Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   True Creation's Culdra Theory
joz
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 57 (5838)
02-28-2002 7:22 PM


Found this site with images of large terrestrial impact craters :
http://www.hawastsoc.org/solar/eng/tercrate.htm#views
So TC any of these candidates for explanation by your theory?

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 12:44 AM joz has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 57 (5948)
03-02-2002 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by joz
02-28-2002 7:22 PM


"So TC any of these candidates for explanation by your theory?"
--Truelly, I think my culdra theory is not an adequate explination. Possibly an impact into such an empty chamber, but I greatly doubt this hypothesis. My suspition on the physics of the impact is still speculative to me though, its a subject I would like to do some research on after I'm finished with my Bio book. Also I could wonder even if the blast were to spread such an amount of dust in the sky with such a vapor saturated atmosphere at the time, how long it would actually be such a global cloud.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by joz, posted 02-28-2002 7:22 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by joz, posted 03-02-2002 1:07 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 57 (5955)
03-02-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 12:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
...its a subject I would like to do some research on after I'm finished with my Bio book.
I actually did a fairly extensive lab project on hypervelocity impacts on glass when I was in my final year at uni. We fired small (.5mm diameter) steel ballbearings at 1 1/4" thick glass disks with a two stage light gas gun at various velocities to determine the velocity dependance of crater size....
Wish you could have seen the mess it made of those glass blanks...
In the end we found as expected that the crater volume was proportional to the kinetic energy of the particle... those little balls didn`t weigh much but given that we got some moving at 7 Kms^-1 they had enough punch to knock a big hole into the glass...
If you want to learn the basic physics of impact crater formation try doing a search for hypervelocity, impacts, craters, or a mixture thereof (I recomend ask jeeves.com) NASA have some great sites on this sort of modelling. (the research is primarily to do with safety specifications for space craft) however the physics of cratering do not change with the scale of the bodies....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 12:44 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:15 AM joz has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 57 (5958)
03-02-2002 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by joz
03-02-2002 1:07 AM


"If you want to learn the basic physics of impact crater formation try doing a search for hypervelocity, impacts, craters, or a mixture thereof (I recomend ask jeeves.com) NASA have some great sites on this sort of modelling. (the research is primarily to do with safety specifications for space craft) however the physics of cratering do not change with the scale of the bodies...."
--Thanx, I'll have to do that, I was planning on taking a little trip to a local university library for some reference on this. Though I'm still working in biology, I might be able to squeeze it in there possibly. I am starting to speculate on whether such an impact would effect it in the way that most scientists would speculate, as some conditions of the time of the Flood such as vapor saturation and condensation, and atmospheric density. I am quite sure atmospheric pressure would effect your calculation. Also, has the dip erroded or have I not looked close enough at the impact on many of them such as the barringer.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by joz, posted 03-02-2002 1:07 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by gene90, posted 03-02-2002 2:06 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 22 by joz, posted 03-02-2002 3:42 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 20 of 57 (6002)
03-02-2002 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 1:15 AM


You're going to find that reasonable changes in atmospheric density aren't going to have that much of an effect on a significant impactor because the velocities at which the bodies are traveling are so great and the atmosphere is still a thin skin on the planet. You will also find that water saturation doesn't play a big role in crater formation (Nobody knows if Wetumpka impacted offshore or on land, the crater itself shows very little evidence either way).
But this is a fascinating inquiry anyway. A recent SciAm magazine discusses geological indicators of impacts, have a look next time you're at a public library.
Also, to answer your question, the dip usually erodes before the rim, so most surface-exposed craters and astroblemes are rings of hills rather than holes in the ground.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:15 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 2:38 PM gene90 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 57 (6009)
03-02-2002 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by gene90
03-02-2002 2:06 PM


"You're going to find that reasonable changes in atmospheric density aren't going to have that much of an effect on a significant impactor because the velocities at which the bodies are traveling are so great and the atmosphere is still a thin skin on the planet."
--Yes, though it still would slow it quite a bit, its just a speculation though.
"You will also find that water saturation doesn't play a big role in crater formation (Nobody knows if Wetumpka impacted offshore or on land, the crater itself shows very little evidence either way)."
--I'm not sure If it would make much of an effect as you thought I presumed, that is, an effect in crater formation for water saturation in the sediment that was hit. I was thinking of the vapor saturation in the atmosphere. After the impact there would be massive dust clouds of sediment thrown into the air, I would think that as time passes this dust would be saturated and clumped together by the dense vapor in the atmosphere that it would fall as rain.
"But this is a fascinating inquiry anyway. A recent SciAm magazine discusses geological indicators of impacts, have a look next time you're at a public library."
--I'll have to write that one down, sounds like an interesting read.
"Also, to answer your question, the dip usually erodes before the rim, so most surface-exposed craters and astroblemes are rings of hills rather than holes in the ground."
--IC, thanx much.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by gene90, posted 03-02-2002 2:06 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by gene90, posted 03-02-2002 5:53 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 57 (6019)
03-02-2002 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 1:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)Thanx, I'll have to do that, I was planning on taking a little trip to a local university library for some reference on this. Though I'm still working in biology, I might be able to squeeze it in there possibly.
2)I am starting to speculate on whether such an impact would effect it in the way that most scientists would speculate, as some conditions of the time of the Flood such as vapor saturation and condensation, and atmospheric density. I am quite sure atmospheric pressure would effect your calculation.
3)ALso, has the dip erroded or have I not looked close enough at the impact on many of them such as the barringer.

1)If you do look for papers by Dr M.J.Burchell, they may be too spacecraft specific but you could probably use the bibliographies to find other more general papers....
2)Those factors wouldn`t make any difference past the point when the body hit the ground, however a more viscous atmosphere would reduce the size of the body during its passage down to earth and could possibly slow it to a limited degree (not enough to drop it below hypervelocity though).....
3)Actually if you look at Manicouagan what you see is that the crater floor has not eroded and the rim has....
In fact the harder impact metamorphised rock of the crater floor is often covered by the eroded material of the rim, thus giving the impression of a soft eroded region at the centre....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:15 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 23 of 57 (6026)
03-02-2002 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 2:38 PM


[QUOTE][b]--Yes, though it still would slow it quite a bit, its just a speculation though.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Then we would need either bigger or faster impactors. I thought your intention was to get bigger craters out of smaller impactors as a result of pre-flood or flood conditions that do not exist today.
It seems to me that a thinner atmosphere would serve you better than a thicker one.
I doubt very much any reasonable Earth atmosphere would slow it down significantly. Maybe you could check some of the papers on the SL9-Jupiter impact for information. It's the only "real" impact observed. The point I'll make here is that SL9 fragments exploded from overpressure rather than braking to their terminal velocity, generating impact plumes the size of Earth. Even if the atmosphere of Earth were thick enough to brake the fragments, you still have a catastrophic release of energy that will be there regardless of what is struck.
Another thing to keep in mind is with a bigger atmosphere, other than the effects on biology and climate, and the lack of hypothesis-independant evidence for the presumption, is that a thicker atmosphere will propagate concussion and overpressure waves from the
impact faster and more effectively than our Earth-normal atmosphere would. In that sense, a bigger atmosphere actually makes the impact less survivable. As long as we speculate without requiring evidence we can change Earth's parameters all day but we can never overlook the vast amount of energy that must be released *somehow* when the impact occurs. If I had to be around for an impact on Earth, I would prefer that most of the shock go directly into the ground rather than into the air around me. Of course, depending on the size of the impact and my proximity to the site and to the antipodal point, it probably wouldn't much matter anyway.
[QUOTE][b]I was thinking of the vapor saturation in the atmosphere. After the impact there would be massive dust clouds of sediment thrown into the air, I would think that as time passes this dust would be saturated and clumped together by the dense vapor in the atmosphere that it would fall as rain.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
This is interesting. That the dust would function as condensation nucleii for rain is likely. The rain would probably be rather acidic though because of CO2 liberated from vaporized carbonate deposits along with SO2, the extent of acidity would be determined by the type of strata impacted. Particle size would play a role in how long it could persist in the atmosphere. Volcanic dust from large eruptions can persist for years. And we shouldn't forget that as Earth's biomass burnt away a tremendous amount of smoke would be generated, including lots more CO2.
How saturated would the air be prior to the impacts, and why would it be so saturated?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 2:38 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 03-02-2002 6:18 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 03-03-2002 4:48 PM gene90 has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 57 (6028)
03-02-2002 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by gene90
03-02-2002 5:53 PM


gene90:
quote:
This is interesting. That the dust would function as condensation nucleii for rain is likely. The rain would probably be rather acidic though because of CO2 liberated from vaporized carbonate deposits along with SO2, the extent of acidity would be determined by the type of strata impacted. Particle size would play a role in how long it could persist in the atmosphere. Volcanic dust from large eruptions can persist for years. And we shouldn't forget that as Earth's biomass burnt away a tremendous amount of smoke would be generated, including lots more CO2.
More interesting than you know. It struck me when reading this that the reactions were similar (and the probable effects overall) to the most recent stuff I read on the P-T extinction. One of the probable causes included massive releases of sulfates (SO4) causing both highly acid rain and global cooling. Massive CO2 release was also a possible additional culprit, ultimately poisoning even shallow water. I don't think it would matter whether TC's cometary impact killed you immediately or not: if the P-T extinction is anything to go by, life didn't survive by much. The same thing, plus shock, would probably finish off the planet this time. Maybe TC's on to something conflating the P-T extinctions with his Flood...
[edited to add: PS: How the heck do you get the subscripts to appear in the post? It's been driving me nuts...]
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by gene90, posted 03-02-2002 5:53 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by gene90, posted 03-02-2002 6:29 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 25 of 57 (6029)
03-02-2002 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Quetzal
03-02-2002 6:18 PM


I just used HTML, enclose sub and sup inside the greater than and less signs as you would any other HTML tag for subscripts and superscripts. Incidentally, I had to edit the post twice to find the closing tag I left out, making half the message a subscribt...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 03-02-2002 6:18 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 03-03-2002 1:24 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 26 of 57 (6057)
03-03-2002 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by gene90
03-02-2002 6:29 PM


Gene, thanks for explaining sub/superscripts. Here's an example in case it helps anyone. If you want this to appear in your text:
(C6H10O5)n
Then what you would actually type is (but put it all on one line, otherwise you'll get the linefeed in the middle of your formula):
(C6H10
O5 )n
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by gene90, posted 03-02-2002 6:29 PM gene90 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 57 (6067)
03-03-2002 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by gene90
03-02-2002 5:53 PM


"Then we would need either bigger or faster impactors. I thought your intention was to get bigger craters out of smaller impactors as a result of pre-flood or flood conditions that do not exist today.
It seems to me that a thinner atmosphere would serve you better than a thicker one."
--Yes, though the atmosphere as a whole would not make such a difference, being that atmospheric pressure would require some sort of preasure by some force, there by reducing the size of the atmosphere. Unless you would take into consideration that some of the atmosphere has separated from the gravitational force of the earth into space by some force or another during the flood. Either way, I would doubt it would make much of a significance, as joz mentioned, it would not decrease below a hypervelocity.
"I doubt very much any reasonable Earth atmosphere would slow it down significantly. Maybe you could check some of the papers on the SL9-Jupiter impact for information. It's the only "real" impact observed. The point I'll make here is that SL9 fragments exploded from overpressure rather than braking to their terminal velocity, generating impact plumes the size of Earth. Even if the atmosphere of Earth were thick enough to brake the fragments, you still have a catastrophic release of energy that will be there regardless of what is struck."
--Yes you would defanantly have the same catastrophic event with roughly the amount of energy (though not the same because of rapid atmospheric particles ripping away at the surfaces of the supposed broken up body, being able to have contact with a larger surface area). Also, did we see the real impact from the meteor that was broken up, I believe by Jupiters tidal force on shoemaker nearing the planet at 2.44 its radii, the roche limit. Seeing jupiter is composed of practically nothing but gas accept theoretically at its core. We may have spotted a slight effect from collision with the dense gasious atmosphere, though I don't know about the impact (if it did impact before being ripped appart). So I don't believe it would be the atmosphere breaking the body up.
"Another thing to keep in mind is with a bigger atmosphere, other than the effects on biology and climate, and the lack of hypothesis-independant evidence for the presumption, is that a thicker atmosphere will propagate concussion and overpressure waves from the
impact faster and more effectively than our Earth-normal atmosphere would. In that sense, a bigger atmosphere actually makes the impact less survivable. As long as we speculate without requiring evidence we can change Earth's parameters all day but we can never overlook the vast amount of energy that must be released *somehow* when the impact occurs. If I had to be around for an impact on Earth, I would prefer that most of the shock go directly into the ground rather than into the air around me. Of course, depending on the size of the impact and my proximity to the site and to the antipodal point, it probably wouldn't much matter anyway."
--What would force its energy to be released directionally toward earth's core, or in the direction of the impacting body?
"This is interesting. That the dust would function as condensation nucleii for rain is likely. The rain would probably be rather acidic though because of CO2 liberated from vaporized carbonate deposits along with SO2, the extent of acidity would be determined by the type of strata impacted. Particle size would play a role in how long it could persist in the atmosphere. Volcanic dust from large eruptions can persist for years. And we shouldn't forget that as Earth's biomass burnt away a tremendous amount of smoke would be generated, including lots more CO2."
--There would be a good amount of organic matter burnt producing these compounds though there would, I believe, be a bit less than we would think, assuming that such deposits were created durring the flood. It was a bit of a hypothesis I was considering other effects as results from the catacalysmic reactions and effects during the Flood.
"How saturated would the air be prior to the impacts, and why would it be so saturated?"
--There would have been an emense amount of oceanic water quickly evaporated from the outpouring of magma at ridges. I would estimate roughly 300metres of water being thrown into the atmosphere, this would saturate the earth with vapor creating the effect of a global nuclear winter which would also as this persisted while introducing your 40 days of rain. After most of the polar ice sheets were melted, would then be reproduced by this effect. For any impacting body into the earth would take into consideration this emense mass of vapor engulfing most of the earth's atmosphere would allow any sediment particles small enough to stay adrift in the atmosphere to condensate with the water and fall to the ground.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by gene90, posted 03-02-2002 5:53 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by gene90, posted 03-03-2002 6:34 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 29 by joz, posted 03-03-2002 8:07 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 28 of 57 (6074)
03-03-2002 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by TrueCreation
03-03-2002 4:48 PM


[QUOTE][b]So I don't believe it would be the atmosphere breaking the body up.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I meant "braking" rather than "breaking". Correct, SL9 was fragmented before it was even discovered.
[QUOTE][b]--What would force its energy to be released directionally toward earth's core, or in the direction of the impacting body?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I'm confused. Do you mean, what would cause the energy to be absorbed primarily by the ground? If so, there are two reasons for that. The biggest drop in impactor velocity would occur when it contacts the ground because the ground is more rigid than air, imparting most of its energy into the ground. Also because the ground is a better carrier of shock, it will tend to contain most of the pressure waves imparted to it from impact rather than transfering them into the air.
[QUOTE][b]--There would be a good amount of organic matter burnt producing these compounds though there would, I believe, be a bit less than we would think, assuming that such deposits were created durring the flood.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Depending on what is floating around at the time, including things that are alive, like your bugs, your flowering plants, and the residents of your ark. None of these are going to have a very happy time after an impact. At the least the steam bath would kill most of whatever was still alive.
[QUOTE][b]There would have been an emense amount of oceanic water quickly evaporated from the outpouring of magma at ridges. I would estimate roughly 300metres of water being thrown into the atmosphere [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Ok, your steam generator kicks in before me?
300m is a linear measurement, it doesn't do me much good in considering how much water we're talking about.
My concern is that the atmosphere can be saturated with water at a certain point, but it will immediately rain out. It won't easily absorb any more past its point of saturation.
[QUOTE][b]this would saturate the earth with vapor creating the effect of a global nuclear winter[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Or perhaps a global pressure cooker, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
[QUOTE][b]For any impacting body into the earth would take into consideration this emense mass of vapor engulfing most of the earth's atmosphere would allow any sediment particles small enough to stay adrift in the atmosphere to condensate with the water and fall to the ground.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
But you still have to deal with the energies of impact and whether the impacts would be survivable, and the heat of condensation has to be dealt with at the same time. And can the Earth's atmosphere hold enough water to rain continuously for 40 days? Would you have enough water to cover the planet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 03-03-2002 4:48 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 03-03-2002 8:19 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 31 by joz, posted 03-03-2002 8:23 PM gene90 has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 57 (6076)
03-03-2002 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by TrueCreation
03-03-2002 4:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)Yes, though the atmosphere as a whole would not make such a difference, being that atmospheric pressure would require some sort of preasure by some force, there by reducing the size of the atmosphere. Unless you would take into consideration that some of the atmosphere has separated from the gravitational force of the earth into space by some force or another during the flood. Either way, I would doubt it would make much of a significance, as joz mentioned, it would not decrease below a hypervelocity.
2)Seeing jupiter is composed of practically nothing but gas accept theoretically at its core. We may have spotted a slight effect from collision with the dense gasious atmosphere, though I don't know about the impact (if it did impact before being ripped appart). So I don't believe it would be the atmosphere breaking the body up.
3)What would force its energy to be released directionally toward earth's core, or in the direction of the impacting body?
4)There would have been an emense amount of oceanic water quickly evaporated from the outpouring of magma at ridges. I would estimate roughly 300 metres of water being thrown into the atmosphere, this would saturate the earth with vapor creating the effect of a global nuclear winter which would also as this persisted while introducing your 40 days of rain. After most of the polar ice sheets were melted, would then be reproduced by this effect. For any impacting body into the earth would take into consideration this emense mass of vapor engulfing most of the earth's atmosphere would allow any sediment particles small enough to stay adrift in the atmosphere to condensate with the water and fall to the ground.

1)Don`t get me wrong TC the viscosity of the atmosphere does influence the speed at impact and also size at impact all I was saying is that even a really thick atmosphere would be unlikely to drop the speed below hypervelocity (into the region ehere speed of impact is less than the speed of propogation of a shock wave in the impacted material) thus the mechanism of crater formation remains the same....
Also the crater size is dependant on kinetic energy ie 1/2mv2 given the size (volume) of a crater we can tell what its K.E was but not its mass, velocity, volume, density etc....
2)Um bud Jupiter is solid its just called a gas giant because its composed of materials that are gasses in the terrestrial environment....
And yes SL9 (or rather the fragmented masses that had been SL9) hit jupiter and it put a bloody big hole in it as well...
3)In a hypervelocity impact the energy isn`t released towards anything it is released as heat at the point of impact....
resulting in something rather like a nuclear device being detonated at just below ground level....
If you wan`t to read a S.F novel featuring impacts like this pick up Heinleins The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (it also features Mycroft Holmes a Turing machine of sorts and the brilliant homespun wisdom TANSTAAFL (There Ain`t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch))...
4)Um bud meters is a unit of length I think you mean m3 (volume) this is still only 300 tons by the way.....
Also why would ice sheets melt during a "nuclear winter" type effect....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 03-03-2002 4:48 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 57 (6077)
03-03-2002 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by gene90
03-03-2002 6:34 PM


"I meant "braking" rather than "breaking". Correct, SL9 was fragmented before it was even discovered."
--IC, thanx for the clarification.
"I'm confused. Do you mean, what would cause the energy to be absorbed primarily by the ground? If so, there are two reasons for that. The biggest drop in impactor velocity would occur when it contacts the ground because the ground is more rigid than air, imparting most of its energy into the ground. Also because the ground is a better carrier of shock, it will tend to contain most of the pressure waves imparted to it from impact rather than transfering them into the air."
--I see what you mean.
"Depending on what is floating around at the time, including things that are alive, like your bugs, your flowering plants, and the residents of your ark. None of these are going to have a very happy time after an impact. At the least the steam bath would kill most of whatever was still alive."
--In the surrounding area it would produce a vast amount of heat and would kill on instant from the shockwave at least within a wide radius I think.
"Ok, your steam generator kicks in before me?
"300m is a linear measurement, it doesn't do me much good in considering how much water we're talking about."
--Hm.. Well we can figure this by knowing the approx radius of earth, being 6378 (you could do more if you like, the difference would not be drastically significant, though significant in the least). So the Volume of Earth=1086781292542.9608km3, now take approx .5 off of your initial variable and your volume=1086525719613.25393, thus you subtract and get roughly 255572929.7069km3 of water I believe if my calculations are correct.
"My concern is that the atmosphere can be saturated with water at a certain point, but it will immediately rain out. It won't easily absorb any more past its point of saturation."
--I'm not sure exactly how much the atmospheric layers would be holding, though most would be suspended and rising into the atmosphere because of heat, this supply would be given for a good while.
"Or perhaps a global pressure cooker, water vapor is a greenhouse gas."
--Yes though I would speculate on the structure of the vapor. Clouds in the stratosphere will reflect light, the mesosphere above it is well below freezing, dropping from 10C to -90C (50F to -130F) with increasing altitude. At this point the vapor rizing would be cooling and then condensate easilly with the surrounding dense vapor and fall as rain. The drop if not transported away from the heat source area of the ocean, would again melt it untill it either hit ocean or vaporize into vapor, however, as a lower temperature as the surrounding so it would attempt to equalize.
"But you still have to deal with the energies of impact and whether the impacts would be survivable, and the heat of condensation has to be dealt with at the same time."
--No doubt this would kill very much, this could be the point either activating the cause of the P-T extinction, or being itself the cause. I'm not too sure, however, what is the geologic data in fossils and strata of the surrounding areas of some of the various massive craters?
"And can the Earth's atmosphere hold enough water to rain continuously for 40 days? Would you have enough water to cover the planet?"
--I don't believe there is a problem with enough water to cover the planet (though it would be possibly be denser in some areas), though the cause of the heat being released from the earths mantle is well able to contribute toward a continuous flow for a good amount of time, mabye 5-15 days of magmatic activity at ocean ridges and depending on viscosity and friction at subduction zones would contribute.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by gene90, posted 03-03-2002 6:34 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by joz, posted 03-03-2002 8:28 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 33 by joz, posted 03-03-2002 8:42 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 38 by gene90, posted 03-03-2002 9:46 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024