Global Warming & the Flood

WHEN was the ice age? how long did it last in your view?ABE

quote:

---

The water (and debris) shoots into orbit (and some goes beyond).

---

Beyond? That means it traveled more than 62 miles (using the boundaries set by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale) straight up.See any problems with that? What happens to the bits that fall down to earth? What sort of energy is required to get large chucks of matter to go into outer space?

quote:

---

People keep saying all that energy from the falling rain would have poached everything, but I've seen rain...seen it rain for days and days without raising the local temperature any...even lowers it sometimes.

---

And this just shows why you would be better off getting a basic science textbook.Look... here I am one of the low-level generalists, I have a little bit of knowledge about most of the sciences but nothing major. If I think this is rubbish, I dread to think what happens when the big guns see it.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27-Jul-2005 07:32 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27-Jul-2005 07:34 AM

If we pop over to Wikipedia, we can find the following:

quote:

---

That said, typical sub-orbital craft need go only just past the accepted edge of space at 100 km (62.5 miles) for the flight to be a spaceflight. At this arbitrary boundary there is still too much atmosphere present for a long term stable low earth orbit (LEO). In order to be stable for more than just a few weeks or months the satellite or spacecraft is placed in orbit at an altitude where drag from the atmosphere truly is negligible. A stable LEO is usually at least 350 km up.

​

But again, the difference in height should not be overemphasized: Whether the altitude is 100 km or 350 km the distance from the centre of the Earth is only different by less than four percent.

​

The difference between the lowest speeds required for orbital and sub-orbital space flights is substantial: a spacecraft must reach about 29,000 km/h (18,000 mph) to attain orbit. This compares to the relatively modest 4,000-4,800 km/h (2,500-3,000 mph) typically attained for sub-orbital crafts.

---

18,000mph! And some of this material fall back down onto the planet because it does not quite reach that speed!and what happens to the bits that fall back down to earth?

quote:

---

When an object moves through the atmosphere faster than the speed of sound, it also generates shockwaves in front of it as it "collides" with particles and compresses them faster than they can be moved out of its path.

---

Now some of this many be vaporized or burnt off - but with my limited knowledge you still seem to be "nuking" the planet from orbit!This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27-Jul-2005 07:56 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27-Jul-2005 07:58 AM

Crash - I don't want to die! Please tell me this is a theory and not a factABE:

quote:

---

1. Fountains of the deep erupt. These are hot and do release much energy as heat. It doesn't poach everything on the earth, but does kill everything nearby...not only because of the heat but also because of many other factors. Places where these fountains of the deep might have been...mid atlantic ridge...san andreas fault (I am thinking specifically of the diatomaceous earth deposits in Lompoc, California).

---

And I'm not a physics wonk but it occurs to me - at the speeds we are discussing - would the water not just turn straight to steam anyway?Phew, that failing rain is not going to kill me after all - sure is hot however...ARGGG it burns! (where are all the lazy physics wonks? - building timemachines and the like I bet).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27-Jul-2005 08:05 AM

Is it just me or do most creationist theories actually destroy the planet and/or most of the life on it when they encounter real physics?

In regards to that post I offer the following repost from:http://EvC Forum: How do you decide what is True in the Bible? -->EvC Forum: How do you decide what is True in the Bible?

quote:

---

I think the problem for many Christians who come here is as follows:

​

quote:

---

Zragger was the mighty plusrazor master of the shattered oyxy box. Before he existed, he was able to perform mighty crackletoes of zograds. But low he had an nemisis - the unholy slapperbotrum. And a day came when they fought with jellyguns.

---

​

Now it seems like I'm taking the piss and suggesting that Christianity is nonsense, I'm not. But to a disbeliever, the claims of Christianity can sound like that. May disbelievers don't wish to offend but many Christians find it difficult to understand why people don't "get it". It’s very difficult for people who put great store in something to understand that to many people it is of no significant at all.

​

This tends to led to two types of problems here:

​

quote:

---

1) The special pleading:

​

it says such and such in the bible therefore it must true.

​

God could have just released all of the heat into space with a wave of his hand.

​

Now this is fine in the faith forums but may posters run into trouble because they try to use this line of reasoning in the science forums. Christians who come here have to accept that in the SCIENCE forums the bible is given little to no credence, it is just a book. Others, will for a while, try and practice Pseudoscience, they will offer explanations but when cornered will resort to goddunit or well you don’t know the answer either so it must be true!!

---

​

This causes friction and problems.

​

quote:

---

2) testimonial:

​

But it was very dangerous to be a christian in those times

​

Won Ryatt was a great man and I knew him. I just know he was telling the truth when he says he found the Ark

​

This is the second big problem I see here on a regular basic. The Christian religion is one that is built on testimonial, again something that most people in the science forums will not accept. This lends to all sorts of problems because many Christians then try to argue the scientist NOT the science — But he was an honest man, it must be true or more commonly He’s covering up the evidence because he’s an atheist. This cuts no ice at all in the science forums.

---

​

This causes friction and problems.

---

about 18,000 mph (if we take "orbit" as being 62 miles up).

@ 320km (off the top of my head) but if has enough speed to reach distance - it's not stopping it's all off into space.(not that it could actually get that far - the speed required would turn all of the water into steam and so on and so on).

How does water travel at 18,000mph without turning to steam?What is the mechanism?At one atmosphere pressure, water turns to steam at 100 degrees Centigrade.I'm not a science wonk but I'm sure the following also is a cause for concern:

quote:

---

In physical chemistry and in engineering, steam refers to vaporized water. It is a pure, invisible gas (for mist see below), which at standard atmospheric pressure often has a temperature of around 100 degrees celsius, and occupies about sixteen hundred times the volume of liquid water (steam can of course be much hotter than the boiling point of water; such steam is usually called superheated steam).

---

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 09:08 AM

What cancels out the impact the tonnes of earth that your "idea" chucks up?

I'm reading your posts. How does water travel at 18,000 mph without turning to steam?(actually I'm going easy on you there - it has to be traveling at far great speeds than that to push the earth out of the way).

Correct or incorrect!!??You want the water to get into orbit to release heat - it HAS to travel at 18,000mph - that's the start,middle and end of it. It affects your idea because it's makes it impossible to get to the next stage.You need to solve that problem before I'm even bothered to discuss your next problem.

Those multiple impacts would throw up tonnes of earth and dust into the air.How do you play to handwave away the nuclear winter you've just caused?

Is that meant to be addressed to someone else?

No problem but remember you have a 5000 year timeframe you want all this to fit into (unless I got that wrong and you don't believe in a YEC?)

quote:

---

The shock of the impact would have sped through the ground, resulting in an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 or higher.

​

All life within a radius of three to four kilometers was killed immediately. The fireball that formed would have scorched everything within a radius of ten kilometers. A shock wave moving out at 2,000 km/h leveled everything from 14 to 22 kilometers, dissipating to hurricane-force winds that persisted to a radius of 40 kilometers.

---