For the science lovers

[Collier11]

http://www.youtube.com/v/17jymDn0W6U

[Crucifax Autumn]

I've never humped a science in my life!

[Collier11]

not science F*ckers, I said science lovers

[Crucifax Autumn]

Actually, that was pretty cool.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Thanks for making me feel insignificant jerkoff.

[Fraggle145]

Awesome find man.

[Collier11]

boner?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Find another one that goes the opposite direction and shows us just how "huge" the universe is on the sub-molecular and sub-atomic level. That's almost as amazing as infinity.

[Fraggle145]

boner?

I think i just had a big bang :O :D

[Collier11]

Boom goes the dynamite

[PDXsooner]

that was awesome

[yermom]

Find another one that goes the opposite direction and shows us just how "huge" the universe is on the sub-molecular and sub-atomic level. That's almost as amazing as infinity.

yeah, i was kinda expecting that. it's really strange how much it can go in both directions

kinda like this:

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/

even from there it goes a lot smaller though...

[soonerinkaty]

Holy ****, that puts things in perspective.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Thanks, man! That was cool.

[Collier11]

your 9000th post was spent thanking me, what a huge moment in SFs history ;)

[Oldnslo]

A sextillionth of a millimeter? Did I do the math correctly?

Dang.

Couple those things together and you get all kinds of messed up.

[hellogoodbye]

Big Bang or Wavy Brane?

[SunnySooner]

Wow, cool. So after watching that, is there other life out there? Has it visited Earth? Seems crazy we're the only ones. Where does religion figure in to that discussion? Hmm, this is a pretty big can of worms, huh? Sorry, just thinking in writing. Allsome clip.

[Collier11]

Probably all goes together more than we can ever imagine or some will ever admit Sunny

[GKeeper316]

that was awesome...


Wow, cool. So after watching that, is there other life out there? Has it visited Earth? Seems crazy we're the only ones. Where does religion figure in to that discussion? Hmm, this is a pretty big can of worms, huh? Sorry, just thinking in writing. Allsome clip.

if one half of one percent of all the stars in our galaxy have planets that are capable of supporting life, and one half of one percent of those actually do, and one half of one percent of those are populated by intelligent life (these are conservative figures for the purpose of showing the statistical likelyhood), that is still well over a billion planets... just in the milky way.

i find it incredibly arrogant of creationists who think the earth is only 6000 years old and that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. i knew a guy in college once that completely discounted the possiblity of extra-terrestrial life just because the bible didnt specifically mention it. read a book called chariots of the gods sometime. its all about how early man, unable to understand what he was seeing, mistook aliens for deities/angels.

now logically i must concede the possiblity that we are the first or only intelligent species in the universe, but really, how likely is that? the earth is only about 4 billion years old and the universe is far far older.

i dont know... it just seems to me that only a truly delusional fanatic would adhere to the faith based belief that we are all there is and that we were made by an old man in the sky out of clay, in spite of all the impirical evidence and statistical probability to the contrary.

[Collier11]

i find it incredibly arrogant of creationists who think the earth is only 6000 years old and that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. i knew a guy in college once that completely discounted the possiblity of extra-terrestrial life just because the bible didnt specifically mention it. read a book called chariots of the gods sometime. its all about how early man, unable to understand what he was seeing, mistook aliens for deities/angels.



First of all, you are painting with a very unneccessary wide brush, if youve ever read any of my posts regarding the matter you know I am a Christian and I believe in God.

Having said that I also think anyone who thinks that Creationism and Evolution and science cant go hand in hand are the arrogant ones.

[Crucifax Autumn]

More like 6 billion isn't it?

[GKeeper316]

Having said that I also think anyone who thinks that Creationism and Evolution and science cant go hand in hand are the arrogant ones.

and thats where you'd be wrong. you either believe what the bible tells you to believe or you dont.

christians that pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to follow arent really christians at all.

[Collier11]

I think you are either highly confused or just attempting to cause a stir, either way you arent important enough for me to get all riled up over or worry that you are attempting to tell me how good of a Christian I am

[StoopTroup]

All of the cool places we could have been born on and God has to put us on this ****hole with a bunch of ****ing +exans.

What did we do to deserve this? :D

[Collier11]

He is testing us ;)

[StoopTroup]

He is testing us ;)

I knew that because right now they are losing everytime they pull the plug on an innocent guy down there and later find out the guy they were looking for was indeed named Darrell....but it was spelled Daryl.

[GKeeper316]

I think you are either highly confused or just attempting to cause a stir, either way you arent important enough for me to get all riled up over or worry that you are attempting to tell me how good of a Christian I am

let me know when you put your daughter up for sale... which is a completely acceptible way to alleviate a debt, according to the bible.

its also been my experience that the overwhelming majority of people who call themselves good christians are the furthest from actually following christ's real message.

[Collier11]

is there some point you are trying to make or do you just like to act like an *ss all the time?

I mean, you sound angry, what are you angry about? Do you want to talk, do you need a friend? Just let me know hot stuff

[GKeeper316]

is there some point you are trying to make or do you just like to act like an *ss all the time?

I mean, you sound angry, what are you angry about? Do you want to talk, do you need a friend? Just let me know hot stuff

the list of things that **** me off is far too long list on this board. but right at the top is religion. followed in a close second by mini vans.

and i guess the point im trying to make is that with god involved you're either all in, or you ignore all of it. theres no middle ground with god. according to christians, the bible is the word of god. you dont get to decide what parts of it you follow. if you dont follow the bible, to the letter, you arent a good christian. to pass yourself off as one isnt a christian act.

i dont know you from **** and i wasnt saying anything to you personally in my original post. merely an observation. you're the one that took it personally and got all bent out of shape.

i choose to believe the guys that are really really smart and get advanced degrees from places like mit and cal tech. it wasnt god miracle-ing our asses to the moon. god didnt conjure up mobile phones ipods or quad core processors. nor did god build my jeep or the roads to drive it on.

science wins. god has yet to deliver.

i also see the way preachers exploit god by operating thier own businesses without that cumbersome burden of paying any taxes. ill keep in mind how charitable christians are the next time a group of right wing republican nutbags is opposing accessible health care while ignoring the fact that unpaid medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in america.

whose agenda do you think christ would approve of? the guys that are all about making themselves wealthy off the backs of labor who is unable to organize or the guys who are trying to make it so that everyone can afford to see a doctor?

[Collier11]

First, I dont recall ever getting bent out of shape, you seem to be the one all bent out of shape.

Second, your little rant above is all over the place and doesnt really make much sense. If you want to talk then lets talk, if you want to attack Christianity that is your perogative, if you want to tell me God doesnt exist that is an argument you wont win with me and I wont have with you.

Just based off of your last post you seem to either be really bitter or really confused about something, not sure what? All I said in my original post was that you were labeling all Christians which isnt fair, I like every person fall short of perfection, thats part of being human, but that doesnt make me any less of a Christian.

You are the one without prompting that decided to attack all Christians so I ask you again, what is your issue? If you want to discuss then we can dicuss, otherwise if you are just being a pompous *ss then go on your way

[Fraggle145]

and thats where you'd be wrong. you either believe what the bible tells you to believe or you dont.

christians that pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to follow arent really christians at all.

Unless you count Catholics. They believe in Evolution.

[Collier11]

Lots of Christians believe in evolution Frag, I for one dont feel that Creationism and Evolution can work hand in hand and I dont understand the reason that some people feel you can only believe in one or the other

[Fraggle145]

the list of things that **** me off is far too long list on this board. but right at the top is religion. followed in a close second by mini vans.

and i guess the point im trying to make is that with god involved you're either all in, or you ignore all of it. theres no middle ground with god. according to christians, the bible is the word of god. you dont get to decide what parts of it you follow. if you dont follow the bible, to the letter, you arent a good christian. to pass yourself off as one isnt a christian act.

i dont know you from **** and i wasnt saying anything to you personally in my original post. merely an observation. you're the one that took it personally and got all bent out of shape.

i choose to believe the guys that are really really smart and get advanced degrees from places like mit and cal tech. it wasnt god miracle-ing our asses to the moon. god didnt conjure up mobile phones ipods or quad core processors. nor did god build my jeep or the roads to drive it on.

science wins. god has yet to deliver.

i also see the way preachers exploit god by operating thier own businesses without that cumbersome burden of paying any taxes. ill keep in mind how charitable christians are the next time a group of right wing republican nutbags is opposing accessible health care while ignoring the fact that unpaid medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in america.

whose agenda do you think christ would approve of? the guys that are all about making themselves wealthy off the backs of labor who is unable to organize or the guys who are trying to make it so that everyone can afford to see a doctor?

Dude, I understand the way you feel. As an atheist I have felt that way before. And I agree with many of your examples.

However, what do you really feel like you are accomplishing here? Do you think you are gaining any respect for atheism at all? The way you are presenting your argument just turns people off. If you want people of faith to seriously consider your points (and many probably have and agree with some of them) then you have to go about it from a less condescending point of view, in my opinion. Sure, I'm just as guilty of going off, but it really doesnt get anybody anywhere, but pissed of at the most or indiffernt at the least.

Also you make a lot of big assumptions. Who says there is no middle ground? Super crazy evangelicals? Okay sure I agree. But who else in christianity? No matter how hard you try you cant disprove god. You cant prove him either. You can say based on the assumption that god is this that or the other, but you cant know for sure because if he existed there could be all sorts of metaphysical rules that he/she/it could potentially break.

That said Collier is crazy as a loon ;)

[Fraggle145]

Lots of Christians believe in evolution Frag, I for one dont feel that Creationism and Evolution can work hand in hand and I dont understand the reason that some people feel you can only believe in one or the other

Those that do dont understand evolution very well. Evolution makes no assumptions about how life began only what happened after it started.

[Collier11]

Coming from you Frag, that means alot :D

[Collier11]

Those that do dont understand evolution very well. Evolution makes no assumptions about how life began only what happened after it started.

I meant to say I do believe in both, not sure if you caught that.

IMO as a Christian evolution is just one of the amazing things that God gave us as a part of life

[Fraggle145]

First, I dont recall ever getting bent out of shape, you seem to be the one all bent out of shape.

Second, your little rant above is all over the place and doesnt really make much sense. If you want to talk then lets talk, if you want to attack Christianity that is your perogative, if you want to tell me God doesnt exist that is an argument you wont win with me and I wont have with you.

Just based off of your last post you seem to either be really bitter or really confused about something, not sure what? All I said in my original post was that you were labeling all Christians which isnt fair, I like every person fall short of perfection, thats part of being human, but that doesnt make me any less of a Christian.

You are the one without prompting that decided to attack all Christians so I ask you again, what is your issue? If you want to discuss then we can dicuss, otherwise if you are just being a pompous *ss then go on your way

It is really easy to become bitter as an atheist. Whether you agree or not, because of the dominance of religion in general and specifically christian evangelicals in this part of the country it can feel like it is constantly being shoved down your throat, when you dont want any part of it.

It feels a lot like Tim Tebow (and I'm not talking about the christian part here) on ESPN. When he's not on your team you can easily get really ****ing tired of it.

[Fraggle145]

I mean to so I do believe in both, not sure if you caught that.

IMO as a Christian evolution is just one of the amazing things that God gave us as a part of life

Ya I knew that because we have discussed this a bit before, and i've gone round and round here in my early days on the board as an angry atheist.

I just dont share your viewpoint (on how it started), but its plausible, I just find it to be highly unlikely. :D

[Collier11]

I can get that but I also get that as a Christian I dont need some smart mouthed person on a msg board who I dont even know to try and tell me that God doesnt exist or that I have no concept of Christianity or that Im not a good Christian.

As I said several times in the thread, I would be happy to discuss any of this with him. I talk to you all the time and respect you because 99% of the time you are respectful despite our differences just like 99% I try to be respectful to your beliefs

[Fraggle145]

Coming from you Frag, that means alot :D

I meant those that dont believe the two can go together dont understand evolution very well :O

[Collier11]

Ya I knew that because we have discussed this a bit before, and i've gone round and round here in my early days on the board as an angry atheist.

I just dont share your viewpoint (on how it started), but its plausible, I just find it to be highly unlikely. :D

well think of it this way bro, coming from a believer, If God created the world and created man and all that goes with it, the processes that create life and the Earth were likely created by God as well as part of the way the world works. Thats the way I see it, of course certain things in the world evolve from each other but why couldnt God have created evolution as part of the way it all works, thats my thoughts on it

[Fraggle145]

As I said several times in the thread, I would be happy to discuss any of this with him. I talk to you all the time and respect you because 99% of the time you are respectful despite our differences just like 99% I try to be respectful to your beliefs

Bingo. Mutual respect is what gets rid of the stereotypes and starts letting people at least understand another persons point of view.

One of the things I struggle with everyday is that not everyone is going to share my opinions, and no matter how much I yell and scream I cant make em.

[Crucifax Autumn]

When natural disasters happen scientists blame science for the death and distruction. Evangelists blame God.

Dunno what that means, but at least both sides choose to shoulder the burden themselves.

[Collier11]

Thats why, like it or not, if you are a non believer or a not certain believer in a Christian majority country, the worst thing you can ever do is jump into a converastion being all confrontational like GK was.

He had someone in me who was willing to talk and instead of doing that he just assumed I was some Christian who looked down on everyone

Having said that, I dont know that ive ever attacked someone for being a non believer even though I am in the religious majority

[Collier11]

When natural disasters happen scientists blame science for the death and distruction. Evangelists blame God.

Dunno what that means, but at least both sides choose to shoulder the burden themselves.

I think just like ive been trying to say, it lends itself that both sides have a hand in it.

[Fraggle145]

well think of it this way bro, coming from a believer, If God created the world and created man and all that goes with it, the processes that create life and the Earth were likely created by God as well as part of the way the world works. Thats the way I see it, of course certain things in the world evolve from each other but why couldnt God have created evolution as part of the way it all works, thats my thoughts on it

Sure I totally understand how that could work. You are not alone my friend, Catholics believe exactly that. All I'm saying is that I dont believe it works that way. Being an atheist is a belief thing in my opinion, pretty much the same as religion, its just revolving around a different thought process.

The only belief system that is truly completely logical in my opinion is agnosticism (believing that it is unknowable one way or the other).

[Collier11]

The only belief system that is truly completely logical in my opinion is agnosticism (believing that it is unknowable one way or the other).

That is where Faith comes in bro, if you asked me do I know for sure that God is real I would say yes. If you ask me if I can prove it I would say no. If you ask me how I know if I cant prove it I would tell you it is because I have faith in God.

Now to you it wouldnt really answer anything but to me it makes perfect sense. So for someone to come in and tell me I am flat out wrong or I believe in some fantasy or whatever other insulting things that non believers say, I could completely turn that on them as well, i just choose not to.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Hey, I understand. I fully believe that a slow cooked smoked brisket is the best food in the world. I can't prove it though...I just know it's true.

[Collier11]

there ya go

[Crucifax Autumn]

Yep...I'm a wise philosopher if ever there was one!

[Collier11]

So the next time someone questions the existence of God, im going to plagiarize your example :D

[Crucifax Autumn]

You'll most certainly win the argument.

[Collier11]

I have a question for you Science buffs, I will admit that I am not good at Science so dont jump on me if this is a dumb question

The Earth is 2/3 covered by water correct? If this is the case, what are the chances or what would it take for the Earth to "flood". More or less a Water World minus Kevin Costner?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Yuo are going to start getting into climate change territory here, but best I know it could never cover the entire surface of the earth even if all the ice and snow on land or above water in icebergs melted. Even biblical scholars (and even the bible itself) don't sem to think that "the great flood" actually covered everything. Just crack open your Bible and see how that particular part ends to see that there had to be at least some land still above water.

[Collier11]

So what is stopping it from happening, not enough water or the differences in terrain that it would have to go across?

[OU_Sooners75]

and i guess the point im trying to make is that with god involved you're either all in, or you ignore all of it. theres no middle ground with god. according to christians, the bible is the word of god. you dont get to decide what parts of it you follow. if you dont follow the bible, to the letter, you arent a good christian. to pass yourself off as one isnt a christian act.

You know, this is where I have to disagree with you.

I use to believe in Christianity. I still believe that there is a higher power.

However, to say that if one believes in a god, they are either all in it (creationism) or not, is not entirely accurate.

I believe in both evolution and creationism.

Do I believe the earth is merely 6000 years old? No. I think it is in line with what is firmly accepted in the science community, about 4.5 Billion years old.

Do I think life evolves? yeah. There is plenty of scientific evidence that it does.

Do I think some higher entity started all this? Yes. The one thing about the big bang I have questions and that is holding me back. What created the tiny speck of dust (or whatever) that blew up into a massive universe (or multiverse)? How can something just come about without something/someone creating it?

I am not physicist and I am not pretending to be one. But I have a very tough time trying to believe that something came about from nothing.

[OU_Sooners75]

let me know when you put your daughter up for sale... which is a completely acceptible way to alleviate a debt, according to the bible.

its also been my experience that the overwhelming majority of people who call themselves good christians are the furthest from actually following christ's real message.


In that same bible that you think you know so much about to actually try to quote it, it states that you must also follow the law of the land.

Now, is it legal to sale your daughter here in the US to get out of debt? Nope. So if you did, you not only broke a Federal, State, Local law, you also broke a rule that was setforth by God.

[OU_Sooners75]

Thats why, like it or not, if you are a non believer or a not certain believer in a Christian majority country, the worst thing you can ever do is jump into a converastion being all confrontational like GK was.

He had someone in me who was willing to talk and instead of doing that he just assumed I was some Christian who looked down on everyone

Having said that, I dont know that ive ever attacked someone for being a non believer even though I am in the religious majority


Stop your *ucking whining!

[Collier11]

You dont phase me T!

[OU_Sooners75]

So what is stopping it from happening, not enough water or the differences in terrain that it would have to go across?

Now, if you are talking about Ice cover and not all the water vapor, then I think it s both.

If jsut talking about ice melt:

Take a glass (clear glass) cup. Fill it about half full of water.
Then place a single cube of ice (out of an ice tray) into the water.
Next, mark the water level with a wooden ruler, be as precise as you can
Let the ice melt all the way.
Then mark the water level again with a wooden ruler, be as precise as possible.

What result will you get?
Hint, the water level will not rise.

Now take that experiment and think about the ice melting on the polar caps...will the water rise, stay the same, or drop slightly?

It will actually drop slightly. H2O in its frozen form (ice) is more dense than H2O in its liquid form. Thus the water level will drop.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Do I think some higher entity started all this? Yes. The one thing about the big bang I have questions and that is holding me back. What created the tiny speck of dust (or whatever) that blew up into a massive universe (or multiverse)? How can something just come about without something/someone creating it?

But then it gets tricky doesn't it? Then you have to ask where was this entity if nothing existed? How was this enity in existence?

It is impossible in either science or religion for anything to exist.

:confused: :eek:

[Crucifax Autumn]

Now, if you are talking about Ice cover and not all the water vapor, then I think it s both.

If jsut talking about ice melt:

Take a glass (clear glass) cup. Fill it about half full of water.
Then place a single cube of ice (out of an ice tray) into the water.
Next, mark the water level with a wooden ruler, be as precise as you can
Let the ice melt all the way.
Then mark the water level again with a wooden ruler, be as precise as possible.

What result will you get?
Hint, the water level will not rise.

Now take that experiment and think about the ice melting on the polar caps...will the water rise, stay the same, or drop slightly?

It will actually drop slightly. H2O in its frozen form (ice) is more dense than H2O in its liquid form. Thus the water level will drop.

That's bad science and anyone that thinks it through knows so.

#1 much of the ice you mention is on land and/or above sea level, thus the sea will rise when the water runs off.

#2 massive icebergshave a huge amount of their ice above the surface, thus changing the displacement.


Take your glass of water. Place a big cunk of ice ot top of the glass, above the water. Let it melt. There is now more water in the glass.

Yours is the silly experiment Rush Limbagh did on his TV show 15 or so years ago. I had to disprove that one to a lot of people then too.

So basically, yeah...You're wrong. :P

[hellogoodbye]

yet ice caps on our planet are more of an abberation than the norm..

[OU_Sooners75]

That's bad science and anyone that thinks it through knows so.

#1 much of the ice you mention is on land and/or above sea level, thus the sea will rise when the water runs off.

#2 massive icebergshave a huge amount of their ice above the surface, thus changing the displacement.


Take your glass of water. Place a big cunk of ice ot top of the glass, above the water. Let it melt. There is now more water in the glass.

Yours is the silly experiment Rush Limbagh did on his TV show 15 or so years ago. I had to disprove that one to a lot of people then too.

So basically, yeah...You're wrong. :P

Actually, it came from a leading scientist disputing global climate change.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Well then, I can see why more scientists actually believe it because that guy is obviosly a moron.

[OU_Sooners75]

That's bad science and anyone that thinks it through knows so.

#1 much of the ice you mention is on land and/or above sea level, thus the sea will rise when the water runs off.

#2 massive icebergshave a huge amount of their ice above the surface, thus changing the displacement.


Take your glass of water. Place a big cunk of ice ot top of the glass, above the water. Let it melt. There is now more water in the glass.

Yours is the silly experiment Rush Limbagh did on his TV show 15 or so years ago. I had to disprove that one to a lot of people then too.

So basically, yeah...You're wrong. :P

2. It does not change the density of the ice. or how much volume of water is frozen in hat iceberg.

Now our ice is floating on thin air?

It may not recede (the ocean levels, but there would not be a drastic change in ocean levels.

It would most likely be like the oceans in prehistoric times. It damn sure wouldnt cover all land mass.

[OU_Sooners75]

Well then, I can see why more scientists actually believe it because that guy is obviosly a moron.


Well, the point behind it was pretty simple. When ice melts, in water, the level does not rise. It actually recedes.

Will the oceans do the same? I highly doubt it. Because there is a lot of ice on land.

like I said, when answering the question that brought that up.

I think both occurs. Some land is lost, but the entire earth will not be consumed by water.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I never said it would cover all land mass...In fact I said it WOULD NOT. The ice is not floating on thin air as you put it. Antartica is a continent. Made up of dirt and rock. Above sea level. With a shat-ton of ice on top of it. Icebergs extend ABOVE the water line. Therefore the are only displacing roughly 2/3 of their mass in the water.

With all the semi-reasonable arguments about climate change out there, I have no idea why someone would listen to a guy that isn't aware that Antartica is a continent and that there is dirt and rock under the ice. OR a guy that thinks icebergs are all fully submerged.

It's a stupid argument and the guy should get a job selling shoes or something.

[OU_Sooners75]

I never said it would cover all land mass...In fact I said it WOULD NOT. The ice is not floating on thin air as you put it. Antartica is a continent. Made up of dirt and rock. Above sea level. With a shat-ton of ice on top of it. Icebergs extend ABOVE the water line. Therefore the are only displacing roughly 2/3 of their mass in the water.

With all the semi-reasonable arguments about climate change out there, I have no idea why someone would listen to a guy that isn't aware that Antartica is a continent and that there is dirt and rock under the ice. OR a guy that thinks icebergs are all fully submerged.

It's a stupid argument and the guy should get a job selling shoes or something.


Not sure if you use ice in your drinks or not...but they are not total submerged in the water.

I think the ocean rises, but not covering the entire land mass...like you do.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Well, the point behind it was pretty simple. When ice melts, in water, the level does not rise. It actually recedes.

Will the oceans do the same? I highly doubt it. Because there is a lot of ice on land.

like I said, when answering the question that brought that up.

I think both occurs. Some land is lost, but the entire earth will not be consumed by water.

Which is what I said in the first place, but you showed an "experiment" from a guy who claims the sea level will drop!

Try this. Fill the glass 1/3 of the way full of water. Then fill it the rest of the way with ice. Mark the water level. Mark it again after the ice melts and tell me what happens.

[OU_Sooners75]

actually, the experiment post was not addressing anything toward you or your comments.

It was simply thrown out there, while I was giving my opinion to collier.

but thanks for playing assmunch.

[Crucifax Autumn]

http://www.acornadvisors.com/Kitchen%20Newsletters/2007-06-07_Ice_Cold/ISP_Water_Glass.jpg

Does not equal

http://www.newfoundlandphotography.com/marklane/images/iceberg-iceberg-011.jpg

[Crucifax Autumn]

actually, the experiment post was not addressing anything toward you or your comments.

It was simply thrown out there, while I was giving my opinion to collier.

but thanks for playing assmunch.

So you admit the sea levels wouldn't recede? ;)

[OU_Sooners75]

So you admit the sea levels wouldn't recede? ;)


Well da!

The experiment is only about ice in/on water.

[OU_Sooners75]

http://www.acornadvisors.com/Kitchen%20Newsletters/2007-06-07_Ice_Cold/ISP_Water_Glass.jpg

Does not equal

http://www.newfoundlandphotography.com/marklane/images/iceberg-iceberg-011.jpg

Youre correct they do not equal each other...because relatively speaking the iceberg is a crumb in the ocean compared to the ice cube in a glass of water.

[Crucifax Autumn]

But take note of how the glass of icewater clearly shows the cubes mostly submerged. And there are a LOT of icebergs out there, I didn't go find a picture of the very last one.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Well da!

The experiment is only about ice in/on water.

Making the idiot's experiment totally useless and irrelevant to rising sea levels and climate change, even if you discount the lack of full displacement from icebergs.

[OU_Sooners75]

But take note of how the glass of icewater clearly shows the cubes mostly submerged. And there are a LOT of icebergs out there, I didn't go find a picture of the very last one.


Doesnt matter, the principles will act the same. Think of how much of that iceberg is under water. Far more than what you see above.

[OU_Sooners75]

Making the idiot's experiment totally useless and irrelevant to rising sea levels and climate change, even if you discount the lack of full displacement from icebergs.

And you are the one trying to discount that the vast majority of an iceberg is actually under water. You are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, not the entire thing....And in doing so, thinking that the majority is floating on top of the water...not true.

:pop:

[Crucifax Autumn]

Well no shat...It works out to about 2/3 on average. Therefore, 1/3 of the water in all the icebergs on earth isn't currently displaceing any volume of water, and the density is already automatically factored in to this equation leading the ice to be floating in the first place.

[OU_Sooners75]

Well no shat...It works out to about 2/3 on average. Therefore, 1/3 of the water in all the icebergs on earth isn't currently displaceing any volume of water, and the density is already automatically factored in to this equation leading the ice to be floating in the first place.


And same as in a cup of water with ice in it.

Ever take a cup filled it with ice, then poured your favorite beverage in it?

Then not drink it? (I know, say you passed out or something).

Then you wake up or you find it...did that ice melt cause it to overflow the cup? no.

Same principles would be at work with the ice in the oceans.

Now, you take ice that was not in the oceans, yeah, the oceans will rise.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I'm looking at my drink right now and at least 95% of the ice is below the level of the liquid.

[OU_Sooners75]

I'm looking at my drink right now and at least 95% of the ice is below the level of the liquid.

WOW you just do not get it do you?

Now, take your drink and fill it with liquid. Then place ONE, 1, UNO, ice cube in it.

let it melt.

and when it melts, the level wont chagne much, in fact it will recede slightly.

The same principles will occur with an iceberg.

You try to over analyze stuff crux.

[Crucifax Autumn]

When I put 1 ice cube in, only the very tiniest surface is above the water, the level remains roughly the same after melting, thus showing that when the displacement is nearly the entire cube the mad "scientist" experiment "works" in a very contained and limited environment. In real world application, the experiment falls apart thanks to a huge number of predictable variables.

[OU_Sooners75]

When I put 1 ice cube in, only the very tiniest surface is above the water, the level remains roughly the same after melting, thus showing that when the displacement is nearly the entire cube the mad "scientist" experiment "works" in a very contained and limited environment. In real world application, the experiment falls apart thanks to a huge number of predictable variables.


jesus****ingchrist we are both incorrect.

this is what happens when people that you know start thinking like lizard!

http://www.seed.slb.com/v2/FAQView.cfm?ID=1166


Water expands when it freezes, so you might think that when it melts and reduces in size, the water level will go down. Alternatively, because part of the ice floats the water, you might think that when it melts, the water level will rise.

Neither is true, as explained by Archimedes (http://www.seed.slb.com/content.aspx?id=17490&LangType=1033) principles.

When an ice cube (or an iceberg, which is a big ice cube) floats in water, then by definition the weight of the ice cube is exactly equal to the buoyancy force, which is equal to the weight of the displaced water.

When the ice cube melts, its volume changes, but its weight is conserved (law of the conservation of mass). So the melted water from the ice cube has exactly the same weight as the water that was displaced by the ice cube when it was frozen -- therefore the volume of melted water fits exactly in the previously displaced volume -- and the water level stays the same.

Note that this argument applies only if the ice cube is made of the same water as the water that it is floating in. This is true, for example, with the Arctic ice pack, which is made of frozen sea water. However, it is not true for Antarctic icebergs, which are blocks of fresh-water ice from the continent that are floating in salt-water sea. In this case, we must take into account that the salt water is denser than the fresh water. The fresh-water iceberg still weighs as much as the weight of the displaced salt water, but because of the difference in density, the volume of melted fresh water will be slightly greater than the displaced volume of salt water -- so when the iceberg melts, the water level will rise, although the difference is very small.

If the ice is melting due to a rise in temperature of the water, then the water level might rise because of thermal expansion - related to, but not because of, the ice melting.

If the ice was totally or partly supported on the bottom of the vessel (or sea), then when it melts the water level will certainly rise. In the limit, if there was no water in the vessel at the start of the experiment, there clearly will be at the end, and it is obvious the water level has risen. This is a key problem resulting from global warming – melting ice that was covering land areas such as Antarctica and Greenland is adding to sea levels.

:pop:

[Crucifax Autumn]

From your link:


Note that this argument applies only if the ice cube is made of the same water as the water that it is floating in. This is true, for example, with the Arctic ice pack, which is made of frozen sea water. However, it is not true for Antarctic icebergs, which are blocks of fresh-water ice from the continent that are floating in salt-water sea. In this case, we must take into account that the salt water is denser than the fresh water.

[OU_Sooners75]

From your link:


thank you captain obvious.


hence the reason for:


jesus****ingchrist we are both incorrect.

[49r]

Not that I am interested in participating extensively in this oh so scintillating debate, but everyone so far has ignored plate tectonics vis-a-vis "could water ever totally cover the surface of the Earth" or "would sea levels rise or lower when ice melts".

1). Due to plate tectonics, land is constantly being forced upwards or downwards, based on whether plates collide and shift the land up (mountain chains) or down (ocean rifts). Not to mention volcanoes which create "bumps" if you will on the surface of the planet. If this effect did not happen, eventually erosion would level the rocky surface smooth, and since water is less dense than rock, the oceans would rise over the smooth rocky surface and, in fact, cover the entire surface of the planet with a shallow water or ice ocean.

2). When continents are covered by ice, such as Antarctica or Greenland (which is not a continent in and of itself but still a very large and mostly ice-covered land mass), the weight of the ice itself forces the rocky land beneath it down. If then the continental ice melted, that land mass would rebound, causing the actual level of the sea in relation to said land mass to appear to lower. A good example of this would be the area of land around the Great Lakes. During the last ice age, as the ice melted, it is believed that the glaciers left a massive inland ocean behind in the upper midwest that covered most if not all of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and so on. The land has "rebounded" since, and by all accounts is still rising ever so slightly, causing the Great Lakes to become smaller in size all the time.

But go ahead and measure melting ice cubes in a glass of water. It is a great way to learn about Archimedes' principle. Physics is fun. :D So is Geology.

[JohnnyMack]

So. How's this thread working out?

:pop:

[Fraggle145]

Not that I am interested in participating extensively in this oh so scintillating debate, but everyone so far has ignored plate tectonics vis-a-vis "could water ever totally cover the surface of the Earth" or "would sea levels rise or lower when ice melts".

1). Due to plate tectonics, land is constantly being forced upwards or downwards, based on whether plates collide and shift the land up (mountain chains) or down (ocean rifts). Not to mention volcanoes which create "bumps" if you will on the surface of the planet. If this effect did not happen, eventually erosion would level the rocky surface smooth, and since water is less dense than rock, the oceans would rise over the smooth rocky surface and, in fact, cover the entire surface of the planet with a shallow water or ice ocean.

2). When continents are covered by ice, such as Antarctica or Greenland (which is not a continent in and of itself but still a very large and mostly ice-covered land mass), the weight of the ice itself forces the rocky land beneath it down. If then the continental ice melted, that land mass would rebound, causing the actual level of the sea in relation to said land mass to appear to lower. A good example of this would be the area of land around the Great Lakes. During the last ice age, as the ice melted, it is believed that the glaciers left a massive inland ocean behind in the upper midwest that covered most if not all of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and so on. The land has "rebounded" since, and by all accounts is still rising ever so slightly, causing the Great Lakes to become smaller in size all the time.

But go ahead and measure melting ice cubes in a glass of water. It is a great way to learn about Archimedes' principle. Physics is fun. :D So is Geology.

Right, but what is the relative rate of the rebounding ground, compared to the rate of the water melting? :pop:

[49r]

Right, but what is the relative rate of the rebounding ground, compared to the rate of the water melting? :pop:

Beats the hell out of me, I'm just sayin' is all. If I had to guess though I'd say it is orders of magnitude slower.

[soonerscuba]

Also, there is a pretty basic principle of physics that states when water rises in temperature, it expands. So if the earth is warming (this has nothing to do with GW), it stands to reason that the water in the ocean at depth because of thermal density is expanding, thus creating a rise in sea level. I just read this, and am certainly no expert, but it made sense to me.

[1890MilesToNorman]

I'm still contemplating the physics of fart bubbles in a bathtub.

[Fraggle145]

I'm still contemplating the physics of fart bubbles in a bathtub.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g9mKMJVxrk0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g9mKMJVxrk0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[PDXsooner]

it sucks that such a kick-*** video thread has now been infected with pseudo-political banter...

[hellogoodbye]

it sucks that such a kick-*** video thread has now been infected with pseudo-political banter...

at least my big bang vs wavy brane question was a little relevent..

[Collier11]

It has rebounded PDX, had a few bumps in the road but what do you expect, this is SFs

[JohnnyMack]

I watch videos like that and realize that I take religion about as seriously as I do the easter bunny and unicorns.

[Collier11]

To each their own JM, you gotta do what you gotta do

[PDXsooner]

I watch videos like that and realize that I take religion about as seriously as I do the easter bunny and unicorns.

agreed...

[Fraggle145]

Dude dissing unicorns is a cheap shot! :mad:

[Crucifax Autumn]

it sucks that such a kick-*** video thread has now been infected with pseudo-political banter...

It's really sad that once scince enters into the equation it's considered pseudo-political now.