This post shows that you understand the principle of increase in volume. Except it is generally only applied to what people can concieve, such as something the size of an elephant. But try understanding this with immense volumes like the ocean, and keep pushing until you realise the implications. As far as the entire body of water is concerned, you will find it increasingly difficult to change or to move, in essence its RELATIVE viscosity is increasing until it practically acts more like a solid than a liquid.
Noah's Ark
- Thread starter Mickmeister
- Start date
This post shows that you understand the principle of increase in volume. Except it is generally only applied to what people can concieve, such as something the size of an elephant. But try understanding this with immense volumes like the ocean, and keep pushing until you realise the implications. As far as the entire body of water is concerned, you will find it increasingly difficult to change or to move, in essence its RELATIVE viscosity is increasing until it practically acts more like a solid than a liquid.
You gave some random observations about waves and water which is not close to a definition. Viscosity has a very precise definition. You have no definition for your term and as such it is useless - actually it is worse than useless because you have some vague understanding of the made up term that you can not adequately communicate, so it is making discussions almost impossible.
You are talking about surface tension which is very well understood. As a water droplet gets larger the weight overcomes the surface tension. This has nothing to do with any sort of viscosity change/total mass, as Fraggle Rocker discussed it is the nature of the realtionship between mass, volume and surface area. Along those lines an ant with a head 1 meter wide could probably would not even be able to move due to the huge weight of his exoskeleton.
The bottom line is there is no change in the properties of the water it is simply which forces are winning out in the interplay. For instance a water dropplet 1 meter in diameter would be possible in a weightless enviornment.
It is a fact that as you change volume or mass of a substance there are different forces that predominate. You term 'relative viscosity' is meaningless and is not necessary to help describe fluid dynamics. You seem to think that the 'law' or equation of a property changes - that is not accurate. Your comment, to the effect that science does not understand large volumes of water is simply wrong - and your application of the term 'relative viscosity', to describe these effects that you do not understand, is worse than wrong!
Wrong, wrong, wrong, OMFG WRONG
I may have used the term viscosity incorrectly. You put honey into the fridge and it becomes more viscous, that's my interpretation.
As for the rest, I am actually agreeing with you. A particular law does not in itself change but runs out of significance due to other factors.
The dynamics of a cup of water splashing on the table, will not occur if you could pour out the oceans, they will act more like tar.
What you are saying is that you have reached the limit of your understanding. For the time being I hope.
If you are not used to exercising with these weights in thought, you'll probably drop the bundle again.
Pure BS. The volume of water has ZERO affect on the viscosity. If you think I am wrong please show me the equation that will prove that.
No, what I am saying is you are completely ignorant of the applicable physics and spouting foolish tripe that has no bearing on reality.
To use your analogy - you don't even know what city the gym is in.
Now enough with the sniping:
I could actually help you to understand this stuff if you wanted - believe it or not, as a chemical engineer this is like core knowldge for me.
RELATIVE viscosity. Comparing how one body moves to another, different volumes will behave differently.
I love that offer, and will appreciate it.
Please explain...because that doesn't make a bit of sense to me.
I thought relative viscosity has to do with how thick my brother-in-law gets after drinking.
Please explain...because that doesn't make a bit of sense to me.
I thought relative viscosity has to do with how thick my brother-in-law gets after drinking.
I think what Origin said applies, I don't have an understanding of scientific terms. The reason I call it relative viscosity, is because it doesn't actually refer to how molecules roll over each other, but how a body behaves in different scales/volumes by comparison.
If your brother in law holds a glass of drink, it can spill quite easily, but if you had a glass the size of the US it won't spill that easily, it will move with the glass and act as if it was more viscous. He could even tip it upside down and it would take hours before it poured out of the glass.
It sounds impossible doesn't it?
Ok...you're still losing me. The viscosity of water doesn't change. I still don't understand how this relates to the entire world being covered in 2000m of water at the time of the flood. Maybe you can elaborate.
OK. Let’s start with viscosity. Viscosity it the resistance of a fluid to deformation by a shearing force. Even more simply viscosity is a measure of a fluids resistance to flow.
The viscosity of honey is high, water is lower, and air is much lower yet. Air being a fluid has a viscosity.
An interesting aspect of viscosity is that the lower the viscosity the more the fluid is easily moved to turbulent flow- think vortexes and chaotic movement. Higher viscosity fluids have a more laminar flow. Laminar flow is just as it sounds the flow is in layers and does not mix. People, fish and most animals swim by creating turbulent flow by kicking or swishing a tail. What that means is if you are honey or syrup you will not be able to swim at all you will kick and not go anywhere. There are ways to swim in a fluid that is viscous and only allows laminar flow. One of the best methods of locomotion through a viscous fluid is a corkscrew drive. As a matter of fact if you have ever seen a film of sperm swimming you may think they look a bit like tadpoles, in reality though the little guys tails are actually corkscrew shaped and spinning around, they only look like tadpole type tails.
Most fluids are Newtonian that means they follow a ‘normal’ regime where the more force that is applied the more shear is produced – which only makes sense.
But there are 2 other very common regimes. One is called Dilatant. Dilatant fluids are rather cool. For a dilatant material increasing the force decreases the viscosity. In other words the harder you push on the fluid the higher the viscosity. An extremely dilatant fluid is an aluminum oxide slurry. I have put my hand in a bucket of this type of slurry and you can move your hand around slowly through the fluid with no problem but if you try to jerk your hand out of the fluid it will instantly turn into a solid and you will lift the whole bucket like you have your hand encased in cement. When you put the bucket back down the material returns to a fluid – weird. You can make a dilatant fluid by making a wet paste out of some water and corn starch.
The other common nonNewtonian fluid is a thixotropic mixture. This is a property that is common in paints and especially ceiling paints. For this type of fluid a decrease in shear force increases the viscosity. For a paint when the brush is putting a force on the paint it flows very well and when the paint is no longer feeling the force of the brush the viscosity increases and the paint does not run or drip.
Increasing the volume of a fluid cannot change the viscosity. A duck swimming in a bath tub or the middle of the ocean will be experiencing the same viscosity. Same thing with a fish. Temperature will change viscosity for sure. Pressure can have a slight effect on viscosity but the pressures has to be really high to have any detectable effect.
I didn’t go into the math of viscosity because it is a bit ugly but I can if you would like.
Let's just forget my apparent misuse of the term viscosity. Compare the speed at which a wave runs from one end of the bath tub to the other, and let's keep the volume and wave size in proportion as we scale up.
The wave in the bath takes 2 seconds to travel the entire length.
Multiply this tub by a hundred, let's say a swimming pool, the same proportionate wave takes 5 seconds - as an example only.
Multiply this swimming pool by a hundred, to be part of a beach just for comparison. The wave takes 20 seconds, example only.
Multiply this by a hundred to a whole coast line in length. The wave takes 1 minute.
The proportions are identical, but the response of the wave is slower, far slower.
An immediate contradiction may be the propogation of a tidal wave caused by an earthquake, which travels in the water, more than on the water like our model, so it is another phenomenon.
But the idea of different volumes of water acting differently is there.
Here is another factor movement or momemtum.
Once great oceans are on the move, you cannot stop them, they will ride over continents, crushing and grinding them into mud, over and over again.
They will mount up to the depth of the ocean and go above every mountain and island with ease.
I understand that I misused the term, and thanks for that info, I did not know about laminar flow, the whole post much appreciated!
Does what I posted to MacGyver make any sense?
So basically you just invent aspects of science to explain why the world was covered in water....I see.
You could have said "I don't see how that is possible"
I'm just a layman...and I can see how your theories majorly conflict with known science. Please explain how the world could be flooded by 2000m of water.
The oceans are mobile, the ground is also mobile, but to a far lesser extent. The earth also gives way to any other pressure like oceans. The more mobile mass which is water will and can dominate the land.
Please explain how the world could be flooded by 2000m of water.