Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 2:05 AM
382 online now:
Davidjay, Dr Adequate, NoNukes, Tangle (4 members, 378 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,290 Year: 9,896/21,208 Month: 2,983/2,674 Week: 407/961 Day: 23/114 Hour: 1/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Origin of Asteroids
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 1 of 35 (266081)
12-06-2005 1:24 PM


I'd never heard of this "theory." Sounds very wrong to me, but then astrophysics is not my specialty.

Anyone care to take it on?

Here's the excerpt which inspired me, from In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
(7th Edition) by Dr. Walt Brown.:

quote:
The Origin of Asteroids and Meteoroids
SUMMARY: The “fountains of the great deep” launched rocks as well as muddy water. As rocks moved farther from Earth, Earth’s gravity became less significant to them, and the gravity of nearby rocks became increasingly significant. Consequently, many rocks, assisted by their mutual gravity and surrounding clouds of water vapor, merged to become asteroids. Isolated rocks in space are meteoroids. Drag forces caused by water vapor and thrust forces produced by the radiometer effect concentrated asteroids in what is now the asteroid belt. The so-called mavericks of the solar system (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the same event.

And here's the link: http://www.creationscience.com/Asteroids2.html#wp1020216

A few Questions:
Q. Can water be used as a medium to propel rocks into space?
Q. Can the "radiometer effect" guide asteroids into stable orbit?
Q. Does Quartz melt at 1300 degrees Fahrenheit?
Q. Is a mechanical engineer qualified to discuss Astrophysics?

My Answers: No, No, No, and No. But, as I say, this is not my field of expertise.

db


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2005 2:36 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 12-06-2005 2:37 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-06-2005 3:23 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 12 by Matt P, posted 12-06-2005 4:43 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 14 by Lammy, posted 12-06-2005 10:00 PM doctrbill has responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 35 (266101)
12-06-2005 2:00 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 35 (266105)
12-06-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
12-06-2005 1:24 PM


I believe that I pretty much demolished this theory, and the YEC timeline of the age of the Earth, about 2 years ago, in New Nature Article - Spin Control for Asteriods:

quote:
There's a new article in Nature about the rotation of asteriods that I believe falsifies a YEC origin for the solar system.

I don't have access to the full article, and all I know I either read from the abstract or heard from the discussion of the article on NPR today. Basically astronomers have found that the asteroids that make up the asterioid belt do not tumble and rotate randomly, as was thought before. Instead, many of the asteriods rotate in sync or in harmony.

The explanation for this is believed to be eons of exposure to sunlight, which, over much time, gives the asteriods a "push" that sets them rotating in similar ways. As the solar radiation falling on asteriods so far from the sun is so very slight, it must have taken millions of years to set the asteriods spinning the way that they are.

This falsifies a young creation for the solar system because 6000 years isn't nearly enough time for sunlight to have that effect. In a young solar system the asteriods' rotation would be totally random as a result of occasional, unpredictable collisions.

Or that's what I got from the radio. (The relevance to the EvC issue is my own reasoning.) Perhaps somebody with access to the online version of the Nature article (Planetary Science: Spin Control for Asteriods by Richard P. Binzel) - somebody who doesn't have to pay $18.00 to see it, anyway - could post an excerpt and correct the mistakes I've likely made.

(I suppose God could have set the asteriods spinning that way to "test our faith", but that's a non-answer, really. God could do anything he wants under that reasoning, including giving us false memories. But a Chrisitan God of Truth wouldn't lie to us to test our faith, so it's not even a Biblical answer.)


Couldn't find a creationist to challenge my point. I guess I'd like to see how a violent upsurge of water could both knock almost an entire planet's-worth of stone into orbit (and leave a habitable world behind) while at the same time synchronizing their rotational periods. I doubt that your mechanical engineer has the answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 12-06-2005 1:24 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by doctrbill, posted 12-06-2005 3:27 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5515
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 4 of 35 (266106)
12-06-2005 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
12-06-2005 1:24 PM


Q. Can water be used as a medium to propel rocks into space?

That sounds implausible to me.

Q. Can the "radiometer effect" guide asteroids into stable orbit?

The asteroid would have to already be in a stable orbit. The effects of radiation pressure are small, and would have to act over a very long time. Unless the asteroid were already in a somewhat stable orbit, it would not remain close enough to the source of radiation for there to be much effect.

Q. Does Quartz melt at 1300 degrees Fahrenheit?

A google search gave me something closer to 1600 Celsius.

Q. Is a mechanical engineer qualified to discuss Astrophysics

Not automatically. But there is no reason an engineer could not make a hobby of astrophysics.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 12-06-2005 1:24 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by doctrbill, posted 12-06-2005 3:35 PM nwr has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3487
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 5 of 35 (266118)
12-06-2005 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
12-06-2005 1:24 PM


Melting point of Quartz
Q. Does Quartz melt at 1300 degrees Fahrenheit?

SiO2 has many different crystal structures, which are stable or metastable at various ranges of temperatures and pressures.

Per An Introduction to the Rock Forming Minerals by Deer, Howie, & Zussman, the ultimate melting point of SiO2 is 1730o Celsius, which (if I did the conversions correctly) equals 3115o Fahrenheit.

Now, I believe the above is for pure SiO2. The presence of water effects the crystallization temperatures. Offhand, I think this is getting into a hybrid area that also involves solution effects.

1300o Fahrenheit equals 690o Celsius. Offhand, this seems to be in the ballpark of the temperature that the last Quartz will crystallize out, when in a cooling high water environment. Once again, this is more a matter of crystallizing out of an water solution, rather that crystallizing out of a melt.

Or something like that.

Moose

Edited to repair coding, which I lost when I did a non-raw text copy and paste.

This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-06-2005 03:32 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 12-06-2005 1:24 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by doctrbill, posted 12-06-2005 3:40 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 9 by doctrbill, posted 12-06-2005 3:53 PM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 24 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-21-2005 3:42 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 6 of 35 (266120)
12-06-2005 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
12-06-2005 2:36 PM


Thanks Crash.

That's an interesting bit of astro-trivia I'd never heard about but am happy to know.

I'm sure MY mechanical engineer doesn't have the answer! One might say his theory is "all wet." :D


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2005 2:36 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 7 of 35 (266122)
12-06-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
12-06-2005 2:37 PM


Thanks for the prompt reply.

I agree with your responses, of course, even the last one; to which I must say: My field is Life Science, my degree is Biology, but I'm a dangerously atheistic Bible Thumper. :D


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 12-06-2005 2:37 PM nwr has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 8 of 35 (266123)
12-06-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
12-06-2005 3:23 PM


Re: Melting point of Quartz
Guess I'm going to have to review the article now to see if our guy may have been referring to just that. But I don't believe he was. I got the distinct impression that he was talking about the temperature of fusion. I used to play with quartz powder, fusing it into globules for use in homemade jewelry so when I saw that temp. for the melting point of quartz I figured our guy for a crackpot.

Later then.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-06-2005 3:23 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 9 of 35 (266125)
12-06-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
12-06-2005 3:23 PM


Re: Melting point of Quartz
It would appear that I was correct. Here it is, copied and pasted:
quote:
As explained in Figure 132, temperatures eventually reached 1,300°F., sufficient to melt quartz and allow iron and nickel to settle downward and become concentrated in the pillar tips. (Quartz, the first major mineral in granite to melt, would dissolve or drip into the subterranean water.) A similar gravitational settling process concentrated iron and nickel in the Earth’s core. [See “Melting the Inner Earth” on page 357.]


And this somehow happened under water?

There is a page which supposedly explains how this happened. I'm not following the text very well, but the graphic is adequately revealing. How did he get these pictures, I wonder.

http://www.creationscience.com/FAQ217.html#wp1620018

db


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-06-2005 3:23 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-06-2005 4:21 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3487
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 10 of 35 (266131)
12-06-2005 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by doctrbill
12-06-2005 3:53 PM


Re: Melting point of Quartz
The lowest temperature Quartz crystallization scenario is how pegmatites are formed. These are the VERY coarse grained rocks that might be found as the final phase of a granite bodies formation. I don't know if there are any examples of the reverse process having happened.

Obviously, the final pegmatite crystallization is happening at something greater than standard atmospheric pressures, as the boiling point of water is at or above that c. 700o Celcius temperature.

In all, Walt Brown seems to be, at best, working in the realm of dubious quality science fiction.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by doctrbill, posted 12-06-2005 3:53 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 11 of 35 (266132)
12-06-2005 4:22 PM


Good ol' Walt!

My favorite parts of his "theory" are:
1) Asteroids would of necessity have chemical and isotopic compositions like Earth's crust - and they don't.
2) Asteroids launched from the cannon of the midocean ridges would all be on earth-intersecting orbits - all of them don't seem likely to have gotton promoted to new orbits on the first time around. Noah would have needed to dodge a lot.
3) Launched by superheated steam.....how did that cool before falling back to earth, again? Radiation into a vacuum, with no heat directed arkwards?


    
Matt P
Member (Idle past 2156 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 12 of 35 (266135)
12-06-2005 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
12-06-2005 1:24 PM


Quartz & Other minerals
It's true that asteroids are pretty much void of quartz, and Brown handwaves this away by saying it melted away, but he apparently doesn't know much about asteroids/meteorites. Meteorites have a lot of volatile minerals, including things like clays, iron sulfide, and magnetite. These minerals all vaporize/change at temperatures much lower than 1300 F. Why aren't they all gone as well?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 12-06-2005 1:24 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by doctrbill, posted 12-06-2005 9:31 PM Matt P has responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 13 of 35 (266218)
12-06-2005 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Matt P
12-06-2005 4:43 PM


Re: Quartz & Other minerals
I have as yet been unable to find any data online regarding the physical specifications of the materials you mention. Could you direct me to a source of such (preferably online)?


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Matt P, posted 12-06-2005 4:43 PM Matt P has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Matt P, posted 12-07-2005 10:33 AM doctrbill has responded

  
Lammy
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 3575
From: Chicago Suburbs
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 14 of 35 (266230)
12-06-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
12-06-2005 1:24 PM


Are you sure the website isn't a spoof?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 12-06-2005 1:24 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by doctrbill, posted 12-06-2005 11:14 PM Lammy has responded
 Message 17 by MangyTiger, posted 12-07-2005 12:40 AM Lammy has responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 15 of 35 (266248)
12-06-2005 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Lammy
12-06-2005 10:00 PM


Do you think it's a spoof?


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Lammy, posted 12-06-2005 10:00 PM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Lammy, posted 12-07-2005 12:28 AM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017