harleyborgais wrote:"The satellite orbits in the direction of the Earth's rotation, at an altitude of 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above ground, producing an orbital period equal to the Earth's period of rotation, known as the sidereal day." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit)

Would the sphere of water require some sort of angular velocity to maintain its orbit? If so, by what mechanism does the water achieve this motion?

Edit: Also, do you envisage any problems maintaining this rotation towards the poles?

So far nothing I have read on your link: http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html has Dis-Proven this theory.


This theory DOES NOT suggest that the Entire earth was covered in water all the way up to the mountain tops...

it instead suggests that there was a falling of water from orbit (caused by an ice meteor) which raised the sea level from the continental shelf to the current level, and that tsunamis mixed and spread lifeforms all over the surface of Earth. The sediments in the water put up would have fallen out sooner than the lighter water would have fallen.

So far every piece of evidence FITS the theory. Please post any evidence that DISPROVES the theory...I clarify...which directly contradicts this theory.


Further evidence...

There have been LARGE cities built thousands of years ago which are currently 100ft to 170ft under water. The shelf remember is 490 ft deep.


I must acknowledge that I doubt the full 490ft of water above the shelf was in the sky, but I don't have the time now to continue looking up this data to figure that part out. Someone needs to do the math (I requested help with that above).

Yes, the lower the orbit/elevation, the more horizontal velocity required to stay in orbit. The meteor would likely need to have struck at an angle to give this sideways velocity.

However, I did not figure out how high the water would have gone.

Let us not forget the effects of the moon on the tides...Here is the best animation of the cause of Tides I have found so far. (http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/motion/tides1.htm)


That would probably keep the water centered on the Equator.


Also, water would not press down on the atmosphere. It would be centrifugal force keeping it suspended as if it was in zero gravity, so it would not increase the pressure on lifeforms (like the highly flawed movie posted earlier implies).

There was even a documentary on TV recently about two cities which are 30,000 years old (real, large, cities), 170ft Underwater, North West of India. (Still looking for the sources/references on that one though)

Wow. This is getting very complex.

Just wait till' I get into the math.

So far the interpretations of the Einsteins Field Equations which I have read support the statements I was making about the relative speeds of approaching light to a moving observer.

The apparent speed of light (the velocity of approach) is independent of the motion of its emitter, not the observer.

That means you COULD figure out how Earth is moving through space by actually measuring the velocity of light hitting earth on from all directions.

But someone said when I do the math I will see differently. I just hope you all can keep up once I learn how to do that math and bring it to this thread.

One thing I have certainly learned about EFE's is that most people mis-understand them.

harleyborgais wrote:So far nothing I have read on your link: http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html has Dis-Proven this theory.


This theory DOES NOT suggest that the Entire earth was covered in water all the way up to the mountain tops...

it instead suggests that there was a falling of water from orbit (caused by an ice meteor) which raised the sea level from the continental shelf to the current level, and that tsunamis mixed and spread lifeforms all over the surface of Earth. The sediments in the water put up would have fallen out sooner than the lighter water would have fallen.

So far every piece of evidence FITS the theory. Please post any evidence that DISPROVES the theory...I clarify...which directly contradicts this theory.


Further evidence...

There have been LARGE cities built thousands of years ago which are currently 100ft to 170ft under water. The shelf remember is 490 ft deep.


I must acknowledge that I doubt the full 490ft of water above the shelf was in the sky, but I don't have the time now to continue looking up this data to figure that part out. Someone needs to do the math (I requested help with that above).

Seems like you haven't read the link provided very carefully. Even accepting all of your wibble, it provides more than enough to debunk your flood nonsense.

Let me help you a bit. How, for a start, do you explain the geo-/fossil record? (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-a ... #georecord)

I am looking at these things now, and the link above....

"A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]"
(http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-a ... #georecord)

harleyborgais wrote:The apparent speed of light (the velocity of approach) is independent of the motion of its emitter, not the observer.

You say that the speed at which light seems to approach you depends on your motion - your motion relative to what? The sun, the centre of the galaxy, some kind of invisible graph paper that exists everywhere?

This is wrong, and you don't understand the main point of Einstein's relativity. You are treating it as if there is some medium through which light travels at the speed of light relative to that medium and through which we travel. This is an aether-type view and it was what was refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment. The "apparent" speed of light and the speed of light are the same thing. They are always the speed of light, for all observers. The speed at which light approaches you, relative to you, is always the speed of light, no matter how fast the source is moving and how fast you are moving.

Also remember that I am proposing this flood idea in combination with evolution and the expected 4 billion year old + age of solid rocks of Earth. I do not agree with the 6,000 year age of Earth at all.

That said, I did not see anything in the above linked section which disputes this water canopy idea.

Tomorrow Maybe I will see about the above problems I posted. Up front I think I will refute all of the above points, and I think I will end up still being for this theory. We'll see.

You probably don't realize this Paul but you have fallen into one of my 'traps'. I have done this three times now and it has worked every time.

You said: "This is an aether-type view and it was what was refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment. "...
and I was trying to illicit exactly that response so that I could say this...

The Michelson-Morley experiment only tested the speed of light emitted from a stationary emitter on the earth, reflected off of a mirror also stationary on Earth.

Please correct me if the above is wrong.

That means that the speed which light approached the Earth WAS NOT TESTED by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

What the Michelson-Morley experiment really tested was only this...whether the speed of light is different depending on orientation (parallel or perpendicular to Earths Rotation).

One way to account for the fact that the light waves always reached the source at the same time could be this...the medium through which the light moved may have moved with the earth. That medium is the Earths Electro-Magnetic field obviously because Light is Electro-Magnetic waves, and the Earths EM field does spin with it.

The point is, the Michelson-Morley experiment has no bearing on this question, it does not supply the evidence needed.

You Paul do not understand what you are saying.

You do the math, and post it here if you think you can prove differently.

I am betting that when I finally do post the math here you still wont get it.

Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.


One more thing, there could not be a red or blue Doppler shift in light (which there is in fact) if light always left and approached all things at the same relative speed. This is not rational, logical or mathematically possible.

Einstein said this: The speed of light is independent of the speed or motion of its source (not the observer).
The forces of nature are the same for all Inertial frames of motion (meaning all objects in uniform motion...not accelerating or decelerating).

If you think that is incorrect DarkChilde, then you do the math.

One way or another, someone must post the correct equation here to demonstrate the truth.

I am looking for a good collection of evidence that supports and/or conflicts with Einsteins Equations, while learning Einsteins Equations, so soon I will post the math if someone else doesn't first.

It would be best for someone other than me to post the math first.

Anyone got any relevant evidence for this other than the Michelson-Morley experiment ?

harleyborgais wrote:You probably don't realize this Paul but you have fallen into one of my 'traps'. I have done this three times now and it has worked every time.

Does anyone else believe that?

harleyborgais wrote:Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

It seems you are "dipping your toes over the edge" there, so I'm reporting that explicit insult. You can expect anything like that to meet a similar response now.

EDIT - word "expect" added.

Nope, not an explicit insult. I am not calling you a fool, I am warning everyone not to make themselves look foolish by saying foolish things.

One of us really needs to post that math. If you cannot do it, then admit it. I have. But soon that will change. I also admit to making a few foolish mistakes on this thread.

And your last sentence there makes no sense.

JayWilson wrote:Edit: Also, do you envisage any problems maintaining this rotation towards the poles?

Harley, how does the water stay in orbit over the poles? Does it just spin around in one place over the poles, and is this supposed to keep it up there (in complete disagreement with orbital mechanics), or does it move in a polar orbit in which it passes over both poles to complete an orbit?

I already said, it requires sufficient velocity, horizontal to earths surface, and more-so the higher the altitude.

The Tidal effects caused by the moon would most likely keep the water around the equator more than the poles.

Much of the water would have a degrading orbit, but it is well know that particles of space junk can take thousands of years to finally reach earths surface or burn up. Also, things falling from low orbit can avoid burning up and land intact.

I dont think you checked the evidence I posted above, and I also think you are working off a flawed description of Einsteins theory, not an actual understanding of the equations. I think this because of the caliber of your arguments, and the apparent extreme rarity of people who do really understand Einsteins equations.

Oh, and the direction the water moved up there would not matter, it is just the elevation and velocity of the water that matters...

so yes, it could have moved around Earth from pole to pole. It would depend on the conservation of momentum...the trajectory of the impacting meteor. I have not yet looked into the direction the Gulf of Mexico meteor struck at, but it looks like it may have been northward because of the shape of the gulf. That would suggest orbiting from pole to pole obviously.

harleyborgais wrote:Oh, and the direction the water moved up there would not matter, it is just the elevation and velocity of the water that matters...

so yes, it could have moved around Earth from pole to pole.

"Could"??? There isn't any "could" about it: it would have to to be over the poles at all.

harleyborgais wrote:It would depend on the conservation of momentum...the trajectory of the impacting meteor. I have not yet looked into the direction the Gulf of Mexico meteor struck at, but it looks like it may have been northward because of the shape of the gulf. That would suggest orbiting from pole to pole obviously.

What about the water 1 degree north of the equator, and similarly the water 5 degrees, 10 degrees north of the equator, etc.? Do you accept that it would all have to move in orbits that crossed the equator?

Come on Paul, I said the direction the water moves does not matter, only elevation vs. velocity (tangent to earths surface) of the water. The lower it is the faster it must move. The lowest orbit is about 100 miles, and that would require a high speed. It would probably have spanned the whole window from 100 miles to 22,200 miles, and only remained at the higher elevations where the velocity tangent to earths surface was enough.

I am guessing that north might be the direction the meteor struck, and the direction the water was sent. I am sure there is evidence to determine if that is right, but I have not searched enough for it yet.

For the details, only a good computer model would answer those. I dont have access to such things yet unfortunately.

And your first sentence again does not make sense.