Jump to content


Photo

Hydroplates And Meteorites

brown hydroplate flood noah meteorite astronomy

  • Please log in to reply
304 replies to this topic

#301 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,386 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.

:dono:



#302 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,773 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
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,386 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
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,386 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
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,386 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

3)  Comments you made about Sharp.

4)  (Uncertain)  Pluto

5)  The shuttle analogy







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

2 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    piasan, Yahoo (1)