Pi>>Do I need to go back and point out how many times you have claimed your proposed impact would leave NO crater on Earth?>>
Anyone with half a brain knows that this topic (at least since I got involved) was not about whether there were any small craters on the ocean floor or even land. It has always been about your claim that Brown's model would be lethal for Earth occupants. IT IS NOT. If your ego needs for me to concede to you that yes, the rocky inclusions could cause small craters on Earth, then I will concede that. Will YOU concede that they would not be lethal...unless the ark took a direct hit?
>>My position is the same..... if an object capable of leaving a 100 mile crater on the moon hits the Earth, it's going to make a similar hole on Earth.>>
That is not true. If it hits a body that has no atm then it would form a crater (as on the Moon) even if it was all snow, with no rocky stuff. If it was 70km diameter, then your site says that would make a 100 mi crater. The atm of Earth would absorb all the energy of the water (snow at .1 density or less) and only the rocky parts would have a chance to hit the ocean or (rarely...after the Flood year) the land with speed more than terminal velocity. SOME of the objects would have solid rocks as large as a maximum of 200m, but many if not most would have only smaller rocks. On 67P there were no observable single rocks on the surface larger than 50m.
Plus, the impact site says that a 200m rock loses 90% of its energy to the atm before impacting! You can declare your stubbornness that your position is not changed...but all that means is you are not going to be dissuaded by the facts.
>>Further, based on gravity, surface area, and the velocity of the impactor, we can expect Earth to have encountered at least 800 such objects.... with a more reasonable number around 1200 (IIRC).>>
For the last umpteen pages I have not been arguing with you about how many there were. It would not matter unless one would be lethal, and it is not. And we don't know how far spaced they were in time. Plus you have said that they would not cause any heat problem, so there would be no cumulative effect!
>>I will be more than happy to discuss the specifics of using Brown's "solution" in the new topic.>>
Why is there a need for a new topic? You need to first concede in THIS topic.
>>That does not mean it is a 1:1 relationship between energy and depth.... as both Fig. 7 and your ballistics calculator clearly show.>>
I would agree that as you go deeper into an atm then there is more resistance, so I agree that depth is not 1/1 with energy. However that is reflected in the eyeballed numbers you got in Fig 7...based on the same diameter objects going the same speed, but having different mass and density. And in that case, an object that was 22% as dense went only 10% as deep. I was being GENEROUS to suggest 1/1.
>>I pointed that out in my first "eyeball" comment on Fig. 7 when I noted the best fit line would have a penetration of 50 km (IIRC) with a density of 0. It is obvious that at density 0, penetration should be 0.>>
You screwed up with your Excel chart...obviously. But I don't have it so I can show that to you. There is no reason if a .6 object goes 60km, that a 0 object would go 50km. That is screwy and you know it. It is not because of some weird energy/depth relationship. It is your screwup. My guess is that it has a lot to do with their numbers being based on 0 being at the 1 atm depth...so there would be some negative numbers involved if you got to a low enough density.
>>Need I remind you the SL-9 paper uses 14 equations and every single one of them involves advanced calculus; exponents as variables; or exponents. That alone is enough to show there is no 1:1 relationship.>>
Using the eyeballed numbers for several energies (densities) of objects in Fig. 7, the relationship was much more favorable to me than 1/1. No need for calculus if you have the data points shown for you and you know how to read a relationship chart.
>>We already know, based on the data presented in Fig. 7, that something drastic must happen below density 0.6>>
Ha! I'm supposed to agree to that because YOU SAY something screwy showed up in your Excel sheet??? Puh-LEEZE.
>>We don't agree that those smaller rocky objects would have made 100 mile diameter craters on the moon either.>>
Nope, but a 70km diameter cloud of .1 water with OR without the smaller rocky inclusions WOULD. So what is YOUR position? That a gigantic snowball traveling many times the speed of a bullet would hit the Moon an NOT LEAVE A MARK? Get serious!
>>You will find that I only accepted the claim a 70km, 0.1 density object would make a 100 mile crater on the moon with serious reservations.>>
Yeah, Indian givers and reservations go together. So if we have to rehash it, we will. MY position is in agreement with the crater size calc site, which DID NOT say it would be unreliable below a 1000kg/m3 density. So tell me this then...suppose this 70km sphere at .1 density got compressed into a 70km disc which is 7km thick with a density of 1...like water or solid ice. Same mass and diameter...and same speed. Would it produce a large crater? Don't dodge.