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

#461 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 March 2015 - 08:21 AM

Please note that page 23 of this thread somehow was clobbered. I'm going to see if Invision can retrieve it, this may take a few days at least.

 

Fred

Yeah, I noticed there has been a problem getting to this thread for the last couple days or so.



#462 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 March 2015 - 09:29 AM

Pi, maybe you and I should be concerned that in 3 days, no one else seemed to notice!



#463 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 11 March 2015 - 09:36 AM

Pi, maybe you and I should be concerned that in 3 days, no one else seemed to notice!

 

biggrin.png The only reason I didn't notice is because I've been following the thread via e-mail notifications.



#464 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 08 April 2015 - 05:25 PM

Page 23 fixed. Just like in the Cratering thread, it was some extra characters in the hyperlink that was causing the page to crash. I had to delete Indydave's post. Here is the post I deleted:
 

I finally found the calc...it was on a FOURTH thread we used...but then abandoned. This (below) was on topic # 6205, post #60. I just reread and noticed that my calc used 15% for impacting objects rather than what I first estimated...30%. I apologize for not remembering that as I've discussed since then. If we need to double the temp I got, then fine. That means less heat goes into the upper atm anyway. If Pi has a problem with 15% then I'll change it to 30% (and then I'll use 70% instead of 85% for energy going into the upper atm). PLEASE remember that by using 1% I have accepted a number that is 77 TIMES MORE than my actual estimate of .013% which falls back.



=====



I have argued that the right amount of mass falling back is .013%, if there was a single quick shutoff (which Brown affirms). My number was 15 minutes (.026% of 40 days) average shutoff time for each of the chasms. That would mean if the launch period was 40 days and the speed of launch began at 2x EV, so half still is fast enough to escape, then the mass falling back would be .013%. Pi has said 50% (actually it is 100% of what was launched). Then he sometimes uses 10%...claiming that still is enough to be lethal.



I am going to use 1% for now...which is far more than I say and far less than Pi says. (I haven't yet done the calc, so I don't know if that amount will hurt or help my view). I am for now going to assume that ALL the heat energy of material that gets fully decelerated in the upper atm (to 200mph...terminal velocity) is either reflected away to space or if the heat enters the atm, then that heat is radiated away fast enough (immediately or over weeks w/o it affecting the ark due to clouds blocking that heat as well as the sun's heat). We can argue this part separately. Let's for now just see if the impacting objects are enough to make it lethal. If 1% isn't...then we can figure what % WOULD be.



We need to get some % for the larger objects that keep all their speed. If they DO heat up and ablate, then they would lose some, maybe A LOT of their speed AND mass. But the largest ones would not get slowed down much at all. In my previous statements here I've guessed that the large objects (all rocks) would be about 30%...with 100% of the water being molecule-size and about half the rocky stuff also being small enough to be decelerated fully in the upper atm. I have some doubts now about that estimate because I failed to think about how many of the larger objects would tend to burst into smaller pieces which would rapidly decelerate with the heat staying in the upper atm. The Chelyabinsk meteor (20 meters diameter) lost pretty much all its speed before impacting because it blew into tiny pieces. If all the "large" chunks were that size (which is HUGE really, the largest ever seen...far larger than the "Goosebumps" on 67Pk, which are 3 meters) and came in at the same angle, then there would be NO impact energy left. So I'm not sure 30% remaining "large" is fair. I will now say that the larger impacting objects would be 15% and see what the result is. So the question is whether the energy of .15% (1% x .15) of the mass falling at 5.6km/sec is enough to heat the ocean by 30C to 45C (113F). I used that as the max avg temp the ocean could be to be survivable if the ark were at the higher latitudes where it could be more like 25C (77F). This page (the site wouldn't show the link) shows the temp near the poles to be -2C...with the average at 17C...so 20C difference at higher latitudes is fair.



Pi said (page 1 of "Brimstone") if 100% fell back, that would be 2.74e21 * 5600 * 5600 / 2 = 4.29e28 joules. If it was really only .15% then that is 6.44e25 joules. Pi said: "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." (This does NOT include heat of evaporation...just raising it TO boiling). To bring the ocean up from 15C to 45C is .3 times that number. I would say that amount would make the ocean unsurvivable. So that is 1.62e26 Joules. The figure I got above is 6.44e25 joules, which is 40% of the amount which would increase the ocean temp by 30C. So it would increase it instead by 12C. So that is survivable. We could multiply the amount of mass impacting 2.5 times and it still would be survivable without considering ANY other cooling factors. So if more than 2.5% falls back (with 15% of that impacting at full speed) I would agree that is not survivable without other cooling. But there would be 2 other factors to consider, IMO, like ice caps as "sinks" and lost solar radiation. I know that Brown says there were no ice caps, but he gives no reason for saying that. I think it is fairer to assume there were ice caps since there's no reason to think climate before the Flood would have been much different...unless you see evidence from fossils and say the whole world was tropical...which could be right I guess. But assuming there WERE ice caps, then using Pi's #s, each kg of ice at -20C would take 1 x * 2030 * 20 + 334,000 or 3.75e5 joules to bring to just above freezing. If the ice were (say) 10% the mass of the ocean (which is 1.36e21kg), then 1.36e20 x 3.75e5 = 5.1e25. That number is 79% of the figure I got above (6.44e25 Joules), meaning after after melting ice there would be 21% of the joules computed above left to heat the ocean. That means the ocean would go up not by 12C but by only 2.5C. To be totally fair we also need to subtract all the heat from the sun...since the clouds would block all of the sun's heat from hitting the surface. This page shows that about half of the Sun's energ y (179 PW) ...or 89PW...presently is absorbed by the surface, heating it. This page
 

http://en.wikipedia....rg/wiki/Albedo
 
says that if Earth lost all its solar energy because it was frozen (albedo would reflect almost 100%) then the temp would go from 15C to -40C...a drop of 55C. That would MASSIVELY affect this calc. In fact if we include this loss of solar radiation during the Flood year due to clouds, that means there could be 2.83 times more mass which falls back than what I computed including ice melting...see below.



I realize we would need to argue out whether the assumptions above are fair. My own estimate of the mass falling back is far less than 1%...77 TIMES less. IMO with my assumptions, the mass could be 2.5% instead of 1% and still be survivable w/o considering ice caps or solar loss. If you include ice caps melting, that number would be 12% instead of 1% (i.e. 88% efficiency of launching). If you include also loss of solar radiation, that takes the number to (2.83 x 12%) 34% which is a 66% efficiency of launching...without being lethal. I would also need to show that the heat of deceleration for smaller objects (85% of what falls back) would be either reflected or radiated away w/o adding any heat to the ocean or atm...or at least not enough to become lethal. I think I can do that.



=====

I also later suggested the "sinks" of the continents and ocean floor that would add some cooling effects also. But I didn't try to estimate that.

 


The wikipedia link was the culprit. For some reason it was throwing an extra %A0 in the hyperlink itself, which was throwing the forum for a loop. Indydave, what platform are you posting from? A desktop computer? An iphone? What browser?

Thanks.



#465 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 08 April 2015 - 10:01 PM

Page 23 fixed. Just like in the Cratering thread, it was some extra characters in the hyperlink that was causing the page to crash. I had to delete Indydave's post. Here is the post I deleted:

Thanks for the follow-up and fix, BD.



#466 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 08 April 2015 - 10:24 PM

>>

The wikipedia link was the culprit. For some reason it was throwing an extra %A0 in the hyperlink itself, which was throwing the forum for a loop. Indydave, what platform are you posting from? A desktop computer? An iphone? What browser?

Thanks.>>

I use a PC.  If I recall, you said the problem was a different link in "Craters-Earth."  I think it was from Brown's website, not wiki.  As I recall this happened (maybe both times) when I pressed "post" and then it locked up.  If there is something I can do different, let me know.  Good job BD for figuring it out!







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