Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 303 (101726)
04-21-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by johnfolton
04-21-2004 9:15 PM


Re: just curious why
This is misleading, either intentionally or through ignorance:
Drive your car on some wet sand, do you see the tire imprint in the sand, according to the evolutionists, that imprint is the age of the sand its found
In many cases the geologists dating imprints (the ones who date rocks, rather than evolutionists) will date a layer above the imprint (say volcanic magma) and a layer below but including the imprint (Your sand turned to sandstone), and both these will be dated with the result that the imprint was made between the dates of the two layers. Each dating will use at least two different methods as a further check on the accuracy of each.
In other cases they can tell the date that something (like, say, volcanic ash) change into rock, so that dating that change gives a lower date for the imprint. The ash footprints at the Roccamonfina volcano in southern Italy are dated between 385,000 and 325,000 years ago this way, as are the footprints at Laetoli, Tanzania dated at 3.6 million years ago. In both these cases the ash did not lie on the ground for long periods of time before becoming rock, so the date of the rock formation is valid.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by johnfolton, posted 04-21-2004 9:15 PM johnfolton has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 303 (102175)
04-23-2004 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by johnfolton
04-23-2004 10:16 AM


Re: stoney baloney
This whole concept of "anchor" stones being used to ballast a ship from external "keelsons" that extend beyond the ends of the ship is the best laugh I have had in some time.
This system has not been used on any ship that I know of ... ever.
The benefit to minimize rolling is minimal compared to the same amount of stones inside the hull (the normal historical method) or tied to the beam amidships (best location). The position shown off the ends is totally ludicrous, as this will tend to minimize pitch forcing the ends of the boat to smash into and be submerged by waves. Normal ballast is centered to allow a boat to pitch in reaction to the waves, while being distributed towards the beam of the boat to minimize rolling. This has to do with the moment of inertia of the boat in the relevant directions. In other words this position minimizes good effect and maximizes bad effect on the normal roll and pitch behavior of a ship in turbulaent waves.
Releasing them before landing would mean that the ship would then be rolling like a log if they actually were needed before, OR that they were not really needed in the first place.
The only valid conclusion is that this concept is a total fantasy.
btw -- sea anchors are used to minimize drift and have nothing to do with stability.
Thanks for the full body laugh, it's a floor pounder.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 04-23-2004 10:16 AM johnfolton has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 303 (102182)
04-23-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by johnfolton
04-23-2004 12:23 PM


Re:
RADZ, I thought the reason for sea anchors have nothing to do with ballast, but to anchor the boat below the wave base so the boat would always point into the wave, like Ron Wyatt implied
A sea anchor is used to minimize drift and is usually set to orient the boat into the waves, yes. But weighting down just the bow? To make sure that waves wash over the boat? NOT normal SOP ... in fact stupid in terms of subjecting the deck to more sources of leaks and possible sinking. No you have a boat operating as a submarine with very little access to fresh air ... for how many animals? (oh, yeah, its only 5 or 6 because all the others swim)
Why use stones for this purpose when they would have the least drag to weight ratio of any reasonable choice. This is the worst possible design, period.
ROFLOL!

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by johnfolton, posted 04-23-2004 12:23 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by johnfolton, posted 04-23-2004 9:24 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 65 of 303 (102331)
04-23-2004 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by johnfolton
04-23-2004 9:24 PM


Re: Part Submarine ? or part troll.
Do you even know what a "moonpool" is?
You are going to have openings in the bottom of the boat and make it behave like a submarine ... I suggest you build a model and try it out. Take scuba gear with you.
The stones position in the Wyatt fantasy would do nothing to prevent the bow from bobbing up and down because of the orientation of the stones -- all they do is contribute to the moment of inertia in the most inappropriate way. A horizontal orientation would be needed to counter up and down motion.
You do like jump from one highball fantasy to another.
Conclusion: you don't care what you say as long as you get to keep posting. This is troll behavior.
[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-23-2004]

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by johnfolton, posted 04-23-2004 9:24 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by JonF, posted 04-24-2004 10:42 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 303 (102398)
04-24-2004 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by johnfolton
04-24-2004 11:35 AM


that sinking feeling
and as soon as you open a ventilation hatch ....
BLOOP (blub ... blub ...)
don't open a hatch and the animals suffocate.
...
going down?
cue the beatles ... "we all live in a yellow submarine ..."

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by johnfolton, posted 04-24-2004 11:35 AM johnfolton has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 303 (102472)
04-24-2004 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Buzsaw
04-24-2004 7:08 PM


Big Waves
And you are overestimating the ability of boats to float with openings into the interior, with ventilations for thousands of animals, and in a nearly submarine attitude, on a boat oriented so that whatever waves are there will more readily wash over the boat than have the boat ride up and over. The concept is poppycock hokum happyweed delirium.
The biggest ocean waves in the world are two types -- tsunamis caused by tectonic shifting of masses of earth and rock underwater by earthquakes (which according to most creationists is going on all during the flood period to mix up and redistribute the earth masses to give an appearance of ages from layers) and the wind driven waves of the roaring 40's and 50's (southern latitudes) because of the fetch - the unbroken distance that the wind can push the waves.
During a world wide flood the fetch of the entire world would be basically infinite. There would also be no interference to the wind currents to circle the earth.
Finally the shape of the waves in shallow water becomes more vertical ... so if it was a shallow sea flood covering a nearly spherical mass of rock and earth, the waves would have been 'square' or breaking ... think "Perfect Storm" with wave after wave like that.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2004 7:08 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2004 10:29 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 81 of 303 (102523)
04-25-2004 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
04-24-2004 10:29 PM


Re: Big Waves
The point, Buz, is that the scenario proposed by whatever is not workable: that boat just won't float. There is also no need for such 'embellishments' in order to have a workable concept, so inclusing them is counter productive.
Perhaps you would like to start a topic on the chariot wheels. It is off topic here.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2004 10:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by johnfolton, posted 04-25-2004 2:46 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2004 6:59 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 99 of 303 (102651)
04-25-2004 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by johnfolton
04-25-2004 2:46 PM


Big Joke.
Ah the fantasy world of make believe.
isn't it believed that the chinese built boats this large by comparmentalizing and laminating the structure, and they didn't leak
Truthful answer -- we don’t know because the technology was destroyed. We don't know how big they were and we don't have a clue to how they were built (mind you we have no idea how the ark was supposedly built either, the details are amazingly sketchy for something that took over a year to build).
Regardless of how well the ship was constructed, the ventilation needs to provide adequate breathing air to all the animals means that there must have been substantial openings to bring fresh air in and let stale air out. Having the deck constantly washed with water would mean that those openings were also washed with water, and bad things happen to boats that do that. The moonpool would just make it worse.
don't see how sea would turn the ark into a submarine, they were not heavy enough to overcome ballast
Again you demonstrate ignorance of boat design. Ballast is not what makes a boat float - what makes a boat float is displacement (volume underwater) equal to the weight of the boat and contents (including ballast). Ballast is used to keep boats upright by lowering the center of gravity below the metastable point. Ballast has historically been rocks, but iron, lead and even uranium have been used.
True sea anchors are light, designed to stream behind the boat as it is pushed by wind and waves causing a drag well upwind, and not down. Here is a picture of a properly deployed sea anchor:
(Access denied)
I did not say they would turn the boat into a submarine but that having those stones in those positions would cause it to act like a submarine with waves washing over it.
Let me put it this way: if I were going to choose a position that was the worst for the operation of the boat, that was subject to the highest loads on the ropes, that contributed the least to the ability of the boat to ride out storms on the open sea, and that would provide as little directional control as possible, and that was the hardest possible to manufacture, and in a location that could not be accessed to correct any problems, then I would put them where Wyatt has them located. The concept is a JOKE and you need to see that.
As to your hilarious hypotheses on waves, they are so ludicrous that you need to go over them again. You have gushing water, major movement of rock and sediment, a horrendous storm and ... calm water? In the immortal words of Bill Cosby: "RIIIGHT!"

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by johnfolton, posted 04-25-2004 2:46 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by johnfolton, posted 04-26-2004 12:04 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 303 (102653)
04-25-2004 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
04-25-2004 6:59 PM


Re: Big Waves
I will look for the thread, but what I found on google is not much for credible evidence
My point was that the supernatural has been established by them and by that same token, the credibility of the ark story is enhanced.
Only if (1) they are factual, (2) other explanations are eliminated.
Note that my post does not refute {a noah ark}, but that the Wyatt version is pure hokum.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2004 6:59 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2004 11:43 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 303 (102682)
04-26-2004 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by johnfolton
04-26-2004 12:04 AM


Re: moving the goal posts --- again.
You know what? If you ever settled on one position and defended that you would have a lot more credibility. One minute you have the ark wallowing deep in the water, next it is floating high and dry.
Your lack of understanding of waves is truly humorous.
And as I said -- if I was going to design a boat with those stones in the worst possible location, Wyatts would be it.
Keep going though, this is better than comedy central.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by johnfolton, posted 04-26-2004 12:04 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by johnfolton, posted 04-26-2004 12:42 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 303 (102687)
04-26-2004 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
04-25-2004 11:43 PM


Re: Big Waves
Sorry, I should be more clear. Wyatts design with the anchor stones off of underwater forward extending 'keelsons' as described by whatever in his ever expanding dance of hyperbole.
As for the "ark site" -- can you tell me which one?
(from Bills post http://EvC Forum: Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2004 11:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 111 of 303 (102699)
04-26-2004 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by johnfolton
04-26-2004 12:42 AM


Re: moving the goal posts --- again.
You could answer the questions instead of repeating your same claims again.
Or explain those 'weighted hatches' of yours ... exactly how do they operate to let air in but keep water out? I'm sure the Navy would be interested.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by johnfolton, posted 04-26-2004 12:42 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by johnfolton, posted 04-26-2004 1:33 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 116 of 303 (102776)
04-26-2004 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by johnfolton
04-26-2004 1:33 AM


Re: moving the goal posts --- again.
Like I said -- the navy would be very interested if you can make it work.
Intake and outlet valved hatches would operate in opposite manners or they wouldn't operate at all. One or the other will sink your scheme. The outlet hatches would relieve the pressure wave and allow the inflow of water through the moonpool, and the intake hatches would suck water in as soon as there was a vacuum.
A wise man learns from his mistakes, a fool repeats them.
ps - ram pumps are very inefficient and don't operate anywhere like what you propose.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by johnfolton, posted 04-26-2004 1:33 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by johnfolton, posted 04-26-2004 12:43 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 303 (102811)
04-26-2004 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by johnfolton
04-26-2004 12:43 PM


Re: moving the goal posts --- again.
Actually you have no clue. Do a google on ram pumps and learn why. These pumps could only be used to pump water into the boat (that would help), you have two hatches working in opposite modes (one in and one out) that do no allow the buildup of pressure, and we haven't even begun on the question of pressure inside needed to keep the moonpool from flooding the ark versus the resevoir of air inside that would need to be pressurized. It just won't work, sorry, give it up. Find another fantasy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by johnfolton, posted 04-26-2004 12:43 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by johnfolton, posted 04-26-2004 11:57 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 122 of 303 (102954)
04-27-2004 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by johnfolton
04-26-2004 11:57 PM


a real sinker
you have to adjust the intakes to compensate for greater inside pressure, and the outlets for the greater pressure
And as soon as either opens the pressure is gone. Neither are such hatches able to distinguish between air and water and will let in whatever is over them.
if the system fails the moon pool being separated except for its top from the arks insides would of continued to act as an iron lung,
And pump water inside with each wave that washes over the ark as the volume of air inside is so great the difference in pressure generated by the rising water would not be enough to prevent it from reaching the top, air being way more compressible than water.
with RAM pumps they could of had running water,
running in an unstoppable stream and wasting 3 to 10 x the quantity pumped to upper levels into the bilge of the boat in the process and no way to pump any of that out, you might as well open a tap in the side and open it full bore.
with little effort they could of siphoned the waste & excess waste waters out of the ark with the RAM pump water,
now we are siphoning water from outside in as well.
BLUB
BLUB
BLUB
BLUB
Four sinks in a tub.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by johnfolton, posted 04-26-2004 11:57 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by johnfolton, posted 04-27-2004 1:05 AM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024