Jump to content


Photo

A Rain Of Fire And Brimstone From Brown

flood hydroplate brown asteroid meteor comet noah

  • Please log in to reply
465 replies to this topic

#21 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 13 November 2013 - 03:06 PM

One more point for now...if the stuff falling back is super-cold ice (as Pi allows) then some of the energy from falling could heat the ice from -273dC to about 25dC.  That is 2030 x 273 plus 4184 x 25.  or 6.59e5 joules per kg.  That is enough to cool 154 kg of water by 1 degree.  If the mass of water on earth is 1.36e21 kg and the mass of stuff falling back is about 1/2000th of what is launched, and the amount launched is 2.74e21 kg...then you have a cooling effect of about .15dC per kg of water in the ocean...to offset the less than 5dC (my rough estimate, I did not do the calc) of heating. 


#22 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 13 November 2013 - 05:47 PM

I wrote:  The end effect is that the ratio of launched/falling back material could be very very low. 

 

I got that backward of course.  It should say "...the ratio of falling back/launched material could be very very low. "

 

I'd like to also point out that my "quick shut off" point used an assumption that the last hour of jetting would be at exactly the same rate as all the other hours in the prior 40 day period.  It is more likely of course that there would be a "half bell curve" (perhaps with a steep curve downward at the end) where in the first hour there is an instant blast to maximum velocity and maximum mass of material being shot upward but then after 40 days might lessen during the hour or hours before shut off.  That means my 1/1920th estimate is probably high.  It might be hours or even days of shutting off, and the mass during shut-off may still be less than 1/2000th of what was launched. 

 

I'd also like to point out that a very large part of the estimate of mass is from WB's assumption that ALL asteroids originated from Earth during the flood event.  If I am not mistaken this was not a part of the original hydroplate theory (HT).  I think it is fair to say that even if it is true that not ALL asteroids came from the Flood, or even if none did, his model may still be very worthy to consider for most of the other effects he describes.  If you figure, for instance, that 50% of the asteroids came from the Flood, that has a massive effect on the calc for how much may have fallen back.  If you only consider comets, it is vastly less stuff falling back.  Another point is that the falling back could have taken a year, 10 years, or even a hundred years to complete (as stuff in orbit but not beyond escape velocity gradually decays the orbit and finally hits the Earth)...which would mean there would be time to radiate away some of the heat or sink it into the crust. 



#23 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 13 November 2013 - 11:53 PM

Thanks for your valuable input Dave! smile.png  I remember a debate some year or so ago concerning fossils found on the moon where a creationist suggested that they were shot there from the earth during the flood. The evolutionist side, in particular thunderf00t, mocked the idea saying that it was ridiculous to believe that material from the earth would be able to hit a target as distant as the moon. I wouldn't know how likely that would be, but only a month or so ago I read in the Swedish press that fossils were also found on a meteorite. This of course was used as evidence that life most likely originated in space. Isn't it a bit funny that they believe that material shot from the earth could not hit the moon, and yet don't have any problem believing that meteorites that come from some kind of life-bearing planet probably millions of light years away could find its way here?



#24 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:45 AM

I'm hoping to hear more on all of this. It may be that someone who is in Dr. Brown's camp could agree to the written debate. I would imagine that if Dr. Brown was unable to do any more communications due to health or infirmity, there would be others with a sufficiently capable grasp of the material to do it justice.

I have difficulty imagining such a debate would work well on the phone. Calculations seem to be key.

Looking forward to the various responses in this thread. Thank you.

#25 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 14 November 2013 - 02:41 AM

Replying to Piasan:    I am David Willis of Indpls.  I have been replying directly to Pi (Geno) on this topic for about 5 years,

 

First a welcome to David, my friendly adversary of some years.  When I told him about this group I was hoping he would show up here.

 

Next, I would like to thank David for his (private) correction of my comment that Brown's on-line book no longer has a search function.  From the start of my discussions with Dave, "In the Beginning" had a search function in the top right corner.  About a year or so ago, that disappeared.  Today, David advised me that Brown still has the search  function but it is now located (only(?)) at the bottom left corner of his Index page.  The search capability is an essential tool when doing research.  I tell my students they can do more GOOD research in 10 minutes on the internet than I could in a month in the library.

 

Finally, an apology if I can't keep up with all the traffic at the moment.  I had surgery Tuesday morning and while it was a fairly minor procedure, I won't be picking anything up for the next six weeks or so.  Needless to say, I've been sleeping a lot the last couple days.

 

 

most of his calculations are wrong because they are based on his having a very poor understanding of Brown's theory.  Better understanding than most, but still in many instances, very poor.  Geno takes Brown's "inefficiency" term and then he decides for himself how much that term means...i.e. how much material falls back to Earth...first suggesting 50%, then 90% and then 99%, all of which are purely arbitrary percentages.  A launching system could indeed send up millions or trillions more weight than what might fall back to earth...it all depends on what sort of launching system it is.  To take as a given the type of "inefficiencies" we may see in internal combustion engines or rockets...and then say (as Pi has said in the past, as I recall) that must be similar (or even on the order of 1/1000th of those) to Brown's launch system, is capricious and misleading. 

 

I've never said the 10% number is anything but arbitrary.  I guess it depends on where one defines the launch mechanism as "inefficient."  In this case, My suggestion is that 90% is pretty efficient.  Your claim that millions of times more might go up than comes down is something like 99.9999%  I submit that's just a bit above "inefficient."

 

Also, keep in mind, 90% is enough energy to boil all the water on the planet.  I think we can agree life would cease to exist a long time before that.  This stuff is going to heat up as steam as it returns.  It would then have to condense back to liquid releasing tons of energy.  The latent heat of condensation of enough water to cover the Earth to a depth of just one meter (less than 40 inches) will heat the atmosphere by 240C.  BTW, anything hitting the water isn't going to help.  It slows down by friction one way or another.  That converts kinetic energy to heat energy.  We do it every time we stop our cars.

 

 

The amount of material falling back would be minimal due to the energies Brown has postulated.  As the launch phase began, there would be an instant blasting away of a part of the atmosphere with a "training" effect where there is hardly any contact at all with the edges of the atm during the 1-2 seconds or less the jetting water-rock mixture would take to ascend above the atm.  During the launching phase, there would be no heating at all.  Even Piasan has conceded this. 

 

It has always been my position that any energy transfered during launch would be insignificant due to the short time interval.  Besides, what little there would be is already included in the total energy budget.

 

 

 Only when the launching ends would any amounts fall back, and that would depend on how quickly the "faucet gets shut off."  It could be very fast indeed for several reasons.  The main two are 1) that once the SWC's pressure & heat drops below a certain point, then all the launch capability is GONE.  Brown does not propose STEAM pressure as being the main force.  The forces and velocities are dramatically higher than mere steam release can produce.  (Yet Piasan still refers to it as merely a "steam explosion", indicating his poor understand of what Brown proposes)  Also, 2) there would be a point when the pressure of the SWC (subterranean water chamber) near the openings would fall to a point where the weight of the overlying granite crust could no longer be supported, and the mouth would close off suddenly, cutting off the jets.  Indeed, at about the same time, the ocean above would complete the shutting off of the jets as it fell into the 10 mile deep chasm and closed off all upward jetting with the weight of about a mile depth of ocean. 

 

How silly of me to call the sudden release of pressure and flash expansion of water stored at over 700F a "steam explosion."  I guess you have another name for it.

 

Material that fails to reach escape velocity will begin to fall back immediately.  Keep in mind, some significant fraction of it will have velocities less than 18,000 mph orbital velocity.

 

You use the "fire-hose" analogy.  OK.  Aim a fire hose at a wall and turn it on.  Do you see a near perfect spray or a lot of splatter?

 

 

 

The end effect is that the ratio of launched/falling back material could be very very low.  If the launching phase was 40 days and the shutting off period was 1 hour, during which half of the material got launched and half fell back...and BTW was very very cold...then you have about 1/1920 (.00052) of the weight of what was launched which falls back.  If one assumes 100% of all asteroids, comets and irregular moons were launched from Earth that is (acc. to Brown) about 2.8 e24 g.  (http://www.creations...calNotes19.html)  (I think Pi agrees since he used 2.74 e21 kg in his calc.)

 

Gee, David, I allow for it to cool to absolute zero.  How much more cooling do you want?  Also, if only 0.00052 of the weight launched falls back, that would be an efficiency of 99.948%.  In what way would that be inefficient?  Do you think a fire hose can shoot 100,000 gallons of water and have only 52 gallons go astray?

 

 

In his calc above Pi says that if 10% fell back (I think his exact estimate is 8.46%), it would still be enough to "boil all the water on the planet."  This comment neglects how much heat would be used to heat continents, the atm, or any ice on the surface OR in the stuff falling back.  However, my "quick shut off" estimate above has only .00052 (.052%) which falls back.  That is far below the amount Pi says is needed to boil all the water.  Since the amount that falls back is about 1/2000th rather than the 1/10th, then there is 1/200th the energy Pi says is the minimum to boil all the water on Earth once.  I haven't calculated it but I am guessing that would raise the temp of the water (or ice, since Pi starts with all the water at 0dC) by about 5dC...maybe less. EVEN if you completely ignore other factors which would moderate the heating effect. 

 

Come on, David.  One in 2,000.  That's 99.95%  Show me an example of any "inefficient" process working at that level.  Heating the atmosphere is the actual problem.  The continents have a lower specific heat and will heat faster than water.  Brown's model doesn't have any polar ice caps.



#26 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 14 November 2013 - 03:34 AM

Hey Geno, thanks for responding and for the offer that if "any of those issues are unreasonable or groundless, please let me know..." Even with your concerns, I think if we press through this we can get a phone conversation between you and Walt Brown scheduled.

 

Please consider that he's the source, and you're the challenger. Walt is approaching 80 years old, and has a lot more research and writing that he hopes to accomplish, including getting out the major update of his book, the 9th edition (available now in draft as a pdf at rsr.org/9th-edition and online at creationscience.com). A written debate takes far more time and effort than a phone conversation. Your offer to debate Walt is directed at Walt Brown, that is, at one person. His offers for phone and written debates are open to the world, that is, to countless people. So, for direct interaction between you guys to happen, you would have to be a bit gutsy, and agree to the phone debate; and however it goes, I doubt it will kill you smile.png, and if you are mistreated, which I highly doubt would happen, you and others could point that out.

 

You have declined Dr. Brown's general offer to debate anyone (including you) because:

 

Geno, I'm not saying that they're unreasonable. I am saying that they prevent you from having a conversation with Walt that might prove helpful. We're not at the U.N. here trying to avoid nuclear war. You're just challenging a theory on some technical grounds.

 

Please let me know if you will talk to Walt. Thanks piasano!

 

-Bob Enyart

rsr.org

 

Thanks for your input, Bob.  Before we discuss things any further, I have an important question.  I have been asked if it was true I was going to debate Walt Brown on your show. 

 

Is there something I should know?



#27 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 14 November 2013 - 04:04 AM

I'm hoping to hear more on all of this. It may be that someone who is in Dr. Brown's camp could agree to the written debate. I would imagine that if Dr. Brown was unable to do any more communications due to health or infirmity, there would be others with a sufficiently capable grasp of the material to do it justice.

I have difficulty imagining such a debate would work well on the phone. Calculations seem to be key.

Looking forward to the various responses in this thread. Thank you.

 

I have suggested as much to Dr. Hurlbut who writes two blogs and holds an engineering degree.  He has never accepted my invitation.  I may be willing to take on Bob and his whole technical staff if we can work it out.  I'm even willing to take on Brown if we can agree to the terms and conditions.

 

 

Alternatively he one could make a program with each of them. First the challenger and then Walt Brown. 

 

If I were sure the discussion would be limited to my issue .... survivability ..... I could be persuaded to engage in a verbal debate.  As far as I know, Brown wants to include things like frozen mammoths; radioacitivity; limestone; the grand canyon; and a host of others.  That has become a sticking point as he wants the right to raise "related" matters but will not disclose which matters those are.  An example of what I would see as a valid related matter would be his "rocket science" claim, but not anything about any of the others.  At this point, I have no reason to expect the subject will be restricted to matters related to my claims.

 

 

I think Bob put it well, in that a verbal debate would allow for an introduction into the arguments and then if it seems there is more to it then it can be dealt with in a more technical method.

 

Geno perhaps consider this. After all this time you've asked for a debate, and Brown will give you a verbal one, that isn't good enough for you, yet if you don't accept then you won't get either... As they say "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

 

Actually, it was Dr. Brown who suggested I contact him in a conversation he had with David Willis (IndyDave).  It was at the urging of Dave that I initially contacted Dr. Brown.  It has also been my position since my first contact with Dr. Brown that a written debate was the way to conduct the discussion.  I have always said I will debate Dr. Brown on a fair and level playing field. 

 

Dr. Brown says I do not qualify for a written debate because I lack a PhD.  

 

Dr. Brown's terms and conditions are anything but that and, so far as I can tell, are non-negotiable.  I know of no debate format in which one party can be disqualified but not the other.  He has never disclosed the "related" items he wants to include.  Who would agree to a debate in which he could be disqualified for not having done his "homework" on unrelated and/or undisclosed subjects?



#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 November 2013 - 05:37 AM

Actually, it was Dr. Brown who suggested I contact him in a conversation he had with David Willis (IndyDave).  It was at the urging of Dave that I initially contacted Dr. Brown.  It has also been my position since my first contact with Dr. Brown that a written debate was the way to conduct the discussion.  I have always said I will debate Dr. Brown on a fair and level playing field. 

 

Dr. Brown says I do not qualify for a written debate because I lack a PhD.  

 

Dr. Brown's terms and conditions are anything but that and, so far as I can tell, are non-negotiable.  I know of no debate format in which one party can be disqualified but not the other.  He has never disclosed the "related" items he wants to include.  Who would agree to a debate in which he could be disqualified for not having done his "homework" on unrelated and/or undisclosed subjects?

 

I'd very much like to see the evidence for these claims. Just like how I asked how you can accuse Dr Brown of claiming

 

"He claims I don't understand refrigeration.  Well, I do.  There's a reason we don't cool our housesarrow-10x10.png with 700F water. "


"He seems to think I'm confusing thermal energy for kinetic energy.  I'm not."

 

When he never mentions your name... You cannot accuse people of saying you don't know something or are confused when they never even mention you or make those claims. Your reply to this was substandard in that you assumed that because Dr Brown wrote an article after you picked at some issues that somehow means he is claiming these things against you, perhaps it was something other skeptics have pointed out and he wanted to address them, perhaps it was something he found himself. perhaps it  was due to your pickings however even if this was the case he never mentioned your name so he wasn't saying anything about you.

 

Therefore this was a false accusation on your part.

 

Did you ask him about the undisclosed topics, what was his response? I read atheists / evolutionists on atheist / evolutionist sites discuss their interactions with myself and what they claim is VERY different to what actually transpires here, (I guess to save face), therefore with this knowledge in mind and knowing how you made false accusations before, I am somewhat skeptical of your implications of dishonest conduct.



#29 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 14 November 2013 - 08:27 AM

Another interesting issue in this discussion is the fact that the craters on the "light" side of the moon seemed to display larger basins than those on the dark side, which doesn't seem to be what evolutionists expected to see. The explanation presented in the following article however was that:

 

"basins do not accurately reflect the size of the initial impact, because as asteroids battered the lunar surface in the early history of the Solar System, the Moon's warmer and softer nearside crust melted like butter, producing giant lava flows that filled the impact craters and transformed them into basins."

 

http://www.nature.co...craters-1.14106

 

According to the article the "latest study" suggests these things, without giving any references to what those studies were based on. All I can see here is an animation. So my question is: what evidence do we have that the surface of the moon was warmer during the early history of the Solar System than it is now?



#30 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 14 November 2013 - 10:44 AM

Just wondering...is there anyone on this site who would describe themselves as a truly inquisitive agnostic, rather than being one who is primarily an advocate of the atheist view?  I've been hoping someday to meet an agnostic who would welcome evidence of the existence of God and the truth of the Bible, but so far I can't think of many. 



#31 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 14 November 2013 - 11:22 AM

I'd very much like to see the evidence for these claims. Just like how I asked how you can accuse Dr Brown of claiming

 

That is, of course, with reference to my claim that Dr. Brown suggested I contact him in a telephone conversation with David Willis.  Well, David is here you can ask him.  Also, David posted that phone conversation on-line, it may still be available.

 

 

Just like how I asked how you can accuse Dr Brown of claiming

 

"He claims I don't understand refrigeration.  Well, I do.  There's a reason we don't cool our housesarrow-10x10.png with 700F water. "


"He seems to think I'm confusing thermal energy for kinetic energy.  I'm not."

 

When he never mentions your name... You cannot accuse people of saying you don't know something or are confused when they never even mention you or make those claims. Your reply to this was substandard in that you assumed that because Dr Brown wrote an article after you picked at some issues that somehow means he is claiming these things against you, perhaps it was something other skeptics have pointed out and he wanted to address them, perhaps it was something he found himself. perhaps it  was due to your pickings however even if this was the case he never mentioned your name so he wasn't saying anything about you.

 

Therefore this was a false accusation on your part.

 

Why would it be necessary for me to be mentioned by name?  How about the message from Dr. Brown posted in this forum where he does say I don't know what I'm talking about.... by name?  In that message, Brown goes on to discuss the refrigeration aspects of an expanding fluid.  There are also references in Terry Hurlbut's blogs also cited by me that indicate much the same thing.

 

If I were to mention a leading creationist who had a now defunct theme park in Florida would you be able to tell who I'm talking about without me mentioning his name?  If I then went on to discuss some aspects of that theme park without mentioning it by name would you be able to tell what I'm talking about?  Your requirement Dr. Brown mention me by name is a bit extreme.

 

That said, I've already pointed out you are free to connect the dots and come to your own conclusion.

 

 

Did you ask him about the undisclosed topics, what was his response?

 

Dr. Brown is fully aware of my issue with the undisclosed topics.  It has been specifically mentioned several times in both direct and indirect communication with him.  His response has been to ignore the issue. 

 

 

You cannot accuse people of saying you don't know something or are confused when they never even mention you or make those I read atheists / evolutionists on atheist / evolutionist sites discuss their interactions with myself and what they claim is VERY different to what actually transpires here, (I guess to save face), therefore with this knowledge in mind and knowing how you made false accusations before, I am somewhat skeptical of your implications of dishonest conduct.

 

There is more than enough distrust on both sides to go around.  My desire for assurance that the topics will be restricted to those relevant to my claims is not an accusation of dishonest conduct by Brown.  In other discussions, I've made it clear I am not saying Dr. Brown would engage in the "Gish Gallop."  But, given comments by both Brown and some of his supporters, a cautious approach is only prudent.

 

I've been on the receiving end of the situation you describe from both Dr. Brown and his supporters so, as I see it, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.



#32 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 14 November 2013 - 11:27 AM

Just wondering...is there anyone on this site who would describe themselves as a truly inquisitive agnostic, rather than being one who is primarily an advocate of the atheist view?  I've been hoping someday to meet an agnostic who would welcome evidence of the existence of God and the truth of the Bible, but so far I can't think of many. 

 

David, one of the reasons I thought you'd like this forum is the wide variety of topics.  I suggest you work your way up to the home page.  There may be some discussions along the line of the one you're seeking already in progress or you can find the proper section and start your own.

 

Happy hunting.  smile.png



#33 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 14 November 2013 - 11:32 AM

Pi: >>

I've never said the 10% number is anything but arbitrary.  I guess it depends on where one defines the launch mechanism as "inefficient.">>

 

Exactly...so stop expecting us to accept your arbitrary definition.

 

>>  In this case, My suggestion is that 90% is pretty efficient.  >>

 

Not in my opinion.

 

>>Your claim that millions of times more might go up than comes down is something like 99.9999%  I submit that's just a bit above "inefficient.">>

 

I think we could envision many examples of more efficiency than that.  If you had a one-stage rocket that went into space (not dropping off stages to hit the ocean) and sent back a tiny capsule on purpose or if perhaps accidentally a bolt fell off during the launch...in terms of weight you could have a 1/million ratio.  If someone said the bolt falling off was an inefficiency, then who cares?  Could someone try to make some hay with that?  Maybe...but I would hope not. 


For now, I guess what is or isn't "efficient" is about all that matters for us to discuss...i.e. whether your arbitrary 90% number is "generous" (as you imply) or "stingy".  We are NOT talking about types of engines or fire hoses (which has not been mentioned by me on this site) splattering on fences.  We have already agreed that the heat transfer to the atm during launching is negligible.  ALL we need to focus on is whether the process of "shutting off" could be done quickly enough so that that period of time is very short compared to the time of launching.  That's IT.  If you had 100% efficiency of launching (i.e. nothing falls back) and you launched for 2 hours and it took an hour to shut off (with some falling back during that hour)...not too efficient.  If you had a million hours of launching and one hour to shut off...VERY efficient.  I suggested the HT could have 960 hours launching (40 days) and one hour of shutting off with half of the stuff that goes up in that hour falling back.  That is where the 1/1920 number came from.  You can call it very efficient if you like, and disagree with Brown for using the term "inefficient."  Maybe you can convince him to edit that out in the next edition.  But quibbling on that term is not sufficient to dismantle his HT. 

 

 

If you will examine WB's quote where he used the term, I believe he is simply implying that some of the energy created in the SWC does not convert fully to kinetic...that's about it.  Having some of the generated heat remaining inside the SWC or perhaps being used to cause radioactivity and rapid radio decay could be part of what he meant by the term.  He merely wanted to validate that he had found a mechanism for generating plenty of energy to do all the launching and then some.  Here is his quote:

 

>>Perhaps ten times more energy than 1.7 × 1036 ergs was needed because (1) other mass was launched besides that in comets, asteroids, and irregular moons, (2) the launch mechanism was inefficient, and (3) some heat was held in the chamber’s ceiling and floor. Let’s assume that the total energy required was 1.7 × 1037 ergs.>>

 

Actually you have already agreed I think that the launch phase WAS very efficient as far as not putting heat into the atm...so you really have no basis of quibble with what WB wrote!

 

(I'll probably reply to more of your post later.)



#34 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 14 November 2013 - 04:16 PM

Another point to make is that the shutting off could happen around the globe at different times over the course of (say) a week or two.  If it still adds up to the equivalent of it shutting off all at once during one hour...then my point still stands.  It may be hard to imagine it all shutting off at the same moment...but my point here is that it doesn't have to.  If 10% of the globe shuts off the first hour then an hour later another 10% shuts off and it takes 10 hours to finish...it is still the same calculation. 



#35 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 14 November 2013 - 04:26 PM

Also, if the shut off is not complete, but it is complete enough to prevent stuff being shot into space to then fall back...that is fine.  In fact, I'd say the model REQUIRES that after the launch phase there would be a lot of volume of water that upwells into the pre-flood seas, so the closing off of the "valve" (mouth of the SWC at the bottom of the cracks) would have to still allow water to be expelled...but not at launch velocities.  This would not be a heat problem either...although I doubt that Pi will agree.  He claims he understands refrigeration principles...I think he doesn't.  His comment about 700F water proves it.  I could maybe sound convincing also if I said you can't freeze a person's hand with a can of 95F freon under pressure of 100psi by releasing it to expand and evaporate.  But I would be wrong to say that. 



#36 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 14 November 2013 - 06:12 PM

To Pi:  Since you brought up the fire hose analogy I used on another list...how about answering this: Can you picture a fire hose that is shooting water in a vacuum (so there is no friction with the air) over a fence so that it is filling up a giant swimming pool, and you run that thing for 40 days and then shut it off quickly...that there might be a million times more water over the fence than what might get onto the yard in front of the fence when it is shut off?  Is that a plausible scenario or not...if you rule out the friction with air?

 

Yes or no?  Please be upstanding and give a yes or no and then explain if you want. 

 

Remember all, I need to refute your "fire and brimstone" view is about 2000 times more.  And 1000 times might do it too, with something like only a 10dC rise in ocean temp.  (I'll show you the calc if you need me to.  It was 1/200th the energy of your "boil it once" calc).  And that counts ALL the asteroids in the mass...which the first HT (I call it HT1 or HTa) did not include. 



#37 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 14 November 2013 - 06:35 PM

I think I found an error in Pi's original computation...maybe he will agree or maybe not.  He wrote:

 

>>Mass of water on Earth   1.36e21 kg
Mass of material sent to space according to Brown      2.74e21 kg
Specific heat of ice      2030 j/kg
Specific heat of water    4184 j/kg
Specific heat of steam    1860 j/kg
Latent heat of melting/freezing     334,000 j/kg
Latent heat of condensation/evaporation     2.5e6  j/kg
Velocity of material that did not escape Earth's gravity  (average)    5.6 km/sec
Boltzmann constant =      5.67e-8


########
Claim...the energy of re-entry will boil all the water on Earth 10  times.....
According to the Law of Conservation of Energy, energy cannot be  created or destroyed.  However, we can (and do) change kinetic energy to  heat energy all the time.  It's done by friction.  The material the  does not escape Earth's
gravitational field will return with a HUGE amount of  kinetic energy.  That energy will be transmitted to the atmosphere on  re-entry or to the surface by impact.

Amount of energy to raise all the water on Earth from freezing and  boil it.....
Multiply the mass of the oceans times the specific heat of water times the number of degrees (C or K) temperature change.  That would be 1.36e21  * 4184 * 100 =  5.39e26 joules to bring all the water on Earth from  freezing to boiling.  Then multiply the mass of the water times the latent heat of  evaporation.  This is 1.36e21 * 2.5e6 = 3.4e27 joules.  Adding the two gives us 3.97e27 joules of energy needed to bring all the water on Earth from freezing and boil it.>>

 

 

 

To be precise if the water was frozen at 31.999F before you can raise it to 32.0001F you must add the latent heat of melting.  I don't think that was done in his calc.  So if I figure it right, he needs to add an additional 3.34e5 per kg that must be used to get the frozen kg of water to boil.  About a 13.36% error, as I figure it.  Is this right, Pi?



#38 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 14 November 2013 - 11:57 PM

Bob,

To be honest and blunt.....

 

There is no point in me contacting Dr. Brown at this time.  Given his public comments in Terry Hurlbut's blogs here: http://www.conservat...bate-challenge/

and here: http://www.examiner....geno-castagnoli as well as our private correspondance, it is clear his terms and conditions are non-negotiable.  From my perspective, his demands are unacceptable for reasons I have already explained.

 

Dr. Brown has a counter proposal from me and never responded to it.  The ball is in his court. 

 

It is clear he thinks I'm "ducking" a debate with him.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  But I do expect a fair and level playing field which involves more than we just get equal time.  Until fairly recently, I had never taken a position that he was ducking debates and my comment about our exchanges was always that we were unable to come to terms.  Honestly, I'm not even sure we agreed on the subject of the debate, let alone the rules. 

 

Besides, as you point out, Dr. Brown has his priorities.  Terry Hurlbut once asked what right I thought I had to make of Dr. Brown's time.  The answer is that I have no right to any of his time at all.  It's his time and it is limited and he does have his priorities.

 

Given the current situation and some of the exchanges we've had, I have no reason to believe he would accept my call nor do I have any expectation we could come to an agreement about a debate.  I remain willing to negotiate but, as I said, the ball is in Dr. Brown's court.

 

With regard to Dr. Brown's written debate offer, if you read the proposal, it is focused on a profitable book on evolution vs. creation rather than a scientific defense of his claims.  While the verbal debates may be stimulating for public consumption, matters of science are settled in writing.  This allows time for research and fact checking   I can find no evidence Dr. Brown, in more than a third of a century, has entered into a written defense of his model. 

 

Now, after all that, I remain ready, willing, and able to defend my claims against all comers including Dr. Walt Brown.  If you wish, we can negotiate a discussion of my claims with the Brown advocate of your choice.  I am sending you a message with my contact information.



#39 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2013 - 02:10 AM

That is, of course, with reference to my claim that Dr. Brown suggested I contact him in a telephone conversation with David Willis.  Well, David is here you can ask him.  Also, David posted that phone conversation on-line, it may still be available.

 

So did Dr Brown say that you are confused and don't understand refrigeration? If not then this is not evidence of these accusations you are making.

 

Why would it be necessary for me to be mentioned by name?  How about the message from Dr. Brown posted in this forum where he does say I don't know what I'm talking about.... by name?  In that message, Brown goes on to discuss the refrigeration aspects of an expanding fluid.  There are also references in Terry Hurlbut's blogs also cited by me that indicate much the same thing.

 

Yes it is necessary due to the accusation you are making... You are claiming he said X about you, if he doesn't mention your name whatsoever and is discussing his own theory then how in the world can you claim he is talking about you? (I'm sorry the world doesn't revolve around you).

 

If I were to mention a leading creationist who had a now defunct theme park in Florida would you be able to tell who I'm talking about without me mentioning his name?  If I then went on to discuss some aspects of that theme park without mentioning it by name would you be able to tell what I'm talking about?  Your requirement Dr. Brown mention me by name is a bit extreme.

 

Bad analogy. You gave the article and Dr Brown merely mentioned science, he made no implications about people the way you are doing here, therefore you are merely using your own imagination to try and imply a link when in reality there may well not be one. You can "connect the dots" however you wish, and if you think Dr Brown rectifying his own theory is a personal attack to you then that is great, just don't think that its a solid theory to base accusations on.

 

That said, I've already pointed out you are free to connect the dots and come to your own conclusion.


I can't since you've been saying he is doing all these things to you... there is no room for speculation. Perhaps if you said "imply" rather than make accusations on the drop of a hat THEN you would have something to stand on.

 

However, when you claim

 

"He said I"

 

then you are claiming he is talking about you... If he doesn't use your name and merely talks about the science you cannot accuse him of saying things about you. As I said his article may have been in response to some other critic.

 

Your attempts to dodge around this are telling.

 

 

Dr. Brown is fully aware of my issue with the undisclosed topics.  It has been specifically mentioned several times in both direct and indirect communication with him.  His response has been to ignore the issue. 

 

I admit that does send some alarm bells. Though I am sure I would be ignored by Dawkins if I were to pose my issues with evolution ;)

 

There is more than enough distrust on both sides to go around. 

Agreed :)



#40 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 15 November 2013 - 02:26 AM

Thanks for your valuable input Dave! smile.png  I remember a debate some year or so ago concerning fossils found on the moon where a creationist suggested that they were shot there from the earth during the flood. The evolutionist side, in particular thunderf00t, mocked the idea saying that it was ridiculous to believe that material from the earth would be able to hit a target as distant as the moon. I wouldn't know how likely that would be, but only a month or so ago I read in the Swedish press that fossils were also found on a meteorite. This of course was used as evidence that life most likely originated in space. Isn't it a bit funny that they believe that material shot from the earth could not hit the moon, and yet don't have any problem believing that meteorites that come from some kind of life-bearing planet probably millions of light years away could find its way here?

 

Yes, I saw maybe the same report...diatoms (hard parts of algae) inside a meteorite which came from a comet.  Very easy to fit into Brown's HT...but very hard to explain otherwise.  No way it was "contamination" because you can see how the diatom is EMBEDDED inside a slice from the meteorite. 

 

I'm pretty sure that Brown would say that a lot of the stuff that was launched w/o extreme velocity (like comets) could have been in orbit around Earth or in a stable sun orbit at 1 AU and could have easily been swept up by the Moon as it revolved around Earth for dozens or hundreds of years after the Flood.  Not so hard to imagine.  A while back I saw a pic (on NASA's site...no photoshop) from one of the rovers on Mars that looked for all the world (or all the Mars?) like a large hewn timber of wood.  Made me think...but probably it WASN'T hewn wood.   







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: flood, hydroplate, brown, asteroid, meteor, comet, noah

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users