# Hydroplates And Meteorites

brown hydroplate flood noah meteorite astronomy

315 replies to this topic

### #301 piasan

piasan

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 2,389 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Oklahoma
• Age: 70
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• Oklahoma

Posted 16 January 2017 - 12:22 AM

The result is that the pressure of the jets when they reach the top of the chasm would be equal to about 8.6 million atmospheres. I may decide to post the image here later but I am not at my PC.

Let's look at 8.6 million atmospheres as an initial pressure at the moment the pressure breaks through the surface.  Comparing this to the blast effect of a (1 megaton) hydrogen bomb.  According to atomicarchive.com:

Blast effects are usually measured by the amount of overpressure, the pressure in excess of the normal atmospheric value, in pounds per square inch (psi).

After 10 seconds, when the fireball of a 1-megaton nuclear weapon has attained its maximum size (5,700 feet across), the shock front is some 3 miles farther ahead. At 50 seconds after the explosion, when the fireball is no longer visible, the blast wave has traveled about 12 miles. It is then traveling at about 784 miles per hour, which is slightly faster than the speed of sound at sea level.

Peak overpressure    Maximum Wind Speed

50 psi                           934 mph

20 psi                           502 mph

10 psi                           294 mph

5 psi                             163 mph

2 psi                             70 mph

Notice, at a pressure of only 20 psi (1.36 atm) wind speed is over 500 mph (800kph).  Indy proposes a pressure more than 6,300,000 times as great.  Further, the energy of Brown's release will be backed up by a continuous release of escaping matter lasting on the order of several seconds.  The pressure of a nuclear blast is generated in a single pulse of energy lasting a fraction of a millionth of a second:

99.99% of the energy is released in ,,, .00000008 seconds. ....

Immediately after the explosion time, .... the pressures are estimated to be many million atmospheres.

The difference being that in Brown's scenario, the high pressures will last for a million (or so) times longer than they do in a nuclear explosion.  And Brown's eruption takes place along a 46,000 mile front, not a single point.  There will be considerable transfer of energy to the atmosphere.

In addition, this is a cyclic process....

As I said, and you never replied to, a partial shutting of the mouth to the SWC would increase the speed of the jets. Now do you have a reply to that or not? Also I am not sure how important this fluttering is anyway. I believe it is a vestigial argument left over from before the time when Brown included launching of asteroids. When I did a calculation, this added very little impetus to the jets compared with the heating from nuclear processes. I believe that perhaps the flutter is only needed in order to produce the compression and stretching of the Granite so that there would be high voltage which is produced. You may as well abandon this line of argument because it helps my view by increasing the velocity. Like I said before, it is like how the speed of water from a hose will increase when you start closing down the opening.

This is as good a time as any to respond to that....

At first the speed of the jets will increase, just like your hose does.  As shut down is approached, the speed of those jets will slow down and stop... again, just like your hose does.

The fluttering is important because it increases turbulence greatly which will increase "leakage" of energy to the atmosphere.

With regard to abandoning this line of argument.... not while Brown says this in his book:

... the sagging edge of the plate (fluttering at about one cycle every 30 minutes, as explained on page 609) slammed into the chamber floor for the last time ... (emphasis Pi's)

Brown clearly implies the crust "slammed into the chamber floor" more than once and he says the flutter has a 30 minute cycle.  IIRC, Brown says his chamber is over a mile (1.6 km) deep, so it would take a minimum of 38 seconds from "full open" to "slamming" into the chamber floor.

Now, Indy claims that doesn't mean a complete shut-down of the flow every 30 minutes.  I respond that "slamming" into the chamber floor will result in a complete, or nearly complete shut down.  Otherwise, why mention it at all?

Yet Indy still insists it is grossly unfair to Brown's model to suggest even one millionth of the launch energy could possibly leak into the atmosphere.

### #302 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,780 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 16 January 2017 - 12:51 PM

You have had two replies about that. I see no reason for a third.

You just hate to admit you are wrong. Anyone with half a brain would know that if you have solar energy added then that cannot be a perpetual motion machine. So not only did I show you to be wrong but I also have made it clear that you don't have what it takes to admit it. Once in awhile you will admit some minor error but when it makes you look bad you won't do it.

### #303 piasan

piasan

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 2,389 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Oklahoma
• Age: 70
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• Oklahoma

Posted 16 January 2017 - 07:51 PM

Pi, you claimed to have answered this:

Me>>I want a reply from you about the supposed perpetual motion machine.  Every time I make a valid point, instead of acknowledging it, YOU IGNORE IT.  So, if some "engine" continues to operate indefinitely, but it gets energy from the Sun...IS THAT A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?  Admit you were wrong to accuse that!  Do you understand what a PMM is???>>

Now I appreciate that you admitted error to suggest that I was adding solar wind and Carnot to get much more than 100%.  I was not of course, but that is not the entire point.  Even if they added to less than 100% you STILL could not accuse this of being a PMM, because IT HAS ADDED SOLAR ENERGY all the time.  That by itself disqualifies it from being a PMM....RIGHT?

You have had two replies about that.  I see no reason for a third.

You just hate to admit you are wrong. Anyone with half a brain would know that if you have solar energy added then that cannot be a perpetual motion machine. So not only did I show you to be wrong but I also have made it clear that you don't have what it takes to admit it. Once in awhile you will admit some minor error but when it makes you look bad you won't do it.

No, it's a clear example of how anal you are about the use of "admit."  In the past you would comment how glad you were that I would "admit" to mundane non-controversial things that are accepted as scientific fact.  While you're a lot better about it, you do seem to have occasional relapses.

IIRC, the last time we had a disagreement of this type (back around May or so), I "admitted" to being wrong 3 or 4 times and you still went on about my alleged failure to admit my error.  I finally posted my "admission" in 48 point bold, red, italicized, underlined, caps.

To save any readers the time, here are my two previous comments.

What I deny is that you can get 90% energy from a photon bouncing off a sail then a 70% efficiency from that photon as a Carnot engine.  Doing that would exceed 100% efficiency and would violate the same laws of thermodynamics as a perpetual motion machine.  Call it what you like.

and

I've already explained my misuse of the term "perpetual motion machine" and my intent to convey that the 160% was a gross violation of thermodynamic laws.   My complete agreement with your further explanation has already been posted....

Notice, I clearly "admitted" that I had misused the term "perpetual motion machine" and (twice) explained what I intended to say ..... as well as that my original comment on the matter was based on a misreading of what Indy had written.  For most reasonable people that would be good enough.  Apparently not for Indy.

Next time, I guess I'll just have to use 48 point, bold, red, italicized, underlined, caps.

BTW, this is a minor error.

### #304 piasan

piasan

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 2,389 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Oklahoma
• Age: 70
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• Oklahoma

Posted 16 January 2017 - 10:36 PM

On orbital mechanics.....

>> In other words, Indy's protoasteroid is less dense than air. You can probably pretty much see thru it.<<

Can you see through the smoke that rises out of a smokestack? That thickness is probably less than 50 meters. Yet it is virtually entirely opaque. Now imagine that you had a column of smoke which was 1 kilometer thick. Would any light be visible? No. If that were in space, solar energy would totally heat one side and not heat the other side. Yes as I have said, the individual particles or pebbles or rocks would be entirely hot or entirely cold depending on which side they were on. They could individually spin at different rates. All of this is irrelevant if they are held together as a single cloud and it rotates slowly as a whole.

OK.... we agree the individual particles will heat thru and they may rotate at different rates than the cloud.

Small particles radiate their heat very quickly.  IIRC, in a different discussion, you were using times of milliseconds to microseconds.  They will radiate much of their heat thru the cloud in a domino effect.  With two weeks from "noon" to "midnight," that seems to be more than enough time to radiate a lot of heat thru the cloud.  This will dramatically reduce Carnot efficiency.

..... 70% from Carnot alone is certainly enough. You simply have denied without any good reason that the Carnot engine concept would apply to a rotating cloud.

Nowhere have I said or implied any such thing.

Have you not implied it when you argued that a cloud would have individual particles which heat all the way through and then they would radiate away from the Sun toward the colder side and cause there to be no colder side?

There's a big difference from saying you aren't going to get anything near 70% efficiency and claiming Carnot does not apply.

Of course one side will be warmer than the other.  How much difference is the question.  You have claimed the same kind of temperature differences as the moon would have based on little more than the rotation period you arbitrarily chose being the same as the moon's.  You also ignore the vastly different thermal properties of rocks and clouds.

It is entirely possible that a seed rock by itself would be unable to hold gases around it by gravity yet if it is traveling along with these gases then when an object enters that zone the gases would decelerate the object. ....

OK.... let's see.... you have a seed rock that will not be able to hold gases but just happens to be travelling along with them.  How can that happen when you have repeatedly argued less dense objects will accelerate faster than more dense ones?  What keeps the cloud bound to the rock?

Not only that, but this cloud of gas is somehow strong enough to pull the rocks along with it as the cloud is pushed along by solar forces.

And, for some unexplained reason, the cloud (which is not gravitationally bound to the rock) does not disperse in accordance with the inverse square law.

### #305 piasan

piasan

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 2,389 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Oklahoma
• Age: 70
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• Oklahoma

Posted 16 January 2017 - 11:51 PM

On the matter of formation of the asteroids....

It is entirely possible that a seed rock by itself would be unable to hold gases around it by gravity yet if it is traveling along with these gases then when an object enters that zone the gases would decelerate the object. And of course the same would be true if the seed rock was traveling along with fist-sized rocks or pebbles. As I have said, eventually all of these objects will have virtually the same velocity which would aid in their being captured. Is it your position that if two solid objects were approaching each other with a minimal relative velocity and they were traveling within a zone where gases were present, that they could not be captured? BTW, when Rosetta crash-landed on 67p, it was falling and was captured by gravity alone. It took several hours to fall from a height of about 20 kilometers, as I recall, and it was traveling at about one and a half miles per hour when it crashed. And of course this was without there being any gases or other objects surrounding the head of the comet (where it landed) to assist with the capture.  That head was about 2 km diameter, as I recall.

The miniscule speed and direction windows for gravitational capture of even the largest proposed particles have already been provided.

Indy claims launch pressures of 8.6 million atmospheres (over 126,000,000 psi).  The example has already been provided that we're talking about the kind of pressure differential present in a nuclear explosion.  This kind of pressure shooting into the vacuum of space is anything but favorable to "swarm" formation.

In fact, the pressure differential is going to cause a lot of gaseous diffusion.  Without even considering diffusion, at an absolute minimum, expansion of launch material will be governed by the inverse square law.  Within 10 minutes, density has gone from 0.01  (99% empty space) to 0.0001 (99.99% empty space).  It took the Apollo astronauts about 3 days to reach the moon.  At the moon's orbit, the density of the material would be down to less than 1/3600 of launch density.

As the material escapes Earth's atmosphere and solar forces take over, the gaseous material will quickly outrun the solid matter.  After all, we have firmly established that the less dense gas/ice particles will be accelerated by solar forces much more than the more dense and larger rocky material.

These objects will not somehow sort themselves out by velocity.

It is my position that there will be neither "swarms" of material nor clouds of gas.  Dispersion forces at launch will be far to great to overcome any kind of gravitational forces.  Clouds and "swarms" cannot form in such an environment.

Data has been presented showing it will take thousands of years to form a pebble by accretion.  The asteroid Ceres is 950 km (about 600 mi) in diameter.  Even allowing for gaseous capture, you simply can't form it in a few thousand years.

Revised priority list:

1)  Respond to the above then get back to.

2)  Issues regarding gravitational capture and the "gas cloud."

a) Orbital mechanics

b ) asteroid formation

4)  (Uncertain)  Pluto

5)  The shuttle analogy

### #306 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

Veteran member

• Veteran Member
• 2,534 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
• Age: 33
• Christian
• Creationist
• England

Posted 17 January 2017 - 05:26 AM

Piasan: Data has been presented showing it will take thousands of years to form a pebble by accretion.  The asteroid Ceres is 950 km (about 600 mi) in diameter.  Even allowing for gaseous capture, you simply can't form it in a few thousand years.

That depends on two assumptions;

1. Accretion actually happens. (has it been observed?)

2. That asteroids are created by accretion. (has this been observed?)

Lab experiments: no accretion

http://creation.com/...tion-hypothesis

### #307 piasan

piasan

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 2,389 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Oklahoma
• Age: 70
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• Oklahoma

Posted 17 January 2017 - 08:08 AM

That depends on two assumptions;

1. Accretion actually happens. (has it been observed?)

2. That asteroids are created by accretion. (has this been observed?)

http://creation.com/...tion-hypothesis

1)  We are talking about Walt Brown's model.  He claims accretion and "swarms" of material held together by gravity.

2)  I have pointed out since we started talking about Brown's model, that accretion alone is not sufficient for the really small stuff.

3)  There is no model that will account for the asteroid Ceres in only a few thousand years.

### #308 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,780 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 17 January 2017 - 02:07 PM

Pi>>Of course one side will be warmer than the other. How much difference is the question. You have claimed the same kind of temperature differences as the moon would have based on little more than the rotation period you arbitrarily chose being the same as the moon's. You also ignore the vastly different thermal properties of rocks and clouds.<<

If I ever made the assertion that these clouds or swarms would have a 70% efficiency then I will withdraw that right now. I don't think I did say that but rather I used that calculator as an example to show what the efficiency would be if indeed the temperature difference was the same as the Moon. Now I asked you about a 10% efficiency. Do you think that is reasonable? You have agreed there would be some amount of Carnot engine effect but I guess you want to stay uncommitted so you can have plausible deniability if even as little as 10% efficiency is the case. Also, I am not sure that the temperature below the surface of the cloud is relevant. That is not the case with objects that have been observed for the Yarkovsky effect. And my guess is that it would apply also to the Carnot engine effect. If so, then your argument about each particle radiating toward the center of the cloud and then the heat being transferred to the cold side of the cloud is irrelevant. What might be most relevant is only that portion of the cloud which is exposed to space. That is, of course, where the push would take place.

### #309 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,780 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 17 January 2017 - 02:13 PM

That depends on two assumptions;

1. Accretion actually happens. (has it been observed?)
2. That asteroids are created by accretion. (has this been observed?)

http://creation.com/...tion-hypothesis

Brown would agree that accretion and capture of objects is very unlikely in the absence of gases which would have surrounded the seed rocks as well as the rest of the area of space near 1 AU. It is another matter to try to argue for the formation of planetesimals when there is not such a high concentration of gases and small particles.

### #310 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,780 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 17 January 2017 - 04:11 PM

>>

Notice, at a pressure of only 20 psi (1.36 atm) wind speed is over 500 mph (800kph).  Indy proposes a pressure more than 6,300,000 times as great.  Further, the energy of Brown's release will be backed up by a continuous release of escaping matter lasting on the order of several seconds.  The pressure of a nuclear blast is generated in a single pulse of energy lasting a fraction of a millionth of a second:

99.99% of the energy is released in ,,, .00000008 seconds. ....

Immediately after the explosion time, .... the pressures are estimated to be many million atmospheres.

The difference being that in Brown's scenario, the high pressures will last for a million (or so) times longer than they do in a nuclear explosion. >>

I merely used the calculator to show its results when I plugged in the numbers.  It could have been much higher speed and/or lower pressure than what I plugged in.  That would bring down the final pressure to much less than 8.6 million atm.  All I needed to show was that depending on what the original pressure is and the final speed is, the final pressure would be MORE THAN 1 atm.  Do you agree?  Even if it were 1000 atm or 1 million or more, there would be no blast or shock wave effects such as with an H-bomb.  The pressure is directed UP, except for a tiny amount that is horizontal.  The upward part has 60 miles to build up speed, due to an accumulation of all the expansion from below.  The horizontal part has no such accumulation.  Even IF there was a blast or shock wave, as long as the ark was over the horizon, it would not be affected.

>>The fluttering is important because it increases turbulence greatly which will increase "leakage" of energy to the atmosphere.>>

The effect of fluttering is only about 1/500th the effect of increased pressure from heating.  It is immaterial.  The super-high velocities would not create turbulence in the atm.  And so far, you have IGNORED what I said about the FACT that if there were indeed some friction with an air molecule, then that OF NECESSITY means that molecule would be sent UP, and it would be mixed in with SUPER COLD jet molecules of water vapor.

>>

With regard to abandoning this line of argument.... not while Brown says this in his book:

... the sagging edge of the plate (fluttering at about one cycle every 30 minutes, as explained on page 609) slammed into the chamber floor for the last time ... (emphasis Pi's)>>

Brown surely misspoke.  There is no way the crust would fall all the way downward to hit the chamber floor while pressures were still high and while there were still "pillars" to hold it up.  You can try to make hay about his misstatement all you like.  I will only agree with you that if he meant that, then he is wrong.

>>Brown clearly implies the crust "slammed into the chamber floor" more than once and he says the flutter has a 30 minute cycle.  IIRC, Brown says his chamber is over a mile (1.6 km) deep, so it would take a minimum of 38 seconds from "full open" to "slamming" into the chamber floor.>>

I SURE don't get how you got 38 SECONDS.  FWIW, he says HERE it could be a 7.5min cycle (he also says it could be 43 min. using a different way to estimate it...then concludes 30 min. is about right), so if he means the full movement up and down, then it would take half of that time to move from highest to lowest.  I don't think he would say that it shuts completely.  His words "last time" do indicate that, but he erred, I believe, given what else he says.  If there was backpressure (he says there was) then even IF it shut completely, then there could easily be more pressure remaining in the jet than in the atm or ocean.  He definitely does NOT think that the ocean fell down the chasm every 30 min!  Read the NEXT SENTENCE to the one you quoted.  Does this sound like the ocean fell down the chasm HUNDREDS OF TIMES???

Once the momentum of the escaping flow from under the crust dropped below a certain threshold, the sagging edge of the plate (fluttering at about one cycle every 30 minutes, as explained on page 609) slammed into the chamber floor for the last time. The flood water above the crust then began falling back into the 60-mile-deep chasm, shutting off the jetting of the fountains.

### #311 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,780 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 17 January 2017 - 04:13 PM

>>

Notice, I clearly "admitted" that I had misused the term "perpetual motion machine" and (twice) explained what I intended to say ..... as well as that my original comment on the matter was based on a misreading of what Indy had written.  For most reasonable people that would be good enough.  Apparently not for Indy.

Next time, I guess I'll just have to use 48 point, bold, red, italicized, underlined, caps.>>

You DESERVE for me to be "anal" in getting you to CLEARLY admit to being wrong 1) because you used the PMM as a way of mocking ME, and that is way wrong because a true PMM cannot have ongoing inputs of (solar) energy.  And 2) because if I don't nail you down then later you will be an Indian giver about something you had admitted before.

### #312 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,780 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 17 January 2017 - 04:39 PM

>>OK.... let's see.... you have a seed rock that will not be able to hold gases but just happens to be travelling along with them.  How can that happen when you have repeatedly argued less dense objects will accelerate faster than more dense ones?  What keeps the cloud bound to the rock?>>

I have given you TWO reasons.  One is that by definition if they are the same distance from the Sun (they MUST be in order to have an encounter) then they MUST go the same speed.  And two is that in a short amount of time collisions will cause slower objects to be sped up and faster ones to slow down.  You ignored this point, which I have now made at least 3 times.

>>Not only that, but this cloud of gas is somehow strong enough to pull the rocks along with it as the cloud is pushed along by solar forces.>>

The more I think about this, I doubt that Brown would say that the proto-a's would be able to hold gases by gravity...until they were very large.  But they would fairly quickly collect (by gravity) around them particles, pebbles, small rocks and large boulders.  If indeed they are held by gravity, then it would behave like a single rock (like the Moon) would.  The dark side is cold and the light side is hot, and therefore Carnot applies.

>>And, for some unexplained reason, the cloud (which is not gravitationally bound to the rock) does not disperse in accordance with the inverse square law.>>

If you have the mass of all the C&A's and TNO (3-5% of Earth's mass) circling the Sun at about 1 AU then this mass would pull stuff into a donut/disc shape.  It would not just expand forever.  We can see that this happened when we observe the a-belt and Kuiper belt.  So there would be a force to prevent it from expanding forever up or down.  If it is sent outward past 1 AU, then it would eventually encounter other stuff.  Same goes for if it is sent inward, and then is pushed outward by solar forces.

>>As the material escapes Earth's atmosphere and solar forces take over, the gaseous material will quickly outrun the solid matter. >>

You must remember that some, maybe nearly half, of the launched material will be sent "backward" (either in a true retrograde solar orbit or a slower prograde orbit around the Sun) and therefore it would fall inward toward the Sun.  Then if that were sent back outward by solar forces, then it would find itself again back at 1 AU, where it could become part of a larger swarm of objects.  This could even happen before it returned to 1 AU.

>>After all, we have firmly established that the less dense gas/ice particles will be accelerated by solar forces much more than the more dense and larger rocky material.>>

Not necessarily, when it comes to Carnot.  The smaller ones could be more easily "heated through" so that there is no heat differential at all, plus they might spin faster.  Larger objects can have more heat differential and spin slower (usually).  But of course the larger ones have less surface/mass ratios.

>>Data has been presented showing it will take thousands of years to form a pebble by accretion.  The asteroid Ceres is 950 km (about 600 mi) in diameter.  Even allowing for gaseous capture, you simply can't form it in a few thousand years.>>

If the mass of all the C&A's and TNO's were concentrated near to 1 AU, then it would be fairly easy for the objects to be captured to form larger objects...especially in the presence of lots of water vapor.  I have no idea how you can prove your assertion or I can prove mine.

### #313 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,780 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 17 January 2017 - 06:32 PM

>>The fluttering is important because it increases turbulence greatly which will increase "leakage" of energy to the atmosphere.>>

Because of the high speeds, there would be ZERO turbulence.  You can assert your opinion, and I just now asserted mine.

Let's suppose that as SOON as the jet reached sea level it was SO turbulent that it would be moving horizontally at the same speed it moved vertically.  It would not, but suppose it DID.  That means that it would cut a margin or boundary that was tilted 45 degrees from vertical.  So this means that by the time it has traveled UP by 5 miles (when it would be above 90% or so of the mass of the atm...guessing) then it would travel 5 miles horizontally.  SO?  That represents such a TINY part of the surface area of the globe.  And even if it would blast away ALL of the atm molecules in that 45 degree "slice"...SO?  With the curvature of the Earth there would be a point at a certain distance from the chasm (maybe 40 miles or so)  that there would be very little if any atm to interact with.  If it DID mix with air molecules, they would quickly cool because of the super low temp of the jets, and even withOUT that, they would cool by radiation when they got into the upper atmosphere or even into space, before falling back to re-enter the atm.  (And these would fall back from nowhere NEAR the EV distance so the heat of reentry would be minimal). This means NONE of the heat of friction ends up inside the atmosphere.  NONE.  And even IF (say) 25% of this supposed friction heat DID end up in the lower atmosphere, that would represent such a tiny tiny percentage of all the VAST energy involved in the launching process (far far LESS than 1 millionth) that it would in no way be harmful at all to the ark occupants.

### #314 piasan

piasan

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 2,389 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Oklahoma
• Age: 70
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• Oklahoma

Posted 17 January 2017 - 10:42 PM

That depends on two assumptions;

1. Accretion actually happens. (has it been observed?)

2. That asteroids are created by accretion. (has this been observed?)

http://creation.com/...tion-hypothesis

Mike, I didn't say this before, but thanks for the participation.  It's always welcome.

### #315 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

Veteran member

• Veteran Member
• 2,534 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
• Age: 33
• Christian
• Creationist
• England

Posted 18 January 2017 - 09:23 AM

Fair enough Piasan, I do seem to recall you make a delineation between what is astronomically observable/provable and cosmological claims.

As you know sometimes I bring in the more general discussion into a subject as I am not really one for the technical academics of certain scientific subjects such as this, so I like to try and ask some questions about the bigger picture, and ask, "how is this relevant to worldviews on a greater scope". I don't have specific knowledge of these issues and I always try to only comment on the parts I understand. As you know when I tried to understand more about light it seemed to me you had a better argument that Lyell's ad-hoc argument.

### #316 indydave

indydave

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,780 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 61
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Indianapolis, IN

Posted 18 January 2017 - 01:36 PM

Brown would agree that accretion and capture of objects is very unlikely in the absence of gases which would have surrounded the seed rocks as well as the rest of the area of space near 1 AU. It is another matter to try to argue for the formation of planetesimals when there is not such a high concentration of gases and small particles.

I said gases but I should have included other things like particles, pebbles and things which were launched as larger objects. It would not have to be gas in order for it to decelerate something which is approaching a larger object. So this process of building up a larger protoasteroid does not require that pebble-size objects must be accreted from dust. They could already exist as pebbles or larger-size rocks because that is what they were when they were launched.

### 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