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.
No Adam. If you make a claim it is your responsibility to find and quote the numbers to back it up. It is your responsibility to substantiate your own assertions, and it is your responsibility to show your working when you do so.
It works like that in every area of science. If it didn’t, then every armchair crank would have a free pass to make up whatever they liked. You’d be giving a free pass to astrology, homeopathy, feng shui, reading tea leaves, tobacco companies claiming that smoking is good for you, and every tinfoil hat conspiracist claiming that absence of evidence for their whacked-out conspiracy theories is in and of itself proof that they must be right.
I did precisely that in my very first post in this thread, Adam. And no the numbers I put forward did not attempt to claim a single ejection event. The numbers I put forward are exactly the same whether you postulate one ejection event or a million.
If you think that having multiple ejection events would make any difference, it is your responsibility to provide a realistic explanation as to how, and it is your responsibility to back up your explanation with some actual maths.
Yes you could make it clearer, Adam.
You could make it clearer by explaining, and showing your working as you do so, how having multiple ejection events would make a difference to the overall calculations.
You could make it clearer by explaining exactly how much water you are postulating, exactly how its heat was dissipated, exactly how much of it got recycled back to Earth, exactly how fast the heat dissipated, and exactly how much each different mechanism (conduction, convection and radiation) contributed to this effect.
And I mean actual figures pertaining to your actual model. Not just hand-waving about “lots,” or analogies to things happening on a completely different scale.
That’s it, I’m done now. Like @rsewell I was only interested in this conversation because it offered an opportunity to get into some interesting maths, measurement, physics and equations. I would recommend to the moderators that they give you one last chance to engage on that level, and if your next response does not contain some actual equations and put some actual numbers into them, to close down this thread, because it’s just wasting everybody’s time.
5 Likes
So figure out how much energy would have been needed in those molten rocks. By my back of the envelope calculation, 7.5E28 joules are required to accelerate the entire asteroid belt out of the Earth’s gravitational well. According to this hypothesis, that energy came from magma, necessarily magma near the surface of the Earth. If we suppose that thermal energy in the top 20 km of the Earth were converted with perfect efficiency into accelerating the asteroids (which is absurd) and suppose that the entire surface could contribute energy (also absurd), then my calculation is that every kg of that layer would have to have contributed 1.3E7 joules. Given the specific heat of magma (1450 J/kg/K), that means the entire top layer of the earth would have cooled by 9000 degrees C, which would have required the entire surface of the Earth to have consisted of vaporized rock.
No, this scenario is not physically plausible in the slightest.
6 Likes
Where is this energy coming from? If it’s heat, then the entire planet would have a ball of vapor or plasma before the flood, if it came from somewhere else, then the waste heat would melt the planet afterwards.
If only 1% of the energy required just to accelerate the asteroid belt to escape velocity (this ignores drag and the fact that they would actually have to get to a higher speed to end up in the asteroid belt, instead of just having an apogee at earth’s orbit) regardless of the timeframe involved (2.4 x 10^21 kg * (11.2 km/s)^2 /2)=1.5 x 10^29 J) got released as waste heat (I’m not sure what the actual loss would be, but it’s definitely higher than 0.01), the earth would become molten (ignoring that it already would have been from the energy storage).
i agree Tim and dont really have a problem with the above. I have been reading the counter claims against Walt Browns Hyroplate theory. Some of those counterclaims however, are not really counterclaims…they provide evidences of proof that his theory has merit rather than directly discredit it and that is the entire problem.
I have been thinking of other problems rather than the energy one (which i am convinced is not a problem at all)…
-
is there actually enough matter in the asteroid belt to explain the theory in the first place? It cannot account for all asteroids because surely we only see what has not stayed within that region of space and even logic tells us most of the asteroids are not found within the belt…this then leads to the complete opposite question…
-
given we only probably see a small amount of potentially ejected ateroid matter, is it statistically possible for the earth to actually have enough material to eject that much in the first place?
i havent time right now to add further concerns i have…i have to go to work.
Despite your conviction, energy is a huge problem.
3 Likes
@jammycakes asks for the math, which is essential.
Revealing the entire model beforehand in a point-by-point, organized manner with diagrams would be a great help, too.
[Edit]
Oops. Pardon. I see James has already asked for a model. And I had asked for diagrams before, but still…… nothing.
1 Like
Some additional thoughts.
Look up images for the two largest asteroids, Ceres and Vesta. They don’t look like chunks of rock tossed into space. In fact they look like small moons.
The energy calculations are only based on the energy needed to escape the earth’s gravitational well. They ignore the additional energy needed due to aerodynamical losses due to the passage through the atmosphere. Given the chunks are not going to be streamlined and the velocity needed to escape, those losses just make the problem worse even if we can’t calculate them.
You seem to think the steam could be lifting the rocks for their entire passage through the atmosphere, but that isn’t correct. Once a chunk reaches open air the steam will escape and no longer be pressing on the chunk, just like when a bullet leaves a barrel.
5 Likes
They also ignore the (likely very large) fraction of energy that would have gone into the Earth environment rather than into accelerating particular chunks of rock, including the large amount that would have gone into accelerating rocks that didn’t make it out of Earth’s gravitational well and fell back. In total, local energy release would surely have been larger than the energy that ended up in the asteroids. That means the energy being released was equivalent to at least one dinosaur-killing asteroid striking Earth every hour for 40 days, as a mass equivalent to the entire top kilometer of the Earth was blasted into space. All of this while flood waters were supposedly quietly settling out fine sediment and a massive wooden ship was bobbing about on the water.
4 Likes
Yes. We are only considering free energy for mechanical work done with perfect efficiency. Of course the actual case would be nowhere near that.
As well, the asteroid mass accounting would have to add in the portion that has impacted the moon, Mars, Mercury, and we can assume Venus and the sun.
In reality land, we do not have to worry about the Earth melting because the energy to launch the asteroid belt is not in the realm of the possible, outside of possibly accelerated radioactive decay which would immediately vaporize the entire planet into a nebula.
4 Likes
Yeah, think of a pressure cooker that has two dozen lids held together with different amounts of strength: the weakest one is what will determine how high the pressure builds.
3 Likes
This video cropped up in my YouTube recommendations this evening:
For anyone who can’t be bothered to watch the video, it can be summarised as follows: If you are trying to do physics without doing the maths, you are a crackpot. Period.
8 Likes
Marvelous!
All of it is wonderful.
[I particularly appreciate her use of pronouns.]
I PROMISE NEVER to dabble in PHYSICS THEORIES, FOR WHICH I cannot do the MATH.
2 Likes