# posts split from Questions regarding the amount of water required for a great flood as described in Genesis 7

## Recommended Posts

On 4/1/2019 at 3:22 PM, Bufofrog said:

The rainfall would be about 384,000 inches of rain in 40 days.  That is simply the height of mt Everest above sea level.  That would be a per day average of about 8,700 inches of rain.  This would probably require that you empty your rain gauge every day!

If you want to make 1/2 of the water come from the fountains of the deep you of course would only need 4,350 inches of rain a day.

If you want to know the volume of that water just calculate the volume of the earth (r=3958.5) -  the volume of the sphere equal to the height of mt Everest (r=3964.0)

Edit:  I do not know why religious people try to use science to 'prove' religious stories.  It does not work - period.  This is religion we are talking about (ferchrisake!) use God to make it work, like this.  God made the excess water appear in the form of rain and stuff and then he made all the excess water disappear after the flood.  Problem solved....

We believe he does things decently and in order.

On 4/1/2019 at 3:39 PM, Strange said:

Quite. Even if the required quantity of water were hidden in the Earth (it isn't) then it would still require non-physical (magical/miraculous) processes to make it flood the Earth.

A tiny amount of water can shift a mass of matter, moving a mass of water; hydraulic motions.

##### Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

We believe he does things decently and in order.

!

Moderator Note

This is the earth science section, so this is OT.

6 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

A tiny amount of water can shift a mass of matter, moving a mass of water; hydraulic motions.

!

Moderator Note

Unless and until you provide salient details of the engineering/physics, this is speculation, and not permitted here.

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Unless and until you provide salient details of the engineering/physics, this is speculation, and not permitted here.

# Pascal's principle

physics
Cite Share More

WRITTEN BY
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree....
Alternative Title: Pascal’s law

Pascal’s principle, also called Pascal’s law, in fluid (gas or liquid) mechanics, statement that, in a fluid at rest in a closed container, a pressure change in one part is transmitted without loss to every portion of the fluid and to the walls of the container. The principle was first enunciated by the French scientist Blaise Pascal.

Illustration of Pascal's principle at work in a hydraulic press. According to Pascal's principle, the original pressure (P1) exerted on the small piston (A1) will produce an equal pressure (P2) on the large piston (A2). However, because A2 has 10 times the area of A1, it will produce a force (F2) that is 10 times greater than the original force (F1). Through Pascal's principle, a relatively small force exerted on a hydraulic press can be magnified to the point where it will lift a car.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Pascal's principle

Pressure is equal to the force divided by the area on which it acts. According to Pascal’s principle, in a hydraulic system a pressure exerted on a piston produces an equal increase in pressure on another piston in the system. If the second piston has an area 10 times that of the first, the force on the second piston is 10 times greater, though the pressure is the same as that on the first piston. This effect is exemplified by the hydraulic press, based on Pascal’s principle, which is used in such applications as hydraulic brakes.

The principle would apply through every pore and cavity underground.

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
Redundant block
##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Partway there. (this is the simple part; anyone adept at first-year physics know’s Pascal’s principle)

The hard part is explaining how that would cause a flood. (hint: where does the water come from to displace the underground water?)

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Partway there. (this is the simple part; anyone adept at first-year physics know’s Pascal’s principle)

The hard part is explaining how that would cause a flood. (hint: where does the water come from to displace the underground water?)

That's not what I was answering.  The question concerned an incidental deficiency in the sum total, that discrepancy being questioned as coming from underground.

So, there might have been vast chasms of water, and stone shafts underground.  Changes taking place all around certainly would produce masses more of upheavals; waters bursting forth from underground.

The water tables rising could provide downward pressures through said shafts.

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

That's not what I was answering.  The question concerned an incidental deficiency in the sum total, that discrepancy being questioned as coming from underground.

!

Moderator Note

Which has nothing to do with Pascal’s principle, and isn’t what you had quoted from Strange. Stop trolling.

##### Share on other sites

11 hours ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Which has nothing to do with Pascal’s principle, and isn’t what you had quoted from Strange. Stop trolling.

My first comment was about water shifting matter.  Pascals's law is about water shifting matter; which I offered per your mandate.  You're really just picking a fight because of truth.

##### Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

My first comment was about water shifting matter.  Pascals's law is about water shifting matter; which I offered per your mandate.  You're really just picking a fight because of truth.

!

Moderator Note

Your first comment was religious, which is decidedly off-topic. Your second comment was indeed about moving matter (including water), but went into zero detail about how it addressed the objection, which has been a disappointing pattern with your posts.

And then you claimed you were answering a different question.

You call it picking a fight. I call it trying to obtain a minimum level of science in a science discussion. I don’t know if I can do the latter - it’s up to you - but if you make this a fight I know who will win.

×