Strange

Today I learned why there are so many disparate words for "bear" in Indo-European languages. Apparently, bears were so terrifying that the word for them was taboo (in case naming them caused them to appear) and so a variety of euphemisms were sued: "bruin" (the brown one) and related forms in Germanic languages (which is where we get bear" from); "medved" (honey eater) and similar names in Slavic languages; and so on. https://www.charlierussellbears.com/LinguisticArchaeology.html

OK. That’s good. Those have all been answered.

Isn't it blasphemy and/or a sin to do magic tricks and pretend they are miracles?

p.s. It doesn't help that you keep changing the question: first it was about the amount of rainfall, then it was the volume to cover Mount Everest then it was back to the amount of rainfall. p.p.s If you think people are being offensive or off-topic, please use the report function on the relevant posts rather than trying to discuss it in the thread.

Just over 1 billion cubic miles or 5x1021 litres https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4%2F3+*+pi+*+(radius+of+Earth+%2B+height+of+Mount+Everest+%2B+22+feet)^3+-+(volume+of+Earth) This is about 3 times the volume of water on Earth: "The total volume of water on Earth is estimated at 1.386 billion km³ (333 million cubic miles)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_distribution_on_Earth So your magic fountains would have to summon up two thirds of that As you say, that much water would cause massive effects. From this we can conclude that the "Great Flood" covered approximately 0% of the Earth's surface. Which helps enormously, because then it is entirely possible for natural causes to explain it. Quite possibly, the regular floods of the Tigris and Euphrates in the area where the story originated. These would have been devastating to the local populations and was probably one of the drivers behind Babylonian astronomy and mathematics. Don't you dare. Thank goodness for that.

This is schoolboy arithmetic. Why have you come to a science forum to talk about your religion, instead of just using a calculator? No.

I doubt it.

No. If you want to present your crackpot "theory" do it here. Opinions are not of much value. You need to present the evidence for this. And something better than numerological coincidences and handwaving, please.

Again, you will need to provide evidence of this claim. Otherwise it can be dismissed as a baseless belief.

If one is going to take the fundamentalist/literalist approach and say that these things must have happened because they are in the bible then that god is omnipotent and can just make as much water appear as he/she wishes. To try and undermine this by saying that "the water must have come from somewhere" implies that god is not all that powerful and has to find some way of exploiting resources that exist. On the other hand, if you want to try and say that these are entirely natural phenomena and god had nothing to do with it, then why would you think the stories had any credibility at all - there is no evidence for this flood. (And, if one takes the literalist approach, then it is surely simpler to assume that god put everything back as it was before the flood, which is why there is no evidence for it.) [A more reasonable approach might be to say that these are old, pre-Abrahamic myths (which they are) that just got ascribed to god, in the same way that many clever quotations are ascribed to Mark Twain. The fact he didn't say all those things down't make him any less of a writer. And if your chosen god didn't;t do all the things claimed, surely that doesn't make her a lesser god.]

Can you provide a reference for this. I have never heard it before. It may no indicate a special location for us; it could be true of any location (if it is true). I don't think this has been proven. In fact I am fairly sure it has been falsified. Again, can't see why it would imply a special location, even if true. Cosmological redshift is NOT caused by velocity.

It absolutely does NOT say that. Where is the mechanism to extract all that water and cause it to flow to the surface? I thought you were interested in scientific answers, not magic.

How do you know that? Because truth is unknowable (in general). Science doesn't really reveal "truth"; it just gives us good descriptions of how things work.

I assumed it was the literal translation of a term that means something like "worrying about irrelevant details" I think I gave up using the train after that!

Quite. Even if the required quantity of water were hidden in the Earth (it isn't) then it would still require non-physical (magical/miraculous) processes to make it flood the Earth.

And if one wants more data on "water inside the Earth" to use for a pseudo-scientific justification: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hunt-for-earths-deep-hidden-oceans-20180711/

I know what you mean. I think my record for the 30 minute train journey home was about 5 hours.

Yes, if you calculate the height from the available water supply. But that doesn't seem to be what the OP is asking.

I'm not sure if you are asking how much rain would need to fall to cover the mountains, or how much water could conceivably fall as rain. You could start with the highest recorded rainfall figures here: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/extreme-weather-records/index.html Greatest rainfall in 24 hours = 1.825 m. So in 40 days and nights that would be 73 metres (about 240 feet?) Greatest rainfall in 1 minute = 31.2 mm. In 40 days and nights that would be 1797 metres (just under 6,000 feet) So it seems implausible that rainfall alone could flood things to the depth required (about 8855 m to cover Mt Everest by 22ft). Of course that assumes that the height of Everest hasn't changed significantly since then. So it sounds like your fictional "fountains of the deep" would have to provide the missing 7 km of water. As there is no data for these (for obvious reasons) you can invent any quantity and mechanism that you wish. Also, not a geologist, but I assume that intense rainfall, for an extended time, would cause significant changes.)

The most rational argument would, by definition, be based on logic. This cannot tell you if something is true, only that it would be true if the initial premises were true.

I think the clue is here: Perhaps it isn't about censoring the OP but about other people not being allowed to add their Very Important Contributions to the thread. So, now we have all seen studiot's excellent suggestion to build a demonstrator, perhaps this thread could be closed?

This is slightly offensive. 1. I didn't say anything about not being interested. And I don't see see the relevance of not being "forced to reply" 2. I definitely did not say anything about deleting posts.

I don't think it is silly at all. I know one science forum that allows discussion of conspiracy theories and "alternative" scientific theories but completely bans the discussion of the "electric universe" theory. Experience has told them that it is futile to allow the sort of idiots who believe it to post. I would quite happily ban certain topics (the three you mention and several others) as they are basically unscientific, quasi-religious beliefs and there is no point discussing them. They aren't interested.

You don't have a model. You just make up nonsense. Of course you don't. You are just deluding yourself.

You should probably choose a saying that makes sense. Nonsense. Put two non-rotating, relatively stationary objects in empty space and they fall directly towards one another with no turning. This is just gibberish. No. They look at the particles produced by colliding protons. That is not nothing. Gravity has nothing to do with rotation. Neither do the electromagnetic interactions holding molecules together. Every atom has multiple frequencies corresponding to different excitation levels of the electrons and even of the nucleus. You would lose. I would say your though and understanding is pretty close to 0%. You really should learn some basic physics instead of posting all this drivel.