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

#41 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 November 2013 - 03:43 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. .....


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. 

 

The best efficiency I know of is 97-98% in a rocket engine.  They use nozzles that are carefully designed to maximize thrust; precision machined; and fine tuned during launch to optimize efficiency.  You suggest 99.95% with a horizontal blast of material at a fragmenting rock wall.  I think your expectations are a bit high.

 

I don't understand why you keep repeating the mantra about heat transfer during launch.  That is not, was not, and never has been an issue.  The issue isn't launch, it's the fall back.

 

 

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. 

 

I suggest you start with producing examples of things that operate with 99.95% efficiency.

 

 

 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. 

 

Nothing in nature operates at 100% efficiency.  Fine, I'll drop the references to Brown's comment on inefficiency.  Faulkner's findings work better anyway.  Besides aiming a stream of hypersonic material at a crumbling wall of rock is going to create a lot of splatter.  Reality is sufficient to dismantle the Hydroplate model.

 

 

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!

 

My "quibble" has nothing to do with the launch phase except as a source of material that will fall back to Earth.

 

 

 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. 

 

Refrigeration works by the evaporation of a liquid.  In doing so, the refrigerant absorbs energy from the surroundings.  The can of 95F freon will cool because freon has a boiling temperature of around -40F.  That means it will immediately boil until the surounding temperature is around -40F.  What's the boiling temperature of water?  There's a reason we don't cool buildings with 700F water.

 

 

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. 

 

No. 

 

First, Brown's model can not involve a vacuum as it must be transferring material to space.  Second:  In his rocket science page he uses a velocity of sound of 0.2 mi/sec inside his chamber to calculate the velocity of the material.  This is the speed of sound at one atmosphere pressure.  Sound cannot travel thru a vacuum.  Third, there will be friction with the air.  The high velocities claimed by Brown will create a low pressure region which will suck in air from the surrounding area.  Fourth:  Now, use the reality of the situation and shot that fire hose over the fence for 40 days filling up that swimming pool.  All the water on the ground between the hose and the pool is stuff that didn't make it.  Oh yeah... no fair polishing the nozzle of the fire hose it should reflect the shape and texture of the walls this material would be hitting.



#42 greg

greg

    Member

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

Posted 15 November 2013 - 08:36 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. 


*waves hand* That's why I'm here.

#43 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 November 2013 - 09:09 AM

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

......

Amount of energy to raise all the water on Earth from freezing and  boil it.....
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?

 

 It would be an error if I had said the water was frozen.  I didn't.  My calculation was for water at freezing temperature, not ice.  Brown clearly says there were no ice caps and the global average temperature of water is at least several degrees above freezing.  It's just another example of me allowing for more heat absorbtion than would actually need to take place.



#44 Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart

    RSF Co-host

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 15 November 2013 - 02:28 PM

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?


No Geno, there's nothing you need to know. My only suggestion has been that you accept Walt's generic phone offer, assuming you've read Part II of his book, and the relevant technical notes. As I recall, Walt says he likes the option of recording such conversations. If that happened, it might be fun to air. That's it.

 

On a related note, thanks for forwarding this idea, but no, we're not interested in what you've emailed: "I left a message on EFT, if you want we can see about a debate with the Brown advocate of your choice."

 

Last thing Geno. Above, you wrote that "Nick Lally, Director of the Creation Science Hall of Fame suggested any formal debate between Dr. Brown and I be held on either the CSHF website or Dr. Brown;s.  The offer was made on Dec. 22, 2012..." You go on with some detail about how that never came to pass and that perhaps Walt "killed" it. Seems like there was nothing to kill. I haven't asked Dr. Brown about that, but I'm sure that Nick was suggesting such a debate merely of his own initiative. It's not like Walt had agreed to violate his own long-standing debate offer, and then backed out. Do I have that right?

 

Again, thanks for your interest. And just fyi, I've said all I plan to about urging you to talk to Walt.

 

-Bob Enyart

Real Science Radio http://rsr.org



#45 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 November 2013 - 03:37 PM

*waves hand* That's why I'm here.

 

 

Cool.  That motivates me (and probably others) to spend time here.  Many other sites are monopolized as far as I can tell by only those who are not really open to being convinced of anything much.  Probably some would describe me that way too, but I still hope there are a few out there who are really searching for answers to some of these questions and would welcome scientific evidence that would help them toward one or the other view...rather than always staying agnostic and maybe unwilling EVER to take a stand.  And probably we should include the theistic ev. view too...since even if you conclude God exists, there still may be the question of whether ev could be true and questions about the Bible accounts.  IMO if ev IS true then the Bible (which presents the Flood as historical and global) is the fairytale.  That IMO is what Pi promotes, whether he admits to it or not.  He often is concerned that a YE view makes God out to be a deceiver, but people who read the Bible in a straightforward way (i.e. using a proper and fair hermeneutic) would conclude the Bible asserts there was a global flood that destroyed all land life (except what was inside the Ark). But Pi would say that is not true, which I would say surely seems to suggests the Bible will deceive us if we read it in a straightforward manner. 



#46 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 November 2013 - 11:52 PM

No Geno, there's nothing you need to know. My only suggestion has been that you accept Walt's generic phone offer, assuming you've read Part II of his book, and the relevant technical notes. As I recall, Walt says he likes the option of recording such conversations. If that happened, it might be fun to air. That's it.

 

OK.  Thanks for your interest.

 

 

Last thing Geno. Above, you wrote that "Nick Lally, Director of the Creation Science Hall of Fame suggested any formal debate between Dr. Brown and I be held on either the CSHF website or Dr. Brown;s.  The offer was made on Dec. 22, 2012..." You go on with some detail about how that never came to pass and that perhaps Walt "killed" it. Seems like there was nothing to kill. I haven't asked Dr. Brown about that, but I'm sure that Nick was suggesting such a debate merely of his own initiative. It's not like Walt had agreed to violate his own long-standing debate offer, and then backed out. Do I have that right?

 

Absolutely right. 

 

Lally was acting on his own and I felt a creation friendly forum might be more acceptable to Dr. Brown.  As I recall, I said "Hurlbut and/or Brown."  Given the short time frame, I expect Hurlbut did not contact Dr. Brown.  I apologize if there was any impression that Brown had agreed to then backed out of a debate with me in the CSHF forum. 

 

BTW, contrary to the claims of some on the creationist side, I have never agreed to then backed out of a debate with Dr. Brown either.  IIRC, Brown suggests anyone who accuses him of backing out of a debate should produce the signed agreement.  I suggest the same.  As I said before, I'm not even sure we agreed on the subject of any potential debate.

 

The only thing killed was any hope I had that Dr. Brown would enter into the kind of debate by which matters of science are settled. 

 

That's OK, like I said, I'm neither the first nor the most qualified who has tried and failed in the last third of a century.  As far as I know Dr. Brown still has open invitations from two creation science journals to engage in the scientific discussions.  He would certainly gain a lot more scientific acceptance entering into the debate in those forums than any kind of exchange with me.

 

 

Again, thanks for your interest. And just fyi, I've said all I plan to about urging you to talk to Walt.

 

Thanks for your concern. 

 

Keep in mind, the Hydroplate model is not survivable.  Picture a typical bedroom.  Now, picture over 60,000 hand grenades exploding per second in that room for 40 days and 40 nights.  That's the kind of energy Brown is unleashing.  Just 2 or 3 of those grenades will kill everyone in the room.  He can get rid of over 99.99995% of the energy any way he wants.  The remaining 0.00005% is still enough to destroy all life on the planet.

 

Any proposal that sterilizes the planet is DOA.  It doesn't matter how well it explains a dozen other things.



#47 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 16 November 2013 - 01:55 AM

Keep in mind, the Hydroplate model is not survivable.  Picture a typical bedroom.  Now, picture over 60,000 hand grenades exploding per second in that room for 40 days and 40 nights.  That's the kind of energy Brown is unleashing.  Just 2 or 3 of those grenades will kill everyone in the room.  He can get rid of over 99.99995% of the energy any way he wants.  The remaining 0.00005% is still enough to destroy all life on the planet.

 

Any proposal that sterilizes the planet is DOA.  It doesn't matter how well it explains a dozen other things.

 

This sounds like an argument from incredulity, just saying :)


  • piasan likes this

#48 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 16 November 2013 - 12:30 PM

This sounds like an argument from incredulity, just saying smile.png

 

Is it? 

 

You have a detailed analysis in posts 1,4, and 5 of this thread.  Address the issues.  Show an error.  If the physics is over your head, take my claims to any third party who does understand the physics for their input.  Any engineer; probably any high school physics teacher; or any university freshman physics student would have the required skills.  Brown wants to claim this stuff is rocket science.  It isn't.  Take his rocket science claims to that same person for their input also.  (Point out to them the phase diagram of water and Brown's claim of a speed of sound of 0.2 mi/sec too ask them how that water will behave.)

 

If this were a trial, and Brown or I were the defendant, should you take the word of the defendant or the input of an unbiased forensic analysis?  Between Brown and I, only one of us is urging such an independent review.... and it is not Dr. Walt Brown.

 

Brown now claims the energy release of 1,800,000,000,000,000 hyrogen bombs.  Figure out how many that is evenly spread over the surface area of the Earth (hint, it's more than 40 in a 3m by 4 m area.... that's about a 10x13 foot bedroom.)  Then figure out how many hand grenades that 40 hydrogen bombs in that bedroom would be equivalent to a hydrogen bomb per day.

 

David says my 90% efficiency is "arbitrary."  He's right.  Do you have any idea the launch efficiency actually needed?  If we start with an atmospheric temperature of 0C (32F) an increase of 100C (to the boiling point of water) would sterilize the planet.  Unless, you're going to argue Noah and his crew would survive while their blood is boiling.)  How much energy is that?  Well, the mass of Earth's atmosphere is about 5e18 kg and the specific heat of air is about 1000 j per kg. To raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 100 degrees Celsius would require 5e18 * 1000 * 100 or 5e23 joules.  Brown claims his launch involved 2.74e21kg of mass.  If any fall back has an average velocity of half escape velocity that would be 5600 m/s. or 1.57e7 joules per kilogram.  Dividing 5e23 by 1.57e7, we get the return of about 3.2e16 kg at 5600 m/s (about 12,500mph).  That's just 0.00116% of the total energy of the launch phase.  If you really believe there is ANY process that would keep 99.99884% of the energy out of the atmosphere, I have a bridge in the New York area I'd like to sell you.  That's just to show how extremely conservative I've been in my calculations.  BTW, because energy is a function of velocity squared, I really should be using an RMS value for velocity (11,200m/s * 0.707 or 7981m/s entry velocity (not 5600 m/sec) which would double the incoming energy.  I don't use the RMS value because I don't need it and it saves some explaining to those with a limited physics background.)  Go ahead, check those numbers with your independent physics expert too.  Even if I slipped a decimal, we'd still be talking about 99.9884% efficiency of a process that amounts to launching a stream of horizontal material at hypersonic velocities into a crumbling rock wall and having that material, plus any debris from the wall deflected vertically upward in a perfectly smooth flow.

 

Don't you think just a small dose of incredulity is in order?  Especially when the icredulity is backed up by a detailed analysis.  BTW, what do you call incredulity that is backed by an analysis of the relevant physics?

 

 

Here's the situation:

Dr. Brown refuses to debate me on the survivability of his model unless he is free to bring up unrelated matters like the formation of carbonates and have me disqualified if I don't have an adequate explanation for these issues.  They don't matter, since Brown sterilizes the planet.  (Note: Dr. Brown says the issues will be related.  OK, maybe he would be willing to accept disqualification if they are not.  No?  Didn't think so.)

 

Dr. Terry Hurlbut, MD has an engineering degree but declines to defend Brown's claims.  Instead, he urges me to accept Brown's one-sided offer.

 

Bob Enyart has technical backup who is able to evaluate my claims.  Instead, he urges me to accept Brown's one-sided offer.

 

The only creationist I've met who is willing to make the effort to learn the relevant physics and take on my claims is Indydave.  For that, I respect him.

 

How about you, Gilbo?  Take the calculations to some independent third party whose opinion you respect and get back with me.

 

I remain ready, willing, and able to defend my claim that Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate model will sterilize the planet on any LEVEL playing field.

 

Bring it on .......



#49 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 November 2013 - 12:40 PM

I just have to add in here. Walt Brown's book is excellent! His hydroplate theory introduces concepts that are very handy for interpreting how the present day continents look, why canyons are canyons and what amazing scars the flood left.

I've gone to see Dr. Steve Austin twice hearing him talk about similar subjects. It sounds like they're in a little bit of competition over continental sprint and hydroplate concepts but the two could be brought together.

I think what's missing is not more calculations but a better means to show the way things changed. People get all this info and have a hard time processing it.

#50 greg

greg

    Member

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

Posted 16 November 2013 - 01:33 PM

I just have to add in here. Walt Brown's book is excellent! His hydroplate theory introduces concepts that are very handy for interpreting how the present day continents look, why canyons are canyons and what amazing scars the flood left.
I've gone to see Dr. Steve Austin twice hearing him talk about similar subjects. It sounds like they're in a little bit of competition over continental sprint and hydroplate concepts but the two could be brought together.
I think what's missing is not more calculations but a better means to show the way things changed. People get all this info and have a hard time processing it.


That's cool.

I'd still like to see the physics addressed in this. I don't see a problem with saying God did away with the heat problem. God can do that. But I'm not hearing that the heat problem is addressed. I would like to see someone either show Piasan is incorrect, or concede his points and address them appropriately.

#51 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 16 November 2013 - 04:06 PM

I'd still like to see the physics addressed in this. I don't see a problem with saying God did away with the heat problem. God can do that. But I'm not hearing that the heat problem is addressed. I would like to see someone either show Piasan is incorrect, or concede his points and address them appropriately.

 

Of course, God could have made the water appear, stay around for a year or so, then disappear without leaving a trace.  That's entirely within His ability.  However, Dr. Brown says the discussion should be strictly scientific which means no miracles allowed.

 

 

I just have to add in here. Walt Brown's book is excellent! His hydroplate theory introduces concepts that are very handy for interpreting how the present day continents look, why canyons are canyons and what amazing scars the flood left.

I've gone to see Dr. Steve Austin twice hearing him talk about similar subjects. It sounds like they're in a little bit of competition over continental sprint and hydroplate concepts but the two could be brought together.

I think what's missing is not more calculations but a better means to show the way things changed. People get all this info and have a hard time processing it.

 

This is the issue I have with Dr. Brown's debate proposal.  HIs model sterilizes the planet.  Hundreds, if not thousands of times over.  It doesn't matter how well he explains how the continents look; why there are canyons; how carbonates formed; Earth's radioactivity; or any of a couple dozen other things when the proposal cooks the planet.  Simply stated, if Brown's model were true, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

 

As far as I know, there are three main creation science proposals for the flood.  Brown's hydroplates; Baumgardner's' Runaway Subduction; and Vardiman's Vapor Canopy.  All of them suffer from the same fatal flaw.  Each releases so much heat it would increase atmospheric temperatures over the boiling point of water.  Once that happens, it's game over.



#52 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 November 2013 - 06:55 PM

That's cool.

I'd still like to see the physics addressed in this. I don't see a problem with saying God did away with the heat problem. God can do that. But I'm not hearing that the heat problem is addressed. I would like to see someone either show Piasan is incorrect, or concede his points and address them appropriately.

 

 

I did address the physics.  IMO Piasan just wants to play it both ways.  First he says there is no heat problem with launching, but then he tries to say there IS a heat problem because the launching mech. would not send a high enough % into space (w/o return). 

 

Pi: >>

Brown now claims the energy release of 1,800,000,000,000,000 hyrogen bombs.  Figure out how many that is evenly spread over the surface area of the Earth (hint, it's more than 40 in a 3m by 4 m area.... that's about a 10x13 foot bedroom.)  Then figure out how many hand grenades that 40 hydrogen bombs in that bedroom would be equivalent to a hydrogen bomb per day.>>

 

Here Pi "Indian gives" (hopefully no offense to anyone).  He uses the energy figure WB suggests his SWC could produce IF NEEDED in order to send TEN TIMES the weight of all asteroids, comets and irregular moons beyond E's escape velocity and into the orbits they have now.  And he either ignorantly or with intent to deceive suggests that even though that energy is SPENT as KINETIC energy sending stuff into orbits...it still can be used by Pi to argue that the E would be heated.  There is NO heat transferred to the atm or surface during launch...and Pi has SEEMED (at times) to agree to that.  A significant amount of that heat could remain under 10 miles of crust after the fountains stop erupting and upwelling without harming anyone on the surface. ONLY when the launching is ended and the velocities are diminished would anything go up and come back down to Earth's surface or atm.  And the amount of that would just depend on how long the launch phase was vs. the shutting off stage is. 

 

Pi said he cannot picture a fire hose shooting for 40 days over a fence (without air friction) with nothing landing on the near side until the one hour of time the hose is shut off.  I think he is being purposefully intransigent to not admit that is plausible as a fair analogy to WB's model.  He says it would not be like a polished nozzle...because the jets would smash into a wall of rock on the opposite side of the crack.  Actually it would smash into another jet coming from the other direction.  They would merge and their combined forces would cause them to shoot the only direction they could go...STRAIGHT UP for 9 miles...establishing a perpendicular vector so the flow would enter space in about 1-2 seconds.  And even if the vector was NOT 90d upward, it would not matter in the least as long as the speed was enough.  It could be shot out to the side at 5d and it still would obtain orbit without falling back at all so long as the speed was high enough.   

 

>>The can of 95F freon will cool because freon has a boiling temperature of around -40F.  That means it will immediately boil until the surounding temperature is around -40F.  What's the boiling temperature of water?  There's a reason we don't cool buildings with 700F water.>>

 

As I said...Pi has a poor understanding of refrigeration.  WB's model involves MASSIVE expansion and evaporation, both of which cause cooling.  But Pi seems here to deny that.  Do you really deny it Pi?  I think I could perhaps find quotes of yours in the past where you admitted there would be massive cooling of stuff coming out of the SWC.  Please clarify what you really mean...and then I will refute you.  Let me ask it this way...if you had 700F water at supercritical pressure (I forgot the exact amount...maybe 45atm) and it was suddenly released into a large container in a vaccum...do you deny that water ice would form?  I think the implication of WB's model is it WOULD form.  As you know water boils at a very low temp in a vacuum...not sure what that temp is.  And it is KEPT from boiling when it is at high pressure.  And supercritical water has little liquid droplets inside the vapor....as I understand it.  It has to DROP in temp/pressure to become all vapor, and drop more to become all liquid.   It may not be efficient for us to use 700F water to aircondition...but we don't live in a vacuum.  This question is not settled by whether it is efficient to cool buildings with 700F water.  The question is whether SC water (SCW) would expand and evaporate enough to cause massive cooling if released into a crack in the crust which is in effect a tunnel through the atm into space.  It would.  Pi proves his ignorance of refrigeration principles by denying it.  The numbers of course are diff. for freon at 95F, but the example makes the point plainly.  If you have something hot under high pressure and suddenly release that into a space with very low pressure...massive cooling happens.  Pi should know better than to deny that. 

 

>>First, Brown's model can not involve a vacuum as it must be transferring material to space. >>

This pretty clearly proves Pi has a poor understanding of WB's model.  There is no mixing of the atm with the water/rock mixture being shot into space because there is a tunnel in the atm and "training" of the material inside what eventually becomes a vacuum environment.  It would take a while (or distance) for the pressure to go from high to zero...but that expansion process is precisely why ice would form. 

 

>>Second:  In his rocket science page he uses a velocity of sound of 0.2 mi/sec inside his chamber to calculate the velocity of the material.  This is the speed of sound at one atmosphere pressure.  Sound cannot travel thru a vacuum.>>

I believe WB would say there is no vacuum inside the SWC...it remains under high pressure.  Else there would be nothing strong enough to hold up the crust.  Once the pressure is low enough the ceiling falls, crushing the "pillars" of rock that are insufficient to hold up the crust by themselves.

 

>> Third, there will be friction with the air. >>

Pi giveth then he taketh away.  He agreed no heating of the air would happen during the launch phase. 

 

>>Fourth:  Now, use the reality of the situation and shot that fire hose over the fence for 40 days filling up that swimming pool.  All the water on the ground between the hose and the pool is stuff that didn't make it.  Oh yeah... no fair polishing the nozzle of the fire hose it should reflect the shape and texture of the walls this material would be hitting.
>>

A fairminded person can picture a fire hose that has a million times more water over the fence than what lands on the near side.  All I call for is 2000 times.  Pi just is intentionally incredulous...that's all.  It just depends on how powerful the launching force is, how long it lasts, and how quickly it can be shut off.  So far, Pi has not addressed this at all...although he's heard the point from me for about 3 years now. 



#53 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 November 2013 - 07:01 PM

Simply stated, if Brown's model were true, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

 

Actually Pi OVERsimplified it.  He should have said "...if Brown's model were true and IF MY MISUNDERSTANDINGS, WRONG ASSUMPTIONS AND MISCALCULATIONS ABOUT HIS MODEL ARE TRUE...we wouldn't be here to talk about it. 



#54 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 16 November 2013 - 08:50 PM

Is it? 

 

I won't lie, I'm a Biologist (well Biotechnologist wink.png ), and therefore most of this is over my head. I was merely commenting on the claim I quoted as it seemed to be an argument from incredulity. I do wonder why does the energy have to be evenly spread out? Couldn't the fountains of the deep be accessed at one or two or a few points?



#55 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 November 2013 - 09:24 PM

I do wonder why does the energy have to be evenly spread out? Couldn't the fountains of the deep be accessed at one or two or a few points?

Gilbo, you are talking like someone who's using some abstract reasoning skills. Maybe those points encompass the earth along the mid oceanic ridges...

#56 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 November 2013 - 09:32 PM

And to think the Earth may be massive enough to have conditions in one place and not another.

It's craziness to think that something like castrophic events could effect one area of the Earth and not another. ;)

#57 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 16 November 2013 - 10:04 PM

Gilbo, you are talking like someone who's using some abstract reasoning skills. Maybe those points encompass the earth along the mid oceanic ridges...


Thanks :) And yes, maybe ;)



#58 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 November 2013 - 10:32 PM


Of course, God could have made the water appear, stay around for a year or so, then disappear without leaving a trace. 

This statement is one of the most telling kind because it lacks abstract reasoning skills. It's equal to somebody asking; How did the flood waters produce enough rain to cover Mt. Everest?

#59 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 16 November 2013 - 10:49 PM

I won't lie, I'm a Biologist (well Biotechnologist wink.png ), and therefore most of this is over my head. I was merely commenting on the claim I quoted as it seemed to be an argument from incredulity. I do wonder why does the energy have to be evenly spread out? Couldn't the fountains of the deep be accessed at one or two or a few points?

 

OK, we each understand a lot of things the other doesn't.  My interests are in the physical sciences, not the life sciences.  I did have to teach biology for 5 years which was interesting because I've never taken a biology class in my life.  Understand this, as I see it, evolution doesn't present near the problems to YEC that physics does.

 

As for the hand grenade analogy, it's the result of calculations.  Hydrogen bomb energy yields are measured in megatons.  One megaton would be 2 billion pounds of TNT.  Hand grenades don't use a lot.  We're pretty obviously talking billions of hand grenades per day.  I use the analogy because it's something easy to visualize.  I know I wouldn't want to be in the room if just two of these things went off.  We're talking tens of thousand per second for 40 days.  What I'm saying is he can contain all of those tens of billions of grenades any way he wants but if the energy of only 2 leaks into the atmosphere, it's game over.

 

As for one or a few points of release.... Brown says a 40,000 mile long rift opened up in a period of roughly 8 hours.  This is what initiated the release of the SCW and the launch of material to space.  He says about half Earth's current surface water came from the release of this water that was stored underground at a temperature of over 700F (374C).  There is simply no way to cool this much water quickly enough for surface life to survive.



#60 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 16 November 2013 - 10:58 PM

This statement is one of the most telling kind because it lacks abstract reasoning skills. It's equal to somebody asking; How did the flood waters produce enough rain to cover Mt. Everest?

 

Briefly, the evidence does not support a global flood.  So, if there was one, it would have been necessary for God to have performed a series of miracles and cause the water to disappear without a trace.

 

 

And to think the Earth may be massive enough to have conditions in one place and not another.

It's craziness to think that something like castrophic events could effect one area of the Earth and not another. wink.png

 

Global events leave global evidence.  That said, Brown's model involves a 40,000 mile long crack and the launch of a huge amount of material to space from the sudden release of superheated water. (Yes, a steam explosion.)







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