Jump to content


Photo

Problem I - Cratering. 2. The Earth


  • Please log in to reply
567 replies to this topic

#561 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 27 July 2016 - 04:05 AM

Very simple question for you Pi...if you could prove that the kind of object that would make a 100 mile crater on the Moon would penetrate to 2 bars on Jupiter or on Earth, why is that not just 33 feet under the ocean? That would indeed make a large splash, but no crater...regardless of what the effects site says. This should be easily answered so I hope you don't take too long.

I guess you're trying to claim if the SL-9 model showed penetration to two bars, it wouldn't do any damage.  The problem is that model shows the distribution of energy release.  It would peak at 2 bars... but about half f the energy would remain. 

 

Hitting the water at 35 m/sec is like hitting concrete .... what do you think hitting it at 17,000 m/sec would be like?



#562 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 27 July 2016 - 04:15 AM

If a 100mi diameter cloud of water molecules and rocky stuff with an average density of .01 were to impact the Moon at 17km/s, which is the correct answer?:

 

1.  No crater at all would form

2.  A 100mi diameter or larger would form.

3.  A crater smaller than 100 mi diameter would form.. 

4.  None of the above.

 

The result will be a field of smaller craters.

 

If you change that density to .001, what would the answers be? 

A less concentrated field of small craters.

 

Please note that Brown has not stated what the original density of the proto-asteroids were.  He has only said they started very low-density and then were consolidated by gravity and moved outward so that they are their present densities at their present distances. 

I'll be happy to discuss Brown-type objects in the new topic.



#563 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 27 July 2016 - 01:39 PM

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. 

 

post-1952-0-55223600-1428616181.jpg

 

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.



#564 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 27 July 2016 - 02:23 PM

This is what you (Pi) wrote in #46 of this thread:

 

>>
The point here is that just ONE of these objects is enough to cause a global extinction.  Trying to pack 800 of them into a YEC scenario of only 6,000 years isn't going to work as that would be one every 7.5 years on average.  You are trying to put them into a time scale that is only a tiny fraction of that.  Notice, this isn't just a problem for Brown.... it's a biggie for YEC in general.>>

You said THE POINT is about the (supposed) global extinction these objects (those capable of making a 100 mi crater on the Moon) would cause.  That indeed IS the point...and trying the "bait and switch" tactic now to try to claim a tiny victory...by saying that a 200m rock, which loses 90% of its energy to the atm before it strikes the surface would leave a crater...is a FAR CRY from what you SAID the point was!  You need to concede that you have LOST regarding THE POINT of this discussion.

 

Tell me again what the real point of this discussion is...is it NOW only about whether a 200m rock would leave a mark on the surface?  Or is it (or SHOULD it be) about your claim that these impactors would be lethal for the ark occupants?  You need to concede that they would NOT be...even though they WOULD leave 100mi craters on the Moon.  I win.  You lose.

 

NEXT!



#565 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 27 July 2016 - 07:05 PM

I guess you're trying to claim if the SL-9 model showed penetration to two bars, it wouldn't do any damage. The problem is that model shows the distribution of energy release. It would peak at 2 bars... but about half f the energy would remain.

Hitting the water at 35 m/sec is like hitting concrete .... what do you think hitting it at 17,000 m/sec would be like?


This is just more of your typical dodging.  Of course it would be like hitting concrete at that speed just like it was on Jupiter.  SO? I just asked a simple hypothetical question about why there would be any crater at all if it were shown to penetrate to two bars.  And you had no answer.  Just a dodge.  I was not talking about a "peak distribution" either.  I was suggesting a hypothetical where ALL the energy (90%+) was released at 2 bars.  That is exactly 33 feet below the surface of the ocean.  So it would heat up the water and make a big splash, and an air blast which would not be felt if you were 1000 miles away.  But there would be no crater (or hardly one).  AND it would definitely NOT be lethal to the ark occupants....which IS what the point of this thread has always been at least since I started posting here.  



#566 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 27 July 2016 - 07:19 PM

I asked,

 

>>We don't agree that the smaller rocky objects which MAY have made smaller craters would cause death to the whole planet.  Do you agree they would NOT?  Let's wrap this up!  If you agree, then you have conceded the essential POINT of this thread.>>

How about a direct answer?  Would they be lethal or not?

 

 

Pi >>Evolution or creation .... we are all cousins.>>

 

Speak for yourself.  I am not a cousin of a monkey...which I guess you would say YOU are. 



#567 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 27 July 2016 - 07:41 PM

4.  None of the above.

 

The result will be a field of smaller craters.

 

A less concentrated field of small craters.

 

 

 

This answer ignores the fact that the snow (water at .1 density or less) would also cause an impact mark which would happen in the same instant...and it would likely obliterate the delineation of most individual craters from smaller rocky stuff.  Remember, Pi...you said that at a certain speed, water is like concrete.  Well, a massive object made of "concrete" smacks the Moon at 17km/s...so THAT WILL LEAVE A MARK!...almost as powerfully as the rocky stuff would.  Have you ever been smacked in the head by a .1 density snowball?  I have...and it HURTS even at SLOW speed!  Plus, we know that the larger craters DO have numerous smaller impact marks within their borders.  SOME of those could of course be from later impacts, if there is evidence of overlapping (or other evidence).  But some could also be the impact marks from the rocky inclusions.  I would suggest that perhaps "ghost craters" could be individual objects within a large cloud, and they made their own smaller crater, which then later was almost (but not totally) covered by magma upflowing.  See Faulkner's article here  LINK

 

 

Ghost crater:

original.jpg


#568 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 01 August 2016 - 05:57 PM

Faulkner makes the point that these "ghost craters" show that there was a large impact followed EXTREMELY QUICKLY THEREAFTER by another impact.  This 2nd crater formed before there could be any upwelling of lava caused by the larger impact.  He thinks this points to a swarm hitting the moon in rapid succession, however, I would suggest that possibly it was at the same instant, but the denser inclusions would make their own impact craters within the border of the larger snow object's crater.  Then soon after that, the lava flowed out to ALMOST cover the crater formed by the inclusion. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users