Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The predictions of Walt Brown
lfen
Member (Idle past 4759 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 226 of 260 (179778)
01-22-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Brian
01-22-2005 8:07 PM


Brian,
Have you ever encountered a student like Tom in real life? The guy is amazing! But how would you grade him?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Brian, posted 01-22-2005 8:07 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Brian, posted 01-22-2005 9:32 PM lfen has not replied
 Message 229 by Joe Meert, posted 01-22-2005 9:48 PM lfen has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 227 of 260 (179780)
01-22-2005 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Coragyps
01-22-2005 7:52 PM


Re: Walts Theory is Awesome!
I think that a jet of superheated steam in oputer space would radiate heat fairly fast and condense to tiny drops and then to ice particles. But I could be wrong.
He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If the jets have enough energy to get to space, they have enough energy to fry everybody when they fall back to Earth. If the jets don't have enough energy to get to space, they fry everybody by conductive heaat transfer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Coragyps, posted 01-22-2005 7:52 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-23-2005 1:02 PM JonF has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5041 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 228 of 260 (179801)
01-22-2005 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by lfen
01-22-2005 8:15 PM


Hi,
Have you ever encountered a student like Tom in real life?
Never.
I don't want to be mean to Tom, but he seems to be situated somewhere between Piaget's 'pre-operational stage'(nonlogical, nonreversable thinking) and the 'concrete operational stage' (management of symbols related only to concrete objects). I would also say that he chooses 'concrete objects' that are not really concrete, he only thinks that they are. I also see a total absence of abstract thought. (Sorry Tom, it is nothing personal)
But how would you grade him?
In the 'Arts', grades are always worked out by knowledge and understanding. It is difficult to grade him on knowledge, as he is clearly just paraphrasing arguments from other sites. As far as understanding is concerned, it would be difficult to register him.
There is the possibility, of course, that 'Tom' is an evolutionist having a laugh.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by lfen, posted 01-22-2005 8:15 PM lfen has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5762 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 229 of 260 (179803)
01-22-2005 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by lfen
01-22-2005 8:15 PM


quote:
Brian,
Have you ever encountered a student like Tom in real life? The guy is amazing! But how would you grade him?
lfen
JM: Not that the question was asked of me, but I've encountered a number of students like Tom. What I like is that they are inquisitive about the fundamental aspects of science. What I don't enjoy is that they are not all that interested in the answers!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by lfen, posted 01-22-2005 8:15 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by lfen, posted 01-22-2005 10:02 PM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 232 by Brian, posted 01-23-2005 8:08 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4759 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 230 of 260 (179807)
01-22-2005 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Joe Meert
01-22-2005 9:48 PM


What I don't enjoy is that they are not all that interested in the answers!
I noticed that! LOL
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Joe Meert, posted 01-22-2005 9:48 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6330 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 231 of 260 (179860)
01-23-2005 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by johnfolton
01-20-2005 5:55 PM


My unanswered letter to Walt Brown.
Dear Tom;
The Hydroplate theory is not a workable theory. It has fundamental problems with the physical laws,(it doesn't work!). I once called Walt Brown up and talked to him on the phone, Walt can talk circles and has a way of not hearing what he doesn't want to hear. (I will say that he seems to be a nice guy.) So to nail him down with the facts, that his theory has fundamental problems, I did the math and sent him an e-mail, twice. Not getting an answer I mailed a letter to him, still no answer. I have to presume that is because Walt has no answers to the questions in my letter that I have posted below. Read it over, and see for yourself why the Hydroplate theory is impossible and remember that Walt himself couldn't answer these questions.
Att: Walt Brown
Center for Scientific Creation
5612 North 20th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Dear Walt Brown;
I had mailed you a letter a few months ago and never got a response from you, so I thought I would e-mail you a copy in case it has gone a stray. In my letter I had asked you a few questions, I am interested if you are able to respond, for each is impossible to account for under your theory. I know you make much a do about debating, but how do you measure up if you can't answer a few simple questions?
Dear Walt Brown;
Those numbers you wanted Walt.
We had talked on the phone on Tuesday evening 8-19-03 about the heat released by the springs of the deep. Just the addition of about half the curent volume of ocean water to the oceans would have resulted in raising them to the boiling point, even if the preflood oceans were nearly frozen, 32 degree water plus an equal amount of water at even as low as 400 degrees will raise the flood waters to the boiling point and of course the fountains of the deep were proably much hotter. Of course the super heated water would have flashed into steam as soon as the pressure was reduced, however this would have resulted in the heat being delivered first into the atmosphere which would have in turn heated the oceans. Now I know you are saying that most of the heat was shot out into space and that frozen ice fell back to earth as hail and rain. Now if the Fountains of the deep were active for 40 days and the Mid-Atlantic ridge has a lenght of 46,000 miles and had a wall of super heated steam and water shooting out into space for 40 days, we could expect the following. Nearly all the water would have flashed into steam, Now a 46k mile long wall of steam at about 1000 degrees Fahrenheit exiting from under ten miles of rock, would vent out in all directions. Which would create a fast moving wall of super heated steam moving away from the mid oceanic ridge on both sides in opposite directions at near the speed of sound like from a steam explosion. The opening of the Fountains of the deep, would be much like as if someone had opened a large valve on a very high pressure steam boiler, much of the steam and water would shoot straight out, but due to the expansion of the steam a fair amount would spread to the sides of the stream like the high velocity gases from a gun barrel. As you undoubtable already know considering your background, when the hot gases exit a large gun behind the projectile, they flash out in nearly all directions. Any steam in the fountains of the deep would do the same. Since the water would be rapidly eroding the hydroplate above it, the exit nozzle sides would be cut back at an angle would increase the side spray. As the fountains cleared the surface, the steam would flash out to the sides and would create an expanding 'bubble' of steam much like the expanding shock wave of an explosion. This shock wave would travel like most powerful compressive waves travel at about mach 1. Due to the tremendous pressure of the fountains of the deep suppling the steam for this expansion being on going, this wall of expanding steam would cover the globe in a matter of hours. For example; how long would it take for a plane traveling at mach 1 from the nearest part of the mid oceanic ridge to reach the farthest point away from the ridge?-it would take only a few hours. This would result in earth's entire surface temperature rising to the boiling point and beyond, killing nearly all life almost at once over the entire planet. As the fountains continued to release steam into the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure would of course increase as a vast volume of gas in the form of steam is injected into the atmosphere, think of a large gun if the gun flash lasted for forty days. There is also the matter of other gases which would be released as well as is seen in the release of fluids from great depths. Any steam rising above the atmosphere and falling back would create a blanket of steam and ice crystals which would add their weight to the atmosphere as well. Space is only cold in the shade, on the sunny side of the earth space is quite hot, water shot into space on the day light side of the planet would be turned into steam, not ice. You would have in effect a temporary canopy with all the problems that such would entail. A Venus like heating of the planet caused by a run away greenhouse effect would probably result, which if it trapped enough heat to be self-sustaining, would render the planet permanently uninhabitable.
Your fountains of the deep being steam geysers blowing droplets of water as you alluded to in your MIT experiment with super heating distilled water until a sudden steam bubble blew the water to the ceiling, would work much better than a jet of water. With a possible height of only 17 miles a water jet stands no chance of clearing the atmosphere. The water hammer effect probably would not be large enough to supply the necessary energy since the flexible nature of crust above the camber resting on top of the water like a lid, would probably dampen any very large water hammer pressure surges anyway. To supply the necessary pressure for escape velocity, you need a pressure surge about 13 times the pressure present in the waters of the deep. A pressure of this magnitude would bulge and crack the overlaying plate rather than exiting from underneath the edge, which by the way works better for you since once the fountains crack has opened wide the water would shoot out at more of a horizontal angle where as a new crack near the edge would shoot vertical. The expansion effect of the water shooting in the vacuum of space, is only good for 14.7 psi which would only be equivalent to adding the weight of an another foot of rock which in comparison to ten miles is nothing. You didn't reveal your fantastic factor, so I can't discuss it until you reveal it. So while a pure water jet would rise to only 17 miles, a steam jet would rise much higher. Steam is far lighter than water, so the pressure of the fountains of the deep could support a far taller jet. Steam is lighter than air and so naturally tends to rise. With the expanding shock wall of steam racing away on both sides of the fountain of the deep, the back pressure would support the center of the steam jet creating an area of high pressure. This would result in a center portion shooting straight up under high pressure at high velocity. Water droplets carried aloft would be shot upward at enormous speeds like gun projectiles. At the surface of the Earth, if atmospheric resistance could be disregarded, escape velocity would be about 11.2 km (6.96 miles) per second. Using Torricelli's Theorem to calculate the velocity of an escaping ideal fluid results in a fountain speed for water only of 3044 feet per second, which is only 8.28% of escape velocity. So while such a jet could certainly lift large amounts of water high in the atmosphere which would rain out over the earth, launching material into space this way is not possible. But with steam the height of the 'h' in Torricelli's Theorem is much higher so the exit velocity is also much higher which supplies far more kinetic energy to the fountains. But with water having a critical point of 3,208 pisa would limit the effect to too small of a size to be effective in achieving escape velocity which is probably part of the reason why NASA doesn't use water or steam rockets to launch things into space. Little if any of the ejected material could have under the most favorable and improvable conditions may have somehow been blasted clear of the earth, the math in general rules it out, so it is clearly impossible for any large amount of water or rock to have been launched into space.
In the first paragraph I used 1000 degrees as the temperature of the fountains of the deep because that would be about the temperature found at those depths today. The reason I did so is because the temperature profile of the inside of the earth did not change significantly at the flood. In your book you used the example of a high pressure shear friction to melt the earth at the time of the flood, which would not occur deep inside the earth, for under great pressure materials flow plastically. This flow generates heat of course but it is much less than shear friction. Then there is also the elasticity of the earth to consider as demonstrated by land tides. The heat generated by the flexing of the interior of the earth under the hydroplate theory would not be enough to melt the earth. The simple way to prove this mathematically is to look at the size of the energy input, the weight of material moved at the surface of the earth. We should be able to ignore the effects of the shifts in the hydroplates since they were floating on water and the pressure on the camber bottom would be the same the world over. Using the 46,000 mile long length of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, a Hydroplate thickness of 10 miles and both sides where eroded back 400 miles. This means a total of 368 million cubic miles of rock was removed and transferred to other parts of the planet. The weight of the transferred basalt rock would be 4.858 x 10-18 power tons. Heat of impacting falling rock can be ignored since the heating effects would have been limited to the surface hydroplates since the water chamber below would have isolated the plates. We can use the weight of the transferred rock twice since it has been moved from one side of the balance of the buoyancy scale of the earth's surface to the other, like moving a weight from one side of a teeter-totter to the other. So using the figure of 9.716 x 10-18 tons descending 10 miles creates 3.3652 x 10-26 cals, which would melt a iron sphere at standard pressure and temperature with a radius of 758 km and of course there is the reduction in size due to the higher melting temperatures at greater pressures. However, only a small portion of the energy is available to be turned into heat, otherwise the earth would be too viscous for the movement to occur. So only a small percentage would be available as 'wasted' heat energy. For this example we will allow a generous 10%, or 3.365 x 10-25 cals which would melt an iron sphere of 352 km radius minus the allowance for the greater heat and pressure inside the earth, so the shifting of weight and pressures acting on the surface of the earth at the time of the flood is far to small to have supplied the energy necessary to have melted the inside of the earth. The heating of the earth due to the gravity potential of descending heavy elements inside the earth requires melting before the materials can separate and descend, the heat created by flexing the earth is not great enough to trigger this effect. So as I stated on the phone, the flexing of the earth you specified is not near large enough to melt the interior of the earth. This lack of energy input means that the earth has not experienced a recent internal heating event and just before the flood, the temperature profile with depth was pretty much the same as it is today. Which means that the fountains of the deep coming from a depth of 10 miles would have been about 1000 degrees Fahrenheit which as pointed out in the first paragraph, would have boiled the entire surface of the earth. Since this clearly did not happen at the time of the flood, there could not have been a very large scale release of water from great depths, to avoid over heating the earth's surface the flood waters had to come from sources with cooler temperatures.
There was two more questions I didn't ask you on the phone, I was concerned about the cost and the time it was taking, so I will post them below.
3. Question- "On the Grand Canyon, if it was formed all at once by the draining of flood waters, how were the side canyons cut which drain small areas?."For if
the side canyons were cut this way, we would see large scale flood
erosion on the plan areas above and around the Canyon like what is seen
in the Washington state scab lands. We should find large scale dry
channels and water falls, and large plucked blocks and rocks carried by a
large stream of fast moving water. Also, how could this sudden flood cut
side canyons? Wouldn't there just be one massive canyon running from the
former lake to the sea? Plus the grand canyon has some sharp bends in it,
why would a massive super flood make turns, wouldn't it just flow over
and cut through the obstructions? The issue of lava dams in the Grand
Canyon was not mentioned ether, these dams formed after the canyon was
already partly formed and each dammed the river until it was able to cut
through the dam. These dams were massive and took a great deal of cutting
for the water to get through, so when did these dams form?
4. I work in a large building that is covered in limestone, Niagara Limestone probably quarried from Lannon Wisconsin, and I have seen a number of fossils such as clams, sea bottom plants and many of the slabs have sea bottom surfaces. looking at these limestone slabs, you can make out an ancient sea floor. On some of them you can see the bottom surface with a long weed that fell over and is laying flat with maybe a clam. Such surfaces would take time to form, and there are many of them in the quarry deposits, they are used as natural planes to split the stones to make slabs. A trail I like to walk on goes by the edge of one of the quarries in Lannon and the limestone goes down for over 200 feet, the big trucks look like toys at the bottom and the limestone goes down deeper yet and all the way down through the whole deposit are found these fossil claims, plants and surface traces. To me these indicate that the limestone was deposited in tranquil waters over a very long period of time. Rapid formation of this deposit could have only occurred miraculously, no natural means described in the book or that I can think of, could have created this deposit in a short time period. How could these trace fossils of sea floors with plants and clams be formed rapidly? Wisconsin is a long way from the sea, so were did the sea plants and clams come from?
If you have the time to respond, I would be most interested in your answers. I see these points as fatal problems for your theory, but perhaps you have answers for them. As you know I have my own theory, so feel free to turn the tables on me and point out problems with my theory, iron sharpens iron.
Sincerely Yours; Wm. Scott Anderson
This message has been edited by wmscott, 01-23-2005 07:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by johnfolton, posted 01-20-2005 5:55 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Coragyps, posted 01-23-2005 11:50 AM wmscott has not replied
 Message 241 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 2:27 PM wmscott has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5041 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 232 of 260 (179873)
01-23-2005 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Joe Meert
01-22-2005 9:48 PM


HI Joe,
I haven't graded any science papers, are they graded by knowledge and understanding as well?
Have you passed any papers of the students you have met that are similar to Tom?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Joe Meert, posted 01-22-2005 9:48 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Joe Meert, posted 01-23-2005 10:28 AM Brian has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 233 of 260 (179886)
01-23-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by johnfolton
01-22-2005 6:45 PM


Re: Walts Theory is Awesome!
Hi Tom,
There's another way to look at this. I'm sure you've heard on the news the occasional item about an asteroid or comet that might strike earth. Often these news items are accompanied with the predictions of scientists of the damage such a strike might cause on earth. Scientists believe that an asteroid or comet with a diameter of about 20 miles would be sufficient to wipe out life as we know it here on earth. The asteroid thought to have been a factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs is thought to have been around that diameter.
A comet of 20 miles diameter would contain about 4000 cubic miles of water. The water you're proposing to cover the earth would be about 400,000,000 cubic miles. That's 400 million cubic miles, about 100,000 times more water, and it corresponds to a comet about 1000 miles in diameter. That's roughly the distance from New York to Miami. Put that image in your mind. 1000 miles is 1/8 the diameter of the earth itself. This is huge, immense, enormous, titantic.
Now that we've established a sense of scale, let's put it in the context of your proposal. You're suggesting that sufficient energy equivalent to sending a comet of 1000 miles in diameter out into space was used to raise all this water above the atmosphere without superheating the atmosphere and wiping out all life on earth.
Have you ever watched a spacelaunch on TV with the tremendous and continuous blast of energy? All that energy is required to launch a payload weighing no more than several tons. Your water to cover the earth to a depth of a couple miles weighs 1.5 million tons. Let me put that in pounds. A spacelaunch payload might weigh 10,000 pounds. Your water weighs over 3,000,000,000 pounds. That's 3 billion pounds. That's the American billion with a "b". You need sufficient energy to launch that payload into space while keeping it from having any effect here on earth. Did you know that a safe distance to watch a spacelaunch at Cape Canaveral is several miles? Just to launch several tons?
And as others have noted, when this water returned to earth it would again wreak destruction with heat and energy.
Walt Brown's proposal was created in order to avoid invoking obvious miracles so that Creationism could seem more scientific, but all that does is change the nature of the miracle. He's chosen not to invoke the miracle of God merely causing rain to form from nothing, but his alternative requires invoking different miracles in order to protect life on earth from being cooked and flayed.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by johnfolton, posted 01-22-2005 6:45 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by JonF, posted 01-23-2005 9:54 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 236 by JonF, posted 01-23-2005 10:30 AM Percy has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 234 of 260 (179892)
01-23-2005 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Percy
01-23-2005 9:33 AM


Re: Walts Theory is Awesome!
The water you're proposing to cover the earth would be about 400,000,000 cubic miles.
I know you're trying to keep the numbers simple, but Walt's proposing about half the water now in the Earths' oceans, which is only about 40% of 400,000,000 cubic miles (Where is Earth's water located?). That's noticably different, although far from different enough to make Walt's ideas possible.
You're suggesting that sufficient energy equivalent to sending a comet of 1000 miles in diameter out into space was used to raise all this water above the atmosphere without superheating the atmosphere and wiping out all life on earth.
And, Tom says, "it would be ever so gentle". I'm flabbergasted at the depth of ignorance of reality embodied in that simple statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Percy, posted 01-23-2005 9:33 AM Percy has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5762 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 235 of 260 (179901)
01-23-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Brian
01-23-2005 8:08 AM


quote:
I haven't graded any science papers, are they graded by knowledge and understanding as well?
Have you passed any papers of the students you have met that are similar to Tom?
JM: Good question. In general, the papers I've asked students to write come near the end of the course. At that point, they should have some basic understanding of the concepts they are writing about. If I asked for a paper at the beginning of the course, they might not have the same understanding. So, I think I would grade based upon their knowledge and understanding at the time they wrote the paper. I also like students who (independently) question fundamental assumptions of the science. I've met precious few of these types at the beginning levels, but they are there. I've met far more who question fundamental assumptions based on their preconceived biases. I'm familiar enough with the creationist arguments (there are very few new arguments) that I can smell a creationist web-based paper a mile away. Those papers are likely to fail because it's clear that the thoughts are not the students. However, a detailed paper questioning a fundamental assumption that shows independent thought would get a much better grade even if it turned out that they were questioning the fundamentals based on a small miunderstanding. When it becomes clear that the questioner has no interest in hearing possible answers, then I usually stop listening to the questions.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Brian, posted 01-23-2005 8:08 AM Brian has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 236 of 260 (179902)
01-23-2005 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Percy
01-23-2005 9:33 AM


Re: Walts Theory is Awesome!
It's still snowing like crazy here, so I'm going waste some time correcting some of your numbers a bit. Your point, of course, is correct and well put.
Half the water in the Earth's oceans = 158,500,000 cubic miles, or about 160 million cubic miles.
Diameter of a comet with that much water = 671 miles, or about 700 miles.
Percentage of the Earth's 7,914 mile diameter for that comet = 8.5% or a little over 1/16.
Weight of that much water at 62.4 pounds per cubic foot and 5,2803 cubic feet per cubic mile = 1,455,846,624,460,800,000,000 pounds or about 1.5 sextillion pounds or 1.5 thousand billion billion pounds (again using American billions).
The following doesn't really mean much but it's fun anyway:
Equivalent Number of Apollo circumlunar capsule launches (at 14,255 pounds per Apollo capsule) to launch that much water = 102,128,840,719,804,000 or around 100 quintillion.
Apollo capsule launches per square mile of Earth's surface (including oceans) = 519,085,401
Appolo capsule launches per square foot of Earth's surface = 18.6.
Ever so gentle, of course .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Percy, posted 01-23-2005 9:33 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 01-23-2005 11:15 AM JonF has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 237 of 260 (179917)
01-23-2005 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by JonF
01-23-2005 10:30 AM


Re: Walts Theory is Awesome!
Thanks for the corrections! Everything in your post looks copasetic, except 8.5% is 1/12. I should have realized I was so far off on the weight just by inspection. Though the hypothesized comet becomes smaller, your corrections to the weight of water to be lifted into space make Brown's scenario orders of magnitude more ridiculous, literally!
Tom, rather than rejecting any modification to or criticisms of Walt Brown's ideas, you might consider thinking of them as a platform from which to consider other possibilities that raise fewer problems. Walt Brown hasn't submitting his ideas to scientific forums, but your presentation of his ideas is gaining you a fair degree of scientific feedback, something Brown hasn't availed himself of. You could take this as an opportunity to plug that feedback back into Brown's proposals to produce ideas superior to his.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by JonF, posted 01-23-2005 10:30 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by johnfolton, posted 01-23-2005 4:40 PM Percy has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 238 of 260 (179925)
01-23-2005 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by wmscott
01-23-2005 7:22 AM


Re: My unanswered letter to Walt Brown.
And, WMS, I take it you're still awaiting a reply?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by wmscott, posted 01-23-2005 7:22 AM wmscott has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 239 of 260 (179933)
01-23-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by JonF
01-22-2005 8:18 PM


Re: Walts Theory is Awesome!
Jon
It would certainly radiate heat pretty fast. The main reason for this ,however is that all of the molecules would space themselves out as far as possible in an attempt to fill up all available space. That's what happens to a liquid in a vacuum. (Basic pressure laws.) This makes the surface area/volume ratio of the water vapour much larger that for liquid water so it will be much more efficient at radiating heat
No ice will ever be formed as water ice is not possible in a vacuum at any size greater than a single H2O molecule. While it is possible that these molecules might fall back to earth, they will do so very slowly and over a long period
Trouble is that this heat radiates and conducts a whole lot quicker into the atmosphere than into vacuum so most of the heat would be lost before it ever got to space. Also any huge gust of vapor pressure going up that fast will tend to drag an enormous amount of atmospheric gasses with it into space. This atmosphere is either going to come back down as super heated gas or be lost to space forever. (I think most will be the former)
Ether way you are right that he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. It's just that even if they do have enough energy to reach space (highly unlikely that that is)then they are still gonna fry everybody by conductive heat transfer long before they get there.
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by JonF, posted 01-22-2005 8:18 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Coragyps, posted 01-23-2005 1:15 PM PurpleYouko has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 240 of 260 (179938)
01-23-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by PurpleYouko
01-23-2005 1:02 PM


Re: Walts Theory is Awesome!
No ice will ever be formed as water ice is not possible in a vacuum at any size greater than a single H2O molecule.
Uhhhh...wrong. Space has lots and lots of ice - comets, Pluto, grains in interstellar clouds. Just get things cold enough and ice will be the stable form of water. Liquid water, now, is another story. You can make it freeze just by pulling a vacuum on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-23-2005 1:02 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-24-2005 10:43 AM Coragyps has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024