Jump to content


Photo

Hydroplates And Meteorites

brown hydroplate flood noah meteorite astronomy

  • Please log in to reply
356 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 28 September 2016 - 12:01 AM

Opening a new topic because this is more relevant to Brown's Hydroplates and the flood than it is to fossils.....

 That paper discusses a theory that diatoms could be ice nucleation sites IN THE TROPOSPHERE...and refers to diatoms being found on Antarctactic mountains (3km?) and collected by airplane from 1 km.  One of their reports was of collection of diatoms from a 9m tower on a 55m cliff.  That IN NO WAY addresses the collection of a diatom at 27km, nor does it address the OTHER item (the titanium-containing sphere which impacted the TOP of the collection plate AT HIGH SPEED and then oozed what appeared to be bio material) .  So if you have some ACTUAL evidence that diatoms can travel to the stratosphere (except if there is a volcanic eruption a day or two before)...then let's hear it.  Otherwise the balloon data is confirmation that these can arrive from space, and Brown's theory of the Flood is the best way to explain that. 

 

BTW, I might expect you to suggest these came from an asteroid impact from 65mya which might have sent stuff from the ocean into orbit.  However, the balloon object as well as the 2 meteorite falls in Sri Lanka came during COMETARY meteor showers...and no one I know of would say that any COMET could be caused by an asteroid strike. 

There is no need to suggest extraordinary events such as Chicxulub impact or Brown's hydroplates. 

 

Twenty-seven kilometers (about 87,700 feet) is hardly deep space. Thunderstorms can reach 75,000 feet (24.8 km) the SR-71 could fly at 80,000 feet (24.6 km)  and I read today the U-2 aircraft can reach 90,000 feet (27.7 km). 

 

Surface diatoms carried to high altitude makes a lot more sense than they were blasted to space from a major event.

 

 

Here is the report from August 2014 from TASS

Microorganisms could be found on the ISS surface thanks to high-precision equipment. “Results of the experiment are absolutely unique. We have found traces of sea plankton and microscopic particles on the illuminator surface. This should be studied further,” chief of the Russian ISS orbital mission Vladimir Solovyev said.

More:
http://tass.ru/en/non-political/745635

Again, no extraordinary explanations are necessary.  From the article:

"some organisms can live on the surface of the International Space Station (ISS) for years amid factors of a space flight, such as zero gravity, temperature conditions and hard cosmic radiation. Several surveys proved that these organisms can even develop.....In reply to a question on how the ISS surface is contaminated now, the space specialist said that the ISS surface was polluted very strongly due to operation of space engines and other factors."

 

The ISS was assembled and serviced with materials hauled to orbit by the Space Shuttle.  One of the Shuttle launch pads was within a couple hundred yards of the ocean and the other wasn't much farther.  The article states these organisms can "develop" in the rigors of space.  It further says the ISS surface was contaminated by various factors.  It seems they have a pretty good idea where they think the contamination came from.

 

It's entirely possible these "sea plankton" hitched a ride to orbit on the Shuttle and were knocked loose by various factors during operations with the ISS with some of them attaching themselves to ISS surfaces.



#2 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 28 September 2016 - 02:07 PM

(Snipped over from the Out of Place fossils thread)
 

In their original paper LINK I did not find the name of an expert on diatoms they cited, but they did put one of the Sri Lanka diatoms side-by-side with a known MARINE species (Sellaphora blackfordensis), described here: The World Register of Marine Species LINK

"Comparison of the SEM images of another fossil diatom in the Polonnaruwa meteorite with a modern diatom Sellaphora blackfordensis (Mann, 1989,1999) is shown in Fig 7 and leaves scarcely any room to doubt the identity of the former."


I have to correct a few diatom related claims.

First of all Sellaphora blackfordensis isn't a marine diatom and it even says that if you read the link you provided to the Worms database.

Here is another link (with the exact same image used in the meteorite paper) written by the diatomist who first described it from Blackford Pond (how it got named) in Scotland.

http://tolweb.org/Se...ordensis/129681

" Found so far only in the epipelon of eutrophic lakes, ponds and ditches "

The authors don't make the claim it is a marine diatom however, it seems just you have.

On the other hand, the authors are wrong in their identification anyway (as they also are stating the diatom in fig.5 is filamentous, it isn't) which displays how sloppy they are with reporting facts. (the dark lines of dots - these are called striae - are much less dense (only about 13 per 10 micron) than the Sellaphora and are straight rather than radiate). It looks like a Navicula species but hard to be sure as clearly I'm not familiar with the Sri Lankan flora and I'm not used to seeing them as SEM images.

I take issue with the authors' claim that these are fossil diatoms, this is how they look once the organic material has decayed. If the rice field was dry as you claim then its hugely likely that old valves will be present in the dust (because a rice field must be wet while rice is growing).

The EDX spectra they present as proof of fossilisation has a high peak for silicon in both graphs in but this is exactly what you would expect for a diatom (the frustule is basically glass) and there is a high iron peak plus aluminium on the bottom graph which you might expect in a meteorite.

 

Attached File  EDX.jpg   48.71KB   0 downloads

The paper basically makes a very strong conclusion based on very tenuous evidence.



#3 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 01 October 2016 - 04:09 PM

I'm pretty unhappy that you chose to highjack the topic to begin a new one.  I'll continue to discuss this where I began it.  This is indeed pertinent to the topic of out of place fossils. 

 

Since there have been quite a few (1258 by today) who have viewed this, I would direct you all to the Out of Place Fossils topic where I brought up the science reports and where I have already been defending my position. 



#4 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 03 October 2016 - 09:40 PM

I'm pretty unhappy that you chose to highjack the topic to begin a new one.

Usually, "highjacking" a topic is diverting the topic from the issues of the OP.  Not opening a new one to discuss a specific issue brought up.

 

Besides, this is intended to be much broader than just the diatom "fossils" in meteorites or plankton on the ISS.  Before you get fossils in meteorites you need to get them (both) to space. 

 

Further, I had told you months ago I intended to open a topic that would include scientific reviews of Brown's claims regarding the meteorites, comets, and asteroids.  You having brought up meteorites and Brown seemed like a good time. 

 

This is also a good opportunity to discuss the effects of a major encounter with one of his rocky snowballs.

 

 

I'll continue to discuss this where I began it.  This is indeed pertinent to the topic of out of place fossils. 

Of course, I have always felt the author of the OP is the one best qualified to determine if he feels an issue is on-topic or not.  For that reason, so far as I'm concerned if you say it's relevant to "out of place fossils," it is.  Even if the plankton on the ISS isn't fossilized.

 

That does not mean this topic will be relevant to fossils.....  and I'll make a comment on your thread in the next couple posts.  Right now, I want to present something more "on-topic" for this discussion.....



#5 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 October 2016 - 08:38 AM

As I pointed out, before a meteorite can capture a diatom, you must first have the meteorites.  Hopefully, everyone will agree that any proposed explanation that heats the atmosphere of Earth to over the boiling temperature of water fails.

 

Here's what YEC astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner has to say about Brown's launch process  (Source:  CRSQ Winter 2013 ):

Brown (2008, pp. 274–275) notes that water is a major constituent of comets and that water is common on the earth.

About 38% of a comet’s mass is frozen water.  Therefore, to understand comet origins, one must ask, “Where is water found?” Earth, sometimes called “the water planet,” must head the list. (The volume of water on Earth is ten times greater than the volume of all land above sea level.) Other planets, moons, and even interstellar space have only traces of water, or possible water. Some traces, instead of producing comets, may have been delivered by comets or by water vapor that the fountains of the great deep launched into space.

Water is more abundant in the cosmos than Dr. Brown gives it credit for ... Water not only exists on other planets and satellites but also exists in the interstellar medium (ISM) .... Ganymede and Callisto ... likely contain 100 times more water than the earth’s oceans currently contain. By Dr. Brown’s reasoning for the terrestrial origin of comets, a better case could be made for Ganymede and Callisto as the likely source of comets ....he remains silent on the origin of these two satellites, suggesting that he believes that they likely are primordial, that is, they date from the Creation Week. This is inconsistent, for Dr. Brown uses the high water content of the smaller bodies of the solar system to argue for a terrestrial origin. For that matter, high water content is a common feature of smaller solar system bodies far from the sun..... Rather than seeing that comets resemble the earth, it is clear that comets better resemble other solar system objects far from the sun.

 

Notice, Faulkner quotes Brown as saying: "about 38% of a comets mass is frozen water."  For that reason, I'll use a 62-38 ratio of rock to water as the basis for this discussion.

 

Faulkner mentions Ganymede and Castillo having lots of water.  There's a lot more.  Jupiter's moon Europa is thought to have substantial liquid water heated by the very same kind of "tidal pumping" Brown uses as a source of energy for his proposal.

Just a week ago:

NASA ANNOUNCED YESTERDAY that the Hubble Space Telescope likely spied plumes of ice coming from the surface of Europa.  .... Europa isn’t the first body in the solar system where ice volcanism has been potentially spotted. When Voyager 2 swung by Neptune, it spotted streaks from plumes of frozen water and methane on the surface of Triton. Cassini captured definitive evidence of ice jets from Enceladus 

 

So we find there are multiple satellites in the solar system that have ice volcanos.  Given the low gravity of these moons, it is entirely likely significant amount of water escape these satellites gravity.

 

The bottom line here is that water in space is much more ordinary than Brown would have his readers believe.  Contrary to what Brown claims, most of the distant solar system objects have large amounts of water .... far too much for it to have come from Earth.  In addition, comets have much more in common with the solar system objects beyond Jupiter than they have with Earth.

 

There is no real reason to believe material that composes the comets originated on Earth.  As Faulkner points out ... "By Dr. Brown’s reasoning for the terrestrial origin of comets, a better case could be made for Ganymede and Callisto as the likely source of comets"



#6 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 October 2016 - 03:52 PM

To Pi:

I appreciate that you have agreed to not have the diatoms inside M's discussion be switched to your thread here.  However, due to your having just disappeared for 3 months from the Craters on Earth thread, just as we were getting close to a resolution...with your needing to concede...I am not much interested in devoting time to other discussions with you.  You need to do what is fair...to admit that I provided a good explanation for how there could be lots of large craters on the Moon without there being anything lethal to hit the surface or lower atmosphere on Earth.  Don't force me to have to go back to rehash it all, AS IF you couldn't see that your back was against the wall.  Admit that I proved the 2 key points, or provide your reasonable arguments why that is not so, and we could continue that discussion (or end it with your concession) and then discuss what you want to here.

 

The last page for that is http://evolutionfair...e-earth/page-29

 

Pi>>The bottom line here is that water in space is much more ordinary than Brown would have his readers believe.  Contrary to what Brown claims, most of the distant solar system objects have large amounts of water .... far too much for it to have come from Earth.>>
 

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



#7 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 October 2016 - 08:30 AM

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

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

 

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

 

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

That is, of course, entirely your prerogative.  

 

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

There is still question about whether or not your proposed rocky snowballs  (70 km diameter; density 0.1; and velocity 17 km/sec) would leave craters on the moon of the size we're talking about 100 mile (160 km) diameter.  Further, while they may not have left the 100 mile diameter holes on the ground on Earth, they would leave very clear evidence that such impacts had taken place.  The evidence we should reasonably expect if is notoriously absent.

 

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

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

 

IIRC, we have worked with five impact models.  Two from the University of Arizona (no longer available); One from Purdue ("impact effects"); the SL-9 one; and the last one you found.   The first three models stated they didn't work for objects much below a density of 1.  The SL-9 model clearly didn't work for a density as low as you proposed.  That left the fifth model.  

 

In the case of the final model, I had contacted the developer of the program about its validity for such low (0.1) densities and he never responded.  Given the established fact that 4 of the 5 models don't work for your low density object any "fair minded" person should expect verification the fifth model will work before accepting it.  This is especially true as when I reduced the density further the fifth program produced a crater smaller than the impacting bolide.

 

Your proposed object consists of more than 90% empty space.  I expect it would produce a crater field similar to this one:

 

CinderField2.jpg

 

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

Chaplygin 240px-Chaplygin_crater_1115_med.jpg

 

 

There will be no concession.

 

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

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

 

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

 

As for interstellar water:

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

 

There is also this more recent discovery:

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

 

Now, I realize it is completely unreasonable of me to think that as much as 50 million times all the water on Earth is a bit more than a "trace" of water.  We all know 140 trillion times more water than Earth's oceans is just a drop in the bucket.

 

But I'm sure that's just me and most "fair minded people" would totally disagree.  <<dripping sarcasm>>

 

The real question here is how Brown can justify the water in the comets came from Earth when we know only two satellites in the outer solar system have 100x the water on Earth... and there's lots more than that.

 

Faulkner was absolutely right .... If we follow Brown's advice and look to where the water is as a source for the comets, Earth (with far less than 1% of the water in the solar system), isn't even worthy of mention.



#8 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 October 2016 - 12:49 PM

Continuing with YEC astronomer Danny Faulkner's review of Brown's Hydroplate claims.

 

This particular aspect is a "back of the envelope" calculation regarding the heating of the atmosphere during the launch phase of the model.  When I contacted Danny about this, I mentioned my "Fire and Brimstone" analysis (which was extensively discussed here).  He found it interesting that I was dealing only with returning material while he addressed only the launch of the material but we both found the exact same thing ..... Brown cooks the planet.

 

On to more of Faulkner's review:

Dr. Brown considers it likely that sufficient water was ejected from the earth at the time of the Flood to produce all the comets. According to his model, the subterranean water was under tremendous pressure, sufficient to blast much of the water through the earth’s atmosphere and into space. .... Consider this quote from Brown (2008, p. 277):

To escape Earth’s gravity and enter only a circular orbit around the Sun requires a launch velocity of 7 miles per second. However, to produce near-parabolic, retrograde orbits requires a launch velocity of 32 miles per second! Earth’s atmosphere would offer comparatively little resistance at such speeds. In seconds, the pulsating, jetting fountains would push the thin atmosphere aside, much as water from a fire hose quickly penetrates a thin wall.

 

This last sentence is a huge assertion, offered without any justification or supporting calculation. For our purposes here, we will .... deal with issues following release of the jets. There must be some interaction between the jets and the earth’s atmosphere, so an obvious question to ask is how much kinetic energy is transferred from the jets into the atmosphere. 

 

Water moving at this speed is moving at Mach 150! .... Modeling this properly would be very difficult. Such high speeds undoubtedly would produce tremendous turbulence. Turbulence will slow at least a portion of the water jet and transfer kinetic energy to the atmosphere.  The leading edge of a jet will slam into the atmosphere, ... it would then move more slowly....  which will lead to a collision between the slower moving leading edge and the faster moving material immediately below. ..... This cascading effect will cause the leading edge of the jet to spread horizontally.... this pancaking of the leading edge of the jet is one way in which a large amount of kinetic energy transfers from the jets to the atmosphere.....Bernoulli’s equation will produce a very large pressure difference that will drive air into the jet. Calculation shows that the .... speed of the inrushing air is nearly the speed of sound. Once the inrushing air slams into the sides of the jet, there will be large viscous motions between the two. This is a second way in which kinetic energy from the jet will transfer to the atmosphere. When chaotic transfer of kinetic energy happens as with these two mechanisms, the kinetic energy is quickly randomized into ... heat, so we say that the kinetic energy is thermalized.

 

How much thermalization of the kinetic energy of the jets would have occurred? .... It is doubtful that our current models would permit realistic computation anyway. So let us use a very common practice in physics and astronomy of doing a “back of envelope” calculation. Let us assume for the sake of argument that only one millionth  (Pi comments:  That is 0.0001%) of the kinetic energy of the jets would be thermalized into the atmosphere. This figure is probably far too conservative, and the percentage of thermalized energy transfer is likely far higher..... , assuming that only one millionth of the jet energy is thermalized to the atmosphere and that heat is distributed uniformly, we find an atmospheric temperature increase of 34 C. ..... This is an unrealistically high temperature increase, and it is doubtful that the energy transfer was this minimal. With more realistic energy transfer, it ought to be obvious that trying to pass this much matter through the earth’s atmosphere at such speed is not possible.

 

So Faulkner finds that if 0.0001% of the energy is absorbed by the atmosphere during launch, it would increase the atmospheric temperature by 34C (61F).  Absorbing 0.0003% would then result in a temperature increase of 102C (183F).  It's pretty safe to say in Earth's atmosphere started at any temperature above freezing, this would increase atmospheric temperatures above the boiling point of water.

 

In other words, Brown's launch process needs to be over 99.9997% efficient at transferring the energy to the launched material and not the atmosphere in order to avoid sterilizing the surface of the planet.



#9 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 October 2016 - 01:01 PM

Just a quick note.... so far I've been presenting YEC astronomer Danny Faulkner's analysis of Brown's claims.  I still have several more to go including Christian astro-physicist Christopher M. Sharp and physicist Gerard Jellison among others.

 

Despite years of searching, I've found no review of Brown's work that comes to the conclusion that it works.  RSR has apparently been trying to find scientists and engineers who support Brown:

"Help Bob Identify HPT Scientists & Engineers: Please email Bob@rsr.org if you are a pro-HPT scientist or engineer."

 

and I am aware that they do have a nuclear engineer (Jane Albright) who has done some programs for RSR on the issue flood models.  The PDF file on Brown's proposal redirects somewhere else.  I haven't had a chance to listen to the audio yet.....



#10 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 October 2016 - 02:42 PM

Pi, would you please post this to the cratering on Earth topic and I will address your points there. There's no reason to have a new topic if we are completing what we were discussing there. If there is something else about meteorites that you think justifies discussion in a new topic that's fine I guess however I'm not sure if I would participate. I do want some resolution about craters on the moon and craters on the Earth and the best place for that resolution is in the other thread, now that you've had time to rest for 3 months.

#11 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 October 2016 - 04:03 PM

MOST OF WHAT PI POSTED IN #7 BELONGS ON THE CRATERS ON EARTH THREAD...WHERE I HAVE ANSWERED HIM JUST NOW.  THE LAST PART IS RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD.  I WILL LIKELY HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN THIS NEW THREAD UNLESS THERE IS REAL ACCOUNTABILITY SHOWN BY PI ON THE CRATERS THREAD.  I DO UNDERSTAND GETTING TIRED IN A DISCUSSION AND WANTING TO BE EXCUSED FOR A WHILE.  **BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN RETURN AND PRETEND YOU HAD ANSWERED EVERYTHING!** JUST WHEN I HAD HIM CORNERED PI DODGES AWAY AND DISAPPEARS FOR 3 MONTHS AND IF HE WANTS MORE DISCUSSION WITH ME, THEN HE SHOULD SHOW MORE INTEGRITY AS A POLEMICIST...AND EITHER ANSWER MY POINTS OR CONCEDE. 

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

SO?  If all there was to it was how much water a body has, then G&C could form comets.  That is not all there is.  Brown shows about 20 different traits about comets and he lists various theories, showing which theories can satisfy each of the traits...with HPT being the only one that satisfies them all. 

 

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

 

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

 

>>As for interstellar water:

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

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

 

>>There is also this more recent discovery:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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



#12 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 06 October 2016 - 12:14 AM

 With apologies to the lurkers....

 

Pi, would you please post this to the cratering on Earth topic and I will address your points there.

As a courtesy to you, I will post it there this time.  It will increase my expected number of comments there from one to two. 

 

As a courtesy to those who have been following this topic, I will cross post relevant material here.  There is no reason for them jump from topic to topic.

 

 

There's no reason to have a new topic

2500 views in a week suggests otherwise.  Apparently there is a lot of interest in Hydroplates and not so much in craters.

 

The crater discussion was never intended to be a review of Brown's claims. This is.  That alone is reason enough to open a new topic.

 

I had told you months ago it was my intention to open a discussion for scientific reviews of Brown's claims.  This is it.  Welcome.

 

 

....if we are completing what we were discussing there. If there is something else about meteorites that you think justifies discussion in a new topic that's fine

This is much broader than just meteorites.  Maybe I should have called it "Hydroplate astronomy"

 

The discussion was opened with Faulkner's analysis because as a YEC astronomer, his evaluation seems like an ideal place to start.

 

I guess however I'm not sure if I would participate.

That is your right.  If that is your decision, you will be missed.

 

Either way, I intend to assemble various scientific reviews of Brown's astronomical claims and present them here.

 

 

I do want some resolution about craters on the moon and craters on the Earth and the best place for that resolution is in the other thread, now that you've had time to rest for 3 months.

Apparently I need to repeat essentially the same comments I've made both here and on your "Fossil" thread.  OK.... I'll do that.  You aren't going to get much more than a more thorough explanation of what I said then.

 

 

MOST OF WHAT PI POSTED IN #7 BELONGS ON THE CRATERS ON EARTH THREAD...WHERE I HAVE ANSWERED HIM JUST NOW.  THE LAST PART IS RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD. 

Excuse me ......

 

As the author of the OP, I think it is my prerogative, not yours, to determine what is, or is not relevant to this thread.  If you want confirmation, just look at the tags which serve as an indicator of what topics are likely to be discussed.

 

 I WILL LIKELY HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN THIS NEW THREAD UNLESS THERE IS REAL ACCOUNTABILITY SHOWN BY PI ON THE CRATERS THREAD.  I DO UNDERSTAND GETTING TIRED IN A DISCUSSION AND WANTING TO BE EXCUSED FOR A WHILE.  **BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN RETURN AND PRETEND YOU HAD ANSWERED EVERYTHING!** JUST WHEN I HAD HIM CORNERED PI DODGES AWAY AND DISAPPEARS FOR 3 MONTHS AND IF HE WANTS MORE DISCUSSION WITH ME, THEN HE SHOULD SHOW MORE INTEGRITY AS A POLEMICIST...AND EITHER ANSWER MY POINTS OR CONCEDE. 

Your points have been answered.  Will documentation of my previous statements do?

 

Now, with your permission, I really don't want this discussion to be distracted from a review and analysis of Brown's astronomical claims



#13 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 06 October 2016 - 02:31 PM

As promised, I'm cross-posting the main points of my response to Indy from the "Cratering" discussion......

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

 

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

....

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

 

We will use spherical values for all estimates.  

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

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

 

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

300px-USS_Nimitz_in_Victoria_Canada_036.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Barringer crater in Arizona

  260px-Meteor_Crater_-_Arizona.jpg

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

 

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

 

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

....

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

....

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The entire post is linked by the arrow in the top right corner of this quote.  There is an additional post before this one in the Crater thread, but it is evidence I had been saying these things for weeks in that discussion despite Indy's claim my "departure" was "sudden" and is not relevant to this topic.



#14 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 06 October 2016 - 09:35 PM

Readers of this thread should go to the Cratering Earth thread to see how I replied to Pi.  Two others sites, besides what we both had agreed was acceptable, confirm that the type of objects which Brown postulates (low density cloud of water-ice and rocky stuff...which we, not Brown, suggested could be .1 density and 17km/s) could indeed produce the 100 mile craters we see on the Moon.  The first one said the diameter would need to be 70km.  The second said 97km.  The third said 28km.  And Pi has agreed that these would NOT be lethal on Earth.  So they WOULD make the large craters on the Moon.  They would NOT be lethal.  That is indeed what our topic there was about, and he SHOULD concede.  What he wants to do instead however is to move the goal posts by deciding to NOT accept what crater size calculators say, and to say that we should see evidence of many crater fields today.  That is perhaps worthy of discussion but he needs to FIRST say clearly they WOULD produce a 100mi crater on the Moon and would NOT be lethal to the ark occupants...as he has previously asserted.  If he wants to begin a new game with different goal posts, then we can do that AFTER he finishes the game he was already in. 



#15 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 October 2016 - 02:43 PM

For those reading only this thread...Pi decided to re-engage (at least for now) on the Cratering Earth thread and there are some fairly substantive interchanges going on there again.  I have gotten his concession about these objects Brown describes being NOT lethal to the ark occupants, and I should be able fairly soon I believe get him to concede (or to look foolish if he won't) about the objects also being able to make 100+mi craters on the Moon...which I believe Faulkner agrees with me about (based on my phone discussion with him).  So if/when that "game" is complete and Pi wants to move the goalposts to start another game to discuss whether we should see lots and lots of 1km craters all over the planet...I am prepared to discuss that too.  But not if he won't either give responsive answers to me about the 2 main questions in the first "game"...i.e. lethality and the 100mi craters on the Moon...or concede that I am right on the 2 questions.  (He seems to have clearly conceded on the lethality part).   



#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 October 2016 - 09:23 PM

For those reading only this thread...Pi decided to re-engage (at least for now) on the Cratering Earth thread and there are some fairly substantive interchanges going on there again.

It occurs to me that those interested in the cratering discussion already know that.

 

I have gotten his concession about these objects Brown describes being NOT lethal to the ark occupants,

Old news.  I did that back in July.  Indy just wasn't able to "get it" until I said with one syllable words in 48 point bold red print.

 

I should be able fairly soon I believe get him to concede (or to look foolish if he won't) about the objects also being able to make 100+mi craters on the Moon...which I believe Faulkner agrees with me about (based on my phone discussion with him). 

There's more to this than just low density objects making big craters on the moon.  You are proposing Brown's Hydroplates as an explanation. I'll wait until Faulkner agrees Brown's big steam explosion is the source of those impactors.  Without that, the whole Hydroplate explanation is out the window.

 

 So if/when that "game" is complete and Pi wants to move the goalposts to start another game to discuss whether we should see lots and lots of 1km craters all over the planet...I am prepared to discuss that too. 

The record clearly shows Indy introduced Brown's Hydroplate model as a possible explanation for an absence of large craters on Earth.  Indy is discussing what we should expect to see if Brown's model were true.  It is not moving the goalposts for me to point out what we should expect to see if Brown's model were true.

 

But not if he won't either give responsive answers to me about the 2 main questions in the first "game"...i.e. lethality and the 100mi craters on the Moon...or concede that I am right on the 2 questions.  (He seems to have clearly conceded on the lethality part).   

While the impactor Indy describes (70km diameter, density 0.1, velocity 17 km/sec) may leave a 100 mile crater on the moon, I still believe it will leave a very different type of crater than the ones we see there.  Think of the type of "crater" you would get by throwing a handful of gravel in mud compared to the one you get with the same size and mass as a single solid rock. 

 

The size of lunar craters really becomes a moot point once there is agreement that the impactor would not form a single 100 mile crater on Earth.  For months, Indy claimed there would be no crater at all.  I'm not quite sure of his present position but I think he agrees that Brown's objects have rock inclusions that could cause at least some cratering on Earth.



#17 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 October 2016 - 11:14 PM

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

 
SO?  If all there was to it was how much water a body has, then G&C could form comets.  That is not all there is.  Brown shows about 20 different traits about comets and he lists various theories, showing which theories can satisfy each of the traits...with HPT being the only one that satisfies them all.

The amount of water isn't the only trait of comets that Faulkner addresses:
"Dr. Brown makes a number of claims about comet composition that he says only the hydroplate model can explain. For instance, he states,
Comets contain methane and ethane. On Earth, bacteria produce almost all methane, and ethane comes from methane.  How could comets originating in space get high concentrations
of these compounds? (Brown, 2008, p. 270)."
Brown (2008) essentially argues that since methane on earth normally is biogenic, then the great abundance of methane in comets must necessarily be biogenic as well. .... not all methane is biogenic...... Methane is found in the ISM (many light years from earth), much too far away to have been contaminated from the earth, so interstellar methane appears to be abiogenic. Methane is found in the atmospheres of the Jovian planets, but Brown (2008) does not claim that the Jovian planets formed from material that came from the earth. Methane is abundant in the atmosphere of Titan, the largest satellite of Saturn, and there is good reason to expect much methane on the surface of Titan.
 
He makes much of the presence of dust in comets claiming that “dust particles in comets vary in size from pebbles to specks smaller than the eye can detect. How dust could ever form in space is a recognized mystery” (Brown, 2008, p. 270).
....
 
Brown (2008) seems to argue here that since it is impossible for dust to form in space, then the dust in comets must have come from the earth. However, dust is even more abundant than methane in the ISM. To be consistent, he should argue that interstellar dust must have come from the earth as well .... the presence of dust in comets hardly constitutes any evidence that the dust came from the earth as his claims.


Faulkner goes on to discuss a number of other features of comets including: olivine, silicates, oxygen, deuterium, and more.  Faulkner points out these materials can be found in the ISM; the claims are based on questionable data; and/or they are outright false.

 

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

 

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

Brown clearly intended to create the impression water is much less than common in the outer solar system.  That is not true as there is much more water beyond the asteroid belt than within it.  Faulkner makes the case that comets are much more like outer solar system bodies than Earth.

 

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

 

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

Yeah, I know.... heard it before.

 

Everyone who disagrees with Brown misrepresents what he says and/or just doesn't understaaaaaaand him.

 

Maybe Brown should take the opportunity to publish in the creationist journals where he has a long standing invitation and engage in a serious scientific discussion of his claims.  Then, at least, we could be sure his position is clarified by the best person on the planet to do it.... Dr. Walter T. Brown.

 

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

But Faulkner didn't say that, did he?  Faulkner reviewed a number of factors.  I'd say that even if Brown listed the 20 or so you claimed, Faulkner's clear explanation of how a half dozen are wrong is sufficient to throw the remainder in doubt.

 

The real ANSWER is that Dr. Brown's Hydroplate model is a complete failure.

 

There are two more points Faulkner makes that will be the subject of separate messages.... then we can move on to Christian astrophysicist Dr. C. M. Sharp.



#18 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 October 2016 - 11:23 PM

I had the opportunity to listen to Bob Enyart's interviews with Albright.  It was just a discussion of Brown's claims in fairly broad strokes, not a scientific feasibility evaluation of the type done by Faulkner and others.



#19 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 October 2016 - 11:50 AM

>>There's more to this than just low density objects making big craters on the moon.  You are proposing Brown's Hydroplates as an explanation. I'll wait until Faulkner agrees Brown's big steam explosion is the source of those impactors.  Without that, the whole Hydroplate explanation is out the window.>>

 

The Craters topic was not to question if stuff would get launched.  It ASSUMED that part and then addressed whether that would cause lethality on Earth...and you know it.  You just NOW know you can't make that case so you want to change the game to something else. 

 

>>While the impactor Indy describes (70km diameter, density 0.1, velocity 17 km/sec) may leave a 100 mile crater on the moon, I still believe it will leave a very different type of crater than the ones we see there.  >>

Sounds like an argument from your personal incredulity.  You now SEEM (with plausible deniability no doubt) to be trying to say you DO agree now that a 100mi crater WOULD be formed on the Moon and it would NOT be lethal on Earth...but the appearance of these craters would somehow be different than what we see.  This would be like a solid block of ice that is 7km thick hitting the surface so all features WOULD BE OBLITERATED.  If there would be some rocky inclusions or ejecta that would make other craters...such as the "ghost craters"...then I suppose what we might expect them to appear like could be argued.  If you want to try to keep some dignity while NOT conceding totally, then I guess you can hang your hat on that idea...that you think the appearance would be something different than what we see.  I doubt you could cite anyone other than YOU to say that. 

 

>>Think of the type of "crater" you would get by throwing a handful of gravel in mud compared to the one you get with the same size and mass as a single solid rock.>>

 

No, think of a gigantic snowball with gravel within it being shot at hypervelocity from a cannon.  I doubt you'd see much of any discrete craters from the gravel.  As Pi has said, at above 70mph water behaves like concrete if you dive into it.  Some speed (150mph?) would be like concrete if you dove into snow.  We are talking about 11miles PER SECOND. 

 

>>For months, Indy claimed there would be no crater at all. >>

If I ever said that, it was a mistake by me...because I was picturing these to be hitting the ocean only.  I do know that a FEW crater remnants can be seen on land so I should not have said that if I did.  I would need to see the context to know for sure what I may  have meant.  I'm not sure I said that, but I could have, by mistake.  BUT...the whole point of the cratering topic has ALWAYS been about lethality...and Pi knows it. 

 

>>I'm not quite sure of his present position but I think he agrees that Brown's objects have rock inclusions that could cause at least some cratering on Earth.>>

That is right, however, I intend to talk to Brown about the new info (posted to the other thread) I found that says that the largest diameter is 150m and the object could be NOT solid rock but something that is 1/1000th as strong.  That would mean virtually NO craters...which is what we see. 



#20 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:04 PM

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

 

You FINALLY gave a non-dodgey (but sort of rude) answer in giant red letters to the FIRST question (lethality).  How about being non-dodgey to tell us what the equivalent of a 7km thick 70km wide DISC of solid ice going 17km/s would do to the surface of the Moon.  Do you REALLY think it would not leave a gigantic crater in the range of about 100mi?  Stop with the dodging!







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: brown, hydroplate, flood, noah, meteorite, astronomy

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users