Jump to content


Photo

Noah's Flood And Rainfall

noah flood rain water

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 20 November 2014 - 10:58 AM

The purpose of this topic is to explore how much of the waters for Noah's flood could have come from rainfall. 

 

The reason is that when water condenses from a gas to a liquid, it releases energy .... a LOT of energy..... 2.5 million joules per kilogram.  To give you an idea of how much energy that is, IIRC the condensation of abut 2 liters of water releases about the same energy as an apple would have at orbital velocities.

 

When I did a "back of the envelope" calculation on this one, the condensation of enough water vapor to cover the planet to a depth of one meter releases enough heat energy to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by something like 240 degrees C.  Obviously, that much heat would be a significant problem for life on the surface of the Earth.

 

Now, I realize the atmosphere won't heat up that much for several reasons which are open  to discussion also.

 

In order to keep this topic focused, we will assume the flood did actually take place.  For that reason, any challenge to the flood having happened is  off_topic.gif  

 

In keeping with the Biblical account, we will also assume that there are two sources of water:  1)  Ranifall and 2) the "fountains" of the deep (ie:  subterrainan water).

 

The primary question is how much water could come from rainfall before there is a serious problem with the heat.

 

For convenience, the following values are provided:

The latent heat of condensation of water = 2.5 million joules per kg.

The specific heat of air = 1000 joules per kilogram.

The mass of one cubic meter of water = 1000 kg.

The surface area of the Earth = 5.1 * 1014 square meters.

Mass of Earth's atmosphere = 5.3 * 1018 kg.

 

Hopefully, Calypsis will join in and begin by calculating how much the energy released by condensation of enough water vapor to cover the Earth to a depth of one meter.  We can then look at what would be a reasonable estimate of the total rainfall before atmospheric heat becomes a problem.  (I do have an estimate in mind and, interestingly enough, it agrees with what Dr. Walt Brown has said in a discussion with IndyDave that was recorded and posted on the internet some time ago.)

 

(Note:  We will also assume the laws of physics have not been suspended by God.)



#2 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 20 November 2014 - 04:15 PM

You left out a third option..... melting glaciation and melting ice-caps as the main source for the water.

 

The wording of the bible is not clear that the fountains of the great deep were water fountains. We know that it is a common phenomenon to have fountains of lava from the great deep. We always look for the far-fetched, but what about just looking for what normally happens in nature.

 

History records that during the time of the greatest volcanic activity, the world temperature increased by 8 degrees C. At this stage the extensive glaciation melted. In addition there was a magnetic reversal then, and both magnetic reversals and volcanic activity cause extensive intense rainfalls. (a reversal weakens the magnetic field, allowing for the solar wind to penetrate and seed the air, increasing rainfalls).

 

So there were fountains at that time (volcanic)

Melting glaciation/ice caps

Heavy Rainfalls

 

Geology confirms that during that time glaciation melted, sea levels rose, and vegetation was widely destroyed, and erosion and sedimentation was intense. Science knows this as the "Great Death".



#3 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 20 November 2014 - 10:26 PM

...The wording of the bible is not clear that the fountains of the great deep were water fountains. ....

 

I don't know.  It's worth exploring, but ma'yan is used elsewhere in the O.T. and virtually always refers to water, be it a spring fountain or well.  Looking at the context, I can't this as describing anything else but water sources.  That's not to say there were not other sources feeding the flood.  



#4 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 21 November 2014 - 12:36 AM

 

I don't know.  It's worth exploring, but ma'yan is used elsewhere in the O.T. and virtually always refers to water, be it a spring fountain or well.  Looking at the context, I can't this as describing anything else but water sources.  That's not to say there were not other sources feeding the flood.  

 

That would be the case with the English word too. If you do a Google search on "fountain" its mainly water fountains that show, and no lava fountains. We obviously mustn't restrict the meaning of the word just because of its common usage on the first page of the Google search. Neither should we restrict the meaning of the Hebrew word to common biblical usage.

 

So do we go with the more common Hebrew usage......or the common knowledge that the only liquid that is known to come up from the great deep is lava fountains?

 

Its a pretty even argument, albeit a subjective one.

My view is skewed by history as per my last post,  which shows that the Siberian Traps did cause flooding and this occurred during a magnetic reversal which does  seed the air, which would cause an increase in precipitation. As does volcanic activity.



#5 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 November 2014 - 02:03 AM

....the Siberian Traps did cause flooding and this occurred during a magnetic reversal which does  seed the air, which would cause an increase in precipitation. As does volcanic activity.

The precipitation is the problem.  I'm going to wait a bit longer in hopes Calypsis will do a "back of the envelope" calculation and provide an estimate.  This isn't about looking for a "gotcha" .... it's an effort to find some common ground.

 

The physics is that in order to have rainfall, you need to have water vapor condense to a liquid.  In the process of condensation, a LOT of heat energy is released.  I don't want to say too much, but the limit on precipitation that allows for survival is measured in inches, not feet. (For those of you in the civilized part of the world that uses metric, that would be on the order of a few tens of centimeters.)



#6 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 21 November 2014 - 02:39 AM

The precipitation is the problem.  I'm going to wait a bit longer in hopes Calypsis will do a "back of the envelope" calculation and provide an estimate.  This isn't about looking for a "gotcha" .... it's an effort to find some common ground.

 

The physics is that in order to have rainfall, you need to have water vapor condense to a liquid.  In the process of condensation, a LOT of heat energy is released.  I don't want to say too much, but the limit on precipitation that allows for survival is measured in inches, not feet. (For those of you in the civilized part of the world that uses metric, that would be on the order of a few tens of centimeters.)

 

 

Cool, hopefully he gives you figures. At that point in history the world's temperature did increase by about 8% .  So it conforms with your heating prediction, but with only a small portion of the flooding coming from rain.



#7 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 21 November 2014 - 09:51 AM

The precipitation is the problem.  I'm going to wait a bit longer in hopes Calypsis will do a "back of the envelope" calculation and provide an estimate.  This isn't about looking for a "gotcha" .... it's an effort to find some common ground.
 
The physics is that in order to have rainfall, you need to have water vapor condense to a liquid.


Not necessarily. Like in the hydroplate theory, the "rain" was the water from the fountains falling back to earth.

#8 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 November 2014 - 10:31 AM

Not necessarily. Like in the hydroplate theory, the "rain" was the water from the fountains falling back to earth.

We discussed Dr. Brown's Hydroplate model at:  http://evolutionfair...owtopic=5685=   I will be more than happy to discuss the Hydroplate model there.

 

Briefly, Brown's claims, if true, would sterilize the planet.  Just a quick glance should show his proposal is in serious trouble.  Brown says half of Earth's modern oceans came from an underground cavern where it was stored at temperatures over 700F.  Mixing equal amounts of water at 700F and 32F would give us 732/2 or around 366F as a final temperature. (This is a simplistic quick glance that doesn't consider several factors ... but it serves to show a more detailed examination is in order.)  To any reasonable person, that should indicate a major problem. 

 

I'm not the only person who sees serious problems in Brown's claims.  YEC astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner did his own "back of the envelope" analysis.  While my analysis focused on material that failed to escape Earth's gravity, Faulkner targeted the effects of the launch process.... but with the same result.... a sterile planet.



#9 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 21 November 2014 - 12:07 PM

We discussed Dr. Brown's Hydroplate model at:  http://evolutionfair...owtopic=5685=   I will be more than happy to discuss the Hydroplate model there.
 
Briefly, Brown's claims, if true, would sterilize the planet.  Just a quick glance should show his proposal is in serious trouble.  Brown says half of Earth's modern oceans came from an underground cavern where it was stored at temperatures over 700F.  Mixing equal amounts of water at 700F and 32F would give us 732/2 or around 366F as a final temperature. (This is a simplistic quick glance that doesn't consider several factors ... but it serves to show a more detailed examination is in order.)  To any reasonable person, that should indicate a major problem. 
 
I'm not the only person who sees serious problems in Brown's claims.  YEC astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner did his own "back of the envelope" analysis.  While my analysis focused on material that failed to escape Earth's gravity, Faulkner targeted the effects of the launch process.... but with the same result.... a sterile planet.


Was just throwing another alternative out, not saying it is or isn't correct, just adding a viewpoint.

#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 November 2014 - 12:28 PM

Was just throwing another alternative out, not saying it is or isn't correct, just adding a viewpoint.

Fair enough.... I would suggest an alternative that kills everything isn't much of an alternative.



#11 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 November 2014 - 06:30 PM

OK... Calypsis has had more than enough time to respond to this if he were so inclined. I'll produce my estimate for the maximum contribution to a global flood resulting from rainfall.
 

In keeping with the Biblical account, we will also assume that there are two sources of water:  1)  Ranifall and 2) the "fountains" of the deep (ie:  subterrainan water).
 
The primary question is how much water could come from rainfall before there is a serious problem with the heat.
 
For convenience, the following values are provided:
The latent heat of condensation of water = 2.5 million joules per kg.
The specific heat of air = 1000 joules per kilogram.
The mass of one cubic meter of water = 1000 kg.
The surface area of the Earth = 5.1 * 1014 square meters.
Mass of Earth's atmosphere = 5.3 * 1018 kg.
.... 
(Note:  We will also assume the laws of physics have not been suspended by God.)

First, the "back of the envelope" calculation......
 
We need to start by finding out how much heat would be generated by the condensation. In order to do that, we multiply the mass of the water by the latent heat of condensation. Due to problems using the editor, I will be using spreadsheet notation. For example 1000 = 1x103 = 1e3.
 
Earth's surface area is 5.1e14 square meters.  The mass of water is 1000 kg per square meter.  The total mass of water would be 5.1e17 kg.  Multiplying that by the latent heat of condensation (2.5e6 joules per kg) gives a total energy release of 1.28e24 joules.
 
Dividing that by the mass of Earth's atmosphere (5.3e18kg) means the atmosphere will absorb over 240,000 joules per kg.  Dividing that by 1000 joules per kg per degree C, we end up with an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere of 240 degrees Celsius.
 
Water boils at 100C, so it's safe to say rainfall accounts for less than 1 meter of the total flood water.  This is especially true considering the findings of Dr. Larry Vardiman who researched the "Vapor Canopy" model for over 25 years.  He determined that even 0.5 meters of precipitable water vapor in the atmosphere would cause a greenhouse effect with surface temperatures over 130C. .... and that was without considering any heat from the condensation of that vapor.

"The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C." (Source: http://www.universet...ature-of-earth/ )  That's about 60F.  An increase of 24C would increase that by 43F to a nice toasty 103F.  This would be about equivalent to 10cm (4 inches) of rainfall globally.  Ten centimeters was Dr. Brown's estimate in his discussion with IndyDave and it's a number I would agree with.

 

Let's take it to an extreme and say we could increase temperatures by twice that.... 48C which would be 86F.... to about 150F.  This would still represent the condensation of only enough water vapor to produce 20cm (8 inches) of rainfall.

 

What I expect would actually happen is that when the rain begins, it will also start heating the atmosphere.  Once the atmospheric temperature rises above the dew point, condensation will stop.  This will put an end to the heating.  However, since condensation is the fuel for rainfall, the rain will also stop.

 

How much rainfall do I expect would be the actual maximum.... well, let's allow for enough to increase temperatures to the boiling point of water (100C).  With Earth's current temperature being 15C, that would be an increase of 85C.  This would translate to 35 centimeters or about 14 inches.

 

With the flood rising to "more than 15 cubits above the mountains"  There are a number of variables.... such as how long is a cubit and how high is a mountain.  If we use an 18 inch cubit that would be 270 inches.  Rounding that to 280 inches (we'll assume mountains are 10 inches tall) that would mean 14 of 270 inches ..... about 5% results from rainfall.  This would be a maximum contribution.

 

The modern minimum for a mountain seems to be about 300m above the surrounding terrain.  Thirty-five centimeters would be 0.117% of that.  Higher mountains, of course, would result in rainfall accounting for even smaller percentages.

 

One thing is clear.... the physics of rainfall dictates that the contribution of rainfall to a global flood would be minimal.  One might even say insignificant.

 

BTW, nothing in the Biblical flood account says the rainfall was global.  Only that it "rained" for 40 days and 40 nights.



#12 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 24 November 2014 - 02:57 PM

 
BTW, nothing in the Biblical flood account says the rainfall was global.  Only that it "rained" for 40 days and 40 nights.


I'm not sure anyone has suggested that the rainfall was global. However, we also know that the vast bulk of the water was from under ground, rising rapidly. How does that affect your calculations on the rise of temperature on the earth? I'm not in any way shape or form a mathematician, so I can't comment on your calculations, more or less I'm just interested in the idea, that say the fountains broke open at very specific points (the Marianas trench for one example) and the water "rained down" only around those particular areas, given the entirety of the earth's surface and atmosphere, and the ability for heat to escape, would this still result in "sterilization" as you put it?

#13 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 26 November 2014 - 12:54 AM

I'm not sure anyone has suggested that the rainfall was global.

Well, I don't know that any one has proposed that as a scientific argument... though it may be a necessary consequence of the "Vapor Canopy" model.  That said, I'm sure there are many who think the rainfall was global.
 

However, we also know that the vast bulk of the water was from under ground, rising rapidly. How does that affect your calculations on the rise of temperature on the earth? I'm not in any way shape or form a mathematician, so I can't comment on your calculations,

Well, the whole purpose of the calculations was to show that the it is necessary the vast bulk of the water came from underground.... rainfall would not be a significant factor in a global flood.  So I guess we're in agreement on at least that much.
 
How does it impact my calculations?  Well, obviously less rainfall means less heat from condensation.  The whole point is to demonstrate there couldn't be much of a contribution from rain.
 

..., more or less I'm just interested in the idea, that say the fountains broke open at very specific points (the Marianas trench for one example) and the water "rained down" only around those particular areas, given the entirety of the earth's surface and atmosphere, and the ability for heat to escape, would this still result in "sterilization" as you put it?

That depends.  How much water, and at what temperature?

 

For example, in the Hydroplate model, half the Earth's modern oceans originates in "fountains" that start out at a temperature above 700F.  As has been pointed out in the "Fire and Brimstone" discussion, you simply can't radiate the heat to space quickly enough.  Even Dr. Brown admits that.  It's why he tries to convert a lot of the heat energy to kinetic energy by "blasting" it to space and having continents motor-boating along at several miles per hour.

 

In the case of condensation for rainfall, some of the energy will certainly be radiated to space but it is energy that is over and above the normal heat budget of the planet.  There is also the problem of storing the water vapor in the atmosphere as Vardiman has described in his "Vapor Canopy" work.  (I suspect the greenhouse effect of the water vapor is the reason Dr. Brown limits the rainfall to around 10cm (4 inches) or so.)

 

 



#14 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 26 November 2014 - 10:27 AM

Well, I don't know that any one has proposed that as a scientific argument... though it may be a necessary consequence of the "Vapor Canopy" model.  That said, I'm sure there are many who think the rainfall was global.
 
Well, the whole purpose of the calculations was to show that the it is necessary the vast bulk of the water came from underground.... rainfall would not be a significant factor in a global flood.  So I guess we're in agreement on at least that much.
 
How does it impact my calculations?  Well, obviously less rainfall means less heat from condensation.  The whole point is to demonstrate there couldn't be much of a contribution from rain.
 
That depends.  How much water, and at what temperature?
 
For example, in the Hydroplate model, half the Earth's modern oceans originates in "fountains" that start out at a temperature above 700F.  As has been pointed out in the "Fire and Brimstone" discussion, you simply can't radiate the heat to space quickly enough.  Even Dr. Brown admits that.  It's why he tries to convert a lot of the heat energy to kinetic energy by "blasting" it to space and having continents motor-boating along at several miles per hour.
 
In the case of condensation for rainfall, some of the energy will certainly be radiated to space but it is energy that is over and above the normal heat budget of the planet.  There is also the problem of storing the water vapor in the atmosphere as Vardiman has described in his "Vapor Canopy" work.  (I suspect the greenhouse effect of the water vapor is the reason Dr. Brown limits the rainfall to around 10cm (4 inches) or so.)
 
 


How do we know the water was over 700 degrees?

#15 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 26 November 2014 - 03:50 PM

For example, in the Hydroplate model, half the Earth's modern oceans originates in "fountains" that start out at a temperature above 700F.  As has been pointed out in the "Fire and Brimstone" discussion, you simply can't radiate the heat to space quickly enough.  Even Dr. Brown admits that.  It's why he tries to convert a lot of the heat energy to kinetic energy by "blasting" it to space and having continents motor-boating along at several miles per hour.

How do we know the water was over 700 degrees?

Well, it's a model generated by Dr. Walt Brown and he says the water was "supercritical".  Water becomes supercritical at a MINIMUM temperature of 374C which converts to 705F.  Therefore, in Brown's Hydroplate model, the water temperature starts out in excess of 700F.

 

Edit:

More specifically, Brown says the water was stored in underground caverns as a supercritical fluid.



#16 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 26 November 2014 - 06:27 PM

Well, it's a model generated by Dr. Walt Brown and he says the water was "supercritical".  Water becomes supercritical at a MINIMUM temperature of 374C which converts to 705F.  Therefore, in Brown's Hydroplate model, the water temperature starts out in excess of 700F.
 
Edit:
More specifically, Brown says the water was stored in underground caverns as a supercritical fluid.


Ok, so I guess I'm asking, why did the water need to be supercritical? Why did it have to even be above boiling? I understand that the closer to the core the hotter the temperatures, and the pressure would've been enormous, but does that necessarily mean that the water would be superheated?

#17 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 26 November 2014 - 07:58 PM

Ok, so I guess I'm asking, why did the water need to be supercritical? Why did it have to even be above boiling? I understand that the closer to the core the hotter the temperatures, and the pressure would've been enormous, but does that necessarily mean that the water would be superheated?

Well, my comment about the supercritical water was limited to the Hydroplate model.  Of course underground water ranges in temperature from boiling (geysers) to near freezing.

 

Like I said ...  it depends on how much water and what temperature. 



#18 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 27 November 2014 - 10:36 AM

Well, my comment about the supercritical water was limited to the Hydroplate model.  Of course underground water ranges in temperature from boiling (geysers) to near freezing.
 
Like I said ...  it depends on how much water and what temperature. 


Yeah, I was thinking about that. I'll have to email Dr. Brown about that. Happy Thanksgiving! :)

#19 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 27 November 2014 - 03:09 PM

Yeah, I was thinking about that. I'll have to email Dr. Brown about that. Happy Thanksgiving! smile.png

Well, Dr. Brown will tell you the heat builds up (mainly) from tidal pumping.

And a Happy Thanksgiving to all.....

#20 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 16 February 2015 - 12:30 PM

I posted the following to http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=6205 about heat and Brown's Hydroplate Theory.  Not sure which thread is best to post into.

 

 

 

I most certainly believe I can answer the questions about heat with the Hydroplate Theory.  I spent about 2 years here doing that with Piasan.  I reached a point where I didn't think many were reading the thread, and my efforts were at a point of diminishing returns.  If a few members would like me to answer challenging questions for HPT, I'll do that.  I may do it for a while even if no one except Pi comments much.

 

The main explanation to solve the "heat problem" is that the massive heat in Brown's Subterranean Water Chamber (SWC) was converted to kinetic energy to launch material (water and crushed rock) that became the comets and asteroids (C&A's).  There was massive cooling by expansion (till the water particles froze, then there was more cooling in space as the ice particles radiated their heat away.)  The fact that the material was permanently expelled from earth means it did not and could not heat anything on Earth.  There would have been virtually no heating of the atm by friction.  Also because there was release of pressure inside the SWC, there would have been massive cooling inside the SWC when there was evaporation of the liquid droplets inside the SuperCritial Water (SCW) as it turned from SCW to steam.  The main argument Pi has is from "incredulity."  That is: "Who can believe that so much energy (that Brown postulates)...even if it was a tiny amount of the total...would NOT have overheated the Earth?  Even if a small percentage affected Earth, that still would be too much."  That is not a scientific way of evaluating the question at all.  For example, when you shoot a bullet and it goes beyond a certain distance 99.99999% of the time, then hits its target, there is a TINY part of the energy in the gunpowder that heats the gun or the air...whether or not one has incredulity about that fact.  Pi and I have had a few email exchanges recently which (unless he objects) I may post here.  In one, I apologized for getting pretty upset when he first admitted to an error he seemed to have made and I pointed out, then he retracted the admission.  He wasn't very clear (IMO) in explaining why it wasn't an error so I thought he was just dodging.  But later I reviewed it again and saw why he was correct.  It resulted in a doubling of the heat of reentry, but a 2x factor really wasn't all that relevant.  His assumption that an amount of mass EQUAL TO THE C&A's fell back was just absurd...and nothing at all like what Brown would assert occurred.  Saying the launching process would have been anything like "50% efficient" is totally unfair, even if Brown used the term "ineficiencies" in his book. 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: noah, flood, rain, water

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users