Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years

So you suggest that all of the impacts occured in one year?Well, they did not. So they are not flood events. Now you have 100's of massive impacts occuring in recorded history.

Give a moments thought to what would happen if all the recorded (and I would suggest that we have less than 10 % of them recorded) happpened in one year.The Chixilub is not the biggest! It is 'only' 170 km across.There are over 70 that are greater the 10kms in diameter.Any you think that the flood waters would minimize the impacts? LOL ! LOL!The water, even kilometers of it, may as well not be there. These things vaporize holes in the rock that are kms deep!Then of course, you have the many, many more that are only the size of meteor creator in Arizona. A baby, a rock only about 150 feet across; but you would have 1,000's of them in your one year. This "baby" hit with the force of 1,000 hiroshimas. hitting water all that energy produces a fair amount of steam and some really nasty winds.

Your "not close" Kazakhstan impact is 14 kms across. How close do you want to be to the site where an impactor that makes a hole of that size comes in?I think you had better stop guessing when you intuition isn't primed to handle the magnitude of these events.

The larger ones when impacting one at a time release enough energy to devistate the earth's climate. They effects are world wide. A smaller one hitting water would produce an enormous tsunami. How big would the tsunami's be and how far do the effects reach on uninterrupted ocean?For the big ones I don't think Noah would be far enough away anywhere on Earth. And there will be major impacts every few days.

Oh does it? Just how is that? How much energy from a 5 km wide asteroid will 5 km of water dissappate? How much steam will be released into the atmosphere. How big will the tsunami be and how far will it travel in an uninterupted world ocean? Uh the tunkuska event was caused by one of the tiny, little dust specs things that come in very frequently. Things of only 100's of tons. Only the equivalent of about 1/100 of Barringer (or about 10 hiroshimas). These baby's occur about once every 100 years. These are not the ones we are talking about here.But google it and get an idea of the size of this 'eensy teeny' comet did. No so far you have just been told what they do. If you do some googling you will find out what the big impactors do. And water doesn't help.

no, not enoughThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-23-2005 02:35 PM

No, what we are doing is assuming the flood and showing that this assumption is reduced to absurdity when the impact data is considered.So far we have a problem with the strikes (and these are only the measured ones -- look at the geographic locations of what we know. My estimate is we are seeing between 10 and 20 % of the land based ones which means only a few percent of all of them) being all in the one year of the flood AND the OP was pointing out that they also can't happen since the flood.So far your rebuttals seem to be:1) The won't make a big dent because of water shielding.-- Well, these are the ones that DID make a big, big, big dent. And we know from the physics that the water can't shield the biggest of them much at all. In fact, the water just offers other mechanisms to get the input energy to the ark.2) They mud cushioned the fall.--- This is where the fact that you have no grasp of what is being discussed really shows up. You seem to think that a few feet of mud will make any difference when something ranging in size from the largest buildings we have made up to a medium sized mountain comes in at 10,000's of mph.3) They didn't all strike during the flood year.You haven't given a clue as to when they did strike. So I don't know what this means.Were there any other suggestions that you had? Please list the variables and give the range of effects that these might have when compared to the total energy released.

You have been given (recently - it did take awhile) some calculations of the effects.The reason it has taken awhile is that those who are knowlegable already know all this. But you have some of the calculations now.Here are some of what you should note:1) The "dust" isn't what you think it is. It is condensed vaporized rock. Your water or mud "keeping the dust down" is yet another example of something that is, at best, very funny.2) One (just one of the bigger ones) of these things is like setting off all the world's nuclear weapons 1,000's of time over.3) The surface of the earth is actually not big enough to avoid the effects of one of the bigger ones.4) You are trying to compress a very large number of them (big and little) into one year.

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.

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.

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?

You have your facts exaggerated and some errors in what occurs.The australia in a ball thing is way out of line. The biggest impactors that we have a hint of are somewhere over 10 kms across. Only during the major bombardment at the formation of the earth has there (it seems been bigger). The moon was formed by a mars sized body hitting and essentually ripping the forming planet apart.The size of the crater formes is much bigger than the impacting body. The meteor was only about 150 feet across and perhaps 300,000 tons. A comparitive "baby". However, traveling at some where around 10 miles per second it packs a wallop.If a 50 meter wide rock does this much damage it becomes just a tiny bit possible to wrap your head around a 1,000 or 5,000 meter wide rocks impact.A mile wide hole does not have 4,000 sq miles of surface area. It is more like 1 sq mile.

What a silly thing to say. Don't you know that gopher wood is made of compressed gophers not engineered by them.

It appears you are beginning to get a bit of a grasp about these things. (that is if any of us can).

Did you make those two statments?The sedimentary layers MUST be time periods. How long the periods are must then be determined.