Unanswered Questions

[bluejatheist]

I feel like casually entering this witty debate of intellectual ideas, ho hum

Mr. Stripe, may I ask you (unrelated to everyone else's questions, though in the same topic)
approximately how much water did it take to form the grand canyon, amongst other things, and how long did it take? If you already stated this in other posts, please repeat so that it is clear and can't be misinterpreted and what not, relative to my particular engagement of you in conversation.

Good day, sir

 

[Stripe]

Mr. Stripe, may I ask you (unrelated to everyone else's questions, though in the same topic)
approximately how much water did it take to form the grand canyon, amongst other things, and how long did it take? If you already stated this in other posts, please repeat so that it is clear and can't be misinterpreted and what not, relative to my particular engagement of you in conversation. Good day, sir

A couple of lakes worth. Big lakes. In about 2 weeks.

I was thinking that the type of sediments that are found in a specific area determine what type of 'action' that caused the sediments to be deposited where they are deposited.

Uh .. I understand the sentiment, but your causative relationship is around the wrong way.

I'm fairly certain that 'large' grain sediments would be transported via a mechanism that could move those sediments (tidal forces, flowing rivers just to name a few examples). I'm also fairly certain that if you restrict the flow of water into an area you would expect to witness a higher or lower concentration of certain types of sediments. I'm also fairly certain that if you pull water from certain 'pools' (like behind a dam) that the sediment concentration would be different. I'm sure 'small' grain sediments could be introduced to a particular area via other mechanisms (wind as an example).

Yes.... :shock:

I'm thinking that man made 'dams' can have a large impact on the the types of sediments that are deposited in a certain area and thus would effect how a delta takes it shape. I would also assume that the landscape or how the area is 'defined' (low land areas, estuaries, and LOCALIZED floods would have an effect on how the 'delta' was constructed). I would also think that 'earth movement' via plate tectonics would also be an important characteristic to consider. It appears that the Colorado river delta is an extremely dynamic area and without the proper education and physical evidence I will pass off to the geological group for further details (types of rock, how they were laid down, why a specific type of sediment was laid down). Oh, I almost forgot that volcanic activity and or water temperature can also determine how a specific area may look. I would also assume that the individuals that are educated in this specific topic would know how to differentiate between 'localized', 'semi-localized', 'continental-localized', 'plate-localized', and 'global-localized' distinctions.

Sure. But the delta we see is not quite what you would expect.

If you have ad-hoc reasons, they may reasonably explain why this is the case. I'm willing to hear a few of those.

I'm also fairly certain that if I took the time to study these specific topics in greater detail than I'm currently doing, I could also devise a few theories myself.

I'm sure we all could.

Carry on and have a fantastic day. :lol:

Thanks.

Nope, doesn't work.

Really? :shock:

Please answer all my questions from my last post. Until this is done, there is no point in wasting time with you.

Get out of the wrong side of bed this morning, did we? :lol:

Takes me three and a half seconds to find the correct rebuttal:

Wow. If it was that quick it must be above reproach. :roll:

 

[Inferno]

Takes me three and a half seconds to find the correct rebuttal:

Wow. If it was that quick it must be above reproach. :roll:

So you don't take a look at rebuttals, you don't accept criticism and you think you're right from the outset? Boy, I sure hope you're still in school and you'll learn something, because unless you're at the very top of your profession, you'll have a damn hard career ahead of you.

 

[Stripe]

So you don't take a look at rebuttals, you don't accept criticism and you think you're right from the outset?

What on Earth are you babbling about? :?

Boy, I sure hope you're still in school and you'll learn something, because unless you're at the very top of your profession, you'll have a damn hard career ahead of you.

Lucky me.

 

[Inferno]

So you don't take a look at rebuttals, you don't accept criticism and you think you're right from the outset?

What on Earth are you babbling about? :?

You made a claim, I presented you with a rebuttal, you chose to ignore it.
This suggests three things: You don't take a look at the rebuttals, which in turn means that you don't accept criticism and must also mean that you think you know you're right from the outset. All of those suggest that you're nothing more than a liar. But we already knew that before that post.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I just choose not to answer trolls, Inferno. It's really the easier way. That way they still look stupid, but I don't look like a very motivated mad guy

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Nope, doesn't work.

Really? :shock:

Ya Really!

 

[Stripe]

You made a claim, I presented you with a rebuttal, you chose to ignore it.This suggests three things: You don't take a look at the rebuttals, which in turn means that you don't accept criticism and must also mean that you think you know you're right from the outset. All of those suggest that you're nothing more than a liar. But we already knew that before that post.

The claim I made hasn't been rebutted. The delta of the size expected is not there. :roll:

That you have ideas on where it went is something we can discuss.

 

[Stripe]

Ya Really!

Got any photos of your setup?

 

[bluejatheist]

Mr. Stripe, may I ask you (unrelated to everyone else's questions, though in the same topic)
approximately how much water did it take to form the grand canyon, amongst other things, and how long did it take? If you already stated this in other posts, please repeat so that it is clear and can't be misinterpreted and what not, relative to my particular engagement of you in conversation. Good day, sir

A couple of lakes worth. Big lakes. In about 2 weeks.

But, good sir! What kind of lakes? You must agree, they do come in an exquisite variety of sizes and depths.

 

[Stripe]

But, good sir! What kind of lakes? You must agree, they do come in an exquisite variety of sizes and depths.

Think Michigan and Huron.

 

[bluejatheist]

But, good sir! What kind of lakes? You must agree, they do come in an exquisite variety of sizes and depths.

Think Michigan and Huron.

Exquisite, So, around 15,640 Cubic Km of water took two weeks to form a 300 mile canyon with a volume of 4170 Cubic Km, agree?

http://www.great-lakes.net/lakes/ref/supfact.html
http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/statistics.htm
http://www.great-lakes.net/lakes/ref/huronfact.html

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

:lol:

This is going to be fun.

Stripes' going to ignore it and then flutter off the thread like the idiot he is without answering to it, but blue should be able to get some math practice out on it.

 

[Dean]

Fe, Fi, Fo Fum; another indecipherable piece of BS (bad-science) to be vanquished beneath my mighty fist ...

But, good sir! What kind of lakes? You must agree, they do come in an exquisite variety of sizes and depths.

Think Michigan and Huron.

Oh bloody hell .... niggardly pseudomathematics at its very best.

The Grand Canyon is obviously not a unilateral shape, or a regular shape of any kind, so it's nearly impossible to calculate it's internal volume with any sort of precision. But the canyon is almost 450 kilometres in length, and it's average width ranges from 400-24,000 metres. And has a depth of 1500-1800 metres, e.g. at least 1 mile.

Given that the average depth is approx. cf. half of the maximum depth of 1,600 meters, and the average width is 4km + 24km/2 = 12.2 km, the canyon is thus a cuboid (e.g. rectangle) of 0.8 km * 12.2 km x 446km and can therefore be estimated to have a volume of 4350 km[sup]3[/sup] or 4,350,000,000,000 metres-cubed. Using these numbers, and given the two examples that you cited:

Lake Michigan; volume = 4,900,000 m[sup]3[/sup]
Lake Huron = 3,540,000 m[sup]3[/sup]

4,900,000 + 3,540,000 = 8,440,000 (m[sup]3[/sup])

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Even if we round the numbers up and say, i.e. the Canyon is 4,000,000,000,000 metres cubed (m[sup]3[/sup]) in volume, precisely, and likewise Michigan is 5,000,000, etc., then you were out by a factor of about a factor of 100 Billion or so ... hmm, guess it wasn't really that close.

I can't see how it's even hypothetically possible that 8,440,000 m[sup]3[/sup] of water can carve out 4,350,000,000,000 metres-cubed of canyon volume at ANY speed, with a finite amount of energy. And by the way , just as an aside ... , in order to carve an area of such size within 2 weeks, the water would be pouring in at a rate of (given your examples ...) 602857.142 metres-cubed per DAY, which would require a considerable amount of energy. So now that that little travail has been extinguished, would you care to enlighten us as to where and how that energy was created, please?

And also, would you like to tell us the sort of velocities you are predicting for this water to cut through solid rock? Bare in mind that water has a density per cubic centimetre about 1/5 that of rock. Water travelling at 1-2 kilometres per second will cut through steel. So I would estimate that it would require a velocity of at least 3-6 km per second in order to carve out huge canyons through solid rock. That's not the sort of energy that even a tsunami could produce, to say nothing of the concentration of water that would have to be directed into one area, er, somehow.

As Bluejay pointed out to me in the chat-room, also: how is it possible that water , assuming that it somehow had attained the energy to carve gargantuan gashes through rock, via some as of yet undescribed (and; I'm betting indescribable) process , managed to travel in non-linear patterns, e.g. shifting, irregular paths, as is the shape of the Grand Canyon? And this becomes especially important if you are to accept that water was travelling at a rate of several kilometres per second. There's no way it could possibly change path, and like I said before, almost ALL of the mass of water required would have to be heavily concentrated (e.g. funnelled) like a hose-jet almost, into one relatively small area.

:| So I do sincerely hope you will be thorough with this one ...

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Ya Really!

Got any photos of your setup?

Got any of yours?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

:| So I do sincerely hope you will be thorough with this one ...

Fat chance. I am still waiting for him to give answers to this post. You will get the same one-sentence non-answers that Stripe has given everyone else or he will just flat out ignore it.

 

[ClockworkFox]

Mr. Stripe, may I ask you (unrelated to everyone else's questions, though in the same topic)
approximately how much water did it take to form the grand canyon, amongst other things, and how long did it take? If you already stated this in other posts, please repeat so that it is clear and can't be misinterpreted and what not, relative to my particular engagement of you in conversation. Good day, sir

A couple of lakes worth. Big lakes. In about 2 weeks.

But, good sir! What kind of lakes? You must agree, they do come in an exquisite variety of sizes and depths.

Think Michigan and Huron.

Given the astonishing lack of data provided, I've made some (hopefully reasonable in context) assumptions to make things a bit easier. First, constant flow rate; and second, that you mean to use Michigan-Huron as one lake, and not two.

Using a volume of 8,460 cubic kilometers for Michigan-Huron, since 2 weeks contains 336 hours that works out to be a flow of somewhat less than 50.4 cubic kilometers of water per hour. The Grand Canyon is listed as having a volume of 4.17 trillion cubic meters, or 4,170 cubic kilometers. Assuming constant loss over the given 336 hours, that roughly equals 12.4 cubic kilometers lost per hour.

In other words, 50.4 cubic kilometers of water eroding 12.4 cubic kilometers of assorted rock per hour. The units are unimportant, since their only purpose was to make the numbers easy to compare. The end result is, of course, that the water was supposedly eroding 1/4 of its own volume.

My math could be in error, and I admittedly have no credentials in the relevant fields, but such a proposition seems at the very least dubious for a natural system.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

For Stripe's attention...

Regarding the Grand Canyon:

Potholer54 has three videos, the first two covers Noah's Flood, which includes information relevant to the third video about the Grand Canyon.

Noah's Flood debunked (Part 1)

Noah's Flood debunked (Part 2)

Grand Canyon carved by floodwater -- debunked!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[scalyblue]

Greetings,

For Stripe's attention...

Regarding the Grand Canyon:

Potholer54 has three videos, the first two covers Noah's Flood, which includes information relevant to the third video about the Grand Canyon.







Kindest regards,

James

FTFY

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Gee Willikers Batman.....

I would probably start with something like the following document. That is, if I wanted to make a serious claim or argument.......

Colorado River Origin and Evolution

BTW, I think that one of people that this piece is dedicated to is credited with the co-discovery of a particular piece of space debris that made a splashing hit on Jupiter in 1994.

May he rest in peace.



BTW^2,

Cool Story Bro......