The Noahide Flood

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Spherical geometry comes into play. Naval navigation runs on that shit.

[Anomalocaris]

radius of the earth is around 700 times greater than the depth of even a Noachian flood that drowns the tallest mountain,     so the thin shell approximation of of the volume of water that doesn’t account for what you describe  would be very close to the true volume.

The radius of the Earth doesn't really factor in.  If you have rectangular pool that requires 100 gallons of water for fill up to 1 foot in depth, it'd require  an additional 100 gallons of water to make it 2 feet in depth, another 100 gallons to make it 3 feet in dept, and so forth.  However, if the pool is in the shape of an inverted trapezoid, with a bottom narrower than the top, each subsequent foot of water depth will require more water to fill.

really?  radius of earth doesn’t come into play in calculating the volume of a spherical shell sitting on its surface?   have you thought this through at all?

[Thumpalumpacus]

A sphere with radius r will not have have as much volume as a sphere with radius r+1-

This is simple HS gepometry

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, I flunked high school math.* But wouldn't the volume of water be the volume of a sphere say 2 inches higher than Everest minus a sphere the volume of the Earth at sea level, close enough for government work?






*Hospitalized and never caught up.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Okay, I flunked high school math.* But wouldn't the volume of water be the volume of a sphere say 2 inches higher than Everest minus a sphere  the volume of the Earth at sea level, close enough for government work?






*Hospitalized and never caught up.

That's the basic idea, yep.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd think alot smaller than everest. Enough to convince an observer that a localized or regional flood was global. Nepalese comparables are about a lake draining, not filling up - just as a bit of trivia.

Any flood proposal is some elevation boundary defined portion of the volume of the surface of a sphere which is, for the most part, smoother than a cue ball, plus the water holding capacity of it's soils and subsurface features, plus the rate of drain through irregular or open elevation boundaries.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd think alot smaller than everest.  Enough to convince an observer that a localized or regional flood was global.  Nepalese comparables are about a lake draining, not filling up - just as a bit of trivia.  

Any flood proposal is some elevation boundary defined portion of the volume of the surface of a sphere which is, for the most part, smoother than a cue ball, plus the water holding capacity of it's soils and subsurface features, plus the rate of drain through irregular or open elevation boundaries.

I wasn't talking about an actual flood, just the requirements to produce the Noachian flood.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, I flunked high school math.* But wouldn't the volume of water be the volume of a sphere say 2 inches higher than Everest minus a sphere  the volume of the Earth at sea level, close enough for government work?






*Hospitalized and never caught up.

That's the basic idea, yep.

Visualization help: Suppose the outside of this globe of water covering rock is metaphorically represented by the outside of a basketball. Would the thickness of the shell of the ball equate to the theoretical depth of water? (The inside of the ball is compared to a theoretically billiard ball smooth planet.)

If that isn't confusing enough I'll keep going.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah. Land features are basically a rounding error to that volume of water. Good enough for government work, like you said. It'd be slightly bulgey, too.

[Anomalocaris]

I'd think alot smaller than everest.  Enough to convince an observer that a localized or regional flood was global.  Nepalese comparables are about a lake draining, not filling up - just as a bit of trivia.  

Any flood proposal is some elevation boundary defined portion of the volume of the surface of a sphere which is, for the most part, smoother than a cue ball, plus the water holding capacity of it's soils and subsurface features, plus the rate of drain through irregular or open elevation boundaries.

The minimum depth of Noachian flood required to produce such effects as would be observable by Noah may be defined by the height of mt Ararat, which is 16,500 feet above MSL.

If the flood is any shallower Noah wouldn’t need to wait for the flood water to recede to ground the ark on the slopes of Ararat.

The mean height of all land on earth above MSL is not exactly negligible.   It’s actually about 1/10 height of mt Everest or just over 1/5 the height of Mt Ararat.   If the earth is flooded to the height of Mt Ararat then the lumpiness of land would account for about 6-7% of total volume of required flood water.    That’s a error 2 orders of magnitude bigger than the error introduced by treating the total volume of flood water as a thin shell that ignores the fact that each additional foot of depth accounts for a slightly larger incremental volume.