Noah's Ark could float! (theoretically)

[Roger Ramjets]

There is no way a flat wooden bottom could withstand such pressure,

So you are saying that a wooden houseboat is impossible? And yet even actual houses have been known to float when uplifted in a flood, and they have no hull at all! There is a big flaw in your argument, pressure = force/area. Provided the weight of the house is evenly spread out over the hull bottom, there is no reason why the hull shouldn't be able to support it. And unlike a conventional ship, a houseboat's bilge area can be filled with bracing timbers because no cargo space is required.

BTW the floor area of the Olympia is almost identical the Ark (which was longer but narrower), but with two extra stories it is almost certainly a lot heavier. Of course steel is stronger than wood...

and floating like a box on water, waves would be crashing against the flat walls, soon knocking them in.

You are assuming that there were waves. The Bible does not say there were waves. Waves are caused by wind, but the Bible not say there was any wind to speak of either, just rain.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

You forgot to mention a window. One window on a sealed 500' box. Thousands upon thousands of animals farting 24-7 with only one window to let the air out. An 8 hour road trip with the kids would be a cakewalk compared to this.

In Genesis 6:16 God commands Noah to "make a window for the ark", but didn't forbid him from making more than one window, or vents, or skylights, or...

Just because every detail of the Ark's construction wasn't mentioned in the Bible, doesn't mean it wasn't implemented.

And let's not forget that it would be raining constantly for 40 days and 40 nights. Who would want to leave a lot of windows open when it was so wet?

 

[MRC_Hans]

So you are saying that a wooden houseboat is impossible? And yet even actual houses have been known to float when uplifted in a flood, and they have no hull at all!

No, I'm saying that a wooden houseboat the size and loading capacity of the Ark is impossible.

There is a big flaw in your argument, pressure = force/area. Provided the weight of the house is evenly spread out over the hull bottom, there is no reason why the hull shouldn't be able to support it.

The force is not evenly spread. If it was a bulk cargo, then maybe, but it is not.

And unlike a conventional ship, a houseboat's bilge area can be filled with bracing timbers because no cargo space is required.

Oh? Where would you put the animals, then?

BTW the floor area of the Olympia is almost identical the Ark (which was longer but narrower), but with two extra stories it is almost certainly a lot heavier. Of course steel is stronger than wood...

Exactly: Steel is stronger than wood.

You are assuming that there were waves. The Bible does not say there were waves. Waves are caused by wind, but the Bible not say there was any wind to speak of either, just rain.

A planet-wide ocean will have waves, believe you me.

The Bible says nothing what so ever about the weather conditions, but it is absurd to envision torrential rain without wind.

Hans

 

[HansMustermann]

From the Olympia page you linked to: "The Vessel is designed for operation in sheltered waters and/or moored along a quayside or pier. For offshore use, the unit can be floated onto and fixed to an oceangoing offshore deck barge, subject to statutory requirements."

So, yeah, it can only be stable when anchored and/or in sheltered waters, or when fixed to a steel barge. There's no ******* way something like that can be seaworthy in 9000m deep waters.

Using that as evidence that a shallow-draft ark could be seaworthy is like using my cat as evidence that my house can fly

ETA: plus, we're still talking about a steel ship.

 

[Chernobyl X1]

In Genesis 6:16 God commands Noah to "make a window for the ark", but didn't forbid him from making more than one window, or vents, or skylights, or...

Just because every detail of the Ark's construction wasn't mentioned in the Bible, doesn't mean it wasn't implemented.

And let's not forget that it would be raining constantly for 40 days and 40 nights. Who would want to leave a lot of windows open when it was so wet?

I would think if a god ordered a person to build an ark as it commanded, it would be wise to follow that god's plan. I would assume this god didn't order vents or more windows and Noah pretty much stuck with what is written in Genesis.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Oh? Where would you put the animals, then?

In the superstructure, not the bilge space.

A planet-wide ocean will have waves, believe you me.

The ocean currently covers 71% of our planet. Yet I have been in the open ocean when it was calm, and the surface was almost as smooth as glass. Are you saying that if the coverage increased to 100% then this would be impossible?

In any case, nobody has proved that the entire planet ever was under water, so the Ark may not have been in that situation anyway. The question is could the Ark float, not handle any theoretical weather condition.

The Bible says nothing what so ever about the weather conditions, but it is absurd to envision torrential rain without wind.

Nonsense. The Bible makes a very specific weather forecast, it just happens to not include wind (or hail, snow, fire and brimstone, frogs..).

I would think if a god ordered a person to build an ark as it commanded, it would be wise to follow that god's plan. I would assume this god didn't order vents or more windows and Noah pretty much stuck with what is written in Genesis.

He also didn't order beams, ribs, stanchions, stringers, bulkheads, decking, pumps... so does that mean Noah wasn't allowed those either? No wonder skeptics don't think it could float!

 

[Chernobyl X1]

The ocean currently covers 71% of our planet. Yet I have been in the open ocean when it was calm, and the surface was almost as smooth as glass. Are you saying that if the coverage increased to 100% then this would be impossible?

I've wondered what the moons effect on an completely submerged Earth would be. I make no claim of knowledge here but it would seem there would be a big wave once a day with the moon's pull. Can anyone elaborate on this?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've wondered what the moons effect on an completely submerged Earth would be. I make no claim of knowledge here but it would seem there would be a big wave once a day with the moon's pull. Can anyone elaborate on this?

It wouldn't be a wave, it would be a bulge, and probably not noticeable.

 

[I Ratant]

Ever read "Not Wanted on the Voyage"?

.
Gary Larson covered many of the foibles in the religious literature.
He needs to come back and add to that legacy!

 

[Delvo]

The typical boat of the time on the Tigris-Euphrates was a bundle of reeds.
Actual timber construction would have been unknown at the time of the Flood.

In fact, some Bibles don't say it was made of wood. They say it had wood ribs and reed hull.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In fact, some Bibles don't say it was made of wood. They say it had wood ribs and reed hull.

If they were like the reed boats on Lake Titicaca they'd be rather large to hold all those animals.

 

[I Ratant]

Reed boats in the 20th Century on the Tigris.. tying a buncha these together, bow to stern would result in a very flexible boat in a high sea.

 

[Megalodon]

You write this:

Nonsense. The Bible makes a very specific weather forecast, it just happens to not include wind (or hail, snow, fire and brimstone, frogs..).

And then you write this:

He also didn't order beams, ribs, stanchions, stringers, bulkheads, decking, pumps... so does that mean Noah wasn't allowed those either? No wonder skeptics don't think it could float!

So, what is it? Is the Bible specific or general? If specific there's one window and everyone would suffocate by the middle of the first day. If general you can't have a torrential rain raising the oceans without wind and waves.

You would need a second miracle to prevent waves and wind. All the high ground would work as catchment for unbelievable amounts of water. All that water running at speed would accelerate the atmosphere in contact with it, causing strong winds, and inevitably waves. Also the erosion caused by the flood would inevitably cause the sliding and crashing of cliffs (and glaciers) all over the world, causing not only waves, but tsunamis.

The ocean currently covers 71% of our planet. Yet I have been in the open ocean when it was calm, and the surface was almost as smooth as glass. Are you saying that if the coverage increased to 100% then this would be impossible?

Yes, specially in the days after the event.

The question is could the Ark float, not handle any theoretical weather condition.

Ah, ok... if no weather is to be considered than the case it's very different: The ark would break into smaller components as soon as it would hit the water, because wood cannot handle the stresses involved.

 

[MRC_Hans]

In the superstructure, not the bilge space.

You still have to support the weight.

The ocean currently covers 71% of our planet. Yet I have been in the open ocean when it was calm, and the surface was almost as smooth as glass. Are you saying that if the coverage increased to 100% then this would be impossible?

Yes. First of all, you have seen a local calm. There has not been a moment in the history of Earth, where ALL the oceans were calm at the same time. Secondly, a part of the ocean can only be mirror calm because it is sheltered from swell by some land mass. On a planet-wide ocean, waves will range unlimited, even into areas where there is occasionally no wind.

In any case, nobody has proved that the entire planet ever was under water, so the Ark may not have been in that situation anyway. The question is could the Ark float, not handle any theoretical weather condition.

Either we accept the biblical tale, which specifically says the whole earth was under water, or we might as well discard the whole thing. You can't choose what to accept and what not.

Nonsense. The Bible makes a very specific weather forecast, it just happens to not include wind (or hail, snow, fire and brimstone, frogs..).

And that weather forecast is for rain in what? 40 days? Rain enough to make the oceans rise and cover the land. You can always call for god magic, but in natural weather systems, this implies wind. Lots of wind.

He also didn't order beams, ribs, stanchions, stringers, bulkheads, decking, pumps... so does that mean Noah wasn't allowed those either? No wonder skeptics don't think it could float!

No, I am willing to assume that he received a divine blueprint. However, with his available technology, he could not build a vessel of the indicated size.

Hans

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Reed boats in the 20th Century on the Tigris.. tying a buncha these together, bow to stern would result in a very flexible boat in a high sea.

Until it was torn apart by said high seas.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

You write this:

And then you write this:

False equivalence. A weather report is not the same as a command to build something.

If the weather report says that it will rain, do you also expect it to be windy even though that wasn't forecast? Of course not, though some skeptics apparently think otherwise.

Most boats have windows or portholes for looking out of. For ventilation they use vents, hatches, louvers, wind scoops or dorades. These allow air to be circulated without letting water in. Now if I commissioned a boat builder to make me a boat, I would expect him to include suitable ventilation devices without having to to tell him specifically what, where, and how many to install. But if I wanted a special feature that is not normally provided (eg. a viewing window in the hull), then I would have to ask for it.

In Noah's time glass windows hadn't been invented, so the 'window' that God wanted would actually have been a large opening with shutters. This is not the sort of thing you normally put in an ocean-going vessel, because it could compromise seaworthiness. However it seems that God wasn't concerned about that, which further supports my theory that He expected the sea to be calm.

So, what is it? Is the Bible specific or general?

In some places it's specific and in others it's general. Hard to believe perhaps, but the Bible is like that.

If general you can't have a torrential rain raising the oceans without wind and waves.

Leaving aside the fact that heavy rain can occur without strong wind and high waves, you are assuming that the rain was 'torrential'. However according to my calculations it was merely 'moderate'.

You would need a second miracle to prevent waves and wind.

And the problem is?

If God can snap His fingers and make it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, it shouldn't be too much trouble for Him to calm the waters as well (at least in the vicinity of the Ark).

Ah, ok... if no weather is to be considered than the case it's very different: The ark would break into smaller components as soon as it would hit the water, because wood cannot handle the stresses involved.

I disagree. Perhaps it's time to call the MythBusters in on this one.

 

[Megalodon]

In some places it's specific and in others it's general. Hard to believe perhaps, but the Bible is like that.

And you are some sort of authority on which is which?

Leaving aside the fact that heavy rain can occur without strong wind and high waves

Not at a global scale, it can't. I already explained why.

you are assuming that the rain was 'torrential'. However according to my calculations it was merely 'moderate'.

Didn't see your calculations, but they're wrong. The average elevation above sea level is ~250m, which leaves around 8500m to fill up. This means 8500000 l/m2*. Over 40 days that represents 8855 l/h. that's almost 9m/m2/h of precipitation. If that is moderate, I don't want to know your "torrential"

Even if you go for the "it only covered regional mountains", that would be around 4900 m, and that's ~5100 l/h.

*not accounting for the excess water needed due to the shape of the Earth, since according to the Bible it's flat.

If God can snap His fingers and make it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, it shouldn't be too much trouble for Him to calm the waters as well (at least in the vicinity of the Ark).

Yes, but then don't try to pretend that there's any validity to it. God could have allowed a papier mâché Aark to survive a fire, and then a hurricane. But then the answer to the question of the OP is still no, it couldn't float, because divine intervention doesn't count when you're talking about the real world.

I disagree.

I care almost as little about your disagreement as Physics does.

 

[HansMustermann]

.
The typical boat of the time on the Tigris-Euphrates was a bundle of reeds.
Actual timber construction would have been unknown at the time of the Flood.

They _typical_ anything at the time was dictated by economics more than anything else. So yeah, for rivers, where waves aren't a concern, typically boats had to be the cheapest thing that floats.

But wood construction most definitely existed, although almost certainly not for something that scale.

5000 year old wooden boat discovered in Egypt: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...haraohs-discovered-French-archaeologists.html

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, let me return to one aspect I haven't explored of the hypothesis that there was that much water floating in the atmosphere.

For a start, when you have 1000 times more water up their than air to hold it up, it can't be clouds, because no amount of convection of the tiny amount of air will hold it up. It's just too heavy. Most of it will therefore have to be vapour. Sorta. I'll get to it.

But the more you increase pressure, the more water likes to stay a liquid, pretty much. About a quarter of the way to what we calculated before, you reach the level of the critical point of water. The only way to also have it stay vapour, is to also have a temperature above that point: over 374 °C, or 705 °F for you imperials.

Well, when I say "vapour", I mean supercritical fluid, with some traces of nitrogen and oxygen dissolved in it.

Effectively making Earth a gas giant, albeit one with a tiny rocky core.

ETA: oh, btw, supercritical water is also a very good solvent for biological stuff. In case the pressure and temperature and lack of oxygen didn't kill you, that certainly would.

 

[Myriad]

ETA: oh, btw, supercritical water is also a very good solvent for biological stuff. In case the pressure and temperature and lack of oxygen didn't kill you, that certainly would.

I didn't know that.

I suppose that means I should avoid setting my pressure cooker to supercritical, unless I want to make soup.