Jump to content


Photo

Comets & Asteroids From Earth?

hydroplateflood brown

  • Please log in to reply
77 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 17 April 2015 - 09:35 PM

>>

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?>>

I guess you DON'T accept the RE...why did you say you DID?  Which is it, Pi?  Brown DOES say the stuff that eventually gets consolidated DOES get pushed to the A-belt.  I thought you knew that.  Why do you have to ask "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. >>

 

Nope.  If it were a very strong "wind" which could exceed the force of the gravity, it would.  But this is a GENTLE wind.  Picture balloons held together by very thin string.  They will stay together unless the wind gets very strong.  For the gases and asteroid seed rock, their mutual gravity is what keeps the cloud intact.  As the cloud reduces in volume, due to gravity compacting it, eventually the force cannot move it further outward and it settles in the a-belt.  Bigger clouds could go out beyond Neptune to make the TNO's. 

 

>>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.>>

It might be to you...but I remember that the objects (dense and less-dense ones) are indeed "tied together".  Your intuitive argument assumes there is NOTHING tying them together at all.  Is gravity a force (small as it may be) that could hold them all together if the force is very slight?  Yes or no please.

 

 

>>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.>>

 

I guess we need to figure how much force pushing outward there would be...and how much force pulling the stuff together there would be.  We would need to make assumptions about the size and mass.  Are you saying that NO MATTER HOW SLIGHT the pressure was, and no matter how strong the gravity holding them together was...the gases would always get stripped from the denser stuff?  That is an absurd claim...but that seems to be what you are saying. 

 

In distant space, where Earth's gravity has no effect, then the "only gravity game in town" is the rock and the gases.  A bunch of water gas that is (say) .01-density (one tenth the protocomets we've been discussing) could have more mass than that 200m 2-density rock might have.  Let's say the cloud is 2000m diameter, made of water (1-density).  The cloud has 1000x the volume of the rock.  That means it has 5x the weight.  So if they are not outside the gravitational influence of each other, then a slight force would not move them apart.  If you push lightly on one balloon tied by thin string to other balloons they all will move together. 



#22 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 April 2015 - 10:21 PM

Wiki (can't make the link work) has a diagram that is like what I was trying to explain.  The slower speed of an object at the a-belt actually covers more AREA than the faster speed at Earth's orbit would...even though the RE and SW would add energy.  So you could add energy which would add to the area...but it would still be slower speed further out when you compare the much shorter short leg to the longer one which is closer in.  I guess it is known as Kepler's equal-area law.



#23 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 18 April 2015 - 07:42 AM

I just noticed this from what I previously quoted from wiki:

 

>>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.>>

 

This was about the horseshoe orbit, but it would apply also to the question you asked (sarcastically, I think) about where the 17km went. 

 

wiki (for K's third law): The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit...This captures the relationship between the distance of planets from the Sun, and their orbital periods...Mathematically, the law says that the expression

    P^2/a^3

has the same value for all the planets in the solar system. Here P is the time taken for a planet to complete an orbit round the sun, and a is the mean value between the maximum and minimum distances between the planet and sun.

 

 

Seems that Kepler agrees that if something gets pulled (OR PUSHED by RE and SW) into a higher orbit, then that alone decreases its angular speed.  Do you disagree, Pi?  If you don't then there is the answer to your sarcastic question: "What happened to the other 17 km/sec?"  You're the one who took college science courses but in this instance I believe you were the one who was wrong...or maybe I'm missing your point.   



#24 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 19 April 2015 - 12:59 PM

TEST (Actual post by Indydave)

Pi has SAID (on Craters/Earth I think) that he has no problem with the radiometer effect (and I assume we can add solar wind) having an effect of pushing outward low density stuff...such as how a sail can propel a spacecraft. But Pi has a problem now I guess because he has claimed that the low density stuff (gases) would immediately be stripped from high density rocks...removing the "sail" it has. He now has given me this challenge:

>>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.>>

I'm going to do my best to give Pi the details. If the force holding the cloud of gases to the rock is stronger than the force pushing on the cloud, then the cloud and rock will stay together, as the cloud gets pushed outward. As the cloud gets smaller (due to gravitational compaction) then eventually the pushing will be not enough to keep propelling the cloud/rock, or the gases WILL get stripped off (as the rock part gets bigger and the cloud part gets smaller) and it will settle into an orbit. When that would happen would be hard to figure, but let's just figure if the cloud/rock would stay together as it gets started moving outward with a push that is enough to get them to 3 AU (about where the a-belt is today) in less than 4000 years.

I went to a page that figures gravitational force. link  I used a 100m radius rock, weighing 8380000000kg (using 2000kg/m3) and a 1000m radius cloud of water molecules which weighs 5x that (see my previous post). The G site says the acceleration toward each other is (combining both numbers) 000000558946 + 0.00000279473 = .00000335368 m/s2 = .00007502 mph accumulates to .00180048 / day. So this means that if the pushing force is less than .00180048 mph to start with, then the cloud would NOT be stripped from the rock.

So the question is, is that speed enough to push stuff out to 3.0 AU in less than 4000 years or so. To figure that, we need to ACCUMULATE this push. So for that, I went to link  to add up how fast stuff would be going if it adds .0018 mph each day for 1000 years, which is a speed of 657 mph...an average of 328.5 mph....meaning that in (1000 x 24 x 365 = 8760000 hours x 328.5) 1000 years it would travel 2,877,660,000 miles or 31 AU...10 times the distance to the a-belt.

So what does this mean? It means that the push on the cloud could be many many times LESS than the gravitational force holding this cloud together...and it would still be enough push to get that cloud/rock out to the a-belt in 1000 years and even LESS push to get it there in 4000 years. There is no doubt that if the push was gentle enough it could keep the cloud together AND have enough time to make it to the a-belt.
 
Indydave, you're going to have to either just use hyperlinks like I showed you, or start using a different browser. When I went to duplicate your post pasting the URLs as text, when it converted them to hyperlinked URLs in Firefox in the preview, it added the extra characters that have been crashing the pages. I had to switch them to hyperlinks. Whatever you do, don't paste URLs directly into your post while using Firefox until we can get this figured out (I'm tired of deleting your posts :)).
 
Bonedigger



#25 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 19 April 2015 - 02:25 PM

Thanks BD...I will try to always remember to do that.  When I tried it before it worked ok, but then it would not let me do an edit later.  It made the whole post a single hyperlink.  Sorry to bother you, and thanks for your help. 



#26 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 19 April 2015 - 02:28 PM

I tried doing another test post in IE 11, and it was doing the same thing (adding extra characters when it converted the URL), so it's not just a Firefox issue.
 
For now, just don't paste URLs directly into your post. Something is messed up with the way the forum code is automatically converting URLs.



#27 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 19 April 2015 - 09:48 PM

TEST (Actual post by Indydave)
Indy:
Pi has SAID (on Craters/Earth I think) that he has no problem with the radiometer effect (and I assume we can add solar wind) having an effect of pushing outward low density stuff...such as how a sail can propel a spacecraft. But Pi has a problem now I guess because he has claimed that the low density stuff (gases) would immediately be stripped from high density rocks...removing the "sail" it has. He now has given me this challenge:

Pi:
>>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.>>

 

I guess I should explain what I mean by this is almost intuitive... for purposes  of simplicity, we can take a one cm cube of water which will have a mass of one gram and a 1 cm cube of rock which will have a mass of about 2.5 grams.  The pressure (force x area), from either the radiometer effect or the solar wind will be equal since both have the same force applied and the same area.  Since Newton's Second Law states F = ma, and rock has 2.5x the mass, it follows the water will accelerate 2.5x as fast as the rock for any given force. 

 

Since distance = 0.5 the acceleration times the time squared ( D = 0.5at2)  the water will quickly outpace the rock.  As an example, if a= 1 for rock and t = 10 sec, during that 10 seconds, rock will travel 50 distance units while the water will travel 125 units.... 2.5x the distance.  Also, since v = at, at the end of that ten seconds, water would have a velocity of 25 while the rock would only have a velocity of 10 .... so the water is again outdistancing the rock.  For a more practical visualization, imagine you're driving 60 mph down the highway and come up on a car doing only 24 mph..... that's the speed relationship between the water and the rock.

 

It also explains why virtually all of the material launched at the highest velocities will be water while virtually all of the material launched at lower velocities will be rock.  This has some implications for things like Trans-Neptunian-Objects (TNO's) that Brown claims were also launched from Earth.

 

 

TEST (Actual post by Indydave)

I'm going to do my best to give Pi the details. If the force holding the cloud of gases to the rock is stronger than the force pushing on the cloud, then the cloud and rock will stay together, as the cloud gets pushed outward. As the cloud gets smaller (due to gravitational compaction) then eventually the pushing will be not enough to keep propelling the cloud/rock, or the gases WILL get stripped off (as the rock part gets bigger and the cloud part gets smaller) and it will settle into an orbit. When that would happen would be hard to figure, but let's just figure if the cloud/rock would stay together as it gets started moving outward with a push that is enough to get them to 3 AU (about where the a-belt is today) in less than 4000 years.

Before these gases can act as a cloud, they must first form the cloud. 

 

Recall, Indy has long been arguing (in the "Fire and Brimstone" topic) that the launch process will have this water leaving Earth as individual molecules.  Gravitational attraction between molecules isn't going to do much to form a cloud.  The electrostatic attraction of hydrogen bonding is probably going to be much more effective at getting the "cloud" to stick together.

 

 

 

TEST (Actual post by Indydave)

I went to a page that figures gravitational force. link  I used a 100m radius rock, weighing 8,380,000,000kg (using 2000kg/m3) and a 1000m radius cloud of water molecules which weighs 5x that (see my previous post). The G site says the acceleration toward each other is (combining both numbers) 000000558946 + 0.00000279473 = .00000335368 m/s2 = .00007502 mph accumulates to .00180048 / day. So this means that if the pushing force is less than .00180048 mph to start with, then the cloud would NOT be stripped from the rock.

There is no reason to assume we are starting with a 1000m radius cloud of water molecules.  That is a purely arbitrary number.  Since Indy insists we should treat the water as individual molecules, we should do so in this case as well.  For that reason, we can pretty much ignore the attraction of the water molecule pulling the rock toward it.  Using the mass provided by Indy and a distance of 101m (1 meter above the surface of the rock), I get an acceleration of 6.54e-26 m/sec2.  Using the equation d= 0.5at2 and solving for t, we find it would take only 5.5e25 seconds.... about 175,000 years for that water molecule to be attracted to the rock.

 

We must also remember, Indy's previous argument for his "cloud" with a density of 100 kg/m3 included rocks.  His cloud of water vapor would be much less dense than that.  Guessing from the difference in density from a liquid to a vapor (1000x) we would have a density of 1kg/m3 for his cloud.  A cloud of 1000 m radius would have a volume of 4188790000 m3 and an equal mass in kilograms.  If the "cloud" is only 1km from the rock, the combined acceleration will be only 0.0000002 m/sec2.   If the acceleration from the radiometer effect and solar wind exceeds that, the cloud will be blown by the rock.

 

Indy is quite correct that we must consider if the gravitational attraction is greater than the force of the radiometer effect and the solar wind.  We can estimate the radiometer effect at about 1367 watts per square meter (which is the energy being delivered by the Sun to the Earth). 

 

Right now, I need to do something else.... but I'll try to get back to that in a bit.



#28 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 19 April 2015 - 11:05 PM

The gravity site seems to have a glitch...the result is way different if you put commas in the numbers.  So I am leaving them out. 

 

One other thought for now...if there is a sphere surrounding the more massive object (a rock) then the rock would not be moved toward the outer shell of the sphere of water vapor.  It would stay in place, since it is pulled from all sides.  Therefore there is no adding of the two speeds...just using the speed of the vapor cloud.

 

When I used 101meters and a tiny particle of water ( 1-16kg ) the speed I got (for the particle) was 0.0000548 m/s2  (It's the same speed if it is 1kg of water too...or 1000kg).  That means the tiny particle would move 1 meter in 5.07 hours.  Actually less than that, since at the end of 5.07 hours it would be going 1m/s.  So the average speed would actually be .5m/s.  But if you checked the speed at 2.535 hours it would be still really really slow (not .5m/s), and the vast majority of the accelerating would be in the last few seconds.  I don't know HOW Pi got his 175,000 years.  Pi, maybe you can use the gravity site and see if you still get what you got...or if you made a math error. 

 

Since the vapor and the rock are traveling together, they WOULD TOO eventually get pulled in toward the rock.  I just pulled a 2000m diameter cloud of vapor out of the air as an example.  I think that is fair. 

 

There is a fallacy in this approach also because there is changing mass in the inner part...as stuff is pulled inward toward the rock.  So that would increase the pulling power as time passes.  That fact helps my argument but for now, I will ignore that. 

 

Also the calc I did before is flawed in that it assumes all the mass is at the farthest extent (1000m), but that should probably be averaged to 550m (1100m, to include the radius of the rock, then divide by 2).  Also, if the rock is 8,380,000,000kg and the cloud is 5x that...then in order to estimate how the cloud would come in from all directions, I am suggesting that mass be divided into 100 slices.  So each "slice" has a mass of 419,000,000kg at an average distance of 550m.  That means each slice is moving inward at an avg speed of 0.000001847m/s2, which is about half the speed I used before.  So in 1000 years I think it would move outward to 15.5 AU.  So we STILL could have a force much less than the acceleration of gravity pushing the cloud/rock outward without it stripping the vapor from the rock...and still get to the a-belt with plenty of time to spare. 



#29 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 19 April 2015 - 11:29 PM

>>Gravitational attraction between molecules isn't going to do much to form a cloud.  The electrostatic attraction of hydrogen bonding is probably going to be much more effective at getting the "cloud" to stick together.>>

The molecules aren't attracted to each other...they are attracted to the seed rocks.  We've used 200m as a maximum but there would be many smaller sizes too.  These would get attracted to each other (along with their water vapor) and capture each other by means of aerobraking when the vapors collide and cause deceleration.  Since they are (many are anyway) traveling along a similar course their closing speeds could be quite low to help with capture. 

 

Assume there is a kg of water vapor that is 50000km from the rock, traveling along with it.  The site says it would be pulled inward at .0000000002236 m/s2 which equals 8.05kmph the first second.  In 24 hours it would be going 193kmph.  In 10 days 1930kmph.  It would average 965.  In 10 days then it would travel 231,600km.  In 5 days it would go 57,900km.  So in less than 5 days it would pull inward vapor which is 50000km away.  I think.  It would actually be less since the rock's mass would be growing causing more acceleration toward it. 



#30 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 19 April 2015 - 11:43 PM

Assume there is a kg of water vapor that is 50000km from the rock, traveling along with it.  The site says it would be pulled inward at .0000000002236 m/s2 which equals 8.05kmph the first second.  In 24 hours it would be going 193kmph.  In 10 days 1930kmph.  It would average 965.  In 10 days then it would travel 231,600km.  In 5 days it would go 57,900km.  So in less than 5 days it would pull inward vapor which is 50000km away.  I think.  It would actually be less since the rock's mass would be growing causing more acceleration toward it. 

I think you've got some pretty serious problems here... it looks like you slipped a decimal point.

 

An acceleration of  0.0000000002236 m/sec2 would need 1/0.0000000002236 seconds to reach just one meter per second.  That's almost 4.5 billion seconds.  (I copied and pasted your number to make sure I got it right.)



#31 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 April 2015 - 12:57 AM

Pi:

Gravitational attraction between molecules isn't going to do much to form a cloud.  The electrostatic attraction of hydrogen bonding is probably going to be much more effective at getting the "cloud" to stick together.>>

Indy:
The molecules aren't attracted to each other...they are attracted to the seed rocks.  We've used 200m as a maximum but there would be many smaller sizes too.  These would get attracted to each other (along with their water vapor) and capture each other by means of aerobraking when the vapors collide and cause deceleration.  Since they are (many are anyway) traveling along a similar course their closing speeds could be quite low to help with capture.  

Rocks smaller than the 200m maximum will, of course, have much less gravitational attraction.  The reason for suggesting 200m rocks was that their much greater gravity would more quickly attract matter to them.  

 

The water vapor will accelerate at least 2.5x faster than the much more dense rock for reasons already explained.  With the escape velocities involved being measured in small fractions of a meter per second, the water vapor will simply blow past the rock and never have a chance to accumulate.

 

 

Assume there is a kg of water vapor that is 50000km from the rock, traveling along with it.  The site says it would be pulled inward at .0000000002236 m/s2 which equals 8.05kmph the first second.  In 24 hours it would be going 193kmph.  In 10 days 1930kmph.  It would average 965.  In 10 days then it would travel 231,600km.  In 5 days it would go 57,900km.  So in less than 5 days it would pull inward vapor which is 50000km away.  I think.  It would actually be less since the rock's mass would be growing causing more acceleration toward it. 

When I went to your gravitational force site and input the mass you gave ( 8,380,000,000kg) for the 200 m rock with a distance of only 50,000m (let alone km), it returned a value on only 2.2357839999999997e-10 m/sec2 (copied and pasted)  which works out to about 4.5 billion seconds to reach a velocity of just one meter per second.  That might be just a bit too much time to work.

 

Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces.... which is why I suggested the attraction of hydrogen bonding as a more likely mechanism to accumulate water. 

 

Back to the radiometer effect.....

The pressure exerted by sunlight at 1AU is   p = 4.53 x 10-6 nt/m2 

(Source: http://www.grc.nasa....ts_pressure.htm )

 

Using the 100m radius rock described by Indy, it would have a cross sectional area of 31400m2 and the total force exerted by sunlight would be 0.1423 newtons.  The acceleration (F=ma) would be about 1.7e-11 m/sec2.  It would take 1867 years for that rock to gain just one meter per second in velocity.



#32 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 April 2015 - 12:32 PM

I think you've got some pretty serious problems here... it looks like you slipped a decimal point.

 

An acceleration of  0.0000000002236 m/sec2 would need 1/0.0000000002236 seconds to reach just one meter per second.  That's almost 4.5 billion seconds.  (I copied and pasted your number to make sure I got it right.)

 

I just used this site...which said it was 8 kmph. link    BUT...I just now looked at another site and found my mistake.  The first site has a small window and I did not see the extension at the far right which was beyond the window...8.049600000000000823e-10  I just saw 8.04960000000000 km/hour.  I saw all the zeros and just figured what was to the right didn't matter.  So yes indeed I need to look again at the math.  Thanks for the correction.

 

Actually, this helps some...because I was concerned about how FAST the seed rock would lose its "sail."  I figured a 50,000km cloud would all be pulled into the rock in less than 5 days.  That wouldn't allow for much time to "push" (by RE and SW). 
 



#33 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 April 2015 - 12:37 PM

>>Using the 100m radius rock described by Indy, it would have a cross sectional area of 31400m2 and the total force exerted by sunlight would be 0.1423 newtons.  The acceleration (F=ma) would be about 1.7e-11 m/sec2.  It would take 1867 years for that rock to gain just one meter per second in velocity.>>

Which is why a rock without a "sail" would not be pushed outward.  A CLOUD of stuff which has massively MORE area with much LESS mass (proportionately...as a %) would be able to be pushed so as to gain speed much faster.  Do you agree?

 

I know you are asserting there would be NO cloud of vapor around any large rocks...and that is another issue.  But if there WERE such a cloud, do you agree the push would be much more...AND that gravity could hold the cloud of vapor to the rock if the push were slight?



#34 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 April 2015 - 01:31 PM

Pi:

>>Using the 100m radius rock described by Indy, it would have a cross sectional area of 31400m2 and the total force exerted by sunlight would be 0.1423 newtons.  The acceleration (F=ma) would be about 1.7e-11 m/sec2.  It would take 1867 years for that rock to gain just one meter per second in velocity.>>
 

Indy:
Which is why a rock without a "sail" would not be pushed outward.  A CLOUD of stuff which has massively MORE area with much LESS mass (proportionately...as a %) would be able to be pushed so as to gain speed much faster.  Do you agree?

Absolutely .... that was the entire point of post #27 ....  water vapor will undergo about 2.5x the acceleration based on the relative densities and Newton's Second Law.  We might have to refine the estimates for a specific situation, but this should be the MINIMUM difference.

 

 

I know you are asserting there would be NO cloud of vapor around any large rocks...and that is another issue.  But if there WERE such a cloud, do you agree the push would be much more...AND that gravity could hold the cloud of vapor to the rock if the push were slight?

My estimate is still that the "vapor cloud" would have at least 2.5x the acceleration of the rock.   A quick S.W.A.G.  (Scientific Wild Donkey Guess) says that would reduce the time from 1867 years for one meter to only about 750 years.   You need a lot more help than that.



#35 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 April 2015 - 01:38 PM

I just used this site...which said it was 8 kmph. link    BUT...I just now looked at another site and found my mistake.  The first site has a small window and I did not see the extension at the far right which was beyond the window...8.049600000000000823e-10  I just saw 8.04960000000000 km/hour.  I saw all the zeros and just figured what was to the right didn't matter.  So yes indeed I need to look again at the math.  Thanks for the correction.

 

Actually, this helps some...because I was concerned about how FAST the seed rock would lose its "sail."  I figured a 50,000km cloud would all be pulled into the rock in less than 5 days.  That wouldn't allow for much time to "push" (by RE and SW). 
 

You're quite welcome on that.... I knew there was something pretty wrong and expected if I pointed out how wrong it was you'ld find it quickly.

 

It's pretty much standard scientific notation to include one zero before the decimal point for values less than one.  this is to avoid confusion if someone happens to miss the decimal point.  A whole string of leading zeros would not normally be listed.

 

Also, with regard to the commas.... a lot of these calculators are very syntax sensitive.  Probably very few of them can handle commas and not all of them can handle either standard (10n) or spreadsheet (e) notation.  Thought I expect the ones we're using here can handle e-notation since they give results using it.



#36 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 April 2015 - 04:53 PM

>>

You're quite welcome on that.... I knew there was something pretty wrong and expected if I pointed out how wrong it was you'ld find it quickly.

 

It's pretty much standard scientific notation to include one zero before the decimal point for values less than one.  this is to avoid confusion if someone happens to miss the decimal point.  A whole string of leading zeros would not normally be listed.

>>

 

What was weird is it had tons of zeros TO THE RIGHT (after about 4 significant places (the 8.409 part), which were useless. And then FAR to the right it had the e-7. 

 

Ok...so now it is YOUR turn.  Did you find your error yet here:

 

>>Using the mass provided by Indy and a distance of 101m (1 meter above the surface of the rock), I get an acceleration of 6.54e-26 m/sec2.  Using the equation d= 0.5at2 and solving for t, we find it would take only 5.5e25 seconds.... about 175,000 years for that water molecule to be attracted to the rock.>>

 

I wrote this previously:  >>When I used 101meters and a tiny particle of water ( 1-16kg ) the speed I got (for the particle) was 0.0000548 m/s2  (It's the same speed if it is 1kg of water too...or 1000kg).  That means the tiny particle would move 1 meter in 5.07 hours. >>

So do you agree that your 175,000 years number is wrong and 5.07 hours is right?

 

 

 

As to the significance of MY error...I'm not sure how it helps you much.  This part still seems right:

 

Indy:>>I went to a page that figures gravitational force. link  I used a 100m radius rock, weighing 8380000000kg (using 2000kg/m3) and a 1000m radius cloud of water molecules which weighs 5x that (see my previous post). The G site says the acceleration toward each other is (combining both numbers) 000000558946 + 0.00000279473 = .00000335368 m/s2 = .00007502 mph accumulates to .00180048 / day. So this means that if the pushing force is less than .00180048 mph to start with, then the cloud would NOT be stripped from the rock.>>

 

I would say this is still right, except now I'd say you can't add the two...since the rock would be pulled from all sides so it wouldn't move at all.  So the movement would be 0.00000279473 m/s2

Indy:>>So the question is, is that speed enough to push stuff out to 3.0 AU in less than 4000 years or so. To figure that, we need to ACCUMULATE this push. So for that, I went to link  to add up how fast stuff would be going if it adds .0018 mph each day for 1000 years, which is a speed of 657 mph...an average of 328.5 mph....meaning that in (1000 x 24 x 365 = 8760000 hours x 328.5) 1000 years it would travel 2,877,660,000 miles or 31 AU...10 times the distance to the a-belt.>>

 

This still is true...or still very close to it (when we eliminate movement of the rock).  So I've proved that you could indeed have a slight push...well below the force of the accel. of gravity for the vapor cloud around the rock, and it would still reach the a-belt in plenty of time...less than 1000 years.  FAR less.  Will you agree to that, Pi?  That is IF the rock could ever GET a cloud of vapor...which I will address separately.  If it DID have a cloud to start with...do you agree there could be a slight RE/SW push and that would not strip it...and the push would still be enough to move the cloud/rock out to the a-belt in less than 4000 years...easily?  Please answer yes/no.



#37 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 April 2015 - 05:37 PM

Now, let me try again for this:

 

Indy>>Assume there is a kg of water vapor that is 50000km from the rock, traveling along with it.  The site says it would be pulled inward at .0000000002236 m/s2 which equals 8.05kmph the first second.  In 24 hours it would be going 193kmph.  In 10 days 1930kmph.  It would average 965.  In 10 days then it would travel 231,600km.  In 5 days it would go 57,900km.  So in less than 5 days it would pull inward vapor which is 50000km away.  I think.  It would actually be less since the rock's mass would be growing causing more acceleration toward it.>>

 

So now we know it is NOT 8.5kmph...but rather it is .000000000805 kmph and each second it goes that much faster.  So that means in a year it is going .02538648 kmph.  In 1000 years it would be at 25.39kmph.  The avg speed then is 12.7kmph. (Actually it would be faster since the size of the rock is growing...pulling harder all the time).  In 1000 years, it would move 111,252,000 km. So that means the 50,000 diameter cloud could be compacted to be all contained inside the rocky part in far less than 1000 years.  Lets make it a 50,000 RADIUS cloud and lets try 100 years.  It would be going 2.54kmph...averaging 1.27.  So in 100 years it would go 876,000km.  Still too much.  In 30 years it would be going .7616kmph...averaging .381.  In 30 years it is 100,074km.  So it is even less...maybe 20 or so years (for the 50,000km radius cloud to collapse by gravity).  So lets say at that point it is going .5kmph and it has no more acceleration by RE/SW.  It's been being pushed outward for 20 years and accelerating all that time.  And so if the push was equal to the force of gravity holding the cloud to the rock (i.e. .00000279473 m/s2)...and it cannot be more than that, else it will strip away the vapor... that means by 20 years that cloud (now just the rock with no more cloud) is going 4.84kmph.  It averaged 2.42 for 20 years and then after that it stays at 4.84.  So how far could it go for 3880 years...plus the first 20?  That totals 164,828,776km...a bit more than 1 AU...added to where it started at about 1 AU.  So this means that this size cloud (50,000km) could not be moved outward fast enough to make it to the A-belt (3 AU).  Not unless it captured additional vapor along its journey...which it could.  Indeed, vapor that is stripped from some object could be captured further out by another one.  That would mean it would keep being accelerated for longer than just 20 years. 

 

Another point I just thought of...and don't know the answer.  If it is going 4.84kmph after 20 years and stops accelerating...does it LOSE speed due to the gravity of the Sun?  Does it reach a certain distance where it can no longer go out further...long before reaching the a-belt or even 2 AU?  Maybe that would mean that you need larger clouds to get something pushed out as far as the a-belt or farther.  Or these clouds of vapor around rocks COULD be replenished as the rock captures additional vapor...keeping it accelerating longer. 



#38 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 April 2015 - 07:07 PM

Actually I found another error, I think....which helps my view about how quickly a vapor cloud could collapse inward, meaning it would have more acceleration time due to RE/SW.  Or that a smaller cloud could be needed to get a big enough sail (of water vapor or dust) to last long enough for it to get pushed outward quickly enough.  I mistook meters for kilometers when entering my numbers at the grav. force site.  So when I did it right...using a 25,000km radius cloud...50,000km diameter...then naturally it would take far longer for it to collapse.  The figures in my post #37 are for a 50,000 METER radius cloud.  So it would only last about 20 years (unless more vapor is captured, which is possible), so its "sail" would be gone.  The 50,000 KILOMETER cloud would probably not collapse for many hundreds of years.  Let me try a smaller one first.  Let's say it is 1000km radius.  The grav site says .000000000000559m/s2, which is .000000000002012kmph.  So, in a year it is going .00006345kmph.  In 500 years, .0317kmph.  Avg of .0159.  So in 500 years of being accelerated toward the rock by gravity, it goes 69642km...too far.  In 100 years it would be going .006345kmph, avg of .00317, total distance of 2779km...still too far.  So maybe it would have to be about 70 years or so before the cloud is totally collapsed...and no more "sail" and no more accelerating by RE/SW.  (For now I am disregarding the possibility/likelihood that it would stop being accelerated by RE/SW before the sail is completely gone).  If so, then if the push was equal to the force of gravity holding the cloud to the rock (i.e. .00000279473 m/s2 or .0000101kmph)...and it cannot be more than that, else it will strip away the vapor... that means by 70 years that cloud (now just the rock with no more cloud) is going 6.19kmph outward from the Sun.  It averages 3.095 for 70 years and then 6.19 thereafter.  In 4000 years it would be 214,999,746 km or about 1.44 AU.  So (without doing all the number crunching) I would estimate that you must have a cloud to be larger than about 1500-2000km minimum radius (or that equivalent, if more vapor is collected along the way) to have the "sail" last about 100 to 150 years or so...so it could get pushed out to as far as the a-belt.  Larger clouds (which remain as a "sail" longer) could be pushed farther of course.  All this assumes no decelerating (due to the Sun's gravity...but that force decreases all the time of course)...but that very well COULD happen.  I am not sure about that...nor am I sure how to figure that without calculus. 



#39 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 April 2015 - 07:59 PM

Now to address your challenge (as I understand you) that the rocky objects would never really have a chance to capture (by gravity) any water vapor at all...since you say the water would be going much faster than the rocks. 

 

>>Since Newton's Second Law states F = ma, and rock has 2.5x the mass, it follows the water will accelerate 2.5x as fast as the rock for any given force.>>

The speed of the acceleration (how quickly it gets up to a certain speed) is irrelevant.  We are not talking about speed of acceleration.  We are talking about the eventual speed of the objects.  The water might be accelerated TO the speed of the launching jets quicker...but the rocky stuff and the water would be at the same speed eventually...i.e. equal to the speed of the jets, provided they are inside the jets long enough.  Depending on how forceful the jets are, it may be just a matter of a split second for the rocky stuff to "catch up" in its ultimate speed with the speed of the water.  Do you agree? 

 

>>Since distance = 0.5 the acceleration times the time squared ( D = 0.5at2)  the water will quickly outpace the rock.>>

No problem if the rock never catches up to the molecules of water which left the SWC opening at the same time the rock did.  But if it gets finally accelerated to the speed of the jets (say its at 15km/s) then it will be going the exact speed of the water (also at a final speed of 15km/s)...not the SAME water the rock started out being beside, but OTHER water that was launched just behind the rock but got up to speed faster than the rock did, but ended up at the same speed of 15km/s.  The end result is that SOME water is going the speed of the rock and is right alongside it.  Is your view that all the water goes at one speed forever but all the rocks go at another...always at a slower speed?  That would be true if the launching force was not continuous (such as a cannon shot for just an instant)...but if that force was applied to the rock long enough then eventually it would get up to the same speed as the water.  Again, not the SAME water beside the rock when the launch of the rock began, but water that was launched just behind the rock.  Agree?

 

>>Since distance = 0.5 the acceleration times the time squared ( D = 0.5at2)  the water will quickly outpace the rock.  As an example, if a= 1 for rock and t = 10 sec, during that 10 seconds, rock will travel 50 distance units while the water will travel 125 units.... 2.5x the distance.>>

 

We don't care about time or distance...i.e. how far each goes in a given time.  It is true a single packet of water would go further in a given time and it would keep being accelerated to faster speeds so long as it is going slower than the jet.  But the same is true of the rock...it just takes it longer to get up to that speed of the jet.  When it DOES get up to that speed then it is going the exact speed that the water is...so it can easily capture by gravity that water which is nearby the rock .  AND once in space, even if some water is faster (starting behind the rock) then as the water catches up, it could be captured as it collides with the rock or other water around the rock.  Your claim is untrue that the rocks could never obtain a cloud of water vapor surrounding them. 



#40 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 21 April 2015 - 12:27 AM

>>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. 

OK... by now, you've studied Kepler's laws and found out some of the "what."   But I'm not sure you found the "why."  So, that's what I'll try to explain.

 

As you know the distance an orbiting object must travel is defined by the circumference of its orbit.  Intuitively, as you commented before, it would seem that if the distance to be covered increases the speed must also increase.  However, if the circumference doubles, the radius also doubles.  Because of the inverse square law, the force of gravity at double the distance will be only one fourth what it was before.  Since the force of gravity is only one fourth, the orbiting object doesn't need as much speed to cancel it out.

 

Hope that helps some.







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