B
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
NARRATOR: For years scientists argued that the features of the Scablands could not have been formed overnight. But this model clearly shows miniature versions of the canyons found in the Scablands. Just like the real ones, they look as if they were gradually eroded. In fact, they were carved out in seconds.
But can the scientists also show how these strange potholes were made?
This water tunnel demonstrates the effects of water moving at high speeds. An object in the tunnel represents a hard outcrop of rock. At first, the water flows around the object without any apparent effect, but then they turn up the speed.
A stream of minute bubbles appears. When those bubbles burst, they burst with immense force against the object. As the speed of water increases further, the bubbles collapse with ever-greater intensity. The process slowed down nearly a hundred times reveals a long twisting thread emerging from the metal object. It is in this high speed vortex of bubbles where the secret to the flood’s incredible power lies.
ROGER ARNDT (Hydrodynamics Expert): So if you, if you look at this, the first thing we see here is this very strong vortex here. So you’ve got, like, a sledge hammer effect. Every time one of these forms and collapses—bang—you’ve got a sledge hammer.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
If so, and the flow went on for days or weeks, he’s arguing that it all happened in the first few seconds, and then erosion stopped for the rest of the week?
I’d have to see some evidence for that. And note that the features aren’t sharp fractures, but rather are polished surfaces. Try polishing a stone with a sledgehammer. Polishing does not happen with a sudden impact, but with repeated abrasions.
As you know, I expressed disbelief that any geologist would say something like that. I can understand why a “hydrodynamics expert” wouldn’t get it, but this sort of thing isn’t a mystery to fluvial geomorphologists:
**Dynamics of pothole growth as defined by field data and geometrical description
Gregory S. Springer Department of Geological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA
Stephen Tooth Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK
Ellen E. Wohl Department of Geosciences, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado, USA
Abstract
This paper examines cylindrical pothole growth on streambeds using empirical analyses of field data and geometric constraints. Pothole depths (d) and average radii (inline equation) at three localities have the relationship inline equation = kd ɛ , where k and ɛ are regression coefficients (R 2 ≥ 0.72). Observed ɛ (0.57, 0.67, 0.85) translate to d increasing faster than r at all localities. The strong correlations and absence of potholes with very low or high ratios of depth/diameter suggest that small concavities act as pothole seeds and enlargement is quasi-systematic. Exploiting the power relationship, growing potholes can be represented as deepening and radially expanding cylinders. Absolute and relative distributions of erosion can be calculated for floors and walls using this geometrical approach. Volumetrically, more substrate is eroded from pothole walls than floors during growth for ɛ > 0.5. Among sample populations, as much as 70% more material is eroded from walls than floors (ɛ = 0.85). Wall and floor surface areas differ by 1 or more orders of magnitude for observed ɛ, and as a result, erosion rates are fastest atop floors. Differences in erosion rates may reflect the efficacy of erosion phenomena. Low-angle impacts of tools on walls presumably have low erosion efficiencies. Efficacies are presumably influenced by substrate properties, and floor and wall erosion rates are most comparable in the weakest observed strata, although substantially more material is removed from walls at this locality (ɛ = 0.85). Additional data is needed, but quantifiable relationships may exist between geometries, substrates, and erosion phenomena. **
What is your guy’s evidence for it all happening in “seconds?” And why doesn’t it match up with observed reality?
B
buffalo
Guest
We will have to ask the expert. You are aware of course that water is routinely used in manufacturing. Thick slabs of steel being cut with water in feedrates in feet per minute. Would you like to learn more?
You can email him here:
CHRISTOPHER PAOLA
Professor and Director, NCED
ScD, 1983, Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
’Nova’ crew films at St. Anthony Falls Lab
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I just posted findings from experts. The application of high-powered water jets doesn’t have much to do with the scouring of land in a flood. In fact, cutting jets can have pressures in excess of 80,000 lb/square inch, much greater even than at the bottom of the sea.
Yep. In a former life, I was systems safety engineer/ergonomist. Interesting lock-out issues on high-pressure pumps and lines.
Sure. Always ready to learn something new.
O
Orogeny
Guest
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Seems contradictory, um? I’d sure like to see the math, myself.
B
Byron_Bramwell
Guest
Barbarian,
Code:
*Logically* explain the Triune nature of God.
Thank you.
Byron
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Of course, the Trinity depends on the assumption that the traditions of the Church are correct, and that the testimony of Scripture is right.
Having assumed that, one may logically conclude, based on a host of Scriptural assertions that God is triune.
Jesus, for example, asserts:
**Matthew 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. **
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
**The phrase “in the name” (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase “in the name” should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, “name,” and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible. **
The triune nature of God is a mystery, which we cannot explain, true as it is shown to be. But it is not illogical to point out a truth which is beyond our power to explain.
Having assumed that, one may logically conclude, based on a host of Scriptural assertions that God is triune.
Jesus, for example, asserts:
**Matthew 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. **
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
**The phrase “in the name” (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase “in the name” should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, “name,” and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible. **
The triune nature of God is a mystery, which we cannot explain, true as it is shown to be. But it is not illogical to point out a truth which is beyond our power to explain.
B
buffalo
Guest
Adaptations - The Inuit body shape - this is adaptation. There is information gain here?
B
Byron_Bramwell
Guest
Barbarian,
I am relieved that you did not attempt to explain it away. And I totally agree that it is not illogical for us to say that God will never, at least not on this side of the veil, be totally known to us.
However, the concept of the Trinity is *illogical * to our plain reason, is it not?
3 is not 1
neither is 1, 3
Do you at least agree that this aspect of the doctrine is beyond us as much as the concept of a square circle?
Byron
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
Please take side discussions to new or existing thread. Thank you all.
- Status