand something does not automaticly make it false. Remember that for thousands of years people questioned how God could have created light on the first day and the stars not until a few days later.

Then the Big Bang theory can along which explains that during the first moments of creation, the universe was bathed in photons (particles of light) all over the spectrum and some in the visible light range.

So much for doubting that light could have been created before the stars.

Oh - so you agree that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Well, that’s a step forward.

In any case, Walt’s hydroplate ‘theory’ is pure buffoonery, it has not and will not be published in the scientific press, because not only is there no evidence for it, but because the evidence against it is utterly overwhelming. I seem to remember we started this discussion because you claimed that there was a scientific theory that subterranean water burst forth - but there is NO such scientific theory - it’s a fantasy all in the mind of a cranky non-scientist, and is no more a scientific theory than is the idea of unicorns.

EDITTED TO ADDED: I don’t know if this is still the case but when I was growing up we were taught that science said that a bumble bee could not fly yet we all saw them flying. Just because science disproves something does not always make it so.

You must have had terribly bad science teachers then, which explains something.

Alec
http:/www.evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

Not a science show - maybe a show about cranky ideas.
Walt doesn’t have a PhD in physics unless you have turned yourself into a degree mill and awarded him one. But even if he did, that wouldn’t stop his hydoplate ‘theory’ (and several of his other ‘theories’ ) being a load of unsupportable bunkum.

Except that Walt is not a scientist at all - never has been and never will be. He is an apologist for literal creationism who invents ridiculous ideas to attempt to support biblical literalism.
Oh - so you agree that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Well, that’s a step forward.

In any case, Walt’s hydroplate ‘theory’ is pure buffoonery, it has not and will not be published in the scientific press, because not only is there no evidence for it, but because the evidence against it is utterly overwhelming. I seem to remember we started this discussion because you claimed that there was a scientific theory that subterranean water burst forth - but there is NO such scientific theory - it’s a fantasy all in the mind of a cranky non-scientist, and is no more a scientific theory than is the idea of unicorns.

You must have had terribly bad science teachers then, which explains something.

Alec
http:/www.evolutionpages.com

It is apparent to me HECD believes that humans without a degree cannot be intelligent, are not able to reason, and cannot learn, and cannot come up with valid explanations… It’s a shame and you should know better. The elitism of the educational system is showing.

 

[hecd2]

I just want to add that I am not arguing that the “hydroplate theory” is true. I am arguing that the biblical story of the flood is true and the “hydroplate theory” might be one possible explanation for it.

Well the hydroplate ‘theory’ is not a possible explanation for a global flood because the ‘theory’ rests on as little evidence as the concept of a global flood - that is, none.

Hydroplatism is the fantasy of one man, Walt Brown, and it is universally rejected by knowledgeable people.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

It is apparent to me HECD believes that humans without a degree cannot be intelligent, are not able to reason, and cannot learn, and cannot come up with valid explanations… It’s a shame and you should know better. The elitism of the educational system is showing.

I was not the one who introduced Walt’s qualifications. Sir Knight did (he claimed that because he had a PhD in physics then he couldn’t be a crank) and he was wrong.

Walt’s ideas are ridiculous whatever his education (which, by the way, is a PhD in mechanical engineering). There are absurd in themselves, not because he is uneducated.

I have no idea what your level of education is, but when you make absurdly erroneous claims about ground water as you have done,. then you are open to ridicule in any case, whether you left school at 16, or if you are a Nobel laureate - more about ground water soon.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

I was not the one who introduced Walt’s qualifications. Sir Knight did (he claimed that because he had a PhD in physics then he couldn’t be a crank) and he was wrong.

Walt’s ideas are ridiculous whatever his education (which, by the way, is a PhD in mechanical engineering). There are absurd in themselves, not because he is uneducated.

I have no idea what your level of education is, but when you make absurdly erroneous claims about ground water as you have done,. then you are open to ridicule in any case, whether you left school at 16, or if you are a Nobel laureate - more about ground water soon.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Then refute the theory not the man, and do it without resorting to attacks on his character or his educational credentials.

 

[buffalo]

I have no idea what your level of education is, but when you make absurdly erroneous claims about ground water as you have done,. then you are open to ridicule in any case, whether you left school at 16, or if you are a Nobel laureate - more about ground water soon.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Specify what absurd claim I have made.