Re: Is the Hills' flood possible?

Something that comes to mind is that the only way to keep an unpowered
vessel head on during a storm is with a sea anchor. Applied to the Ark,
that would drag it downstream.
Dave

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 07:41:08 -0400 <glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
> To DAvid CAmpbel and Phil Metzger
>
> DAvid wrote:
>
> >>>A fair amount of weight could be saved by capturing rainwater
> rather than
> stashing all of the water from the beginning, but some water weight
> allowance would
> be needed to provide for non-rainy days as things are drying out,
> and the food,
> etc. still needs accounted for. I'm not sure how drinkable the
> flood water is
> supposed to be in the model; perhaps some water could be scooped up
> from below as
> well.
>
> I think there are endemic species of freshwater animal in the
> Tigris-Euphrates
> region, which would need either to have some place adequately
> sheltered from the
> consequences of the Flood to survive or else to have evolved very
> rapidly after the
> Flood. <<<
>
> Yeah, they could have done this but they didn't. They have the ark
> sealed for 263
> days and that means water must be contained in the boat. I am
> merely following the
> logic from their assumptions.
>
>
>
>
> >>>>On Wed Jun 7 0:08 , philtill@aol.com sent:
>
> >
> >Hi Glenn,
> >
> >sorry for the delay. I know you were expecting to hear from me
> and I don't want
> to disappoint. But I'm in Sudbury at a mining conference this week
> and don't have
> a computer here.
> >
> >I know the issue for you is the lack of widespread flood deposits
> and I don't
> think anyone can ever change your opinion on a mesopotamian flood
> unless someone
> (1) finds them or (2) proves you wrong by quantitatively showing
> that the
> deposits are exactly the way we expect them to be. <<<<
>
> The issue is more than just the lack of widespread deposits. There
> is no rational
> way to move the boat north. They have an idealized straight wind.
> Are they not
> aware of the coriollis force? The wind will curve and it will not be
> in a straight
> direction for 500 miles? So one needs this storm to move along with
> the boat--
> miracle? could be but the Hills don't claim one. Claiming miracles
> makes for very
> short articles. "And God performed a miracle" just about says it
> all.
>
> There is also the fact that the highest gust recorded in Baghdad is
> 54 mph. That is
> a long way from the sustained velocities they require.
>
> And they ignore the fact that the only places we see these winds are
> in hurricanes,
> which don't occur in the Persian Gulf and even Hurricanes only have
> hurricane force
> winds for just a few tens of miles distant from the eye. The very
> biggest storms
> may have 75 mph winds out 100 miles from the eye, but they are the
> true monsters.
> and they can't form in the Persian Gulf.
>
> I also love the fact that Carol mentions SW wind, easterly wind,
> NOrtherly/northwesterly winds, but then they say this supports a SE
> wind of
> Biblical proportions. Just crazy.
>
> The need for the strongest winds are up in the north where the land
> gradient is
> greatest, yet in any hurricane, that far inland (say Northern
> Louisiana, the
> highest winds have always fallen to around 40 mph, in sufficient to
> do the work.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> The only way to do (2) satisfactorily is to do a full finite
> element model of
> the actual basin topography with sediment transport implemented in
> the code and see
> what the result is. I have no time or funding to work on such a
> massive project,
> but really somebody ought to do it because this is the critical
> issue for a
> mesopotamian flood. I highly recommend that someone (or some group
> of us) find
> funding to do this, because it is an important question and there is
> no sense in
> arguing over it ad infinitum when we haven't even done the right
> research to simply
> settle this issue. Whatever we discover, it will advance the cause
> of truth.
> >
> >The only minor thing I can point out in your critique is that the
> ark would have
> less torque (not more) as it rolled over because the surface
> area projected normal
> to the direction of the wind would decrease (not increase) according
> to the cosine
> of the roll angle.<<<<
>
> I don't know that I agree with this. The ark is a box.
>
>
>
> --------
> |....../|
> |..../..|
> |../....|
> |/......|
> ---------
>
> And the force is proportional to the exposed cross section, As the
> ark rotates, the
> diagonal is more and more perpendicular to the wind and water
> current direction,
> making a larger cross section for the wind and current to impart
> their force. Thus,
> the way I see it as the ark rotates, the torque increases. What do
> you think I am
> missing here?
>
>
>
> >>>> Therefore, when it rolls it will feel less torque and can
> return to upright
> or find an equilibrium angle. Furthermore, wind speed in the
> boundary layer of our
> planet increases according to the logarithm of height above the
> surface, and so
> higher velocity winds are at higher altitudes and v.v. <<<<
>
>
> Well, then the tippy top of the diagonal will be higher and
> experience more force.
>
>
> >>>>Thus, as the ark rolls over, its top will no longer be subjected
> to the highest
> velocity winds. That, too, causes the torque to be reduced, and
> quite significantly! Finally, a good boat design will have a
> restoration torque
> from the water so that it will naturally rock back. Your critique
> of the center of
> mass might be correct, but I don't have the details to look at it
> here in
> Canada.<<<<
>
> I don't agree here.
>
>
> >
> >>>>Last, I will point out that Alan Hill's model was overly
> conservative in at
> least one respect. He did not inlude the effect of wave action.
> Sustained winds
> over long reaches of water -- as he (and I) have hypothesized to get
> the ark back
> out of the persian gulf -- will necessarily produce HUGE waves in
> the northward
> direction. Because the hypothesized flood is relatively shallow in
> most of the
> basin, these waves would be asymmetric in their upper and lower
> branches, and thus
> they would produce net water transport UPHILL in the surface
> layer. This can be
> observed in shallow bays when the wind blows water uphill. Because
> water is
> viscous and has a no-slip condition on the bottom (where it meets
> the sand), this
> will result in a water profile in which the water flows downhill in
> the deeper
> layers but uphill in the shallowest layers where the ark's draft is
> found. Or, it
> might just reduce the downhill flow to some degree. In the first
> case the water
> itself will push the ark uphill -- not downhill -- and the wind will
> only help. In
> the second case there would be less downhill flow for the wind to
> fight against in
> pushing the ark uphill. Because Alan used hydrology models that do
> not include the
> effects of waves (or strong winds over long open reaches), his
> models predict a
> wind that is much stronger than it would really need to be ot push
> the ark
> uphill.<<<<
>
> >>>>
> >However, I mention again, none of this will convince a geologist
> unless the
> correct flood deposits are discovered and quantitively proven to be
> correct, so it
> is not worth arguing over any of these things.<<<<
>
> I am not convinced by the physics of this. What about the unit
> issues in the back
> of the book. He adds a V^2 with a V^3 and acts as if they are all
> forces.
>
> >>>>>
> >Also, as I said before I would be OK even if the flood were much
> more limited than
> Alan models.
> >
> >Ooo, I also meant to point out that Alan's model of the ark is
> irrelevant to the
> dispute. you also have a model of the ark that you believe is
> correct -- right
> number of animals, etc. -- so let's just assume you are right and
> put your version
> of the ark into a mesopotamian flood. Most people would be content
> with that. <<<<
>
> Well, since you haven't read my model, you will have a hard time
> critiquing it. I
> don't take 5000 animals. That is the death of any ark story.
>
> As to my model, I don't know if it is true. I know that it fits the
> descrption, and
> I know that it is physically possible, and I know that there was an
> infilling of
> the Mediterranean. But to say it is true is something that I can't
> do becuase I
> don't have evidence that it actually happened.
>
> But I do know that other flood theories all violate physics (as does
> the Hill's
> theory) and I know that it too doesn't have evidence for it in the
> form of
> widespresd flood sediment up river where the current river can't cut
> them out.
> Carol Talks about this:
>
> “It is very important to this discussion to understand the
> magnitude of
> sediment build-up that can occur in a major flooding event. As
> previouslyi
> mentioned, the Mississippi River flood of 1973 was out of its banks
> for two to
> three months in some locations, and the average sediment thickness
> left by this
> flood was 21 inches along the natural levee and 12 feet in the
> back-swamp areas.
> Considering that Noah’s Flood lasted about four times as long (1
> year), one can
> roughly estimate that a maximum of ~50 feet of sediment might have
> accumulated in
> an ideal backwater location during this flood.” Carol A. Hill,
> “Qualitative
> Hydrology of Noah’s Flood,” Perspectives on Science and
> Christian Faith, 58
> (2006):2:127
>
> So where are they?
>
>
> Her explanation is that floods erode sediment as well as deposit
> them and that the
> flood eroded its own sediment. This is utterly ludicrous. (p. 126)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Jun 7 14:01:11 2006