My fag packet calculation says 100My of tectonic movement in 1 yr would boil 10km of water in 1hr. In a day it would drive off the entire ocean and atmosphere in to space.
What did God do with all that heat? Miracles will never cease eh?
Could you post your calculations, @Klax? I’ve wondered about this question for a long time, so it would be nice to have an answer.
Beat,
Chris
1 Like
We really, really need to see a crossover between the Ark Encounter and Star Trek.
3 Likes
How would you be able to tell it was a crossover? 
1 Like
Whether pigs have wings:
I’m wrong by a factor of ten. Cuh. Didn’t use a spreadsheet. Fuh. The sea would boil in a few minutes. I will show ‘the math’ later.
1 Like
All together, let’s sing:
There's...
Klingons on the starboard bow,
starboard bow, starboard bow;
There's Klingons on the starboard bow,
starboard bow,
KEN!
1 Like
A full size replica of the NCC-1701-D (TNG Enterprise) would fill my heart with joy.
Hehe. Reduce your serum potassium level by more than 50% and you will die. But we could always speculate that at least some of the major biological systems were fundamentally different pre-deluge, and God miraculously changed the architecture of life afterwards.
3 Likes
Later:
Heat flow from the rocks: about 100 mW/m2
For a hundred million years squeezed in to one year → 1,000 W/cm2
Bung that in to this.
volume in litres x 4 x temperature rise in degrees centigrade (4-100) / 3412 / hr = 1000 watts per hour
1,000 W/cm2/hr = 1 kW/cm2/hr = volume in litres x 4 x temperature rise in degrees centigrade (4->100) / 3412
3,412,000 W/cm2/hr = volume in litres x 4 x 96 = volume in litres x 384
3,412,000 / 384 W/cm2/hr = volume in litres = 8,885 → 10,000 l (10x10x10x10,000 cm3), / 1cm2 → 10M cm = 100 km … in 1 hr = fast suburban commute speed
1,000 W/cm2 = 1KW - a bar fire - under every square centimetre
10km in less than 10 mins
I can’t believe it either. But orders of magnitude, I betcha it’s right.
And God mighta done it in a DAY! That’ll boil the oceans in a few seconds.
1 Like
The trouble is this is spurious really, just based on playing with heat flow.
Isn’t the question actually about the heat generated by the friction of accelerating 15 x 10^12 GT of rock up to 1,000 kph, keeping it there for hours, then putting the brakes on?
[Sorry, that was assuming Gondwana to now in one day, not a year! A mere 3 kph. How silly of me…]
1 Like
Will get back to you guys soon. Been a little busy lately. Buying toilet rolls and cleaning my hands and stuff.
Generally Carbon dating cannot be archaelogically verified to universally accepted historical dates beyond 1000 BC.
What is required is independent verification. The 3 main sources of independent verification misunderstand precipitation layers as annual layers, and are approximately in sync with each other. These methods are
Lake Suigetsu
Ice cores
Tree rings (bristlecone pine)
In each case, a stronger case can be made for precipitation counts, rather than annual counts. The logic of the locations support precipitation events.
The additional method of “floating chronologies” based on matching a sequence of tree rings is fraught with its own set of flaws. (the statistical probability of false matches)
So if you calibrate carbon dating against a faulty methodology, of course the carbon dating will be wrong. If you then use carbon dating to further verify other precipitation based methods you will remain wrong.
You may ask how is this possible, simply confirmation bias. The first one to admit that one of these methods is faulty will be throwing out the entire dating of recent history. So methods that confirm are used, methods that conflict are not used.
In the meantime I can have a good chuckle whenever I think of that dust layer forming between snowfalls. And all you guys backslapping and saying “scientists say”, without actually dealing with the dust layer between snowfalls.
The case for annual counts has been carefully explained in peer-reviewed research articles that have been linked to. You give no evidence of having read any of the research that has been suggested by other participants. You choose instead to just repeat the same assertions. No one benefits from such a conversation.
Here’s a suggestion for making this conversation productive: Read this paper all the way through:
https://www.ess.uci.edu/sites/default/files/pictures/1-s2.0-S0277379111003817-main.pdf
@T_aquaticus provided the link 16 days ago in post #110. So far as I can tell, I am the only person who has followed that link and read the paper because the forum automatically provides a count of the number of times a link has been clicked. I invite you to join me in this educational task: Read the paper through carefully. Take notes. Then tell us what you think about the evidence in that specific paper.
I notice that you have been completely silent with regard to many issues raised in this conversation, such as
- super-solar heat generated by accelerated tectonic movements
- massive tidal waves associated with accelerated tectonic movements
- lethality of accelerated radioactive decay
- super-solar heat associated with accelerated radioactive decay
- bat breath in caves
- speleothems
Best,
Chris
4 Likes
I’m getting there. I will possibly never get to all the posts because if I keep getting ten replies for every post, then it’s exponentially impossible to keep up.
Do you not accept the general dates of Egyptian civilization which may vary a bit but are consistent with radiocarbon dating?
Don’t worry, I’m dipping out of this thread at least. I’ve tried to demonstrate why the original post was a good question, but ultimately has little bearing on radiometric dating, how radiometric dating is indeed reliable either based upon measurements of physical constants in the past or through cross checking via varves, but that was all just dismissed. So at least there will be less to respond to now.
1 Like
You have one more post than I, apparently, but this one makes it even (not that mine are of equal quality 
). But no more for me either.
1 Like
Geologists have carefully built their hypotheses into findings and their findings into theories over the course of centuries. The evidence that supports radiometric dating could fill many rooms at the Library of Congress.
What you have read on this forum is but a tiny, tiny sample of that evidence. This is why it takes a decade of full-time study and research to get a Ph.D. in geology.
Best,
Chris
2 Likes
That is disappointing, Chris. I was looking for an online internet program where I could become a " Doc of Rock" while sheltering in place. Guess I will have to look at plan B.
4 Likes
Outside of the more recent holocene and pleistocene, have you any evidence supporting radiometric dating, other than cross referencing radiometric dating itself?