Jump to content


Photo

Comets & Asteroids From Earth?

hydroplateflood brown

  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#1 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 April 2015 - 12:46 PM

This subject is an offshoot from the "Cratering 2, The Earth" topic.

 

Briefly, Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Model proposes that the comets, meteors, and asteroids originated from Earth as the result of what can be described as a huge steam explosion that caused the Flood of Noah.

 

For the slower stuff (not like comets that return) that gets pushed outward gradually by RE or solar wind, the odds of it hitting Earth are ZERO for stuff that starts off at 1 AU...while there is still a chance that stuff could hit the Moon as it is on its way outward.  Stuff coming from inside 1 AU could hit either E or M.  That cuts the odds in half, since only half the stuff could hit E while all of it could hit M.  So that ALONE changes the odds from 13.5x to 6.75x...even w/o considering that there would be multiple chances to hit the Moon because the Moon is sweeping up a 500,000 mile swath.  Stuff that is not in the 8000 mile wide (diameter of the Earth) "slice" of E/M's orbit around the Sun has ZERO chance to hit Earth...but it STILL has some chance to hit the Moon.  That would reduce the odds from 6.75x to much lower than that.  I believe 1x is probably a fair number to use. 

As I pointed out with respect to this post, the statement by Indy is so totally, absolutely, completely wrong I don't even know where to begin.

 

For one thing, material launched from Earth  will have an eliptical Earth-crossing orbit that is centered on the Earth.  Few comets have orbits that cross Earth's and none of them are Earth centered.

 

Second, anything that could hit the moon could also hit the Earth.  The moon is not going to act as some kind of huge shield "sweeping up a 500,000 mile swath."  For whatever material is approaching the Earth/Moon system, the moon will spend only a small fraction of its time between the Earth and the other object.  During the remainder of the time, Earth will be fully exposed and, due to it's much larger geometric cross section (and greater gravity) it will be a MINIMUM of 13.5x the target size.  Depending on relative velocities between the Earth and incoming objects, that number may go as high as 300x.

 

What Indy "believes" is irrelevant as we have had the calculation of the comparative target size provided to us by a PhD physics professor.  So, what Indy believes is going to need much more support than just his incredulity.



#2 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 April 2015 - 09:41 AM

I've tried about 20 times on Craters/Earth to explain that with Brown's model (much MORE energy than a "steam explosion") there would be many speeds and trajectories of launched stuff...with some making a super fast launch outward (to return periodically like comets)...and with other stuff (much more of it) being launched so as to remain in a more circular solar orbit, some of which is beyond 1 AU and some being less than 1 AU.  Later that stuff would be pushed outward (and made more circular) by the "radiometer effect" (which Pi said he had "no problem with") and by the solar wind.  This one-time trip outward could be as slow as 2mph as it is building momentum in the inner solar system.  The stuff from inside 1 AU would get just one chance to hit Earth on its ONE trip outward, which would be on an 8000 mile wide (diameter of Earth) "slice" of the solar orbit.  It would have many chances to hit the Moon on this same ONE trip outward, and it would be stuff that is on a much wider 500,000 mile swath (diameter of Moon's orbit).  Also, stuff orbiting Earth at very eccentric orbits could be hit by the Moon with no chance to hit Earth.  The fact that the Moon can be hit by stuff that originally starts at slightly beyond 1 AU (but Earth cannot be hit) while both could be hit by stuff inside 1 AU, means that the 13.5x multiplier (for the cross-sectional area difference) is reduced to 6.75x.  The wider swath and multiple hit opportunities means it should be reduced further, probably to about 1x.  This fact is supported by the extreme dearth of craters on Earth.

 

>>Few comets have orbits that cross Earth's and none of them are Earth centered.>>

 

This is ridiculous.  Firstly, the Earth is a "moving target" so wherever it was (in its solar orbit) when the stuff was launched, would NOT be where it would be as a comet makes its first return.  And secondly, the return path would be determined by whatever object has the greatest gravitational pull at the aphelion (when the object stops its outward path to start its fall back)...which of course would be the Sun.  Pi is picturing what might be the case if the Sun were to be obliterated and the Earth were to be stationary.  Maybe he should have asked some expert to help him.  But if he HAD, they would have missed this too like Pi did I expect, so I would have had to correct them also. 

 

>>Depending on relative velocities between the Earth and incoming objects, that number may go as high as 300x.>>

For highly eccentric orbits like comets, there is no way their relative velocities would be LESS than 17km/s...which makes the gravity multiplier just 1.4x (for a total of 19x when the size multiplier is included).  Only for a rare event like an earth-crossing asteroid on a slightly eccentric orbit, would there be slower velocities, resulting in a higher gravity multiplier. 

 

Because this is a merely tangential topic, and because I have pointed this out 19 times before on the other topic without Pi "getting it", I don't think I'll want to spend time here to try to help him see what I'm saying.  If he understood and disagreed, that would be one thing.  But he doesn't WANT to understand what I'm saying, but rather prefers to bash me.  I'm not going to participate here with him in that objective.



#3 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 April 2015 - 12:11 PM

I've tried about 20 times on Craters/Earth to explain that with Brown's model (much MORE energy than a "steam explosion"

I call the rapid release of super hot water vapor (steam) at very high pressures (an explosion) a "steam explosion."  Indy may call it whatever he likes.  (Yes, I know it starts out as supercritical water, but once the temperature drops below 700F or the pressure drops below 3200 psi, it's just no longer supercritical.... at that point, it's just water.

 

 

.... there would be many speeds and trajectories of launched stuff...with some making a super fast launch outward (to return periodically like comets

There certainly would be many speeds and trajectories.  In fact, this stuff will be launched in all directions, not merely along the ecliptic.  Due to Earth's inclination and rotation as well as the north-south orientation of (most) of Brown's launch area (the Mid-Atlantic Ridge), the vast majority of the launched material will be nowhere near the ecliptic.

 

 

 there would be many speeds and trajectories of launched stuff...with some making a super fast launch outward (to return periodically like comets)...and with other stuff (much more of it) being launched so as to remain in a more circular solar orbit, some of which is beyond 1 AU and some being less than 1 AU.  Later that stuff would be pushed outward (and made more circular) by the "radiometer effect" (which Pi said he had "no problem with") and by the solar wind. 

Well, I haven't tried to calculate the influence of the radiometer effect, and there are a lot of unanswered questions regarding it.   With regard to the solar wind... that is well known and documented.... even NASA has looked into using it to propel missions to very deep space.  There are other, more generic problems with using the radiometer effect ... such as why near-earth asteroids (such as Apophis) seem to be in stable inner solar-system orbits and exhibit no evidence of being pushed toward a higher orbit with respect to the sun.

 

 

 This one-time trip outward could be as slow as 2mph as it is building momentum in the inner solar system. 

Apophis was discovered in 2004.  At 2mph it would be moving outward at 50 miles per day.  Over 11 years, that would be an orbital change in the order of about 193,000 miles .... something that would be easily detected.  In the other discussion, Dave also proposed a speed of 8 mph which would lead to the orbit being about 800,000 miles off.  We will get another chance to test this as Apophis will have two close approaches to Earth between now and 2036.  In 2013, Apophis passed near Earth and was found to be only 182 km from the predictions after 6 years.  Source: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/apophis/ .  If the measurement was off by 2 mph, the error after 6 years would be something over 100,000 miles.  BTW, Apophis has a diameter of about 300m and a density of about 3 kg/m3..... so it is clearly a single rock considerably larger than the maximum size proposed by Dr. Brown.  (Note: In the "mitigation" portion of the NASA article, there does seem to be some discussion of using the radiometer effect to deflect the asteroid.)

 

 

 The stuff from inside 1 AU would get just one chance to hit Earth on its ONE trip outward, which would be on an 8000 mile wide (diameter of Earth) "slice" of the solar orbit.  It would have many chances to hit the Moon on this same ONE trip outward, and it would be stuff that is on a much wider 500,000 mile swath (diameter of Moon's orbit). 

What about stuff that is launched above or below the plane of the lunar orbit?  How is the moon going to intercept that?  How is the moon going to intercept material that is going to be "ahead of Earth" when the moon is beside or behind Earth?  How is the moon going to intercept material coming from the direction of the Sun when the moon is ahead of Earth, behind Earth, or away from the Sun?  You keep making your assertion without ever responding to this issue.  It would be much more impressive if you were to address these problems once rather than repeating your mantra over and over and over.....

 

 

Also, stuff orbiting Earth at very eccentric orbits could be hit by the Moon with no chance to hit Earth. 

In very eccentric orbits, it's much more likely to hit the Earth with no chance to hit the moon.  Go ahead.... explain why something launched above or below the ecliptic is more likely to hit the moon.

 

 

Pi:

>>Few comets have orbits that cross Earth's and none of them are Earth centered.>>

 

Dave:

This is ridiculous.  Firstly, the Earth is a "moving target" so wherever it was (in its solar orbit) when the stuff was launched, would NOT be where it would be as a comet makes its first return.  And secondly, the return path would be determined by whatever object has the greatest gravitational pull at the aphelion (when the object stops its outward path to start its fall back)...which of course would be the Sun.  Pi is picturing what might be the case if the Sun were to be obliterated and the Earth were to be stationary.  Maybe he should have asked some expert to help him.  But if he HAD, they would have missed this too like Pi did I expect, so I would have had to correct them also. 

Maybe you should get some first year engineering student to help you.  If you had, you wouldn't be so completely wrong on the orbital mechanics and the moon having "many chances" to be hit while the Earth would have only one.

 

 

This one-time trip outward could be as slow as 2mph as it is building momentum in the inner solar system. .... The fact that the Moon can be hit by stuff that originally starts at slightly beyond 1 AU (but Earth cannot be hit) while both could be hit by stuff inside 1 AU, means that the 13.5x multiplier (for the cross-sectional area difference) is reduced to 6.75x.  The wider swath and multiple hit opportunities means it should be reduced further, probably to about 1x.  This fact is supported by the extreme dearth of craters on Earth.

As has been pointed out many times... the 13.5x multiplier is for objects with velocities relative to Earth that would cause them to be single pass events.... as they will exit the solar system.  As relative velocities go down, the Earth's "target size" increases.  DaveB came up with a multiplier of about 52x for objects with velocities relative to Earth of 6 km/sec.  Indy now proposes velocities of only 2mph (less than 0.001 km/sec).  This is a really slow approach that will increase the comparative target size of Earth to something near the maximum... about 300x.

 

 

Pi:

>>Depending on relative velocities between the Earth and incoming objects, that number may go as high as 300x.>>

Indy:
For highly eccentric orbits like comets, there is no way their relative velocities would be LESS than 17km/s...which makes the gravity multiplier just 1.4x (for a total of 19x when the size multiplier is included).  Only for a rare event like an earth-crossing asteroid on a slightly eccentric orbit, would there be slower velocities, resulting in a higher gravity multiplier. 

Actually, under the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum, the material returning to the Earth will have the same velocity as when it left Earth.  We have established that stuff just past escape velocity will still be moving along at 1.44 km/sec (about 3200 mph) when it reaches the moon's orbit.  It should be moving at least that fast when it returns to the Earth-moon system.  If you propose it's going to cross the moons orbit at only 2mph, you have a lot of unexplained energy loss to contend with.

 

 

Because this is a merely tangential topic, and because I have pointed this out 19 times before on the other topic without Pi "getting it", I don't think I'll want to spend time here to try to help him see what I'm saying.  If he understood and disagreed, that would be one thing.  But he doesn't WANT to understand what I'm saying, but rather prefers to bash me.  I'm not going to participate here with him in that objective.

We have been discussing this stuff on two other topics: 

(1)  "A Rain of Fire and Brimstone" which is about material that fails to achieve escape velocity.  Since this is not about material escaping Earth's gravity, this topic is tangential to that one and is not covered in the scope of it.

(2) "Earth craters" which is about impact events on Earth, not how the asteroids formed.  Again, the formation of the asteroids and comets is tangential to that one which was intended only to discuss those objects that impact Earth.... not how the comets and asteroids formed.

 

I do think I understand what you are saying... and I do (obviously) disagree with it.  You are simply dismissing the disagreements as a "failure to understand."



#4 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 April 2015 - 07:00 AM

This one-time trip outward could be as slow as 2mph as it is building momentum in the inner solar system. 

Momentum = mass * velocity.  As has already been pointed out, anything passing the moon on an outward trajectory will already be moving along at at least 3200 km/hr.  Adding 2 mph to that isn't going to do much to change that trajectory.

 

In other discussions, Dave has also pointed out the the outward push from the Sun will tend to "flatten" the trajectories of these objects.   Well.... that is true to some extent.  Let's take the special case of an object launched from Earth at escape velocity 11 km/sec) on a path at right angles to the ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit around the Sun).  Let's also treat it as if it is getting pushed outward from the Sun at 2 mph.  The 2mph outward push will not change the 3200 mph vertical velocity.  The vertical velocity will be influenced almost entirely by Earth's gravity which, at the orbit of the moon is only 0.0025 m/sec2.  For all practical purposes, this material is not going to "flatten" its trajectory to the extent necessary to get it into the asteroid belt.  It's orbit will still be inclined by some 2.75o from the ecliptic.  The inclination of the moon's orbit to the ecliptic is 5o.  The angle of the sky covered by the moon is only 0.5o.  One doesn't need to be a math major to see it is much more likely this stuff will miss the moon entirely if it is on a path toward Earth. 



#5 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 13 April 2015 - 06:21 PM

>>Apophis was discovered in 2004.  At 2mph it would be moving outward at 50 miles per day.  Over 11 years, that would be an orbital change in the order of about 193,000 miles .... something that would be easily detected.  In the other discussion, Dave also proposed a speed of 8 mph which would lead to the orbit being about 800,000 miles off.  We will get another chance to test this as Apophis will have two close approaches to Earth between now and 2036.>>

RE and solar wind cannot propel high density objects...just low density (high surface/mass) objects.  That is why they need a SAIL to propel spacecraft.  The spacecraft alone is FAR less dense than an asteroid...so no surprise if we don't see asteroids affected by RE or SW.  So you are dead wrong to think Apophis refutes the RE idea.  The cloud of stuff surrounding the "seed rock" of the "rockpile" would serve as the sail for that object.  And contrary to your former claim...that would not strip the seed rock of its cloud of gases.  If the force against the cloud was small, the cloud would move away but then pull (or be pulled by...actually it is BOTH) the seed rock to keep them together as both move outward. 

 

>>What about stuff that is launched above or below the plane of the lunar orbit?  How is the moon going to intercept that?  How is the moon going to intercept material that is going to be "ahead of Earth" when the moon is beside or behind Earth?>>

OOPS, you said "intercept"...that means a crater on the Moon!  You'd better go back to Craters-Moon to discuss that.

 

My answer would be that I did not say (nor does Brown) that ALL (or even MOST) of the lower speed stuff gets intercepted by the Moon.  It just would intercept more of it (which is on the ecliptic) than you say it would.  There would NOT be a 13.5x multiplier.  Also there would be a flattening of their trajectories, just as I explained on the Craters-Earth site when SN asked that. 

 

>>How is the moon going to intercept material coming from the direction of the Sun when the moon is ahead of Earth, behind Earth, or away from the Sun?  You keep making your assertion without ever responding to this issue.>>

 

I have too responded, several times IIRC.  If I have to go back to show you, just repeat this again, and I'll hunt it down.

 

 >> It would be much more impressive if you were to address these problems once rather than repeating your mantra over and over and over.....>>

 

First, I haven't said or implied that ALL the stuff on the ecliptic would get intercepted by Moon.  You may think my saying THIS is a mantra too.  But you keep misrepresenting me.  That is your MISUNDERSTANDING of what I've said.  I just say that much more of stuff moving outward ONCE is intercepted by Moon than you say...and it would bring the 13.5x multiplier down to about 1x.  Here's how Moon could get hit by an object that has no chance to hit the Earth.  Suppose the object is coming outward (slowly outward due to RE but in a FAST orbit around the Sun) from the Sun (in a retrograde solar orbit), finally getting to 1 AU and misses Earth by being ahead of or behind E in the solar orbit.  (That is, it is not in the 8000mi wide "slice" that Earth occupies.)  But that object could still be hit by the Moon as M is inside 1 AU, at 1 AU or BEYOND 1 AU, at any point along the 500,000 mi swath of the Moon.  (I'm not saying ALL would be...just that more would be than the 13.5x multiplier suggests.  Most might miss BOTH E and M).  Any object within 500,000 mi ahead of or behind Earth could be hit by the Moon.  OOPS AGAIN...I'm discussing a cratering event...maybe we need to switch this paragraph to one of the other topics!

 

>>In very eccentric orbits, it's much more likely to hit the Earth with no chance to hit the moon. >>

 

Most likely you haven't pictured what I'm describing.  Picture some very eccentric orbit (around Earth) that goes out beyond the Moon but still is in E's gravity, so that it will (if it misses the Moon) come back to sling around Earth again, and again.  It NEVER could hit Earth, but it COULD and probably WOULD eventually hit the Moon. 

 

>>Dave:    This is ridiculous.  Firstly, the Earth is a "moving target" so wherever it was (in its solar orbit) when the stuff was launched, would NOT be where it would be as a comet makes its first return.  And secondly, the return path would be determined by whatever object has the greatest gravitational pull at the aphelion (when the object stops its outward path to start its fall back)...which of course would be the Sun.  Pi is picturing what might be the case if the Sun were to be obliterated and the Earth were to be stationary.  Maybe he should have asked some expert to help him.  But if he HAD, they would have missed this too like Pi did I expect, so I would have had to correct them also.

Pi: Maybe you should get some first year engineering student to help you.  If you had, you wouldn't be so completely wrong on the orbital mechanics and the moon having "many chances" to be hit while the Earth would have only one.>>

If I did that, I would FIRST be sure he could repeat what I am asserting rather than constantly DISTORTING it as you do.  Ask your expert if I'm right that if you launched an object from Earth, the Sun would pull the object back to it, rather than the Earth pulling it back...so that object would end up being in orbit around the Sun on its second trip outward.  It would NOT (as you say it would have to) come back to where the Earth is, swing around the Earth, and then head back out.  That is absurd.  That is NOT what we would expect to see if HPT is right.  Comets would return to, and then around, the SUN..even though they came from Earth.  If you disagree, explain what force the Sun would have compared to the Earth when the comet is out beyond Jupiter's orbit distance and it has stopped all outward motion and now is starting to fall back inward.  Why in the world would the comet return toward Earth rather than toward the Sun?  (Have your expert read this paragraph and then inform you.)

 

>>As has been pointed out many times... the 13.5x multiplier is for objects with velocities relative to Earth that would cause them to be single pass events.... as they will exit the solar system.  As relative velocities go down, the Earth's "target size" increases.  DaveB came up with a multiplier of about 52x for objects with velocities relative to Earth of 6 km/sec.  Indy now proposes velocities of only 2mph (less than 0.001 km/sec).  This is a really slow approach that will increase the comparative target size of Earth to something near the maximum... about 300x.>>

The slower speed also increases the Moon's target because of the Moon's gravity.  But we are NOT talking about slow-speed objects because higher speeds are needed to form the large craters (OOPS!...wrong topic again) on the Moon.  So these are fast objects, going retrograde and hitting the Earth or the Moon head on at HIGH SPEED...so the target factor would be far less than 19x...more like about 14 to 14.5.

 

>>Actually, under the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum, the material returning to the Earth will have the same velocity as when it left Earth.  We have established that stuff just past escape velocity will still be moving along at 1.44 km/sec (about 3200 mph) when it reaches the moon's orbit.  It should be moving at least that fast when it returns to the Earth-moon system.  If you propose it's going to cross the moons orbit at only 2mph, you have a lot of unexplained energy loss to contend with.>>

After now TWENTY ONE times trying to explain this...   I have never SAID stuff RETURNS at only 2 mph.  Only a tiny part would EVER return...the fastest stuff like comets.  Asteroid-stuff gets moved outward slowly ONE time...pushed by RE and solar wind.  It is moved outward slowly at 2-8mph MINIMUM (based on 4000 years to get to the A-belt) but the orbital speed or CLOSING speed for E/M is higher than that...especially retrograde stuff. 

 

 

>>I do think I understand what you are saying... and I do (obviously) disagree with it.  You are simply dismissing the disagreements as a "failure to understand.">>

If you DID understand, you wouldn't still be making arguments filled with things I do NOT say...like stuff would return at 2 mph.  You want to PRETEND you understand but you don't.  Not even after 21 times.  If you really DO understand, they you are building a straw man and purposefully deceiving. 

 

>>Momentum = mass * velocity.  As has already been pointed out, anything passing the moon on an outward trajectory will already be moving along at at least 3200 km/hr.  Adding 2 mph to that isn't going to do much to change that trajectory.>>

You don't understand me.  That is not what I assert at all.  The stuff moving out from the Sun at 2-8mph takes years to hit E/M on its ONE trip outward.  And not ALL of that stuff would hit either...most might miss both. 

 

>>In other discussions, Dave has also pointed out the the outward push from the Sun will tend to "flatten" the trajectories of these objects.   Well.... that is true to some extent. >>

Um...I think you just got done mocking me for saying it would flatten...when you said "What about stuff that is launched above or below the plane of the lunar orbit?  How is the moon going to intercept that?"    Not ALL the stuff gets intercepted.  If it misses both E & M, then it would head outward, never to return, and it would be flattened by its solar orbit velocity as well as by gravity from planets in the ecliptic.  That is why the a-belt (and TNO's) is like a donut...flattened and circular. 

 

>>Let's take the special case of an object launched from Earth at escape velocity 11 km/sec) on a path at right angles to the ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit around the Sun).  Let's also treat it as if it is getting pushed outward from the Sun at 2 mph.  The 2mph outward push will not change the 3200 mph vertical velocity.  >>

 

No, but the TWO velocities combined alter the initial vector, curving the direction to make a flatter orbit.  And it would not just be the RE force...but also the force of the solar orbit that does the flattening. 

 

>>The vertical velocity will be influenced almost entirely by Earth's gravity which, at the orbit of the moon is only 0.0025 m/sec2.  For all practical purposes, this material is not going to "flatten" its trajectory to the extent necessary to get it into the asteroid belt.  It's orbit will still be inclined by some 2.75o from the ecliptic. >>

 

Where do you get that number?

 

>>The inclination of the moon's orbit to the ecliptic is 5o.  The angle of the sky covered by the moon is only 0.5o.  One doesn't need to be a math major to see it is much more likely this stuff will miss the moon entirely if it is on a path toward Earth.>>

 

The stuff which is "flattened" and which I say has more op's to hit Moon than Earth is NOT stuff which returns.  (22 times) It is stuff that goes past EV but is still in E/M's vicinity until it gets pushed outward (to never return) ONCE.  You have NOT understood me.  Before declaring me to be stupid or ignorant, try FIRST to understand me such that you could repeat what I say in such a way as I will agree you "got it."  So far you haven't been able to do that.  That makes YOU the un-smart one. 

 

So if the stuff is headed up toward the North Star when it escapes Earth...do you think it will continue moving only North?  Or will it (if there is a radiometer effect or solar wind effect) be pushed outward so that it is not going around the Sun on a perfect North-South (polar) solar orbit, but rather it is going to be nearer to the ecliptic?  The centrifugal force of its solar orbit (which it had before launch) as well as the new outward momentum of RE/solar wind would flatten it.  And this would be not even counting what effect gravity of all the planets has.  I am not even saying that the stuff shot to the North, would nec. hit or even have a chance to hit the Moon.  Maybe most of that would go past the Moon before it flattens much.  But stuff shot so as to start out at (say) 1 AU - 10 million miles COULD get flattened a lot, especially if you include the gravity effects of Venus and Earth pulling it downward.  (Do you agree they would?  I never heard back from SN on that point...which is VALID).  So that by the time (years? DECADES?) when they got back to 1 AU, they may have a chance to hit either one.  AND if you say "no...the North-launches could NEVER hit the Moon"...then fine.  They also would never hit Earth either. 



#6 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 14 April 2015 - 12:09 PM

Pi discussed Lagrangarian points on the Craters-Earth topic, but I wanted to post this here...where Brown uses the L4 and L5 points for Jupiter to argue in favor of HPT.

 

 

http://www.creations...Asteroids2.html

 

15. Asteroids 3753 Cruithne, 2010 SO16, 2002 AA29, and a few others are traveling companions of Earth.78 They delicately oscillate, in a horseshoe pattern, around two points that lie 60° (as viewed from the Sun) forward and 60° behind the Earth but on Earth’s nearly circular orbit. These points, predicted by Lagrange in 1764 are called Lagrange points. They are stable places where an object would not move relative to the Earth and Sun if the object could once occupy either point going at zero velocity relative to the Earth and Sun. But how could a slowly moving object ever reach, or get near, either point? Most likely, it barely escaped from Earth.

 

Also, Asteroid 3753 could not have been in its present orbit for long, because it is so easy for a passing gravitational body to perturb it out of its barely stable niche. Time permitting, Venus will pass near this asteroid 8,000 years from now and may dislodge it.79

 

16. Jupiter has two Lagrange points on its nearly circular orbit. The first, called L4, lies 60° (as seen from the Sun) in the direction of Jupiter’s motion. The second, called L5, lies 60° behind Jupiter.

 

Visualize planets and asteroids as large and small marbles rolling in orbitlike paths around the Sun on a large frictionless table. At each Lagrange point is a bowl-shaped depression that moves along with each planet. Because there is no friction, small marbles (asteroids) that roll down into a bowl normally pick up enough speed to roll back out. However, if a chance gravitational encounter slowed one marble right after it entered a bowl, it might not exit the bowl. Marbles trapped in a bowl would normally stay 60° ahead of or behind their planet, gently rolling around near the bottom of their moving bowl.

 

One might think an asteroid is just as likely to get trapped in Jupiter’s leading bowl as its trailing bowl—a 50–50 chance, as with the flip of a coin. Surprisingly, 1068 asteroids are in Jupiter’s leading (L4) bowl, but only 681 are in the trailing bowl.80 This shouldn’t happen in a trillion trials if an asteroid is just as likely to get trapped at Jupiter’s L4 as L5. What concentrated so many asteroids near the L4 Lagrange point?

 

According to the hydroplate theory, asteroids formed near Earth’s orbit. Then, the radiometer effect spiraled them outward, toward the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. and Jupiter. Some spiraled through Jupiter’s circular orbit and passed near both Jupiter’s L4 and L5. Asteroids that entered the “L5 bowl” received a forward gravitational tug from Jupiter that tended to pull them out of that bowl, while those that entered the “L4 bowl” received a backward gravitational tug that tended to keep them in the “L4 bowl.” The excess number of asteroids near Jupiter’s L4 is what we would expect based on the hydroplate theory.

 

 

asteroids-drawing_of_asteroid_belt.jpg

 

Figure 182: Asteroid Belt and Jupiter’s L4 and L5. The size of the Sun, planets, and especially asteroids are magnified, but their relative positions are accurate. About 90% of the 625,000 catalogued asteroids lie between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, a doughnut-shaped region called the asteroid belt. A few small asteroids cross Earth’s orbit.

 

Jupiter’s Lagrange points, L4 and L5, lie 60° ahead and 60° behind Jupiter, respectively. They move about the Sun at the same velocity as Jupiter, as if they were fixed at the corners of the two equilateral triangles shown. Items 15 and 16 explain why so many asteroids have settled near L4 and L5, and why significantly more oscillate around L4 than L5.



#7 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 April 2015 - 02:43 PM

>>

I call the rapid release of super hot water vapor (steam) at very high pressures (an explosion) a "steam explosion."  Indy may call it whatever he likes.  (Yes, I know it starts out as supercritical water, but once the temperature drops below 700F or the pressure drops below 3200 psi, it's just no longer supercritical.... at that point, it's just water.

>>

Once more you demonstrate that although you have a better understanding than most, you still are poorly informed about what the HPT really is. 

 

A "steam explosion" is IMO an appropriate term for when very hot LIQUID water under pressure is released, to then expand about 1000x to become steam.  I believe I understand Brown to be saying that the SCwater is special in that it has LIQUID DROPLETS within a vapor...and that when the pressure is released there is many times more expansion (and cooling) than just 1000x due to the droplets evaporating to become steam.  A supercritical water explosion is NOT the same as a steam explosion. 

 

Also, Brown emphasized that there would be nuclear energy that adds to the power of the SCW.  That not only heats the water more, but it also ionizes the water so that when the pressure is released the H and O atoms (positively and negatively charged) crash back into each other with kinetic force so that more heating happens, and this means there is more and more expansion all the way upward toward space...more than what would happen with normal steam, no mater how hot it would be.  Perhaps also more than when normal SCW would be released.  The nuclear energy is produced by the formation of heavy elements through fusion and fission...as a result of high voltages caused by compression of quartz (the pietzoelectric effect).  This also accelerates radio decay. 



#8 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 April 2015 - 07:31 AM

Also, Asteroid 3753 could not have been in its present orbit for long, because it is so easy for a passing gravitational body to perturb it out of its barely stable niche. Time permitting, Venus will pass near this asteroid 8,000 years from now and may dislodge it.79

Why 8,000 years?  Venus passes Earth much more often than that.  In fact, it passes between the Earth and the Sun on a 243 year pattern... 121.5 years, then 8 years.  The most recent being in 2004 and 2012.  (Reference: http://en.wikipedia....ransit_of_Venus )  If Venus is going to perturb the orbit of Asteroid 3753, it would most likely be at one of those times when its gravity is directly added to the Sun's.

 

 

One might think an asteroid is just as likely to get trapped in Jupiter’s leading bowl as its trailing bowl—a 50–50 chance, as with the flip of a coin. Surprisingly, 1068 asteroids are in Jupiter’s leading (L4) bowl, but only 681 are in the trailing bowl.80 This shouldn’t happen in a trillion trials if an asteroid is just as likely to get trapped at Jupiter’s L4 as L5. What concentrated so many asteroids near the L4 Lagrange point?

 

According to the hydroplate theory, asteroids formed near Earth’s orbit. Then, the radiometer effect spiraled them outward, toward the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. and Jupiter. Some spiraled through Jupiter’s circular orbit and passed near both Jupiter’s L4 and L5. Asteroids that entered the “L5 bowl” received a forward gravitational tug from Jupiter that tended to pull them out of that bowl, while those that entered the “L4 bowl” received a backward gravitational tug that tended to keep them in the “L4 bowl.” The excess number of asteroids near Jupiter’s L4 is what we would expect based on the hydroplate theory.

Not really.  I'd still expect the number of asteroids at L4 and L5 to be the same.  The reason is that the forces are symmetrical with respect to Jupiter.  That is, there will be as many asteroids pulled out of the L4 as L5 and the same number will be pulled in to both points.

 

BTW, there is a problem with the angular momentum of the asteroids.  Earth orbits the sun at 30 km/sec and Jupiter orbits it at 13 km/sec.  What happened to the other 17 km/sec.   Notice, if they were launched retrograde with respect to Earth, they would be moving 17 km/sec too slow to maintain their orbit around the sun which would lower their perihelion (the point where they are nearest the sun) while their aphelion (point farthest from the sun) will remain near Earth's orbit.  This is going to result in an orbit that is significantly eccentric.



#9 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 April 2015 - 08:01 AM

>>Pi wrote:

I call the rapid release of super hot water vapor (steam) at very high pressures (an explosion) a "steam explosion."  Indy may call it whatever he likes.  (Yes, I know it starts out as supercritical water, but once the temperature drops below 700F or the pressure drops below 3200 psi, it's just no longer supercritical.... at that point, it's just water.

>>
Indy answers:
Once more you demonstrate that although you have a better understanding than most, you still are poorly informed about what the HPT really is.  

That may or may not be, but I have a really good understanding of what a steam exposion is.

 

 

A "steam explosion" is IMO an appropriate term for when very hot LIQUID water under pressure is released, to then expand about 1000x to become steam. 

Your opinion is wrong.  A steam explosion is the rapid release of STEAM.... not liquid water.  

 

Mythbusters did an episode on exploding water heaters.  Their first trials involved heating a competely filled the water heater to well above the boiling point of water... the results were disappointing to say the least.  When they reduced the water level to about half then boiled the water, filling the empty space with steam, the results were spectacular.   The water heater launched thru a plywood roof and reached an estimated altitude of around 400 feet.

 

The full episode is available here:  https://www.youtube....h?v=K3h6eAUEYos

The short version is here:  https://www.youtube....h?v=jbreKn4PoAc

and an ever shorter version:  https://www.youtube....h?v=fUkjXGfCLIM

 

In other words... to have a steam explosion, one must have steam..... not just superheated water.

 

 

I believe I understand Brown to be saying that the SCwater is special in that it has LIQUID DROPLETS within a vapor...and that when the pressure is released there is many times more expansion (and cooling) than just 1000x due to the droplets evaporating to become steam.  A supercritical water explosion is NOT the same as a steam explosion. 

The INSTANT the pressure drops below about 3200 psi OR the temperature drops below about 700 F it is no longer supercritical.  At that point, it is just water .... therefore, it is a STEAM explosion.

 

 

Also, Brown emphasized that there would be nuclear energy that adds to the power of the SCW.  That not only heats the water more, but it also ionizes the water so that when the pressure is released the H and O atoms (positively and negatively charged) crash back into each other with kinetic force so that more heating happens, and this means there is more and more expansion all the way upward toward space...more than what would happen with normal steam, no mater how hot it would be.  Perhaps also more than when normal SCW would be released.  The nuclear energy is produced by the formation of heavy elements through fusion and fission...as a result of high voltages caused by compression of quartz (the pietzoelectric effect).  This also accelerates radio decay. 

Energy added to the SCW doesn't change the nature of the event once the pressure or temperature frop below super-critical levels.

 

As for the ionization of hydrogen and oxygen.... when they rejoin, to form water, there will be a considerable release of energy in the form of heat.  No doubt about that .... but if it takes place at pressures below 3200 psi, it is still ordinary water and a STEAM EXPLOSION.   BTW, it is the energy release of hydrogen and oxygen forming water at high temperatures and pressures (ie: steam) that we use to power our cars.

 

More on your other posts later.....



#10 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 April 2015 - 08:50 AM

>>Not really.  I'd still expect the number of asteroids at L4 and L5 to be the same.  The reason is that the forces are symmetrical with respect to Jupiter.  That is, there will be as many asteroids pulled out of the L4 as L5 and the same number will be pulled in to both points.>>

I'm not sure that is true.  I don't know why Brown sees it as strong evidence for HPT.  However, he claims that they SHOULD be the same, but they are NOT.  He claims the random odds of that are in the trillions.  So if you EXPECT them to be the same...but they are NOT...do you just believe the "lottery was won"?

 

>>BTW, there is a problem with the angular momentum of the asteroids.  Earth orbits the sun at 30 km/sec and Jupiter orbits it at 13 km/sec.  What happened to the other 17 km/sec.   Notice, if they were launched retrograde with respect to Earth, they would be moving 17 km/sec too slow to maintain their orbit around the sun which would lower their perihelion (the point where they are nearest the sun) while their aphelion (point farthest from the sun) will remain near Earth's orbit.  This is going to result in an orbit that is significantly eccentric.>>

Brown understands orbital mechanics quite well, I believe...probably better than you do.  I think he says the "push" from RE and solar wind circularizes the orbits.  Makes sense. 



#11 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 April 2015 - 08:55 AM

>>Mythbusters did an episode on exploding water heaters.  Their first trials involved heating a competely filled the water heater to well above the boiling point of water... the results were disappointing to say the least.  When they reduced the water level to about half then boiled the water, filling the empty space with steam, the results were spectacular.   The water heater launched thru a plywood roof and reached an estimated altitude of around 400 feet.>>

That probably is due to the uncompressability of liquid water.  You need space for the GAS to be compressed.  The fact still remains that your attempt to minimize what Brown describes is inaccurate.  There are more factors in HPT than what exist when hot liquid water gets released as steam.  More expansion. 



#12 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 April 2015 - 09:05 AM

This quote from wiki shows IMO why we would not expect the alignment of Venus/Earth to be the same as Venus/3753.

 

Its orbit takes it inside the orbit of Mercury and outside the orbit of Mars. Cruithne orbits the Sun in about 1 year but it takes 770 years for the series to complete a horseshoe-shaped movement around the Earth.

 

My guess is that Brown has it right.  Did you check with an expert before you posted #8?  You really should follow your own advice and do that every time.



#13 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 April 2015 - 09:52 AM

This quote from wiki shows IMO why we would not expect the alignment of Venus/Earth to be the same as Venus/3753.

 

Its orbit takes it inside the orbit of Mercury and outside the orbit of Mars. Cruithne orbits the Sun in about 1 year but it takes 770 years for the series to complete a horseshoe-shaped movement around the Earth..

If Asteroid 3753 is orbiting between inside the orbit of Mercury and outside the orbit of Mars, it isn't orbiting at a Langrangarian point, is it?  Case closed.

 

 

Did you check with an expert before you posted #8?  You really should follow your own advice and do that every time.

You have a lot of brass to tell me I should check with an expert every time when you never do.

### edit ####

Even more so when you do it in the same post you are "whiffing it" so badly.....

 



#14 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 April 2015 - 11:05 AM

That probably is due to the uncompressability of liquid water.  You need space for the GAS to be compressed.  The fact still remains that your attempt to minimize what Brown describes is inaccurate.  There are more factors in HPT than what exist when hot liquid water gets released as steam.  More expansion. 

It doesn't matter.... once the temperature drops below 700F or the pressure drops below 3200 psi, it's STILL ordinary water.



#15 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 April 2015 - 11:07 AM

BTW, there is a problem with the angular momentum of the asteroids.  Earth orbits the sun at 30 km/sec and Jupiter orbits it at 13 km/sec.  What happened to the other 17 km/sec.   Notice, if they were launched retrograde with respect to Earth, they would be moving 17 km/sec too slow to maintain their orbit around the sun which would lower their perihelion (the point where they are nearest the sun) while their aphelion (point farthest from the sun) will remain near Earth's orbit.  This is going to result in an orbit that is significantly eccentric.

Brown understands orbital mechanics quite well, I believe...probably better than you do.  I think he says the "push" from RE and solar wind circularizes the orbits.  Makes sense. 

I must have missed the part where you explained what happened to that 17 km/sec angular momentum.



#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 April 2015 - 01:41 PM

Pi:

>>Apophis was discovered in 2004.  At 2mph it would be moving outward at 50 miles per day.  Over 11 years, that would be an orbital change in the order of about 193,000 miles .... something that would be easily detected.  In the other discussion, Dave also proposed a speed of 8 mph which would lead to the orbit being about 800,000 miles off.  We will get another chance to test this as Apophis will have two close approaches to Earth between now and 2036.>>
 

Indy:
RE and solar wind cannot propel high density objects...just low density (high surface/mass) objects.  That is why they need a SAIL to propel spacecraft.  The spacecraft alone is FAR less dense than an asteroid...so no surprise if we don't see asteroids affected by RE or SW.  So you are dead wrong to think Apophis refutes the RE idea.  The cloud of stuff surrounding the "seed rock" of the "rockpile" would serve as the sail for that object.  And contrary to your former claim...that would not strip the seed rock of its cloud of gases.  If the force against the cloud was small, the cloud would move away but then pull (or be pulled by...actually it is BOTH) the seed rock to keep them together as both move outward. 

So it is no surprise that we don't see asteroids affected by "RE or SW" but we should expect to see them pushed out to the asteroid belt and beyond (Brown says one of Saturn's moons is a captured asteroid) by the radiometer effect and solar wind.   Which is it?

 

The "cloud of stuff" (which I guess is mostly made of water molecules) will quickly be blown away from the more dense and more massive rocks.  I'd like to see the details that support your claim the "cloud of gases" will pull along 200 meter rocks.  With a density many times that of the "cloud," the pressure of any wind type forces would act much more on the less dense object.   Pressure = force * area while force = mass * acceleration.... the same pressure on a more dense object will be acting on less area therefore therefore it will exert less force.  Less force on a more massive object will result in less acceleration.  You really don't even need to do the calculations .... it's almost intuitive.

 

 

OOPS, you said "intercept"...that means a crater on the Moon!  You'd better go back to Craters-Moon to discuss that.

You are absolutely correct.... I'll reserve comment on any impact related stuff for that topic and not respond to them here.  I'll also take ten lashes with a wet noodle for having mixed topics.

 

 

Pi:

>>Let's take the special case of an object launched from Earth at escape velocity 11 km/sec) on a path at right angles to the ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit around the Sun).  Let's also treat it as if it is getting pushed outward from the Sun at 2 mph.  The 2mph outward push will not change the 3200 mph vertical velocity.  >>

 

Indy:

No, but the TWO velocities combined alter the initial vector, curving the direction to make a flatter orbit.  And it would not just be the RE force...but also the force of the solar orbit that does the flattening. 

 

Pi:

>>The vertical velocity will be influenced almost entirely by Earth's gravity which, at the orbit of the moon is only 0.0025 m/sec2.  For all practical purposes, this material is not going to "flatten" its trajectory to the extent necessary to get it into the asteroid belt.  It's orbit will still be inclined by some 2.75o from the ecliptic. >>

 

Indy:

Where do you get that number?

The ecliptic is the plane of Earth's orbit.  Earth is moving along that plane at 30 km/sec.  Material that is escaping Earth's gravity perpendicular to that plane will have a minimum velocity of 1.44 km/sec as it reaches the distance of the moon's orbit.  The 2.75o is arcsin (1.44/30).

 

That's all I have time for right this minute.....



#17 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 April 2015 - 01:41 PM

Pi:

>>Apophis was discovered in 2004.  At 2mph it would be moving outward at 50 miles per day.  Over 11 years, that would be an orbital change in the order of about 193,000 miles .... something that would be easily detected.  In the other discussion, Dave also proposed a speed of 8 mph which would lead to the orbit being about 800,000 miles off.  We will get another chance to test this as Apophis will have two close approaches to Earth between now and 2036.>>
 

Indy:
RE and solar wind cannot propel high density objects...just low density (high surface/mass) objects.  That is why they need a SAIL to propel spacecraft.  The spacecraft alone is FAR less dense than an asteroid...so no surprise if we don't see asteroids affected by RE or SW.  So you are dead wrong to think Apophis refutes the RE idea.  The cloud of stuff surrounding the "seed rock" of the "rockpile" would serve as the sail for that object.  And contrary to your former claim...that would not strip the seed rock of its cloud of gases.  If the force against the cloud was small, the cloud would move away but then pull (or be pulled by...actually it is BOTH) the seed rock to keep them together as both move outward. 

So it is no surprise that we don't see asteroids affected by "RE or SW" but we should expect to see them pushed out to the asteroid belt and beyond (Brown says one of Saturn's moons is a captured asteroid) by the radiometer effect and solar wind.   Which is it?

 

The "cloud of stuff" (which I guess is mostly made of water molecules) will quickly be blown away from the more dense and more massive rocks.  I'd like to see the details that support your claim the "cloud of gases" will pull along 200 meter rocks.  With a density many times that of the "cloud," the pressure of any wind type forces would act much more on the less dense object.   Pressure = force * area while force = mass * acceleration.... the same pressure on a more dense object will be acting on less area therefore therefore it will exert less force.  Less force on a more massive object will result in less acceleration.  You really don't even need to do the calculations .... it's almost intuitive.

 

 

OOPS, you said "intercept"...that means a crater on the Moon!  You'd better go back to Craters-Moon to discuss that.

You are absolutely correct.... I'll reserve comment on any impact related stuff for that topic and not respond to them here.  I'll also take ten lashes with a wet noodle for having mixed topics.

 

 

Pi:

>>Let's take the special case of an object launched from Earth at escape velocity 11 km/sec) on a path at right angles to the ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit around the Sun).  Let's also treat it as if it is getting pushed outward from the Sun at 2 mph.  The 2mph outward push will not change the 3200 mph vertical velocity.  >>

 

Indy:

No, but the TWO velocities combined alter the initial vector, curving the direction to make a flatter orbit.  And it would not just be the RE force...but also the force of the solar orbit that does the flattening. 

 

Pi:

>>The vertical velocity will be influenced almost entirely by Earth's gravity which, at the orbit of the moon is only 0.0025 m/sec2.  For all practical purposes, this material is not going to "flatten" its trajectory to the extent necessary to get it into the asteroid belt.  It's orbit will still be inclined by some 2.75o from the ecliptic. >>

 

Indy:

Where do you get that number?

The ecliptic is the plane of Earth's orbit.  Earth is moving along that plane at 30 km/sec.  Material that is escaping Earth's gravity perpendicular to that plane will have a minimum velocity of 1.44 km/sec as it reaches the distance of the moon's orbit.  The 2.75o is arcsin (1.44/30).

 

That's all I have time for right this minute.....



#18 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 April 2015 - 08:39 PM

If Asteroid 3753 is orbiting between inside the orbit of Mercury and outside the orbit of Mars, it isn't orbiting at a Langrangarian point, is it?  Case closed.
 
 
You have a lot of brass to tell me I should check with an expert every time when you never do.
### edit ####
Even more so when you do it in the same post you are "whiffing it" so badly.....
 
Yeah I do have a lot of brass...thanks.  Have you heard of SARCASM?  I did not actually say I expected you to do it...just that (if you are going to demand that of me) then you should have so you would not have made the wrong argument you made.  If you want to have a high-and-mighty attitude toward me, then you deserve to have one given back to you.  Do you admit it was wrong to suggest that just because Venus transits the Sun (is lined up with Earth and the Sun) on a certain timescale that it would NOT nec. also be on the same timescale for an object whose orbit goes inside Mercury and outside Mars?  Yes or no, please.  I would bet that Brown is right on this and you WHIFFED it.  Case STILL OPEN.
 
wiki (link) says horseshoe orbits are weird things (which Brown knows about and you DON'T) so that they DO orbit two L points (L4 and L5) but they also can go inside Mercury and outside Mars. 
 
640px-Lagrange_Horseshoe_Orbit.jpg
 
Starting out at point A on the inner ring between L5 and Earth, the satellite is orbiting faster than the Earth. It's on its way toward passing between the Earth and the Sun. But Earth's gravity exerts an outward accelerating force, pulling the satellite into a higher orbit which (per Kepler's third law) decreases its angular speed.
 
When the satellite gets to point B, it is traveling at the same speed as Earth. Earth's gravity is still accelerating the satellite along the orbital path, and continues to pull the satellite into a higher orbit. Eventually, at C, the satellite reaches a high enough, slow enough orbit and starts to lag behind Earth. It then spends the next century or more appearing to drift 'backwards' around the orbit when viewed relative to the Earth. Its orbit around the Sun still takes only slightly more than one Earth year.
Eventually the satellite comes around to point D. Earth's gravity is now reducing the satellite's orbital velocity, causing it to fall into a lower orbit, which actually increases the angular speed of the satellite. This continues until the satellite's orbit is lower and faster than Earth's orbit. It begins moving out ahead of the earth. Over the next few centuries it completes its journey back to point A.
 
Don't you just HATE IT, Pi, when this happens (KEEPS happening)???


#19 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 April 2015 - 09:00 PM

>>Earth orbits the sun at 30 km/sec and Jupiter orbits it at 13 km/sec.  What happened to the other 17 km/sec. ...I must have missed the part where you explained what happened to that 17 km/sec angular momentum.>>

Some of that would come from your error of thinking the a-belt is at the same speed as Jupiter.  Mars is 24km/s and Jupiter is 13...so the a-belt is about 20 or so, I think.  Ceres is about 18, Vesta is 19 or so.

 

I expect you or DaveB could school me some on this.  (That's ok...I've schooled the school science teacher sometimes too). This is that crazy dichotomy (to me) that if you slow something down, it FALLS inward to a lower orbit, but that fall SPEEDS IT UP.  So I guess it would work the opposite if you had something in a more inner orbit and then pushed it outward.  That SLOWS IT DOWN.   The faster speed sends it "higher" but the climb slows it down.  Do you really think Brown (who DOES understand this) just screwed up and forgot what you want to say here is true?  Do you believe a solar sail could push stuff outward to the a-belt or not...which means the orbital speed would slow down when you ADD speed to move it outward?  If so, where did THAT angular momentum go?  Here is a possible answer...it is in the word "angular".  There is an area inside the angle...and if you are close in, that angle (and the outer arc) of the orbit must be larger to have the same area inside the angle than it would be to keep the same area if it is an orbit further out.  Picture a fat short triangle and a narrow tall one...both with the same area inside.  That area (if there is no added energy) is what is "conserved."  The short leg of the triangle will be shorter (and therefore the speed must be slower to travel that leg in the same time).  Maybe you can explain it better...maybe use the solar sail idea which we both agree is true. 



#20 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 April 2015 - 09:11 PM

The ecliptic is the plane of Earth's orbit.  Earth is moving along that plane at 30 km/sec.  Material that is escaping Earth's gravity perpendicular to that plane will have a minimum velocity of 1.44 km/sec as it reaches the distance of the moon's orbit.  The 2.75o is arcsin (1.44/30).

 

That's all I have time for right this minute.....

Correction ... that should have been arctan (1.44/30).

 

Indy, your post #19 came in while I was writing this.  I'll be happy to explain as soon as I can get to it.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: hydroplateflood, brown

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users