Pre-flood physics?

Mr. Whatever asked:"Whatever, Yep, it does sound absurd,
this is why I'm interested if they
have profile dated the entire basalt
ocean floor, if all dates the same
age, not getting progressively older,
then the lava outpouredActually, this was done for transects across different ocean basins during the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) with ocean floor cores collected by the Glomar Challenger. Dating of the samples of ocean floor recovered show that, not only are the sample of the ocean floor of greatly different age, but become systematically older in age away from mid-oceanic ridges. Basic information about past and on-going deep sea research programs can be found at;Geography
http://www.gso.uri.edu/...k_Issues/97Summer/Text/story4.htmlThere is a lot of data about the sea floor, which Walt Brown completely ignores and deliberately refuses to incorporate into his ideas.Also, the age of the Hawaiian islands show that the ocean crust is not the same age everywhere. Go look through "Rates of Plate Movement During the Phanerozoic" at:http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/plate2.htm"What do the Hawaiian Islands/Emporer
Seamounts tell us about the motion of
the Pacific plate during the time in
which they formed? In the graph below
(from Clague and Dalrymple, 1987),
radiometric ages of the Hawaii
islands/Emporer Seamounts are plotted
against distance from the Hawaiian
hotspot. There is a very clear
correlation between these two variables.
In this case, the relationship between
age and distance indicates an average
rate of about 8.0 cm/yr northwest
displacement of the Pacific plate."The figure can be seen at:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/volc_age.gifAlso,"The Formation of the Hawaiian Islands" at:
Hawaii Center for Volcanology | Formation of the Hawaiian IslandsSome other related pages are:1. Sea-floor Spreading and the Age of the Earth
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/CT.htm2. THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS
THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS3. Getting the Drift, by Michael Creech (the Skeptic, Vol 14:4 p.22) at:
Account SuspendedYours,Bill Birkeland[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 12-23-2003]

{Much of page 4 of this topic was copy/pasted in this space. Many messages, including the headings and footings messages. This stuff has been edited out by me. - Adminnemooseus}Coragyps, I read genesis different, kjv genesis 1:3-4 God said basically let there be light and God saw the light , that it was good this happened on day one. The sun was a light on day 3 for the herbs to grow, this was before day 4, I see day 4 more for the days, months, seasons, the zodiac stars, etc...this means he maximized the star light of the zodiac for lights in the night sky for all the creatures he created on day 5 and day 6. God said he set them lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth kjv genesis 1:17. how does one make a light to shine in the sky, you set the orbit around the sun at a certain distance, to set the stars in the sky God maximizing starlight in the heavens to the orbital plane the earth orbits the sun, the moon is a precise distance to be set in the firmament of the night sky.
P.S. The bible says on day 4 he set them in the day and night sky, if the earth is a precise distance from the sun, and the moon a precise distance from the earth, interestinly when they eclipse, it seems to be an proportional distance to the size in the firmament (sky), the zodiac stars were maximized for light in the night sky, the way I see day 4, was that God moved all the planets orbital planes in relation to the zodiac, and moved the moon and the sun at the same proportional distances, so they are approximately the same size in the sky, this how he made the two great lights, he moved them into position, etc...I don't buy that the sun and the stars were created on day 4, but he did set them in the sky on day 4.Bill Birkeland,Thank-you for the sites, think they only dated the sediments, not the solid basalt lava ocean floor, I'll have to call someone in the know, if they actually dated the ocean basalt floor, I already knew they had tested the basalt around the islands, I'm never sure when they talk about dating sediment cores(sounds too much like dating fossils by the sediments that buried them), as this is not dating something that is consistent across the oceans floor, this is why the basalt needs to be solid, a part of the oceans floor.
P.S. Perhaps your sites has this information, though think a phone call to one of those different sites that you all have provided, will prove or disprove, if the basalt ocean floor, below the sediment layer, has been profile dated via argon potassium dating, etc...I only had time to scan your sites, think a phone call after Christmas, is probably the route I take, thanks for the sites, phone numbers, etc...[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-23-2003]

whateverI am puzzled by this sentence. Are you stating that the earth or the sun was formed as a molten ball of fire?------------------
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
R.P. Feynman

And how, exactly, could the sediments on top of the basalt be older than the basalt itself? Do, please, let us know what you find out.

sidelined, No, I feel that the sun, the planets were formed by God causing all the particles to come together, the bible says the stars were created by the fingers of God kjv psalm 8:3, the moon rocks that were dated does suggest the sun has been around too, for possibly 4.6 billion of years, but to say its been a star for 4.6 billion years is just an assumption, if it was a star for 4.6 billion years, the sun would have thickened up in the core, as light is given off, 4.6 billion years is a mighty long period of time, and the core harmonics suggests the sun is young, not old.Coragyps, I hate to admit it, but think your right, about all the lava outpouring coming from the biblical flood, the bible itself supports your contention, kjv Revelation 16:17-20. It says basically when the seventh angel pours out his vial upon the earth there will be an earthquake so great, such as was not since man was upon the earth, and every island fled away, and the mountains was not found. I feel this is where the basalt outflowed over the oceans floor, before man was upon the earth, not that there was not a whole lot of volcanic activity, in the biblical flood, it would appear Walt theory still makes sense, in that the plates moved laterally hydraulically (on a layer of water/steam, etc...), still suspecting he is right about the granite layer under the basalt outpouring, but wrong that it was the biblical flood that accounted for the basalt covering the oceans floor, etc...
P.S. Feel that basalt that melted sediments within the basalts would contaminate the dating, by adding argon making the sediments appear older, however, basalt that hardened under the sediments should be more consistent, even though the seawater probably prevents the argon gas to escape before the lava hardens, making the basalt to appear older, but should still give a good profile date, if the techtonic plates are spreading, or not, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 12-24-2003]

"thickened"? Could you tell us where you got this idea? Could you describe the physics of a thick sun? Is it like a pudding?Please give a source for your core harmonics comment. Since you have already demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about I presume you are taking this from someone who you think does know.

whateverAre you an expert on the mechanics of nuclear fusion that powers the sun? If so, could you explain what you mean by core harmonics? If not,then what is all this posturing with things you have no expetise in?------------------
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
R.P. Feynman

NosyNed, Thought it was from answers in genesis, it was an article of the study done by Russian Scientists about the core harmonics of the sun being that of a young star, its like the sun is young because it shows that its an homogeneous star(hasn't thickened, meaning that its these fluctuations allows hydrogen to be drawn from its core, as a star gets old, gravity compresses the core, as the light particles that resists the gravity, are released, the core of the star then starts to thickens, as the star ages.
P.S. I might have this article on another computer, however, think the article came through, answers in genesis, even so, if I find the link, I'll post the link for you, It appears that this study is a bit outdated, neutrinoes have since been discovered, meaning not all the suns energy comes from hydrogen fusing into helium, but even so, the sun's an homogeneous star, thus it supports that the bibles contention that it is a young star, if the study of the Russian scientists, would of showed core harmonics were deeper then it would of indicated the sun was an old star. Think what baffling scientists is not enough neutrinoes being found in coal mines, to support all the suns energy comes from these nuclear reactions, so were back to square one, hydrogen converting to helium, etc...perhaps as the sun ages, more neutrinoes will be formed, as the core thickens, etc...sidelined, No, If I find that link about the Russian Scientists, perhaps that will explain it all more clearly, because of the closeness to the sun, the scientists are able to study a lot of other harmonic occilations from the sun, but the deeper base harmonics, they are studying of quasars, pulsars, some other stars, etc... are much deeper than our sun, and believed to be much older. Perhaps, an analogy, like my neighbors stereo, when their daughter turns the music up, the base speaker will pound from their house into my home, all I hear is the base, not the higher frequencies, like the other stars, they are unable to measure the higher harmonic vibrations of the stars, the only reason they are able to study the higher freqencies of our sun, is its closeness to the earth, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 12-25-2003]

But that isn't baffling anybody, as the reason for the low detection of neutrinos was settled about three years ago: they change "flavors" in the eight minutes they take to get from the Sun to here. Even the boys at Answers in Genesis have conceded that now - look up "neutrino" on their website.
The Russian study you keep referring to - if it's the one from the 1970's or so that I'll bet it is - has been shown to be in error by many more recent work. I'm sure Eta has a reference or two, or I'll go Googling after I eat some of this turkey.

1) The neutrino problem has been solved. There are enough neutrinos being produced as predicted by theory.2) The 160 MINUTE OSCILLATION was a FALSE detection.For one thing a homogeneous Sun would have a 167 minute period.Also 160 minutes is the 9th harmonic of 24 hours. Leading to possible false results from variations in the Earth's atmosphere.Another result is that the group in the Crimea pushing that result noticed the result go away for a decade or so. So they hypothesised that their result was linked to the 22 year solar cycle.BUT they never hinted this was related to a young Sun. In fact they argued that the result was indicative of a l=3 g-mode oscillation which implied the solar core was rapidly rotating.NOTE THAT if the Sun was homogeneous as you suggest the result (if TRUE) would not go away.The current modern data and theoretical calculations show that this 160 minute period is NOT of solar origin. It is also seen (at times) in other objects and is thus likely to be an artifact. And for many years this period has not been observed.It is not observed in the most sensitive data from the SOHO project.I guess you got this erroneous info from a web page by some guy called Keith DaviesPage not found - https://creationdiscovery.org/A typical creationist ill-researched or downright fraudulent source.If you want to find out more why not search on the name Christensen-Dalsgaard. He is referenced from way back in 1976 on that page, and taken out of context.He is very active to this day in this field AND if you follow his work history onNASA/ADSyou shall see what the current work involves AND WHY THE IRRESPONSIBLE MISQUOTING AND USING 30 YEAR OLD DATA AND RESULTS IS WRONG.Of course that doesn't stop people like Keith Davies.

Wow, Eta! No more had your name left my keyboard.....!

Eta_Carinae, That's the link,Thanks

Uh, Thanks? Do you have any more comment than that?

NosyNed, It does appear that Answers in Genesis agrees with the neutrino changing flavors, that nulceur fussion is what powers the sun, but this particular article, Coragyps referred to, also said that this can not be used to indicate a young or an old star, not sure about these deeper occilations, if its related to the density of the core, but appears the deeper occilations are related to whats happening within the sun, whatever, the bottom line, the sun could still be a very young star.

No it could not be very young.Why do I get the feeling that 'whatever' could lead me down the path of frustration that 'buzsaw' did.