Global Warming & the Flood

That's because it doesn't rain from orbit. You know how the shuttle comes back down super-hot? Every single raindrop is going to be like that if you have it raining from orbit.I think the most glaring flaw in your model is that you completely ignore the most important, largest source of energy in your system - the kinetic energy you've used to propel an astronomical amount of water into orbit, which you have to do something with when you bring it back down. (It turns into heat, no matter what you do.) In order to orbit the Earth something has to move at least eight miles a second, as I recall. Generally much faster. (You'd have to ask the physics wonks.)

It doesn't matter how it comes back. No matter how slow the journey back down, the water possesses incredible velocity - it has to, to have been in orbit in the first place - and no matter how it comes back down, its coming to rest on the Earth's surface.That energy has to go somewhere, and it goes into the atmosphere as heat. It's pretty simple physics and the fact that water doesn't fall like a stone doesn't change anything about that. What you fail to see is that it doesn't matter how the water comes down; it still has an incredible kinetic energy that must be released into the atmosphere as heat.

The water can't fall forever. Eventually it comes to rest on the Earth's surface. So, yes, all that kinetic energy you imparted on the way up has to go somewhere, and it goes to heat. An incredible amount of heat. It's actually pressure, but the principle is the same. The shuttle converts its terrific velocity to heat on the way back down, the majority of it during reentry, and the rest in the friction of the tires on the landing strip, and the action of the brakes. Um, no, you have it backwards. Because air resistance is operating on the droplets, they will become superheated. Where do you think all that velocity has to go?No matter how you slice it, you're imparting teriific velocity to water and then bringing it to rest. Ignoring where that energy is supposed to have come from in the first place, you have to do something to it at the end. It doesn't just go away. (Thermodynamics.) Unless you're putting it to work, which would be impossible, it turns into heat. Enormous heat. It either does this on the way down, as the action of pressure on each little drop, or it does this at the end, as the heat created by an enormous impact, or both.You can't get rid of the heat just because water is neither stones nor the space shuttle. Water has mass, quite a bit of it, and the energy to accellerate that mass is going to wind up as enough heat to sterilize the Earth, because there's no physical principle that allows you to escape that.

Ok, but that's absolutely irrelevant, since you've already proposed that nothing is preventing gravity from turning the potential energy back into kinetic energy, remember? The water comes back down in your model. None of us, including you, are talking about a model where the water never comes back down - obviously, because there's no water up there. Until it vaporized Florida upon impact at Cape Canaveral. The kinetic energy of the shuttles velocity gets turned into heat no matter what. Either a manageable level of heat all along the way down (slowing the shuttle in the process) or all that heat all at once if it hit Cape Canaveral at Mach 60.The shuttles kinetic energy is always turned into heat. Always. It's pressure, actually (again) but yes, the shuttle is using the atmosphere to turn its incredible orbital velocity into heat, slowing it in the process. We agree on this point, so there's no need to repeat it a second time. No, it must merely have any velocity. The amount of heat generated is proportional to the velocity and the coefficient of drag, so you don't detect measureable heat at low velocities or low friction - but it's there. There's no such thing as heatless drag. Um, no, they already have the very great downward velocity, because they were in orbit. As the atmosphere slows the water that kinetic energy becomes heat. Enough heat to sterilize the Earth, as we've shown.It isn't possible for the air to slow the water without the generation of heat. There's no heatless friction, there's no heatless braking as you propose. It's 100% contrary to the laws of physics. Either your water stays up forever, or it parboils the whole earth with the heat of its return. Since neither one of these things has occured, we know your model is completely false and impossible.

You can't just "cancel out" energy. Where do you get this stuff? Have you even heard of the laws of thermodynamics?Do you know what heat is, even? Do you understand that heat itself is kinetic energy? Of course the kinetic energy is transferred to the Earth; it becomes heat when it does so.

That's probably why you're having such problems with the heat issues. You're working your models with heatless point objects instead of objects made of atoms. No, because you've only canceled out direction, not magnitude. If you strike both sides of a billiard ball, the ball doesn't move, sure, but the ball does heat up. The kinetic energy you've imparted in both strikes isn't canceled out; but it's direction is scrambled and imparted to each atom in sepearate directions.Motion of individual atoms is called "heat." And heating the Earth, imperceptibly. Yes, of course. And in this case the kinetic energy of the water is transferred into the kinetic energy of heat, with catastrophic consequences for all living things. Since things live yet we know your model did not occur.

Not really all that different, which is why objects heat up when they impact something. Bullets aren't hot until they strike a target, for instance. The billiard balls heat up from the impact as you play pool. See?

Right, because the transfer of all that kinetic energy would result in an enormous amount of heat. That's what heat is - kinetic energy.This is a picture of Barringer Crater ("Meteor Crater"), a popular tourist destination in Arizona.The Barringer impact mass was neither as large as the mass you're talking about, nor traveling as fast, and impacted Arizona as a cloud of shards (having broken up and partially vaporized during entry), but it hit Arizona with the force of 2.5 megatons of TNT, roughly 150 times the explosive yield of the atomic devices that leveled Nagasaki and Hiroshima.Every living thing within 4 km was vaporized instantly, and a massive fireball scorched every plant, animal, and rock within 10km. The Earth didn't move; the meteor didn't bounce back up into space at its exact velocity; neither did any one of a dozen physically ridiculous scenarios you've proposed occur. The kinetic energy of the Barringer meteorite was indeed transferred to the Earth; it was transferred as the kinetic energy of heat.Heat is the inevitable result of the velocities and masses you're proposing. Simplistic high school physics demonstrations that treat billiard balls as perfect, undeformable spheres with no internal or external friction aren't going to be a help for you. If your model doesn't take into account the kinetic theory of matter - if you refuse to treat objects as actually being composed of atoms, for Christ's sake - then absolutely nothing about your models is going to be accurate. added width attribute to img tag to fix page width - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 07-30-2005 10:11 AM

The fact that water deforms more readily means that it takes less energy to deform it, which means that there will be more heat, not less.Even one percent of the kinetic energies you're talking about converted to heat is enough to parboil the Earth. It doesn't take all that energy. Even one percent - less than one percent - is a fatal model for all life on Earth.I truly don't think you have a grip on exactly what your own model predicts, and the reason for this is because your training in physics has yet to progress to thermodynamic models. What about this statement is ambiguous? The Barringer impact mass didn't travel as fast as the water you've proposed in your model.Seems like a perfectly sensible statement in English. What didn't you understand?

God, that's about the stupidest thing you've ever said. Atoms are frictionless.Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. It is generated by collision, not by "scrubbing." Atoms don't generate heat when they "rub" against each other, like an Indian rubbing sticks, because atoms never actually touch. Their shell charges repel each other long before any physical contact could take place.Atoms don't "scrub." Part of the problems your having with your model is that you don't know how to model objects that are made of atoms.

Because they're not enetering the thermosphere at Mach 60.

Sure you do. The water goes up into orbit, doesn't it? That's exactly what you literally proposed. Well, it has to have a certain velocity to go up that far (well beyond the thermosphere), and out beyond the atmosphere there's no such thing as terminal velocity, so the water comes back down into the atmosphere at exactly the velocity it had when it left. Which would be roughly Mach 60. No; there's no air above the thermosphere. The atmosphere ends at the top of the thermosphere, called the "thermopause." It doesn't really matter. It turns into ice crystals out in space, big lumps of them. The problem is that the water is moving much faster than its terminal velocity when it re-enters the atmosphere. As it brakes to that terminal speed on the way down, the heat parboils the Earth.

We're probably both going to wind up confused if we pursue this any further; I think it's best to remember that, even if only one percent of the total velocity of the masses we're talking about is converted to heat, that's still an astronomic amount of heat.I simply don't think you have a handle yet on how much mass you're moving, and how fast you're moving it.

Only if the water doesn't fall back to Earth. If the water goes up, but then comes back down, there's no net change in the Earth's position.It's like the proverbial cartoon of the man in the sailboat, trying to push it along by blowing in his own sails. If you're dropping a significant mass of water onto the Earth's atmosphere and surface, then heat does indeed become a major issue. Well, depending on how many fountains, that could indeed be the entire surface of the Earth, could it not?

But if the car was in space, or somewhere else that was frictionless, he could move the SUV in a significant way.NASA has a deep-space probe with an electric-plasma engine so weak that were you to hold one in your hand and ramp it up to full power, you'd feel a force equivalent to the weight of about $2.50 in quarters. In the frictionless environment of deep space you can accellerate a probe about the mass of an SUV to about 90,000 meters per second. But you have to burn the engine for something like 16,000 hours to attain that speed.In other words, if you had enough tennis balls to toss, you could indeed push your SUV out among the stars. Now, this ridiculous flood model? Personally I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. How does the water shoot up into space if it has to push 2/3's of the planet's crust along with it? If it's under that kind of pressure, how did it stay trapped under the Earth in the first place? You can't store pressure in liquids, which are incompressible.