Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

[Derf]

I never heard that one, but then again, I grew up Lutheran so they didn't get into the science.

If it's possible to do that, it's exactly what I'm talking about. More data.

I made up most of the asteroid belt one, but why not? If it's possible for the earth to do it, why not some other planet?

 

[Right Divider]

Did I not just respond to your post of a Bryan Nickel's video where my question referenced something within the video? Yes, I've watched a couple. They are well done and compelling. I'm not being antagonistic with my question, but you can't just show how two comets had a near miss with each other and extrapolate that all comets were once in that location at the same time. And if you're going to knock all simulations, then you should stop posting Bryan Nickel doing simulations.

Sorry, but I did not understand what you were talking about. Now I do. I thought that you were talking about a simulation of the creation of comets.
I see no problem with the two comet analysis. Do you actually have an issue with it?

 

[Derf]

Sorry, but I did not understand what you were talking about. Now I do. I thought that you were talking about a simulation of the creation of comets.
I see no problem with the two comet analysis. Do you actually have an issue with it?

Not at all. It's a great way to analyze the data we have. My point was that two comets whose paths converge at a date near the flood is pretty good, but could be coincidental. Three or four that converge at the same time would be monumental.

 

[Right Divider]

Not at all. It's a great way to analyze the data we have. My point was that two comets whose paths converge at a date near the flood is pretty good, but could be coincidental. Three or four that converge at the same time would be monumental.

I see what you mean. I think that you should get started on it.

 

[Clete]

Isn't that the asteroid belt?

I don't think so. The asteroid belt can't be considered any form of ring, really. The entire asteroid belt is less than four percent of the mass of our moon and 40% of that is found in the single asteroid called Ceres and two third of the rest of the mass is found in the next three largest asteroids. In other words, the moniker "belt" is something of an overstatement.

But even if someone wanted to make that claim, it would be even more implausible, if you as me. They'd be proposing that water preasure on Earth was enough to accelerate material sufficient to establish it into a stable, almost perfectly circular, solar orbit that is further out than Mars! Not a chance that happened.

 

[Clete]

I'm not following you. The material that became comets and asteroid were not in earth orbit originally. They were ejected directly from the earth. They were part of the earth.

Yes, and things that ejected from the Earth would tend to either fall back to Earth or end up in orbit around the Earth. In order for it to end up not being in Earth orbit, you'd have to not simply get far enough away from the Earth because part of your velocity came from having been on the Earth. If you want to end up in an orbit around the Sun, you have to accellerate either in the same direction as the Earth is moving around the Sun or in the opposite direction. If you accelerate in the same direction, you end up in an orbit around the Sun that is further away from the Sun and if you accelerate in the opposite direction you end up circling in closer to the Sun.

Motion is relative. The fact that the earth is moving at 67,000 miles an hour means that ALL of the material that makes up the earth is also moving at 67,000 miles an hour.

Precisely!

The problem for comets is that the orbit is long and skinny and it gets quite close to the Sun. The only way that could be accomplished for an object that started from the Earth is for almost all of the orbital velocity of the Earth be removed from the object so that it falls in towards the Sun.

Also, the "water pressure" was far more than you think, as the water was not just pressurized, it was super critical. Super critical water expands to many, many times its original volume when the pressure is released.

It's not more than I think. I get it. It wasn't just water, it was steam.

It doesn't matter. It would have been explosive but not focused. The energy would have dissipated extremely rapidly and at a geometric rate. In fact, the shock wave would have dissipated with the cube of the distance that the shock wave traveled. In other words, as the shock wave's distance doubles, the pressure drops by six times, when the distances triples, the pressure drops by nine times and so on.

If the energy had been focused somehow, like what happened in a gun, then there might be sufficient energy, but that isn't the theory at all.

Because the forces were very random in all directions.

It wouldn't have been random. It would have been spherical, proceeding in all directions away from the source until it encountered something to stop it and rebound off of (like the ground, for example).

Of course, "spherical" presumes a point source of the explosion and I understand that it was a long rip along what is likened to a seam on a baseball but the point is that it would work as though the pressure was released in a long series of point source explosions along that seam.

Many groups of chunks did travel together to form the comets and asteroids in the first place. Have you ever watched this video?

It seems to me that you just don't understand the events as Dr. Brown describes them. I highly recommend that you watch that video, as it explains it all very well.

I'll watch the video when time allows but I have read every single syllable of his book and have multiple copies of it.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, and things that ejected from the Earth would tend to either fall back to Earth or end up in orbit around the Earth.

That is simply not true. It all depends on the force involved.

In order for it to end up not being in Earth orbit, you'd have to not simply get far enough away from the Earth because part of your velocity came from having been on the Earth. If you want to end up in an orbit around the Sun, you have to accellerate either in the same direction as the Earth is moving around the Sun or in the opposite direction. If you accelerate in the same direction, you end up in an orbit around the Sun that is further away from the Sun and if you accelerate in the opposite direction you end up circling in closer to the Sun.

Again, that is simply not true. It all depends on the masses and velocities of the chunks ejected from the earth. Once they get far enough from the earth, the sun's gravity would dominate.

Precisely!

The problem for comets is that the orbit is long and skinny and it gets quite close to the Sun. The only way that could be accomplished for an object that started from the Earth is for almost all of the orbital velocity of the Earth be removed from the object so that it falls in towards the Sun.

The debris was launched in all direction and at different velocities. I still don't see a problem.

It's not more than I think. I get it. It wasn't just water, it was steam.

No, it was not simply steam, it was SUPER CRITICAL water. It's a state different from any other form of water (ice, liquid or vapor).

It doesn't matter. It would have been explosive but not focused.

Of course it was focused. It was primarily directed through narrow gap in the granite crust with most force being perpendicular to the earth's surface.

The energy would have dissipated extremely rapidly and at a geometric rate. In fact, the shock wave would have dissipated with the cube of the distance that the shock wave traveled. In other words, as the shock wave's distance doubles, the pressure drops by six times, when the distances triples, the pressure drops by nine times and so on.

There was an initial blast, but there was also weeks or months of plate flutter which also continued to launch debris into space.

If the energy had been focused somehow, like what happened in a gun, then there might be sufficient energy, but that isn't the theory at all.

Again, the initial force would be primarily directed away from the surface of the earth. So it was quite focused.

It wouldn't have been random. It would have been spherical, proceeding in all directions away from the source until it encountered something to stop it and rebound off of (like the ground, for example).

The directions would have been quite random as the seam was about 25,000 miles long (and irregularly shaped) and with the earth spinning, it would eject debris in every direction.

Of course, "spherical" presumes a point source of the explosion and I understand that it was a long rip along what is likened to a seam on a baseball but the point is that it would work as though the pressure was released in a long series of point source explosions along that seam.

I'll watch the video when time allows but I have read every single syllable of his book and have multiple copies of it.

Clete

Cool

 

[Stripe]

Yes, and things that ejected from the Earth would tend to either fall back to Earth or end up in orbit around the Earth.

The dichotomy would be:
A) Fall back, or
B) Keep going away.

Orbitization needs rockets.

 

[Clete]

That is simply not true. It all depends on the force involved.

It's completely true BECAUSE it depends on the forces involved. The forces involved are gigantic, even for a relatively small object, like a man made rocket, to achieve a barely stable low Earth orbit.

Again, that is simply not true. It all depends on the masses and velocities of the chunks ejected from the earth. Once they get far enough from the earth, the sun's gravity would dominate.

The Sun's gravity has nothing to do with it. The Sun's gravity is at play from the start as is Earth's gravity. Gravity isn't the issue that's mostly at play here, its velocity. An object in motion, stays in motion unless acted upon. The Earth is moving around the Sun and any object on the Earth is moving along with it. That velocity has to be canceled out or else the object will continue to move along with the Earth. That isn't my opinion, its the laws of physics. It would be true no matter how much gravity was involved from whatever body.

The debris was launched in all direction and at different velocities. I still don't see a problem.

I'll boil it down.

The objects would not have been constantly accelerated as though launched from a rocket that has fuel to burn. They were projectiles and the force involved in moving them would dissipate very rapidly. It's the difference between firing a bullet from a gun with a long barrel and a lot of powder charge vs. setting off a naked round that you threw into a camp fire.

It's the difference between launching a rocket with a bunch of fuel to accelerate it away from the Earth vs. a rocket that explodes on the launch pad. Imagine how much more energy would be involved in sending even something as small as a typical communications satellite into orbit if, instead of using a properly functioning rocket, you simply set the satellite on the top of a big pile of explosives and blew it up. Now imagine if you weren't allowed to use chemical explosives but had to rely on compressed steam.

No, it was not simply steam, it was SUPER CRITICAL water. It's a state different from any other form of water (ice, liquid or vapor).

This is incorrect. It's steam. Steam is nothing other than water vapor. It is water in its gassious state. The temperature of the steam only adds to the pressure. The term "super critical" refers to LIQUID water that is at a temperature that would otherwise turn it to vapor if not for some other force preventing it from doing so. That force being one form or another of pressure. A super critical liquid turns instantly and explosively to vapor the moment the pressure is released.

Of course it was focused. It was primarily directed through narrow gap in the granite crust with most force being perpendicular to the earth's surface.

"Narrow" is a relative term but the point is well taken. At best it would have been like shooting these objects out of a very inefficient gun. The point is that once the object left this "barrel" of a gap in the crust, it would have had to have already achieved sufficient energy to not only overcome the friction of moving through Earth's atmosphere on its way to space but also enough to lose a large percentage of its velocity relative to the Sun that it had by virtue of being part of the Earth when it started its journey.

Just to give you an idea of the speeds involved. The fastest projectile that scientist have figured out how to shoot, accelerated a 1 gram projectile to 7.6 m/s (miles per second) or just over 27,000 mph and the forces involved basically obliterated the projectile. The Earth is moving at something close to 64,000 mph or 18.5 m/s (miles per second).

Back in April of last year, Hubble found a comet that approximately is 500 trillion tons!

Are you starting to see the problem?

There was an initial blast, but there was also weeks or months of plate flutter which also continued to launch debris into space.

Well, the longer you stretch out the release of energy, the less plausible the idea becomes.

Again, the initial force would be primarily directed away from the surface of the earth. So it was quite focused.

Well, I suppose "focused" is a relative term. Regardless, what I said above addresses the issue. Watch a slow motion video of a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun and watch what the gasses behind the bullet do and then image the gun barrel being at least a few miles wide and tens of thousands of miles long and you'll start to see the point I'm making.

Clete

 

[Clete]

The dichotomy would be:
A) Fall back, or
B) Keep going away.

Orbitization needs rockets.

Quite so except that rockets aren't needed per se, just sufficient amounts of energy applied toward accelerating an object in the proper direction.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Agreed, assuming there were no unknown physical phenomena active at the time, or miracles, which might look like each other,

Then the burden of proof is on you to show that these phenomena existed, as Scripture does not state that there were such, nor does physics support the idea.

There are other viable sources of water, too.

Not liquid water.

Mars once had enough surface water to have a global flood.

Rather, that's an explanation that secular scientists have come up with to explain where the frozen water on Mars came from, when its origin is easily explained by the HPT as having come from Earth, not Mars.

Some have suggested the reason Mars is named after a god of war is because it used to precess in its orbit in a way that it came close to the earth on occasion, so it could have collided with the earth, breaking up the fountains of the great deep and dumping water from the "windows of heaven". I don't think it's a correct understanding, and it hasn't been thought out near as well as Brown's theory.

Of course it hasn't been thought out, because it can be dismissed based on the evidence, and on the fact that God did not create a dangerous place for His creation to live. It was "very good."

A planetary explosion from a planet between Mars and Jupiter might do the trick.

There's not enough mass in the asteroid belt for there to have been a planetoid there, let alone a full blown planet. Ceres is the largest object in the Belt, and is only about 0.00015 times the mass of earth.

In fact, there's only about enough mass in the Asteroid Belt to make up about 3% of Earth's mass.

There would be enough water for the windows and perhaps a large chunk of solid material (ice?) to break up the fountains of the deep.

The problem is that the Bible specifically states that the fountains of the great deep broke forth, and the windows of heaven were opened, in that order."

Scripture even gives us a glimpse at what happened just prior to the fountains breaking forth, and it doesn't show any sort of calamity like what you're describing.

Spoiler

Now it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the third month, on the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his multitude:‘Whom are you like in your greatness? Indeed Assyria was a cedar in Lebanon,With fine branches that shaded the forest,And of high stature;And its top was among the thick boughs. The waters made it grow;Underground waters gave it height,With their rivers running around the place where it was planted,And sent out rivulets to all the trees of the field. ‘Therefore its height was exalted above all the trees of the field;Its boughs were multiplied,And its branches became long because of the abundance of water,As it sent them out. All the birds of the heavens made their nests in its boughs;Under its branches all the beasts of the field brought forth their young;And in its shadow all great nations made their home. ‘Thus it was beautiful in greatness and in the length of its branches,Because its roots reached to abundant waters. The cedars in the garden of God could not hide it;The fir trees were not like its boughs,And the chestnut trees were not like its branches;No tree in the garden of God was like it in beauty. I made it beautiful with a multitude of branches,So that all the trees of Eden envied it,That were in the garden of God.’ “Therefore thus says the Lord God: ‘Because you have increased in height, and it set its top among the thick boughs, and its heart was lifted up in its height, therefore I will deliver it into the hand of the mighty one of the nations, and he shall surely deal with it; I have driven it out for its wickedness. And aliens, the most terrible of the nations, have cut it down and left it; its branches have fallen on the mountains and in all the valleys; its boughs lie broken by all the rivers of the land; and all the peoples of the earth have gone from under its shadow and left it. ‘On its ruin will remain all the birds of the heavens,And all the beasts of the field will come to its branches— So that no trees by the waters may ever again exalt themselves for their height, nor set their tops among the thick boughs, that no tree which drinks water may ever be high enough to reach up to them.‘For they have all been delivered to death,To the depths of the earth,Among the children of men who go down to the Pit.’ “Thus says the Lord God: ‘In the day when it went down to hell, I caused mourning. I covered the deep because of it. I restrained its rivers, and the great waters were held back. I caused Lebanon to mourn for it, and all the trees of the field wilted because of it. I made the nations shake at the sound of its fall, when I cast it down to hell together with those who descend into the Pit; and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, were comforted in the depths of the earth. They also went down to hell with it, with those slain by the sword; and those who were its strong arm dwelt in its shadows among the nations. ‘To which of the trees in Eden will you then be likened in glory and greatness? Yet you shall be brought down with the trees of Eden to the depths of the earth; you shall lie in the midst of the uncircumcised, with those slain by the sword. This is Pharaoh and all his multitude,’ says the Lord God.”

Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 31 - New King James Version

Egypt Cut Down Like a Great Tree - Now it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the third month, on the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his multitude: ‘Whom are you like in your greatness? Indeed Assyria was a...

www.biblegateway.com

It would possibly account for both the Mars flooding and the asteroid belt, not to mention the comets and TNOs, but maybe not the moon cratering.

The moon is beaten to a pulp and molten on one side, but only has craters on one side.

I'll give you two guesses as to which side is more beat up.

Tracing the comets (more than 2 of them) back to a rendezvous point might distinguish one of these ideas over another.

I actually did a simulation a couple of years ago using Universe Sandbox (a "game" on Steam (a gaming platform for computers)).

I was trying to see if I could get it to show to any degree of accuracy what the HPT claims.

Using this as a guide:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - When Was the Flood, the Exodus, and Creation?

I took one of the default "models" of the solar system and simply reversed the flow of time in the program.

Long story short, the comet that I was tracking in the program was in earth's vicinity WELL WITHIN the 100 year margin of error (I believe it was only 3-4 years away from the target time) of 3290 B.C.

I may try to run it again, now that I have a bit more powerful computer to do it with, to see if I can find another few comets that fall within that timeframe and location.

Regardless, the fact that I was able to demonstrate even one of the comets being in Earth's vicinity within 100 years on either side of the estimated date should at least lend credence to the idea that comets originated from Earth, not elsewhere in the solar system.

My hunch specifically about gas mix, light filtering, and pressure via a canopy is just as rational as the explanations of HTP. And it fits the bible just as well having a positive mention of the structure while not having to explain away a passage like HTP does the windows of heaven.

There's no "explaining away" any passages by the HPT.

What does the Bible say:

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 7:11-12 - New King James Version

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

www.biblegateway.com

We have:

1) the fountains of the great deep broke froth
2) the windows of heaven were opened
3) it rained for forty days and forty nights.

ALL THREE have to do with water, and describe exactly what happened.

Fountains, windows (is also translated as floodgates or sluices), and rain.

That third one, though, is not just "oh, it's starting to rain, better get my umbrella as I walk down the street" kind of of rain.

The word used is "geshem," which describes a heavy, torrential rain.

An apt description of what happens if fountains that are ejecting water high into the atmosphere when the water comes back down, as though a floodgate was opened in the heavens.

You see, the windows of heaven don't need to be mentioned at all, but simply that it rained.

It does if there's so much rain as to be as if floodgates are opened in the sky.

Yes. Of course. That's also reasonable. That's why we need more evidence.

The evidence is literally right there in scripture.

Genesis 7:11-12 describes the entire process. Fountains of water broke forth from the earth, that were so powerful that the water that fell back to earth as rain was like sluices being opened in the heavens.

It's literally that simple.

You seem to be implying this means something against the idea of a canopy, but I don't see how.

Because it explains the use of "windows of heaven" without the need for a canopy.

In addition to that, if I remember correction, there are THREE words for canopy that could have been used to describe a canopy above the earth. None of them are used, however. Rather, we have a purely physical process described. Water goes up. water comes down as though floodgates were opened.

 

[Right Divider]

It's completely true BECAUSE it depends on the forces involved. The forces involved are gigantic, even for a relatively small object, like a man made rocket, to achieve a barely stable low Earth orbit.

An orbit requires the balance of all forces. A blast such as Dr. Brown describes has about a zero percent chance of putting anything in an orbit around the earth.

The Sun's gravity has nothing to do with it. The Sun's gravity is at play from the start as is Earth's gravity. Gravity isn't the issue that's mostly at play here, its velocity. An object in motion, stays in motion unless acted upon. The Earth is moving around the Sun and any object on the Earth is moving along with it. That velocity has to be canceled out or else the object will continue to move along with the Earth. That isn't my opinion, its the laws of physics. It would be true no matter how much gravity was involved from whatever body.

It's not about cancelling out velocity. It's about the balance of all forces. Please don't try to school me on the law of physics. I understand them well enough.

I'll boil it down.

The objects would not have been constantly accelerated as though launched from a rocket that has fuel to burn. They were projectiles and the force involved in moving them would dissipate very rapidly. It's the difference between firing a bullet from a gun with a long barrel and a lot of powder charge vs. setting off a naked round that you threw into a camp fire.

It's the difference between launching a rocket with a bunch of fuel to accelerate it away from the Earth vs. a rocket that explodes on the launch pad. Imagine how much more energy would be involved in sending even something as small as a typical communications satellite into orbit if, instead of using a properly functioning rocket, you simply set the satellite on the top of a big pile of explosives and blew it up. Now imagine if you weren't allowed to use chemical explosives but had to rely on compressed steam.

It seems that the bottom line is that Dr. Brown and I (along with many others) believe that there was sufficient force released by the blast and that you don't.

This is incorrect. It's steam. Steam is nothing other than water vapor. It is water in its gassious state. The temperature of the steam only adds to the pressure. The term "super critical" refers to LIQUID water that is at a temperature that would otherwise turn it to vapor if not for some other force preventing it from doing so. That force being one form or another of pressure. A super critical liquid turns instantly and explosively to vapor the moment the pressure is released.

Agreed, I believe, as does Dr. Brown, that this explosive force was sufficient to launch these materials into space where the laws of physics does the rest.

"Narrow" is a relative term but the point is well taken. At best it would have been like shooting these objects out of a very inefficient gun. The point is that once the object left this "barrel" of a gap in the crust, it would have had to have already achieved sufficient energy to not only overcome the friction of moving through Earth's atmosphere on its way to space but also enough to lose a large percentage of its velocity relative to the Sun that it had by virtue of being part of the Earth when it started its journey.

It was initially narrow, but grew over time. Some chunks lost momentum, and some gained. Again, the debris was ejected in all directions and varying speeds.

Just to give you an idea of the speeds involved. The fastest projectile that scientist have figured out how to shoot, accelerated a 1 gram projectile to 7.6 m/s (miles per second) or just over 27,000 mph and the forces involved basically obliterated the projectile. The Earth is moving at something close to 64,000 mph or 18.5 m/s (miles per second).

It seems that you are confusing speed with acceleration. The "obliterated projectile" would be due to the extreme acceleration and not the end speed.

Back in April of last year, Hubble found a comet that approximately is 500 trillion tons!

Does that seem like a lot? What is the mass of the earth?

Are you starting to see the problem?

No.

Well, the longer you stretch out the release of energy, the less plausible the idea becomes.

I'm going to agree with Dr. Brown that the energy released was massive and enough to "do the job".

Well, I suppose "focused" is a relative term. Regardless, what I said above addresses the issue. Watch a slow motion video of a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun and watch what the gasses behind the bullet do and then image the gun barrel being at least a few miles wide and tens of thousands of miles long and you'll start to see the point I'm making.

The seam in the earth was not initially "a few miles wide". That gap took much longer to happen.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's completely true BECAUSE it depends on the forces involved. The forces involved are gigantic, even for a relatively small object, like a man made rocket, to achieve a barely stable low Earth orbit.

. . .

The objects would not have been constantly accelerated as though launched from a rocket that has fuel to burn. They were projectiles and the force involved in moving them would dissipate very rapidly. It's the difference between firing a bullet from a gun with a long barrel and a lot of powder charge vs. setting off a naked round that you threw into a camp fire.

It's the difference between launching a rocket with a bunch of fuel to accelerate it away from the Earth vs. a rocket that explodes on the launch pad. Imagine how much more energy would be involved in sending even something as small as a typical communications satellite into orbit if, instead of using a properly functioning rocket, you simply set the satellite on the top of a big pile of explosives and blew it up. Now imagine if you weren't allowed to use chemical explosives but had to rely on compressed steam.



This is incorrect. It's steam. Steam is nothing other than water vapor. It is water in its gassious state. The temperature of the steam only adds to the pressure. The term "super critical" refers to LIQUID water that is at a temperature that would otherwise turn it to vapor if not for some other force preventing it from doing so. That force being one form or another of pressure. A super critical liquid turns instantly and explosively to vapor the moment the pressure is released.

One of my favorite pages in "In the Beginning" is this one, which describes exaclty what you say wasn't happening.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Rocket Science

"Narrow" is a relative term but the point is well taken. At best it would have been like shooting these objects out of a very inefficient gun. The point is that once the object left this "barrel" of a gap in the crust, it would have had to have already achieved sufficient energy to not only overcome the friction of moving through Earth's atmosphere on its way to space but also enough to lose a large percentage of its velocity relative to the Sun that it had by virtue of being part of the Earth when it started its journey.

Enough of the debris made it to the moon with enough force to partially melt the surface. It's not implausible to think that significantly more made it past.

Back in April of last year, Hubble found a comet that approximately is 500 trillion tons!

Yes, and Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt, has a mass of around 9.39 x 10²⁰ kg, many, many times the size of that comet.

So what's your point?

Are you starting to see the problem?

There were spikes in pressure due to the crust's "fluttering" as the supercritical water escaped the subterranean chamber.

Well, the longer you stretch out the release of energy, the less plausible the idea becomes.

Why?

Well, I suppose "focused" is a relative term.

"Directed" would probably be a better way to describe it.

The energy released was directed away from the earth.

Regardless, what I said above addresses the issue. Watch a slow motion video of a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun and watch what the gasses behind the bullet do and then image the gun barrel being at least a few miles wide and tens of thousands of miles long and you'll start to see the point I'm making.

The bullet keeps going though, for a lot longer than the gases do.

Quite so except that rockets aren't needed per se, just sufficient amounts of energy applied toward accelerating an object in the proper direction.

See the above link.

 

[Right Divider]

In this video, Dr. Brown describes the initial explosion as equivalent to 30 trillion hydrogen bombs.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
(Genesis 7:11-12)

@Yorzhik The "rain" in verse 12 is introduced by "the windows of heaven were opened" in verse 11. That's how the passage reads. It simply doesn't allow for a canopy of any sort.

 

[Clete]

An orbit requires the balance of all forces. A blast such as Dr. Brown describes has about a zero percent chance of putting anything in an orbit around the earth.

It's not about cancelling out velocity. It's about the balance of all forces. Please don't try to school me on the law of physics. I understand them well enough.

It seems that the bottom line is that Dr. Brown and I (along with many others) believe that there was sufficient force released by the blast and that you don't.

Agreed, I believe, as does Dr. Brown, that this explosive force was sufficient to launch these materials into space where the laws of physics does the rest.

It was initially narrow, but grew over time. Some chunks lost momentum, and some gained. Again, the debris was ejected in all directions and varying speeds.

It seems that you are confusing speed with acceleration. The "obliterated projectile" would be due to the extreme acceleration and not the end speed.

Does that seem like a lot? What is the mass of the earth?

No.

I'm going to agree with Dr. Brown that the energy released was massive and enough to "do the job".

The seam in the earth was not initially "a few miles wide". That gap took much longer to happen.

The seam had to have been at least of few miles wide to send chunks of Earth the size of comets into an elongated orbit around the Sun.

300 trillion tons was a hell of a lot in comparison to the 1 gram sized projectile that science has figured out how to accelerate to one third the speed of the Earth is going around the Sun.

Regardless of what you think you know about the laws of physics, the fact remains that any object that leaves the Earth and does not maintain an orbit similar to Earth's MUST overcome the momentum keeping that object on that course.

Lastly, yes, our disagreement is entirely about whether the forces required could have been produced by the release of high pressure, super critical water from under the crust of the Earth. It simply doesn't seem plausible to me at all.

 

[Right Divider]

The seam had to have been at least of few miles wide to send chunks of Earth the size of comets into an elongated orbit around the Sun.

Comets, asteroid and TNO's are not just one huge piece of earth. They are loosely held together flying rock piles. Often made up of highly rounded boulders, like might be produced in a stream of water.

300 trillion tons was a hell of a lot in comparison to the 1 gram sized projectile that science has figured out how to accelerate to one third the speed of the Earth is going around the Sun.

Not following.

Regardless of what you think you know about the laws of physics, the fact remains that any object that leaves the Earth and does not maintain an orbit similar to Earth's MUST overcome the momentum keeping that object on that course.

Yes, debris was launched in all directions at varying speeds.

Lastly, yes, our disagreement is entirely about whether the forces required could have been produced by the release of high pressure, super critical water from under the crust of the Earth. It simply doesn't seem plausible to me at all.

Is this the only issue that you have with the HPT?
Where did Dr. Brown go wrong with his estimation of the energy?

Also, if the comets, asteroid and TNO's did not originate from earth during this explosion, where did they come from?

 

[Clete]

Comets, asteroid and TNO's are not just one huge piece of earth. They are loosely held together flying rock piles. Often made up of highly rounded boulders, like might be produced in a stream of water.

Mass is mass. A certain mass of rock has the volume it has. A typical comet is something on the order of 10-12 miles across, some more some less.
On the scale of the planet Earth, even a gap as wide as twenty or thirty miles wide would tiny. Just how narrow are you think it was?

Not following.

The 300 trillion tons figure was supposed to be in comparison to the single gram of stuff that it took all the energy we could muster just to accelerate it to 1/3 the speed of the Earth and Dr. Brown is suggesting trillions of tons of material was accelerated at least that fast if not much faster.

Yes, debris was launched in all directions at varying speeds.

The point is that the speeds necessary are colossal beyond our ability to comprehend. Much faster than could plausibly be created by any amount of water pressure. That's an opinion, obviously. I cannot prove it but that isn't the point. It would be on Dr. Brown to prove that such energies could possibly be produced and that those energies could be applied to rock without vaporizing it.

Is this the only issue that you have with the HPT?

I think so. It's been a while since I read it through, but I can't think of anything else. The nice thing is that the theory itself is not dependent upon this particular aspect of it.

Where did Dr. Brown go wrong with his estimation of the energy?

I don't recall seeing any formal estimation of the energy. If I've forgotten something, please quote it for me.

Also, if the comets, asteroid and TNO's did not originate from earth during this explosion, where did they come from?

Same place that Mercury, Venus, Mars, Ceres, Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and all the rest of the solar system came from, as well as every other thing that exists in the universe that didn't come from Earth.

In fact, this is part of my objection to this aspect of Walt's theory, although I haven't stated it before now. Walt Brown's hypothesis concerning the origin of comets and asteroids is an answer looking for a question. Who ever suggested that the origin of comets and asteroids needs a special explanation in the first place? No one that I know of.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Mass is mass. A certain mass of rock has the volume it has. A typical comet is something on the order of 10-12 miles across, some more some less.
On the scale of the planet Earth, even a gap as wide as twenty or thirty miles wide would tiny. Just how narrow are you think it was?

Comets in particular, are not very dense. So their size is very deceiving.

The 300 trillion tons figure was supposed to be in comparison to the single gram of stuff that it took all the energy we could muster just to accelerate it to 1/3 the speed of the Earth and Dr. Brown is suggesting trillions of tons of material was accelerated at least that fast if not much faster.

30 trillion hydrogen bombs have an immense amount of energy released.
If each hydrogen bomb was only 10 megatons. That would be equal to 300 million trillion tons of TNT.

The point is that the speeds necessary are colossal beyond our ability to comprehend. Much faster than could plausibly be created by any amount of water pressure.

Again, this was not a simple release of "water pressure". There are many other factors including the release of many other types of energy, including ionization energy and nuclear forces as well.

That's an opinion, obviously. I cannot prove it but that isn't the point. It would be on Dr. Brown to prove that such energies could possibly be produced and that those energies could be applied to rock without vaporizing it.

My opinion is that Dr. Brown is correct.

Same place that Mercury, Venus, Mars, Ceres, Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and all the rest of the solar system came from, as well as every other thing that exists in the universe that didn't come from Earth.

You believe that God created Ceres along with the planets? It's entirely possible that Pluto is just the largest TNO.

In fact, this is part of my objection to this aspect of Walt's theory, although I haven't stated it before now. Walt Brown's hypothesis concerning the origin of comets and asteroids is an answer looking for a question.

Many discoveries support the fact that comets come from earth. Including their composition having so many things in common with the earth and things that are so different from the rest of the solar system.

Who ever suggested that the origin of comets and asteroids needs a special explanation in the first place? No one that I know of.

The "normal" explanation of the origin of comet uses a "special explanation". The Oort cloud is their explanation and it's pretty ridiculous.

 

[Yorzhik]

There's no "explaining away" any passages by the HPT.

What does the Bible say:

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 7:11-12 - New King James Version

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

www.biblegateway.com

We have:

1) the fountains of the great deep broke froth
2) the windows of heaven were opened
3) it rained for forty days and forty nights.

ALL THREE have to do with water, and describe exactly what happened.

Fountains, windows (is also translated as floodgates or sluices), and rain.

That third one, though, is not just "oh, it's starting to rain, better get my umbrella as I walk down the street" kind of of rain.

The word used is "geshem," which describes a heavy, torrential rain.

An apt description of what happens if fountains that are ejecting water high into the atmosphere when the water comes back down, as though a floodgate was opened in the heavens.

It does if there's so much rain as to be as if floodgates are opened in the sky.

But to just say there was torrential rain would have been very clear. Adding "the windows of heaven were opened" has to be a figure of speech. For us, and probably most other languages (polyglots please comment) and cultures, it probably means something like "it rained so hard as if floodgates from above were opened", but since it's a figure it has to be explained.

It could also mean that every time it rained, at least to Noah, that he wanted to differentiate rain from normal watering he was used to since he hadn't seen rain like this before. So he added a phrase to let people know this wasn't the usual water the way they normally got it, but a crazy new form that came from the heavens in such great amounts it was like floodgates were opened. But again, it has to be explained because today we would simply say it was a torrential rain and we wouldn't add 'and it came from up in the sky' like Noah might.

The point being that 'windows of heaven' has to be referring to something that has to be explained and a canopy is just as much a something as the event of water returning to earth as torrential rain.

Now if you want to say the better translation would be 'sluices' or 'floodgates', then that supports the idea of a canopy more than the idea that rain just fell back down to the earth because a canopy is a thing like a floodgate or sluice while rain falling back down is an event.

The evidence is literally right there in scripture.

Genesis 7:11-12 describes the entire process. Fountains of water broke forth from the earth, that were so powerful that the water that fell back to earth as rain was like sluices being opened in the heavens.

It's literally that simple.

Yes, the evidence is literally right there in scripture.

The 'windows of heaven' is referring to a canopy.

It's literally that simple.

Because it explains the use of "windows of heaven" without the need for a canopy.

"the rains stopped long before the water receded" explains what was happening with a canopy just as well.

In addition to that, if I remember correction, there are THREE words for canopy that could have been used to describe a canopy above the earth. None of them are used, however. Rather, we have a purely physical process described. Water goes up. water comes down as though floodgates were opened.

We call it a canopy today, but the person that designed it just called it the atmosphere.