This is your evidence?
Do you know how many different definitions of "a month" have existed in history?
The point is that the reason so many different calendars exist is because of the fact that men were used to a 360 day year, and because of the changes to the solar system as a result of the Flood, they now had to try to find a reliable way of counting days in the year.
360 is easily divisible by the integers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, and 180 (and 1 and 360 obviously).
365.24... Is not.
Three of Jupiter's primary moons have an interesting orbital pattern. 1 orbits once, while the next orbits twice, while the third orbits four times, like clockwork, in NEARLY PERFECTLY CIRCULAR ORBITS.
I find it hard to imagine that God created the Earth, the center of His attention, with an orbit that isn't so perfectly divisible, and then calling it "very good," when He set in motion so precisely other objects that are NOT Earth. But I'm certainly open to being corrected...
Just one of many examples is the Hebrew calendar which is lunisolar, meaning it uses lunar months but aligns them with the solar year by adding an extra month (Adar II) in a leap year. The months are 29 or 30 days long.
Other kinds of "month".....
1. Lunar Month
- Synodic Month: The time it takes for the Moon to complete one full cycle of phases (from new moon to new moon), which is about 29.53 days. This is the basis for the months in many ancient calendars, including the Islamic calendar, which is purely lunar.
- Sidereal Month: The time it takes for the Moon to orbit the Earth relative to the fixed stars, approximately 27.32 days.
- Tropical Month: The time it takes for the Moon to return to the same position relative to the celestial equator, around 27.32 days.
- Anomalistic Month: The time it takes for the Moon to return to the same point in its elliptical orbit around the Earth, about 27.55 days.
- Draconic Month: The time between successive crossings of the Moon through the same node of its orbit (where it crosses the ecliptic plane), roughly 27.21 days.
2. Solar Month
- Gregorian Month: The months used in the Gregorian calendar, which range from 28 to 31 days. These months are based on the Earth's orbit around the Sun and are designed to align with the solar year.
- Julian Month: Similar to the Gregorian months but used in the Julian calendar, which was in use before the Gregorian reform.
- Ancient Egyptian Month: The Egyptians used a calendar with 12 months of 30 days each, plus an additional 5 days added at the end of the year to make 365 days.
3. Lunisolar Month
- Hebrew Month: The Hebrew calendar is lunisolar, meaning it uses lunar months but aligns them with the solar year by adding an extra month (Adar II) in a leap year. The months are 29 or 30 days long.
- Chinese Month: The Chinese calendar is also lunisolar, with months that are either 29 or 30 days long. A leap month is added approximately every three years to align the lunar months with the solar year.
- Babylonian Month: The Babylonians used a lunisolar calendar with 12 months of 29 or 30 days, adding a 13th month periodically to keep the calendar in sync with the solar year.
4. Cultural and Historical Variations
- Mayan Month: The Mayans used a calendar with 18 months of 20 days each, followed by a 19th month with 5 days, totaling 365 days.
- Inca Month: The Inca calendar had 12 months of varying lengths, based on agricultural cycles and lunar observations.
- Ancient Roman Month: Before the Julian reform, the Roman calendar had months of irregular lengths, and the year was sometimes manipulated for political purposes.
NONE of which require the existence of exactly 360 day year, which there is basically no scientific or historical evidence for.
Incorrect. There is plenty of evidence that the world used to use a 360-day calendar.
kgov.com
No, that isn't what I'm saying. It doesn't have to be one object. It could be one object or it could be millions of smaller objects. Regardless, the total mass is the same
The problem is that you're totaling the energy as a result, then trying to apply the Total amount of energy to one object.
and it would had to have all gone up at pretty much precisely the same time or else it could never have coalesced into a comet or asteroid.
40 days is roughly the same time, in the grand scheme of things...
If one part left the Earth even 3 seconds after some other part, those parts would end up at least 60 miles apart which would have put them well outside each others gravity wells.
I would argue that the majority of the debris was launched well within 3 seconds of each other, over the course of 40 days.
Once they leave the "barrel" of the earth's crust, they still have to go another roughly 60 miles before clearing the atmosphere completely, during which time they were still likely being accelerated by the expanding fountains (expansion due to the pressure drop).
Like so:
So, perhaps 6.6 seconds to fully accelerate out of earth's atmosphere from the very bottom of the crust?
Once they've achieved escape velocity, two objects that are only a few miles apart at worst (since, I would argue that the debris from the walls of the cracks in the crust would have been eroded away at a nearly constant rate), traveling in basically the same direction, are much more likely to come back together and stay together, coalescing into the "floating rock piles" we see today.
If we're talking weeks or months apart, then we're talking parts of what are supposed to coalesce into a comet being many thousands, if not millions of miles from one another.
No one is saying that debris that was that far apart coalesced into anything.
This is why I said to do the math (which you didn't do, by the way) for an object with a mass of 2000 kg, instead of one with a mass of 330,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg.
You keep just increasing the complexity and, in so doing, you make the problem worse for the theory, not better. You are literally suggesting that this material was sent up as though shot from a garden sprinkler head rather than a gun barrel.
Given the scale of the event, yes, it would be more akin to a garden sprinkler than a gun.
The energy in a bullet is used up relatively quickly. A sprinkler outputs energy much more slowly, yet it can eventually expend the same amount of energy as the bullet, no?
The "rail gun" analogy I used earlier was only to show you that the debris was not just suddenly wrenched away from the surface of the earth, instantaneously made to break escape velocity.
Something I failed to mention is that, while I agree that the initial gush of water when the earth cracked might have vaporized the material along the walls, as the crack widened, the fluid along the boundaries likely would have slowed due to friction (still enough to rapidly erode away the walls, and to cause broken-off chunks to fall into the stream of water flowing up from the depths of the earth), while the flow closer to the middle of the gap would be flowing much faster due to a lack of any significant amount of friction.
So even then, the acceleration of any debris wouldn't be "instantaneous," and while smaller chunks would have been vaporized, larger chunks would likely have only had portions of their mass vaporized, at least until the object itself had had time to be accelerated to escape velocities.
Again, this is why I asked for you to do the math for a much smaller object.
The total mass ejected would have been the same and so the total energy would have been the same and it doesn't work to spread it out over weeks or months
Which is exactly what I said you were doing.
You're trying to apply all of that energy at once, rather than spreading it out over the course of 40 days.
How much energy does it take to launch one object that is 2000 kg, or heck, 20,000 kg, to escape velocity, over a distance of 60 miles?
Oh, and don't forget that the object, along with the supercritical fluid it's being launched with, is starting from being motionless.
because then the constituent parts of what's supposed to become a comet would be literally many many thousands of miles apart with no mechanism whatsoever to ever bring them back together again to make the comet.
No, they wouldn't. Not the majority of them, at least.
For bodies to coalesce in space (presuming for the sake of argument that they can do so at all) they do have to be in close proximity with each other.
They also have to be going in roughly the same direction.
Which according to the HPT, was not only likely, but practically guaranteed.
Not only that but it has to be a very large cloud of rock and dust, the vast majority of which does not end up being part of the coalesced body but ends up getting ejected out of the system because of a collision here and there and/or because a particular piece that was being gravitationally attracted to the larger body simply missed and was flung off in some random direction.
Again, not when they're going roughly the same direction.
If they were going two different directions, to begin with, then that's a problem, obviously.
But when their relative velocity is less than the other object's escape velocity, then they will eventually coalesce into a pile. It might take a while, but if there isn't enough energy to force them apart, then it's guaranteed that they will.
And let's not forget the other possibility, that some of the objects end orbiting each other. And, yes, there was a comet recently discovered that is a binary comet/asteroid. (288P)
And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that water cannot exist as a liquid in space - period. It exists either as a solid or, if the Sun hits it just right, it will sublimate into a gas but the pressures in space are too low for it to ever be a liquid and so how are these collections of rock and dust ever supposed to get cemented together with water ice? (Comets definitely are NOT collections of loosely bound boulders and dust that are cemented together with water ice.)
I'm not beholden to the idea that comets are just "dirty snowballs," more like they're rock piles with more water-ice content in them.
But to deny the existence of water ice in comets and asteroids is a step too far.
In short, if the theory is that it was a huge number of car sized objects,
Car sized or larger or smaller. The point was to shift your perspective away from trying to launch one giant object with the total amount of energy, to launching millions of smaller objects with the total amount of energy expended divided up mostly evenly between them.
ejected over a long period of time then there's a whole new set of problems. Such a solution creates far more problems that it solves, not the least of which is the fact that it would have created a spherical shell of debris around the Earth,
How?
long before it ever created a nice ring of stuff around the Sun; a shell of debris that would have rained back down onto the Earth over decades, if not centuries of time.
Well we know that there were a few that fell centuries afterwards.
Sodom and Gomorrah, being one of them.
Every night would have been lit up like the fourth of July with the most astounding fireworks show you can imagine. Tens of thousands of meteors an hour burning up in the atmosphere, all day and all night for years and years and years.
Why do you assume tens of thousands of objects per hour? Achieving a stable enough orbit that lasts for decades is relatively difficult to do. Even the ISS is constantly having to adjust it's trajectory because it's fighting a miniscule amount of resistance from the extremely thin atmosphere at that altitude.
I'd argue that most of the debris around the earth, had there been any significant amount in a "shell" around it, would have burned up or fallen to earth or would have been fully ejected within a relatively short period of time after the flood.
Also, impacts on the Moon would have been practically continuous as well
I mean, there are still things that impact the moon today, no?
and easily visible from the Earth.
I doubt it... I think here you're underestimating just how big the moon is, compared to the size of the "straggler" debris launched...
I sort of feel like we'd have found someone who mentioned that sort of stuff being witnessed in history at some point, don't you?
Begging the question that such phenomena would be not only visible, but that there would have been someone paying close enough attention to the moon.
Oh, and lets not forget that "written history" wasn't a thing until long after the flood.
As I write this, more and more things come to mind! For example, there would have been great collections of material find their way to the five different Earth-Sun Lagrange points, where they would have remained to this day. So far as we know there are two and only two Earth Trojans (i.e. asteroids that orbit a Earth Sun Lagrange point), not the thousands that there would be if this portion of Dr. Brown's theory were correct.
I'm not aware of any prediction by the HPT that suggests that there would be thousands of objects within Earth's Lagrange points...
And that doesn't touch the Earth-Moon Lagrange points
Luna L4 and L5 points have the Kordylewski clouds.
or any other Lagrange points throughout the solar system, most of which are empty. The major exceptions being Jupiter's L4 and L5 Lagrange points which do have many thousands of natural objects in them.
The vast majority of objects in the solar system are in orbit around the sun in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, followed by the random direction orbits (including TNOs), and arguably the next largest amount from those two are within Jupiter's L4 and L5 points, which contains the Jupiter Trojan asteroid
I think you need to do a bit more research on this:
en.wikipedia.org
Dr. Brown, it seems to me, would have a hard time explaining how many tens of thousands of times as much debris from Earth would have ended up in Jupiter's Lagrange points vs. what ended up in Earth's.
Why? When you add energy to an object's orbit, it will get further away from what it's orbiting, generally speaking, unless the energy is directed to slow the orbiting object. This is why the vast majority of asteroids, comets, TNOs, etc, are further out from the sun than the Earth than they are closer, let alone having had their orbits reversed.
Seems to me that the reason there's way more material in the Jupiter L-points than there is in Earth's is because of that.
P.S. Let me just say that I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the premise of the objection that I've been making. I feel like we've been mostly talking past one another, so this seems like excellent progress.
It's my favorite topic, I want to have the best arguments for it!
