And I think you are dishonest (and a Pharisee as indicated here).
1 Like
Well, speeding up radiometric decay would exceed the 3 x 10^29 J: it would release over (estimate based on current levels of uranium, thorium, and potassium) 5 x 10^32 J. Which, incidentally, is quite close to what the first Death Star is putting out, but spread over 6 months instead of 1 second, thus it wouldn’t explode the earth, just turn it into a ball of plasma emitting more X-rays than the rest of the galaxy combined.
5 Likes
Adam had lungs like modern people? Terrestrial animals had lungs? If so, then it can’t have been different enough for this to work.
Yes, because that’s how physics works. Releasing x energy into y moles of water will raise the temperature by a set amount.
Given the energy release, the entire planet would be molten, thus all of this is irrelevant.
2 Likes
But that’s confusing.
That is the problem. The mass of the Earth creates a large gravity well. If you do not supply enough energy, the math is clear that escape cannot happen. If you do supply enough energy, the heat would melt the Earth.
Except for entropy, the laws of physics are the same when run backwards. The heat generated by the Chicxulub impactor is equivalent to the heat necessary to reverse the process to launch the same mass back into space. That impact did not just melt, not just vaporize, but generated a plume of plasma initially in excess of 10,000 Deg C. Now multiply that impact by 10,000 for the mass of the asteroid belt. And given that it is more efficient to turn kinetic energy into heat than heat into kinetic energy, the situation is much worse.
Or if all this math and physics is bothersome, we could just say the whole idea is - to risk being flagged for language - silly.
1 Like
I’m not treating it as a knife in the back. It’s always good to have a spiritual health check. (2 Corinthians 13:5). My response to that question was to pray and make sure that I could answer in the affirmative.
Is it a loaded question? Undoubtedly. Passive-aggressive and saturated with judgment and accusation? Quite clearly yes. Does he use some new meaning of the word “Christian” of which I was not previously aware? I think that it’s pretty clear that he does. Is it a question being asked in bad faith? I’m pretty sure it is. But the whole purpose of things such as that is to goad us into a reaction, by getting us all defensive, prickly, and offended. By getting wound up and stressed about it, I would be giving him exactly what he wants.
I think that the best—and most Christian—response to things such as this is to just forgive him and move on. In recent months I’ve realised that getting upset about the effect that bad attitudes to science in the Church have had on my career in the past is counterproductive, because it’s a drain on my time and distracts me from moving forward with my life and career into the future.
In any case, whether or not Adam thinks I’m a Christian is neither here nor there. The important question is whether or not Jesus thinks I’m a Christian.
6 Likes
the above is completely ignoring an important statement that was made…the breakup of the fountains of the deep is not interpreted as an instantaneous event.
The rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights and the flood lasted a year…it is more than likely that the most catestrophic of the seismic activity lasted for weeks and maybe even months.
One has to stop thinking redneck stuff and just look at how this might work. This useless focusing on a single catastrophic explosion…I have not once made any claim of that kind nor do i even believe it myself…its absurd.
I agree with this Ron…the point is, the claim about the amount of energy required i think might be highly misleading. I honestly feel that it is attempting to make a single explosion responsible for the ejection of rocks out into space. I do not find any statement of that kind in the flood account but perhaps im reading it differently to what it really says.
In the Bible flood narrative, the rains went on for at least 40 days and nights…that suggests to me that the seismic activity at its worst was during this period. It also suggests that the constant rain allowed for cooling and condensing back into water, time for water ingress back into the underground aquifers (or whatever they were at the time) and re-exposure to hot molten matter in different places…and then the process would therefore be able to repeat itself over and over again in different areas all around the globe…and that i think might be the key to all of this.
When someone says to me, it cant be done…Edison immediately comes to mind and so does my own lifes experiences. Unless people are willing to entertain the idea that it might be possible, then even the light bulb doesnt get invented! The more i research and think about this, the more convinced i am that it has enough merit to search further.
one thing i will admit at present, asteroids in space dont seem to me at this point to be a salvation issue…i am just genuinely interested in finding an explanation for their existence. My gut doesn’t really feel that God created them just for us to look at or try to stop from killing us all should they collide with this earth…to me that kind of creation is a bit unGodly however one can never say never i know that. I mean a Christian scientist could claim God created asteroids after the fall of mankind because He knew he would need to them to hurl at the earth during OT times for the purposes of destroying Sodom and Gomorah (personally i dont believe that idea but hey its worth throwing out there just the same)
That doesn’t matter–the heat can’t dissipate fast enough. Even with 90% efficiency, in order to radiate that much energy in six months the earth would have to have a surface temperature close to 4500 K.
3 Likes
If any such reservoirs were unstable enough to let go at all, the seismic shock from neighboring events would trigger them, and so on in a rapid chain reaction.
But even if spread out, as Timothy points out, the rate of heat dissipation to space would be nowhere close to the rate of heat addition. Also, there are larger asteroids which, even a single chunks, are of themselves sufficiently massive for planetary destruction. You have to appreciate the gravitational energies involved would massively overwhelm any quenching effect of water. Noah’s ark would be adrift on seas of molten rock, in a rarified atmosphere of superheated steam.
If you have ingress, you do not have the required containment.
Edison invented the light bulb, not perpetual motion. Wright brothers pioneered flight, not anti-gravity boots. Technology must and always has progressed within the limits imposed by the math of physics.
Speaking of which…how does asteroid impact cratering such as on the moon and mercury fit into this?
2 Likes
Thats incorrect…you are trying to cool the entire quanitity all at once. Instead, it all took place over a period of many months…and in this scenario, i dont believe cooling back to water is even an issue…that wouldnt take anywhere near that amount of time.
You are not following what Timothy is saying.
Who cares what you believe or your folksy guesstimates. Show your work.
Cooling back to solid rock, let alone liquid water, is an issue. You seem to think that the energy involved is a mere million nuclear warheads or something trivial. No, we are talking serious joules.
2 Likes
That. The nonsense gets wearisome – I shouldn’t let it.
Ron this is completely wrong…the reality is that the larger the rocks being ejected the better and that is because the sheer size of the rock means that it is far easier for it to escape both the atmosphere and gravity…its the complete reverse of what you are thinking. This is all about massive scale and one has to remind themselves by looking at space photos of the earth and compare the size of the planet with its own visible atmosphere. When you do that you realise for a large rocks hundreds of meters (even km’s) in diameter to be ejected without causing complete destruction is actually not an issue.
All these “looking up” calculations are ignorant of what the visible ratios really show. It seems to me that individuals are stuck looking up thinking the scale of the atmosphere is huge…but that simply is not the case and satellite photos paint a very different picture
Look at the following images from NASA
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/147000/147709/iss063e068417_lrg.jpg…
cooling what back into solid rock…who says anything about molten rock being ejected? You are barking up the wrong tree Ron. A steam exposion ejects the solid rock above the molten layer into the atmosphereand beyond no one said anything about ejecting lava into space. And again, look at the NASA images of the earth…you are simply not understanding the scale and that is because you have spent far too much time looking up from down here instead of looking down from up there. LOOK at the NASA images.
The scenario is the complete opposite of what you claim…the molten rock energy is already contained within the earth. Exposing it to the atmosphere has the reverse effect of what you are claiming. You are trying to claim the creation of additional energy through explosions…that is not even scientific it goes against the very foundation of all science (that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed…). The energy is already here in the earth!
Adam, if you want to make a case that the Earth could have ejected an entire asteroid belt’s worth of rubble into orbit around the sun in the space of only a few months, there is one thing that you MUST do.
SHOW YOUR WORKING.
Unless you are able and willing to start quoting the relevant equations, putting the actual numbers into them, and doing the necessary calculations, you are just hand-waving and wasting everybody’s time.
And remember what I said. You need to put in the numbers for what you are actually talking about. Not some hand-waving analogy to something on a completely different scale a dozen orders of magnitude smaller.
Seriously, you claim you have an engineering background. If that is the case then this is something that you should know and be able to apply cold. It’s something that we were all taught in maths and science classes when we were twelve years old.
SHOW YOUR WORKING.
3 Likes
Ok Jammy…how about you put in your numbers countering this. The current numbers that have been put forward are clearly attempting to claim A SINGLE EJECTION EVENT! That is incorrect.
find us some numbers that discredit any possibility of multiple ejection events (hundreds or even thousands of them) over months!
The whole reason i posted this question is to ask supposedly educated individuals with scientific knowledge…however the fundamental flaw in the previously posted responses has not once been addressed. You guys keep reverting back to a single ejection event and in the most recent resopnse have even made the errant claim that energy has been created from nothing and would melt the earth if such an ejection took place.
NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A SINGLE EJECTION EVENT (can i make this any clearer).
We are not trying to create additional energy.
One must ask, how much energy is [EDIT] radiating from within the earth (my understanding is that its at least 47 terawatts).
The next question is, when Christ performed his miracles…did that energy come from the earth itself or from God? I feel this question is important because if one starts trying to claim miracles are a manipulation of science, then we have a big theological problem. Am i not right in claiming that for Christians, miracles cannot be explained by human means and so they are not able to be explained scientifically?
Anyway,
-
look at the NASA images of the earth and its atmosphere…the scale of the atmosphere is tiny by comparison to the size of the earth
-
the larger the rocks being ejected the better …which is the complete reverse of the claims here
-
hundreds or even thousands of ejection events over months
-
The steam in the explosions is rapidly going to cool down, condense forming cloud, clouds become saturated and as the energy levels in the cloud drop, it rains. The cycle could happen very very quickly and does not need many months or millions of years if that is the claim (My iron nail in glass of water analogy evidences this)
see here you go again…you are now talking perpetual motion. The very fact that there is no such thing disproves your claim about runaway explosions. You are not listening Ron…water cools down and it does so rapidly. The molten rock within the earth is already molten.
Why are you continuing to try to make the claim that explosions create additional energy…that is fundamentally false!
We are not creating any additional energy…we are using existing energy to cause steam explosions. Once that steam escapes, it cools, forms cloud, then rains. This process happens very quickly and it can repeat over and over again. It i suppose some ways, its not unlike that in which an internal combustion engine works. The water in a small radiator exposed to airflow is more than capable of controlling the heat build up so the alloy engine block (which melts at about 640 degree celsius btw) remains intact!
The point is, a large numer of smaller ejection events (internal combustion engine illustration) can produce an enormous amount of work over time without destroying the earth. And now that i have also remembered the alloy engine block (with alloy pistons) illustration, i am certain this is not a particularly difficult scenario at all.
I accept that if the cooling is inadequate, or conversely, the amount of work being done is too great, then of course the alloy engine overheats, melts the pistons and seizes up. But thats exactly my point…smaller ejection events and not a single explosive ejection of rocks into space.
This has been fully addressed. Now you are just obtuse. Kendel was on point with her characterization of your Bait, Switch, and Knife in Back.
I have only carried on the discussion because it was sort of interesting to work out some of these numbers. That is done now, so unless there is something new, or you answer some of the questions like cratering on mercury, Ta.
That a hydroplate mass ejection is physically impossible is not even the biggest problem with the idea. There is no blank canvas on which to paint this picture. Through proxies of tree ring data, radiometric and stable isotope analysis, lake sediment varves, ice cap layers, cave speleothem, and geological study, we have a record of continuity, and imprint of particular events, covering much detail going back tens and hundreds of thousands of years. Since modern humans have walked the Earth, there has been no catastrophe which devastated the entire planet.
YEC rejects science in favor of adherence to their interpretation of Genesis, but one wonders. Why, when they dismiss science, can they not resist indulging in these flights of pseudo-science? They do not like science, but they just can’t leave it alone.
I have not studied into the hydroplate theory. I am reading that website however i am really not convinced of quite a number of his arguments. I am not basing that on specific calculations, just on my own experience and things I’ve read over the years.
My claim about steam explosions is based on nothing more at this point than the biblical statement “the fountains of the deep burst forth”.
Ron it appears that you have ignored my internal combustion engine example which i am quite sure illustrates the problem with the “nay” claims here.
Here it is again…
We are not creating any additional energy…we are using existing energy to cause steam explosions. Once that steam escapes, it cools, forms cloud, then rains. This process happens very quickly and it can repeat over and over again. i suppose in some ways, its not unlike that in which an internal combustion engine works. The water in a small radiator exposed to airflow is more than capable of controlling the heat build up so the alloy engine block (which melts at about 640 degree celsius btw) remains intact!
The point is, a large numer of smaller ejection events (internal combustion engine illustration) can produce an enormous amount of work over time without destroying the earth. And now that i have also remembered the alloy engine block (with alloy pistons) illustration, i am certain this is not a particularly difficult scenario at all.
I accept that if the cooling is inadequate, or conversely, the amount of work being done is too great, then of course the alloy engine overheats, melts the pistons and seizes up. But thats exactly my point…smaller ejection events and not a single explosive ejection of rocks into space.