This is going to be a long post, with math . . . I am hoping someone else with a critical eye will review it and verify . . . . This is going to be used to prove the religitards wrong.
[en.wikipedia.org]
. Radius of the Earth at the Equator is 6,378 kilometers = 6,378,000 meters
. Note that because we are taking the larger figure, the figure at the equator, and calculating as if the Earth was actually a perfect sphere, we are giving the religitards a HUGE gift, and a better chance at their argument.
[ngdc.noaa.gov]
Average Land elevation = 797 meters
Note that only 29% of the Earth is LAND, and we are going to ignore that fact that 71% is simply at sea level, not at 797 meters, therefore, once again, giving the religitards a gift, and a better chance at their argument . . . . We are calculating it as if the whole earth elevation was at 797 meters!
. Highest elevation, Mount Everest, = 8,846 meters above sea level.
. The well-known math formula for the volume of a sphere is:
. Volume = 4/3 * π r^3
. OK, so now we have what we need to calculate the amount of water needed to cover the earth from the average height of land mass to the height of Everest . . . . And one more thing . . . . We are again giving them a gift, because the bible says that the mountains were covered by a height 15 cubits (22ft) higher than their tops!
OK, so . . . . Radius of the earth + Average Land elevation = minimum radius = 6,378,000 meters + 797 meters = 6,378,797 meters
. Height of Everest + minimum radius = maximum radius =
8,846 meters + = 6,378,797 meters = 6,387,643 meters
Now let's calculate the volume of the smaller sphere:
Formula is - V = 4/3 π r^3 So 4/3 π 6,378,797 ^ 3 = 1,087,188,758,644,159,331,548 cubic meters.
. And the volume of the larger sphere:
Formula is - 4/3 π r^3 So 4/3 π 6,387,643 ^ 3 = 1,091,718,115,033,253,821,458 cubic meters
Now, when we subtract the smaller figure from the larger figure, we will get the total volume of water needed to flood the Earth to the height of Mount Everest.
. 1,091,718,115,033,253,821,458 cubic meters - 1,087,188,758,644,159,331,548 cubic meters =
10,529,356,389,094,489,909 cubic meters of water.
Now we know that at 100% humidity, that is, 100% saturation, we have the following amount of water:
[engineeringtoolbox.com]
So we will use the highest figure, even though we know that the average atmospheric temperature is way below 140 degrees farenheit.
. 130 grams of water per cubic meter of air
. We need to get a cubic meter of water, we need 1,000,000 grams, for just one cubic meter filled with water.
. So for each cubic meter of water formed from rain, we need 1,000,000 / 130 = 7,692 cubic meters of air that is at 100% humidity and 140 degrees farenheit.
. The total amount of water we needed to flood the earth to the height of Everest was:
. 10,529,356,389,094,489,909 cubic meters of water.
. Since we need 7,692 cubic feet of air for each cubic foot of water:
. 10,529,356,389,094,489,909 cubic meters 7,692 cubic meters = 80,991,809,344,914,816,380,028 cubic meters of atmosphere at 100% humidity to generate the flood.
. Now since we know the volume of atmosphere required, we can use the volume formula to determine that atmospheric radius required to generate the flood:
. V = 4/3 π r^3 So . . .
. 80,991,809,344,914,816,380,028 cubic meters = 4/3 π r^3
. So we just need to solve this for radius . . .
.
(80,991,809,344,914,816,380,028 cubic meters 3/4) / π = r^3
. 19,335,370,210,799,331,682,648 = r^3
. Now we just take the cube root of this to get the radius required.
26,840,102 meters 26,840 kilometers, that is . . . 16,677 miles . . .
. The height of the International Space Station at a height of 200 miles . . . A mere 1.1% of the height needed . . . .
. [weather.gov]
the top of the thermosphere is at about 6,200 miles above the earth, and in this layer, atoms and molecules escape into space and satellites orbit the earth.
. That means that over a 10,000 mile radius of the needed atmosphere is floating at a point where the atoms and molecules would escape into space, and never even fall to Earth! That is:
. 6,200 miles / 16,677 miles = only about 37 percent of the water needed to flood the earth would ever even get back to Earth, and we were not even counting any of the previously mentioned give-aways!
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
14 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Good effort! … Have you ever heard of Andrias scheuchzeri, aka Homo diluvii testis (man that witnessed the deluge) ?
PontifexMarximus
Level 8
July 20, 2019
0
THHA:
Have not.
A flooding of the entire earth is more than impossible. Believers go with it "because the bible said so." I once heard of a geologist who claimed that the Grand Canyon was a left over proof of the biblical flood. This prompted me to say that maybe if we looked closely in the bottom of the canyon we might find a large bathtub type drain stopper.
DenoPenno
Level 9
July 20, 2019
1
We should check
Religious people don't believe in science... Or math...
Cutiebeauty
Level 9
July 20, 2019
0
THHA:
That is not entirely accurate . . . . . how many times have you seen them try to use science, or math to support their beliefs? They do it all the time, they use whatever they can, be it fake or real to try to convince others.
@THHA their attempts of mathematical explanations usually fail...
THHA:
You got that right . . . . finding one of them that can add is kind of like looking for a banana in Antartica!
Not that long ago I saw a post from someone who claimed that the Earth’s orbit proved god’s existence. The argument was (not kidding): the orbit is perfect for life; one inch closer to the sun and we would burn up, one inch farther and we would freeze. They believe the “science” they want to believe.
@Rghurst they can say that about food also haha
I have to contradict you: George Lemaitre came up with the Big Bang Theory, which impressed even Einstein. Gregor Mendel is. Considered the Father of modern genetics.
Hi. George Lemaitre used mathematics and committed a fraud. Gregor Mendel used science and gave us genetics.
@yvilletom What fraud?
There are numerous religious scientists: Giordano Bruno, Gregor Mendel (Father of modern genetics), Georges Lemaitre (Physicist developed the Big Bang theory) and probably many more. These were people who had the capacity to keep things separate in their minds.
I applaud your efforts. Thanks for sharing.
TimeOutForMe
Level 8
July 20, 2019
0
Um... it’s very hard to parse what point you are making. I’m guessing it’s about the flood and Noah?
What are you trying to say and how is it impossible if an all powerful being exists?
indirect76
Level 7
July 20, 2019
0
Religitards, just like Trumpaloes, don't care about facts, and they don't care about proof. I applaud your work, but only those who are capable of REASON will consider your evidence.
BitFlipper
Level 8
July 20, 2019
0
Here is a simpler way to look at the problem. One atmosphere of pressure is equivalent to 9 meters of water, so if we were able to turn all the gas in Earth's atmosphere into liquid, it would be 9 meters deep. Mt Everest is approximately 9000 meters above sea level, so we would need to have 1000 times more water vapor in the atmosphere than we have for all gasses today.
BD66
Level 8
July 20, 2019
1
First, no amount of evidence or math will ever be able to change the belief of a believer if they want to believe.
Second, since you only focused on land mass, you're missing all the atmosphere above the water. If you crunched the numbers including the area of the atmosphere that is above the 70% water covering the surface, you'd probably see that our atmosphere could contain all the water to properly flood the entire Earth. Hell, you can just imagine it as our atmosphere has enough area to cover the entire Earth at least 22 feet above the highest mountain.
Third, there physically isn't enough water to flood the entire Earth as described.. at least I don't think so. As I said though, a believe will believe what they want. If they're dealing with a supernatural being, there are supernatural answers they accept. Like God magically created the water, then took the excess away.
Fourth, send me some of what you smoking.
FatherOfNyx
Level 7
July 19, 2019
2
THHA:
You must have skimmed, I stated my reason for leaving certain things out. The whole point of "missing" certain things was to strengthen the argument by leaving out things that would have worked FOR the argument I was making, it made the whole process easier to understand and calculate, and, the reader would have to agree that the argument was presented in the most conservative and clear way possible, letting all of the possible errors and results of more involved calculations work in favor of the opponent's view.
.
"there physically isn't enough water to flood the entire Earth as described"
No shit Sherlock, that is what I just proved . . .
.
As for the comment about "some of what you smoking.", you'll have to stick with plain old air . . . . and a love for mathematical ideas . . . .
@THHA I got that, but leaving out the atmosphere above the oceans isn't doing any favors for the theists. It's giving your argument a better chance, which is the opposite of what you were going for.
THHA:
You got it backwards . . . . the larger the inner radius, the less volume between the maximum radius and the minimum radius. If you count the atmosphere above the oceans, you are adding to the total volume. Think again.
@THHA I reread it and see what you're saying. The visual of ignoring the 71% of surface interfered with being able to see you were making the entire Earth having the 797 elevation. Rather than ignoring the 71%, you've turned it into land.
Still sucks cause no matter what natural argument you put into it, a believer can counter with a supernatural response..
THHA:
You might be surprized. Most people do not understand the dynamics at work, and that is why they fail to prevail. How do the religitards convince people? The pound away at them, over and over again, and eventually, even though it is false as all getout, they often prevail. Flip it the other way, and it is the same story, except, the truth is in it. This is why we have so few people on the side of science, because people give up to easy. I should know. When I was in the Navy, and generally due to the fucked up way I was brought up at home, I was part of the religitard group, and, while I was in Europe, I had the good luck of crossing paths with a German guy, who had the good sense, logic, and persistance to debate me. While I was not convinced during the argument, after it, and after giving it thought, it changed my life direction . . . . You cannot wimp out on an argument with these religitards and expect any good to come from it. People often do not realize or even admit when they have lost an argument, it is a matter of pride, but after they are forced to try to think of ways to counter the arguments, and find they can't, they find themselves up shit creek without a paddle. You have to pound their asses hard with all the fucking thunderbolts you have, and believe me, if you hit them hard, their fucking wheels will be spinning.
@THHA I would suggest using real numbers then, rather than making an argument to benefit them. There's a good chance they'd find it insulting (not that they're not worthy of insult) and not pay as much attention.
Like look up the total volume of Earth's atmosphere, then calculate the volume that is above 22 feet above Mt. Everest. That'll leave you with the real amount that would be needed to flood Earth as described.
THHA:
That would introduce huge inaccuracy . . . . for example, how are you going to defend the assertation of where the atmosphere actually ends? Generally speaking, the shape would not be circular either, given the solar wind. May as well be inviting them in, giving them a seat, providing them with beer.
@THHA Defend it the same way you would defend it from your example?
THHA:
My example does not have that type of flaw.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.