Jump to content


Photo

Hydroplates And Meteorites

brown hydroplate flood noah meteorite astronomy

  • Please log in to reply
356 replies to this topic

#21 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:07 PM

Any argument from you or Faulkner which has an implication that Brown indicated the only place in the SS or Universe which would have enough water to make the C&A's is Earth...is either due to poor understanding of what he wrote, or to an intent to deceive.  Now that you have been informed, then that rules out the former...from now on.



#22 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:09 PM

If water which travels 30m/s would be like concrete (you said this) then would snow traveling at 567x that speed (with 321,000x the energy) also behave as concrete...WHEN IT CRASHES INTO THE MOON'S SURFACE???



#23 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 October 2016 - 09:43 PM

You FINALLY gave a non-dodgey (but sort of rude) answer in giant red letters to the FIRST question (lethality). 

"Sort of rude"  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

 

Seriously? 

 

Do you want me to go back and quote some of the things you have been saying to and about me?  Rude, disrespectful, and antagonistic.  Yet you have the brass cajones to complain that I was "sort of rude."

 

Hypocrite.

 

 

Any argument from you or Faulkner which has an implication that Brown indicated the only place in the SS or Universe which would have enough water to make the C&A's is Earth...is either due to poor understanding of what he wrote, or to an intent to deceive.  Now that you have been informed, then that rules out the former...from now on.

Now an accusation of dishonesty.  Yet you complain I was "sort of rude."

 

Let's review the record.....

1)  I cited Faulkner pointing out that if Brown followed his own advice that we should look to where the water is for a source of cometary water, we would be looking at the outer solar system.

2)  You responded with a claim Faulkner had misrepresented Brown and that Brown had something like 20 other criteria.

3)  My reply was another citation of the same Faulkner article listing about a half dozen of Brown's claims about the composition of comets and why Earth is not a unique source of such material.  In addition, I provided a list of additional Brown claims came from Earth that Faulkner also addressed.

 

And the best you can do claim I have "an intent to deceive" when I point out that comets more likely originated in the outer solar system rather than Earth .... a position with which Faulkner seems to agree.

 

That's OK....  I'll let you go with "You just don't understaaaaaaand."  I hear that a lot.  Brown's advocates seem to say that about anyone who does a scientific review of Brown's claims.

 

Here are the final two coming from Faulkner .... (1) Faulkner's discussion from the same article about long period comets and (2) Faulkner's evaluation of Brown's claim to establish the time of the flood using the orbits of comets.



#24 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 October 2016 - 12:41 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. 

In the Craters topic I have not challenged the launch portion and you know it. 

 

This isn't the Craters topic. All aspects of the astronomical claims made by Brown regarding asteroids, comets, and meteorites are fair game.

 

>>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. 

From NASA's "Picture of the Day Archive"  (Very highly recommended because they have a lot of really neat pictures with explanations by astronomers.)

2001 December 15
ganychain_gal_c1.jpg Ganymede: Torn Comet - Crater Chain
Credit: Galileo Project, Brown University, JPL, NASA
 
Explanation: This striking line of 13 closely spaced craters on Jupiter's moon Ganymede was photographed by the Galileo spacecraft in 1997. The picture covers an area about 120 miles wide and the chain of craters cuts across a sharp boundary between dark and light terrain. What caused this crater chain? Remarkably, the exploration of the Solar System, has shown that crater chains like this one are not unique, though they were considered mysterious until a dramatic object lesson was offered by comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. In 1994 many denizens of planet Earth watched as huge pieces of this torn comet slammed into Jupiter itself in a spectacular series of sequential impacts. It is very likely that similar torn comets from the early history of the Solar System are responsible for this and other crater chains.
 

 

You don't have a "solid block of ice that is 7km thick."  What you have a loose conglomeration of fragments with a density (0.1) far below that of ice (near 1.0)... even less dense than what astronomers would say made that chain of craters (about 0.4).  You can't have it both ways. 

 

>>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. 

I have the pictures and statements by astronomers, you have a doubt.  Which of us is arguing from  "personal incredulity?"



#25 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 October 2016 - 12:56 PM

If you feel I should retract the harsh words I used when you crapped on the board and flew away, now that you have landed back on the board and are trying to clean up the crap I do retract those.  I guess it remains to be seen if your contrition is real or feigned.  It still is not a great thing to SCREAM in gigantic red letters.  You cannot do all sorts of Michael Jackson moves to evade CLEARLY answering, and then be surprised if I don't notice or immediately accept when you agree that I am right and you are wrong, even on only one of the two major points of that thread.  After all just a page or two back you said you agreed that "substantial" craters on the Moon would be formed and then when I interrogated further to be sure what you meant, it revealed that you were NOT agreeing with my second point, but you were playing word games.  And now there are more Jacksonian moves when you say that a 100mi crater MIGHT be formed on the Moon, but you don't THINK it would look just like those we see today.  But you want to play victim if I press my point hard enough to reveal what you are really saying.  It is all about you trying to save some plausible deniability later so you can muddy the waters more and say "I never did agree to that!"

 

Now you want to dodge some more with:

 

>>You don't have a "solid block of ice that is 7km thick."  What you have a loose conglomeration of fragments with a density (0.1) far below that of ice (near 1.0)... even less dense than what astronomers would say made that chain of craters (about 0.4).  You can't have it both ways.>>

 

I have said PLAINLY that the disc is an illustration as an attempt to get you to see that a SPHERICAL .1 cloud like we have discussed WOULD cause a massive crater on the Moon.  You have denied it, but that means (in effect) that you must believe that a 7km disc of solid ice traveling 17km/s would NOT make a massive crater.  Are you NUTSO???  So stop PRETENDING I said that is the type of object.  It is NOT.  And you still won't give us any straight answer about the hypothetical disc.  WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER?   IT ILLUSTRATES the same thing that 3 crater size sites have ALSO SAID.  They did NOT say a .1 object invalidates their calcs.  They gave a result!  And it agrees with my position and DEMOLISHES yours.  And the professional astronomer you love to quote if he agrees with you (Faulkner) has said he agrees with my position, that such a .1 density object at 17km/s would indeed make the very large craters we see on the Moon.  And the instruction video does the exact same thing by saying that crater size is determined by kinetic energy.  So that implies that 2 objects with different densities (or speed) which have the same KE will indeed make the same size crater.  If you want to deny that, then show some source backup for your position, like I have for mine.  If not...then you should concede...without the screaming fit this time. 

 

Then as a new line of argument, if you want to try to argue that the lack of 1km craters on land and you think that is the best you can come up with...maybe we can discuss that. 



#26 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 October 2016 - 01:00 PM

indydave, on 11 Oct 2016 - 2:50 PM, said:snapback.png

>>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. 

Pi:  I have the pictures and statements by astronomers, you have a doubt.  Which of us is arguing from  "personal incredulity?"

 

 

Don't PRETEND again...that you showed a single picture or statement by any astronomer showing your position is right...that a giant snowball 70km wide and .1 density at 17km/s would NOT make a 100+mi crater on the Moon.  You have NOT.  Showing irrelevant pics like the one above is just your attempt at diversion.  Are you starting to flap your wings for take-off again?



#27 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 October 2016 - 10:54 PM

I'll address Indy's crater stuff on that topic so he'll stop complaining about posting to two subjects......

 

Long period comets are probably the most damning single point in Faulkner's analysis of Brown's claims regarding comets, meteors, and asteroids.  There are a number of comets with orbital periods in the tens of thousands of years and more.  From the same Faulkner paper:
It is very questionable whether enough matter could have been ejected from the earth to account for the comets and asteroids that we see. However, there are many other astronomical problems for the hydroplate model to overcome. For instance, there are many comets with orbital periods around the sun that are very long, on the order of a million years. Assuming, as Brown does, that the Flood was approximately 5,000 years ago, very long-period comets would not have had enough time to complete their first orbits and thus have returned to the inner solar system. ....  The most important orbital parameter for our discussion right now is the period ....
Dr. Brown argues that if we have underdetermined the mass of the solar system by as little as 0.17%, the comets that we think have periods on the order of a million years could have orbital periods of less than 5,000 years......

Quoting Brown (2008, p. 276),
The distance (50,000 AU) is in error. .... If this mass has been underestimated by as little as about 17 parts in 10,000 ....the true distance would be 585AU and the period only 5,000 years. .... if extra mass is thinly spread within 40–600 AU from the Sun  .... That mass, depending on its distribution, could considerably shorten the periods of near-parabolic comets,....

 

There are several issues that I must address in this critique ....
the error in the mass of the sun is on the order of one part in 1011, eight orders of magnitude less than Brown’s “17 parts in 10,000.”
This point is significant, for Dr. Brown’s calculation of a 0.17% error in mass determination, found in footnote 85 (Brown, 2008, p. 292), is based upon the sun’s mass being in error, a possibility that he immediately dismisses in the text. The inclusion of this figure from an admittedly irrelevant computation is extremely misleading, amounting to a bait and switch. One could easily conclude from the text that this minimal mass error of 0.17% applies to the discussion of a possible mass distribution 40 – 600 AU from the sun. Let us do a simple calculation of how much mass would be required..... Since Brown suggested a shell having an inner radius of 40 AU and an outer radius of 600 AU, let us take the average, 320 AU, for R. .... Using these values, the mass ratio is 1.19, which is 700 times more massive than the 0.17% mass error that Brown claimed...... While a yet undetected mass distribution could account for very long-period comets, until there is some evidence for the mass, this is nothing more than special pleading on Brown’s part.


Faulkner concludes this work with:

I have identified a number of incorrect statements that Dr. Brown has made concerning astronomical data. I have also shown that many of his inferences and conclusions are incorrectly drawn or are just simply assertions. Thus, there is considerable doubt that the hydroplate model can explain the origin of comets and asteroids. ....

 

Briefly...

Faulkner has shown that if only one part in a million (0.0001%) of the launch energy is "thermalized" into the atmosphere, temperatures will rise by 34c (61F) and he states "this figure is probably far too conservative, and the percentage ... is likely far higher."  (Emphasis Pi's)  It's more than safe to say much higher at all would wipe out all life on the surface of the planet.

He addresses Brown's claims about the materials composing the comets and shows those materials are abundant far from the Earth negating Brown's argument the Earth is the most likely source.  From the tone of Faulkner's comments, its safe to say he thinks the comets formed in the outer solar system.

Finally, Faulkner demolishes Brown's "explanation" of extremely long cometary orbits.



#28 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 14 October 2016 - 09:40 PM

You do realize that Faulkner does not accept your opinion about where comets came from or how long they have existed, right? You don't seem to exhibit any good understanding of either Brown OR Faulkner's position.

Faulkner:
Using these values, the mass ratio is 1.19, which is 700 times more massive than the 0.17% mass error that Brown claimed...... While a yet undetected mass distribution could account for very long-period comets, until there is some evidence for the mass, this is nothing more than special pleading on Brown’s part.<<

I am not sure that Faulkner understands the meaning of the term "special pleading." But regardless, he seems to be trying to say that an absence of direct evidence is reason to reject the hypothesis that Brown suggests. Faulkner is not an advocate of the Oort cloud but he does not directly use this same argument against THAT view. And nor should he. There are many scientific views that are based on a hypothesis which does not have direct evidence. The question of what explains long-period comets is a matter of taking the observations and suggesting any number of possible ways that they could be explained. One is that they were created a short time ago which is possibly what Faulkner would say. (As far as I know, he has maintained plausible deniability and never actually told us WHAT he thinks is the explanation for comets!) And the other is the Oort cloud idea which has no direct evidence for it. And the other is what Brown has suggested.

There has been some newer stuff from Brown about this subject since 2008 which is the edition that Faulkner used. He may not like it that Brown continues to evolve some with his thinking but that is just too bad. In this case I'm not even sure that any change of Brown's view is what is in play. Essentially what Brown has said is that if there is mass way beyond Pluto then that could accelerate a comet so that it appears to have traveled a longer distance than it really did. So he has proposed a share of such mass to be .17%. However the same thing could occur if a comet were drawn toward a single object which has the ability to accelerate it. And it is undisputed that there are trans neptunian objects of considerable mass which could surely accomplish this. And we certainly have not identified every one of those so this means that a long period comet could have almost any trajectory and be potentially affected by a TNO.

So whether it is a shell of mass that is .17% or whether it is a shell of some larger mass than that... or if it is a single object that could perturb a comet's orbit so that it appears to be coming from a far greater distance than it actually is, any of these could help to explain long period comets. What is pretty funny is that Faulkner is highly critical of Brown, even to the point of writing papers against him, but he has no explanation himself for long period comets. No disrespect to Faulkner, but since astronomy is his thing, you would think he would have gotten around to expressing some kind of view about the origin of comets . But so far he has not that I know of. I read his link the paper today from 1998 and it discusses the failures of the Oort cloud idea but he never said a peep about his own idea. Maybe before he decides that Brown has to be wrong he should feel an obligation himself to suggest a better explanation. I am sure if he did and that explanation was that they were created on those trajectories so that they only APPEAR to have periods of millions of years, then Pi would have objection to that as well! Right Pi?

#29 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 October 2016 - 04:30 PM

In Faulkner's 2013 paper he wrote:

"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. To do this, the water must
achieve escape velocity from the earth (about 7 mi/s = 11 km/s)
plus additional speed to overcome the sun’s escape velocity.
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!
"

 

I may misunderstand something but I believe this is a mistake by Faulkner.  Brown would not say that our observable comets have speeds greater THAN THE SUN'S ESCAPE VELOCITY.  If you are on the Sun's surface, I believe the EV is 618km/s.  At 1 AU, I don't know what that speed would be.  But comets are not travelling that fast at all...obviously, since they have NOT left the gravitational influence of the Sun.  The fastest comet which comes closest to the Sun goes about 480km/s.  Any faster and it WOULD be ejected from the Sun's influence. 

 

Pi, would you agree this is a mistake by Faulkner?

 

DF: The closer the mass distribution is to the sun, the less
mass that distribution needs. However, the closer the mass
distribution is to the sun, the more easily it would be detected.
Assuming what appears to be the minimum shell radius R = 40
AU would require a mass about 70 times that of Jupiter in the
vicinity of Pluto.

 

I guess I don't get it.  This is exactly what Brown says too.  In fact IN 2008, it was his prediction #25 on p. 277.  "The mass of about 70 Jupiter's (6-7% of the solar system's mass) is distributed 40-600 AU from the Sun."  Although I'm not sure if "vicinity of Pluto" would fit what Brown said.  The point is that if there is this mass far out there, then it would speed up stuff going out until it passed that mass and then after the comet stopped and began to fall inward, it would speed it up again, until it passed that mass.  In 2008 in footnote 85, Brown did calcs similar to DF's and he arrived at the .17% figure but in 2016 I could not find that.  It is possible that Brown rethought it after reading DF's 2013 article.  It appears that today, they agree. 

 

In 2016, Brown has this additional comment:  "(This prediction has not yet been verified. However, with the discovery of so many TNOs, the great mass of many Jupiters is not needed. A close pass of an incoming comet to one or more of the 70,000 TNOs could provide the needed perturbation.)" 

 

There is another factor that may determine the amount of mass needed...the shape of the belt of mass and this could explain why it may be as high as 70 Jupiters.  If it is a true "shell" (the term Faulkner uses) then of course that is much more mass.  If it is a donut-shaped BELT, then it could still affect comet speeds without being so massive.  It seems that long period comets come in from all angles, so it may suggest a shell of mass rather than a belt.  But really, who cares?  If God made the SS with a Kuiper Belt or an Oort Cloud (as Pi must think) then He could also have made it with a shell of mass which cannot be detected which is 100 to 500 AU.  So arguing about what the exact amount or distribution of the mass is, is immaterial.  DF should credit Brown for having SOME YE explanation for LP comets...which Faulkner has NOT tried to do! 

 

So...as a comet goes outward, it would slow down until a certain point where the gravity of the belt of mass is greater than that of the Sun...so it would speed up until it passes that belt.  Without that belt, it would just keep slowing down.  Then after it passes the belt, then the belt would slow it down faster and after it turns back toward the Sun, it would speed it up faster.  The result is that when it gets into the inner SS where we can observe it, and measure its speed angle etc...and COMPUTE the period...then that computation can be way OFF, if indeed there is mass out there. 

 

 

Another factor to consider is that this "shell of mass" could be GASES or small stuff which cannot be seen or even estimated (based on movement of planets) because it is outside of the planet orbits.  But even if it is small objects, it could still have great influence on the speed of comets, which would screw up the calcs for their periods. 

 

 

In support of his position, Brown says: "Of the periodic comets (comets observed on at least two passes through the inner solar system), three travel farther from the Sun than all others. All three returned earlier than they should have, assuming that they did not encounter extra mass (such as TNOs) beyond 30 AU that pulled them back early."  SO...the longest of the periodic comets ALL came back sooner than was expected IF no extra mass is out there. 



#30 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 October 2016 - 04:48 PM

 

Briefly...

Faulkner has shown that if only one part in a million (0.0001%) of the launch energy is "thermalized" into the atmosphere, temperatures will rise by 34c (61F) and he states "this figure is probably far too conservative, and the percentage ... is likely far higher."  (Emphasis Pi's)  It's more than safe to say much higher at all would wipe out all life on the surface of the planet.

He addresses Brown's claims about the materials composing the comets and shows those materials are abundant far from the Earth negating Brown's argument the Earth is the most likely source.  From the tone of Faulkner's comments, its safe to say he thinks the comets formed in the outer solar system.

 

 

About two months ago I submitted a paper to CRSQ to refute the "excessive heat" part of Faulkner's paper.  I believe it will be published, but I'm not sure how long it takes to get it past the editors.  If it isn't, then I will probably use what I wrote here on EFF. 

 

One quick point I made was that if this same amount of heat were to have been "thermalized" into THE OCEAN, then it would increase the water temp by .04C.  The whole "back of the envelope" approach is bogus. 



#31 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 October 2016 - 12:11 AM

One recently observed long period comet was Comet West, from 1976.

wiki:

Before the perihelion passage, and using 28 positions obtained between 1975 August 10 and 1976 January 27, Comet West was estimated to have an orbital period of about 254,000 years.[3] As the comet passed within 30 million km of the Sun, the nucleus was observed to split into four fragments.

IMO, this surely adds credence to Brown's idea that the calculated periods are NOT correct. Think of it...here it is (supposedly) making one of THOUSANDS of passes into the inner solar system, and yet it just HAPPENS to split on the ONE VISIT we are able to observe. If it were on the previous one (or one of thousands), then there would be FOUR PIECES we could see returning. Brown would likely say it was making its FIRST return since the Flood and so it is not surprising that this first encounter would cause it to break up.

#32 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 October 2016 - 06:36 PM

You do realize that Faulkner does not accept your opinion about where comets came from or how long they have existed, right?

Right.  What relevance does that have with respect to Brown's claims? 

 

So far as I know, Faulkner and I are in complete agreement with respect to Hydroplates.

 

1)  The energy released in Brown's launch phase will increase atmospheric temperatures above survivable levels.  (He commented to me that it was interesting he looked at launch and I reviewed re-entry of failed material and we both reached the same conclusion.

2)  Comets did not originate from Earth.

 

You don't seem to exhibit any good understanding of either Brown OR Faulkner's position.

Ah yes.... the old reliable .... you just don't understaaaaaannnnd.

 

Brown's position.... the comets, meteors, and asteroids originated on Earth and were expelled in what amounts to a huge steam explosion as supercritical water (SCW) was released from huge chambers 10 (Brown's work is constantly being edited.)  now 60 miles below the surface.  Other than your objections to me referring to the event as a "steam explosion"  (Hint:  As soon as the pressure or temperature of the SCW drops below the critical point, the water is no longer supercritical.  It's just water (or steam). does that about sum it up? 

 

Faulkner's position .... comets originated in the outer solar system within the last 6,000 or so years and Brown's explanation for them fails for multiple reasons.

 

....The question of what explains long-period comets is a matter of taking the observations and suggesting any number of possible ways that they could be explained. One is that they were created a short time ago which is possibly what Faulkner would say. (As far as I know, he has maintained plausible deniability and never actually told us WHAT he thinks is the explanation for comets!)

Oh, we can be sure Faulkner would say comets were created a short time ago.  To the best of my knowledge, he hasn't said how he thinks they were formed.  Nor does it matter.

 

There has been some newer stuff from Brown about this subject since 2008 which is the edition that Faulkner used. He may not like it that Brown continues to evolve some with his thinking but that is just too bad.

Yeah, some changes I know of are he has upped the energy by 20% to 1,800 trillion hydrogen bombs' his caverns have been moved from 10 miles deep to 60 miles; he has added his "rocket science" page; and he has dated the flood (which is the next review by Faulkner). 

 

Faulkner was very specific about his reason for using the most recent edition of Brown's printed book.  The point Faulkner made was that Brown's on-line version is under constant revision.  Therefore, references to it could quickly become obsolete.  I know this from personal experience as within 3 or 4 months of my "Fire and Brimstone" review the links were all to the wrong page of Brown's on-line resource.

 

The constant revision by Brown is his right.  Not wanting to constantly update his article because of those revisions is Faulkner's right.  Danny made the right decision.  Using Brown's on-line reference would have been a nightmare.

 

In this case I'm not even sure that any change of Brown's view is what is in play.

Then despite your complaint, you have nothing new to offer from Brown.  OK

 

 

What is pretty funny is that Faulkner is highly critical of Brown, even to the point of writing papers against him, but he has no explanation himself for long period comets.

Since when must one provide an alternative to show an explanation is wrong?

 

....Maybe before he decides that Brown has to be wrong he should feel an obligation himself to suggest a better explanation.

This is the "Brown's explanation causes lethal heating of the atmosphere, but what's your explanation." argument.  Seen it before.

 

The point is that if Brown's explanation destroys all life on the planet, it's DOA.  There is no need to provide a competing proposal for comparison. Anything that lets life survive wins by default.

 

I am sure if he did and that explanation was that they were created on those trajectories so that they only APPEAR to have periods of millions of years, then Pi would have objection to that as well! Right Pi?

I wouldn't accept it.  What does that have to do with Brown's Hydroplates?



#33 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 October 2016 - 07:28 PM

Briefly...
Faulkner has shown that if only one part in a million (0.0001%) of the launch energy is "thermalized" into the atmosphere, temperatures will rise by 34c (61F) and he states "this figure is probably far too conservative, and the percentage ... is likely far higher."  (Emphasis Pi's)  It's more than safe to say much higher at all would wipe out all life on the surface of the planet.
 

About two months ago I submitted a paper to CRSQ to refute the "excessive heat" part of Faulkner's paper.  I believe it will be published, but I'm not sure how long it takes to get it past the editors.  If it isn't, then I will probably use what I wrote here on EFF. 
 
One quick point I made was that if this same amount of heat were to have been "thermalized" into THE OCEAN, then it would increase the water temp by .04C.  The whole "back of the envelope" approach is bogus. 

Indy had shared with me some months ago that he was working on such a paper.  Congratulations to Indy on the submission.  Hopefully we'll see it in this forum after publication.

 

With respect to the "back of the envelope" approach .... it's a perfectly valid "SWAG" used to get an overall picture if things are even close to being workable.

 

If we thermalize the same amount of heat into the ocean, as Indy suggests, with 0.0001% to the atmosphere and the same heat into the ocean, it would be 0.0002% down and only 99.9998% to go. 

 

Using Indy's calculation .....

If 2500 times as much heat was absorbed into the ocean it would increase the water temperature by 100C and that would still be only 0.25% of the total. 

 

Thermalizing the energy into the ocean isn't going to work.



#34 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 October 2016 - 09:02 PM

Pi>>>
1) The energy released in Brown's launch phase will increase atmospheric temperatures above survivable levels.<<

Yada yada. You have tried for years and years to make your case about overheating the Earth and you have failed... just like you failed when you asserted there would be lethal effects from objects impacting the Earth's surface. I tried many times to get you to discuss the idea of there being excess heat added to the atmosphere due to objects like what hit the Moon and you constantly refused to take that up with me here. I think this is about the fourth topic you have tried to bring the heat issue up in, disguising it with a new topic title. If this is supposed to be about meteorites then discuss meteorites rather than dragging the heat issue up again.

>>>Faulkner's position .... comets originated in the outer solar system within the last 6,000 or so years and Brown's explanation for them fails for multiple reasons.<<

I think you are merely guessing because as far as I know Faulkner has not revealed in any definitive way what explains long-period comets. If you have found something from him then give us the citation!

>>>Since when must one provide an alternative to show an explanation is wrong?<<

WRT long period comets, it is clear that Faulkner has not made any solid argument that shows that they could not have all come from within 5000 years ago just as Brown has shown. Especially is this true if you include the miraculous such as what Faulkner has done. I suppose Brown could have just decided to have God to create the comets on their way here. Or what if God created this hypothetical shell of mass which both Brown and Faulkner agree would change the orbital characteristics of a comet to cause it to appear to be long period when it is not? I doubt that you even understand what Faulkner has tried to argue regarding them.

I spoke today at length with Brown about long-period comets. He confirmed that he also believed that Faulkner made a rather sophomoric error to say that comets like we are discussing had to attain speeds beyond the escape velocity of the Sun. Even I could see that was not right and I believe when I point it out to Faulkner he will agree. The rest of what Faulkner had to say was a dispute about apples and oranges. Both men said that if a shell of matter was beyond 40 AU then its mass would be something like seventy Jupiters and that indeed would provide the necessary perturbation. When Brown made his calculation of .17% in 2008 that was an error he said he made then by not having a more complex equation.  The distribution or location of the mass has everything to do with how much mass would be needed. He said if that much mass were at the center of the SS it could be as little at .17%.  BUT IT IS NOT because we know quite well the mass of the Sun and planets.  Both men agree that if it is a shell beyond 40 AU then it would need to be 70 Jupiters or about 6% increase in mass of the SS. But once again Faulkner did not understand very well what Brown said. (Brown would probably agree he was at least in part to blame.)  And you can spell understand with 25 A's in it if you want but it still is true. He did not understand Brown. In all likelihood if I explain the difference to DF he would probably agree! I hope within the next week or two to be able to reach him. And today I also asked about whether a single TNO could cause a perturbation which would make an object appear to be arriving from directly above us as some comets do, and Brown said that could occur and the orbital traits would be exactly the same. When he wrote in 2008 he was not thinking of TNOs as being so directly a part of the explanation for comet behavior.



#35 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 18 October 2016 - 02:37 AM

Faulkner (2013):"Notice that Brown dismisses the possibility that the sun’s
mass could have such large error. Actually, the statement that
the hidden mass is “probably not in the planetary region” is
a gross understatement. We can compute masses using the
generalized statement of Kepler’s third law of planetary motion,
r3 = (GM/4π2) T2,
where r is the semi-major axis of an orbit, T is the orbital period,
G is the universal gravitational constant, and M is the mass.
As Brown (2008) correctly points out in footnote 86 on page
292, since we do not know the precise value of G, we actually
compute the product GM, rather than M. We can apply this
law to the earth’s orbit around the sun. In 1900, the earth’s
orbital period was known to 13 significant figures; it is probably
known slightly better today. According to Allen’s Astrophysical
Quantities (Cox, 2000), we know the earth’s semi-major axis
to 11 significant figures."

I would say that knowing that tells us nothing about whether or not there is mass in the 100+AU range. It is a bit inappropriate to try to "make hay" out of Brown's wording AS IF he was doubtful about the mass of the SS within the orbit of Neptune. He is not questioning that AT ALL.

DF>>This point is significant, for Dr. Brown’s calculation of
a 0.17% error in mass determination, found in footnote 85
(Brown, 2008, p. 292), is based upon the sun’s mass being in
error, ...>>

No it is not. Faulkner has misunderstood Brown. Instead of mocking ME for saying that, you SHOULD have some mocking aimed at Faulkner for his misunderstanding!

>>...a possibility that he immediately dismisses in the text.
The inclusion of this figure from an admittedly irrelevant
computation is extremely misleading, amounting to a bait
and switch.>>

So obviously, since he DISMISSED IT...then he did NOT think the error was in the mass of the SUN. The very next words from Brown say "As explained on page 276, the extra mass is probably not concentrated at the center of the solar system. In November 2005, Jon Schoenfield analyzed the situations where the mass is spherically distributed 40 AU or more from the Sun. In those cases, the required extra mass would exceed 70 Jupiters." This is the same number DF had. To charge Brown with a dirty tactic of "bait and switch" only adds to the embarrassment that Faulkner should feel.

>>One could easily conclude from the text that this
minimal mass error of 0.17% applies to the discussion of a
possible mass distribution 40 – 600 AU from the sun.>>

Except that BROWN SAYS THE OPPOSITE. He says IF it were at the CENTER, that would be the amount. Why does DF have to try to make Brown out to be either stupid (not knowing we can get a good estimate of the Sun's mass) or evil (doing a deceptive trick like "bait and switch"), when Brown WAS trying to say the mass distribution was indeed at 40-600AU, however at that distance it would NOT be .17%...it would be 5-6%??? My guess is that Brown also saw his wording as unclear, so he decided to just leave out the .17% part altogether in 2016. It was meant only as illustrative IF the mass were at the center of the SS. But he was not say it WAS centered, so the .17% is not really relevant to anything.

DF>>M’/M = (R/a1)(a1 – a2)/(a2 – R).
This expression relates the ratio of the mass of the hypothetical
shell to the mass of the sun and the radius of the shell and
the two aphelia distances of either case. Since Brown suggested
a shell having an inner radius of 40 AU and an outer radius of
600 AU, let us take the average, 320 AU, for R. Brown (2008)
used 50,000 AU for a1 and 585 AM for a2. Using these values,
the mass ratio is 1.19, which is 700 times more massive than
the 0.17% mass error that Brown claimed.>>

But that IS NOT what he claimed. He said it would be that IF it was at the center, but then he says it would NOT be there and if it is at 40-600AU, then it would have to be THE SAME AMOUNT DF SAID...5-6%.

Then notice THIS!

DF"While a yet undetected mass
distribution could account for very long-period comets,..."

Did you get that??? DF AGREES WITH BROWN to not only say it COULD INDEED account for LP comets, but he even agrees with the AMOUNT of mass! And both men ALSO would agree that such mass is not presently detectable. Maybe the question should be SHOULD we be able to detect it, and of course that answer is OF COURSE NOT!

"...until
there is some evidence for the mass, this is nothing more than
special pleading on Brown’s part."

Again, DF needs to look up the meaning of that term, but regardless of that, he should not fault Brown for suggesting something which is not yet detectable by us. I would guess that someone figured out the idea that mass was made up of atoms LONG before anyone could directly detect them. The Oort Cloud (which Pi believes in) certainly is NOT directly detectable. We could list dozens of similar scientific concepts that were first set forth as a hypothesis before there was a way to directly detect or measure them!

DF: "There are at least three problems here. First, if each of these
pairs of comets is indeed only one comet that has returned after
about a century, then this must further constrain the extra solar
mass required to return these comets so quickly. As previously
discussed, Brown (2008) argues that long-period comets must
have periods of less than 5,000 years, but for these comets
to return in only a century, the extra solar mass must be far
greater than he has suggested.This fact seriously undermines
his calculated figure on the extra solar mass."

Brown did NOT suggest extra SOLAR mass. It was SOLAR SYSTEM mass. I would not challenge the idea that more SOLAR SYSTEM mass would be needed if the Flood was less than 5000 years, but my question to DF would be: SO? If the extra mass is 500 Jupiters distributed in a shell which is 100+ AU out there, but it still cannot be detected in any way today...who is to say that ISN'T the case? My guess would be that might be the equivalent of a shell of water maybe 1 foot thick. How could that be detected??? The "strange pairs" phenomenon supports Brown...because the likelihood of such is very low, if it is entirely coincidental. And DF must say it IS. And please remember too that Brown TODAY is saying that even a SINGLE TNO could cause the necessary perturbation to make a comet appear to be long period. DF AGREED that a hypothetical SHELL could...but I wonder if he would agree about if a TNO could? My bet is he WOULD.

As I talked with Brown today, he agreed that my argument about Comet West (it broke up when it was observed) was a good one...or at least he said "you probably have something there." It is hard to say whether we could detect if a previous pass (or one that was 1000 passes previous) had caused a break up. Would the group be seen millions of years later? Maybe, but maybe not. It is likely that it would be something like the "string of pearls" observed with SL-9. But whether they would be closely bunched enough to see them as all parts of one comet, rather than as separate comets during subsequent passes is hard to say. But if there is not something that separates them by a large amount, then the fact that a comet just HAPPENS to break up when we are here to see it, when supposedly the comet made the same close encounter thousands of prior times...is a bit hard to swallow. If it is true (as Brown says) that ISON and The Great Comet of 1680 are indeed the same thing...then this point is strengthened by the fact that ISON got obliterated. We are TOLD that 1680 has/had a period of 9400 years...maybe, maybe not. If it really is 332 years (ISON was in 2012) then why would we be so lucky to see the ONE time it dissipated. Even if it is on its 15th pass (since 4500) it is surprising it would have lasted for the first 14!

#36 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 18 October 2016 - 02:38 AM

BTW, Brown told me today that he upped the ante for finding a PhD who would do a written debate. The "finder's fee" is $10,000. And Pi, you can qualify if you find the PhD! Not only is Brown not RUNNING from a fair debate opportunity, as you have knavishly accused...he is ASKING for and REWARDING for the chance! http://www.creations....html#wp8404135

#37 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 18 October 2016 - 08:38 AM

BTW, Brown told me today that he upped the ante for finding a PhD who would do a written debate. The "finder's fee" is $10,000. And Pi, you can qualify if you find the PhD! Not only is Brown not RUNNING from a fair debate opportunity, as you have knavishly accused...he is ASKING for and REWARDING for the chance! http://www.creations....html#wp8404135

This does not require a time consuming response, so I'll answer it quickly now......

 

Brown's written debate offer is for an evolutionist to debate him on the subject of evolution vs. creation.  The proposed topic is NOT the survivability or validity of the Hydroplate model.

 

It seems that before Brown debates evolution vs. creation, he should show his proposal is a survivable and viable approach to solving many of the issues raised with respect to the flood.  

 

For decades, Brown has avoided a thorough scientific evaluation regarding critical aspects of his Hydroplate model while claiming the "other side" is dodging him.  If Brown cannot or will not persuade his own natural constituency (ie: YEC) his ideas will work, why should anyone on the opposing side give them any serious consideration?  Brown has had at least two open offers that have been on the table for years from creationist scientific journals to conduct such a review of Hydroplates in their pages.

 

IMHO, which is admittedly worth about what readers of this page have paid for it, is that Brown should engage Faulkner in a debate of Hydroplate claims in one of the scientific journals that has offered to host such a discussion for years.

 

I won't hold my breath ..............



#38 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 18 October 2016 - 05:52 PM

>>

IMHO, which is admittedly worth about what readers of this page have paid for it, is that Brown should engage Faulkner in a debate of Hydroplate claims in one of the scientific journals that has offered to host such a discussion for years. I won't hold my breath ..............>>

I hope to debate Faulkner in CRSQ...first with the heat article already submitted.  If that gets published, then I will write another about craters (hopefully with him agreeing with the concept even if not about HPT totally) and I will also try to engage with him about long period comets...where I am definitely at a disadvantage but I think my posts here on that would stand up to the scrutiny of readers. 

 

>>For decades, Brown has avoided a thorough scientific evaluation regarding critical aspects of his Hydroplate model while claiming the "other side" is dodging him.  If Brown cannot or will not persuade his own natural constituency (ie: YEC) his ideas will work, why should anyone on the opposing side give them any serious consideration?  Brown has had at least two open offers that have been on the table for years from creationist scientific journals to conduct such a review of Hydroplates in their pages.>>

Brown's offer was aimed at AN EVOLUTIONIST not other creationists.  WASSAMATTER?  You skeered?



#39 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 19 October 2016 - 01:26 AM

IMHO, which is admittedly worth about what readers of this page have paid for it, is that Brown should engage Faulkner in a debate of Hydroplate claims in one of the scientific journals that has offered to host such a discussion for years.

 

I won't hold my breath ..............

I hope to debate Faulkner in CRSQ...first with the heat article already submitted.  If that gets published, then I will write another about craters (hopefully with him agreeing with the concept even if not about HPT totally) and I will also try to engage with him about long period comets...where I am definitely at a disadvantage but I think my posts here on that would stand up to the scrutiny of readers. 

It's good that you're willing to defend Brown in CRSQ.  I'll be looking forward to it. 

 

It is noteworthy that CRSQ is one of the journals with an open invitation to Brown for years and he refuses present (and defend) his own theory on their pages..

 

Walt Brown has published 8 editions of his book going back to 1980 or 85  When I joined this list, 3 years ago, I was told he was working on publishing his 9th edition. In all those decades and thru all those versions of his theory, he has not once presented his ideas in a scientific journal for examination and review by his peers.

 

Why won't Brown publish his proposal in a scientific journal and engage in a discussion of it among the scientific community?  You know .... the way scientists debate things.

 

WASSAMATTER?  He skeered?

 

Brown's offer was aimed at AN EVOLUTIONIST not other creationists.  WASSAMATTER?  You skeered?

Brown's offer is to debate creation vs. evolution.  It was NOT a proposal to defend the scientific aspects of the Hydroplate model.  Further, I'm not qualified as he refuses to engage non-PhD's in written debate offer requires a PhD.

 

Besides, I think his time would be better spent in a debate with a peer.  Faulkner would be perfect.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, at Indy's urging I once contacted Brown and attempted (unsuccessfully) to arrange a debate with him.  This is discussed in the early pages of the "Fire and Brimstone" discussion.

 

We've each had two posts on Brown's debate offer.  Unless Indy can show some relevance to the topic at hand, this is a good point to return to the issues outlined in the OP.  If Indy wants to open a discussion of Brown's debate offers, I'll be happy to participate.



#40 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 19 October 2016 - 02:11 PM

I specifically asked Brown if you would qualify for the $10,000 reward and he said yes if you would recruit a PhD. So you can be his assistant or he could assist you and you could split the reward or whatever. You need to hush about accusing Brown of not being willing to defend his position against those who criticize him. I'm sure the man has lots of things he'd like to do with his remaining years and yet he is willing to spend probably a thousand hours in the process of preparing for such a debate, writing it and then the follow-up and arranging for its publication. He deserves credit for that willingness. Even if you and he could not work out arrangements to the satisfaction of both of you for a verbal debate, that does not mean that he is unwilling to debate at all and you should stop accusing him of 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