Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years

No meteorite in historic times has left a crater 10's to 100's of kilometers wide and yet there are many such found on earth.

quote:

---

3) SHIPS AT SEA DO NOT NORMALLY EVEN NOTICE A PASSING TSUNAMI. This is the most important information to answer those who claimed the effects would be devastating to Noah's ark. The ark was a huge ship by the way. 450' x 75' x 45' with three stories.

---

We are talking about a very different kind of wave here. Did you look at what I posted above. An asteroid 10 km in diameter hitting the ocean would create a transient hole in the ocean about 70 mile in diameter all the way to the now molten ocean floor. That is going to make waves thousands of feet high, not a ripple hardly noticed by passing ships. Then there is the blast. An asteroid the size of the one that created the Vredefort impact in South Africa would create a blast wind of 200 mph 3,000 miles from the impact site. Then there is ejecta. Hot ash would rain down over wide areas around the impact site. Then there is the heat released from the kinetic energy in all these impacts which I calculated in post 85. All of these objects raining down on earth during the "flood year" would release 10 times more energy than that required to heat the atmosphere to 200 degrees F. We are not talking about a "normal" tsunami here as I pointed out above.Now consider if you dare what must have happened to earth when the moon and the rest of the inner solar system were being bombarded during the lunar bombardment I have mentioned before.

quote:

---

The Arizona University researchers said at least 17,000 impacts would have occurred on earth at the time of the moon bombardment. "The largest of these probably produced an immense amount of ejecta, temporarily changed the atmosphere and boiled away large quantities of surface water." It coincides with the earliest evidence of life on earth.

---

(bold added)What see remaining on earth are the scars from a tiny fraction of the impacts that must have occured during the history of the planet as analysis of the moon makes clear.There was simply no way for complex life on earth to have survived the asteroid storm that created the lunar bombardment even if it was spread over a few million years, let alone crammed into either preflood times or the "flood year" in the YEC model.Randy

I have to agree that a tsunami is not always going to be dangerous, even only a bit of a distance away (that is 100's of miles).However, these tsunamis are, as Faith notes, unobserved. They are of an entirly different class than the ones we have observed.Faith even suggests that there would not necessarily be a tsunami. This is utterly ridiculous! If you punch a hole in an ocean on the order of kms wide and from the surface to the sea floor then there WILL be a tsunami. Local to the hole it will not be like the tsunami's that travel at the speed of sound across oceans. (by "local" I mean for some 100's of miles -- beyond that I don't know).However, it is true that once the ark is some distance from the impact then it might not be wiped out by a single tsunami.I'll see if I can find anything on these special kind of tsunami's. Someone may have done the math.

The guys estimate that even a relatively small impactor just 1 km in diameter would make a wave a thousand meters high.Sthjournal.orgHowever, wave height is inversely proportional to distance and since the radiant heat and air blast travel faster it seems to me more likely that the ark would be blown to bits or burned to a crisp before it was rolled over by the water wave from the blast.
Randy

I hate to point this out to you: there is no known large impact over the ocean in historic times. Surely you can't be suggesting that a peeble-sized or boulder-sized rock falling into the ocean not causing a tsumnami is some kind of disproof. As Scotty told Capt Kirk: "I cannot change the laws of physics captain." If a kilometer sized rock falls on the oceans at high speed there will be tsumani since physics demainds it. The tsumani that will result will make what happened December 26, 2004 seem like a picnic -- literally a nonevent! No ship has ever encountered a tsumani the size the impact will create. The reason why ships don't notice them is very simple: several kilometers deep of water can handle to the wave: the shore cannot. That depth will is not enough to handle volume of water which will move due to the impact. The answer to this is the same as before. You simply don't comprehend just how bad such an impact will be.This message has been edited by Harlequin, 05-24-2005 10:47 PM

No I have not yet studied your post. My plan is to catch up starting back a ways. However, what I posted so far about EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE OF tsunamis is that they aren't even NOTICED by ships at sea -- even very big tsunamis -- and there is no record of a meteorite causing one.In other words, your calculations refer to mere possibilities, nothing that has been observed EMPIRICALLY. You may or may not have anticipated all the variables. What are the odds that you have? Sure, science has the ability to predict many things but in this kind of case there is no way to test, replicate or falsify predictions such as yours, which has historically been the accepted approach to science. It can't be done in this kind of case, which makes your thoughts NONEMPIRICAL, simply hypothetical.Of course you COULD be right that a gigantic meteorite WOULD have the effects you predict and I'll get to that eventually. Even with an impact that large, however, the greater the distance from the ship the less the effect. Yes, I know you've said more than that but I have a few things I want to get to first.Thanks.

You know what? Neither do you. All this is hypothetical. ALL of it. Math is great but if you can't test your calculations they remain hypothetical.HOWEVER, I will eventually get to this part of the thread if everybody will just hold their horses.

To support this any YEC is asked to consider: The Earth has 81 times the mass of the Moon. That means that Earth has 81 times the gravity of the Moon. The Earth is going to get hit more often than the Moon because of its gravity. And the stuff is going to be coming in, on average, faster. Now look at the Moon; it is just potmarked if many HUGE craters. And it is loaded with with many craters of all sizes. And it is not a fluke: every planet, moon, and asterioid ever seen is also just littered with such craters unless it has active geology which can erase craters or has no solid surface that we can see (like the gas giants like Jupiter).

What is not clear is where the wave height is measured. If it is when the tsunami reaches shore than 10's or 100's of meters high is reasonable. If it is in deep water and far enough from the impact then I don't know.You are right, of course, there are other problems than just the waves.

My answer is simple: two words that are probably not allowed.You are simply sticking your head into the sand. There is nothing hypothetical a 10 kilometer-wide rock hitting the ocean at high speed causing a tsumani. If you reject the physics here, then you are pretty much rejecting all of physics.

What makes you think these calculations can't be tested? How much do you know about physics?
You're quite full of contradictions. You seem to dismiss everything that you can't personally expereince but at the same time believe in some invisible sky bully. Over in other threads you berate Arach, telling him he's arrogant for not being a sheep and blindly following christian dogma, claiming that the various christian scholars know their stuff bettter than he does. Yet at the same time you exhibit the same arrogance by ignoring and dismissing the various scientists out there who do know their stuff better than you.

---

*not an actual doctor

Yes and no. There has been a large planetary impact in recorded history, in fact it was in 1994. Fortunately the impact wasn't on Earth - it was on Jupiter when the fragments of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 smashed into it.Modeling has been done to try and predict what happened - and it was pretty much right (see here for a brief description). So we do actually have some data to check our models against - yes, I know Jupiter has a very different makeup to Earth but if we can model an impact on Jupiter why would you think we can't do it for here?If you Google around at some of the calculations people have put on the Web such as here and here (start at page 55!) you can see the Ark is going to be in serious trouble.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Yes the Tsunami is just the begining.Faith need to consider: given the mass and velocity of the object, how much energy must be released is a trivial problem. Just calculate the kinetic energy (one half times the mass times the velocity squared) of the object. All of that kinetic energy will have to be converted into some other kind of energy. All the energy for the 10-km wide objects hitting the Earth must go somewhere. Plus all the energy from the 1-km wide objects. Plus all the energy from every object that hits the Earth.Surely Faith does not consider kinetic energy a mere hypothesis?Maybe someone needs to calculate this in terms how many Hiroshima-sized bombs worth of energy per square kilometer of the Earth?

Yes. You have nailed it. Faith is, without realizing it, asking us to completely reject physics. These principles involved are extremely well-understood and have been extensively tested. They are the basis of much of the technology around us.

If the meteorites don't get you the supervolcanos will.I lurk on the BBC Science Message Board (I only lurk 'cos it's pants compared to EvC ).By coincidence somebody started a thread somwhat similar to this one two days ago. Their bogeyman was different though - instead of catastrophic meteor strikes they pointed out that if the YEC scenario is right all of the Supervolcano eruptions in the geological record must have happened in the last 6000 years.It's suggested by scientists that Toba nearly killed us all off - if you add in the three Yellowstone eruptions and whatever others there have been and it's a miracle we've survived at all.It's an even bigger miracle that these eruptions left no trace in human history, the tree rings, the ice cores... you get the picture I don't want to drag this thread off topic but maybe we can talk about this extra difficulty once we've dealt with the meteorites.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Thanks for the links. It seems that this might be a tsunami that you would notice passing .Some 10's or 100's of meters high at 1,000 kms from the impact suggests that the ark is in trouble.Rejecting this work because you don't like the outcomes isn't handling the issues raised.The numbers from you second site give us one 200 m hunk o' rock every 5,000 years. That becomes 1,000,000 of them if you want them all (from 5 Gyrs) in one year.Faith, we know that a number of large and pretty big impactors have hit the earth. We also know that these whose crators are still findable represent a fraction of all that have hit.We can see the devestation from these samples. We can use these to test calculations.We see that a lot of water only changes the nature of the devestation it does not remove it. We see that "mud" is utterly inconsequential to the results.We can see that the creators we do have did not occur close together in time. We also see (from all that has been referenced) that if they did occur close in time then the earth isn't habitable on an ark or not.Which part exactly is it that you think is wrong? Where exactly is the error? What is the new result when the error is removed?