Did the Flood really happen?

Very good.Rocks (igneous) contain (OH) ion in it. That is the source of free water. The problem is to squeeze this (OH) ion out. This could be done by reacting (OH)-bearing minerals in the rock into "dry" rocks which has no (OH)-bearing minerals. Normally, this kind of reactions take place when the T and P condition become higher, i.e. goes deeper into the earth. Of course, the freed water would go up to the surface.

quote:

---

My answer has some serious words in it. Why is it nothing?

---

I didn’t say that it was nothing. I said that it meant absolutely nothing - note the quote marks. Because it did not include anything that answered the question.

Where does the required H⁺ ion come from?How do you expect the reaction to take place in dry rocks?

Can't help to say this, just tying to depress you.One of my undergraduate student took a study on brick (artificial rock) as his undergraduate thesis. I was amazed on how many different kind of brick he collected and dissected.You think you know bricks?

Hey, consider to study geology? Excellent questions.The (OH) [not H] get into igneous rocks by water already existed in magma. of course, when the rock is on the surface, a lot more water is available. The original earth (a molten globe) contained water in the magma. It would be very precious to get the hand on those "primitive" water today.In general, the reaction is like this:Wet-minerals + other minerals --> dry-minerals + H2OThis reaction needs input of energy.

A term at a Ph.D. level will not mean anything to a kid.
Although, when that took place, it is, indeed, the fault of the Ph.D. if he ever want to communicate with the kid.

quote:

---

A term at a Ph.D. level will not mean anything to a kid.
Although, when that took place, it is, indeed, the fault of the Ph.D. if he ever want to communicate with the kid

---

I am sorry that my point went over your head. I will try to write more simply for your benefit.Here is the real question you haven’t answered:How do conditions on the Moon support the idea that there was a global Flood on Earth?

No, you did far more than that. You grossly inflated the rate in order to arrive at very bogus conclusions : At the actual rate at which the earth's rotation is actually slowing down, then 200 million years ago (your 2E8) the earth's rotation would have been faster (not slower) by one hour, which is 3600 seconds. That means that by misrepresenting the rate at which the earth is slowing you inflated your result by a factor of 27.78. Very dishonest of you! Except that it doesn't work as you wish it would, as you need it to work in order to justify long lifespan that the story reports for Noah. This tiny change in the length of the earth's rotational period does result in hours of difference over long periods of geologic time, such as 12 hours [i]over the past four billion years (ie, 4,000 million years -- not everybody reading this uses the US billion).You require enormous change over short periods of time in order to support your apologetics for the Story of Noah. Nothing that you have tried to invoke will do that. In fact, you have tried almost everything you can except for the actual answer: It's a story! Instead of wasting your time and effort on this story, you should do something far more constructive, such as figuring out ways in which Thor's hammer, Mjlnir, can be lifted by someone or something that is not worthy (Cap: "The elevator is not worthy.").

For example, one of the factors slowing the earth's spin down is the ongoing (and slow) rebound of the northern hemisphere as it recovers from the weight of the ice cap during the last ice age. That is changing the earth's moment of inertia, increasing it, which results in a corresponding decrease in the earth's spin due to conservation of angular momentum.Juvenissun's main problem is that he does not understand physics, not even the most basic and simple physics.

Interesting! To think that I spent about fifty years as a chemist and never knew that! Thanks!Where does the hydrogen hide in those dry rocks?

In addition to this, you also have proposed an asteroid the size of a mountain hitting the earth, saying that it would be the same as the Himalayas suddenly collapsing. You have proposed this in support of the Story of Noah's Flood. That is clearly incorrect as we can demonstrate through simple physics, namely linear momentum and the law of conservation of linear momentum.Linear momentum = mass_of_the_body × velocity_of_the_body = mvWhen two bodies collide, the linear momentum of the new system is equal to the sum of the bodies' momentums. Keep in mind that velocity is a vector which means that it has direction as well as magnitude (AKA speed) -- I hope that that does not confuse you too much.OK, let's establish some reasonable values. I'll use metric units because they just make far more sense and are easier to work with. I will also use computer E-notation instead of regular scientific notation (eg, 2.34E-2 instead of 2.34×10^-2) since you have demonstrated that you are familiar with it and also so you won't completely screw up copying the text yet again. A few comments on that list:

1. Since linear momentum is calculated by multiplying kilograms by meters/second, its units are kg m/s. Therefore, when you divide linear momentum by mass in kilograms, you get a velocity in meters per second.
   ​
2. In order to see what effect such collisions would have on the earth (ie, how much they would accelerate the earth), I chose the earth as our frame of reference (literally the very first thing they teach in physics class). That gives the earth a velocity of zero and hence zero momentum. As a result, the earth will take on the full momentum of the impacting body. The new velocity of the earth would be the impacting body's momentum divided by the earth's mass and hence will be in meters per second.
   ​
3. Ceres was chosen as the example asteroid because it is the most massive asteroid out there. That means that any other asteroid hitting the earth would have less impact. Therefore, using Ceres would give us an upper bound for the effect on the earth (a very common engineering practice).
   ​
4. Mt Everest was chosen as the example collapsing mountain because, as the largest mountain on earth, it would give us an upper bound on such an event; any other mountain collapsing would have less impact. I also made a number of assumptions to push that upper bound even higher: equal distribution of mass throughout the mountain's height instead of it being concentrated towards the base as it actually is, assuming that it all fall down to sea level instead of to a more realistic somewhat higher elevation, that all particles in the mountain being free to fall unimpeded by neighboring particles thus allowing all parts of the mountain to reach maximum speed.
   ​
5. In comparing the linear momentum of Mt Everest collapsing with the linear momentum of a Mt Everest-size asteroid hitting the earth, we find the asteroid's linear momentum to be nearly 100 times greater (94.899). Exactly as I had told you repeatedly while you continued to assert that their effects would be the same. You stubbornly refused to realize the role of kinetic energy such that it appears that you were completely unaware of its existence.

OK, now to calculate the effects that impacts with those linear momentums would have in changing the earth's velocity:

• Due to Mt Everest falling to sea level: 2.823E-8 m/sec = 6.3E-8 mph
  ​
• Due to impact by an Everest-size asteroid: 2.679E-6 m/sec = 5.99E-6 mph
  ​
• Due to impact by a mountain-size asteroid: 1.0E-24 m/sec = 2.247E-24 mph
  ​
• Due to impact by Ceres: 3.1423E-6 m/sec = 7.029E-6 mph

Compared to the earth's orbital speed of 30,000 m/sec, the effects that such impacts would have on changing the earth's orbital speed are so miniscule that they just barely hang onto the right side of a calculator display. Also remember that these figures are upper bounds, so the actual values that would actually happen will be far less.IOW, they have virtually no effect on the earth's orbit. Juvenissun, learn something about science! Apply what you have learned to test your own ideas first! That way you can spot the real stinkers yourself so that you can avoid using them.Instead, all you are doing with your bone-headed baseless claims is to destroy any credibility that you could possibly have as well as exposing how horrifically bad your false religion and silly phony god are (again, not to be confused with actual Christianity).So do yourself a favor and learn something!Edited by dwise1, : reminder that these are upper bounds

The moon rocks can generate some water. So the earth rocks can generate tremendous amount of water.This is a very simple answer and you probably can not understand. But you can ask question.

[qs]Except that it doesn't work as you wish it would, as you need it to work in order to justify long lifespan that the story reports for Noah. This tiny change in the length of the earth's rotational period does result in hours of difference over long periods of geologic time, such as 12 hours [i]over the past four billion years (ie, 4,000 million years -- not everybody reading this uses the US billion). [/qs]I did not say that single factor will work.

There is no hydrogen [H+] in any rocks. There is only (OH-).Dehydration is a main reaction in deep seated rocks of the earth. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The moon rocks can generate some water. So the earth rocks can generate tremendous amount of water.

​

This is a very simple answer and you probably can not understand. But you can ask question.

---

We already know that the Earth has a lot of water. So this adds nothing. Even if it is true.It’s the sort of argument you wouldn’t bother with if you had anything worthwhile. But of course you don’t.