Wednesday, November 22, 2023

Béa Tremblay Blocked Me After Responding

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Béa Tremblay Blocked Me After Responding · EN LENGUA ROMANCE EN ANTIMODERNISM Y DE MIS CAMINACIONES: Eso es fanatismo anticristiano, Béa ... · Béa Tremblay se calló, no era lo que pédí, y deja el debate incompleto ... · No puedo contestar a los respuestas de Béa Tremblay en Quora

Béa Tremblay Blocked Me After Responding · Ark Related Question

Béa gave a disparaging answer about the Ark of the Ark encounter. She pretended it could not work in a world wide Flood. Here are two comments under her answer. I could not add a third to open a debate with her:

In the first, I linked to

CMI : Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway
by S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je | This article is from
Journal of Creation 8(1):26–36, April 1994

In the second, she said:

Ah, yes, I knew that one, it's a well-known source of jokes. It's babble to impress the ignorant, paid by wealthy fundamentalists. We made a lot of fun about it in the Navy's school because it deliberately avoids so many core problems (like the lack of control for stability) that it's an exercise in carefully not touching any important subject while looking like you covered everything.

Among many things, they deliberately and maliciously avoid that to get those coefficients of stability, you need control to turn toward the waves. There's no other way to do it —well, unless you have computer-controlled electronic stability control with lateral engines. My naval engineering teachers would send them back to primary school —or would have them arrested and expelled from the Navy for being a bunch of manipulative liars. Like everyone in the ICR and CMI.

I do not know what she means by "lack of control for stability" given that the point of the Safety investigation was precisely to show it was stable enough.

I get a suspicion, which is not to the credit of her argument:

to get those coefficients of stability, you need control to turn toward the waves

Does she mean a rudder?

The point of lots of Creationist investigations, this one, a remark by Kent Hovind, myself, well it is that the critics (and Béa seems to be doing it again) are pretending it's a question of navigating. That would involve getting across waves.

The actual question is if the Ark could float inside the troughs of the very long waves.

När bildas brytande vågor?*
När vågorna närmar sig land/stranden trycks vågorna ihop så att våglängden minskar och våghöjden ökar, det bildas brytande vågor

When are breaking waves made?
When waves approach land/the coast, the waves are compressed so the wave length lessens and the wave height increases, breaking waves are formed.

Obviously, this would not the least be occurring on the top of a world wide ocean, which by definition was the only thing under the Ark (for c. 1 km at the most shallow) until it approached the Mountains of Armenia, when the water levels sank.

The one problem Kon Tiki had with breaking waves, was when they stranded on a coral reef between Raroia and Takuma.

To underline the above:

Varför är tsunamivågor inte så farliga långt ut på havet men förödande närmare land?*
Eftersom det är vid grundare vatten som vågorna trycks ihop och blir högre, och ute på djupt vatten märks de knappt av eftersom de inte trycks ihop än

Why are Tsunami waves not so dangerous far out on the sea, but devastating closer to land? Because it is at shallower waters that the waves are compressed and get higher, and out on the deep sea, they are hardly noticed, since they are not yet compressed.

I'll investigate further what she was saying:

Observándolo, queda inmediatamente claro a simple vista que el arca de Noé tal como se describe en la Biblia y construyó Ken Ham es totalmente incapaz de navegar o de controlar su estabilidad dinámica, e incluso aunque flotara inicialmente, se iría a pique con el primer contratiempo.

Maybe my Spanish is somewhat off, but I think I just confirmed what she was saying was precisely totally irrelevant.

Observing it, it is immediately clear from simple viewing, that the Ark of Noah as it is described in the Bible and as Ken Ham constructed it is totally incapable to navigate or to control its dynamic stability, and this to the point that, while it would initially float it would "se iría a pique" with the first "contratiempo" ... presumably sink at the first ... google translate offers "setback" and "mishap" but I think she means the more technical "contretemps" ... is it even technical?

Going to the technical stuff, the one that really is, she is giving a diagram, which I already saw back when I had a book on stability and trim a few years ago:

Stability and Trim for the Ship's Officer, Third Edition, based on original edition by John La Dage and Lee Van Gemert, Third Edition, ed. by William E. George Cornell Maritime Press, last copyright 1983.

The two articles that I wrote directly on the subject of stability were:

For Sea-Farers .... · Rolling Period of Ark?

They also include calculations on the empty weight and freighted weight of the ark (for empty weight, I take into account both different thickness of wood, different densities from densest rose wood to least dense pine, and the different lengths of cubit I had at my disposal, for freighted weight I take into account the density of water, Archimede's principle, and a water line that's halfway up the hight of the Ark, i e 15 cubits up), here:

Ark : empty weight and freighted weight, number of couples on the Ark. · Small Tidbits on Ark, Especially Mathematical

As I recall, any vessel is most stable if the water line is halfway up, and also, the longer the rolling period is, since the less likely to reach too low a level (or two big an angle from vertical) while the waves are pointing it one way.

So, unless I totally got the way of calculating radius of gyration wrong, the rolling period of the Ark, according to the formula given in wiki, would have been between 11.71 and 12.82 seconds. Recall that first sentence?

Now, another point. Béa Tremblay was saying:

  • she has "naval engineering teachers"
  • who have the power to "have them arrested and expelled from the Navy"

This means, when Béa Tremblay was answering me, and also blocking me from replying, she might have been acting under direct orders, and if not, at least under abnormal social pressure. Her not being a Civilian.

If the French or Spanish navy, or whatever other navy in the West she might be on is into bullying for Creationism, and if such military considerations interfere with my rights as a Civilian to pursue a civilian carreere as a writer, and my rights as a writer to freedom of expression, including for expressing Young Earth Creationism, this is bad news for the West. A military which fights God (and that's what you do if you fight God's truth, and persecute those holding it) is dooming itself to loss and disaster. Recall how Communism fell in 1990?

Hans Georg Lundahl
St. Cecilia

Sanctae Caeciliae, Virginis et Martyris, quae ad caelestem Sponsum, proprio sanguine purpurata, transivit sextodecimo Kalendas Octobris. [16.IX says:] Romae item natalis sanctae Caeciliae, Virginis et Martyris, quae sponsum suum Valerianum et fratrem ejus Tiburtium ad credendum in Christum perduxit, et ad martyrium incitavit. Hanc Almachius, Urbis Praefectus, post eorum martyrium teneri, atque illustri passione, post ignem superatum, fecit gladio consummari, tempore Marci Aurelii Severi Alexandri Imperatoris. Ejus vero festum recolitur decimo Kalendas Decembris.

* The two quotes in Swedish are from:

No comments: