Noah's Ark could float! (theoretically)

[rwguinn]

"At 5,643 tons displacement, she was certainly a large and impressive looking ship in her day. She was heavily armed..."

"The extreme length of the ship put enormous strains on her hull due to the unusual merging of heavy machinery, and a lengthy wooden hull"​

The real problem with the Orlando wasn't its size, but having to carry enormously heavy steam engines, boilers, guns and armor plating. And this deadweight was positioned amidships, not evenly spread out over the whole vessel.

Wooden fighting ships of this size proved to be impracticable because they required powerful engines and heavy armament, as well as the ability to steam around the globe for years in any weather conditions. This is a completely different role than that of the Ark, which only needed to complete a single unpowered voyage and did not have to plow through rough waters.

But nobody has even attempted to make a seaworthy Ark. The fact that at least one ancient ship was built which was almost as long as the Ark shows that it is at least plausible, and nobody has yet produced any calculations to show that it is impossible. Just because something hasn't been done before doesn't prove that it can't be done.

The reason the H-4 Hercules flying boat only made one short flight wasn't a technical issue, but simply that it wasn't economically viable. With the War in the Pacific over it wasn't needed, and the reason for using wood no longer applicable.

Anyway that's beside the point, which is that if Howard Hughes hadn't pushed his project to completion we would now have people saying that a wooden aircraft of that size is impossible - since all even the largest modern aircraft aver built has not been able to achieve that wingspan! The existence of the Spruce Goose shows how bankrupt that argument is.

So why hasn't anybody built a seaworthy replica of the Ark? Not because it's impossible, but simply because it would be an enormous waste of money.

Since we know that elephants, lions, tigers, Kodiak bears, and 2 (or 7) of every animal, along with their food weigh almost nothing...

 

[SezMe]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
That is the summation of the "it floats" argument. ..

Yeah, this whole thread has a very surreal quality to it. A made-up story about a made-up person building a made-up boat under the direction of a made-up deity and yet we're arguing about feasibility under real world conditions. Next up: how thick is purple.

Straddled this box turtle on Sierra Highway this morning coming back from flying...

Wrong thread?

 

[I Ratant]

Utnapishtim, Noah, me... we all save the animals... I just do it for real!

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

"At 5,643 tons displacement, she was certainly a large and impressive looking ship in her day. She was heavily armed..."

"The extreme length of the ship put enormous strains on her hull due to the unusual merging of heavy machinery, and a lengthy wooden hull"​

The real problem with the Orlando wasn't its size, but having to carry enormously heavy steam engines, boilers, guns and armor plating. And this deadweight was positioned amidships, not evenly spread out over the whole vessel.

Wooden fighting ships of this size proved to be impracticable because they
required powerful engines and heavy armament, as well as the ability to steam around the globe for years in any weather conditions. This is a completely different role than that of the Ark, which only needed to complete a single unpowered voyage and did not have to plow through rough waters.

But nobody has even attempted to make a seaworthy Ark. The fact that at least one ancient ship was built which was almost as long as the Ark shows that it is at least plausible, and nobody has yet produced any calculations to show that it is impossible. Just because something hasn't been done before doesn't prove that it can't be done.

The reason the H-4 Hercules flying boat only made one short flight wasn't a technical issue, but simply that it wasn't economically viable. With the War in the Pacific over it wasn't needed, and the reason for using wood no longer applicable.

Anyway that's beside the point, which is that if Howard Hughes hadn't pushed his project to completion we would now have people saying that a wooden aircraft of that size is impossible - since all even the largest modern aircraft aver built has not been able to achieve that wingspan! The existence of the Spruce Goose shows how bankrupt that argument is.

So why hasn't anybody built a seaworthy replica of the Ark? Not because it's impossible, but simply because it would be an enormous waste of money.

But someone HAS built a smaller replica of the ark and needs to float it on steel barges to keep it in once piece.
If the engineers of the royal navy, with 500+ years of wooden ship engineering available, with the ability to invest 10000+ man years of work into it easily with the materials of the whole Empire available to them decided not to build ships that big, why do you keep assuming it was possible?

Noah and his family, working 24/7 for 100 years in the shipyards of Dover would not have been enough to even partially finish a ship of the line, let alone an ark.

I know empirical evidence is nice, but it is also possible to extend existing data and form conclusions from there.

 

[HansMustermann]

"At 5,643 tons displacement, she was certainly a large and impressive looking ship in her day. She was heavily armed..."

"The extreme length of the ship put enormous strains on her hull due to the unusual merging of heavy machinery, and a lengthy wooden hull"​

Actually that's why I thought the Orlando is actually a pretty good simulation, if we're talking a ship that carried elephants too. Or according to some nutcases evem dinosaurs.

Plus you ignore the fact that the Wyoming had the same problems, although it was a coal carrying ship, with no guns and with a fairly uniform distribution of that weight across the ship. It still had the problems I just said.

So, wth, never mind that even for the Orlando it's an argument from personal incredulity that it really was a problem, but when you get to just ignoring the example you apparently can't address, you might as well go the whole way and get born again.

 

[ddt]

Noah and his family, working 24/7 for 100 years in the shipyards of Dover would not have been enough to even partially finish a ship of the line, let alone an ark.

To be fair to the Bible story, Noah did employ workers for his Ark project. But as they used all those un-Christian provisions in the ACA (Obamacare) as contraceptives, God and Noah decided in their all-encompassing Christian love that they should perish with the rest of mankind.

 

[HansMustermann]

Also, @Roger:

Mate, the argument you're trying to make is basically the classic one that's countered by Sagan's, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Assuming that something exists or is possible just because it hasn't been disproven is already an argument from ignorance. That's not how the burden of proof works. If you make the claim that something exists, or happened, or is possible, it's upon you to show it. Not on the others to disprove it.

But adding to that the argument that goes, basically, "but people/scientists/engineers have been wrong before, so it's possible" is just making it, well, stupid. It's actually adding a by association fallacy, and a pretty weak sauce one.

Actually for the Spruce Goose someone did meet their burden of proof, by showing it can be done. That's how it works. When you do the same for the Ark, we'll be convinced of that one too. Otherwise, sorry. See that Sagan quote again.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

To be fair to the Bible story, Noah did employ workers for his Ark project. But as they used all those un-Christian provisions in the ACA (Obamacare) as contraceptives, God and Noah decided in their all-encompassing Christian love that they should perish with the rest of mankind.

Wait, it all makes sense now. It's all Obama's fault!
I'm sure that a well done study of biblical texts with some small numerology will show this hidden in the text.

 

[tsig]

Wait, it all makes sense now. It's all Obama's fault!
I'm sure that a well done study of biblical texts with some small numerology will show this hidden in the text.

In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth, The earth was formless and void,

There it is right in the first sentence:


obama did it

 

[I Ratant]

And encourage his wrath cautiously!
He can smite with a lot more than vengeance today!

 

[MRC_Hans]

"At 5,643 tons displacement, she was certainly a large and impressive looking ship in her day. She was heavily armed..."

"The extreme length of the ship put enormous strains on her hull due to the unusual merging of heavy machinery, and a lengthy wooden hull"
​

The real problem with the Orlando wasn't its size, but having to carry enormously heavy steam engines, boilers, guns and armor plating. And this deadweight was positioned amidships, not evenly spread out over the whole vessel.

Excuse me, but now you are being downright disenginious. The hypothetical ark, as lined out in the calculations references in the OP of this thread, har a displacement of almost TEN times that, fully loaded.

Wooden fighting ships of this size proved to be impracticable because they required powerful engines and heavy armament, as well as the ability to steam around the globe for years in any weather conditions.

Did you not read about it? It was impractical because it flexed so much that it took in vast amounts of water. It needed powerful bilges. Who exactly manned the bilges of your ark (because even a fairly small wooden ship takes in water)? The chimpanzees?

This is a completely different role than that of the Ark, which only needed to complete a single unpowered voyage and did not have to plow through rough waters.

Yes, it rained enough to raise the sea level several miles, while additional water welled out from underground sources to make waters rise to cover even nountain tops (I will grant you that Everest might have been left dry, after all nobody ever lived there), but all that sea remained dead calm, for about a whole year. ... Well, what else do you want us to believe?

The fact that at least one ancient ship was built which was almost as long as the Ark shows that it is at least plausible,

Oh? Which one exactly?

and nobody has yet produced any calculations to show that it is impossible.

Only if you really don't wanna listen.

The reason the H-4 Hercules flying boat only made one short flight wasn't a technical issue, but simply that it wasn't economically viable. With the War in the Pacific over it wasn't needed, and the reason for using wood no longer applicable.

Irrelevant.

So why hasn't anybody built a seaworthy replica of the Ark? Not because it's impossible, but simply because it would be an enormous waste of money.

A greater waste than building it on steel barges???

Hans

 

[Rincewind]

Surely without knowing the properties of gopher wood, it's impossible to know if any vessel is seaworthy when built from such material?

Also - there's absolutely no evidence for the Biblical Flood, so what would be the point of the ark?

 

[tsig]

Surely without knowing the properties of gopher wood, it's impossible to know if any vessel is seaworthy when built from such material?

Also - there's absolutely no evidence for the Biblical Flood, so what would be the point of the ark?

If you build it, it will come.

 

[I Ratant]

Utnapishtim, Noah, me... we all save the animals... I just do it for real!

.
And yet again!
Out on the evening constipational, noticed this Robin hanging from the chicken-wire fence... looking closely, I saw its beak was moving, so it was still alive.
Its head was caught in a small section of landscape mesh, and around the ends of the wire.
I gently touched it, and its eyes opened... So I got out my small pocketknife and cut it loose. Sadly, I misaimed the camera, but still..
It flew quite rapidly.. no doubt gonna tell all the other robins about its adventure with a human.
BTW, these birds are really rare around here. This only the 2nd I've seen in a couple of years..

 

[MRC_Hans]

Surely without knowing the properties of gopher wood, it's impossible to know if any vessel is seaworthy when built from such material?

Well, there is really no such thing as gopher wood, but when Noah asked God what he should build the ark from, He answered: "You will have to go for wood" ... and it was later garbled a bit in translation.

... Seriously, it doesn't matter. Wood only comes in so many varieties. None of them are suitable.

Also - there's absolutely no evidence for the Biblical Flood, so what would be the point of the ark?

True, but this thread is about the practical feasibility of the project.

Hans

 

[Rincewind]

Well, there is really no such thing as gopher wood, but when Noah asked God what he should build the ark from, He answered: "You will have to go for wood" ... and it was later garbled a bit in translation.

... Seriously, it doesn't matter. Wood only comes in so many varieties. None of them are suitable.



True, but this thread is about the practical feasibility of the project.

Hans

And that's been shot full of holes, too...

 

[tsig]

And that's been shot full of holes, too...

I told Noah the woodpeckers were a mistake.

 

[catsmate]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Sixteen.

Checkmate!

Hey they've actually proposed that.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, there is really no such thing as gopher wood, but when Noah asked God what he should build the ark from, He answered: "You will have to go for wood" ... and it was later garbled a bit in translation.

Well, technically it's inexact to say that there is no such thing as gopher wood. Best we can say is that we have no bloody clue what גֹּ֫פֶר means, because it ONLY ever appears in Genesis 6:14. A case has been made by some that it's a transcription error that got propagated, and it doesn't mean anything. But even in that case, there probably was SOME kind of wood mentioned there in the original.

The better case to be made, IMHO, is basically that the ancients weren't frikken stupid. Or not all of them. If material A was better than material B for purpose C, they used it and wrote about it. That's why for example everyone wanted their weapons made of bronze rich in arsenic in the bronze age, for example.

People didn't wait for God to personally tell them which ore to mine, or which wood to use for boats. They had lots of people trying lots of stuff, and whatever worked, stuck around. If it turned out that using ore from province X made a harder sword, someone eventually tried it, and eventually everyone who could afford it would want one of those. Ditto for wood for boats.

If there were some kind of wood that's as hard as steel, we'd have heard about it. In fact, we'd find lots of stuff made of it, because everyone would want their chariots, boats, whatever made of it. If nothing else, naval warfare was based on ramming, so if anyone had some super-strong wood to make their boats out of, soon the only combat-worthy boats would be those made out of that wood. Because, you know, when your side planks get rammed, it makes all the difference in the world. And we'd find lots of manuscripts about how you should only use that wood for your navy.

Hell, considering that lots of people took the possibility to take it with them very seriously, to the extent that pharaohs were buried with only the finest imported wine and whatnot, we'd find the boats in pharaohs' tombs made of that super-strong wood.

So whatever wood is mentioned there, it can't really be much stronger than the usual wood used in boats at the time.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Could be "gopher" was equivalent to "scrub". That would stuff that was common but not used by anyone because it was largely useless. Converting such wood to a huge craft would be an adjunct miracle.