True Creation's Culdra Theory

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
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.

---

Actually because the impact velocity is greater than the maximum speed of propogation of a shock wave in the impacted material the energy "arrives" faster than it can dissipate. This means that only a small fraction is released in a shock wave, the rest is released as heat and light at the point of impact.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
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).....

---

Um bud if you mean the water (liquid state) would be denser you are wrong, fluids are incompressable, thats how come such gadgets as hydraulics work....

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
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.

---

Hmm radius of earth = 6.378E⁸volume of water between surface and depth = 300m is:volume of sphere of radius R_e - volume of sphere radius R_e - 300m all multiplied by 0.7 (ratio of ocean covered area / surface area)Plugged into http://www.cris.com/~borisitk/bignum.html we get:V(H₂O) = 5.12E⁷⁹m³That is a lot.....Can the atmosphere accomodate that much water before reaching saturation? I have my doubts.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-03-2002]

"Um bud if you mean the water (liquid state) would be denser you are wrong, fluids are incompressable, thats how come such gadgets as hydraulics work...."
--Water 'vapor' to be specific, I believe that I made reference to water as vapor in an earlier sentance so I thought it wouldn't hurt to simply say 'water'. Though in areas around where there would be higher concentrations of vapor, it would condensate with other H₂O molecules and fall as rain, unless the drop were to be heated to evaporate and expand itself into more vapor before it hits the world ocean.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-03-2002]

"Can the atmosphere accomodate that much water before reaching saturation? I have my doubts....."
--I highly doubt that the atmosphere would account such an amount of vapor, as the point of saturation would be easilly reached, this is when the molecules would consense and condensate to fall as rain, in which what would fall would again become vapor if heated.------------------

The problem with the vapor canopy is that you need enough water to cover the earth from current sea level to the top of mount everest, roughly 9 km worth of water. If you know anything about water, 10 m is roughly equivelent to one atmosphere at sea level (14.5 lbs per square inch) . This would mean that at sea level, the pressure would have been nearly 900 times that of the current pressure at sea level. Then to accomadate that much water within the atmosphere , we need to dramatically increase the temperature dramatically to boiling boiling point to prevent condesation. The result is a pressure cooker that would have been very inhospitable to life.
Also, just curious, where did all that water go?

"The problem with the vapor canopy is that you need enough water to cover the earth from current sea level to the top of mount everest, roughly 9 km worth of water. If you know anything about water, 10 m is roughly equivelent to one atmosphere at sea level (14.5 lbs per square inch) . This would mean that at sea level, the pressure would have been nearly 900 times that of the current pressure at sea level. Then to accomadate that much water within the atmosphere , we need to dramatically increase the temperature dramatically to boiling boiling point to prevent condesation. The result is a pressure cooker that would have been very inhospitable to life."
--I'm not speaking any relevance toward the vapor canopy theory. :/"Also, just curious, where did all that water go?"
--Right where it is now, in the oceans. Though a very small quantity (I would estimate no more than 1-5 meters in volume that would be to cover the earth's surface if smoothed), present in the asthenospheric mantle by the factor of subduction, though you would have much more saturating the lithospheric mantle. These factors would not make much relevance at all to the question of 'where did all the water go'. Its right where it is today.------------------

[QUOTE][b]--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. [/QUOTE][/b]Based simply upon temperature, this meteorological model works. But I'm afraid it's too simplistic to work in the real world, even under the extraordinary circumstances of Flood with the Earth's oceans boiling away. As you know, most of our weather occurs in the troposphere, the reason why becomes obvious when we compare the properties of the layers above with the requirements for convection to occur. These requirements for convection are the most obvious reason why this model will not work.We know that water vapor is carried to high altitudes by pockets of warm air, which rise because the pressure of the parcel of air is lower than the pressure of the surrounding air because it is warmer. So obviously, to continue to rise, the temperature must be lower outside the parcel than inside. So far your model is fine. But the reason it must be warmer to continue rising is that the parcel of air has to be warm enough that the internal pressure of the parcel is lower than ambient. At the 1000mb surface pressure of Earth, this isn't so difficult, the parcel is already at 1000mb and just has to be a little lower to begin rising. But the pressure at the mesosphere/stratosphere border is 1mb.We can do some back-of-the-envelope gas law calculations on how warm a parcel would have to be to reach the mesosphere. p = T*density*CI will take -5C as the temp of the mesosphere, as it is the average temp of the meso/strato boundary layer. The average pressure there is 1mb. 1 mb = 263*d*2.870.0013 kg/m³ is our densityNow to find the temperature our parcel much reach to have that density at sea level.T = 1mb / (0.0013 *2.87)T = 543C [QUOTE][b]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?[/QUOTE][/b]Tektite deposits hundreds of miles away from Chicxulub. What specifically are you looking for?

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-04-2002]

I'm confused. How is the water in the oceans currently enough to flood the world ? Even with total polar icecap meltdown, there isn't enough water to flood the planet completely ( though alot of beach front property would be gone. ) Is there something I am missing here?

"I'm confused. How is the water in the oceans currently enough to flood the world ? Even with total polar icecap meltdown, there isn't enough water to flood the planet completely ( though alot of beach front property would be gone. ) Is there something I am missing here?"
--Plate tectonics and the asumption of strict uniformitarianism.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I'm confused. How is the water in the oceans currently enough to flood the world ? Even with total polar icecap meltdown, there isn't enough water to flood the planet completely ( though alot of beach front property would be gone. ) Is there something I am missing here?"
--Plate tectonics and the asumption of strict uniformitarianism.

---

There is no evidence that the earth was ever smooth enough to be covered by the present water supply. Even in the bible. And we do have evidence of mountains on earth going back as far as we can see in the geological record. Perhaps you could explain how plate tectonics supports your position on this. We certainly don't have a smooth planet now, so I don't see how could uniformitarianism supports you, either. Do you understand that there is a reason why we have depressed ocean basins and higher continental land masses? I think you are reaching here, TC.

"There is no evidence that the earth was ever smooth enough to be covered by the present water supply. Even in the bible. And we do have evidence of mountains on earth going back as far as we can see in the geological record. Perhaps you could explain how plate tectonics supports your position on this. We certainly don't have a smooth planet now, so I don't see how could uniformitarianism supports you, either. Do you understand that there is a reason why we have depressed ocean basins and higher continental land masses? I think you are reaching here, TC. "
--I have read much about it, it is a product of buoyancy, and ofcourse there is evidence that the earth was smooth enough to have the capability to be covered with water, its just a matter of when. Also, what mountains would those be that have existed since the beginning of the earth. It couldn't be a range because this results from subduction, it couln't be volcanic on a continental plate because this results from a hotspot, etc. Our planet is quite smooth, very smooth when compairing to other planets small and large, and smooth when you see it on a smaller scale such as a basketball. A more depressed ocean basin is a possible effect of plate tectonics during the flood, mountain ranges such as the himilayas, andes, rockies and such are results from subduction caused by the same. I do not think there is any reason to believe that this could not have been the case.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-04-2002]

[QUOTE][b]and ofcourse there is evidence that the earth was smooth enough to have the capability to be covered with water, its just a matter of when.[/QUOTE][/b]What evidence is that? Were you aware that there are Precambrian schists in the base of the Grand Canyon that are apparently the roots of a former mountain range? How do mountains vanish without millions of years of erosion, or even a Great Flood? [QUOTE][b]It couldn't be a range because this results from subduction, it couln't be volcanic on a continental plate because this results from a hotspot, etc.[/QUOTE][/b]Explain your reasoning for this. [QUOTE][b]Our planet is quite smooth, very smooth when compairing to other planets small and large, and smooth when you see it on a smaller scale such as a basketball.[/QUOTE][/b]Your knowledge contradicts my knowledge. The Earth is sharp and jagged with mountain ranges that are still growing. The Moon is rounded and its slopes are gentle. Mars has three large volcanoes but they slope gently, not steeply (Mons covers an area the size of Arizona) and there are no sharp mountain ranges. Venus doesn't have mountain ranges, it has smooth uplands like Ishtar Terra and blister-like rounded volcanoes. Mercury is a denser version of the Moon. Io has volcanoes but no escarpments or mountain ranges.

Um Gene could you look up at message 31 please, you mentioned that the earth is a better carrier of shock waves than the atmosphere (true)....However the energy arrives faster than the shockwave can dissipate it, due to the impact happening at a faster speed than the maximum speed of propogation through the impacted material, this leads to a massive build up of energy that disperses as light and heat (vaporising the nearby material and the impactor) which form the crater....Hence only a small fraction of the energy is dissipated as a shock wave.....Sorry if you already saw post 31 but I didn`t see any aknowledgement so I wasn`t sure.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
edge: "There is no evidence that the earth was ever smooth enough to be covered by the present water supply. Even in the bible. And we do have evidence of mountains on earth going back as far as we can see in the geological record. Perhaps you could explain how plate tectonics supports your position on this. We certainly don't have a smooth planet now, so I don't see how could uniformitarianism supports you, either. Do you understand that there is a reason why we have depressed ocean basins and higher continental land masses? I think you are reaching here, TC. "

​

TC: I have read much about it, it is a product of buoyancy, and ofcourse there is evidence that the earth was smooth enough to have the capability to be covered with water, its just a matter of when.

---

Ah, good. Then what is this evidence?

quote:

---

Also, what mountains would those be that have existed since the beginning of the earth. It couldn't be a range because this results from subduction, it couln't be volcanic on a continental plate because this results from a hotspot, etc.

---

Not sure where to begin here. Do you understand the concept that some mountain ranges are older than others?And, no, not all mountain ranges are a result of subduction. And why couldn't there have been old volcanoes that are now eroded? We do see evidence for these. And no, not all volcanoes on continental plates are related to hot spots. Check out the East African Rift. You seem more confused (if that is possible) about plate tectonics than you are about radiometric dating.

quote:

---

Our planet is quite smooth, very smooth when compairing to other planets small and large, and smooth when you see it on a smaller scale such as a basketball.

---

And? I could just as easily say that it is rougher than a mirror surface. It is irrelevant to the discussion to say that the earth is smoother than Mars...

quote:

---

A more depressed ocean basin is a possible effect of plate tectonics during the flood, mountain ranges such as the himilayas, andes, rockies and such are results from subduction caused by the same.

---

No, plate tectonic does not explain why the ocean basins are lower than the continents. Nor do lower ocean basins have anything to do with the weight of the water on them as wmscott would have you think. If there were no water at all on earth, the ocean basins would still be depressed. It is due to composition of the different types of crust. Again, I submit that you are confused. Could it be that you get most of your geological education from creationist websites?