Jump to content


Photo

Problem I - Cratering. 2. The Earth


  • Please log in to reply
615 replies to this topic

#561 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,321 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
  • 2,321 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
  • 1,639 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
  • 1,639 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
  • 1,639 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
  • 1,639 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
  • 1,639 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
  • 1,639 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. 



#569 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 05 October 2016 - 03:52 PM

I am posting what Pi wrote in his meteors thread.  My replies are within.

 

indydave, on 04 Oct 2016 - 6:52 PM, said:snapback.png

To Pi:However, due to your having just disappeared for 3 months from the Craters on Earth thread, just as we were getting close to a resolution...with your needing to concede...

Pi:>>As I pointed out in your thread, I had told you for weeks that the Craters thread that discussion was pretty much burned out.  You claim we were getting close to a resolution.  We hadn't even agreed on the major points, such as how many encounters with those really big rocky snowballs we should expect Earth to experience.>>

 

As I recall you said something like 800 large craters would happen on Earth.  I argued with you about that (the retrograde sling stuff) but I now realize that the number is NOT RELEVANT.  For now, I will assume that 800 object like the ones which caused 100 mi. craters on the Moon DID hit the top of Earth's atm.

 

>>You claimed Brown's model provides an answer.  I was nowhere near concession on that.  However, there are more than 500 posts in that discussion and no agreement in sight over even the most mundane and non-controversial issues.  As I explained in your topic, I will make one last comment  in the Craters subect.>>

We can narrow this down to just 2 things, both of which I believe you have ALREADY agreed with me about.  Would a .1 density object about 70km or so in diameter cause a 160km crater on the Moon?  The crater calc site SAID IT WOULD.  And I believe if I hunted through the posts, I could find your acceptance of that.  So then the OTHER simple point is whether such an object would cause planet-wide lethal devastation on the Earth.  Not just a relatively small crater (if a small rocky inclusion impacted land) but something that would erase life on the planet.  I believe you have also agreed with me that it would not.  You now seem to want to declare a small victory if you can argue that a smaller crater on land might happen.  I would grant that it could.  GET IT?  Now, I need you to either agree or disagree that one of these objects would 1) make a 100mi crater on the moon (even if it has smaller craters within the one large one), and 2) would it cause lethal effects on Earth (except if one of the inclusions happened to smash into the ark itself).  Please answer plainly so we can put this to bed.

 

 

indydave, on 04 Oct 2016 - 6:52 PM, said:snapback.png

I am not much interested in devoting time to other discussions with you.  

That is, of course, entirely your prerogative.  

 

indydave, on 04 Oct 2016 - 6:52 PM, said:snapback.png

You need to do what is fair...to admit that I provided a good explanation for how there could be lots of large craters on the Moon without there being anything lethal to hit the surface or lower atmosphere on Earth.  

Pi>>There is still question about whether or not your proposed rocky snowballs  (70 km diameter; density 0.1; and velocity 17 km/sec) would leave craters on the moon of the size we're talking about 100 mile (160 km) diameter.>>

 

That is what the crater site SAID.  Now you are doing a Hillary imitation to say you just can't seem to REMEMBER.  Must I go back and show you AGAIN that that is indeed what the crater site said?

 

>>Further, while they may not have left the 100 mile diameter holes on the ground on Earth, they would leave very clear evidence that such impacts had taken place.  The evidence we should reasonably expect if is notoriously absent.>>

 

And please explain why you would expect that a rocky inclusion (most of which were less than 50m and the largest was 200m) would have always left a crater we could recognize 4500 years later IF THEY HIT THE SURFACE OF THE OCEAN...while the land was ALL COVERED.  Explain that.

 

 

indydave, on 04 Oct 2016 - 6:52 PM, said:snapback.png

Don't force me to have to go back to rehash it all, AS IF you couldn't see that your back was against the wall.  Admit that I proved the 2 key points, or provide your reasonable arguments why that is not so, and we could continue that discussion (or end it with your concession) and then discuss what you want to here.

We see very different key points.  I was speaking of impacts that would leave a 100 mile diameter crater on the moon.  >>

 

RIGHT.  A .1 snowball going 17km/s WOULD.  Even if it had ZERO rocky inclusions.

 

>>IIRC, we have worked with five impact models.  Two from the University of Arizona (no longer available); One from Purdue ("impact effects"); the SL-9 one; and the last one you found.  >>

 

Pretty sure these are the same...just with one having a fancy animation.  That is, IIRC.

 

>>The first three models stated they didn't work for objects much below a density of 1. >>

 

Nope.  That was ONLY the impact effects site.  The crater size site didn't say that.  IIRC.

 

>>The SL-9 model clearly didn't work for a density as low as you proposed. >>

 

The SL-9 paper had some useful stuff.  I am not willing to toss it out.  It was helpful to show at what altitude (or pressure in atm's) that all the energy would be used up. 

 

>>That left the fifth model.  In the case of the final model, I had contacted the developer of the program about its validity for such low (0.1) densities and he never responded. >>

 

Which model exactly was that?

 

>>Given the established fact that 4 of the 5 models don't work for your low density object...>>

 

Untrue.  We both agreed for MONTHS that the result we got from the crater size site would be acceptable.  There was no disclaimer about objects lower than 1 density except at the impact effects site.  BTW, in #563 I asked this simple question:  "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."  Let's hear a NON-dodgey answer!  That was when you decided to make a hasty exit without concession and now you want to restart WITHOUT ADDRESSING THIS.  Essentially you are trying to pass off the idea that a massive snowball going many times the speed of sound would not create a crater (only about 2x its diameter) on the Moon!  That is absurd!  If it were a block of ice in the form of a 70 km DISC that is 7km thick...what do  you think it would do???

 

 

 

>>...any "fair minded" person should expect verification the fifth model will work before accepting it.  This is especially true as when I reduced the density further the fifth program produced a crater smaller than the impacting bolide.>>

 

Blah blah.  You accepted the fact previously, but now its time to reneg because you didn't like the fact it forced you into a position where you have to concede! 

 

 

>>Your proposed object consists of more than 90% empty space. >>

 

In less than a second, it would be compressed into the equivalent of a solid block of ice.

 

>>I expect it would produce a crater field similar to this one:

 

CinderField2.jpg

 

rather than the 100+ mile diameter crater like the ones we were talking about such as this:

Chaplygin 240px-Chaplygin_crater_1115_med.jpg

 

 

Indy: The smaller inclusions would make that type of crater IF THERE WERE NO WATER/ICE SURROUNDING THEM.  That water BY ITSELF would make the large crater 100mi in diameter.  The crater size site SAYS SO.  And logic does too.  Even with NO INCLUSIONS there would be a 100mi crater.  Whether there would also be discrete smaller craters is disputable.  As I mentioned, these could be what caused "ghost craters."  But you didn't respond.

 

 

 

>>There will be no concession.>>

 

Then I will do my best to show readers you are an obstinate (biting my tongue) polemic featherweight and renegger to not concede.

 

THE PART BELOW BELONGS ON THE OTHER THREAD BECAUSE IT IS NOT ABOUT CRATERS ON EARTH.  I WILL PASTE MY COMMENTS THERE AND PI CAN DECIDE IF HE WANTS TO REPLY THERE. 

 

indydave, on 04 Oct 2016 - 6:52 PM, said:snapback.png

Brown did not use the amount of water on Earth as proof for where water in comets came from.  He did mention it as a factor to consider.  He would likely agree that Ganymede and Callisto (not Castillo...your term) also would have enough water to have sourced comets if all else were equal.  But he said that Earth's volume of water would cause it to "head the list" for where water in comets may have come from.  Brown would include many many other factors about comets as reasons to conclude they came from Earth.  

Right.... Brown said Earth "MUST head the list" because it is the "water planet."  He also claimed "Other planets, moons, and even interstellar space have only traces of water, or possible water."  Yet Faulkner pointed out Ganymede and Callisto (it was a transposition type error) have 100x the water of Earth's oceans.  >>

 

SO?  If all there was to it was how much water a body has, then G&C could form comets.  That is not all there is.

 

>>So objects with 100x the water on Earth have only "traces" of water.  Seriously?>>

 

He did not say ALL have only traces.  I'm quite sure when Brown wrote this, he knew what G&C had.  DF just zeroed in on a point that really has little to do with WB's argument.  Yes, wherever they came from must be where there is lots of water.  It is the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient."  All three meet one necessary requirement...but only Earth meets the other requirements so as to be "sufficient" in having all it takes to make comets.  This part of the discussion is not about craters, so I will ask that it not be continued here. 

 

>>As for interstellar water:

Astronomers have discovered a large concentration of water vapor in a cloud of interstellar gas near the Orion nebula, 1,500 light-years from Earth ... The total amount of water detected would fill all of Earth's oceans about 1 million times. Moreover, scientists suspect that the cloud may contain 50 times more water than the amount actually detected>>

Brown would not disagree that water could be found beyond our SS.

 

>>There is also this more recent discovery:

Astronomers have discovered the largest and oldest mass of water ever detected in the universe — a gigantic, 12-billion-year-old cloud harboring 140 trillion times more water than all of Earth's oceans combined.

 

Now, I realize it is completely unreasonable of me to think that as much as 50 million times all the water on Earth is a bit more than a "trace" of water.  >>

 

No, that is not what makes you unreasonable.  It is your insistence to misrepresent what WB says.  He never said that the only place in the universe to find water (or the place where the MOST water is found) is on Earth.  You want to twist his words so you can attack a straw man.  Apparently so does DF.

 

 

>>We all know 140 trillion times more water than Earth's oceans is just a drop in the bucket.  But I'm sure that's just me and most "fair minded people" would totally disagree.  <<dripping sarcasm>>  The real question here is how Brown can justify the water in the comets came from Earth when we know only two satellites in the outer solar system have 100x the water on Earth... and there's lots more than that.  Faulkner was absolutely right .... If we follow Brown's advice and look to where the water is as a source for the comets, Earth (with far less than 1% of the water in the solar system), isn't even worthy of mention.>>

 

The real question is why you think Brown ever said or implied that the ONLY factor to indicate where comets came from is where the most water in the SS can be found.  He did not say that.  The real ANSWER is that you and DF prefer to attack straw men of your own making. 



#570 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 06 October 2016 - 09:55 AM

This is one of the last two posts I expect to make in this topic.  The purpose of this post is to demonstrate that, contrary to what Indy has been implying about my having "run off" from the discussion; not having provided him with my justification for not giving him some kind of concession; or just opening another topic out of the blue, he had been informed repeatedly of these things.
 
I intend for my next post to be a more detailed and specific explanation why Brown's Hydroplate model fails and is rejected as an explanation for craters on Earth.
 

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.

 

....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.

 

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.

 

Based on the data presented in the SL-9 paper we've been using and other factors concerning the crater calculators, here are my conclusions.

First: we have both experienced issues with the calculators when low densities are used.  From things stated by both of them and the models reported by the SL-9 paper, it is clear there is a lower bound to their reliability.  It appears, from the data in Fig. 7 that they are not useful with densities of only 0.1... especially if an atmosphere is involved.

...

There is no need for a concession on my part.

..... 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.

I agree this topic needs to be put to bed.  We're more than 500 posts into it and haven't come to agreement on even the most simple things, such as how many events with these objects we should expect Earth to encounter.

 

 

That isn't the only problem.  Until now, we've been talking about an impactor composed of loosely consolidated ice.  The objects proposed by Brown contain rock... a lot of it.  Some of that rock is in chunks up to 200 meters across.

 

A 200 m rock would have a volume of 3.35e7 m3.  With a density of 2.5, it would have a mass of 8.375e10 kg.  Indy's proposed bolide has a mass of 1.8e16 kg.  This is equivalent to about 215,000 of those big rocks.

 

According to the crater calculator (It's the same one Indy provided with fewer bells and whistles), a 200 m rock with a density of 2.5 impacting at 17 km/sec will leave a 1.8 mile crater.  If just 0.1% of the mass of Indy's proposed bolide is those big rocks, there would be 215 of them per event.  At 0.01% you would still have an average of 21.5 such craters per encounter.  This is in addition to an unknown number of smaller craters ranging from a few feet to hundreds of yards.

 

If Brown's model were true, there should be many .... I would argue more than 1,000 .... of these crater fields all over the planet. 

 

Brown's proposed bolides are rejected as a potential explanation due to absence of supporting evidence.

 

Go back and check.

 

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.  In fact, I delayed responding at all because I had attempted to contact the developer of the model in an effort to find out if it were valid at such low densities.  It was only after he did not respond that I accepted the claim.  Even then, I commented the acceptance was due to the absence of better data.

 

Well, since then we have been doing a lot of data evaluation and review.  Reconsideration is based on:

1) the "Frank" objects.

2) other models seem to collapse at such low densities.

3) the fact that a 0.1 density object, such as Brown's, would be more than 90% empty space with some rocky inclusion.

 

Oh yeah.... I'm not just walking off.  I will be more than happy to discuss the specifics of Brown's "solution" in the new topic.

 

##### Edit #####

Also reference post #562 (above).



#571 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 06 October 2016 - 12:22 PM

Let's hear a NON-dodgey answer! That was when you decided to make a hasty exit without concession and now you want to restart WITHOUT ADDRESSING THIS. Essentially you are trying to pass off the idea that a massive snowball going many times the speed of sound would not create a crater (only about 2x its diameter) on the Moon! That is absurd! If it were a block of ice in the form of a 70 km DISC that is 7km thick...what do you think it would do???

#572 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 06 October 2016 - 12:52 PM

This should be my last post on this topic unless someone comes up with something new.

 

In this post, I will (again) review exactly why I reject Brown's model as a "solution" to the crater issue.....

 

As already explained, in the course of the nearly 600 posts we've had in this discussion, there have been (IIRC) five models presented for the calculation of resulting crater size.  Three of them have stated they are not suitable for objects with density below about 1.0; one we established will not work for densities as low as the one proposed (0.1); and one didn't say.  It looks like these models are designed for solid objects of a (more or less) uniform composition.  Not the kind of loose conglomerations Indy proposed.  Since we already know four of the 5 models will not work for very low density objects, there is no reason to think the fifth one will unless specific confirmation is provided that it is suitable for densities as low as 0.1.  For that reason, I regard the results of the impact crater models as unreliable for the proposed 0.1 density bolide. 

 

Indy has proposed an impactor which (I think) he believes to be representative of a bolide that would make a 100 mile (160 km) crater on the moon while leaving no crater on Earth.  Regardless of the size a lunar crater would be, we can examine the proposed object to get a reasonable estimate of what we can expect when it hits the Earth.

 

That meteorite produced by Indy is 70 km in diameter with a density of 0.1 and a velocity of 17 km/sec.  Brown also indicates that his launch process would (mostly) send up rock that is (about) fist size or less.  However, there will be inclusions of rocky material up to 200 meters across.

 

We will use spherical values for all estimates.  

A 70 km impactor will have a volume of 1.44e15 cubic meters.  With a density of 0.1, it will have a mass of 100 kg per cubic meter for a total mass of 1.44e17 kg.

A rock with a diameter of 200 m will have a volume of 4.19e6 cubic meters.  With a density of 3.0, it will have a mass of 3000 kg per m3 for a total mass of 1.26e10 kg.  The mass of the bolide is sufficient to produce 14.4 million of the 200 meter diameter rocks.  If only one part per million of the mass is in these large rocks there would be, on average 14.4 of them in a single impactor.

 

Now, I realize one part per million is an arbitrary number established by me.  But, let's put this in perspective... a modern US aircraft carrier 

300px-USS_Nimitz_in_Victoria_Canada_036.

 

Weighs about 100,000 tons.  a single 200 pound sailor weighs about one millionth as much as that carrier.  So, by way of illustration, I'm talking about the weight of a single sailor on the deck of that carrier.  He/she represents about the amount of material in all of the rocks I'm talking about combined.  To put it another way, each of them could be represented by a bowling ball on deck and each of the smaller rocks would be represented by a quart (or liter) of fuel in one of the aircraft.  This represents only 0.0001% of the total mass of the "snowball" that would reach the upper atmosphere.

 

Based on his previous behavior, Indy will object to the "one-in-a-million" comparison as "unfair" to Brown.  That's OK .... I'll stick to it.  He can call me "obstinate," "unfair." or "unreasonable" all he wants.

 

In order to estimate the effects of these rocks, I used the Earth Impact Effects Program.  The inputs were a density of 3000 kg/m3; a velocity of 17 km/sec; angle of 45 degrees; impacting sedimentary rock.  The 200 meter rock produced a crater diameter of 1.45 km (0.903 mi) and depth of 309 meters (1020 feet).

 

The Barringer crater in Arizona

  260px-Meteor_Crater_-_Arizona.jpg

is 1.2 km (0.727 mi) in diameter and 170 meters (560 ft) deep.  It is thought to have been formed by a 50m iron meteorite.

 

The point is that while the object proposed by Indy will certainly not lead to the catastrophic effects of a single bolide capable of leaving a 100 mile crater, it will produce clear evidence the impact had taken place.  That evidence will be in the form of many craters ranging in size from a few meters to about 1.5 miles across.

 

Indy has agreed to some 800 encounters with his proposed object.  I think that at 17km/sec, there would be many more, but that is fine..   He has made a valid point that about 70% (560) of the impacts would be in the ocean.  This still leaves a minimum of 240 crater fields on land.  These crater fields would have a diameter of 70-100 miles and have a dozen or more 1.5 mile craters and hundreds to thousands of smaller craters.  To the best of my knowledge, there are exactly zero examples of such a crater field on the planet.

 

He argues the objects could return during the flood year.  His "solar system" model clearly shows it would be a number of orbits (years) before a collision is possible.  The flood will be over before then.

 

Brown's proposal is rejected because the supporting evidence (craters) we should reasonably expect if the model is true do not exist.

 

This came in while I was composing this message.  Since I have not yet posted my final comments, I'll respond here, then will be done with this topic .... again, unless there is NEW evidence presented.:

 

Let's hear a NON-dodgey answer! That was when you decided to make a hasty exit without concession and now you want to restart WITHOUT ADDRESSING THIS. Essentially you are trying to pass off the idea that a massive snowball going many times the speed of sound would not create a crater (only about 2x its diameter) on the Moon! That is absurd! If it were a block of ice in the form of a 70 km DISC that is 7km thick...what do you think it would do???

You have a "NON-dodgey answer!"

 

1)  There is no reason to think the crater impact calculators will work on a rocky snowball with a density of 0.1 as the impactor.

2)  Regardless of what any other proposed object may do, it is clear that if Indy's proposed bolide will make a crater field.

 

I will obstinately, unfairly, and unreasonably stay with the position I have come to after a careful review of the evidence and have clearly stated many times .....

 

Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate model does NOT explain the absence of large craters on Earth.

 

Indy may now have the final word(s) on the matter ............



#573 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 06 October 2016 - 03:42 PM

Pi is not deserving of others debating him.  He is a renegger of the highest order.  He has already AGREED that the results of the crater size site (NOT the impact effects site) should be accepted, but NOW he's decided he WON'T. 

 

I just went to LINK  WHICH DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR RESULTS BEING UNRELIABLE UNDER DENSITY OF 1.  I entered an object of .1 density and 97km diameter and the result was a crater of 100mi diameter on the Moon.  The prior crater size site has been taken down.  It said a .1 object 70km in diameter would make a 100mi crater.  Pi is simply wanting to squirm away from being shown to be wrong and forced to admit it, so it is time for him to say he is tired of the discussion! 

 

I found another site which ALSO DID NOT INDICATE IT WOULD NOT WORK FOR .1 DENSITY. 

 

Your inputs:

Projectile diameter in metres = 70000
Projectile density in kg/m3 = 100
Impact velocity in km/s = 17
Impact angle in degrees = 45
Target density in kg/m3 = 1500
Acceleration due to gravity in m/s2 = 1.6
Target type: competent rock or saturated soil

Results:

The three scaling laws yield the following transient crater diameters. Note that diameters are measured at the pre-impact surface. Rim-to-rim diameters are about 1.25 times larger!

Yield scaling: 2.75 × 105 m
Pi scaling (preferred method!): 1.65 × 105 m
Gault scaling: 9.24 × 104 m

Crater formation time = 2.97 × 102 s

Using the Pi-scaled transient crater, the final crater is a Peak-ring crater with a rim-to-rim diameter of 3.72 × 105 m.

This impactor would strike the target with an energy of 2.60 × 1024 Joules.

 

So the output was a crater ON THE MOON with a diameter of 372km...over 232mi.  This is MORE favorable to my position.  When inputting a 3.0 density target the result was 321km.    To get exactly a 100mi crater then you need only a 28km .1 density object!  This means even LESS likelihood of any harm to Earth. 

 

I also found this video which says that the depth and width of a crater, if the angle is larger than 20d is determined by the kinetic energy (KE)....1/2mv^2.  So it is very simple to see that a .1 density object has exactly 1/10th the mass and KE of a 1 density object.  So for instance, if we find on a site that a 1 density object of a certain size will form a 100mi crater, then all we need is the diameter needed to have 10x that volume and we will know the size needed to form the same 100mi crater.  That is easily calculated.  So a 32.5km object with 1 density is exactly the same mass and KE as a 70km object with .1 density.  The video says they would produce exactly the same size crater.  So when I used the  site and switched .1 to 1 and 70km to 32.5km then it gave me the exact same KE, however the size of crater was larger. 

 

 

Pi is AFRAID to answer the very simple question I asked which is "common sense"...if you convert the .1 sphere into a DISC which is 1 density (like ice)...so that it is 7km thick and the same speed (which is what would happen in about 1 second as the object gets compressed as it impacts) does he think it would NOT produce a crater which is a little over twice its diameter???  Of course it would!  He has to be NUTS to say it would not.  But he now is operating on the principle that it is better to keep silent and be thought to be a fool than to open your mouth and prove it beyond all doubt.  He should apologize to me and to any readers who have wasted so much of their time reading his words.  He should have said at the start that his position was rigid and unchangeable no matter WHAT the facts are.  What a FINE scientist HE is!

 

As I have argued for 2 year or more, a low density object LIKE WHAT BROWN SUGGESTS could indeed cause large craters on the Moon without doing lethal harm to Earth.  In a private discussion with Faulkner, he agreed.  He is considering co-authoring with me a new CRSQ article which asserts this as being a possible answer.  He has his own theory (12 day swarm during the Flood and perhaps cratering in the Creation Week) but he seemed quite receptive to what I have described here.



#574 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 06 October 2016 - 04:35 PM

Pi>>A 70 km impactor will have a volume of 1.44e15 cubic meters.>>

No, it would be 1.8e14.

 

>>The point is that while the object proposed by Indy will certainly not lead to the catastrophic effects of a single bolide capable of leaving a 100 mile crater, it will produce clear evidence the impact had taken place.  That evidence will be in the form of many craters ranging in size from a few meters to about 1.5 miles across.>>

No, the ORIGINAL POINT was that you argued these WOULD BE LETHAL.  But now that I have shown you wrong...and YOU EVEN AGREE NOW...you want to move the goalposts and claim a victory for yourself to make it AS IF the point was about whether there would be lots of little impact craters we can see today.  But you still have DODGED...tell me exactly how many such little craters would be formed IF THE EARTH IS COVERED IN WATER? 

 

>>He has made a valid point that about 70% (560) of the impacts would be in the ocean.  This still leaves a minimum of 240 crater fields on land.>>

Nope.  100% was covered in water during the time when at least MUCH of the cratering on the Moon happened. 

  For the crater formed in the seafloor: The result of the impact is a crater field, not a single crater. The following dimensions are for the crater produced by the largest fragment.   Transient Crater Diameter: 269 meters ( = 882 feet ) Transient Crater Depth: 95.1 meters ( = 312 feet )   Final Crater Diameter: 336 meters ( = 1100 feet ) Final Crater Depth: 71.6 meters ( = 235 feet )  

 

So your position says that the largest crater from one of the rocky inclusions would be only 71 meters deep and 336 meters wide and it was formed IN THE MIDST OF THE VIOLENT ACTIONS OF THE FLOOD...but we should see those today?  RIGHT.
Also, the same effects site says that this 200m rock would begin to break up at 54km alt.  If it broke into 20 pieces (each 80m diameter) then that site says NO CRATER AT ALL WOULD BE FORMED ON LAND.  Each of the pieces would blow up much like Chelyabinsk did. 

 

You just tried to move the goalposts from being a planet-wide LETHAL EVENT to being something that would show marks on the surface we could see today...and you FAILED TO EVEN SCORE AFTER MOVING THE GOALPOST!

 

I could probably address more of Pi's latest post but I am sickened by how much time I have wasted with him on this (AND OTHER TOPICS HERE!) already.  I assumed he would show honor as a fair disputant if I did a good enough job of disproving his arguments, but NO...he didn't show honor at all.  It is possible I will write more to solidify the points I've made which show that I did indeed establish the two most relevant points:  1) a low density object like what Brown describes (that later consolidated to form asteroids and comets) could indeed have produced very large craters on the Moon and 2) such objects would NOT be lethal to the ark occupants. 



#575 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 07 October 2016 - 04:33 PM

As Pi was trying to exit the field of play, he tried to steer attention AWAY from where he LOST (i.e. LETHALITY), to the VAST numbers of craters he believed should be found today.  He thinks that their absence is strong evidence against HPT.  He has had to plead "no mas" regarding whether the objects Brown describes could make 100+mi. craters on the Moon (they could) or cause planet-wide lethality (they would NOT).  But now he had tried to move the goalposts to a much easier location for him.  Because Brown said the MAXIMUM size any individual rock could be is 200 meters, Pi has decided that EVERY larger proto-asteroid (PA) MUST have MANY of those within it...14.4 was his estimate.  Brown would not agree.  But because it is convenient to him, Pi has ASSUMED that.  He wrote:

 

>> If only one part per million of the mass is in these large rocks there would be, on average 14.4 of them in a single impactor.>>

 

Then he wanted us to decide how many large impactors (clouds with average of .1 density which would be perhaps 70km diameter) on Earth there might be.  Starting with his 800 figure, he conceded that we should focus only on the 30% that could have hit land...or 240.  However, if Brown's idea is right, ONLY the stuff launched TOWARD THE SUN could have ANY chance to hit Earth...while objects launched either toward or away from the Sun could hit the Moon.  So I should not have agreed to use the 800 number...it should be 400 to be fair.  And if ANY of those 400 were to hit Earth during the year of the Flood, then we should expect ZERO to put impact craters into the floor of the ocean which could be seen today.  There is hardly any way to estimate that.  Maybe we should settle on 50% moving from <1AU to >1AU during the flood year.  That would then reduce these which could hit land after the flood year to about 60.

 

But of those large impactors, how many large 200m rocks should be within each of them?  I am still trying to find that out.  Brown did NOT say that EACH PA would have one or more.  He said that NONE would have any that were LARGER.  Many may have had NONE of that size at all.  Pi wants us to assume 1 millionth of the mass is these maximum size (200m) rocks.  That is probably way too much.  That certainly is not what seems to be the case with known asteroids.  It seems that there are perhaps only dozens of such larger rocks that can be found in the entire asteroid belt. 

 

http://www.sciencema...d-disintegrated

 

"Astronomers have known that the vast majority of asteroids do not revolve faster than once every 2.2 hours. Beyond this limit, outward centrifugal forces exceed the gravitational pull the asteroid exerts on surface rocks, and the asteroid falls apart. But there are dozens of asteroids that spin faster than this theoretical cutoff."

 

NASA says:  "The majority of known asteroids orbit within the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, generally with not very elongated orbits. The belt is estimated to contain between 1.1 and 1.9 million asteroids larger than 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) in diameter, and millions of smaller ones."

 

So there are many many millions of asteroids but only "dozens" that are likely to be single rocks NO LARGER than 200m.  If we said there were 100 (dozens seems to me to mean it is LESS than 100) which were ALL 200m, what % of the total mass of the entire asteroid belt might that be?  (I'd say it would be far far less than 1 millionth).  The mass of ONE which is 1 km is 100x the mass of one that is 200m.  And it said "larger than 1 km"...so we might assume the avg of those might be 2km.  That means 1000x for EACH OF THE 1.1 to 1.9 million!  And that does not COUNT the mass of all the A's smaller than 1km.  The total mass of the a-belt is about 3e21kg.  The mass of 100 rocks which are 200m is about 1.1e10 kg.  So their mass is only about 3.3e-12 of the total.  That's about 3 TRILLIONTHS.  It is hard to say how many of the slow-rotating bodies happen to have the larger sized rocks in them.  It would seem that if those were COMMON then you would have far more than just a few dozen that spin faster than 10x per day, and there would be many of much larger size than only 200m.  One has to wonder what possible CONVENTIONAL process of forming A's would cause their single-rock size to be SO SMALL?

 

When you look at the chart here:

 

LINK  (which Brown also shows similar data, but the tufts.edu image has a lower % it seems of 200m rocks)

 

asteroids-rapidly_spinning_asteroids.jpg

 

 

 

...it surely suggests to me that the proportion of asteroids which are single rocks is very small.  So the total mass of the proto-asteroids which were of rocks of 200m or so, is likely FAR less than Pi has assumed.  The close-up images of 67P show NOT A SINGLE ROCK which I could see which was even 50m across.  The images of inside the "pits" showed very uniform 3m spheres which comprise the interior of the comet. 

 

Then there is the question of what REALLY would happen if a 200m 3.0 density object entered our atm.  I believe it is VERY uncertain.  The "effects" site has a very strange quirk.  If you enter an 80m rock then there is NO CRATER AT ALL.  If it is 85m then it makes a 1km crater...and the speed has dropped to 3.8km/s at impact.  It seems quite likely IMO that if a 200m rock begins "breakup" at 54km, then we would expect there to be much of it that is 80m or less and that means (if the effects site is right) there would be ZERO craters, with 100% of the energy that is used up in many air bursts of the smaller bolides.   



#576 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 07 October 2016 - 05:53 PM

Brown:

 

"Most asteroids are rock piles, often with internal ice acting as a weak glue.9 Large rocks that began the capture process are near the centers of asteroids and comets."

 

It is quite possible, IMO, that SOME of those 200m "single rocks" might be multiple smaller sized rocks which are "glued" into a single unit by solid ice.  This too would allow the "rockpile" to spin at a rate faster than just rockpiles which are held together by gravity alone.  But then of course if that sort of object were one of the "inclusions" within a very large .1 density cloud, then when it hit our atm. then it would NOT behave like a 3.0 density solid rock at all.  It would be more like a 1 density object.  Indeed, if it had denser and less dense parts, because of stress differentials, you would expect it to break into smaller individual pieces...with the craters (if any) being determined by the size of the pieces.  If they are under a certain size, about 80m, the effects site says NO CRATERS AT ALL are formed. 

 

BTW, when looking at the other 3 sites I've found for crater size, it seems that none of those even take into consideration the effects of atm in determining if a crater will form and how large it would be.  They do have diff. numbers for Moon vs. Earth, but that is only the effects of gravity, and not atm. 



#577 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 07 October 2016 - 06:12 PM

http://www.lpi.usra....II/pdf/3016.pdf

 

Very Small Asteroids (D < 0.15 km)

Most asteroids with absolute magnitudes H > 22 (corresponding
to D < 0.15 km) rotate with periods of less than
2 h. In fact, all well-derived periods for asteroids below the
diameter noted are shorter than that (Steel et al, 1997; Ostro
et al., 1999; Pravec et al., 2000; Whiteley et al., 2002; C.
Hergenrother et al., personal communication, 2001); though
optical and radar observations of a few asteroids suggest
longer periods, they need to be confirmed by further work.
The observed rotations are so fast that the bodies are in a
state of tension and cannot be held together by self-gravitation.
In Fig. 1, they form a distinct group in the upper left
part of the diagram. In Fig. 5, they lie in the right part of

the diagram, behind the curves of maximum possible spin
rates of bodies held together only by self-gravitation. They
could be held together, however, by very meager bonds;
even the fastest known rotator, 2000 DO8, with a period of
1.30 min and a long axis of ≈80 m, has a centrifugal acceleration
at the ends of the long axis of only ≈0.26 m/s2, and
the minimum required tensile strength for it is on the order
of 2 × 104 Pa, which is ≈10–3 less than the typical tensile
strength of well-consolidated rock
(see Ostro et al., 1999).
While they are sometimes called “monoliths,” their internal
structure can, however, be almost anything except “true”
rubble pile.

 

 

So this paper draws the line at 150m and then it says that even these could be rubble piles held together by a bond that is 1000 TIMES WEAKER THAN CONSOLIDATED ROCK.  So it is probably incorrect for Brown to say that the largest solid rock would be 200m.  Something 1000x weaker than rock could just be a big snowball with gravelly stuff inside.  This could crumble and shred quite easily in the upper atm, and leave no craters at all. 



#578 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 October 2016 - 11:57 PM

It seems to be necessary that I again address  Indy....personal matters with Indy....

Pi is not deserving of others debating him.  He is a renegger of the highest order.  He has already AGREED that the results of the crater size site (NOT the impact effects site) should be accepted, but NOW he's decided he WON'T. 

1)  You were told of my reservations about that site from before the time of my agreement.

2)  You were told at the time I agreed to accept the results that I was concerned

3)  Our discussions of the SL-9 model made it clear that model didn't work for those low densities either.

4)  A review of the "Frank objects" which were about the same density (0.1) as your proposed impactors (though they were missing the rock) and should make millions of noticeable craters on the moon per year.

5)  The established fact that all but one of those models were invalid for such low densities..... the exception being the one Indy is complaining about, that I had reservations about accepting in the first place.

 

All of this was documented above.

 

.....  he now is operating on the principle that it is better to keep silent and be thought to be a fool than to open your mouth and prove it beyond all doubt. 

Those words are going to come back and haunt you....

 

He should apologize to me and to any readers who have wasted so much of their time reading his words.  He should have said at the start that his position was rigid and unchangeable no matter WHAT the facts are.  What a FINE scientist HE is!

What I did was to review the evidence and base my position on the best evidence available.  Isn't that what scientists do?

 

As for whose position is "rigid and unchangeable no matter WHAT the facts are" .... those words are going to come back and haunt you too.....

 

 

Pi is simply wanting to squirm away from being shown to be wrong and forced to admit it,.

The "wrong" Indy is talking about is whether nor not his 70 km diameter, 0.1 density, 17 km/sec impactor would leave the proposed 100 mile diameter crater on the earth or moon.  Based on calculations from models being used outside their limits, I had said that such impactors would leave a 100 mile crater on Earth.  It should be pretty clear by now that is no longer my position, but Indy doesn't seem to get it.  So, let me be as clear as possible:

 

I

WAS

WRONG

 

Brown's proposed impactor, if true, would not be an extinction event.  Of course, we can ignore the fact you spent a lot of time arguing Brown's model would leave NO crater at all. 

 

And that does not change the fact that the meteorites you've proposed would leave very definite evidence they had arrived.  Evidence that is missing.

 

Pi:  >>The point is that while the object proposed by Indy will certainly not lead to the catastrophic effects of a single bolide capable of leaving a 100 mile crater, it will produce clear evidence the impact had taken place.  That evidence will be in the form of many craters ranging in size from a few meters to about 1.5 miles across.>>

No, the ORIGINAL POINT was that you argued these WOULD BE LETHAL.  But now that I have shown you wrong...and YOU EVEN AGREE NOW...you want to move the goalposts and claim a victory for yourself to make it AS IF the point was about whether there would be lots of little impact craters we can see today.

You introduced Brown as an explanation.  Doing so makes it fair game to discuss what we can reasonably expect to see if Brown's claims are true.  In fact, that's exactly what you've been doing, isn't it?

 

Why can you discuss what you think we should see if your proposal is true and I can't?

 

It's a lose/lose situation for me..... 

If I were to start a new topic, it's relevant to the discussion here and I'm simply avoiding it. 

If I question the viability of the proposed explanation here, I'm moving the goal posts.

 

But you still have DODGED...tell me exactly how many such little craters would be formed IF THE EARTH IS COVERED IN WATER? 

The exact same number as we can expect from a 17km/sec launch velocity in a years time .... zero.  At 17km/sec, they escape Earth's gravity and enter a solar orbit.  They won't be back until the flood is over.  Any impact on Earth during the flood event would require a trajectory with laser precision, not Brown's omnidirectional spray.  I thought it would be obvious material launched at 17km/sec isn't going to be back for years.  IOW, there was nothing to dodge.

 

 

....I should not have agreed to use the 800 number...it should be 400 to be fair. 

Now who's "a renegger of the highest order?"   Hypocrite.

 

 

, so it is time for him to say he is tired of the discussion! 

Gee.... I thought I've been saying that for the last hundred posts or so.  We're now approaching 600 posts here and haven't been able to agree on what should be non-controversial matters such as orbital mechanics.

 

Now I have a couple posts to make here again ..... one to address something you said some time ago to which I was hesitant to respond and another to point out the mess you've made of things......



#579 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 October 2016 - 12:07 AM

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. 

I thought you would say we all both descended from Adam and Eve which means you are my cousin.

 

Evolution says we are all descended from a Mitochondrial Eve and a Y-Chromosome Adam which means we are cousins.

 

You may be my 1,237,438th cousin 452,843 times removed, but you're still my cousin.



#580 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 10 October 2016 - 12:12 PM

I thought you would say we all both descended from Adam and Eve which means you are my cousin.

 

Evolution says we are all descended from a Mitochondrial Eve and a Y-Chromosome Adam which means we are cousins.

 

You may be my 1,237,438th cousin 452,843 times removed, but you're still my cousin.

 

No...you can't PRETEND that the Bible account of a literal Adam and Eve is consistent with your evolution idea.  Only those who have SOLD OUT THE BIBLE's account would say that evolution is true.  I don't believe even Th. ev's say that every human is a descendant of a single pair of ape thingies.  So yours was indeed an untrue statement.  And BTW, I suppose you'd have to say you are also a cousin of the modern apes.  Is that right?  Well I'm not.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users