|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 3, 2017 7:06:53 GMT
I can't speak to the living creatures in the sea because I know next to nothing about their survivability in extreme circumstances, but I do know a little something about ships. Seems like these new ships they're building now have little draught compared to their freeboard and superstructure, which (I would think) makes them more susceptible to capsizing. The older ships with a deeper draught may not be as efficient as the newer ones, but they strike me as more likely to survive a sudden cataclysmic change to the earth, don't you think? If the thread takes off, I'll pull up illustrations to illustrate what I'm talking about, because that's what illustrations do. They illustrate, yes? What good are illustrations if they don't illustrate?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 3, 2017 11:25:40 GMT
I can't speak to the living creatures in the sea because I know next to nothing about their survivability in extreme circumstances, but I do know a little something about ships. Seems like these new ships they're building now have little draught compared to their freeboard and superstructure, which (I would think) makes them more susceptible to capsizing. The older ships with a deeper draught may not be as efficient as the newer ones, but they strike me as more likely to survive a sudden cataclysmic change to the earth, don't you think? If the thread takes off, I'll pull up illustrations to illustrate what I'm talking about, because that's what illustrations do. They illustrate, yes? What good are illustrations if they don't illustrate? A) It depends on what kind of ships you are talking about (and who made them). A British ice cutter is very different than a Russian oil tanker, which is very different from a U.S. aircraft carrier, which is very different from a Somali pirate ship. Some ships are more susceptible to capsizing than others are. All modern ships are less susceptible to capsizing than similarly sized ships designed 2,000 years ago. And that largely has to do with their advanced technologies. B) I assume you are interpreting this passage literally (which is kind of silly considering that the Book of Revelation is not mean to be interpreted literally). If you insist on interpreting it literally, then your question becomes entirely irrelevant. It wouldn't matter what design the ship had or what it was made of. A literal mountain being hurled into the sea and landing on ships would destroy them. Whether they are susceptible to capsizing or not doesn't matter at that point.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 3, 2017 11:40:17 GMT
I can't speak to the living creatures in the sea because I know next to nothing about their survivability in extreme circumstances, but I do know a little something about ships. Seems like these new ships they're building now have little draught compared to their freeboard and superstructure, which (I would think) makes them more susceptible to capsizing. The older ships with a deeper draught may not be as efficient as the newer ones, but they strike me as more likely to survive a sudden cataclysmic change to the earth, don't you think? If the thread takes off, I'll pull up illustrations to illustrate what I'm talking about, because that's what illustrations do. They illustrate, yes? What good are illustrations if they don't illustrate? A) It depends on what kind of ships you are talking about (and who made them). A British ice cutter is very different than a Russian oil tanker, which is very different from a U.S. aircraft carrier, which is very different from a Somali pirate ship. Some ships are more susceptible to capsizing than others are. All modern ships are less susceptible to capsizing than similarly sized ships designed 2,000 years ago. And that largely has to do with their advanced technologies. B) I assume you are interpreting this passage literally (which is kind of silly considering that the Book of Revelation is not mean to be interpreted literally). If you insist on interpreting it literally, then your question becomes entirely irrelevant. It wouldn't matter what design the ship had or what it was made of. A literal mountain being hurled into the sea and landing on ships would destroy them. Whether they are susceptible to capsizing or not doesn't matter at that point. I must respectfully disagree, sir. The cruisers they are building now are built on a destroyer hull, and they are piling too much junk on them. A few weeks ago I noticed the new French amphibious landing ship, and it's mostly above water. The newer cruise ships and cargo ships also appear to be top-heavy. Agreed that the toughest ship can be destroyed by a mountain hurled into the sea if it's close enough, but I am unaware of any ship that was capsized and survived it. At Pearl Harbor the USS Oklahoma was capsized and written off, along with the more-famous USS Arizona which was blown to bits. The other battleships survived and were repaired.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 15:07:45 GMT
I can't speak to the living creatures in the sea because I know next to nothing about their survivability in extreme circumstances, but I do know a little something about ships. Seems like these new ships they're building now have little draught compared to their freeboard and superstructure, which (I would think) makes them more susceptible to capsizing. The older ships with a deeper draught may not be as efficient as the newer ones, but they strike me as more likely to survive a sudden cataclysmic change to the earth, don't you think? If the thread takes off, I'll pull up illustrations to illustrate what I'm talking about, because that's what illustrations do. They illustrate, yes? What good are illustrations if they don't illustrate? There are boats with extremely low draft relative to their freeboard that aren't more prone to capsize. Center of gravity/ballast, buoyancy, primary and secondary stability are the greater factors. By the same, a greater draft and little freeboard can make a boat much more susceptible to capsizing.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 3, 2017 17:41:26 GMT
I must respectfully disagree, sir. The cruisers they are building now are built on a destroyer hull, and they are piling too much junk on them. A few weeks ago I noticed the new French amphibious landing ship, and it's mostly above water. The newer cruise ships and cargo ships also appear to be top-heavy. Agreed that the toughest ship can be destroyed by a mountain hurled into the sea if it's close enough, but I am unaware of any ship that was capsized and survived it. At Pearl Harbor the USS Oklahoma was capsized and written off, along with the more-famous USS Arizona which was blown to bits. The other battleships survived and were repaired. I don't care whether you "agree" with me or not. You can disagree all you want, but the fact of the matter is modern ship design and technology makes it less likely for a ship to capsize than a similarly sized ship designed 2000 years ago. Most modern ships that have capsized have done so as a result of some extraordinary disaster that is largely perpetuated on human error, or maritime war. Any ship hit by a torpedo or bombed from the air is susceptible to capsizing, just as any ship that has a hypothetical mountain hurled on top of it is suceptible to destruction. Design becomes largely irrelevant at that point. And the question of survivability or recovery goes beyond the scope of your original question. I'm not talking about a ship "surviving" a capsizing because WHO CARES? The question is (your original question), which ship design is more susceptible to capsizing as a result of non-human factors (ie weather). And the answer would be old ships designed prior to the age of modern technology. And by the way, I noticed you moved the goalposts slightly to conform to my original criticism ("cruise ships" and "cargo ships" adds more specificity to your original question). In any case, it doesn't matter how "top heavy" a ship appears to you. What matters is what the ship is rated to handel given certain operating conditions according to its design specifications. And until you actually know what that is, you can't say whether it is "top heavy" or not. Saying that one ship looks more top heavy compared to another doesn't mean anything unless the ship is top heavy in such a way that exceeds its design specifications and mission (compared to the other ship). Any by the way, you didn't address the total irrelevance of this question with respect to you erroneously interpreting that passage in revelation in a literal sense.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 3, 2017 17:45:55 GMT
I can't speak to the living creatures in the sea because I know next to nothing about their survivability in extreme circumstances, but I do know a little something about ships. Seems like these new ships they're building now have little draught compared to their freeboard and superstructure, which (I would think) makes them more susceptible to capsizing. The older ships with a deeper draught may not be as efficient as the newer ones, but they strike me as more likely to survive a sudden cataclysmic change to the earth, don't you think? If the thread takes off, I'll pull up illustrations to illustrate what I'm talking about, because that's what illustrations do. They illustrate, yes? What good are illustrations if they don't illustrate? There are boats with extremely low draft relative to their freeboard that aren't more prone to capsize. Center of gravity/ballast, buoyancy, primary and secondary stability are the greater factors. By the same, a greater draft and little freeboard can make a boat much more susceptible to capsizing. Even if it draws a lot of water, isn't there a limit how high up you can build it before it becomes unstable?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 3, 2017 17:50:43 GMT
I must respectfully disagree, sir. The cruisers they are building now are built on a destroyer hull, and they are piling too much junk on them. A few weeks ago I noticed the new French amphibious landing ship, and it's mostly above water. The newer cruise ships and cargo ships also appear to be top-heavy. Agreed that the toughest ship can be destroyed by a mountain hurled into the sea if it's close enough, but I am unaware of any ship that was capsized and survived it. At Pearl Harbor the USS Oklahoma was capsized and written off, along with the more-famous USS Arizona which was blown to bits. The other battleships survived and were repaired. I don't care whether you "agree" with me or not. You can disagree all you want, but the fact of the matter is modern ship design and technology makes it less likely for a ship to capsize than a similarly sized ship designed 2000 years ago. Most modern ships that have capsized have done so as a result of some extraordinary disaster that is largely perpetuated on human error, or maritime war. Any ship hit by a torpedo or bombed from the air is susceptible to capsizing, just as any ship that has a hypothetical mountain hurled on top of it is suceptible to destruction. Design becomes largely irrelevant at that point. And the question of survivability or recovery goes beyond the scope of your original question. I'm not talking about a ship "surviving" a capsizing because WHO CARES? The question is (your original question), which ship design is more susceptible to capsizing as a result of non-human factors (ie weather). And the answer would be old ships designed prior to the age of modern technology. And by the way, I noticed you moved the goalposts slightly to conform to my original criticism ("cruise ships" and "cargo ships" adds more specificity to your original question). In any case, it doesn't matter how "top heavy" a ship appears to you. What matters is what the ship is rated to handel given certain operating conditions according to its design specifications. And until you actually know what that is, you can't say whether it is "top heavy" or not. Saying that one ship looks more top heavy compared to another doesn't mean anything unless the ship is top heavy in such a way that exceeds its design specifications and mission (compared to the other ship). Any by the way, you didn't address the total irrelevance of this question with respect to you erroneously interpreting that passage in revelation in a literal sense. How else would you interpret it? If the ships aren't to be taken literally, then how?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 18:01:15 GMT
There are boats with extremely low draft relative to their freeboard that aren't more prone to capsize. Center of gravity/ballast, buoyancy, primary and secondary stability are the greater factors. By the same, a greater draft and little freeboard can make a boat much more susceptible to capsizing. Even if it draws a lot of water, isn't there a limit how high up you can build it before it becomes unstable? Ballast/center of gravity is what matters... else these would just blow right over-
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 3, 2017 18:05:29 GMT
Even if it draws a lot of water, isn't there a limit how high up you can build it before it becomes unstable? Ballast/center of gravity is what matters... else these would just blow right over- I find it difficult to believe that the masts and sails weigh a lot compared to the rest of the ship, but in a storm don't they furl the sails to keep that from happening?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 18:09:20 GMT
Ballast/center of gravity is what matters... else these would just blow right over- I find it difficult to believe that the masts and sails weigh a lot compared to the rest of the ship, but in a storm don't they furl the sails to keep that from happening? Depends on the wind, depends on their heading and tacking. The ships like in your picture are a bit of illusion. Though there appears to be great bulk above deck, the greater weight is below deck, giving the ship ballast.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on May 3, 2017 18:58:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 3, 2017 21:14:14 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean by 'sudden cataclysmic change' but ballast systems on modern ships such as the one in the picture you posted which was launched in 2015 are considerably superior to ones from much older ships (I was seconded to navy for a couple of weeks so I have some knowledge on the subject). Older ships used to use rocks or blocks of iron as ballast which meant that the ships balance couldn't be easily altered when needed, if they wanted to reduce the draught they could throw the rocks overboard, but if they needed to increase the draught to keep the ship stable in bad weather then they couldn't exactly put the rocks back in place. Modern ships have ballast tanks that can be filled with sea water or emptied when needed giving much greater stability.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 3, 2017 22:33:49 GMT
I don't care whether you "agree" with me or not. You can disagree all you want, but the fact of the matter is modern ship design and technology makes it less likely for a ship to capsize than a similarly sized ship designed 2000 years ago. Most modern ships that have capsized have done so as a result of some extraordinary disaster that is largely perpetuated on human error, or maritime war. Any ship hit by a torpedo or bombed from the air is susceptible to capsizing, just as any ship that has a hypothetical mountain hurled on top of it is suceptible to destruction. Design becomes largely irrelevant at that point. And the question of survivability or recovery goes beyond the scope of your original question. I'm not talking about a ship "surviving" a capsizing because WHO CARES? The question is (your original question), which ship design is more susceptible to capsizing as a result of non-human factors (ie weather). And the answer would be old ships designed prior to the age of modern technology. And by the way, I noticed you moved the goalposts slightly to conform to my original criticism ("cruise ships" and "cargo ships" adds more specificity to your original question). In any case, it doesn't matter how "top heavy" a ship appears to you. What matters is what the ship is rated to handel given certain operating conditions according to its design specifications. And until you actually know what that is, you can't say whether it is "top heavy" or not. Saying that one ship looks more top heavy compared to another doesn't mean anything unless the ship is top heavy in such a way that exceeds its design specifications and mission (compared to the other ship). Any by the way, you didn't address the total irrelevance of this question with respect to you erroneously interpreting that passage in revelation in a literal sense. How else would you interpret it? If the ships aren't to be taken literally, then how? You do understand that the book of revelation is a prophetic vision conveyed in figurative language that makes heavy use of symbology instead of analogy don't you? The vision wasn't meant for John or anyone in his time, but something to be recorded for future generations. John would have understood much of it himself, but would have described it in such a way to convey the intended meaning rather than his interpretation of what he saw. In other words, its not intended to be interpreted literally! Nearly every biblical scholar agrees that it is symbolic to the extent that nearly every description of an object or "person" is meant to represent something else. With respect to this particular passage dealing the sea, and the fish, and the ships, there are many possible and plausible interpretations that work. Read some bible commentaries and consider the intent (and perspective) of the author. The second angel sounded, and a great mountain, burning with fire, was cast into the sea; and the third part of the sea became blood. By this mountain some understand leaders of the persecutions; others, Rome sacked by the Goths and Vandals, with great slaughter and cruelty. Or... And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea,.... The fishes; by whom men are meant, the inhabitants of the Roman empire; see Ezekiel 29:4, where by fish the Targum understands mighty princes and governors: and had life, died; were put to death by these savage and barbarous people, who killed all they met with, men, women, and children, young and old, rich and poor, high and low: and the third part of the ships were destroyed; by which may be designed either the cities and towns within such a part of the Roman jurisdiction, which were burnt or plundered by them; or their goods and effects, which they pillaged, and carried off the wealth and riches of the people, even all their substance, as Austin (p) and Jerom (q), who lived in those times, affirm. Or... The symbolical interpreters take the ships here to be churches. For the Greek here for ships is not the common one, but that used in the Gospels of the apostolic vessel in which Christ taught: and the first churches were in the shape of an inverted ship: and the Greek for destroyed is also used of heretical corruptings (1Ti 6:5). Or... Phrases all signifying the miserable catastrophe that should follow the destruction of this city, by the slaughter of men, the ruin of houses and towns in Italy, &c. History (as Mr. Mede showeth) excellently agreeth with this. In the year 410, Rome was taken by Alaricus; this was followed with great devastations both in France and Spain. Honorius, to recover the empire, was glad to give the Goths a seat and government in France, and the Burgundians and Vandals a place near unto the river Rhone; and, Anno 415, to the Vandals a place in Spain; and, Anno 455, Rome was again taken by Gensericus the Vandal, who divided the whole empire into ten kingdoms The point is, only ignorance would demand that the "sea creatures" and "ships" referenced in Rev 8:9 must be references to actual sea creatures and ship. In some cases, insistence in a literal interpretation above all else forces the individual to miss the entire point of the story altogether.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 4, 2017 4:59:57 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean by 'sudden cataclysmic change' but ballast systems on modern ships such as the one in the picture you posted which was launched in 2015 are considerably superior to ones from much older ships (I was seconded to navy for a couple of weeks so I have some knowledge on the subject). Older ships used to use rocks or blocks of iron as ballast which meant that the ships balance couldn't be easily altered when needed, if they wanted to reduce the draught they could throw the rocks overboard, but if they needed to increase the draught to keep the ship stable in bad weather then they couldn't exactly put the rocks back in place. Modern ships have ballast tanks that can be filled with sea water or emptied when needed giving much greater stability. I mean a pole shift or an asteroid hitting the earth, causing immense waves. I think a ship that is lower in the water with a deeper draught might have less chance of rolling over on it's side.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 4, 2017 5:03:21 GMT
How else would you interpret it? If the ships aren't to be taken literally, then how? You do understand that the book of revelation is a prophetic vision conveyed in figurative language that makes heavy use of symbology instead of analogy don't you? The vision wasn't meant for John or anyone in his time, but something to be recorded for future generations. John would have understood much of it himself, but would have described it in such a way to convey the intended meaning rather than his interpretation of what he saw. In other words, its not intended to be interpreted literally! Nearly every biblical scholar agrees that it is symbolic to the extent that nearly every description of an object or "person" is meant to represent something else. With respect to this particular passage dealing the sea, and the fish, and the ships, there are many possible and plausible interpretations that work. Read some bible commentaries and consider the intent (and perspective) of the author. The second angel sounded, and a great mountain, burning with fire, was cast into the sea; and the third part of the sea became blood. By this mountain some understand leaders of the persecutions; others, Rome sacked by the Goths and Vandals, with great slaughter and cruelty. Or... And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea,.... The fishes; by whom men are meant, the inhabitants of the Roman empire; see Ezekiel 29:4, where by fish the Targum understands mighty princes and governors: and had life, died; were put to death by these savage and barbarous people, who killed all they met with, men, women, and children, young and old, rich and poor, high and low: and the third part of the ships were destroyed; by which may be designed either the cities and towns within such a part of the Roman jurisdiction, which were burnt or plundered by them; or their goods and effects, which they pillaged, and carried off the wealth and riches of the people, even all their substance, as Austin (p) and Jerom (q), who lived in those times, affirm. Or... The symbolical interpreters take the ships here to be churches. For the Greek here for ships is not the common one, but that used in the Gospels of the apostolic vessel in which Christ taught: and the first churches were in the shape of an inverted ship: and the Greek for destroyed is also used of heretical corruptings (1Ti 6:5). Or... Phrases all signifying the miserable catastrophe that should follow the destruction of this city, by the slaughter of men, the ruin of houses and towns in Italy, &c. History (as Mr. Mede showeth) excellently agreeth with this. In the year 410, Rome was taken by Alaricus; this was followed with great devastations both in France and Spain. Honorius, to recover the empire, was glad to give the Goths a seat and government in France, and the Burgundians and Vandals a place near unto the river Rhone; and, Anno 415, to the Vandals a place in Spain; and, Anno 455, Rome was again taken by Gensericus the Vandal, who divided the whole empire into ten kingdoms The point is, only ignorance would demand that the "sea creatures" and "ships" referenced in Rev 8:9 must be references to actual sea creatures and ship. In some cases, insistence in a literal interpretation above all else forces the individual to miss the entire point of the story altogether. No, I don't think so. A ship is still a ship, just as it was in John's time, except that now ships are being built top-heavy as hell.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 4, 2017 10:58:37 GMT
You do understand that the book of revelation is a prophetic vision conveyed in figurative language that makes heavy use of symbology instead of analogy don't you? No, I don't think so. A ship is still a ship, just as it was in John's time, except that now ships are being built top-heavy as hell. Tell you what Erjen, go get a clue first...then come back and tell everyone else what you "think". In the meantime, let me help you: What Is the Book of Revelation About?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 4, 2017 17:19:38 GMT
No, I don't think so. A ship is still a ship, just as it was in John's time, except that now ships are being built top-heavy as hell. Tell you what Erjen, go get a clue first...then come back and tell everyone else what you "think". In the meantime, let me help you: What Is the Book of Revelation About?Cap'n, I'd like to ask you something. Which events from the Revelation, if any, do you believe have NOT occurred already? Any at all?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 18:04:23 GMT
No, I don't think so. A ship is still a ship, just as it was in John's time, except that now ships are being built top-heavy as hell.No, they aren't. If you don't wanna read my posts regarding this read it on the interwebz.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 4, 2017 22:01:52 GMT
Cap'n, I'd like to ask you something. Which events from the Revelation, if any, do you believe have NOT occurred already? Any at all? Reading it in a purely literal sense, I don't believe that ANY of the events of the Revelation have occurred, nor will they ever occur. But I don't see how my belief is relevant here because we are talking about how the author intended readers to interpret the story. Whatever you end up believing after you've put all of that into context is fine (whether I agree with it or not). But if you're belief is based on what is nearly universally agreed upon as a faulty interpretation and inaccurate application of John's testimony, then you don't even have the benefit of a logical backing for your beliefs. Why do you ask?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 5, 2017 5:07:18 GMT
Cap'n, I'd like to ask you something. Which events from the Revelation, if any, do you believe have NOT occurred already? Any at all? Reading it in a purely literal sense, I don't believe that ANY of the events of the Revelation have occurred, nor will they ever occur. But I don't see how my belief is relevant here because we are talking about how the author intended readers to interpret the story. Whatever you end up believing after you've put all of that into context is fine (whether I agree with it or not). But if you're belief is based on what is nearly universally agreed upon as a faulty interpretation and inaccurate application of John's testimony, then you don't even have the benefit of a logical backing for your beliefs. Why do you ask? Because I'm curious to know how your mind became so messed up.
|
|