Jump to content


Photo

Comets & Asteroids From Earth?

hydroplateflood brown

  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#41 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 21 April 2015 - 01:00 AM

>>Pi:

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.

>>

Indy:

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. 

Yeah... I caught that later when I re-read your post after posting mine ..... dammit, I hate when that happens.  :blush:

 

Note:  Please don't use mph for meters per hour.  Normally that abbreviation stands for "miles per hour" and can be confusing.

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?

OK .... I tested the gravitational force calculator using "e" notation for powers of 10.   It's fine with that, so let's get rid of all the zeros.  They create far too much opportunity for errors.

 

A mass of 1000 kg is insignificant to the 8.4 billion kg of the rock.

 

Yeah... I just caught the error.  I was reading the acceleration of the rock toward the molecule rather than the molecule toward the rock.  It was kind of like your error.... something just felt "wrong" about it, but I didn't see what it was.

 

I get the same acceleration for the water molecule and 5.07 hours. 

 

Gotta get to bed so I can get up at 6:30 to go to work......



#42 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 21 April 2015 - 08:35 AM

>>

Note:  Please don't use mph for meters per hour.  Normally that abbreviation stands for "miles per hour" and can be confusing.>>

I have not ever meant to have "mph" mean METERS.  But I have caught myself unintentionally using mph when I meant KMph.  So I may have missed one that I should have corrected.

 

Ok...one more of your (possible) errors that you need to address.  You mockingly asked me where the 17km/s of angular momentum went. 

 

>>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. >>

I guess you are saying that Brown made a foolish error to think that stuff that starts near E and then gets pushed outward by RE/SW toward Jupiter would have a speed of 13km/s (actually it is more like 20km/s at the a-belt)...because that would violate conservation of momentum rules.  So did YOU make a foolish error, or did Brown?  Should I have been mocked or should you be mocked now for mocking?

 

Also, much of the problem I've had (which caused me to have to repeat my point 20+ times) has been that you just have not "got" the idea that much of the stuff launched would SLOWLY be moved outward from 1 AU (and less) to eventually reside in the a-belt, with a circular orbit.  It moves out ONCE and never returns to E/M.  But you constantly talked about the stuff returning (on an eccentric and very fast orbit) to possibly hit either the Moon or Earth.  I have agreed that THAT stuff would have a 13.5x chance to hit E.  BUT the other stuff...the majority, which makes just one slow trip outward...would indeed get more chances to hit M than E.  Have you gotten this idea YET?  Even if you disagree, have you finally gotten the concept?  If so, PLEASE stop repeating your same retort...which I agree with, but only for the eccentric fast stuff which returns.  The stuff I'm talking about NEVER returns. 



#43 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 21 April 2015 - 08:54 AM

 Should I have been mocked or should you be mocked now for mocking?

I only have a minute right now, so I don't have time to address the 17 km/sec thing at the moment.  It was not intended to be mocking.  Take the chip off your shoulder, Dave.... if you are looking for offense you will probably find it .... even if none is intended.... as when I ask you to check with someone who has more expertise.

 

 

Also, much of the problem I've had (which caused me to have to repeat my point 20+ times) has been that you just have not "got" the idea that much of the stuff launched would SLOWLY be moved outward from 1 AU (and less) to eventually reside in the a-belt, with a circular orbit.  It moves out ONCE and never returns to E/M.  But you constantly talked about the stuff returning (on an eccentric and very fast orbit) to possibly hit either the Moon or Earth.  I have agreed that THAT stuff would have a 13.5x chance to hit E.  BUT the other stuff...the majority, which makes just one slow trip outward...would indeed get more chances to hit M than E.  Have you gotten this idea YET?  Even if you disagree, have you finally gotten the concept?  If so, PLEASE stop repeating your same retort...which I agree with, but only for the eccentric fast stuff which returns.  The stuff I'm talking about NEVER returns. 

That's what we're discussing here.  So far, the radiometer effect isn't working as it doesn't exert enough force to move those heavier objects out to the asteroid belt.  (Reference post #31 that showed the 200m rock will gain only 1 meter per second outward in 1867 years.)



#44 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 21 April 2015 - 12:47 PM

I only have a minute right now, so I don't have time to address the 17 km/sec thing at the moment.  It was not intended to be mocking.  Take the chip off your shoulder, Dave.... if you are looking for offense you will probably find it .... even if none is intended.... as when I ask you to check with someone who has more expertise.

 

 

 

 

I didn't take great offense but it WAS a mocking tone and you know it.  AND you have not yet admitted that it was YOU who should have been mocked...not Brown...re. the "what happened to the other 17km/s" remark.  RIGHT?  If it is going 33km/s or so near Earth, and it gets pushed outward by RE/SW to arrive many years later at the a-belt...then (to well-informed people!) there is no wondering about where the 17km/s went.  It follows Kepler's law, RIGHT?  So you were wrong to wonder where it went, RIGHT?

 

 

>>That's what we're discussing here.  So far, the radiometer effect isn't working as it doesn't exert enough force to move those heavier objects out to the asteroid belt.  (Reference post #31 that showed the 200m rock will gain only 1 meter per second outward in 1867 years.)>>

 

I DID read it and I DID reply to it.  I agree that a rock without a "sail" (water vapor or dust) surrounding it would NOT be accelerated enough (which is what I said in #33).  But the bigger rocks and the rockPILES will indeed have their sails.  Your belief that all the water vapor would shoot past the rocks is just absurd.  I answered that in #39, and I'm awaiting your response. 



#45 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 21 April 2015 - 01:14 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.>>

If you PRETEND that each rock would have ZERO vapor surrounding it, then I agree.  But that misleads readers and YOU KNOW IT, Pi.  I'm not sure I can do this calc, but YOU could if you are willing.  Try the same calc with the same rock but with it having a 5000m radius cloud surrounding it (and ATTACHED BY GRAVITY to it) that the sunlight pushes on...and the density of that cloud of vapor is 100kg/m3.  Wanna bet it will work out just fine for Brown's view?  All you can say is that the rock never would get such a cloud...or that if it did, it would be blown away from the rock.  And I've addressed both those points w/o a sufficient answer yet from you. 

 

A 5000m radius cloud would have 2499x more cross-sectional area than the rock.  The mass of the cloud is just 96x more than the rock's.  Plus you only are figuring SW (photons) and not also RE (gas molecules).  I don't have a rate for that.  But the force didn't have to be much to overcome the Sun's gravity, even at 1 AU.  Here is Brown:

 

>>Because the swarm’s volume was large, the radiometer pressure acted over a large area and produced a large thrust. The swarm’s large thrust and low density caused the swarm to rapidly accelerate—much as a feather placed in a gentle breeze. Also, the Sun’s gravity 93,000,000 miles from the Sun (the Earth-Sun distance) is 1,600 times weaker than Earth’s gravity here on Earth. So, pushing a swarm of rocks and debris farther from the Sun was surprisingly easy, because there is almost no resistance in outer space.>>

 

So, I'm going to ask you AGAIN if you "get it"...that for the SLOWER stuff that makes only ONE TRIP outward...then that stuff can INDEED have more chances to hit the Moon (with a smaller cross-sectional area) than the Earth...so that the odds of hitting Earth is far less than 13.5x.  Do you get that yet?  I HOPE I don't have to repeat for the 22nd time why you are wrong to assert the 13.5 multiplier.  I want this nailed down. 



#46 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 April 2015 - 01:17 AM

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.

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? 

Absolutely not.  Acceleration is everything.  How do you think the material gets from a velocity of zero to escape velocity and beyond?  By accelerating.

 

As much as Brown wants to pretend his launch mechanism behaves as a rifle barrel, it doesn't.  The similarity ends with the projectile undergoing rapid acceleration by the rapidly expanding gas thru the length of the barrel.  In fact, Brown makes a major point that the rifle bullet accelerates for the entire length of the barrel.  The difference is that the rifle barrel and bullet are designed to form a gas tight seal that minimizes blow by of the gas in order to maximize acceleration.  In fact, with some guns (such as the ".22"), the barrel is actually smaller than the bullet by a couple thousandths of an inch.

 

In the case of Brown's process, we have the rapidly expanding and accelerating gas.  Note: in this case, the propelling gas is water vapor.  The difference is in the fit of the projectile to the "barrel."  Brown's "barrel" is dozens of miles wide but the "projectiles" are only a couple hundred yards across, at most.  The vast majority of the expanding and accelerating water vapor will simply blow by the rock.  Because the water vapor is accelerating a minimum of 2.5x faster than the rock, in the same distance rock accelerates to Earth's escape velocity of about 11,200 m/s, the water will accelerate to at least 28,000 m/s.  Note:  The escape velocity of Indy's 200m diameter rock would be around 0.106 m/s.  Anything with a speed differential greater than that will not be captured by the gravity of the rock.

 

You are aware the "jets" accelerating the rock are jets of water vapor, right?  How will the "rocky stuff" continue to accelerate without water vapor pushing on it?  If it can't accelerate, how will it "catch up" with the water?

 

The laws of physics mandate the rocks will NEVER match the speed of the jets that are accelerating them.

 

 

Pi:

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

Indy:
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 ((( Pi adds:  "up to speed faster" means ACCELERATED ))) 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  (((( Pi adds:  "up to the same speed" means ACCELERATED to the same speed. ))))

Virtually all of the water will accelerate to a speed five orders of magnitude (100,000x) faster than the escape velocity of the rock.  Keep in mind, the escape velocity mentioned is at the surface of the rock.

 

Yes, there will be a miniscule amount of water that will be launched at a velocity close to that of the rock.  However, most of that will quickly be stripped away by the water that is passing the rock at hypersonic velocities.  Keep in mind, you aren't talking about just a little water.  You're talking about a cloud of it that is miles wide.

 

The water will accelerate faster than the rock for as long as there is an equal force applied to both of them.  Go ahead.... explain what force is going to accelerate the rock up to the same speed as the water without also accelerating  the water. 

 

 

Pi:

>>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.>>

Dave:

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  (((( Pi comments "to get up to that speed" means ACCELERATED. ))) of the jet.  When it DOES get up to that speed  (((( ACCELERATED )))) 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. 

All of this has already been addressed.

 

One question .... Do you still make the ABSURD claim acceleration  is "irrelevant?"



#47 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 April 2015 - 06:14 AM

Suppose you put an object, perhaps a rock, in a fast-flowing jet of water in a pipe or stream and you could somehow keep it from hitting the sides or bottom.  Or maybe suppose it is wood floating in water and you shoot fast steam into that pipe with additional jets of steam all along the way for a mile or two.  Yes at the beginning the water would be shooting fast past the wood in that pipe or stream as the wood was being accelerated by the water or jets of steam.  But with time, would that wood finally get close to the speed of the water or jets?

 

Of course acceleration is important to get the stuff up to speed but once it IS up to speed that is not relevant to our discussion (i.e. how much time it took to get it there).  There would indeed come a point where the rock would be at or very close to the speed of the water vapor pushing on it.  It would never catch up to the water molecules that were shot upward at the same instant the rock was but it would eventually get up to speed with the jetting force so that it would be close to the speed of the later molecules, and close to the speed of the jets. 

 

Since you ignored this I guess I have to ask it AGAIN...try not to ignore my stuff.

 

So, I'm going to ask you AGAIN if you "get it"...that for the SLOWER stuff that makes only ONE TRIP outward...then that stuff can INDEED have more chances to hit the Moon (with a smaller cross-sectional area) than the Earth...so that the odds of hitting Earth is far less than 13.5x.  Do you get that yet?  I HOPE I don't have to repeat for the 22nd time why you are wrong to assert the 13.5 multiplier.  I want this nailed down.



#48 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 April 2015 - 06:27 AM

>>Yes, there will be a miniscule amount of water that will be launched at a velocity close to that of the rock.  However, most of that will quickly be stripped away by the water that is passing the rock at hypersonic velocities.>>

 

And that "passing water", some of which will not PASS but will COLLIDE with that rock will do WHAT to that rock when it hits the rear end of that rock?

 

>> Keep in mind, you aren't talking about just a little water.  You're talking about a cloud of it that is miles wide.>>

Keep in mind also that the inner solar system would be filled with water molecules FOR YEARS following the Flood.  Some (about half) would be launched retrograde, meaning that speed is subtracted from E's 33km/s orbital speed.  Then the molecules get pushed out by RE/SW.  So that means rocks will meet up with water in the same solar orbit level, going the same speed as the rock is.  Perhaps it would be water vapor being pushed outward from (say) .5 AU...but now it is reaching 1.5 AU where a prograde-launched rock now is.  They would meet, going about the same speed and the rock would capture it.  As a water molecule encounters a rock (and it's accompanying gas or muddy-icy-dust cloud surrounding it) it will be decelerated as it collides with stuff.  With time, possibly years, the rock will collect a cloud of water vapor and dust, to serve as its "sail."

 

When you said you had no problem with RE, exactly WHAT did you mean???  You SURE seem to have a problem with it NOW. 



#49 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 April 2015 - 07:21 AM

>>Yes, there will be a miniscule amount of water that will be launched at a velocity close to that of the rock.  However, most of that will quickly be stripped away by the water that is passing the rock at hypersonic velocities.  Keep in mind, you aren't talking about just a little water.  You're talking about a cloud of it that is miles wide.>>

The water will STOP being accelerated sooner than the rock will.  This is because so long as the rock is slower, the faster water molecules will be crashing into the back of that rock...speeding up the rock, and slowing down the water.  This is not only near Earth, but long after they have entered space and are on a similar trajectory.  Eventually the rock would be slowly accelerated until it was at or near the speed of the water.  This of course would apply to ALL sizes of rocky stuff, which would mean that eventually those smaller rocks would be at the same speed as the water, so they would capture each other...and if they encounter a larger rock, it would capture them. 



#50 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 April 2015 - 07:53 AM

Indy had complained, and I can't find it right now, that I am only answering about 25% of what he posts.  There's a reason..... he's making about 4x the posts.

 

Whether he likes it or not, I have limited time for these things; I am NOT going to spend all of that time discussing Brown's failed model; and while some of Indy's claims can be disposed of quickly, it can take a couple hours to respond substantively to just ONE of his posts where I could make several posts on other topics at the same time.

 

So, for Indy.... read Rule #10 again and quichyerbichen.



#51 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 April 2015 - 10:51 AM

You just are SELECTIVE in what you reply to of mine.  The tough stuff you ignore.  It gets old having to repeat stuff to make you address it. 

 

And you've also B'd at me if I don't reply to something you want a reply to.  It's just a lot rarer for me to overlook something.  You sometimes DO "take your medicine" and face up to a tough point I've made, and I appreciate that about you.  But it seems the first strategy you have is to ignore it and hope it goes away.  I have to make it obvious you've ignored it...and THEN you will either answer or admit my point is valid. 



#52 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 April 2015 - 01:38 PM

You just are SELECTIVE in what you reply to of mine. 

Yep.  When we can't answer everything, that is a reasonable (and necessary) course of action.

 

 

The tough stuff you ignore. 

Not necessarily.  You thought the stuff about acceleration in the "Comets and Asteroids" thread was being ignored because it was so difficult.  I simply thought it was so obviously and clearly wrong that there were other matters that were more in need of clarification that should be addressed.

 

And you've also B'd at me if I don't reply to something you want a reply to.  It's just a lot rarer for me to overlook something. 

That could be at least partly because I don't put so much out there.  For that reason there isn't near as much that needs to be filtered and prioritized.

 

 

But it seems the first strategy you have is to ignore it and hope it goes away. 

The first strategy is to make a guess at how much time will be needed to provide a substantive response.  If the time is brief, I'm much more likely to address it.  If it's going to take a couple hours or so I may only get to one or two per day.

 

 

I have to make it obvious you've ignored it...and THEN you will either answer or admit my point is valid. 

Yeah... if you complain, then I review the priorities.  When you think it's that great .... even when it isn't.... it's pretty clear I should move it up on the priority list (as in post #39).  That still doesn't mean I have time to address everything you throw out.



#53 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 April 2015 - 03:13 PM

>>That still doesn't mean I have time to address everything you throw out.>>

You should have thrown out YOUR post (#52) which said NOTHING of value, and taken that time to wrestle with something worthwhile.  I won't let you get away with pretending you've answered something when you haven't ...so take as much time as you need, but don't expect me to ignore your ignoring. 

 

BTW, if I didn't have to REPEAT MYSELF 21 TIMES to explain the process of RE/SW pushing stuff outward past E/M ONE TIME...maybe our number of posts would be closer to the same.  Why did it take that many times???  And do you GET IT, now???  Have you renegged on saying you have no problem with RE?



#54 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 April 2015 - 08:31 PM

I'm going to address these points first because it's a "quickie."

 

Since you ignored this I guess I have to ask it AGAIN...try not to ignore my stuff.

 

So, I'm going to ask you AGAIN if you "get it"...that for the SLOWER stuff that makes only ONE TRIP outward...then that stuff can INDEED have more chances to hit the Moon (with a smaller cross-sectional area) than the Earth...so that the odds of hitting Earth is far less than 13.5x.  Do you get that yet?  I HOPE I don't have to repeat for the 22nd time why you are wrong to assert the 13.5 multiplier.  I want this nailed down.

and

BTW, if I didn't have to REPEAT MYSELF 21 TIMES to explain the process of RE/SW pushing stuff outward past E/M ONE TIME...maybe our number of posts would be closer to the same.  Why did it take that many times???  And do you GET IT, now??? 

First, in the first few posts of this topic, you quite correctly pointed out this issue more properly belongs in the "Craters" discussion.  I will, however answer it here.....

 

You want this nailed down? 

 

The only thing you have right is that the minimum multiplier of 13.5x is probably wrong.... it should be considerably higher.  Physicist DaveB says 52x is more likely correct.  If it's approaching the Earth-Moon system at only "2-8 mph" as you have suggested, the multiplier approaches 300x.    But I have agreed to accept the minimum value of 13.5x.   IIRC, you agreed to accept 13.5x for anything left the vicinity of the Earth.  Now you are apparently trying .... 21 times now by your count .... to renege.

 

You were wrong about multiplier being far less than 13.5x the 1st time; you were wrong the 21st time; and you will still be wrong the 221st time.  Any returning material would be able to enter the Earth-Moon system from virtually any direction at virtually any time.  The Moon can only shield the Earth when it is between the incoming stuff and the Earth..... anything coming in from any other direction on a collision course will hit the Earth, not the Moon.

 

There.  It's nailed down.



#55 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 April 2015 - 09:22 PM

Forget about the multiplier for now.  DO YOU AGREE that there would be some stuff shot out fast on eccentric orbits which WOULD return to the inner solar system, but other stuff would start out less than 1 AU and get pushed out slowly by RE/SW...NEVER to return.  I am not asking if you agree really...but DO YOU SEE what I mean (and what Brown means) and that we have TWO kinds of things? 

 

>>IIRC, you agreed to accept 13.5x for anything left the vicinity of the Earth.  Now you are apparently trying .... 21 times now by your count .... to renege.>>

No renegging.  I continue to agree 1) that for stuff RETURNING at high speed it would be at least 13.5x.  2) For slower stuff being pushed outward, there are multiple opportunities for a hit by the Moon.  Only one for Earth.  You are smart enough to understand this...even if you disagree.  Stop continuing to focus ONLY on 1 when we are discussing 2!



#56 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 April 2015 - 08:06 AM

>>First, in the first few posts of this topic, you quite correctly pointed out this issue more properly belongs in the "Craters" discussion.>>

I wasn't pointing it out as agreeing with your idea...I was mocking you.  It's called SARCASM.  That was obvious...including to you.

 

Just so readers know...after starting this topic and using it for cratering stuff when HE wants to, now Pi has decided (without my agreement of course) to move his replies to my posts about RE/SW which I posted here BACK over to the Crater/Earth topic.  I apologize to readers for Pi for making the following of this subject more difficult.  He should know that there is going to be some cross-over with this sort of subject into other relevant subtopics...and we really don't need a new topic for each subtopic. 

 

Of course ev's are good at subdividing things...like when they talk about all the SPECIES that all had to be on the ark instead of much fewer KINDS.  Oops!...another topic!  And another Oops!...ev's don't believe there WAS an ark.  To them the Bible is full of lies and we shouldn't believe its HISTORICAL accounts.  They prefer to believe all the sciency guys over what the Bible plainly says is true.  Theistic ev's don't look to the Bible for truth...they trust the universities to decide truth (which changes all the time) instead. 



#57 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 April 2015 - 08:53 AM

Just so readers know...after starting this topic and using it for cratering stuff when HE wants to, now Pi has decided (without my agreement of course) to move his replies to my posts about RE/SW which I posted here BACK over to the Crater/Earth topic.  I apologize to readers for Pi for making the following of this subject more difficult.  He should know that there is going to be some cross-over with this sort of subject into other relevant subtopics...and we really don't need a new topic for each subtopic.  

 

Of course ev's are good at subdividing things...like when they talk about all the SPECIES that all had to be on the ark instead of much fewer KINDS.  Oops!...another topic!  And another Oops!...ev's don't believe there WAS an ark.  To them the Bible is full of lies and we shouldn't believe its HISTORICAL accounts.  They prefer to believe all the sciency guys over what the Bible plainly says is true.  Theistic ev's don't look to the Bible for truth...they trust the universities to decide truth (which changes all the time) instead.

The comment I moved back to the (more appropriate) "Crater" topic was about impacts, not "RE/SW."

 

I'm sure the readers have noticed that after Indy's quite proper correction on the matter, I have kept this discussion strictly on topic regarding the "Comets and Asteroids" issue.  Not once have I mentioned anything at all about impacts on Earth.  It is Indy who has reintroduced that issue after 50 or so posts.  He is also bringing up species, kinds, the ark, and the Bible.... none of which have anything at all to do with the formation of asteroids and comets in the manner suggested by Dr. Brown's "Hydroplate" model.

 

There's a name for this tactic.... it's called the "Gish Gallop."  Creationists are masters of the technique.



#58 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 April 2015 - 09:54 AM

Pi:

Yes, there will be a miniscule amount of water that will be launched at a velocity close to that of the rock.  However, most of that will quickly be stripped away by the water that is passing the rock at hypersonic velocities.>>

 

Indy:

And that "passing water", some of which will not PASS but will COLLIDE with that rock will do WHAT to that rock when it hits the rear end of that rock?

It will accelerate the rock.  That was never an issue.  Once it hits the rock, it may even transfer all of its momentum to the rock.... but it will then bounce off and be picked up by that hypersonic stream of vapor that is already racing past the rock and quickly accelerate to those hypersonic velocities and again quickly outdistance that much slower rock.

 

Again, the amount of material that will be passing this rock at velocities below the escape velocity of the rock so it can be captured is miniscule.

 

 

Pi:

>> Keep in mind, you aren't talking about just a little water.  You're talking about a cloud of it that is miles wide.>>
 

Indy:
Keep in mind also that the inner solar system would be filled with water molecules FOR YEARS following the Flood.  Some (about half) would be launched retrograde, meaning that speed is subtracted from E's 33km/s orbital speed.  Then the molecules get pushed out by RE/SW.  So that means rocks will meet up with water in the same solar orbit level, going the same speed as the rock is.  Perhaps it would be water vapor being pushed outward from (say) .5 AU...but now it is reaching 1.5 AU where a prograde-launched rock now is.  They would meet, going about the same speed and the rock would capture it.  As a water molecule encounters a rock (and it's accompanying gas or muddy-icy-dust cloud surrounding it) it will be decelerated as it collides with stuff.  With time, possibly years, the rock will collect a cloud of water vapor

The water molecules being pushed out by the radiometer effect and the solar wind will accelerate 2.5x faster than the rock.  You need that rock to collect, IIRC, some 5x the mass of the rock.  I certainly agree it will take years.... but more like thousands than dozens.

 

 

When you said you had no problem with RE, exactly WHAT did you mean???  You SURE seem to have a problem with it NOW. 

I meant that I accept the radiometer effect will, in fact, push things away from the sun.  The same for the solar wind.  What we did not have at the time and we do have now is the amount of pressure the radiometer effect will produce.

 

Without the amount of pressure, we're just playing guessing games and "what if's."  With the pressure, we can do some meaningful calculations.  What thos calculations clearly demonstrate is that the radiometer effect will not produce near enough force to move these things out to the asteroid belt.

 

Now, if you want to see what would happen if this 10km diameter cloud of water were to form around a nucleus of rock, go ahead.  (But that does not mean we have agreed on the cloud yet.)



#59 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 April 2015 - 11:49 AM

>>It will accelerate the rock.  That was never an issue.  Once it hits the rock, it may even transfer all of its momentum to the rock.... but it will then bounce off and be picked up by that hypersonic stream of vapor that is already racing past the rock and quickly accelerate to those hypersonic velocities and again quickly outdistance that much slower rock.>>

So what happens after enough water vapor collides with that rock...speeding it up, little by little?

 

Does the log that falls into the river and starts off with water rushing past it fast EVER speed up enough so that it is pretty much the same speed as the water?

 

>>

Again, the amount of material that will be passing this rock at velocities below the escape velocity of the rock so it can be captured is miniscule.>>

Is that your "imagining"?  I'm not interested in that.  (Reference to Pi's "not interested" comment on the Craters/Earth thread).

 

>>You need that rock to collect, IIRC, some 5x the mass of the rock.  I certainly agree it will take years.... but more like thousands than dozens.>>

How long would it take with constant pounding against the rock's rear by much faster water molecules...for the rock to SPEED UP...esp with no gravity holding it back?  Do you agree that so far you have totally neglected that FACT?

 

>>Without the amount of pressure, we're just playing guessing games and "what if's."  With the pressure, we can do some meaningful calculations.  What thos calculations clearly demonstrate is that the radiometer effect will not produce near enough force to move these things out to the asteroid belt.>>

For now we HAVE had a pressure (which you estimated...or maybe imagined...not sure)...based solely on solar (ha!).  And IIRC, in a prior post I showed that alone was sufficient IF the rock obtained a sail.  You have denied it ever would.  So I sure can't see how you have "had no problem with RE."  RE won't work w/o a sail.  Nor would SW. 

 

>>

Now, if you want to see what would happen if this 10km diameter cloud of water were to form around a nucleus of rock, go ahead.  (But that does not mean we have agreed on the cloud yet.)>>

Maybe we should argue both...I don't want to let you off the ropes about it quite yet.  You're about to take a fall (about claiming a rock would never get a sail).



#60 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 26 April 2015 - 10:12 AM

>>

The laws of physics mandate the rocks will NEVER match the speed of the jets that are accelerating them.>>

 

 

And why NOT...IF the water molecules behind that rock are FASTER (as you say) and they are pounding into the back of that rock?  Why would the rock not be accelerated by that? 

 

I don't want you to just jump back into this discussion and pretend there are not important questions you have so far NOT answered.

 

>>Virtually all of the water will accelerate to a speed five orders of magnitude (100,000x) faster than the escape velocity of the rock.  Keep in mind, the escape velocity mentioned is at the surface of the rock.>>

Totally irrelevant if at some point the rock and water molecules are at nearly the same speed.  That rock WILL capture them if they are close enough and slow enough (relative to the rock). 

 

>>The water will accelerate faster than the rock for as long as there is an equal force applied to both of them. >>

Once the water gets to the speed of the jets it will no longer be accelerated...same goes for the rock.  The time it takes will be different...but SO WHAT?  You seem to be under the delusion that the rock NEVER gets up to the speed of the jets.  And this could happen EITHER inside the chasm during the 10 mile (now 50 mile...with Brown's new model) trip up the chasm...or after all of it is in space. 

 

>>Go ahead.... explain what force is going to accelerate the rock up to the same speed as the water without also accelerating  the water.>>

I did.  17kmps jetting water will not speed up the water already going 17kmps but it would speed up 10kmps rocks.  Got it?  Did you run your statement past any physics PhD's before you made it?  I gave you a very good analogy.  Tossing a log into a stream...at first the water rushes by the log, but eventually the log and the water are going about the same speed.  RIGHT?

 

Indy:>>  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  (((( Pi comments "to get up to that speed" means ACCELERATED. ))) of the jet.  When it DOES get up to that speed  (((( ACCELERATED )))) 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. >>

Pi>>All of this has already been addressed.>>

 

That is simply an UNTRUE statement.  You want to play word games AS IF I have said that acceleration is not needed.  NO...my point (and you KNOW IT) was that HOW LONG IT TOOK for that rock to be at the same speed as the water IS IRRELEVANT.  Stop playing word games and START being truly responsive and ADDRESS what you CLAIM you already have...but have NOT.

 

I wrote:>>And that "passing water", some of which will not PASS but will COLLIDE with that rock will do WHAT to that rock when it hits the rear end of that rock?>>

Like I said before...the TOUGH STUFF you ignore.  This was something I wrote BEFORE you replied to other stuff I wrote.  I should NOT have to repeat over and over stuff just because you are afraid to admit I've made a point that you have no answer for.  After SOME point it is fair for me to be b-ing (complaining) about your failure to reply to my fair points and questions.  And YOU should stop YOUR b-ing about my calling for you to actually reply to my tough stuff...rather than just taking little pot-shots when you think you see an opportunity to score some point of your own.  You'd like to see yourself as a tough debater...but you aren't tough enough to readily take your medicine when a non-scientist (me) shows you to be wrong. 

 

>>The first strategy is to make a guess at how much time will be needed to provide a substantive response.  If the time is brief, I'm much more likely to address it.  If it's going to take a couple hours or so I may only get to one or two per day.>>

Doesn't take 2 minutes to write "yeah, Indy, I have to admit...eventually that rock will be sped up to the speed of the water and it will gain a sail."  NOT DIFFICULT...except for the pride part.

 

>>Yeah... if you complain, then I review the priorities.  When you think it's that great .... even when it isn't.... it's pretty clear I should move it up on the priority list (as in post #39).>>

So MOVE IT UP.







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