|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 20, 2009 21:39:49 GMT -5
It would collapse into itself, so it can't be hollow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 20, 2009 22:52:28 GMT -5
Makes sense. I mean, even though the crust is relatively thin, Earth's not exactly "hollow."
[/Stating the obvious]
|
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Dec 20, 2009 23:07:05 GMT -5
I'll try to explain.
There are two ways for something to be stably held aloft relative to the surface of the earth: atmospheric forces or a stable orbit. The general idea of the refutations is that the equilibrium temperature and pressure would have to be much higher than current conditions in order to support such a canopy in the first place. Most clouds are held aloft by convection, i.e., they are formed and held "in place" by local differences in temperature and pressure, and so the mechanism which explains their location cannot be used to explain a global water canopy. Such a drastic global increase in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere must be accompanied by a global increase in temperature and pressure: this augmented level would be inhospitable for life. As to keeping it in orbit, it is impossible for a particle in a stable orbit to trace out any shape besides an ellipse with one focus at the center of gravity of the system (roughly the centre of the earth). The only way for many such particles to be rotating in tandem with each other would be if they were all in a ring on a single plane, like the rings we see in planets today. Any extraneous material would either be sucked into some such ring, escape into outer space or fall back to the earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 20, 2009 23:12:12 GMT -5
Ok I'll reveal the secret of the flood.
Ironbite-I peed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Dec 21, 2009 18:34:35 GMT -5
I'm sure this doesn't change the "boil the earth" argument significantly, but the weight thing is usually dodged by "it was water VAPOR, then God made it condense and the Flood happened." Wow. Haven't seen that particular piece of idiocy before. |
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Dec 21, 2009 19:36:05 GMT -5
I'm sure this doesn't change the "boil the earth" argument significantly, but the weight thing is usually dodged by "it was water VAPOR, then God made it condense and the Flood happened." Wow. Haven't seen that particular piece of idiocy before. Pretty sure it's in my Answers in Genesis book. I keep it because it makes me laugh. Also, it's too rough to make good TP. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 22, 2009 0:25:51 GMT -5
Hey, it could be worse. Recently, I got the old, "Well, it may be impossible today, but things may have been DIFFERENT back then" thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Dec 22, 2009 3:28:01 GMT -5
It's funny how all sorts of crazy magic happened in the past, but all of it went away before we had the technology to record it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Dec 22, 2009 4:03:00 GMT -5
In the eternal words of Mohandas Ghandi, "This is some hella retarded shit."
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 23, 2009 17:11:13 GMT -5
Hey, it could be worse. Recently, I got the old, "Well, it may be impossible today, but things may have been DIFFERENT back then" thing. I've seen that before, except that the laws of physics and chemistry can't change. If they did, well, I think that this explains it quite well.  |
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Dec 23, 2009 21:53:45 GMT -5
Hey, it could be worse. Recently, I got the old, "Well, it may be impossible today, but things may have been DIFFERENT back then" thing. I've seen that before, except that the laws of physics and chemistry can't change. If they did, well, I think that this explains it quite well. But if the universe were filled with inert hydrogen atoms, there wouldn't be an Epimethean child, either to answer the question on the test or rub the genie's lamp and make such a stupid wish... There's only one known way for the laws of physics to 'change'. It's called spontaneous symmetry breaking, and it's not really a change in the laws so much as a change in the phase of the universe. It is useful for understanding the development of the early universe. The other conceivable way is to fiddle with a fundamental constant over time, but that doesn't really do anything either. If one meddles with a dimensionful constant, such as the speed of light, Planck's constant, Boltzmann's constant or the permittivity of free space, nothing happens except a rescaling in units, so the sentient beings in that universe see exactly what would be seen in any other universe with different values for the constants. On the other hand, if one modifies a mass, a charge, or the strength of a fundamental force, then that universe becomes hostile to our form of life very quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 27, 2009 22:15:38 GMT -5
What always gets me is how I'm supposed to argue about shit that should be ridiculously obvious.
"Why couldn't the speed of light have changed?"
"Because it...couldn't have...?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 27, 2009 23:23:27 GMT -5
Just bring up burden of proof and do your best to try and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 28, 2009 1:23:52 GMT -5
But then they make up half-baked theories. That's the scary part.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 28, 2009 1:47:25 GMT -5
To which burden of proof would still be the proper response.
|
|
