Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Well, That's Me Convinced! :)
So it seems Noahs ark has received the physics seal of approval.
Timely story, given the release of the film.
Not sure though that whether or not the ark might have floated was the first concern when deciding whether the story as a whole was a factual retelling of actual events though.
I was curious about one point raised in the article though - the students based their calculations around a total of 70,000 animals - 2 of each from 35,000 species - anyone know where this notion of 35,000 species comes from?
http:// www.tel egraph. co.uk/s cience/ science -news/1 0740451 /Noahs- Ark-wou ld-have -floate d...eve n-with- 70000-a nimals. html
Timely story, given the release of the film.
Not sure though that whether or not the ark might have floated was the first concern when deciding whether the story as a whole was a factual retelling of actual events though.
I was curious about one point raised in the article though - the students based their calculations around a total of 70,000 animals - 2 of each from 35,000 species - anyone know where this notion of 35,000 species comes from?
http://
Answers
Physics, schmizics. The suggestion of willingly being confined within the same space as two skunks for forty seconds alone is all it takes to blow the myth entirely out of the water for me.
01:16 Fri 04th Apr 2014
What a silly article, you don't need a degree in nautical architecture to know that the mean desity of the ark full of animals with enough space to enable them to breathe would have a density less than 1 so it would float. Whether it would be strong enough to stay in one piece is another matter entirely.
"Anyone know where the idea of just two of every species came from?"
That too. The article talks about this assumption of 35,000 species equating to 70,000 animals though, then goes on to say "previous research" - I was just wondering if this was previous research of theirs, or a more general claim made elsewhere, although the cursory search I made earlier did not really turn up anything.
That too. The article talks about this assumption of 35,000 species equating to 70,000 animals though, then goes on to say "previous research" - I was just wondering if this was previous research of theirs, or a more general claim made elsewhere, although the cursory search I made earlier did not really turn up anything.
The buoyancy of the wood would be trivial compared to the displacement of the ship.
What would be required is a very strong wood. Indeed it would need to be a strong as steel for a boat exceeding 100 metres in length.
The Ark is just another stupid story from one of the stupidest books ever written.
What would be required is a very strong wood. Indeed it would need to be a strong as steel for a boat exceeding 100 metres in length.
The Ark is just another stupid story from one of the stupidest books ever written.
The Chinese admiral, Zheng He, is said to have had a flagship more than 400 ft long.
"Moreover, Zheng He's ships, Professor Wu explained, were impressive examples of naval engineering. His so-called treasure ships (which brought back to China such things a giraffes from Africa) were 400 feet long. Columbus's flagship the St. Maria, in contrast, was but 85 feet in length."
"Moreover, Zheng He's ships, Professor Wu explained, were impressive examples of naval engineering. His so-called treasure ships (which brought back to China such things a giraffes from Africa) were 400 feet long. Columbus's flagship the St. Maria, in contrast, was but 85 feet in length."
-- answer removed --
I was curious about one point raised in the article though - the students based their calculations around a total of 70,000 animals - 2 of each from 35,000 species - anyone know where this notion of 35,000 species comes from?
Here, perhaps?
http:// en.wiki pedia.o rg/wiki /The_Ge nesis_F lood:_T he_Bibl ical_Re cord_an d_Its_S cientif ic_Impl ication s
Here, perhaps?
http://
I wonder if they remembered to include the dinosaurs?
//...dinosaurs could have been represented as young. Interestingly, according to the most recent models of dinosaur maturation, even the largest sauropod dinosaurs were no more than several hundred kilograms in weight by the time they were just over a year old, which could have corresponded to their time of release from the ark. //
http:// www.ans wersing enesis. org/art icles/n ab3/how -could- animals -fit-on -ark
//...dinosaurs could have been represented as young. Interestingly, according to the most recent models of dinosaur maturation, even the largest sauropod dinosaurs were no more than several hundred kilograms in weight by the time they were just over a year old, which could have corresponded to their time of release from the ark. //
http://