Re: Is the Hills' flood possible?

Would the ark necessarily always have travelled in the river channel against
the current? Maybe there are areas of depression outside the river channel
in which the ark could have floated and been blown northwards. For example,
Lake Tharthar, 120km northwest of Baghdad, is a man-made lake created by
flooding a smaller salt lake. It's deep, and big. I stumbled across this
description of it on a military helicopter pilot's blog:

http://phlebotomus.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_phlebotomus_archive.html
<http://phlebotomus.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_phlebotomus_archive.html>
The pilot
 describes flying over Lake Thartaras follows: * "We were lucky to fly over
**Lake Tharthar*<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2004/2004082717537.html>
*, the largest body of water in Iraq. Tharthar was created by flooding a
large basin containing a much smaller salt lake with flood waters from the
Tigris River. When we were out over the lake, all we could see in every
direction was water. I could have been flying over the North Atlantic, the
scene was the same."
*
Obviously, this isn't to say the present site of Lake Tharthar was the place
the ark went, but just to raise the possibility that there are areas of
natural depression where the ark could've drifted outside the river channel
for a time.

On 6/8/06, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
>  I consulted my son, licensed as a sea captain, and summarize his take.
> He notes that 4 mph is low for a river current. He has taken a boat upstream
> with the wind, but it took a diesel. More importantly, vessels do not stay
> bow or stern to the wind. They broach. This produces list, which is
> aggravated by whatever slides to the low side.
>
> Since the Ark, barring a miracle, would be beam-to the wind, I considered
> a 5-foot draft, which leaves 40 feet to the wind, versus tipping the Ark
> just enough so that all 45 feet would be exposed to the wind. I figured this
> at about 11 1/3 degrees. With a cosine of 0.980 and the 12.5% larger area,
> the pressure is about a tenth higher. Any greater list and the bottom is
> exposed to the wind, increasing the torque. Oopsidaisy!
> Dave
>
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:08:21 -0400 philtill@aol.com writes:
>
>
> Hi Glenn,
>
> <snip>
> 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. 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. 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.
>
> God bless,
> Phil Metzger
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jun 8 06:22:21 2006