Jump to content


Photo

Hydroplates And Meteorites

brown hydroplate flood noah meteorite astronomy

  • Please log in to reply
329 replies to this topic

#321 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 January 2017 - 09:26 PM

With reference to Indy's "space shuttle" comment.....

>>The question is which arbitrary claim most closely matches reality.>>

 

If you liken it to an internal combustion engine, then of course your view more closely matches up to THAT.  But it is nothing at all like that.  Let me ask this...when the returning space shuttle first begins to hit the thinnest part of the atmosphere, and travels for (say) 100 horizontal miles, how much of its speed is lost to friction?  NOT MUCH.  And it would be even LESS if there were a train of 1000 shuttles right behind one another.  The last one would lose very little of its energy to the atmosphere. 

The comparison is not to an internal combustion engine, but to a steam engine.  The steam could be provided by internal combustion, nuclear power, geothermal heat, or tidal flexing.  Steam processes are typically much less than 50% efficient at delivering their energy to the end result.   There is no reason to think Brown's process will be any better.

 

Not all of the material is going to be in the "thinnest part of the atmosphere."  There is a lot of it that's going to be along the boundary layer between the rising column and the atmosphere.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by your Shuttle analogy other than a stream of material near the center of the rising column will have no interaction with the atmosphere on its way up.  I think that's pretty much a given.



#322 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 January 2017 - 10:01 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.

You repeatedly used 70% efficiency in examples, but that's OK as we are now in agreement that is unrealistic.

 

One thing, you don't need to have the same temperature difference as the moon  to get 70% efficiency.  A warm side at 100k and a cold side at 30K would still be 70% efficient.... though the 70% wouldn't produce anywhere near the same amount of energy.

 

I honestly have no idea if 10% or 1% or 20% is "realistic."  I guess it could be modeled or calculated but the calculation would be far beyond my capability.  It shouldn't take very long for the temperature of a cloud of widely spaced small particles to equalize throughout greatly reducing the potential heat difference between the hot and cold sides.

 

We can be pretty sure the maximum temperature of one of these "swarms" would be around -50 or -60C.  In space at that temperature, water would sublime from ice to a gas and escape.

 

You are correct that it's the surface temperature, not internal temperatures that matter.

 

BTW, I find it interesting you would use this as a way to push asteroids to a higher orbit while rejecting it as a cause of the "Pioneer effect."



#323 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 January 2017 - 10:58 PM

With respect to Brown's claims about Pluto ....

 

Brown:

......

Swarms were large. For example, particles 1 AU from the Sun and less than 7,500 miles from the center of the swarm that became Pluto were more attracted gravitationally to the swarm than to the Sun. Therefore, Pluto’s swarm, early in its outward spiral, was almost twice (7,500/4,000 ª 2) Earth’s diameter, so the swarm intercepted four times (22 = 4) more solar energy than Earth.

Captured energy is useless unless it is converted to work—in this case outward movement (or thrust). The Carnot efficiency (referred to on page 359) for producing outward thrust of Pluto’s slowly spinning swarm was about 15 times greater than that of Earth.176

The more massive an object, the less a given force can accelerate it. Earth is 460 times more massive than Pluto. Therefore, Pluto’s swarm early in its spiral received about 27,600 (4×15×460ª27,600) times more outward acceleration from solar energy than Earth. While this outward acceleration on the Earth is too small to be detected (and for most purposes is insignificant), it is some small number greater than zero. Soon after the flood, Pluto’s outward acceleration would have been 27,600 times greater than that small number. Because displacements grow exponentially over time from accelerations, Pluto and other TNOs moved great distances.

So far as I can tell, the claimed size of the "swarm that became Pluto" is completely arbitrary and without justification.

 

In footnote 176, Brown claims, again without justification, that the Pluto "swarm" would have had a temperature difference similar to Earth's moon.

 

Brown claims 27,600 times some measurement that is "too small to be detected (and for most purposes is insignificant), it is some small number greater than zero" is sufficient to propel the Plutonian swarm beyond the orbit of Neptune.

 

I see little justification for any of Brown's claims about Pluto's formation and orbit than:  "That's what Brown says."

 

 

Brown:

 

The Carnot efficiency (referred to on page 359) for producing outward thrust of Pluto’s slowly spinning swarm was about 15 times greater than that of Earth.176

 

So I went to the Carnot efficiency page LINK and using 70F for day and 50F for night (for Earth), the efficiency is 3.77%.  15 times that is 56.55%.  So my estimate of it being similar to the Moon (70%) was not far off from Brown's.  This means he would agree with my assumption that temperature differences for the cloud's hot/cold sides would be very similar to the Moon's. 

 

If you use 70F for day and 45F for night that is 4.72% efficient and 15x that is 70.8% efficient!

That might be because Brown uses the moon as his reference point. 

 

See footnote 176.



#324 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 January 2017 - 04:24 PM

Two... I haven't ignored the point.  I've countered it.  The inverse square law demands the material is going to expand as it moves outward.  Simply stated, the forces of expansion are greater than any slowing due to internal collisions.  In about ten minutes, the density of your proposed "cloud" has dropped from 0.01 to 0.0001.  This makes the collisions your rely on less likely by a factor of 100.  And it doesn't get any better with time..... 

 

You did not counter the point.  The point was that if there were collisions (do you DENY this?) the effect would be to equalize their speeds.  Is that true or not? 

 

>>By way of analogy, when I fire my shotgun, the pattern spreads with distance.  I have no expectation the shot would be pulled back together by gravity.>>

Really?  You think it is a fair analogy to talk about how shotgun pellets would not be drawn together???  On earth, the EARTH has overwhelming gravitational force.  Once the objects got a substantial distance from Earth, the cloud would have the stronger influence.  Even if the cloud is not formed by gravity, but it is only just a grouping of "fellow travellers" the mass of that cloud IN TOTAL would be what would attract and hold other objects it encounters.

 

>>The problem is how to stick these things together by collisions and gravity in an expanding cloud.  My understanding is that material below about 10cm will heat thru and have an effective Carnot efficiency near zero.>>l

 

The collisions would not likely cause objects to be held, but they WOULD cause an eventual equalization of their speeds.  Do you deny this?  Plus there is at least SOME of the material that would "stick" because it "hits the windshield" in a direct hit...especially icy particles,  such as with how your headlights can be obscured when snow impacts and then sticks to them. 

 

>>In about ten minutes, the density of your proposed "cloud" has dropped from 0.01 to 0.0001.>>

Let's suppose it is far less dense than .001 (one thousandth the density of water).  BTW, when I spoke to Brown and mentioned this, he indicated it could have been far less than .001.  If it became with time (say) .0000001, all that means is that the encounters with other objects would be less frequent, BUT THEY WOULD HAPPEN.  I might take 1000 years before a larger object is formed (but I doubt it would take that long).  SO?  How does that disposit anything in Brown's model?



#325 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 January 2017 - 04:33 PM

With regard to the analysis of Brown's asteroid claims by Astrophysicist C. M. Sharp.....

 

Indy argues that Sharp doesn't understand Brown's claims because Sharp's calculation for the energy to move the asteroids to a higher orbit doesn't consider energy added by solar forces after launch.  One problem is that Brown provides none of the information needed to calculate the amount of solar forces and its effect. 

 

Indy considers Sharp's calculation of a total energy equivalent to 22 TRILLION hydrogen bombs to be "bogus" for that reason.  This despite the fact that the total energy calculated by Sharp is far below the 300 (now 1,800) TRILLION hydrogen bomb total energy release estimated by Brown....

 

It is obvious Sharp understands Brown's claims and discounts them.  From our discussions it's clear Brown, Indy, Sharp, and I all agree that solar pressure isn't going to send anything made of rock ... even pebbles or gravel .... to the asteroid belt in a few thousand years.  This is why Brown has to add his "sail" of an "atmosphere."  It is equally clear Sharp considers Brown's argument for formation of asteroids themselves to be "untenable."

 

Rejection of Brown's Hydroplate model is not the same as a failure to understand it.

 

 

I will concede that the numbers Sharp got are still below what Brown uses.  Will you concede that when he did the calculation, he should not have lumped together the energy that comes from earth with that which comes from the Sun, since that which comes from the Sun can have ZERO heating effect on Earth?  You might choose to stand on your head to pretend that there was not a mistake made when Sharp set up his method to calculate how much energy there was ON EARTH...and you may justify it by saying that he still came up with less than what Brown said...but at the very least Sharp was a mistaken in how he chose to express what he was trying to argue. 

 

The question is NOT whether there would be too much heat IF you postulate some arbitrary % of it to be added to the biosphere.  It is ONLY a question of whether that % is right or not.  All Sharp and Faulkner have done is argue from incredulity. 



#326 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 January 2017 - 04:43 PM

A stream of escaping steam is going to rise thru a 60 mile high column of collapsing rock and push that rock to space without any turbulence at all. 

 

Like Brown, you can assert whatever you want.  Does the assertion match the reality?

 

At the moment of breakout, there is going to be a considerable stack of rock on top of the escaping steam.  That rock will act much like a wall causing the initial blast of steam to be nearly horizontal. 

 

If I understand your point, this would happen ONLY during the first few seconds, until there is a blasting away of the "cap rock" and the atmosphere, so that the following material has no resistance to cause it to move "nearly horizontal."  The jets would be travelling much faster at the top of the chasm because of the accumulation of "push" due to all the expansion happening below.  So each part of the jet would move upward far more in one second than it would move horizontally.  The "cone" would be very narrow, at far less of an angle than 45 degrees (1 up and 1 horizontal). 

 

>>So long as the pressure of the rising column is greater than atmospheric pressure, there will be a horizontal deflection.  The "tilt from vertical" will depend on the velocity of the wave; the slope of the underground wall; and the pressure differential between the atmosphere and the rising column.>>

 

If you mean the slope of the "cliff" I don't know how that would have much effect on the shape of the jet above ground.  The cliff walls would likely be close to vertical anyway though, because there would be no accumulation of detritus at the base...because it would get swept upward as soon as it falls. 

 

>>The underground wall will almost certainly start out near vertical.  However, Brown clearly states his 60 mile vertical column of rock will collapse under its own weight and that slopes greater than 30 degrees are not stable.  That makes a good case for an eventual tilt of 60 degrees from vertical.>>

 

I don't get how you get 60 degrees.  But I already said that even IF it were as much as 45 degrees, it would have little effect, because it only means that a few more miles of atm would get blasted away.  It would have ZERO effect on how much heat enters and remains in the atm. 



#327 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 January 2017 - 04:56 PM

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by your Shuttle analogy other than a stream of material near the center of the rising column will have no interaction with the atmosphere on its way up.  I think that's pretty much a given.

 

The point is that if you want to try to estimate what % of energy of a fast object gets transferred to the atm, then the Shuttle is much closer than any type of engine (steam or internal combustion) is to a fair estimate...rather than your constant reference to how efficient human-built engines are.  ONLY the outer edge, rather than the nose or wing front edge, should be included.  You AGREE here that it is a "given" that ALL of the energy nearer to the center is NOT added to the atm.  So the question is HOW much is?  How far from the edge would the "mixing" take place?  AND the jets would be even faster than the Shuttle (causing less mixing), and there would be a "train" effect so that the last Shuttle in that "train" would have less interaction with the atm.  So in the first 3 seconds or so of the Shuttle's contact with the atm (as it returns), if you could exclude the nose and front edge of the wings...how much of the Shuttle's energy do YOU say would be lost?  Up that to 30 seconds if you wish.  It still would be less than 1 millionth.  And THEN to be fair, you must include what (if any) COOLING effects there would be.  Do you agree that if the (supposed) hot molecule is sent up to the highest part of the atm...then it would get cooled off quickly?  And if the jets themselves were close to absolute zero (they would be) do you agree that mixing a hot molecule with THOUSANDS of super COLD molecules of water vapor would solve the supposed heat problem?



#328 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 January 2017 - 05:12 PM


I honestly have no idea if 10% or 1% or 20% is "realistic."  I guess it could be modeled or calculated but the calculation would be far beyond my capability.  It shouldn't take very long for the temperature of a cloud of widely spaced small particles to equalize throughout greatly reducing the potential heat difference between the hot and cold sides.


 

 

 

It is not such a difficult calculation.  Just figure the energy input per square meter (1360 watts as I recall) and then pick some size of a cloud/swarm and figure how much mass there would be per (cross-sectional) sq. meter, and then determine how much acceleration could be created at 10% or 1% or whatever.  It would NOT have to be much at all in order for it to move the cloud outward to the a-belt or even the K-belt within 1000 years or 4000 years.  If there is heating like what happens on Earth (with a rotation every 24 hours AND with an atmosphere to moderate the temps) then the % would be about 4%.  That is (as I said before) PLENTY. 

 

>>We can be pretty sure the maximum temperature of one of these "swarms" would be around -50 or -60C.  In space at that temperature, water would sublime from ice to a gas and escape.>>

 

I can't see where you get that number if the Moon's temp is FAR FAR higher...around 250C as I recall. 

 

>>You are correct that it's the surface temperature, not internal temperatures that matter.>>

 

Ok...so let's say that the first 50 meters depth would completely collect 100% of the solar heating.  And on the opposite side, the same 50 meters would be able to radiate fully to space 100% of the heat.  Then if so, what difference does it make how thorough the "heating through" is?  If you are trying to assert that the hot side would be less than 15F hotter than the cold side (what I figured for Earth's hot/cold sides...and which got 4% efficiency) then I would say you have to be NUTS to assert that. 

 

>>BTW, I find it interesting you would use this as a way to push asteroids to a higher orbit while rejecting it as a cause of the "Pioneer effect.">>

 

I could also say it is interesting you would deny it for the swarms while asserting it for Pioneer.  I have no "dog in this fight" really though.  If Carnot or Yarkovsky caused the Pioneer Effect, then FINE.  It would be strange though that it is ONLY noticed at a certain distance (over 10 AU as I recall) and not at all nearer toward the Sun. 



#329 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 January 2017 - 05:56 PM

With respect to Brown's claims about Pluto ....

 

So far as I can tell, the claimed size of the "swarm that became Pluto" is completely arbitrary and without justification.

 

Of course it is...it is a hypothetical.  He says in effect, "IF Pluto was formed by one or more of these swarms, THEN..."

 

>>In footnote 176, Brown claims, again without justification, that the Pluto "swarm" would have had a temperature difference similar to Earth's moon.>>

 

Again, a hypothetical, but less so.  It depends on what the rotation rate would be and how much of the solar energy would be collected as heat (vs. reflected away).  It would be most likely that the spin rate would be SLOWER than the Moon, and the albedo would be LESS than the Moon.  So Brown may have UNDERestimated the Carnot Effect.  But remember, using the same efficiency as the Moon (70%) gives enough acceleration in just a few DAYS.  Here is what I wrote on Jan 10th (#286)

 

>>The solar energy at 1 AU is 1360 watts/m2.  This is 139 kg-m/s.  This means (I believe) that this is enough force to move 139 kg a distance of 1 meter in 1 second.  (Or 1 kg a distance of 139 meters).  I haven't done the calculation, but if there is a density of 1kg/m3 (1/1000th the density of water), then I would guess that if you figure how many kg would be in the portion of the sphere which is defined by 1 square meter (going through the entire sphere) would be perhaps close to 139x for a smaller size cloud.  I could be off some**, but let's use this. This means that the sphere would be accelerated by 1 meter/s/s...at 100% solar efficiency.  So in one day, the speed would be (3600 x 24) 86.4 km/s.  And each day thereafter it would increase by that amount.  Then you can adjust this by a 70% efficiency or 20% or whatever.  Since the speed of Earth's orbit around the Sun is about 30 km/s, then at 100%, in ONE DAY you would have enough acceleration to get the object to the a-belt.  Or I am guessing that is enough.  Jellison said the angular momentum has to be increased by 70% so I would think that adding that much speed would do it...EASILY.>>

 

(BTW, you expressed doubt about the result, but never said WHAT PART I got wrong.  Let's hear it).

 

So let's suppose that you need to double the orbital speed at 1 AU (30km/s) to get to the a-belt.  I am guessing that's about right since the angular momentum is 70% larger.  So if you have 1000 years, even if you only got an efficiency of ONE PERCENT...do you suppose it would be enough?  Well, in ONE DAY at only 1%, the acceleration is .86km/s...and that is increased by that same amount EVERY DAY.  In about 100 DAYS you would have 86 km/s, more than double the speed at 1 AU.  Of course this would need to be adjusted A BIT because the solar energy is less as you get further away. 

 

>>Brown claims 27,600 times some measurement that is "too small to be detected (and for most purposes is insignificant), it is some small number greater than zero" is sufficient to propel the Plutonian swarm beyond the orbit of Neptune.>>

I would take issue with Brown saying the size (diameter) of Pluto's swarm was only 2x the diameter of Earth.  I think this would mean the density was 5.5 / (4x 460) or about .002 (100% MORE than the guess we've been using).  He says "early in its outward spiral" so I suppose this could be after some compaction.  This means that it could have gained much added speed while it was less dense.  Another major factor is that which became Pluto could have come from many (thousands?) of smaller swarms which became consolidated later.  If the swarm is smaller, then the area/mass ratio increases massively...meaning much more acceleration.  They could have gained most of their speed early, before they became a single swarm.  Comparing the acceleration of Earth to the acceleration of one of these early swarms is not a fair comparison at all. 



#330 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 24 January 2017 - 04:01 PM

Can you explain/justify WHY you would say that the temp of the swarm/cloud would NOT be similar to the Moon's?  I accept that the specific heat of the water vapor and ice portion would be different (a little more than 2x), but the rocky part would be the same...resulting in perhaps 75% or so of it being the same hot side temperature.  I have not thought about what that may mean for the cold side.  I would say that given the rotation rates observed by the COMPACTED asteroids and also Pluto, we can conclude that the NON-compacted rotation rates would probably be SLOWER than 28 days...so that could offset the 25% loss due to higher specific heat.  I think 70% is closer to being correct than 10% or 1% is.  But 1% is still PLENTY.  If you deny this, then give a GOOD explanation why...using the facts about how watts converts to kg-m/s.  All you have said so far is (approx quote) "something must be wrong..." but all that is is an expression of naked incredulity. 

 

One thing also that needs your explanation is how can it be that a 90% efficient solar sail can reach Pluto in 5 years...but you find it incredible that a 10% efficient Carnot PLUS the other 3 push factors could not reach Pluto in 4000 years?  Explain that. 







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