Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Existence of Noah's Ark
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 226 of 256 (147656)
10-05-2004 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by riVeRraT
10-05-2004 8:52 AM


Re: You are simply not equiped
Well, I do own a HVAC business, and happen to know a little about dissapation of heat with liquids.
If water was exposed to the vacum of space with heat in it, before it could freeze it might boil off and lose its heat to space during that process. The boiling point of water lowers in a vacum.
Once again you claim to be an HVAC tech. Have you ever worked on an absorbsion chiller unit? It uses vacum and heat to produce cold water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by riVeRraT, posted 10-05-2004 8:52 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2004 12:10 AM tsig has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 227 of 256 (147683)
10-06-2004 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Gary
10-05-2004 8:26 PM


Re: You are simply not equiped
Yes it can, just not as well as anything else, because it is the worst conductor.
Why is the dark side of the planet so cold then? Its not just due to lack of sun.
Also why does it stay warmer at night if it is cloudy? Because the clouds block the heat from escaping into space.
Think of the temperatures on the moon, front and back.
There has to be some cooling effect.
And thank you, at least you understand what I am trying to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Gary, posted 10-05-2004 8:26 PM Gary has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Gary, posted 10-06-2004 1:24 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 228 of 256 (147686)
10-06-2004 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by tsig
10-05-2004 8:53 PM


Re: You are simply not equiped
I own a HVAc company, not just a tech.
I really don't work on absorbtion systems, as my company isn't that big yet. I also didn't get a chance to work on them with other companys, but I have worked on many buildings in Manhattan, with major cooling systems for computer rooms. Liebert machines.
But this point you bring out, is what I am trying to say to you. Do you know why it operates in a vacum?
Do you know why we pull a vacum on a system before charging it with freon?
And technically it doesn't produce cold, you cannot produce cold, you can only remove heat. There is absolute zero, and then everything after that is heat. Cold is a reletive term to describe how you feel in certain tempuratures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by tsig, posted 10-05-2004 8:53 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Coragyps, posted 10-07-2004 12:29 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 237 by tsig, posted 10-07-2004 10:30 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 256 (147697)
10-06-2004 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by riVeRraT
10-06-2004 12:02 AM


Re: You are simply not equiped
Good point. I have to think about this.
The atmosphere on Earth, not just the clouds specifically, does hold in heat at night, moderating the temperatures. So some heat escapes into space. I am no expert on this, but it could be that infrared light radiates from warm areas on the Earth, and the atmosphere absorbs this energy. Only some of the infrared light escapes through the atmosphere. Maybe someone who knows more about the subject than me could explain more accurately, if I am wrong.
Now on the moon, there is no atmosphere to absorb the energy from the infrared light coming off the warm parts of the moon during the night. By the same logic as on Earth, infrared light is produced by the warm parts of the Moon. But without an atmosphere, the light just goes off into space. That effect might cool the dark side of the moon. This is just what I think would happen, I'm not saying this is backed up by anything, its just a hypothesis. It would be nice if someone else could confirm this or tell me I'm wrong. I'd do some research on it, but I have an ecology test to study for tommorow morning.
Also: About it being warmer on cloudy nights: Maybe it is a little warmer on cloudy nights, but it also gets more humid, and the pressure drops a little bit. So sweat doesn't evaporate as fast, and you feel hotter. It might be a combination of a few different factors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2004 12:02 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 230 of 256 (147994)
10-07-2004 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by arachnophilia
10-04-2004 3:25 AM


Re: Ararat & the Black Sea
Arachnophilia responds to me:
quote:
however, you said the bible doesn't describe a storm
And again, you're being disingenuous. You admit you haven't been following the thread...have you considered that the source of your confusion is because you haven't been following the thread?
I feel like John Kerry: You're jumping on a single phrase and ignoring the entire context in which it was made and then behaving as if you made a valid assessment of the meaning.
When I said that the Bible doesn't describe a storm, I did not mean that a storm made absolutely no appearance. I meant that the event described was not a simple storm where, when it stops raining, the land gets dry in a few days. Instead, it talks about a flood. The storm described in the Bible is nothing but a device to get enough water on the ground to cause a flood. When the storm is over, the flood remains.
The claim made by riVeRraT has shifted from a flood to a storm. He's behaving as if dumping enough water on a mountain through a rainstorm is equivalent to a flood that covers the mountain.
Thus, as you can see, my comment about the Bible not talking about a storm. Noah didn't survive a terrible storm. He survived a flood. The flood came around because of a storm, yes, but the storm was just a device to get enough water to create a flood.
quote:
no, it's not. i'm not saying this actually happened.
Nor am I saying you are. Instead, riVeRraT is. He has committed the logical error of shifting the goalposts. This entire discussion was about a flood and now he's trying to get away with a storm as if having a great big bucket of water on top of a mountain peak pouring over it is equivalent to a flood of the mountain.
quote:
the water came from outside their concept of the universe, and when the flood was over, it went back.
But we know that their concept of the universe doesn't match reality.
So what does that mean for those who claim a "global flood" was a reality?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2004 3:25 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by arachnophilia, posted 10-07-2004 3:23 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 231 of 256 (147995)
10-07-2004 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Rrhain
10-07-2004 3:18 AM


Re: Ararat & the Black Sea
And again, you're being disingenuous. You admit you haven't been following the thread...have you considered that the source of your confusion is because you haven't been following the thread?
yes, it probably is. that's what i meant.
When I said that the Bible doesn't describe a storm, I did not mean that a storm made absolutely no appearance. I meant that the event described was not a simple storm where, when it stops raining, the land gets dry in a few days. Instead, it talks about a flood. The storm described in the Bible is nothing but a device to get enough water on the ground to cause a flood. When the storm is over, the flood remains.
The claim made by riVeRraT has shifted from a flood to a storm. He's behaving as if dumping enough water on a mountain through a rainstorm is equivalent to a flood that covers the mountain.
Thus, as you can see, my comment about the Bible not talking about a storm. Noah didn't survive a terrible storm. He survived a flood. The flood came around because of a storm, yes, but the storm was just a device to get enough water to create a flood.
oh, ok. i get your point. sorry for being an ass. i agree.
But we know that their concept of the universe doesn't match reality.
So what does that mean for those who claim a "global flood" was a reality?
precisely what i was trying to demonstrate. that, and that symmolic meaning is more important than the details and historical accuracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Rrhain, posted 10-07-2004 3:18 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 232 of 256 (147999)
10-07-2004 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by riVeRraT
10-04-2004 9:11 AM


Re: Ararat & the Black Sea
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
You don't need 100 miles of water for it to be flooded.
Then what keeps the water pressed up against the mountain rather than immediately draining into the valley? We're talking about a flood, not a storm.
Did you try the experiment I asked you to perform?
quote:
Think of the gutters on your house, if the rainfall amount exceeds the drainage capicity of the gutter, it will over flow.
Indeed.
My house still isn't flooded, though. To do that, you need to have water pressed up against the sides of the building. And the only way to do that is to have the water level of the entire surrounding area rise to that height.
When you put a glass on a flat, level surface and pour water in the glass, it doesn't cling to just one side (and please, no silly comments about the "inside" of the glass.) Instead, the water level rises so that the entire inner wall of the glass is covered to the same height.
What is keeping water pressed against the side of the building rather than running right off into the river basin?
quote:
So what happens if it rains, the river gets deeper, because it can't handle the extra water.
You're acting as if the river is the only place the water can flow. You keep forgetting that water flows. Remember your gutter example? If the gutters get clogged for whatever reason, the water FLOWS OVER THE EDGE OF THE GUTTER.
And my house still isn't flooded.
Did you try the experiment I asked you to perform?
quote:
So what if it rained 4" per hour for forty days and nights.
You'd have close to 109 cubic miles of water piling up.
But there's only about 108 cubic miles of water to be had on the earth. And we can't use any of it because it's already at the lowest point...we need to put this flood water on top of the ocean water.
Where did it come from?
Where did it go?
quote:
You see everyone here keeps thinking small.
Incorrect. It's the other way around. You're the one that keeps thinking locally and you need to start thinking globally.
What keeps the water pressed up against the side of the mountain in a flood of the mountain rather than draining away into the valley?
quote:
A mountain is usually part of a mounatin range, where the whole range would flood.
Irrelevant. You're just pushing the question back one level. Eventually, the mountain range dissipates to the plains. What keeps the water pressed against the outside slopes of the mountains?
Take a glass and place it on a flat, level surface. While you can certainly take a bit of water and pour it into the glass such that the interior surface is covered in water, how much water are you going to need to cover the exterior surface of the glass with water such that it remains submerged for 20 minutes after you're done doing whatever it is you are going to do with the water?
Did you try the experiment I asked you to perform?
quote:
The highest part of the mountain range would stick out
Then the mountain isn't completely flooded and that is what you are claiming happened. If the highest part is sticking out of the water, then that highest part isn't flooded.
Did you try the experiment I asked you to perform?
quote:
If we can figure this out, then we can take it to the next step, of it would fit into the story from the bible.
But that's just it: It is topologically impossible.
Did you try the experiment I asked you to perform?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by riVeRraT, posted 10-04-2004 9:11 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2004 8:39 AM Rrhain has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 233 of 256 (148042)
10-07-2004 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Rrhain
10-07-2004 3:34 AM


Re: Ararat & the Black Sea
What keeps the water pressed up against the side of the mountain in a flood of the mountain rather than draining away into the valley?
Its just amazing that you can't see what I am trying to say.
More water, fo rthe time that it is raining.
I am not talking about after the rain stops.
Try your little experiment, but first make the mass 25% the surface area of the tub, then pour a thimble full of water and watch it run off. This would represent a regular rainfall amount.
Now talk a small bucket and do the same, this would represent the rainfall amount I am talking about. For the period of time that it was raining, it would be flooded.
And if you want to compare run-off rates to real life, you would have to make a scale time-clock to represent how fast it would run-off in full scale.
Then the mountain isn't completely flooded and that is what you are claiming happened. If the highest part is sticking out of the water, then that highest part isn't flooded.
But a t rainfall rate of 4" per hour, it would be wet, running-off, and flooded, and there-for covered in water, even if was only a 1/4" of water, it would be covered. I think I stated this about 4 times already, but through your logic you feel the need to keep asking me about this.
Can you explain your thought processs that leads you to do this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Rrhain, posted 10-07-2004 3:34 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2004 4:23 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 234 of 256 (148081)
10-07-2004 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by riVeRraT
10-06-2004 12:10 AM


Re: You are simply not equiped
Do you know why we pull a vacuum on a system before charging it with freon?
Two reasons: to remove (noncondensable) air that would lower the effectiveness of freon condensation and, more importantly, to remove any water that would make ice and plug things up. Nothing to do with the vacuum of space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2004 12:10 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2004 2:00 PM Coragyps has replied
 Message 238 by tsig, posted 10-07-2004 10:34 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 235 of 256 (148118)
10-07-2004 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Coragyps
10-07-2004 12:29 PM


Re: You are simply not equiped
Good, now how does the water get out of the system?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Coragyps, posted 10-07-2004 12:29 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Coragyps, posted 10-07-2004 2:30 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 236 of 256 (148128)
10-07-2004 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by riVeRraT
10-07-2004 2:00 PM


Re: You are simply not equiped
The water leaves the system because you've reduced the applied pressure to below its vapor pressure AND because you have quite a large heat source - all that copper and such at room temperature - to supply the heat of vaporization that enables the change from liquid (or solid) water to vapor to occur. Even with that large of a mass of metal, how long do you hold a vacuum on the unit? Half an hour, perhaps, to be sure you've evaporated a quarter-teaspoon of water?
The problem isn't so much the water as the heat, RR. A single gram of water vapor in Noah's stratosphere gives off 540 calories of heat when it condenses to raindrops. That's enough to heat ten grams of water down below Noah's boat by 54 degrees C of nearly 100 degrees F. You just don't have a heat sink in the upper atmosphere to carry that sort of heat away on bigger than a one-hurricane scale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2004 2:00 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2004 10:35 PM Coragyps has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 237 of 256 (148233)
10-07-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by riVeRraT
10-06-2004 12:10 AM


Re: You are simply not equiped
But this point you bring out, is what I am trying to say to you. Do you know why it operates in a vacum?
Do you know why we pull a vacum on a system before charging it with freon?
And technically it doesn't produce cold, you cannot produce cold, you can only remove heat. There is absolute zero, and then everything after that is heat. Cold is a reletive term to describe how you feel in certain tempuratures.
It can operate in a vacum because the brine solution will boil at a lower temperature in a vacum, but you must always have a heat source, that heat source is the cold water coil.
I said nothing about producing cold. I said cold water. I think 42 degree water will count as cold in the decidedly non-tech talk here. This mention of the definition of cold is a red herring to divert attention from the fact that your own trade disproves your "cooling in space' theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2004 12:10 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2004 10:41 PM tsig has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 238 of 256 (148234)
10-07-2004 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Coragyps
10-07-2004 12:29 PM


Re: You are simply not equiped
Two reasons: to remove (noncondensable) air that would lower the effectiveness of freon condensation and, more importantly, to remove any water that would make ice and plug things up. Nothing to do with the vacuum of space
you stole my answer!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Coragyps, posted 10-07-2004 12:29 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 239 of 256 (148235)
10-07-2004 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Coragyps
10-07-2004 2:30 PM


Re: You are simply not equiped
Ok, now the ignorant question.
Why does hail fall from thunderstorms?
And yes, I fully understand why water evoprates from a refrigeration system. I think its cool that you know too. You learn that in college, or are you in the field?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Coragyps, posted 10-07-2004 2:30 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 10-07-2004 10:39 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 242 by Coragyps, posted 10-07-2004 10:54 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 240 of 256 (148236)
10-07-2004 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by riVeRraT
10-07-2004 10:35 PM


Re: You are simply not equiped
Why does hail fall from thunderstorms?
Because heat gets added to the system.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by riVeRraT, posted 10-07-2004 10:35 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by riVeRraT, posted 10-08-2004 9:33 AM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024