Jump to content


Photo

Hydroplates And Meteorites

brown hydroplate flood noah meteorite astronomy

  • Please log in to reply
356 replies to this topic

#41 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 19 October 2016 - 02:13 PM

BTW, you have brought up this debate garbage in just about every thread you have participated in so don't hassle me for replying to your latest point here. You do not have to get the last word.

#42 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 October 2016 - 12:34 AM

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.

Or Brown could save his $10,000 and debate in one of the journals that has requested his input.

 

You need to hush about accusing Brown of not being willing to defend his position against those who criticize him.

Then you need to show me where Brown has engaged in a written scientific debate of his proposal with 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.

You have my compete agreement that Dr. Brown likely has lots of things he'd like to do with his remaining years.  He, and he alone is entitled to establish his priorities.  It looks to me like one of them is his offer.  A defense of his claims in a scientific journal does not seem to be important to him.

 

He deserves credit for that willingness.

I'd give him a lot more credit if he actually engaged in a serious discussion of hydroplates with his peers.

 

Even if you and he could not work out arrangements to the satisfaction of both of you for a verbal debate,

Irrelevant.   Ever since I found Faulkner's evaluation, my position has been that Brown's time would better served in a debate with Faulkner.  Such a debate has numerous advantages..... 

 

1)  As a YEC, Faulkner is already in agreement with Brown on a number of major issues.

2)  As a PhD, Faulkner is Brown's peer. 

3)  He's an astronomer speaking in his primary field of study.  (Though not his exact specialty, IIRC.)

 

.... that does not mean that he is unwilling to debate at all and you should stop accusing him of that.

Let me clarify this ....  there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Brown is willing to debate if his terms and conditions are met.  

 

In a debate among peers, the rules are negotiated, not dictated. 

 

Further, you should be aware by now that when submitting a work to a journal, THEY set the requirements for publication not the author.

 

BTW, you have brought up this debate garbage in just about every thread you have participated in so don't hassle me for replying to your latest point here. You do not have to get the last word.

EXCUSE ME ! ! ! !

 

You, not I, "brought up this debate garbage" in post #36.  When I last posted on this "debate garbage," we each had made two posts.  I guess you insist on having both the first and last word on the "debate garbage."

 

I tried to tell you this "debate garbage" isn't really an issue for this particular discussion but I will be happy to participate in one if you choose to open a new subject.

 

As the author of the OP, I can tell you with absolute certainty "this debate garbage" is completely    :off_topic:

 

If you want to discuss "debate garbage" open your own subject.  I'll be happy to participate there but please stop your efforts to divert this thread.

 

Enough of this....  My next post will address some of the issues Indy has raised with Faulkner's long period comet analysis.



#43 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 October 2016 - 12:13 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?

 

I think you are misunderstanding something.  It is important to remember that cometary orbits are very elliptical and their speed varies considerably depending on how far they are from the Sun.

 

We aren't talking about the escape velocity on the surface of the Sun.  All they need is the escape velocity from the Sun at Earth's orbit.  According to this Escape velocity calculator, at Earth's orbit, the solar escape velocity is a little under 26.2 miles/sec.  For material launched prograde, we can add another 18.6 mi/sec to the launch velocity. There are several places in Brown's work where he claims launch velocities are as high as 32 mi/sec.  Clearly, at least some of the material launched from Earth at 32 mi/sec is on its way out of the solar system for good.

 

Faulkner may have worded it poorly, but he is absolutely correct.

 

 

BTW, the highest recorded velocity for a comet is more like 600 km/sec.  It did not survive its encounter with the Sun.

 

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. 

If there was a "rather sophomoric error," it wasn't made by Faulkner.



#44 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 20 October 2016 - 05:32 PM

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

 

Pi>>I think you are misunderstanding something.  It is important to remember that cometary orbits are very elliptical and their speed varies considerably depending on how far they are from the Sun.>>
 

Huh?  That is a dodge.  The question is whether DF was right to say "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."

 

Periodic comets, whether long or short period DO NOT OVERCOME the Sun's escape velocity, AT ANY PLACE IN THEIR ORBIT.  Those which are true parabolas or hyperbolas do.  But we are not discussing those.  LP comets are not either hyperbolic or parabolic. 

 

>>We aren't talking about the escape velocity on the surface of the Sun.  All they need is the escape velocity from the Sun at Earth's orbit.  >>

 

No they don't.  LPC's don't escape the sun's gravity.  BY DEFINITION they are brought back by the Sun's gravity.  I only introduced the concept of EV at the Sun's surface to begin discussing it.  I asked Brown yesterday, and he said his estimate (done as we talked) was 42km/s.  To me that sounded low. 

 

>>According to this Escape velocity calculator, at Earth's orbit, the solar escape velocity is a little under 26.2 miles/sec. >>

 

So Brown was right.

 

 

>>There are several places in Brown's work where he claims launch velocities are as high as 32 mi/sec.  Clearly, at least some of the material launched from Earth at 32 mi/sec is on its way out of the solar system for good.>>

 

No, actually he said that is the amount for retrograde comets which have NOT left the SS but are on near-parabolic orbits.  They have NOT left the SS for good.   Think about it...if they DID leave the SS for good at that speed 4500 years ago, how would anyone know that TODAY?  

 

>>Faulkner may have worded it poorly, but he is absolutely correct.>>

 

No, actually he admitted to me today when we spoke for an hour that it was an error just as I said he probably would and he appreciated that I told him.  He did not look at his paper today but he took my word for what he wrote.  He also said his saying "solar mass" (twice) instead of "solar system mass" was another error. 

 

indydave, on 18 Oct 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:snapback.png

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. 

Pi:If there was a "rather sophomoric error," it wasn't made by Faulkner.

 

I guess you are implying that it was mine...but you are wrong.  Faulkner admitted to the two errors today.  So do you want to apologize to me and give me a high five for finding 2 errors in a professional astronomer's paper which did not get caught in peer review?  Actually, I also get some bonus points for bagging a HS science teacher too with the SAME MISTAKE. 

 

Now, you wanted to discuss the LP comets.  And you have fussed that I mentioned the debate details here (when YOU have to mention them in every thread you participate in!).  But after I wrote a lot about LPC's all you have wanted to discuss is trashing out Brown regarding his GENEROUS offer of a reward for you to find a PhD who will do a written debate with him.  Fine thanks I get for trying to help you to earn $10,000!  You FUSS because you get your jollies playing topic police here.  BTW, Brown has ALSO generously offered to debate you or any other NON-PhD on the phone...with some stipulations.  So let's hear you respond to the TONS of stuff I posted ON TOPIC about the LPC's rather than you continuing your constant harangue against Brown because he didn't want to accept your unreasonable terms of verbal debate. 



#45 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 October 2016 - 04:02 PM

Those reading this thread should take a look at the post I made today in the craters on Earth thread which should settle the question we have been discussing there.

#46 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 October 2016 - 11:53 AM

This can be dealt with fairly quickly

And you have fussed that I mentioned the debate details here (when YOU have to mention them in every thread you participate in!).  But after I wrote a lot about LPC's all you have wanted to discuss is trashing out Brown regarding his GENEROUS offer of a reward for you to find a PhD who will do a written debate with him.  Fine thanks I get for trying to help you to earn $10,000!  You FUSS because you get your jollies playing topic police here.  BTW, Brown has ALSO generously offered to debate you or any other NON-PhD on the phone...with some stipulations.  So let's hear you respond to the TONS of stuff I posted ON TOPIC about the LPC's rather than you continuing your constant harangue against Brown because he didn't want to accept your unreasonable terms of verbal debate. 

 I addressed the (off topic) debate issue first because it requires a lot less time to address than Brown's claims regarding Long Period Comets.

 

It is necessary that I once again point out the topic of Brown's debate "offer" was brought up by Indy.

 

Further, this isn't about me being the "topic police."  It is about whether or not the author of the OP is entitled to determine what is relevant to the intent of the OP.  When you complained about me initiating this topic I pointed out you were fully entitled to determine what is, or is not, relevant to your "Out of Place Fossils" discussion.  Apparently, you don't feel I should have the same discretion with respect to a subject I have opened.   Hypocrite.

 

Again, Brown's debate "offer" is :off_topic: here.  Should you desire to initiate a topic on Brown's debate "offer," I will be happy to discuss it, including the "reasonableness" of it there.

 

This is the THIRD time I've had to point this out.  Will I need to be "rude" and say it in 48 point bold red letters?

 

Next.... some discussion in response to Indy's comments about Long Period Comets then Faulkner's final analysis regarding Brown's use of those comets and Hydroplates to date the flood.



#47 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 October 2016 - 12:52 PM

 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.

Faulkner spells out that the 0.17% is for an error in the mass of the Sun.  Farther out in the Solar system, that mass increases greatly.  The 0.17% represents about 2 Jupiters.  Faulkner calculates, and Brown agrees, that at 40 AU (about the distance of Pluto) the required mass would be more like 70 Jupiters.

 

As we go out beyond that, the required mass increases far more.  Brown suggests material out to 600AU.  Faulkner points out that averaging 40AU and 600AU gives a distance of 320 AU and at that distance:

. Using these values, the mass ratio is 1.19, which is 700 times more massive than the 0.17% mass error that Brown claimed.

 

That would be about 1400 Jupiters.

 

The most distant spacecraft is Voyager I at a distance of about 11.8 billion miles (around 125 AU) or more than 3x as far from the Sun as Pluto.  It shows no evidence of the acceleration necessary to support the claim of some kind of gravitational acceleration.

 

If we're talking about a region of space having the "missing mass" then an object will be accelerated toward the mass on the way out and slowed down on the way back.  While the calculations are well beyond my abilities, it would seem if an object passes thru a region of space that is more dense, the net effect would be near zero.  Shortening of the orbital period would happen only if the object did not pass thru the mass.

 

Is it possible an encounter with a TNO could perturb the orbit of a comet and make it seem to be originating farther out with a longer orbit?  Yes, it is.

 

Let's just take a look at the likelihood of such an event.  The probability of an object hitting the moon at random is about 1 in 200,000.  These objects are smaller than the moon and thousands of times more distant.  The likelihood of a Long Period Comet (LPC) encountering one of these objects at all is probably on the order of one in billions.  Interaction in such a way that the orbit would be reduced to just what is necessary to assure a return to Earth in 5,000 years instead of 500,000 is even more remote.

 

Yet Indy would have the reader believe this has happened to each and every LPC we've observed.

 

 

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. 

As Indy points out, LPCs approach from all directions.  Most of them are highly inclined with respect to the ecliptic.  A "belt" won't work for those objects. (While individual massive TNO's may, but they have problems already mentioned.)

 

 

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.

There is no requirement comet West had made previous passes thru the inner solar system.  A change of velocity caused by a passing star is thought to be enough to perturb the orbit of these distant objects and cause them to fall into the inner solar system.

 

Another possibility is that West was already in an orbit that had it going to the inner solar system but much farther out, say the orbit of Mars, but had its orbit perturbed by some object when then lowered West's perihelion and caused its fatal encounter with the Sun.

 

That's all I have time for at the moment..... more to follow.



#48 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 October 2016 - 02:57 PM

Pi>> Apparently, you don't feel I should have the same discretion with respect to a subject I have opened. Hypocrite.<<

What is hypocritical is for you to bring up the debate topic within every thread you have participated in, most of which you originated, and we were supposed to all discuss it to great lengths when you wanted that. But if I bring it up in this thread then you want to howl about how it is off topic. A fair disputant would not apply a different standard to himself than what he tries to apply to others.

#49 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 October 2016 - 03:53 PM

Pi>>While the calculations are well beyond my abilities, it would seem if an object passes thru a region of space that is more dense, the net effect would be near zero. <<

Since the calculations are beyond your ability then maybe you should leave it to Faulkner and Brown who both say that it would indeed cause a long period comet which has a period of 5000 years to appear to have a million year period. You just don't understand the concept well enough.

>>
Shortening of the orbital period would happen only if the object did not pass thru the mass.<<

I believe you got that exactly backwards. You not only have this mass affecting the comet in the area that is within the volume of this shell but it also would affect the comet after it passes outside the volume of this shell. So if there is a net effect of zero in how it would speed up and then slow down the comet inside the shell it has a double effect OUTSIDE the shell of shortening the time for the comet to stop going outward and speeding it up and shortening the time for it to be drawn back to where the shell is. So indeed there would be a total net effect of making the period shorter...just as Faulkner and Brown say. Or do you now want to say that Faulkner does not know what he is talking about?

>>These objects are smaller than the moon and thousands of times more distant. The likelihood of a Long Period Comet (LPC) encountering one of these objects at all is probably on the order of one in billions<<

Perhaps so if you are trying to guess at the odds of a SINGLE comet encountering a single TNO. (And let's remember we are not talking about impacting but rather only coming within gravitational influence of each other.) But the truth is that there would have been millions of comets and several thousand as I recall TNOs. Brown tells us there are 659 comets which have periods which are longer than 700 years. That means there are probably less than 300 which have periods which are greater than 5000 years. Perhaps it would be less than 100. So when you think about the millions of proto comets there were, it is quite possible that 100-300 of them were perturbed so that they return quicker but have periods that appear to be much longer.

>>Yet Indy would have the reader believe this has happened to each and every LPC we've observed.<<

We are only discussing about 100-300 which would be beyond 5000 years.

>>A "belt" won't work for those objects. (While individual massive TNO's may, but they have problems already mentioned.)<<

If you will recall I raised this concern myself but that was before I spoke with Brown and Faulkner and both have accepted the idea that the encounter with a TNO could indeed send the object well above or below the ecliptic. Faulkner said he would need to think some more about this but Brown was quite certain that all comet inclinations could be caused by this type of an encounter. If you think about it, any comet approaching a TNO is very UNlikely to approach it at exactly the same position above or below the ecliptic that the TNO is. If it approaches above the TNO then it will be perturbed so that it will travel below the ecliptic. And vice versa. So when it comes back in toward the sun it will be on an entirely different inclination than it was when it went out. Indeed an encounter with one of the outer planets could do exactly the same thing if the comet passed below or above the planet.

What is really the only question is whether a shell which has something like 6% of the mass of the solar system which is at a distance of about 500 AU would be detectable today. If it would be, then the idea of a shell should be abandoned and only the idea of the perturbations being caused by TNO's should be considered. I believe that the implication that Brown makes is that this mass could be out there but it would be undetectable.

Again I will remind readers that the position that Faulkner takes is that all comets are entirely a result of the creation week and Brown, I suppose, could say that and then Pi would have to be critical of both Brown AND Faulkner.

#50 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2016 - 08:26 AM

 

In Faulkner's 2013 paper he wrote:

"...., 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?

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. ......

I think you are misunderstanding something.  It is important to remember that cometary orbits are very elliptical and their speed varies considerably depending on how far they are from the Sun.

....

If there was a "rather sophomoric error," it wasn't made by Faulkner.

Huh?  That is a dodge.  The question is whether DF was right to say "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."

 

Periodic comets, whether long or short period DO NOT OVERCOME the Sun's escape velocity, AT ANY PLACE IN THEIR ORBIT.  Those which are true parabolas or hyperbolas do.  But we are not discussing those.  LP comets are not either hyperbolic or parabolic. 

It's not a dodge, it's a statement of fact.

 

Of course periodic comets, of any type have not overcome the Sun's escape velocity anywhere in their orbit.  If they had, they wouldn't have come back, would they?

 

Brown suggests a launch velocity from Earth up to 32 mi/sec.  The question here is whether or not at least some material launched at such a high velocity will, in fact, "overcome the sun's escape velocity."

 

Again, according to the Escape Velocity Calculator, at the distance of Earth's orbit from the sun, a velocity of 26.2 mi/sec is sufficient to escape the solar system.  Earth is moving around the Sun at 18.6 mi/sec.  That means for an object launched along the axis of Earth's orbit needs a "boost" of only 7.6 mi/sec.  Allowing for slowing by Earth's gravity as launched material leaves Earth equal to Earth's escape velocity of 7 mi/sec, anything sent up along that axis need only have a launch velocity of 14.6 mi/sec to escape the Sun's gravity as well.  (The actual speed will be something less than that due to reduced time near the relatively strong gravity of Earth.)  

 

As we move from that axis that launch speed will increase due to a reduced "boost" from Earth's speed in its orbit.  At right angles to Earth's motion around the sun, using the Pythagorean theorem, the escape solar velocity would be about 18.5 mi/sec.  Allowing for the full 7 mi/sec reduction due to Earth's gravity would mean a launch velocity of 25.5 mi/sec will be sufficient to escape the solar system.

 

What we find is that we can expect more than half of the material launched from Earth at 32 mi/sec will escape the Sun's gravity.  In fact that applies all the way down to 25.5 mi/sec at launch.

 

Pi >>There are several places in Brown's work where he claims launch velocities are as high as 32 mi/sec.  Clearly, at least some of the material launched from Earth at 32 mi/sec is on its way out of the solar system for good.>>

 

No, actually he said that is the amount for retrograde comets which have NOT left the SS but are on near-parabolic orbits.  They have NOT left the SS for good.   Think about it...if they DID leave the SS for good at that speed 4500 years ago, how would anyone know that TODAY?  

So, what does Brown say was the actual maximum launch velocity?  (Why do I sense another "revision" to Brown's work?)

 

Of course we wouldn't know about the ones that left the solar system for good.  Isn't that what "escape velocity" means?

 

Pi >>Faulkner may have worded it poorly, but he is absolutely correct.>>

 

No, actually he admitted to me today when we spoke for an hour that it was an error just as I said he probably would and he appreciated that I told him.  He did not look at his paper today but he took my word for what he wrote.  He also said his saying "solar mass" (twice) instead of "solar system mass" was another error.  

You commented he didn't refer to his original paper.  I strongly suspect a fuller review will cause him to revise that thinking with regard to that alleged "sophomoric error."  Remember, all that is necessary is for SOME of the launched material to reach Solar escape velocity for Faulkner's statement to be correct.

 

I intend to contact Danny (by email) with this information and see what he says.  It will be late tonight before I can send the email, so it may be next week before we hear from him.

 



#51 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2016 - 08:33 AM

It is necessary that I once again point out the topic of Brown's debate "offer" was brought up by Indy.

 

Further, this isn't about me being the "topic police."  It is about whether or not the author of the OP is entitled to determine what is relevant to the intent of the OP.  When you complained about me initiating this topic I pointed out you were fully entitled to determine what is, or is not, relevant to your "Out of Place Fossils" discussion.  Apparently, you don't feel I should have the same discretion with respect to a subject I have opened.   Hypocrite.

 

Again, Brown's debate "offer" is :off_topic: here.  Should you desire to initiate a topic on Brown's debate "offer," I will be happy to discuss it, including the "reasonableness" of it there.

 

This is the THIRD time I've had to point this out.  Will I need to be "rude" and say it in 48 point bold red letters?

What is hypocritical is for you to bring up the debate topic within every thread you have participated in, most of which you originated, and we were supposed to all discuss it to great lengths when you wanted that. But if I bring it up in this thread then you want to howl about how it is off topic. A fair disputant would not apply a different standard to himself than what he tries to apply to others.

It is my desire that this topic be about scientific reviews of Brown's claims regarding meteors, comets, and asteroids.  I do not wish it to be cluttered up with a bunch of posts about matters that are not relevant to that discussion.

 

Once again, if you wish to discuss Brown's debate "offers,"  I will be more than happy to do so in a subject dedicated to that issue.  If you don't want to open that discussion, maybe I will ......



#52 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2016 - 09:24 AM

Pi >>These objects (edit  TNO's) are smaller than the moon and thousands of times more distant. The likelihood of a Long Period Comet (LPC) encountering one of these objects at all is probably on the order of one in billions<<

Perhaps so if you are trying to guess at the odds of a SINGLE comet encountering a single TNO. (And let's remember we are not talking about impacting but rather only coming within gravitational influence of each other.) But the truth is that there would have been millions of comets and several thousand as I recall TNOs. Brown tells us there are 659 comets which have periods which are longer than 700 years. That means there are probably less than 300 which have periods which are greater than 5000 years. Perhaps it would be less than 100. So when you think about the millions of proto comets there were, it is quite possible that 100-300 of them were perturbed so that they return quicker but have periods that appear to be much longer.

Pi >>Yet Indy would have the reader believe this has happened to each and every LPC we've observed.<<

We are only discussing about 100-300 which would be beyond 5000 years.

Actually, according to this list, there are 309 comets with periods above 5000 years.  Of those, 169 (about 55%) were discovered since the year 2000.  That's about 10 per year.  (As technology has improved, so has our ability to detect these objects.)

 

The same list shows 43 comets with orbits over 1,000,000 years. (Thirty-one (72%) of those were discovered since 2000.)  That's two comets per year that are 200 (or more) times the 5,000 years or so Brown claims.  That's going to require one hellofa gravitational boost.

 

Pi >>A "belt" won't work for those objects. (While individual massive TNO's may, but they have problems already mentioned.)<<

If you will recall I raised this concern myself but that was before I spoke with Brown and Faulkner and both have accepted the idea that the encounter with a TNO could indeed send the object well above or below the ecliptic. Faulkner said he would need to think some more about this but Brown was quite certain that all comet inclinations could be caused by this type of an encounter. If you think about it, any comet approaching a TNO is very UNlikely to approach it at exactly the same position above or below the ecliptic that the TNO is. If it approaches above the TNO then it will be perturbed so that it will travel below the ecliptic. And vice versa. So when it comes back in toward the sun it will be on an entirely different inclination than it was when it went out. Indeed an encounter with one of the outer planets could do exactly the same thing if the comet passed below or above the planet.

The vast majority of these objects have highly inclined orbits.  I absolutely agree than an encounter with a TNO could sling a comet into such an orbit.  Of course, that requires even a more precise interaction than merely shortening the orbital period.  Making the chances of such an encounter even more unlikely.

 

What is really the only question is whether a shell which has something like 6% of the mass of the solar system which is at a distance of about 500 AU would be detectable today. If it would be, then the idea of a shell should be abandoned and only the idea of the perturbations being caused by TNO's should be considered. I believe that the implication that Brown makes is that this mass could be out there but it would be undetectable.

It has already been pointed out that the Voyager spacecraft is now more than 125 AU from Earth.  Pluto's orbit is only about 40 AU.  If there were enough gravity to alter a comets orbit from 1,000,000+ years to only 5,000 years, Voyager should have found some evidence by now.

 

Note:  The longest actual calculated orbit is 130,000,000 years.  This is only 26,000x Brown's 5000 year orbit claim.  At this point, Indy will say I'm arguing from "incredulity" and I'll respond Indy is arguing from "credulity."

 

I believe those following this discussion have the information needed to determine which of us is (more likely) right.....



#53 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2016 - 10:28 AM

Brown also makes claims regarding the date of the flood based on cometary orbits. 

 

In the abstract of Faulkner's review of this claim, he says:

I analyze Walt Brown’s determination of the date of the Flood within his hydroplate model using the orbits of two comets. Brown’s result is an unwarranted extrapolation of data gleaned from the literature. The uncertainty in the data expressed by the authors of that data show that Brown’s result is unjustified, and hence Brown’s statistical analysis is meaningless. The results of this determination of the date of the Flood highly depend upon the assumed ephemerides of the two comets. There is a considerable uncertainty in those ephemerides when extrapolated so far into the past, so this method to establish the date of the Flood is not possible.

 

Indy and I have discussed this before in another forum.  Here are the main points:

1)  Brown claims the flood date is 3290 BC +/- 100 years with 99% accuracy.

2)  Brown says there is uncertainty with the orbital periods of the two comets used (Haley and Swift-Tuttle).

3)  Brown uses a "one sigma" level of certainty.

 

Clearly, Brown's date is considerably different from the normally accepted date of around 2450 BC based largely on Ussher's review of the genealogy in Genesis.  Brown acknowledges a Biblical date of 2519 BC.

 

Brown presents the following table to support his claim.

Pi notes:  Sorry, the table didn't come across correctly, you'll need to use the link.

 

 

 Notice, Brown uses an error of one sigma (68% confidence).   Normal statistical analysis uses an error of 2 sigma (95% confidence).   (At least it was when I took statistics.)  This would make the range for Halley's 3.12 years and Swift-Tuttle 5.96 years.

 

It is worth note that Brown's range of +/- 100 years would be nearly 3 orbits of Halley's and about one full orbit of Swift-Tuttle.  In simple terms, Brown is telling us he doesn't even know which orbit these comets are on, but he is able to predict (with 99% accuracy) that they were near perihelion in a single year.  

 

This is compounded by Brown's use of one sigma.  Using the statistically correct value of 2 sigma, the range would be +/-200 years. Of course, this doubles the number of orbits involved to 5.7 for Halley's and 3.1 for Swift-Tuttle.

 

Faulkner again justifies his use of Brown's book rather than his on-line source:

My primary reason for insisting upon the latest printed version of the model was that the content of Brown’s website continually changes. It is impossible to make any up-to-date critique of such a voluminous and continually changing source, but a printed copy that is readily available after publication is a fixed standard. 



#54 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2016 - 12:42 PM

So, what does Brown say was the actual maximum launch velocity?  (Why do I sense another "revision" to Brown's work?)

Never mind, I found it.

 

On Brown's Rocket Science page, he says:

Launch velocities of at least 32 miles per second were required to place near-parabolic comets in retrograde orbits

and he has a graphic that also uses 32 miles per second:

technicalnotes-rocket_science.jpg

 

So, it is clear that the launch velocities claimed are as high as 32 mi/sec.



#55 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2016 - 01:57 PM

 

 
 

It's not a dodge, it's a statement of fact.

 

 

What I said was a dodge was this by you:

 

>>Pi>>I think you are misunderstanding something.  It is important to remember that cometary orbits are very elliptical and their speed varies considerably depending on how far they are from the Sun.>>>>

 

The question was whether DF was right to say:  "...., 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."

 

Here is more of the context:

 

>>Noting that water figured greatly in the Flood, Dr. Brown
considers it likely that sufficient water was ejected from the
earth at the time of the Flood to produce all the comets. According
to his model, the subterranean water was under tremendous
pressure, sufficient to blast much of the water through the
earth’s atmosphere and into space. 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>>

 

For you to talk about comets having elliptical orbits and various speeds IS IRRELEVANT, and so it appears as a DODGE.  A long period comet IS ELLIPTICAL...because it COMES BACK TO THE SUN.  It does NOT "escape." 

 

>>Of course periodic comets, of any type have not overcome the Sun's escape velocity anywhere in their orbit.  If they had, they wouldn't have come back, would they?>>

Um...that is what we have been discussing.  It is YOU and DF who seem confused about that fact!  It is those comets which RETURN we are considering.  AND that is the heading on the paragraphs in DF's paper where he said they MUST (not even MAY) have enough speed to escape the Sun.  EVEN DF AGREED that was a mistake when I spoke to him a few days ago.  But YOU think you know better.

 

>>

Brown suggests a launch velocity from Earth up to 32 mi/sec.  The question here is whether or not at least some material launched at such a high velocity will, in fact, "overcome the sun's escape velocity.">>

It isn't about if Brown would say SOME could escape.  It was about whether DF was right to say that to make a LPC, then you must have speed enough to escape Earth's gravity PLUS additional speed to escape the Sun's.  THAT IS WRONG.  Brown SAYS that some stuff would also have probably left the SS but we are discussing LPC's now...not that stuff. 

 

>>Again, according to the Escape Velocity Calculator, at the distance of Earth's orbit from the sun, a velocity of 26.2 mi/sec is sufficient to escape the solar system.  Earth is moving around the Sun at 18.6 mi/sec.  That means for an object launched along the axis of Earth's orbit needs a "boost" of only 7.6 mi/sec.  Allowing for slowing by Earth's gravity as launched material leaves Earth equal to Earth's escape velocity of 7 mi/sec, anything sent up along that axis need only have a launch velocity of 14.6 mi/sec to escape the Sun's gravity as well.  (The actual speed will be something less than that due to reduced time near the relatively strong gravity of Earth.) >>

If by "axis" you mean "in the same direction as E's orbit around the Sun" then I would not disagree.  But it is irrelevant.  Brown would not disagree that SOME stuff went beyond the Sun's gravity...BUT NOT LPC's which is what DF said MUST occur for ALL of the LPC's.  He admitted to me this was a mistake.  YOU still say it was NOT.  SHEW!

 

>>As we move from that axis that launch speed will increase due to a reduced "boost" from Earth's speed in its orbit.  At right angles to Earth's motion around the sun, using the Pythagorean theorem, the escape solar velocity would be about 18.5 mi/sec.  Allowing for the full 7 mi/sec reduction due to Earth's gravity would mean a launch velocity of 25.5 mi/sec will be sufficient to escape the solar system.>>

SO?  Brown already SAID that for RETROGRADE comets, to get them to their maximum speed requires a launch speed of 32mps.  You have said NOTHING that contradicts a WORD of what Brown said. 

 

>>What we find is that we can expect more than half of the material launched from Earth at 32 mi/sec will escape the Sun's gravity.  In fact that applies all the way down to 25.5 mi/sec at launch.>>

SO?  Brown himself uses a 2x factor (used to be 10x) in his "energy required" section in part BECAUSE he knows SOME stuff would be ejected from the SS.  But what DF said was that LPC's MUST have speed exceeding the Sun's escape velocity, and that is not true.  HE SAID IT WASN'T.

 

>>So, what does Brown say was the actual maximum launch velocity?  (Why do I sense another "revision" to Brown's work?)>>

Your having to ask this proves you don't have the understaaaaaaaanding of HPT that you like to claim you have.  He said the maximum for stuff which RETURNS (on an elliptical orbit...the fastest observed comets) would be no LESS than 32mps...i.e. for retrograde comets.  Stuff could be launched faster but ALL of that would leave the SS.

 

>>You commented he didn't refer to his original paper.  I strongly suspect a fuller review will cause him to revise that thinking with regard to that alleged "sophomoric error.">>

You are the only one of the three of us (me, DF and you) who needs "fuller review" of this.  He did not say he needed to review THAT part at all.  When I pointed out the error, he QUICKLY agreed with me.  But you...who specializes in teaching Earth and Space science to high schoolers, just can't seem to GET it.

 

>>Remember, all that is necessary is for SOME of the launched material to reach Solar escape velocity for Faulkner's statement to be correct.>>

Nope.  You WANT that to be true because you HATE to have to agree AGAIN that I've shown you to be wrong...and in this case, also to show DF was wrong.  His statement says "MUST".  That means FOR ALL LPC's.  If ANY of the objects were to exceed the Sun's EV, then IT WOULD NOT BE A PERIODIC COMET AT ALL...SHORT *OR* LONG.



#56 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2016 - 02:13 PM

>>Actually, according to this list, there are 309 comets with periods above 5000 years.>>

And I originally guessed 300.  Sometimes I amaze even MYSELF.  I WAS wrong...about thinking I might be WRONG.  :)  No problem using 300, instead of 100-300...same point applies.

 

>>The vast majority of these objects have highly inclined orbits.  I absolutely agree than an encounter with a TNO could sling a comet into such an orbit.  Of course, that requires even a more precise interaction than merely shortening the orbital period.  Making the chances of such an encounter even more unlikely.>>

If you agree a TNO could indeed produce higher speed (making a <5000 period appear to be millions, AS WELL AS producing the high inclinations, then that's all that is needed to make the point.  To then obscure that by trying to say how UNlikely it would be for any ONE comet to interact with ONE TNO to produce ONE inclination angle is just another dodge.  First you say they could NOT produce such a high inclination, and now...now that I explained how they COULD INDEED...you want to pretend that you already KNEW that.  ROFL.

 

>>It has already been pointed out that the Voyager spacecraft is now more than 125 AU from Earth.  Pluto's orbit is only about 40 AU.  If there were enough gravity to alter a comets orbit from 1,000,000+ years to only 5,000 years, Voyager should have found some evidence by now.>>

Since the shell is (or could be) another 400 or so AU further out...then it is too soon to say.  No one (certainly not Brown) was saying the hyp. shell was at 40AU.  In order for it to bring all comets back within 5000 years, the distance was well over 500AU...I recall it being 575AU.

 

>>Note:  The longest actual calculated orbit is 130,000,000 years.  This is only 26,000x Brown's 5000 year orbit claim.  At this point, Indy will say I'm arguing from "incredulity" and I'll respond Indy is arguing from "credulity.">>

No...no unjustified credulity needed.  I also can quote your favorite astronomer...DF...who agrees with me and with Brown.  If there was mass in a shell then it WOULD make ALL the LPC's appear to have longer periods when in fact they could ALL be from 5000 years or less ago.  DF SAID THAT.  And in addition, when I discussed with him what Brown says NOW about a single TNO causing a single comet to be perturbed, HE ALSO AGREED, but then he said he would need to think some more about it.  Brown was AHEAD of DF about LPC's.  All DF can say is that they were part of the original Creation...created on their way to the Sun for the first time, with the APPEARANCE of having made MANY transits over MILLIONS of years. 

 

>>I believe those following this discussion have the information needed to determine which of us is (more likely) right.....>>

 

Finally!...something you said that I can AGREE with!



#57 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2016 - 02:21 PM

>>

Faulkner again justifies his use of Brown's book rather than his on-line source:

My primary reason for insisting upon the latest printed version of the model was that the content of Brown’s website continually changes. It is impossible to make any up-to-date critique of such a voluminous and continually changing source, but a printed copy that is readily available after publication is a fixed standard. >>

Maybe you or DF can point out WHERE in the 2008 edition there is ANY discussion of a date for the Flood based on comets.  DF "picks and chooses" whether he wants to use only 2008 material or if he wants to see the latest online stuff from Brown.

 

For the record, I don't agree that Brown has a good case to be made on this...at least not if he sticks with the way he worded it.  I discussed at length with him why I thought the +/- figure he got was no good.  And by "no good" I mean he the number was way too large...so he HURT himself using that.  If you start with the earliest known date, and then you use the known variances in periods, then when you count backwards, you will have as many PLUSES as MINUSES, so the errors would NOT accumulate.  I could not get Brown to agree, so he would change that.  So good luck, Pi, finding some OTHER YE who wants to discuss this with you.  I don't. 

 

>>So, it is clear that the launch velocities claimed are as high as 32 mi/sec.>>

Right...I said that a few posts ago...and again today.  Brown has ALWAYS said that some stuff got ejected out of the SS...but that does not make DF's mistake any less untrue.  He said MUST...and the topic was long PERIOD comets.  By definition, NONE of those were ejected. 



#58 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2016 - 04:15 PM

>>

It is worth note that Brown's range of +/- 100 years would be nearly 3 orbits of Halley's and about one full orbit of Swift-Tuttle.  In simple terms, Brown is telling us he doesn't even know which orbit these comets are on, but he is able to predict (with 99% accuracy) that they were near perihelion in a single year. >>

I'd like to know if you believe Brown's estimate of the + /- is wrong...as I do.  He HURT his argument by overestimating it.  It would be much closer to what the average variance is (as I recall, about 5 years for Halley) because those would NOT accumulate because you would have as much likelihood of a "plus" as a "minus."  Agree?  And if you don't then explain. 



#59 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2016 - 04:21 PM

I did notice an argument today I had missed.  There are 53% of LPC's which are retro and 47% which are prograde.  If you have such a large sample (thousands, I think) then you should have very very close to 50/50 if they just happen to fall in from the Oort Cloud.  Would you agree? 

 

Brown would probably say that the reason for the difference is that the extra push from Earth in the prograde direction caused many of those to get expelled...hence the lower number which return.  If you are expert in statistics, maybe you could calculate the probability of getting that much (6%) variance if there was a purely 50/50 chance of which side of the Sun the object would fall on its first pass...as your view claims. 



#60 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2016 - 04:47 PM

>>The same list shows 43 comets with orbits over 1,000,000 years. (Thirty-one (72%) of those were discovered since 2000.)  That's two comets per year that are 200 (or more) times the 5,000 years or so Brown claims.  That's going to require one hellofa gravitational boost.>>

This means you need to think more carefully...because you don't understaaaaaaand.  When you think about LPC's one trait they have is much faster speed, because they (supposedly) have had a longer time to accelerate...even though the gravity from the Sun is very low at 10,000+ AU.  So a tiny object that is at (say) 500 AU and nearly stopped, can get slung by a TNO so that it has vastly higher speed than it would have if it just began to slowly accelerate back toward the Sun (without any boost).  So with that boost, it would appear to have needed millions of years to get to that speed.  Indeed, (I may need to study this more to say for sure) the longer periods are based mainly (if not entirely) on how fast they are.  But depending on how NEAR to that TNO a comet passes, it could have LOTS of acceleration, or just a little. 

 

BTW, another good argument you missed because you don't understaaaaand Brown very well, is that there have been ZERO observed hyperbolic incoming comets, but if Oort is true then there should have been lots of them.  Why are ALL incoming comets NOT hyperbolic?  This suggests they came from Earth. 

 

Also, if LPC's are because some passing star perturbed it in the Oort cloud, then why do we not see MANY of these coming in at the same time because MANY were perturbed at the same time???  How did that star's gravity just affect ONE of many ten's of thousands of objects...maybe MILLIONS?

 

>>If there were enough gravity to alter a comets orbit from 1,000,000+ years to only 5,000 years, Voyager should have found some evidence by now. Note:  The longest actual calculated orbit is 130,000,000 years.  This is only 26,000x Brown's 5000 year orbit claim.>>
 

I assume you know that if it really is 130,000,000 years, with a hyperbola of (guessing) 100,000 AU, then it would take probably 50,000,000 years to move it to 50,000 AU.  There would be TINY gravity out there.  It wouldn't take much of a sling from a TNO to make up all 129,995,000 years worth of acceleration. 







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