Gravity works at the inverse square of distance, and a close-by mass exerts much more power than a far away one, and
the supposed water canopy was ABOVE the earth's surface , LESSENING gravity, or being gravitational neutral*, after the rains, all that mass is below the surface ADDING to the gravity.
That's really not even an argument you can pretend to begin to make without knowing how far away the canopy was, how dense it was, or how much water was already on the earth.
In other words, you don't have any basis for making that claim.
Gravity at the summit of Mt Everest would have been greater at the peak of the supposed flood than before or after. Where there was air before,or since, during the flood there was the more dense mass. 2500 times heavier than air at sea level pressure! ADDED to the normal gravity at that heights!
Greater where? Also, there was more mass, but less dense. Heavier isn't really a valid term in this sense. Also, all gravity is normal, there is no such thing as "abnormal" gravity.
The flood water mostly came from above the surface ( the supposed canopy) they added to the surface gravity no matter how high that surface was lifted.
Yeah, which has nothing to do with my comments but everything to do with yours. You're making claims about things you can't possibly know.
* it can be mathimatically shown that in a sphere, any outside shell is gravitational neutral, neither adds nor subtracts from the interior gravity, at the center it becomes Zero.
FANTASTIC! Show the math. I am incredibly curious to know how mass, a lot of it, is gravitationally neutral and won't affect anything near it. Besides, you inadverdently just destroyed your argument, the water would now be the shell and neutral, according to you.
besides: the heat energy released by the descent of 8km of water from great heights would have never caused a decrease in temperature. picture trillions of hoover dams powering heating coils.
The Hoover damn spins turbines. It's not even the same type of argument. You're so off, you're no even wrong.
Do your math physics before. to repeat: gravity at the top of mt everest was greater during the flood than before and after.
That doesn't even make sense. I would love to see that math.
.PS. The question was about atmospheric pressure , new heights would have reduced it by not more than .5 %. Massive heating from the gravitational contraction of the high (fictional) water canopy.
Only if you make up conditions about this water canopy. Go ahead. I'll wait.
In the meantime, the current gravitational acceletation for the surface of the earth is 9.8m/s^2 (including the water). The average density of the earth is 5.52g/cm^3. The average density of water is about 1 g/cm^3. The current volume of the earth is about 10.8e+12 m^3. Doing some quick work in Wolfram Alpha show that that to add enough volume to the earth to cover Mt. Everest would be a difference of about 4557e+12 m^3, almost as much mass as the Earth has, so therefore... hmmm, interesting. I'm wrong. By orders of magnitude.
I am wrong about the gravity. The orders of magnitude are completely off on the density of mass without a corresponding or greater increase in the radius.
So there you go, I am wrong, but not for the reasons you said. Math is a wonderful thing. It shows us the shell is NOT gravitationally neutral. Without some more modeling, we can't tell what the temperature would be, but, it won't be, as you said, .5% decrease. There would have been a massive, massive increase in air pressure.
