Jump to content


Photo

Noah's Flood And Rainfall

noah flood rain water

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 February 2015 - 12:33 PM

The topic # of the prior discussion is 5685...or search for "Brimstone"



#22 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 February 2015 - 12:40 PM

 

For example, in the Hydroplate model, half the Earth's modern oceans originates in "fountains" that start out at a temperature above 700F.  As has been pointed out in the "Fire and Brimstone" discussion, you simply can't radiate the heat to space quickly enough.  Even Dr. Brown admits that.  It's why he tries to convert a lot of the heat energy to kinetic energy by "blasting" it to space and having continents motor-boating along at several miles per hour.


 

 

 

Much of the heat in the SWC was converted to kinetic energy, launching the C&A's.  I hope Pi would agree that if there WAS such a launching, it would remove heat by converting the energy, with most of the energy (I'd say over 99%) leaving Earth forever.  Also, there would be some water which was once hot that is removed...so the volume would no longer be "half" that remains.  And that remaining water would be massively cooled before any would upwell into the ocean, because of the evaporation of the liquid droplets inside the SCWater when the pressure is released, and also by expansion. 



#23 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 February 2015 - 02:47 PM

A HUGE confirmation of Brown's theory just announced by ESA are the "dinosaur egg"-shaped ROUNDED and very LARGE rocks comprising the comet 67P studied by the Rosetta spacecraft.  They go DEEP within the comet.  To get larger rocks to be rounded in that way requires tumbling erosion...not just collisions as you might expect from meteoroids hitting each other.  The was a surprise when the photos showed them...but not to Brown.  HE PREDICTED THAT IN WRITING 13 YEARS AGO.   See creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html   Notice the photo just after "Prediction 37" about 15% down the page.  They made an even closer fly-by, to 6km, on Saturday, so new even more-vivid evidence of these should soon be released.



#24 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 February 2015 - 03:00 PM

One more way the heat would be removed for the material (a very small %) that DID return to Earth (not reaching escape velocity) would be that the tiny particles would be able to radiate away their heat to space during the minutes or perhaps hours (I'd have to figure the time) it would take for them to slow down (by gravity) and then fall back.  (Pi agrees they would likely be very very cold before they began their fall, BTW)  Their surface area to volume ratio would be extremely high...meaning not a lot of heat per unit of surface area has to be radiated away, INCLUDING the heat caused by friction of reentry.  It would be a fraction of a second to get them down to near absolute zero, even if they would get very hot with friction.  Tiny grains of sand which cause meteorites never glow for very long because they radiate away the heat in a very few seconds and the molecules of water that fall back would be even smaller.  We discussed this extensively on "Fire and Brimstone" (#5685).  BTW, the reason the Space Shuttle stays hot long after its reentry is the surface area/volume ratio (even just considering the hot tiles) is much much lower. 



#25 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 February 2015 - 10:36 AM

I posted the following to http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=6205 about heat and Brown's Hydroplate Theory.  Not sure which thread is best to post into.

This particular thread was intended for discussion of what part of the flood waters could have come from rainfall and what part would have (necessarily) come from other sources.

 

For purposes of this particular matter, I would consider rainfall to be water that has, as its source, condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere rather than a kind of "spray" from some underground source.

 

On this particular issue, I figure about 10 cm (4 inches) as the maximum practical amount of precipitation that could result from condensation of water vapor.  IIRC, this is right in line with what Brown said to you in the phone conversation you had with him and posted on line.  Also, I believe Brown and I had about the same reason for that limitation.

 

This was discussed in post #1, 11, and 13 of this thread.



#26 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 February 2015 - 11:17 AM

For example, in the Hydroplate model, half the Earth's modern oceans originates in "fountains" that start out at a temperature above 700F.  As has been pointed out in the "Fire and Brimstone" discussion, you simply can't radiate the heat to space quickly enough.  Even Dr. Brown admits that.  It's why he tries to convert a lot of the heat energy to kinetic energy by "blasting" it to space and having continents motor-boating along at several miles per hour.

Much of the heat in the SWC was converted to kinetic energy, launching the C&A's.  I hope Pi would agree that if there WAS such a launching, it would remove heat by converting the energy, with most of the energy (I'd say over 99%) leaving Earth forever.  Also, there would be some water which was once hot that is removed...so the volume would no longer be "half" that remains.  And that remaining water would be massively cooled before any would upwell into the ocean, because of the evaporation of the liquid droplets inside the SCWater when the pressure is released, and also by expansion. 

The launch process would certainly convert a lot of thermal energy to kinetic energy.  In the case of material with enough energy to escape Earth's gravity, that energy is (obviously) gone from Earth forever .... well, unless the object later crosses Earth's path and impacts the planet, but I would expect that to be a negligible portion of the total mass launched.   On the other hand, any material that fails to reach escape velocity will return to Earth and its kinetic energy will be converted back to thermal energy as it slows in the atmosphere and stops on impact.... and I would expect that to be a very significant percentage for a variety of reasons.

 

Your argument for 99% is just as much an argument from credulity as my proposal of 50% is one from incredulity.  For that reason, it has no more validity than my estimate.   Actually, it has a good deal less credibility because there is no example or model of this kind of mechanism operating with such high efficiency.

 

Brown claims half the water in Earth's modern oceans came from his underground caverns.  Whether or not it was included in his launch process may be a different matter.  As I recall in when I set up my analysis, there was so much falling mass that I had all of the water that ended up in the oceans returning from space and still had to triple that in rock  (ie: 75% rock, 25% water) to achieve the total mass returning. 

 

I allow for "massive cooling" .... more than 275oC (500oF) in the upwelling water and the maximum possible cooling of nearly 650oC ( over 1100oF) in the returning material.  For some reason, Dave doesn't seem to think that's enough of an allowance.



#27 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 February 2015 - 12:42 PM

I thought this thread might be best, since it had more posts, but I agree the other would be more in line with the subject.  I just wanted to be sure any readers interested in the heat "problem" for HPT would see it.  Is it ok to cross-post to both lists at least for a while?  Or is there a way the readers can see we have a discussion going again?  I think both discussions have been dormant for 3 months or so. 

 

BTW, I believe the rounded rocks ("dinosaur eggs" or "goosebumps") found on comet 67P and PREDICTED BY BROWN 13 YEARS AGO, are indeed relevant to your (Pi's) favorite topic (i.e. heat problem).  It is supportive of what Brown asserts and such a prediction should be seen as powerful evidence.  It doesn't fit your view of where comets came from...and it does strongly help verify what Brown says the mechanism of the Flood was.  You should NOT just disregard that evidence.

 

 

 

 



#28 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 February 2015 - 12:45 PM

Here is a photo of the rounded rocks...notice that they go WAY DOWN into the body of the comet.  Better pics of this may be coming soon because Rosetta swooped in to a distance of only 6km on Sat.  If Brown saw this and then gave his explanation, that would be one thing...but he predicted this IN WRITING 13 years ago!

 

 

 

 

asteroids-goosebumps.jpg



#29 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 February 2015 - 01:13 PM

>>Actually, it has a good deal less credibility because there is no example or model of this kind of mechanism operating with such high efficiency.>>

 

I've given you a good "model" for years...as an analogy at least.  The firehose over the fence is as good a model as is needed, for a fair mind.  Or shooting a bullet beyond a certain distance is also.  Both of those could deliver more than 99% of their material beyond a certain distance.  Which is the question we are discussing...can some "engine" move stuff past a certain distance with 99% efficiency over some period of time?...and it certainly can.  You just need enough energy and something which can deliver the energy without losing much of it.  These analogies or "models" disprove your "nothing can be 99% efficient" attempted argument from incredulity.  You confuse readers with your use of the idea of how efficiently an engine can convert fuel to motion...which is not a fair comparison.  And even if it was...the HP model could be very inefficient (far less than 99%) so long as it expelled large amounts of hot stuff into space which didn't come back.  Some of the material making up C&A's (esp. rocky stuff from inside the SWC or at the base of the chasm) could have not been cooled much at all in the 2 seconds or so of travel up the chasm and into space.  They could have remained hot long after being launched, taking perhaps weeks to cool off in space.  There goes a LOT of energy right there, in addition to the conversion of heat into kinetic.

 

Here is a question for you...if 10% of the hot water inside the SWC were permanently moved into space magically (no kinetic energy needed) beyond EV...would you agree that that 10% cannot heat Earth so it would not endanger any inhabitants?  What if it were 30%?  (I forget how much water or heated rocky stuff inside the SWC Brown says got launched).  NO COOLING is needed at all for stuff that never comes back to Earth...do you agree?  So whatever % it is of hot stuff leaving the SWC, that amount is ADDED (i.e. the heat is removed) to whatever cooling of expansion occurs and whatever heat is cooled off because it is converted to kinetic.  There is also whatever cooling by radiation into space that happens during the reentry of the small % that doesn't reach EV.  That cooling is FAST if the particles are very small.  Far less than a second.  It hardly MATTERS how much total mass there is that falls back!  Your view is that would take a long time but it doesn't.  Even if that particle radiates friction heat of reentry upward toward another particle and that one does the same upward toward another...the cooling happens FAST ENOUGH to get the energy upward into space...long before any of the particles can heat up earth.  That's why if we had a swarm of TINY meteorites hit Earth from all directions at once, even if it were of a LARGE amount of total mass, we would not be endangered at all.  Even if the total energy looked like a lot, the heat would go upward into space, which is the direction of the greated heat differential. 



#30 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 February 2015 - 01:20 PM

>>I allow for "massive cooling" .... more than 275oC (500oF) in the upwelling water and the maximum possible cooling of nearly 650oC ( over 1100oF) in the returning material.  For some reason, Dave doesn't seem to think that's enough of an allowance.>>

 

 

Pi wants to act like he's SO generous to "allow" for stuff shot into space with tiny diameters (for the most part) to cool from 700F to -450F in the time it takes to go up and then come back down....something like about an hour I would guess.  I wonder how long it would take if an astronaut took off a glove or maybe urinated into space...for his hand or that water to freeze to near -450F?  It is no "allowance" by Pi...it is just what should be EXPECTED for stuff that is shot into space and then some of it falls back.  Right, Pi?



#31 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 February 2015 - 01:58 PM

A HUGE confirmation of Brown's theory just announced by ESA are the "dinosaur egg"-shaped ROUNDED and very LARGE rocks comprising the comet 67P studied by the Rosetta spacecraft.  They go DEEP within the comet.  ....

 

I thought this thread might be best, since it had more posts, but I agree the other would be more in line with the subject.  I just wanted to be sure any readers interested in the heat "problem" for HPT would see it.  Is it ok to cross-post to both lists at least for a while?  Or is there a way the readers can see we have a discussion going again?  I think both discussions have been dormant for 3 months or so. 

 

Let's take the Hydroplate stuff that is not directly tied to the matter of rainfall necessary for a global flood to another topic.  I think most people watch the "most recent" posts, so new posts in old discussions will rise to the top of the list.  Or, if you wish, you can start your own topic .... which may be best for the comet stuff.

 

I'll be happy to join you and participate there......



#32 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 February 2015 - 08:55 PM

Readers, please go to the Heat Problems thread (# 6205) for the continuation of our discussion...thanks.  Pi, please respond on 6205 to my posts here to which you haven't yet replied. 



#33 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 18 February 2015 - 08:47 AM

Pi, please respond on 6205 to my posts here to which you haven't yet replied. 

OK... you have the first one now.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: noah, flood, rain, water

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users