Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
texasdave

Problem I - Cratering. 1. The Moon

Recommended Posts

There were many sticky problems I encountered as a yec trying to disprove the naturalistic view of origins.

The single biggest one was this.

There are an estimated 300,000 significant craters on the Moon, the vast majority of which are from asteroid or meteor impacts.

There are two issues to deal with here, A/ the time it would take to accumulate that many and B/ the heat generated by these impacts.

A/. The last recorded impact was on March 17 2013. Others have been recorded, but the fact remains, the time between strikes, if using a median, would dictate a long span of time. There are even craters within craters!

The objection to the last point is that the impacts could have been more numerous in the past which leads us to the second point, B/

B/. The heat generated by these impacts, if tallied together is simply colossal. Basically, if a 10,000< year time span was a reality, as would be required to fit a yec pov, the Moon would still be a molten slagball, as in an accretion scenario.

I did not present the calculations, but if people would like to see them, I can c&p them in a further post.

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're concerned about heat build-up yet the Moon has no atmosphere to contain the heat so wouldn't it be let off into space?

 

Having a look at the data would be nice. Do you know how many craters there are? How was this number calculated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do c/p or provide a link.

To be more precise, there are about 180,000 craters of 1 km or more. A kilometer is .6 of a mile for the uninitiated.

I double checked my info and a larger more recent collision occurred on Sept. 11, 2013.

This is an individual calculator.

I am having trouble locating the accumulated energy output algorithm, but will keep searching and post it when I locate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're concerned about heat build-up yet the Moon has no atmosphere to contain the heat so wouldn't it be let off into space?

An atmosphere would certainly help retain heat. Even then, heat can only be radiated to space at a rate limited by the Stefan-Boltzman Law.

 

To be more precise, there are about 180,000 craters of 1 km or more. A kilometer is .6 of a mile for the uninitiated.

I double checked my info and a larger more recent collision occurred on Sept. 11, 2013.

Just at a glance, 180,000 craters of 1km probably wouldn't be a problem. In 6,000 years, that would only be 30 per year. The real energy is in the big ones.

 

 

This is an individual calculator.

I am having trouble locating the accumulated energy output algorithm, but will keep searching and post it when I locate it.

That tells the effects. When I'm considering energy, crater size, etc., there are two that I use. Both of them give the energy output of the impact.

 

This one can be used to calculate crater size from impactor size: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/tekton/crater_c.html

 

This one will calculate impactor size from crater size: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/tekton/crater_p.html

 

Using the second calculator a 1km crater varies in energy, but about 1.5e15 joules or 0.36 megatons is probably reasonable. The same parameters on a 100 km crater require 2.62e22 joules or 6.3 million megatons of energy.... about 20 million times the energy of that 1km crater. You might want to focus on the largest craters to do your analysis.

 

I'd be a lot more interested in how many impacts that implies for the Earth and the consequences of them. You can heat the moon to thousand of degrees and not hurt anyone. Heat the Earth's atmosphere by 100C and you sterilize the planet. With 5.2 times the surface area and 6 times the force of gravity, I'd expect around 30 times the impacts.... and they'd have about 1.5 times the energy.

 

If I get time, I may look into it again.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're concerned about heat build-up yet the Moon has no atmosphere to contain the heat so wouldn't it be let off into space?

 

I am only guessing here, but I would say it would be a safe assumption. Got any data to support that notion, and how much would radiate out into space?

Having a look at the data would be nice. Do you know how many craters there are? How was this number calculated?

 

See links posted to Sapiens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An atmosphere would certainly help retain heat. Even then, heat can only be radiated to space at a rate limited by the Stefan-Boltzman Law.

 

Just at a glance, 180,000 craters of 1km probably wouldn't be a problem. In 6,000 years, that would only be 30 per year. The real energy is in the big ones.

 

 

That tells the effects. When I'm considering energy, crater size, etc., there are two that I use. Both of them give the energy output of the impact.

 

This one can be used to calculate crater size from impactor size: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/tekton/crater_c.html

 

This one will calculate impactor size from crater size: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/tekton/crater_p.html

 

Using the second calculator a 1km crater varies in energy, but about 1.5e15 joules or 0.36 megatons is probably reasonable. The same parameters on a 100 km crater require 2.62e22 joules or 6.3 million megatons of energy.... about 20 million times the energy of that 1km crater. You might want to focus on the largest craters to do your analysis.

 

I'd be a lot more interested in how many impacts that implies for the Earth and the consequences of them. You can heat the moon to thousand of degrees and not hurt anyone. Heat the Earth's atmosphere by 100C and you sterilize the planet. With 5.2 times the surface area and 6 times the force of gravity, I'd expect around 30 times the impacts.... and they'd have about 1.5 times the energy.

 

If I get time, I may look into it again.....

Mars was calculated to have about 385,000 of 1km or more, so that figure would likely rise again for the earth.

Gotta hit the sack, duty calls in the morning.

I will check back here tomorrow.

Thanks for the contrib.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're concerned about heat build-up yet the Moon has no atmosphere to contain the heat so wouldn't it be let off into space?

 

I am only guessing here, but I would say it would be a safe assumption. Got any data to support that notion, and how much would radiate out into space?

Having a look at the data would be nice. Do you know how many craters there are? How was this number calculated?

 

See links posted to Sapiens.

Apparently not. shock.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're concerned about heat build-up yet the Moon has no atmosphere to contain the heat so wouldn't it be let off into space?

 

I am only guessing here, but I would say it would be a safe assumption. Got any data to support that notion, and how much would radiate out into space?

Having a look at the data would be nice. Do you know how many craters there are? How was this number calculated?

 

See links posted to Sapiens.

 

 

How about you demonstrate how the moon would be turned into molten rock since YOU are the one who made that claim before... Or is this how evolutionists operate, make claims and then ask others to try and debunk them.. I've told you a flaw in your plan that heat will escape the moon due to no atmosphere hence being exposed to the cold of space... Therefore if you want to continue your claim of the moon turning into molten rock you'd need to demonstrate that it will.... Please do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How about you demonstrate how the moon would be turned into molten rock since YOU are the one who made that claim before... Or is this how evolutionists operate, make claims and then ask others to try and debunk them.. I've told you a flaw in your plan that heat will escape the moon due to no atmosphere hence being exposed to the cold of space... Therefore if you want to continue your claim of the moon turning into molten rock you'd need to demonstrate that it will.... Please do so.

Well, a rational person could see that I did give reason why it would be a molten slagball - the energy that gets transferred to the subterranean layers is colossal.

I can do the math for you if you wish, but then you will turn around and repeat this: "the Moon has no atmosphere to contain the heat so wouldn't it be let off into space?" at which point I would repeat this: "I am only guessing here, but I would say it would be a safe assumption. Got any data to support that notion, and how much would radiate out into space?" so let's see how you do with giving your defense to your notion.

After all, you seem to have that as a ready made defense, so I want to see you defend it with calculations, etc,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a rational person could see that I did give reason why it would be a molten slagball - the energy that gets transferred to the subterranean layers is colossal.

I can do the math for you if you wish, but then you will turn around and repeat this: "the Moon has no atmosphere to contain the heat so wouldn't it be let off into space?" at which point I would repeat this: "I am only guessing here, but I would say it would be a safe assumption. Got any data to support that notion, and how much would radiate out into space?" so let's see how you do with giving your defense to your notion.

After all, you seem to have that as a ready made defense, so I want to see you defend it with calculations, etc,.

 

When you do that math in order to do it correctly you will need to incorporate the amount of heat escaping into space... That is what I told you... Or do you think incomplete data and ignoring factors which go against your claims in your "calculations" is somehow being logical or scientific?

 

All I want you to do is do your calculations like an actual scientist would... accounting for known variables etc. Judging by your aversion to this I assume you didn't incorporate this factor into your calculations; so I must ask, why think you can pass off this argument when you had only done a one-sided analysis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When you do that math in order to do it correctly you will need to incorporate the amount of heat escaping into space... That is what I told you... Or do you think incomplete data and ignoring factors which go against your claims in your "calculations" is somehow being logical or scientific?

 

All I want you to do is do your calculations like an actual scientist would... accounting for known variables etc. Judging by your aversion to this I assume you didn't incorporate this factor into your calculations; so I must ask, why think you can pass off this argument when you had only done a one-sided analysis?

Well perhaps if you would provide the appropriate calculations like I asked, I could.

If all the heat escaping back into space is the only hat you hang your hopes on, then perhaps you need to check your own one-sided analysis.

I may not have the exact calculations, but I would be most surprised if the Moon would be as cool as it is today - if you can show that it could have cooled that much in such a short time frame, you would score a real point.

You might as well, your rhetoric certainly won't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need gilbos calculations to further your own calculations then obviously your calculations shouldn't be trusted to begin with. If you can't inject certain variables into your calculations then your calculations are completely baseless. Unless you believe the scientific method should be based on assumptions and preconceived results with no real life data to back it up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh...

 

Well perhaps if you would provide the appropriate calculations like I asked, I could.

 

If you can (as you said you could) then please provide them.. YOU are the one making the claim therefore YOU are responsible for providing the calculations.... using all factors and variables relevant for such.... Not ignoring factors which would make your claim less likely..

 

 

If all the heat escaping back into space is the only hat you hang your hopes on, then perhaps you need to check your own one-sided analysis.

 

What one-sided analysis? Its not my job to demonstrate your claims... YOU made the claim, then YOU are responsible for the data.

 

 

I may not have the exact calculations

 

Oh so you don't have the data... So your entire thread here is a farce... Even when you said that you could provide the calculations... Come back when you have the data to support your claims.

 

 

but I would be most surprised if the Moon would be as cool as it is today - if you can show that it could have cooled that much in such a short time frame, you would score a real point.

 

Personal incredulity is not an argument.... Nor is the Argument from ignorance logical fallacy.

 

 

If you need gilbos calculations to further your own calculations then obviously your calculations shouldn't be trusted to begin with. If you can't inject certain variables into your calculations then your calculations are completely baseless. Unless you believe the scientific method should be based on assumptions and preconceived results with no real life data to back it up.

 

Thanks Supamk3speed.

 

If Dave wants to do calculations he should be doing it with all the data available, science isn't based on people asserting claims and then providing one sided "calculations", since it would then be (as you said) baseless and not based on reality. If all he wants to do is assert how much energy is generated then that is fine, however if he wants to claim that this would lead to a molten moon he needs to account for heat loss overtime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well perhaps if you would provide the appropriate calculations like I asked, I could..

In all honesty, it is your job to provide the relevant support for your claims. Gilbo (and others) are absolutely right on this one.

 

As it happens, the calculations aren't all that difficult. We need to use the Steffan-Boltzman equation which is:

p = ebA(TR-TS)4

in which:

p = power in watts.

e = the emissivity of the radiating object. I use a value of 1 which is a perfect blackbody that radiates the maximum amount of energy. This both (1) maximizes the amount of energy being radiated and (2) simplifies the equation because we can now drop that term.

b = the Steffan-Boltzman constant. Numerical value = 5.67e-8 (Note: I just made up the name "b" the actual mathematical symbol in the equation is sigma.)

A = the surface area radiating the energy.

TR = temperature of the radiating body.

TS = temperature of the surroundings.

 

Since we're working with energy rather than power, and 1 watt = 1 joule (j) of energy per second (s). Also, since we are radiating the energy to space we can treat the surroundings as absolute zero. This allows us to change temperature term to simply "T" where T = degrees Kelvin. We also drop the emissivity term. The equation now becomes:

j/s =bAT4

 

In order to determine the time needed to radiate the energy, we need to know the area radiating it and the energy to be radiated. As I noted in message #5, the energy is in the big craters. On the other "crater" topic, I made note there are 60 craters 160km (100mi) or larger on the moon. Using that as the crater size and the calculator of impactor size from crater diameter noted in post #5, I come up with an energy of about 1.25e25 joules.

 

If the impacts are spread out over 6000 years there would be about one every hundred years or so. That's 3.16e9 seconds. Since the energy will almost entirely be radiated from melt in the crater, we can treat the crater diameter as the radiating surface area. A crater with a diameter of 160 km will have a surface area of about 2e10 m2.

 

We now have:

j = 1.25e25 = energy to dig the crater

s = 3.16e9 = seconds in 100 yr

b = 5.67e-8 = constant

A = 2e10 = area of 100 mi crater.

 

Solving the equation j/s =bAT4for T we get T4 = j / sbA or

 

T = ( j / sbA)0.25

 

I get (1.25e25 / 3.16e9 / 5.67e-8 / 2e10 )0.25 ..... which comes to something like 1367 Kelvin or around 1130C. (Note: This is a quick one time calculator number. I haven't checked it. I'm showing all the work so others can check it out.)

 

That is an average temperature. Obviously heat will radiate more quickly at first when temperatures are higher. On the other hand, once the surface cools enough to solidify (which amusingly is probably not far from 1100C), the frozen material on the surface will serve as an insulator for the molten material underneath keeping it warmer. Anyone who wants to do the relevant math to chase down the exact temperature profiles is welcome to do it.

 

EDIT: Another factor to consider is the calculation doesn't include energy input from the sun during the lunar day either.... this will tend to slow down the cooling.

 

It's pretty clear, the surface of the moon wouldn't be melted. However, in a 6000 year old universe, there should certainly be hot spots still associated with these large craters. Those hot spots seem to be missing.

 

If all he wants to do is assert how much energy is generated then that is fine, however if he wants to claim that this would lead to a molten moon he needs to account for heat loss overtime.

Will the above do?

I would greatly appreciate someone checking the numbers.

As I've pointed out before, impacts on the moon aren't the problem. The problem is impacts on the Earth. With Earth being 5x the surface area of the moon, it should have suffered at least 5x the impacts.... that's 300 or one about every 20 years. The effects of a bolide creating a 160km crater would be clear, unmistakable and global.

That probably belongs in the other "Crater" subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty, it is your job to provide the relevant support for your claims. Gilbo (and others) are absolutely right on this one.

 

As it happens, the calculations aren't all that difficult. We need to use the Steffan-Boltzman equation which is:

p = ebA(TR-TS)4

in which:

p = power in watts.

e = the emissivity of the radiating object. I use a value of 1 which is a perfect blackbody that radiates the maximum amount of energy. This both (1) maximizes the amount of energy being radiated and (2) simplifies the equation because we can now drop that term.

b = the Steffan-Boltzman constant. Numerical value = 5.67e-8 (Note: I just made up the name "b" the actual mathematical symbol in the equation is sigma.)

A = the surface area radiating the energy.

TR = temperature of the radiating body.

TS = temperature of the surroundings.

 

Since we're working with energy rather than power, and 1 watt = 1 joule (j) of energy per second (s). Also, since we are radiating the energy to space we can treat the surroundings as absolute zero. This allows us to change temperature term to simply "T" where T = degrees Kelvin. We also drop the emissivity term. The equation now becomes:

j/s =bAT4

 

In order to determine the time needed to radiate the energy, we need to know the area radiating it and the energy to be radiated. As I noted in message #5, the energy is in the big craters. On the other "crater" topic, I made note there are 60 craters 160km (100mi) or larger on the moon. Using that as the crater size and the calculator of impactor size from crater diameter noted in post #5, I come up with an energy of about 1.25e25 joules.

 

If the impacts are spread out over 6000 years there would be about one every hundred years or so. That's 3.16e9 seconds. Since the energy will almost entirely be radiated from melt in the crater, we can treat the crater diameter as the radiating surface area. A crater with a diameter of 160 km will have a surface area of about 2e10 m2.

 

We now have:

j = 1.25e25 = energy to dig the crater

s = 3.16e9 = seconds in 100 yr

b = 5.67e-8 = constant

A = 2e10 = area of 100 mi crater.

 

Solving the equation j/s =bAT4for T we get T4 = j / sbA or

 

T = ( j / sbA)0.25

 

I get (1.25e25 / 3.16e9 / 5.67e-8 / 2e10 )0.25 ..... which comes to something like 1367 Kelvin or around 1130C. (Note: This is a quick one time calculator number. I haven't checked it. I'm showing all the work so others can check it out.)

 

That is an average temperature. Obviously heat will radiate more quickly at first when temperatures are higher. On the other hand, once the surface cools enough to solidify (which amusingly is probably not far from 1100C), the frozen material on the surface will serve as an insulator for the molten material underneath keeping it warmer. Anyone who wants to do the relevant math to chase down the exact temperature profiles is welcome to do it.

 

It's pretty clear, the surface of the moon wouldn't be melted. However, in a 6000 year old universe, there should certainly be hot spots still associated with these large craters. Those hot spots seem to be missing.

 

Will the above do?

I would greatly appreciate someone checking the numbers.

As I've pointed out before, impacts on the moon aren't the problem. The problem is impacts on the Earth. With Earth being 5x the surface area of the moon, it should have suffered at least 5x the impacts.... that's 300 or one about every 20 years. The effects of a bolide creating a 160km crater would be clear, unmistakable and global.

That probably belongs in the other "Crater" subject.

Pi, your missing hot spots, could those be the source of the TLP's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pi, your missing hot spots, could those be the source of the TLP's?

Thanks for the question.... I had to learn something new to answer it. Until you asked, I don't recall hearing of a TLP (Transient Lunar Phenomenon).

 

What I call the missing hotspots may be associated with the TLP's, but TLP's wouldn't explain why the hot spots are missing. The center of each major crater on the moon should retain enough heat to be easily detectable with our current instrumentation. Instead, we find the coldest known spot in the solar system in a lunar crater:

 

"Most notable are the measurements of extremely cold temperatures within the permanently shadowed regions of large polar impact craters in the south polar region," said David Paige, UCLA professor of planetary science and principal investigator of the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment. "Diviner has recorded minimum daytime brightness temperatures in portions of these craters of less than -238 degrees Celcius (-397 degrees Fahrenheit). These super-cold brightness temperatures are, to our knowledge, among the lowest that have been measured anywhere in the solar system, including the surface of Pluto."

Source: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/divinerb20090917.html

 

A temperature of -238C is only 35K..

 

BTW, I'd like to add a comment to my earlier calculation.... no consideration was made for energy input from the sun which would also slow cooling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty, it is your job to provide the relevant support for your claims. Gilbo (and others) are absolutely right on this one.

 

Thanks for the support, and good work with the calculations :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all honesty, it is your job to provide the relevant support for your claims. Gilbo (and others) are absolutely right on this one.

 

Gilbo asked this question which is really a statement in disguise in post #3:-

You're concerned about heat build-up yet the Moon has no atmosphere to contain the heat so wouldn't it be let off into space?

 

He also has a responsibility here my friend.

As it happens, the calculations aren't all that difficult. We need to use the Steffan-Boltzman equation which is:

p = ebA(TR-TS)4

in which:

p = power in watts.

e = the emissivity of the radiating object. I use a value of 1 which is a perfect blackbody that radiates the maximum amount of energy. This both (1) maximizes the amount of energy being radiated and (2) simplifies the equation because we can now drop that term.

b = the Steffan-Boltzman constant. Numerical value = 5.67e-8 (Note: I just made up the name "b" the actual mathematical symbol in the equation is sigma.)

A = the surface area radiating the energy.

TR = temperature of the radiating body.

TS = temperature of the surroundings.

 

Since we're working with energy rather than power, and 1 watt = 1 joule (j) of energy per second (s). Also, since we are radiating the energy to space we can treat the surroundings as absolute zero. This allows us to change temperature term to simply "T" where T = degrees Kelvin. We also drop the emissivity term. The equation now becomes:

j/s =bAT4

 

In order to determine the time needed to radiate the energy, we need to know the area radiating it and the energy to be radiated. As I noted in message #5, the energy is in the big craters. On the other "crater" topic, I made note there are 60 craters 160km (100mi) or larger on the moon. Using that as the crater size and the calculator of impactor size from crater diameter noted in post #5, I come up with an energy of about 1.25e25 joules.

 

If the impacts are spread out over 6000 years there would be about one every hundred years or so. That's 3.16e9 seconds. Since the energy will almost entirely be radiated from melt in the crater, we can treat the crater diameter as the radiating surface area. A crater with a diameter of 160 km will have a surface area of about 2e10 m2.

 

We now have:

j = 1.25e25 = energy to dig the crater

s = 3.16e9 = seconds in 100 yr

b = 5.67e-8 = constant

A = 2e10 = area of 100 mi crater.

 

Solving the equation j/s =bAT4 for T we get T4 = j / sbA or

 

T = ( j / sbA)0.25

 

I get (1.25e25 / 3.16e9 / 5.67e-8 / 2e10 )0.25 ..... which comes to something like 1367 Kelvin or around 1130C. (Note: This is a quick one time calculator number. I haven't checked it. I'm showing all the work so others can check it out.)

 

That is an average temperature. Obviously heat will radiate more quickly at first when temperatures are higher. On the other hand, once the surface cools enough to solidify (which amusingly is probably not far from 1100C), the frozen material on the surface will serve as an insulator for the molten material underneath keeping it warmer. Anyone who wants to do the relevant math to chase down the exact temperature profiles is welcome to do it.

 

EDIT: Another factor to consider is the calculation doesn't include energy input from the sun during the lunar day either.... this will tend to slow down the cooling.

 

It's pretty clear, the surface of the moon wouldn't be melted. However, in a 6000 year old universe, there should certainly be hot spots still associated with these large craters. Those hot spots seem to be missing.

 

Will the above do?

I would greatly appreciate someone checking the numbers.

 

I said I could, but unfortunately I can't. Such math is esoteric to me. Having the opportunity to or the ability to are two different things.

I was merely making a point.

 

As I've pointed out before, impacts on the moon aren't the problem. The problem is impacts on the Earth. With Earth being 5x the surface area of the moon, it should have suffered at least 5x the impacts.... that's 300 or one about every 20 years. The effects of a bolide creating a 160km crater would be clear, unmistakable and global.

That probably belongs in the other "Crater" subject

 

I don't know if we can discount the idea that we haven't. Weathering on earth is likely to be greatly accelerated over that of the Moon with tidal and Ocean movements, wind, snow and rain.

Nevertheless, the land impactors we do observe as historical and geological facts if they all occurred in the last 4000 or so years, would have obliterated most life on earth - no sunlight would kill off the vast majority of vegetation species for starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo asked this question which is really a statement in disguise in post #3:-

And here is what you said in the OP....

 

.... B/. The heat generated by these impacts, if tallied together is simply colossal. Basically, if a 10,000< year time span was a reality, as would be required to fit a yec pov, the Moon would still be a molten slagball, as in an accretion scenario.

I did not present the calculations, but if people would like to see them, I can c&p them in a further post.

Discuss.

So your claim came before his and you offered to "c&p" the calculations "in a further post." You never did that.

 

In post #4. you provide an impact effect calculator (interestingly, it's one I had used before) and said you were still looking for an energy algorithm. In #5, I provided you with two on line impact calculators that would give you the energy output..... interestingly enough one of the outputs of the program you linked is the energy released in creating the crater.

 

In #9, Gilbo asked "How about you demonstrate how the moon would be turned into molten rock since YOU are the one who made that claim before... Therefore if you want to continue your claim of the moon turning into molten rock you'd need to demonstrate that it will.... Please do so." Since that is an assertion made in #1, you have a responsibility to support your initial assertion..... something you never did.

 

Then, in #10, you said: "I can do the math for you if you wish." In #11, Gilbo again asked for your calculations. In #12, you accused Gilbo of not providing calculations you had asked for.

 

The problem is that as of #12, you had not provided any support at all for your initial claim that the surface of the moon would be melted. Yes, Gilbo has responsibilities too.... but you need to support yours before demanding he support his.

 

 

I said I could, but unfortunately I can't. Such math is esoteric to me. Having the opportunity to or the ability to are two different things.

 

I was merely making a point.

You need to find a better way to make your point than to make claims you can't support.

 

As it happens, while the surface wouldn't be molten there would still be significant hot spots if that many large craters had taken place in 6000 years. So the craters do still work against a YEC scenario.

 

With regard to your comment about the number of large impact craters we should have on Earth.... my use of 300 bolides making a 100 mile crater is a conservative estimate based on the surface area of the Earth. Because Earth also acts as a gravity well, it will suffer considerably more impacts than that. An argument could be made for as many as 1800 .... about one every three years. With the large impactors, the problem isn't so much the heat as it is the blast, ejecta, and tsunami.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is what you said in the OP....

 

So your claim came before his and you offered to "c&p" the calculations "in a further post." You never did that.

 

The fact is that Mr.gilbo made a claim in disguise. Intellectual honesty would hope that he has an answer and that he should be responsible enough to rpovide an answer - regardless of who asked first.

I did attempt answers, and I also told you that I could not find the algorithm - twice now.

In post #4. you provide an impact effect calculator (interestingly, it's one I had used before) and said you were still looking for an energy algorithm. In #5, I provided you with two on line impact calculators that would give you the energy output..... interestingly enough one of the outputs of the program you linked is the energy released in creating the crater.

 

In #9, Gilbo asked "How about you demonstrate how the moon would be turned into molten rock since YOU are the one who made that claim before... Therefore if you want to continue your claim of the moon turning into molten rock you'd need to demonstrate that it will.... Please do so." Since that is an assertion made in #1, you have a responsibility to support your initial assertion..... something you never did.

 

You do like to keep beating that drum don't you.

Regardless of whether or not I find my algorithm, the idea that the earth could be habitable with the number of recorded large impactors if compressed into 6000 years is nonsensical.

All this redirecting and smokescreens is so much denialism.

 

 

 

With regard to your comment about the number of large impact craters we should have on Earth.... my use of 300 bolides making a 100 mile crater is a conservative estimate based on the surface area of the Earth. Because Earth also acts as a gravity well, it will suffer considerably more impacts than that. An argument could be made for as many as 1800 .... about one every three years. With the large impactors, the problem isn't so much the heat as it is the blast, ejecta, and tsunami.

 

Heat would most definitely be a problem with all that heat energy being released into the atmosphere and kept in by the blanket of airborne ejecta - and also tectonic events - all of which would render the earth uninhabitable.

See my last response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And here is what you said in the OP....

 

So your claim came before his and you offered to "c&p" the calculations "in a further post." You never did that.

 

The fact is that Mr.gilbo made a claim in disguise. Intellectual honesty would hope that he has an answer and that he should be responsible enough to rpovide an answer - regardless of who asked first.

I did attempt answers, and I also told you that I could not find the algorithm - twice now.

 

 

You do like to keep beating that drum don't you.

Regardless of whether or not I find my algorithm, the idea that the earth could be habitable with the number of recorded large impactors if compressed into 6000 years is nonsensical.

All this redirecting and smokescreens is so much denialism.

Heat would most definitely be a problem with all that heat energy being released into the atmosphere and kept in by the blanket of airborne ejecta - and also tectonic events - all of which would render the earth uninhabitable.

See my last response.

 

 

Sigh... Can you please learn to quote properly?

 

It certainly does matter that you made the first claim... Additionally I never made a "claim in disguise" I was simply reminding you that heat from the moon would escape to space... that is it... I never said how much or anything, just that heat would escape into space. So please stop with shifting the blame for your inability to support your claim.

 

As I and Piasan told you, YOU are required to give evidence for your claims. This would include the rate of heat escaping into space lest you think science is done from a slanted viewpoint via ignoring factors which can affect results....

 

Do you really think, you claiming 'I cannot support my claims' is you giving an answer?

 

Asking you to support your claims is not denialism... Its simply asking you to support your claims.

 

Also why are you talking about the Earth? This thread was about the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sigh... Can you please learn to quote properly?

 

It certainly does matter that you made the first claim... Additionally I never made a "claim in disguise" I was simply reminding you that heat from the moon would escape to space... that is it... I never said how much or anything, just that heat would escape into space. So please stop with shifting the blame for your inability to support your claim.

 

As I and Piasan told you, YOU are required to give evidence for your claims. This would include the rate of heat escaping into space lest you think science is done from a slanted viewpoint via ignoring factors which can affect results....

 

Do you really think, you claiming 'I cannot support my claims' is you giving an answer?

 

Asking you to support your claims is not denialism... Its simply asking you to support your claims.

 

Also why are you talking about the Earth? This thread was about the moon.

There is ample evidence that the Moon was molten in the past.

I can provide links for you but you don't seem to like that so do the homework yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is ample evidence that the Moon was molten in the past.

I can provide links for you but you don't seem to like that so do the homework yourself.

 

Links are great, when they are supporting an argument you have written yourself. It is lazy and intellectually dishonest to simply post a link and expect me to know what you are claiming from said link and exactly what from the link was used in support of the claim....

 

Huh, so this is ample evidence?

 

I said I could, but unfortunately I can't. Such math is esoteric to me. Having the opportunity to or the ability to are two different things.

I was merely making a point.

 

Yup its ample evidence alright.... wink.png (Although it sounded like a confession that you are unable to provide the evidence necessary for your claims).

 

 

So your claim came before his and you offered to "c&p" the calculations "in a further post." You never did that.

 

In post #4. you provide an impact effect calculator (interestingly, it's one I had used before) and said you were still looking for an energy algorithm. In #5, I provided you with two on line impact calculators that would give you the energy output..... interestingly enough one of the outputs of the program you linked is the energy released in creating the crater.

 

In #9, Gilbo asked "How about you demonstrate how the moon would be turned into molten rock since YOU are the one who made that claim before... Therefore if you want to continue your claim of the moon turning into molten rock you'd need to demonstrate that it will.... Please do so." Since that is an assertion made in #1, you have a responsibility to support your initial assertion..... something you never did.

 

Then, in #10, you said: "I can do the math for you if you wish." In #11, Gilbo again asked for your calculations. In #12, you accused Gilbo of not providing calculations you had asked for.

 

The problem is that as of #12, you had not provided any support at all for your initial claim that the surface of the moon would be melted. Yes, Gilbo has responsibilities too.... but you need to support yours before demanding he support his.

 

You need to find a better way to make your point than to make claims you can't support.

 

As it happens, while the surface wouldn't be molten there would still be significant hot spots if that many large craters had taken place in 6000 years. So the craters do still work against a YEC scenario.

 

Piasan has done the calculations and he says that the moon wouldn't be molten... All you are doing is demonstrating your inability to either read posts or accept that you have made a mistake.

 

Perhaps you should keep in mind this nugget of wisdom from Piasan

 

So your claim came before his and you offered to "c&p" the calculations "in a further post." You never did that.

 

You need to find a better way to make your point than to make claims you can't support.

 

Here it is again

 

You need to find a better way to make your point than to make claims you can't support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Links are great, when they are supporting an argument you have written yourself. It is lazy and intellectually dishonest to simply post a link and expect me to know what you are claiming from said link and exactly what from the link was used in support of the claim....

 

Huh, so this is ample evidence?

 

I know it isn't laziness that keeps you from an honest and open minded search for facts, it is fear.

 

Yup its ample evidence alright.... wink.png (Although it sounded like a confession that you are unable to provide the evidence necessary for your claims).

 

Here's a christian perspective on Radiometric Dating for you.

My money is on you NOT reading it.

 

 

Piasan has done the calculations and he says that the moon wouldn't be molten... All you are doing is demonstrating your inability to either read posts or accept that you have made a mistake.

 

Yet there is ample evidence that the Moon was indeed molten in the past. I ain't doing your lazy work for you - if you are really interested, you will do it yourself, it's very simple and I am sure you can handle it.

Perhaps you should keep in mind this nugget of wisdom from Piasan

 

 

Here it is again

 

You need to find a better way to make your point than to make claims you can't support.

 

You need to get off your lazy butt and look for yourself - you told me this is not a link fest, so now the onus IS on you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms