Jump to content


Photo

Problem I - Cratering. 2. The Earth


  • Please log in to reply
615 replies to this topic

#481 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 May 2016 - 09:03 AM

 

It is not at all implausible that Brown's model would produce many such objects VERY capable to make Moon craters of great size. 

Dr. Brown's entire model is implausible.   This includes 44 mile wide clouds of debris with a density of 0.1.

 

BTW, although I don't want to suggest that Danny Faulkner has accepted my idea, 

Since Danny rejects pretty much all of Brown's astronomical claims, that's probably a fair statement.  

 

We can see what Danny has to say about:

1)  The ratio of impact events we can expect to have on Earth compared to the number that have taken place on the moon.

2)  The "slingshot" proposed by you as a mechanism that would clear the Earth/moon orbit leading to fewer impacts on the Earth than on the moon.

3)  The gravity of the moon being strong enough that it can pull near misses around the moon to an impact on the far side while Earth's gravity simply deflects their orbits.

4)  The formation of these 70 km density 0.1 objects from the material launched by Brown's big steam explosion.

5)  The solar wind circularizing the orbits of virtually all asteroids between Mars and Jupiter.

6)  Over 99% of the material ejected from Earth during Brown's launch phase escaping Earth's gravity.

7)  The differences (if any) between the impact evidence remaining from a 70km bolide with a density of 0.1 hitting the moon at 17 km/sec vs a 16.2 km impactor with a densithy of 3.0.

 

However I have fully explained my idea to him and he has not challenged whether or not there would be cratering caused by a low-density object striking the Moon. So I believe your comments are at odds with a PhD in astronomy. 

Based on the fact he didn't say anything either way?  Is that like Vardiman's "much that is useful" about Brown's claims from a comment in a letter that there was "some that is interesting?"

 

 

As I said I plan to write an article about this to be submitted for the publication he edits and I suppose at that point he may make similar challenges to what you have made if he feels those are justified. If he doesn't then you might be the one who is on the outside looking in.

I'll be looking forward to your article.  We'll see which of us has more problems with Danny when he comments.


  • indydave likes this

#482 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 09 May 2016 - 12:00 PM

I have never asserted that a denser object like a brick would not leave a larger mark than snow would. The crater calculator site takes that into consideration when it computes what diameter the crater will be. And I entered .1 which is the density of the objects we have been considering. Indeed when you entered that same density for a 40 foot object it showed there would be a 100 metre crater! That just confirms my argument and in my opinion we should both agree that Frank did not actually identify real comets. So far you have had nothing of real substance you could think of to say against this argument. So get on with it!

#483 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 May 2016 - 10:44 AM


Dr. Brown's entire model is implausible. This includes 44 mile wide clouds of debris with a density of 0.1.


You are going to have to try to explain that to me. The model says that water vapor and rocky material was launched beyond escape velocity and therefore there would indeed be large clouds of this vapor and rock particle mixture which is traveling through space near to Earth and the moon before it is moved outward beyond 1 AU. This cloud would begin to consolidate and could very easily be at a density of .1 while it was near the Earth and the Moon and later it would condense further to be at the density of comets and asteroids today. And of course this density does not have to be precise at all because if it is less dense then a larger-diameter cloud would still produce the same kind of crater that we are discussing on the moon and it would be even less able to produce any cratering on Earth.

BTW, when I was speaking to Dr. Faulkner last week about cratering on the moon he indicated that his own view involves low density objects or at least it could involve them. He seemed quite inquisitive and open to what I have been suggesting however we did not go into the detail of the number of objects being less than the number which have hit the Moon when adjusted proportionally by the relative size of the two targets. That part of my argument is not that crucial anyway.

#484 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 May 2016 - 11:04 AM

Pi>> 3) The gravity of the moon being strong enough that it can pull near misses around the moon to an impact on the far side while Earth's gravity simply deflects their orbits<<

??? Whoever said anything like this? Because the moon rotates a full 360-degrees every 28 days then this would mean that if the clouds of water vapor and rocky material remained near Earth and the Moon then for many months or years there would be impacts on all sides of the Moon. And contrary to the view of Faulkner, there would be ability for impacts to occur at the poles of the Moon. Faulkner indicated to me that his idea is those had to be formed during the creation week.


>>4) The formation of these 70 km density 0.1 objects from the material launched by Brown's big steam explosion.<<

Of course Faulkner disputes the whole idea of launching material from Earth and part of that is because he cannot picture how the energy could be formed within the SWC.

>>5) The solar wind circularizing the orbits of virtually all asteroids between Mars and Jupiter.<<

I don't think that Faulkner would dispute that the Yarkovsky effect or even the radiometer effect is real. I have suggested that the solar wind is involved but I am not entirely sure if Brown agrees that solar wind helps to move material outward and circularizes the orbits.


>>6) Over 99% of the material ejected from Earth during Brown's launch phase escaping Earth's gravity.<<

All it takes is for the launching period to be a substantial length of time and for the shutdown to be a short period of time.

7) The differences (if any) between the impact evidence remaining from a 70km bolide with a density of 0.1 hitting the moon at 17 km/sec vs a 16.2 km impactor with a densithy of 3.0.<<

Neither he nor I would dispute that density affects the size of a crater. Your false implication is that an object traveling that fast with density of .1 cannot create a large crater on the moon and Faulkner definitely agrees with me that it could. So when he agrees with me and disagrees with you, whose side do you take then? And of course so far you have totally whiffed the fact that the new calculator site plainly shows that a .1 density object can indeed produce a very large 100 mile diameter crater on the moon. Do you have even any attempt of a reply to that yet? You seem to be stalling.

#485 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 May 2016 - 09:16 PM

And of course so far you have totally whiffed the fact that the new calculator site plainly shows that a .1 density object can indeed produce a very large 100 mile diameter crater on the moon. Do you have even any attempt of a reply to that yet? You seem to be stalling.

Sorry for the delay.... the first week was because I had contacted the researcher who developed the new calculator and was waiting for a response.  Then I got caught up in a pigeon chess game.

 

I had some concerns about the parameters for which the calculator would be useful.... kind of like the limitations on the solar system model.  Since the developer of the program has not responded, I'll accept the results.

 

Your false implication is that an object traveling that fast with density of .1 cannot create a large crater on the moon and Faulkner definitely agrees with me that it could. So when he agrees with me and disagrees with you, whose side do you take then?

I'm on the side of the best data available .... that the loosely clumped small material is capable of producing a crater of sufficient size.  I still question if it would form a central peak

 

With reference to your responses to a number of questions I raised regarding the implausibility of Brown's model in my post #481.... I didn't ask what you argued or what Brown claims. We've discussed that far beyond ad nauseam. What I would like to know is Faulkner's take on those items.... especially those relevant to the article you plan to submit.  We already know Danny has pretty serious reservations about Brown's claims from at least two articles he has authored .... one on the launch phase and one on the date of the Flood.



#486 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 May 2016 - 11:25 AM

Pi>> Then I got caught up in a pigeon chess game. <<

I guess you're going to have to explain what that means! Who was the pigeon?

Okay so it seems that you are willing to concede that the kind of objects which would have been launched in the Brown model would indeed have made large craters on the moon. I am not sure that many of the moon's craters have a central peak as you seem to imply. Is that your only objection now? Do we need to address that point or not?

And we seem to both agree that the sort of objects we are discussing would never make any crater on Earth except for the rare circumstance of some large rocky inclusion which would be able to penetrate through all of the atmosphere and make a crater. Indeed it would have to also penetrate through about one-half mile of water as well which takes the number of atmospheres up to probably 10 or more. I believe this means that I have succeeded in defeating your objection about craters. Are you willing to concede that?

#487 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 May 2016 - 11:24 PM

Pi>> Then I got caught up in a pigeon chess game. <<

I guess you're going to have to explain what that means! Who was the pigeon?

I'd rather not say.  My suggestion is that you go to the  "So The Earth is A Sphere" discussion and read the last 2 or 3 pages before BoneDigger shut it down.

 

Here's one link, of many, describing pigeon chess.

 

Okay so it seems that you are willing to concede that the kind of objects which would have been launched in the Brown model would indeed have made large craters on the moon.

I'll agree that the kind of objects that Brown CLAIMS were launched COULD have made large craters on the Moon.

 

I am not sure that many of the moon's craters have a central peak as you seem to imply. Is that your only objection now? Do we need to address that point or not?

No, I still have a number of objections that have been listed (above).  I'll wait until you share the results of your article and/or discussions with Danny.  I'll be looking forward to his input on this matter.  I really think that with nearly 500 posts on this, we've beat this one to death unless there is some new input .... and I look forward to Danny's insight on this issue.  But I suggest starting a new topic.

 

And we seem to both agree that the sort of objects we are discussing would never make any crater on Earth except for the rare circumstance of some large rocky inclusion which would be able to penetrate through all of the atmosphere and make a crater. Indeed it would have to also penetrate through about one-half mile of water as well which takes the number of atmospheres up to probably 10 or more. I believe this means that I have succeeded in defeating your objection about craters. Are you willing to concede that?          

Nope.  The Earth Impact Effects Program indicates your bolide (70km diameter, 100 kg/m3 density, velocity 17km/sec) leaves a crater on Earth that is 100 miles across.  So you're far from out of the woods on that one.



#488 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 May 2016 - 09:45 AM

Nope. The Earth Impact Effects Program indicates your bolide (70km diameter, 100 kg/m3 density, velocity 17km/sec) leaves a crater on Earth that is 100 miles across. So you're far from out of the woods on that one.


I will look at that site but my guess is that it does not take into consideration what the atmosphere would do to that sort of an object. It is basically like a snowball and a fluffy one at that so most certainly the atmosphere would indeed have tremendous effects on it. In fact when you look at the results, which is a 100 mile crater, that is exactly the same size that the new site gave for an object which strikes the Moon. So obviously atmosphere is not even considered. The SL - 9 page that you directed us to confirms that such an object would have its energy used up before it got to below 30 miles high in the sky. I hope I don't have to rehash that with you. So this Earth effects site is in complete contradiction to what was observed regarding SL - 9. I would have to study the site to see if they have considered what effects the atmosphere has on an object. My guess is that it does not. Do you have any explanation for why there should be such a discrepancy between the SL - 9 article and what you are asserting?

I think instead of you saying no mas and then leaving, the decent thing to do would be to admit that I defeated you on this point. It is only fair. I have shown that an object like what we have been discussing would indeed make a large crater on the moon. You have even admitted to that now. And all you can say is that you believe it would make a crater on the Earth when in reality you have totally discounted the effects of the Earth's atmosphere and the ocean as well. You have lost, and you should be fair enough to admit it. Or am I the one who is playing pigeon chess, and you are flying away now after crapping on the board?



#489 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 May 2016 - 10:19 AM

I will look at that site but my guess is that it does not take into consideration what the atmosphere would do to that sort of an object. It is basically like a snowball and a fluffy one at that so most certainly the atmosphere would indeed have tremendous effects on it.

This is actually the same program that earlier detected airburst entries so it's pretty hard to claim it doesn't consider the atmospheric effects.

 

I think instead of you saying no mas and then leaving, the decent thing to do would be to admit that I defeated you on this point. It is only fair.

I'm not saying "no mas and then leaving."  It has repeatedly been pointed out to you that there are a number of issues on which we have clearly reached an impasse and I'm waiting for the input of Dr. Danny Faulkner on them.  How many times have I explained that?

 

I have shown that an object like what we have been discussing would indeed make a large crater on the moon. You have even admitted to that now. And all you can say is that you believe it would make a crater on the Earth when in reality you have totally discounted the effects of the Earth's atmosphere and the ocean as well.

But it's not just that I "believe it would make a crater on the Earth."  It's a computer model, much like the one you used to support the lunar crater, that was developed by knowledgeable professionals who we already know consider the effects of Earth's atmosphere because they detect air bursts.  Further, since one of the inputs is water (and the depth of it), it is clear that they DO consider the effects of the ocean.

 

Why is it that you find a model and it's "golden," but when I find one, I simply "believe" the output of it?  Double standard?

 

Or am I the one who is playing pigeon chess, and you are flying away now after crapping on the board?

I'm still here.... just waiting for input from "your" expert.



#490 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 May 2016 - 10:37 AM

Pi>>The Earth Impact Effects Program indicates your bolide (70km diameter, 100 kg/m3 density, velocity 17km/sec) leaves a crater on Earth that is 100 miles across.>>
 

There is something wacky going on.  The energy of the object from this site (EIE) is given as 2.6e24J but at the other site (lunar cratering LINK ) it gave the energy as 1.29e21J.  They should agree.  If you had read (again) the .pdf from the EIE site, it says:

 

LINK

 

 

Atmospheric
entry has no significant influence on the shape, energy, or

momentum of impactors with a mass that is much larger than
the mass of the atmosphere displaced during penetration. For
this reason, the program procedure described below is applied
only for impactors less than 1 km in diameter.

 

So if the impactor is GREATER than 1km diameter, then THEY IGNORE THE EFFECT OF THE ATMOSPHERE.  That means this site is totally inappropriate.  Then it goes on to describe what effects the atm has ON THE SMALLER (< 1 km) objects.

 

 

During the first portion of the impactor’s flight, its speed
is decreased by atmospheric drag, but the stresses are too
small to cause fragmentation. Small meteoroids are often
ablated to nothing during this phase, but in the current
program implementation, we ignore ablation on the grounds
that it seldom affects the larger impactors that reach the
surface to cause craters. Thus, this program should not be
used to estimate the entry process of small objects that may
cause visible meteors or even drop small meteorites to the
surface at terminal velocity.

 

So now, they say that if the objects will ablate, then THEY IGNORE ABLATION.  Snowballs WOULD ABLATE.  They WOULD have parts (smaller rocky inclusions) which would get totally decelerated and fall to the ground at terminal velocity.   Again, this is totally inappropriate.

 

 

Note that, even at
zero density, this implies a non-zero strength of about 130 Pa.
Thus, this empirical formula should not be applied too far out
of the range of 1000 to 8000 kg m3, over which it was
established.

 

So their formula gives a wacky result if there is ZERO DENSITY...which means that their formula is no good for very low density objects.  It says if you go below the density of water (1000 kg/m3) then the program is no good.  We are considering 100 kg/m3 objects. 



#491 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 May 2016 - 10:49 AM

P>>I'm not saying "no mas and then leaving."  It has repeatedly been pointed out to you that there are a number of issues on which we have clearly reached an impasse and I'm waiting for the input of Dr. Danny Faulkner on them.  How many times have I explained that?>>

Yeah...it's pretty much "no mas but I won't admit defeat".  You have now said that whatever *I* say in reply to you will be ignored and you now want to get some OTHER person to reply to me or to you.  That is your calling it quits...after I have shown that the objects WOULD make large craters on the Moon (you have admitted this) and the SL-9 site proves they would NOT make large craters on Earth.  (You have NEVER given the slightest reply to my argument on that...you DID have your kiester handed to you and you PROMISED a reply but never gave it!)  When I discussed this with Faulkner he did indeed agree...large craters on the Moon, and none/few on Earth.  That means that the other points you wanted me to present to him are moot.  It does not MATTER how many objects there would be.  And besides, you have LESS respect for the position that DF takes about cratering than MY position anyway! (He says they were formed during the creation week and then more were added during 12 days at the onset of the Flood.  I can just hear your mocking ME if I had tried to assert THAT here!

 

>>But it's not just that I "believe it would make a crater on the Earth."  It's a computer model, much like the one you used to support the lunar crater, that was developed by knowledgeable professionals who we already know consider the effects of Earth's atmosphere because they detect air bursts.>>

Yeah...it's a computer model TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE for the type of objects we are discussing.  They explain that in their .pdf which I just quoted from.  LINK  Do you admit this?  If you won't then I think that constitutes your crapping on the board and then flying off!



#492 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 May 2016 - 11:48 AM

I will make it real simple for you, Pi. The SL - 9 article told us the depth in atmospheres that all of the energy was expended. I remind you that was YOUR source. I took that number and divided by 6 to get us to a density of .1. And then I divided that number by 13 due to the slower speed. That is how I arrived at the .17 atmospheres number which equates to about 30 miles high in Earth's atmosphere. So tell me what part of that is an error. It's about time you either have an answer or you admit that I have shown that there would not be any crater made on the surface of the Earth. After spending so much time with you on this I believe I am entitled to your fair treatment.

#493 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 02 June 2016 - 01:47 PM

Come on Pi!...it's been several WEEKS since I challenged you to admit that you were shown GOOD EVIDENCE that the .1 density objects would NOT form any craters at all on Earth....or else to explain why not.  All you have done is to say you want to hear what Faulkner has to say...after I write an article for CRSQ, which may be months away.  I think it is about time you pony up to the bar and pay up.  Fair is fair.  We both have spent TOO MUCH TIME on this for you to just disappear w/o admitting this "problem" for Brown's HPT has been solved.  No craters and no blasts which would be harmful to Noah's ark!...CONTRARY to what you have claimed FOR YEARS. 



#494 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 June 2016 - 01:39 PM

Pi>>6)  Over 99% of the material ejected from Earth during Brown's launch phase escaping Earth's gravity.>>

 

I have asserted that over a 40 day launch period, that there would indeed be well OVER 99% of the material which was launched that would escape gravity.  This is due to there being a long launch period compared to a very short shut off period.  I used the firehose shooting over a fence example and you have (IIRC) agreed to that.  However, let's assume you would be right that during the whole launch period there would be stuff which would fail to reach EV and much of that would fall back...let's say as much as 10%.  You have claimed that amount would be lethal to the ark occupants.  However, in your calcs...found on pg 1 of A Rain of Fire and Brimstone LINK  ...you fail to calculate how a hot and tiny particle at the very top of our atm would RADIATE AWAY its heat into space in a microsecond (just like tiny meteorites do)...with no bad effect on the earth below.  AND you bragged about how you ran your calcs past some PhD's in Physics and they agreed with you and yet THEY ALSO failed to include radiation in their evaluation of what your wrote!  I guess this BA in Bus Mgt could see things those PhD physicists could NOT!  In addition, if you figure that some amount of friction with air molecules would be what decelerates the upward jet molecules, to cause great heat...then you must also admit that this deceleration would ACcelerate the air molecule and drag it upward toward the high atm or even into space, where it would be cooled to near absolute zero before falling back.  This means it would be a net COOLING effect!  And of course those molecules would NOT fall from the average of halfway to EV distance, so that means their energy would be far less than you have in some of your calcs.  If I need to show calcs for how quickly the hot molecules would cool off in the high atm as they reenter, I can show that. 



#495 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 25 June 2016 - 02:56 AM

Come on Pi!...it's been several WEEKS since I challenged you to admit that you were shown GOOD EVIDENCE that the .1 density objects would NOT form any craters at all on Earth....or else to explain why not. 

My apologies for the lengthy delay.  The last part of May was occupied by end-of-school year stuff.  I had to get everything done and in 3 days early so I could attend my granddaughter's (high school) graduation; visit the best friend of my adult life who I've seen twice in over 20 years; and celebrate the big seven-oh.  Then I got involved in more recent topics that don't take a lot of time to research and compose posts. 

 

A good and substantive post, including the SL-9 modeling will take a considerable number of hours to research as I need to go back and review the original paper.  It will probably require an equal amount of time to compose.  My specific concern is the penetration depth at a density of 0.1.  I'm not certain your "linear" approach is correct.  It will require that I look at the equations (if they are provided).

 

One of the reasons I was hesitant to accept the results of the lunar crater model you found was that I felt the parameters may have exceeded the limitations of the model and I wanted to hear from one of the researchers.  To some extent that was confirmed when I tried a density of 0.01 and the diameter of the resulting crater was smaller than the impactor but, IIRC, it was still pretty deep.  For that reason, there is still some concern the 0.1 density may exceed the useful parameters of the model .... but I can't "prove" it.

 

All you have done is to say you want to hear what Faulkner has to say...after I write an article for CRSQ, which may be months away.  I think it is about time you pony up to the bar and pay up.  Fair is fair.  We both have spent TOO MUCH TIME on this for you to just disappear w/o admitting this "problem" for Brown's HPT has been solved.  No craters and no blasts which would be harmful to Noah's ark!...CONTRARY to what you have claimed FOR YEARS. 

Actually, I have a whole list of issues we've discussed that I'd like Faulkner's opinion on.... you've just blown them off.  For example, whether or not these objects could even form in Brown's model.  If they can't form, the whole argument is moot.

 

I had hoped the CRSQ article might be sooner, but I understand you also have your priorities.  Please keep me informed.  As you point out, these discussions between us have been going on for years.  We've been unable to come to an agreement on some of the most basic issues.  I'll still be looking forward to Faulkner's input .... even if it takes months.



#496 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 25 June 2016 - 04:00 AM

Pi>>6)  Over 99% of the material ejected from Earth during Brown's launch phase escaping Earth's gravity.>>

 

I have asserted that over a 40 day launch period, that there would indeed be well OVER 99% of the material which was launched that would escape gravity.  This is due to there being a long launch period compared to a very short shut off period.  I used the firehose shooting over a fence example and you have (IIRC) agreed to that. 

Actually, this is probably off topic for this discussion.  I have agreed that a firehose shooting water over a fence could, in certain circumstances, be 99% efficient in getting water over the fence.  I have never agreed Brown's model achieves that kind of efficiency for a number of reasons we've debated in the "Fire and Brimstone" discussion.

 

However, let's assume you would be right that during the whole launch period there would be stuff which would fail to reach EV and much of that would fall back...let's say as much as 10%.  You have claimed that amount would be lethal to the ark occupants. 

IIRC, 10% wouldn't merely be lethal to the ark occupants .... it would boil every drop of water on the planet.

 

 

However, in your calcs...found on pg 1 of A Rain of Fire and Brimstone LINK  ...you fail to calculate how a hot and tiny particle at the very top of our atm would RADIATE AWAY its heat into space in a microsecond (just like tiny meteorites do)...with no bad effect on the earth below.  AND you bragged about how you ran your calcs past some PhD's in Physics and they agreed with you and yet THEY ALSO failed to include radiation in their evaluation of what your wrote!  I guess this BA in Bus Mgt could see things those PhD physicists could NOT! 

We recall that very differently.  You claim that a molecule size particle at the top of the atmosphere will radiate away its heat to space.  I pointed out (correctly) that the particle will radiate its heat in all directions cooler than the particle.... not just toward space as you claimed. 

 

The particle that enters the atmosphere will radiate its energy to the ones above, below, and to the sides of it.  The only particle that is able to radiate its heat to space is the one at the top of the column and is exposed to space.  Even then, it is able to radiate energy to space on only that side that is exposed to space.  The remainder of the energy will be radiated to other molecules.

 

As I pointed out in the article, what will happen is the energy will build up faster than it can be radiated to space and, as a result, those particles will carry the energy deeper and deeper into the atmosphere because they can't cool on the way down.

 

The bottom line in the calculation is that you have "x" amount of energy to radiate in "y" time over a surface area of "z."  It doesn't matter if it's molecule-by-molecule or as an overall area.  Doing it this way will give you the correct answer when you consider the amount of energy that is bounced around among the molecules before being radiated to space.... keeping in mind that the only ones who can radiate to space are those exposed to space.  The physicists have the expertise to know this.... the "BA in Bus Mgt" lacks that expertise.

 

 

In addition, if you figure that some amount of friction with air molecules would be what decelerates the upward jet molecules, to cause great heat...then you must also admit that this deceleration would ACcelerate the air molecule and drag it upward toward the high atm or even into space, where it would be cooled to near absolute zero before falling back.  This means it would be a net COOLING effect!  And of course those molecules would NOT fall from the average of halfway to EV distance, so that means their energy would be far less than you have in some of your calcs. 

Actually, Faulkner addresses idea of atmospheric friction in his analysis of Brown's launch claims.  He basically comes to the same conclusion about energy transfer to the atmosphere during the launch phase as I do during the reentry phase.  In other words, he concludes the launch would heat the atmosphere above survivable temperatures and I conclude the reentry would.  That means double trouble for Brown. 

 

His comment to me after he looked at my analysis was that I had looked at the other end of the process and we each got the same result.... a (heat) sterilized planet.

 

 

If I need to show calcs for how quickly the hot molecules would cool off in the high atm as they reenter, I can show that. 

Oh, dude, you don't even want to go there.  In fact, you really don't want to attempt the molecule-by-molecule analysis you say the physicists and I have "overlooked."  To solve the problem algebraically, you would need to consider the heat transfer molecule-by-molecule in all directions all the way thru the atmosphere.  Any other solution requires, at a minimum, some considerable calculus and likely some advanced differential equations.  It's way beyond the skill level of either of us.

 

Go for it if you want, but the maximum energy transfer to space is still governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

But this is really more a matter of the "Fire and Brimstone" discussion.....



#497 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 June 2016 - 12:48 PM

To some extent that was confirmed when I tried a density of 0.01 and the diameter of the resulting crater was smaller than the impactor but, IIRC, it was still pretty deep. For that reason, there is still some concern the 0.1 density may exceed the useful parameters of the model .... but I can't "prove" it.



If you will recall there were two sites and the first one specifically said that their modeling would not be appropriate to use for objects very much below a density of 1. With the second site that was not specifically said but if you entered .01 and got a crater smaller than the impactor then that does show there is a limitation for density. There was indeed something I recall reading which indicated that there was not a linear relationship between the density and the depth of energy release however I believe what I read indicated it would favour my position if it were treated as being not linear. I did mention that a few posts back but I did not cite a reference at the time. If indeed the depth is related in a linear way to the density and the amount of energy due to speed then I hope you would at least tentatively agree that my argumentation solves the problem. Will you tentatively agree to that?

#498 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 June 2016 - 01:10 PM

Pi>> As I pointed out in the article, what will happen is the energy will build up faster than it can be radiated to space and, as a result, those particles will carry the energy deeper and deeper into the atmosphere because they can't cool on the way down.<<

My comments were not really so much focused on the material which falls from an average of halfway to the escape velocity height during the launch shutoff phase. I was referring then to material which is decelerated on the way UP and then would fall back from a much much lower height.

>Any other solution requires, at a minimum, some considerable calculus and likely some advanced differential equations. It's way beyond the skill level of either of us.<<

I didn't mean to say that I knew how to do the calculations myself other than what is necessary to input into the heat transfer site that we were using before which applies Stefan-Boltzmann equations.

We are indeed moving into the area of heat which is not what this topic is about so I think we should limit comments about that and try to reach a point of resolution about crater formation on the Moon and on Earth. I don't think we should have to wait much longer for your concession about that. You are not of course giving away the whole store by conceding this because you could still question the matter of too much heat or even whether anything could ever be launched at all. But this topic deserves to be put to bed and I believe unless you have some argument to make you should give me your concession at this time, at least tentatively. Of course if you find new information you can retract your concession.

#499 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 June 2016 - 03:22 PM

In support of my linear assumption (that an object 1/6th as dense would travel 1/6th as deep into an atm), I would suggest the following.  If an object is much less dense, then it would not only have 1/6th the mass per cross-sectional area...causing a reduction of energy by a factor of 6x...there would also be more tendency to flatten out and thereby have a greater cross-sectional area and therefore more deceleration due to more contact with the atm.

 

If the impactor's shape was NOT deformed, then we would expect that a reduction of mass (density) by a factor of 6 would indeed reduce the energy by 6x.  Then a reduction of speed from 61km/s to 17km/s would reduce that by another factor of 13x.  BUT that assumes the shape is NOT changed, and IMO it is very likely that the less dense object would indeed deform more and that would expose a larger frontal area to the atmospheric molecules of the target.  This would cause its energy to be expended HIGHER IN THE ATM.  So my estimate was probably off considerably, meaning it was TOO GENEROUS.  In addition, there would be ablation, and the models neglect that factor. 

 

There is another SL-9 paper here (Takata et. al), which says on p 7 that a 1000g/cm object (dense ice or water) which is 1km diameter traveling 60km/s would use all its energy by 100 bars.  (I cannot paste in the text...it is an image file)  The SL-9 paper we have been using (LINK) (Korycansky et. al.) says that 90% of the energy of a .6 density object going 61km/s would be expended (based on their fig. 3c) at about 15 bars, so 100% would be about 20 bars (based on my est. of the chart).  So in this case, an object that is 60% as dense travels only 20% as deep.  Using these two densities in the two SL-9 articles, it suggests there is a curved line and so if you drop density from .6 to .1 you would expect even LESS than 1/6th the depth of penetration.  This tends to confirm that my estimate of 1/6th the depth for 1/6th the density is more than fair.  It makes sense because there is a 1 to 1 relationship between mass (density, in this case) and energy, provided that there is no change in velocity.  The idea of it being even LESS than 1/1 ratio (density/depth) is likely due to the fact that there is greater surface area per unit of mass when the object is less dense, so there is more contact with the target atm.  This assumes a shape that remains FIXED.  BUT if the shape of the object is deformed more (and it WOULD be), then that WOULD cause it to penetrate LESS than 1/6th as far.  My 1/1 estimate was MORE than fair. 



#500 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 June 2016 - 07:07 PM

If you will recall there were two sites and the first one specifically said that their modeling would not be appropriate to use for objects very much below a density of 1.


I was basing that on recollection and now that I think about it that was the blast effects site rather than the crater size site which said that it was not an effective way to estimate the effects from objects with densities well below 1. I did not just now go back to check so this recollection could be wrong too but I think that is correct.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users