The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_Buffalo]

Good for that young man for standing up speaking out

I am with varsity in my ward. I support the scouting program. I do not support church time being used to pan handle money to pay salaries of person who are so lacking in business sense that they used guilt and afinity to pay their salaries.

What kind of friend to the scouting program is someone who puts salalry first. Which is what CEO,s do.

At first I thought he was talking about the general authorities :D

[_Buffalo]

You have to understand the background and history. Friends of Scouting has been a sore point with many, many people, especially after the news came out, first in a Deseret News story and later in a Salt Lake Tribune story, disclosing the lucrative salaries of Scouting officials, both on a national and more local level. Meanwhile, "volunteers" in local LDS units, most of whom never asked for the position but have had it placed upon them through a Church calling, give significantly of their time and personal funds. Add to that the fact that, at one time or another, some Church members have felt personally pressured -- not just encouraged -- to donate. And now, it appears the matter has generated sufficient tension between a Church member and his local leadership that he can no longer be allowed to function in the calling.

A major element of what makes a story newsworthy is the interest that readers have in the topic. On that basis alone, this one is very definitely newsworthy.

I can understand the necessity for a release under the circumstances. But there appears to be some rancor here that is unseemly. I sincerely hope it can be resolved without injury to any of the parties.

Same story here :D

[_DrW]

In a discussion of the damage that would be caused by the Flood of Noah (an often discussed topic at MDD) thesometimesaint, who If I recall correctly has claimed a science background in the past, stated the following:

Plus add in the FACT that water vapor has weight. Suspending that much water in the air would crush all life.

If this sounds a bit strange when considering a flood that supposedly happened because the temperature of the atmosphere fell below the dew point and the water vapor in the atmosphere fell out as rain for 40 days and 40 night, it is - very strange.

See http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20424

[_Tarski]

In a discussion of the damage that would be caused by the Flood of Noah (an often discussed topic at MDD) thesometimesaint, who If I recall correctly has claimed a science background in the past, stated the following:

"Plus add in the FACT that water vapor has weight. Suspending that much water in the air would crush all life. "


This is a patently ridiculous statement.

The ideal gas law, PV=nRT, is taught in high school science classes (or at least it was when I was in high school). One consequence of this simple equation is that lower molecular weight gases serve to reduce the density of a gas mixture at a given temperature and pressure.

Nitrogen gas (N2) with a molecular weight of 28 makes up about 78% of the atmosphere.

Oxygen gas (O2) with a molecular weight of 32, makes up most of the rest (about 20%).

Water vapor (H2O) only has a molecular weight of 18, so as the amount of water vapor increases in the atmosphere, the less dense the air becomes at a given temperature and pressure.

.......

Apologists who don't understand this simple principle should not be debating the fine points of the Flood with those who do.

Why do you get to suppose that the pressure would be the same? (See my last sentence below)

Well, more importantly, I think you may have approached this from the wrong angle.


The point was not about density, it was about weight.
To get that you will have to multiply by volume. The volume will have changed unless one can argue otherwise.

Let us approach this by making a couple simplifications to begin -the second one is the one we will have to backpeddle on in a moment.

First, lets talk about mass instead of weight since I don't want to assume that they will be proportional quite yet. This is because w=mg only holds precisely near the surface of the earth otherwise we nead to use Newton's full law F=GmM/R^2 and since I don't yet know the resulting volume of the atmosphere and I am about to pretend that none of it will escape into space I don't know how thick the atmosphere will be and so on).

Second, as mentioned above I am going to ignore the question of how much of the resulting vapor laden mixture will disapate into space.


Now, if we could get the volume we would take it and multiply by density which is less as you say (if temp and vol haven't changed as they might).

But the volume could be huge.

However, we don't need that at all. The fact is, the new mass will be a simple sum of the mass of the water added to the mass that was already in the atmosphere.
That means of course, the mass of the new atmosphere will be much higher even if the density is lower (which just proves the increase in volume would be dramatic and in fact, we could calculate it).
To the extent that mass is proportional to weight, we will have more weight (under my assumptions).


But, if the volume turns out to be too high, there is no immediately obvious reason to suppose that the earth can hold on to it. In fact, it seems unlikely so my assumption is very questionable. This latter issue also depends on temperature since whether molecules in the upper atmosphere have an average translational velocity higher than their escape velocity is a question of temperature. If the atmosphere is very very cold more can remain bound to the earth. Lots of factor could affect this.
But this is then one more reason your analysis has to be better.

As for pressure, that is not constant as a function of height. As for pressure at the surface, this is actually due to the weight of a column of area above a unit area. So, without a much better analysis I don't think we can get the answer to the question of whether the weight would be higher or lower.
Finally, if the weight isn't the same, the pressure won't be the same (the surface area of the earth will not have changed and from this it is easy to see that change in weight just gives change in pressure rather directly).

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

The church did lead in racial equality in 1844 when Joseph Smith ran for president with a plan to eradicate slavery in the US by 1850. He also stated that if it were up to him, he would "put them on a national program of equalization". I'm not sure he meant anything more radical that was eventually done by the Republicans after the Civil War. If you are referring to the Civil Rights movement, most of that was rubbish. Between 1865 and 1949, blacks entered every trade and proffession. Black universities flourished which left no doubt that we intended some blacks to recieve higher education. The Civil Rights movement did 2 legitimately good things; 1. End the demeaning aspects of segregation, and 2. Restored voting rights to southern blacks. Much of the Civil Rights movement, however was rubbish. I will inumerate the rubbish. 1. Integration for its own sake. -rubbish 2 Talk of "absorbing the negroes" by intermarriage (Norman Podhoretz) -rubbish and racist rubbish at that. 3. Affirmative Action -rubbish 4. Indefinite denial of property rights and involuntary servitude a.k.a. equal accomodations -rubbish 5. Denial of due proccess (trial by jury) and indefinite detention via court order -rubbish For decades after the Civil Rights movement; ie, during the 1970's the economic divide between black and white increased and only began to decrease when black fertility declined to replacement level or lower. The decline in black poverty rates; from 55% in 1960 to 27% today was part of a general decline in poverty; ie, 17% in 1960 to 10% today. This is due mainly to capitalism which MLK condemned

[_Blixa]

Dipped my toe into MDD today. Saw a lovely Freudian slip: "immortal sexual behavior" for "immoral" sexual behavior.

[Guest]

Why do you get to suppose that the pressure would be the same? (See my last sentence below)

Well, more importantly, I think you may have approached this from the wrong angle.

The point was not about density, it was about weight.
To get that you will have to multiply by volume. The volume will have changed unless one can argue otherwise.

Let us approach this by making a couple simplifications to begin -the second one is the one we will have to backpeddle on in a moment.

First, lets talk about mass instead of weight since I don't want to assume that they will be proportional quite yet. This is because w=mg only holds precisely near the surface of the earth otherwise we nead to use Newton's full law F=GmM/R^2 and since I don't yet know the resulting volume of the atmosphere and I am about to pretend that none of it will escape into space I don't know how thick the atmosphere will be and so on).

Second, as mentioned above I am going to ignore the question of how much of the resulting vapor laden mixture will disapate into space.


Now, if we could get the volume we would take it and multiply by density which is less as you say (if temp and vol haven't changed as they might).

But the volume could be huge.

However, we don't need that at all. The fact is, the new mass will be a simple sum of the mass of the water added to the mass that was already in the atmosphere.
That means of course, the mass of the new atmosphere will be much higher even if the density is lower (which just proves the increase in volume would be dramatic and in fact, we could calculate it).
To the extent that mass is proportional to weight, we will have more weight (under my assumptions).


But, if the volume turns out to be too high, there is no immediately obvious reason to suppose that the earth can hold on to it. In fact, it seems unlikely so my assumption is very questionable. This latter issue also depends on temperature since whether molecules in the upper atmosphere have an average translational velocity higher than their escape velocity is a question of temperature. If the atmosphere is very very cold more can remain bound to the earth. Lots of factor could affect this.
But this is then one more reason your analysis has to be better.

As for pressure, that is not constant as a function of height. As for pressure at the surface, this is actually due to the weight of a column of area above a unit area. So, without a much better analysis I don't think we can get the answer to the question of whether the weight would be higher or lower.
Finally, if the weight isn't the same, the pressure won't be the same (the surface area of the earth will not have changed and from this it is easy to see that change in weight just gives change in pressure rather directly).

Tarski,

Sorry, I edited the OP before I saw your response. The original OP can now be seen at http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20424

In any case, you are making this far too complicated. And if you did any calculations before you wrote your response you might want to re-check them if you think I am wrong.

In aviation, we have a parameter called "density altitude". This number is related to the lift that can be generated by a wing moving at a given speed through the air at a given angle of attack at a given temperature, barometric pressure, and relative humidity (dew point).

If one starts with PV=nRT, one can derive the equations for density altitude and from these calculate directly the mass of air in a cubic meter at a given pressure temperature and dew point. The math is a bit much for a message board but is laid out very clearly at:

http://wahiduddin.net/calc/density_altitude.htm

in case you are interested in how the derivation is done.

Here is an example of the mass of a cubic meter of air as a function of moisture content, with temperature and pressure held constant:

At an air temperature of 30 degrees C, and a pressure of 1015 mb:
The mass of a cubic meter of air with a dew point of 10 degrees C is 1.1611 kg
The mass of a cubic meter of air with a dew point of 25 degrees C is 1.1526 kg.

(All else being equal the higher the dew point, the more water vapor in the air and the less a cubic meter of this air weighs on Earth.)

This is why ATIS and the tower always report the relative humidity (along with temperature, barometric pressure and wind speed and direction) to aircraft about to use airport runways for take-offs and landings. It makes a difference in the airspeed that has to be maintained on approach and carried across the threshold at a give gross weight for landing aircraft, and the gross weight that a departing aircraft can safely carry for take-off.

[_Tarski]

You are making this far too complicated. And if you did any calculations you might want to check them if you think I am wrong.

I think you are wrong and I explained why. Read my post more carefully.

1) What matters is weight not density. Not the weight per unit volume but total weight--or actually weight above a unit of area at the surface (pressure)

2) There is no reason to suppose pressure will stay the same (indeed it almost certainly will not for reasons I explained--unless we lose atmosphere to space in the whole process).

3)' There is no reason to suppose total volume is the same, and this total does matter. I thought it through again.

4) If the atmosphere really did have that water added to it then the atmosphere would have more mass and hence more weight in any column of over a unit area. Conservation of mass demands it. (here I am assuming weight is proportional to mass--I discussed this too)

[Guest]

You are making this far too complicated. And if you did any calculations you might want to check them if you think I am wrong.

I think you are wrong and I explained why. Read my post more carefully.

1) What matters is weight not density. Not the weight per unit volume but total weight--or actually weight above a unit of area at the surface (pressure)

2) There is no reason to suppose pressure will stay the same (indeed it almost certainly will not for reasons I explained--unless we lose atmosphere to space in the whole process).

3)' There is no reason to suppose total volume is the same, and this total does matter. I thought it through again.

4) If the atmosphere really did have that water added to it then the atmosphere would have more mass and hence more weight in any column of over a unit area. Conservation of mass demands it. (here I am assuming weight is proportional to mass--I discussed this too)

Tarski,

Please look at my last post again. Then please back up and take another look at the claim of a water vapor laden atmosphere that would "crush all life" on Earth.

I showed that the mass (weight) of a cubic meter of moist air is less than that of a cubic meter of dry air.

And that fact of the matter is that the atmosphere takes up and releases billions of tons of water every day. In fact by volume the atmosphere holds approximately 3,000 cubic miles of water at any given time. When an area of the atmosphere is saturated with water, it simply falls back to earth as precipitation.

Given the size and mass of the Earth, its surface gravity, the temperatures found on its surface, and the composition of its atmosphere (not significantly different from the time of Noah), what mechanism can you possibly imagine wherein Earth's atmopshere could take up enough water to "crush all life on Earth" in the time of Noah?

You really need to think about this again, my friend. Here are some comparative data to consider:

The atmosphere of Venus is 98.6% carbon dioxide (molecular weight = 44 amu).

The atmosphere on Venus has a mass of 4.8 x 10 exp 20 kg.

The surface gravity on Venus in 8.87 m/s2.

The average molecular weight of the Earths' atmosphere (78% N2 and 20% O2) without any water vapor, is something on the order of 29 amu.

The mass of Earth's atmosphere is 5.1 x 10 exp 18 kg

The surface gravity on earth is 9.78 m/s2.

Now please consider:

The atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is 92 bar.

The atmospheric pressure on the surface of the Earth is barely 1 bar (1015 mb).

Do you still think it would be possible to build up a "life crushing" air pressure on Earth by adding 18 amu water to a 29 amu atmosphere?

If this is possible under the atmospheric conditions that exist on Earth, given there is plenty of available water to transfer to the atmosphere (which contains far less than 1% of the water found on earth), why do we have no geological record of such life crushing pressures from a water laden atmosphere?

[_Tarski]

Given the mass of the Earth, the temperatures found on its surface, and the composition of its atmosphere (not significantly different from the time of Noah), what mechanism can you possibly imagine wherein Earth's atmopshere could take up enough water to "crush all life on Earth" in the time of Noah?

I don't claim that there is such a mechanism at all!! I have stated no opinion about crushing life. I only claim that your analysis using the ideal gas law is faulty as is the conclusion that there would not be an increase in pressure experienced at the surface. There may very well be for roughly the reasons that SometimesSaint gave. Look at the other thread for my thought experiement and the promise of a complete analysis where we will see that the ideal gas law cannot be used as you have since pressure will indeed increase unless atmosphere is lost to space.

That is where I will post replies from now on.