Right Divider
Body part
has anyone every provided an answer to what happens to all the heat (h bomb equivalents) brown has suggested? where does that go?
- Read his book
- Much of it was converted to kinetic energy
has anyone every provided an answer to what happens to all the heat (h bomb equivalents) brown has suggested? where does that go?
Appeal to authority. Unconvincing.@Clete Do you want to know what I find implausible?
I find it implausible that Dr. Brown, who has a Ph.D in Mechanical Engineering and has studied this topic for decades, would miss something so fundamental that you seem to think that a high school science student would understand it. I find it implausible that Dr. Brown's theory makes many predictions that are now confirmed based on what you say cannot happen. (see Predictions 20-21 in In the Begging 9th edition, page 340).
300 million trillion (300 quintillion) tons of TNT?Also, to reiterate what I said before about the forces involved. The equivalent of 300 quintillion tons of TNT. One ton of TNT produces 4.184 gigajoules. That's for ONE TON of TNT.
So 300 million trillions tons of TNT products 1.2252 x 10^29 joules.
That's ~122 octillion joules!
It is fundamental to parts of the theory but not to the whole. Generally, I think the theory does an excellent job of explaining a lot of various kinds of geologic phenomena all over the globe. More than that, my major objection here is not that material could not have been sent into orbit around the Earth or even that some small amount could perhaps have been removed entirely from Earth's gravity well and set as far as the Moon or sent flying off into deep space. That however, is a far cry, a very far cry indeed, from the idea that something could be sent into an orbit around the Sun. You simply cannot comprehend the amount of energy that would require and it all would have had to be imparted very nearly instantaneously to boot. No way that much energy density doesn't vaporize everything it touches.Also note that this scattering of earth debris is fundamental to HPT. It is the reason that the moons cycles went from 30 days to ~29.5 days. It is also one of the reasons why the earth year went from 360 days to ~365.25 days.
I'll watch the videos again.Then you should pay special attention to the section of that video pertaining to short, medium and long period comets. It gives excellent evidence that the material that makes up those comets was launched from earth. It starts about about 16:45
This section on the orbits of two well known comets is also excellent evidence that they originated from the earth:
I'm not appealing to his authority, I'm denying yours.Appeal to authority. Unconvincing.
Again ( I guess that you don't remember our previous conversations), I took HIS estimation of 30 trillion hydrogen bombs and multiplied by an average H-bomb yield to get that number.300 million trillion (300 quintillion) tons of TNT?
No, see above.Is that a number the Dr. Brown produced?
It's in a video of an interview with him. It's not in the book (I wish that it was).If so, does he give any evidence that such an amount of energy could/would actually be produced, given the theorized scenario? If so, would you happen to know just about where I could find it in his book?
Yes.It is fundamental to parts of the theory but not to the whole.
Orbiting the sun is not so difficult at you make it out to be.Generally, I think the theory does an excellent job of explaining a lot of various kinds of geologic phenomena all over the globe. More than that, my major objection here is not that material could not have been sent into orbit around the Earth or even that some small amount could perhaps have been removed entirely from Earth's gravity well and set as far as the Moon or sent flying off into deep space. That however, is a far cry, a very far cry indeed, from the idea that something could be sent into an orbit around the Sun.
I realized recently that this is exactly where you have gone wrong. It was NOT instantaneous. Just like the 40 DAYS OF HEAVY RAIN was not instantaneous. The launching of matter from the earth happened during the SAME time period.You simply cannot comprehend the amount of energy that would require and it all would have had to be imparted very nearly instantaneously to boot.
See above.No way that much energy density doesn't vaporize everything it touches.
Why does Dr. Brown need to explain anything? He does so because his theory explains a great deal about the events associated with the flood.Further, why does Dr. Brown feel the need to explain the origin of comets anyway?
He's not... He says that asteroids were also created during and by the events associated with the flood.If he's content with God having created the planets and asteroids
Because Dr. Brown has a better explanation than just "God did it".and everything else in the solar system, why not include the comets as well?
Thank you.I'll watch the videos again.
Even if that were true, it's the same thing. His education vs mine is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of that which is in dispute.I'm not appealing to his authority, I'm denying yours.
Ah! That makes sense.Again ( I guess that you don't remember our previous conversations), I took HIS estimation of 30 trillion hydrogen bombs and multiplied by an average H-bomb yield to get that number.
Well, the problem isn't merely achieving orbit. Comets aren't merely in orbit around the Sun, they are in very eccentric orbits around the Sun. Meaning, at some point, they were falling nearly straight at the Sun and only narrowly (by solar systems scales) missed hitting the Sun. That means that if that comet began on Earth, nearly all of the object's momentum that it had by virtue of being part of the Earth would have had to be cancelled out. That's the hard part. It will have had to be sent off the surface of Earth at something approaching 18 miles per second in the opposite direction to the Earth's travel around the Sun.Orbiting the sun is not so difficult at you make it out to be.
Once an object is outside of earth's field of influence... the sun's takes over.
No. We are talking about an explosive decompression event that would have had to impart sufficient energy to these objects to immediately send them off the planet in a manner that achieves these eccentric orbits that they're in today.I realized recently that this is exactly where you have gone wrong. It was NOT instantaneous. Just like the 40 DAYS OF HEAVY RAIN was not instantaneous. The launching of matter from the earth happened during the SAME time period.
It just seems like the addition of an explanation of the origin of comets is a stretch that isn't needed. Seems to me that the theory would be well served to drop that aspect of it.Why does Dr. Brown need to explain anything? He does so because his theory explains a great deal about the events associated with the flood.
It just keeps getting worse and worse and worse.He's not... He says that asteroids were also created during and by the events associated with the flood.
https://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html
I'm not convinced its better.Because Dr. Brown has a better explanation than just "God did it".
Predictions are important for any theory but so is explaining how it could ever actually happen. If your theory breaks the laws of physics, then such successful predictions are merely coincidental.HPT explains exactly what we should expect to find and what we do find with regard to the composition of these various objects in our solar system.
No, I was NOT saying that it's true because he's smart.Even if that were true, it's the same thing. His education vs mine is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of that which is in dispute.
No problem.No, I don't have a good recollection of our previous conversation, by the way. Sorry.
No, it's not hard. Matter was ejected in all directions and varying speeds. Again, see the part of the video about short, medium and long period comets. It explains that all very well.Well, the problem isn't merely achieving orbit. Comets aren't merely in orbit around the Sun, they are in very eccentric orbits around the Sun. Meaning, at some point, they were falling nearly straight at the Sun and only narrowly (by solar systems scales) missed hitting the Sun. That means that if that comet began on Earth, nearly all of the object's momentum that it had by virtue of being part of the Earth would have had to be cancelled out. That's the hard part.
That is not a problem at all and I cannot understand why you are having a hard time seeing that.It will have had to be sent off the surface of Earth at something approaching 18 miles per second in the opposite direction to the Earth's travel around the Sun.
Again, it seems that the only problem is your inability to understand the physics and not the facts of the case.No. We are talking about an explosive decompression event that would have had to impart sufficient energy to these objects to immediately send them off the planet in a manner that achieves these eccentric orbits that they're in today.
This reminds me of your comments about people claiming miracles that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. A similar problem exists for saying that "God did it" without any evidence for that. Dr. Brown's explanations make perfect sense despite your claims of incredulity.It just seems like the addition of an explanation of the origin of comets is a stretch that isn't needed. Seems to me that the theory would be well served to drop that aspect of it.
No, it doesn't.It just keeps getting worse and worse and worse.
At least the planets are mentioned in the Bible. 2 Kings 23:5Why then doesn't he believe that Mars used to be a part of the Earth or Venus or Mercury?
False.Prediction: Any answer you give to that question will apply equally as well to asteroids and comets.
See my comment above about claiming miracles without support.I'm not convinced its better.
And Dr. Brown has explained how it could happen but you rejected it because you find it unbelievable. i.e. appeal to the stone.Predictions are important for any theory but so is explaining how it could ever actually happen.
It does NOT break the laws of physics. That has been my claim all along.If your theory breaks the laws of physics, then such successful predictions are merely coincidental.
I'll watch the videos again.
Two things.No, I was NOT saying that it's true because he's smart.
My point, which I will try to make again, is that if what you say is true (that he's wrong about some of earth being launched into space to form asteroids and comets, etc.), then that is a MAJOR BLUNDER and I wonder why you would accept his theory at all.
This is a terrific example of something I mentioned in a previous post about the theory just stating that something happened without giving any information about how it could have actually occurred.No, it's not hard. Matter was ejected in all directions and varying speeds. Again, see the part of the video about short, medium and long period comets. It explains that all very well.
For example, short period comets are 97% pro-grade. Whereas, long period comets are about half pro-grade and half retro-grade (53/47). That is likely due to the velocity of their ejection from earth. That explains your "cancelling out". Not so hard after all.
The direction is easy. The energies requires to achieve the required velocities, not so much.That is not a problem at all and I cannot understand why you are having a hard time seeing that.
Facts?Again, it seems that the only problem is your inability to understand the physics and not the facts of the case.
You don't believe that God put the planets in their place?This reminds me of your comments about people claiming miracles that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. A similar problem exists for saying that "God did it" without any evidence for that. Dr. Brown's explanations make perfect sense despite your claims of incredulity.
Dangerously close to an argument from silence there.At least the planets are mentioned in the Bible. 2 Kings 23:5
The Moon, Venus, Mercury, Mars and Pluto are not "vastly" different and the sampling we have of comets and asteroids is insufficient to say that they are all "very closely match" the composition of the Earth and even if they did, it would be a problem for the HPT not a help because all that material WOULD HAVE melted, if not vaporized, had they been subjected to sufficient explosive force to send it all into orbit around the Sun.Also note that the physical makeup of comets, asteroids and meteors matches very closely with the composition of earth... unlike the other planets in our solar system that are vastly different. See In the Beginning, 9th edition, pages 122 and 310.
As demonstrated above, it isn't false, its entirely true.False.
Like the existence of Mars is a miracle?See my comment above about claiming miracles without support.
I don't merely find it unbelievable as if I just "feel" like its a fairy tale. I don't believe it because the energies involved are probably impossible to begin with and even if such energies could be applied to chucks of the Earth the result would have been to sublimate the material directly into a gaseous state rather than to deliver them intact into an sort of orbit, much less very eccentric ones or ones beyond the orbit of Mars.And Dr. Brown has explained how it could happen but you rejected it because you find it unbelievable. i.e. appeal to the stone.
I think we have sufficient experiment evidence to prove that it would. Early on, I cited an example of laboratory experiments where metal projectiles where accelerated to speeds less than half of what we're talking about and the result was the obliteration of the projectile upon impact. The reason that's relevant is that the near instantaneous application of these energies would have been more like an impact than what one might think of as a launching. These projectile vaporize at impact speeds of something around 1000 meters per second, while the theory talks about the application of energies that would need to immediately accelerate these objects to somthing like 29,000 meters per second.It does NOT break the laws of physics. That has been my claim all along.
Dr. Brown has an entire chapter of extremely detailed explanations (and calculations) of why the comets, asteroids, meteors and TNO's all came from earth. So, YES, if they did NOT... that is a HUGE BLUNDER.Two things.
First I'm not so sure that it's that huge of a blunder.
On this we can agree.Second, I'm not so sure that my objection is valid.
Dr. Brown's entire book debunks your objections.In fact, the most important factor in my skepticism on the theories ideas about the origin of comets and asteroids has to do with the fact that no one seems to be able to debunk my objections and every attempt that has been made has had the effect of increasing the complexity of the problem and thereby deepening my skepticism.
Indeed, the heavy rain caused by this event lasted for 40 DAYS.An excellent example of this complicating effect was present in those two videos, which I did watch by the way, where the notion that this explosive decompression event that sent these objects into space didn't happen in a few minutes or hours but over weeks or even months.
Again, that is all clearly explained in In the Beginning (and in the videos).That seems to me that it makes the problem so much worse that I have a hard time even articulating it. I've been talking about a single energy release that is incomprehensible and now I'm realizing that the theory would call for a similar amount of energy being continuously released for weeks and weeks sending, not one or two, or dozens or even hundreds of comments but literally tens of thousands, perhaps millions of objects into orbit.
Incidentally, the mass of the asteroid belt is about 3x10^22 kilograms. That's a tiny amount in comparison to the mass of the Earth but it is still and enormous about of mass when you have to figure out how to get it off of the Earth and into orbit. Again the energies involved are, well, amazing, to say the least. Not only that, but the video correctly point out that the material would have been sent out in all directions randomly, initially forming a spherical shell rather than a ring around the Sun, which, if Chat GPTs math is correct, would have required about 11 times as much mass as is currently in the asteroid belt.
Again, your argument is an appeal to the stone.One last point about the video....
It assumes that the asteroids are gravitational accretions of material. This is another process that I am extremely skeptical about for reasons that have nothing to do with the Hydroplate Theory.
Dr. Brown gives LOTS of information about how it could happen.This is a terrific example of something I mentioned in a previous post about the theory just stating that something happened without giving any information about how it could have actually occurred.
Or in the case of the highest velocity objects MORE than ALL or its momentum canceled out. That is what allows some comets to move in a retro-grade orbit.I understand that stuff would have been sent in all directions and that the stuff that was sent in the opposite direction of Earth's travel would have had that part of its momentum cancelled out.
Yes, and he explains it all very well.That much makes total sense. What doesn't make sense is the amount of energy it would have required to cancel out all of (or nearly all of) that momentum. 18+ miles per second is not a small amount of momentum to overcome and according to Dr. Brown, some of these objects would have achieved velocities nearly twice that!
Apparently, you've not thoroughly read the book or thoroughly watched the video as the super critical water was NOT the only source of energy.What he doesn't explain is how, apart from simply claiming that it was the released of very super critical water from beneath the Earth's surface.
This claim is without merit.That may or may not be a sufficient energy source but whether it is or not, what isn't explained is how the delivery of that amount of energy to chunks of the Earth wouldn't have simply vaporized the chunks rather than sending them into orbit.
Many of the orbits are not so stable. These objects are being destroyed all of the time by gravitational attractions of Jupiter and Saturn. Some crashed directly into the Sun. And some did fall back to earth.There's another problem with this idea that I haven't bothered to mention before now. Even if chunks of Earth could be sent, intact, into orbit in this manner, it would be a rather small percentage of the overall material that would have achieved stable orbits.
Only for those that did not reach escape velocity.Most of any material that was sent flying would have ended up back on Earth and it would have impacted the Earth with a large percentage of the energy it left with.
Lack of evidence is not evidence.It short, it would have be 40 days and 40 nights of rocks and boulders raining down onto the Earth. Something that I don't believe that there is any evidence for.
Again, Dr. Brown explains it quite completely.The direction is easy. The energies requires to achieve the required velocities, not so much.
There you are back to "instantaneous"... it wasn't. For example, the expansion of the SCW happens over time and NOT instantaneously.Facts?
I understand the ideas of the theory, it's the how that's given me trouble. Even if the energies count be achieved, the instantaneous nature of that energy's delivery to the object would have disintegrated (vaporized) it before sending it into orbit around the Sun.
How is 4000° F achieved in this case? It's not.I've have an easier time believing it was possible if comets and asteroids were chucks of iron but they aren't. They're made of ordinary rock. Stuff that vaporizes at around 4000° F (less than that in space).
In the cold of space... absolutely NOT!That, and water ice which I presume would have had to gravitationally accrete to the asteroid or comet after it cooled down which would have taken centuries.
It's easy to believe that God created the earth, Sun, moon and planets. It's a little harder to believe that He "created" a whole lot of planetary debris in His "very good" creation.You don't believe that God put the planets in their place?
That was rhetorical. Of course I know you do believe that. The point is.... Where's the need to explain only some of the bodies in the solar system? And if one's objections to the notion that "God did it" is valid for those few hundreds of thousands of objects, then why wouldn't the same objection be valid for the other few dozen objects that remain? Why is it valid to believe that God created Jupiter but invalid to believe He created Ceres?
How so?Dangerously close to an argument from silence there.
Again, your "vaporized" theory does not hold water.The Moon, Venus, Mercury, Mars and Pluto are not "vastly" different and the sampling we have of comets and asteroids is insufficient to say that they are all "very closely match" the composition of the Earth and even if they did, it would be a problem for the HPT not a help because all that material WOULD HAVE melted, if not vaporized, had they been subjected to sufficient explosive force to send it all into orbit around the Sun.
What Biblical support do you have that God created vast amounts of planetary debris as part of His very good creation?Like the existence of Mars is a miracle?
Again, it's strange to me that you think that Dr. Brown is incapable understanding that... if it was true.I don't merely find it unbelievable as if I just "feel" like its a fairy tale. I don't believe it because the energies involved are probably impossible to begin with and even if such energies could be applied to chucks of the Earth the result would have been to sublimate the material directly into a gaseous state rather than to deliver them intact into an sort of orbit, much less very eccentric ones or ones beyond the orbit of Mars.
Again, your argument is an appeal to the stone.
Yes, you are correct.I think you mean argument from incredulity...
No, it would be just one, more or less ancillary, aspect of the theory that was incorrect. The origin of comets is in no way foundational to the theory.Dr. Brown has an entire chapter of extremely detailed explanations (and calculations) of why the comets, asteroids, meteors and TNO's all came from earth. So, YES, if they did NOT... that is a HUGE BLUNDER.
On the contrary, the book is what engendered my objections. More precisely, the books lack of evidentiary argument. In short, it makes the claim that these things happened but does begin to address the issues I've brought up here.Dr. Brown's entire book debunks your objections.
Rain falling for weeks would not be surprising given the atmosphere's ability to carry water vapor all around the planet and to condense it into rain and probably a half a dozen or more other processes that could account for that much water falling as rain. There is no reason to believe, nor does the HPT suggest, that I recall, that water was being shot out of these fountains for the entire duration of the flood.Indeed, the heavy rain caused by this event lasted for 40 DAYS.
Yes it would have had to have been or very nearly so. Even if the fountains themselves kept on going for however long, the water, the water vapor and anything else that came out from under the surface would have immediately began to loose momentum as soon as left the pressure vessel.Again, the launching of this planetary debris was not instantaneous.
That is not my argument at all. I've have not said that! I've made a very clear argument here and nowhere have I even suggested that my argument is based on my feelings or my beliefs or any other such flimsy crap!Again, that is all clearly explained in In the Beginning (and in the videos).
- So, again, your primary argument is that it's hard for you to believe.
Silly. It's just math. I simply asked it to calculate how much mass it would take to make a spherical shell of the same density as the disk of material that we call the asteroid belt. It did the math and came up with about 11 times as much material would be needed. So, that would end up being about 44% or so of the mass of the Moon that would have left the Earth to make what would eventually become the asteroid belt, which currently is only about 4% of the mass of the Moon.
- I'll take Dr. Brown over Chat GPT any day.
Saying it doesn't make it so. I have made an affirmative argument. I've done far more than merely claim that it is absurd or inplausible. If you make this claim again, you'll be guilty of a lie. You know better.Again, your argument is an appeal to the stone.
No, he gives lots of information about WHAT he believes happened, not HOW such events would actually be physically possible. The closest he gets to a how is to posit a power source but that isn't 1% of the way towards explaining the forces involved and what affect those forces would have when applied to real objects in real time.Dr. Brown gives LOTS of information about how it could happen.
Not just retrograde but extremely eccentric orbits that I'm not even sure would be possible to create from the Earth's distance from the Sun at all.Or in the case of the highest velocity objects MORE than ALL or its momentum canceled out. That is what allows some comets to move in a retro-grade orbit.
I'm out of time and this all just sort of rehashes everything and refutes none of what I've said. For now, I offer the following answer I got after asking ChatGPT whether it would be theoretically possible to launch a Halley's comet sized piece of material from Earth in such a way that it achieves Halley's current orbit. Here's the answer it gave....Yes, and he explains it all very well.
Apparently, you've not thoroughly read the book or thoroughly watched the video as the super critical water was NOT the only source of energy.
See "Energy Available" beginning on page 599 of In the Beginning, 9th edition.
This claim is without merit.
Many of the orbits are not so stable. These objects are being destroyed all of the time by gravitational attractions of Jupiter and Saturn. Some crashed directly into the Sun. And some did fall back to earth.
Only for those that did not reach escape velocity.
Lack of evidence is not evidence.
Again, Dr. Brown explains it quite completely.
There you are back to "instantaneous"... it wasn't. For example, the expansion of the SCW happens over time and NOT instantaneously.
How is 4000° F achieved in this case? It's not.
In the cold of space... absolutely NOT!
It's easy to believe that God created the earth, Sun, moon and planets. It's a little harder to believe that He "created" a whole lot of planetary debris in His "very good" creation.
How so?
Again, your "vaporized" theory does not hold water.
Also, Pluto should be a lot like earth, it came from earth.
What Biblical support do you have that God created vast amounts of planetary debris as part of His very good creation?
Again, it's strange to me that you think that Dr. Brown is incapable understanding that... if it was true.
If you think that Dr. Brown is so wrong about this part of his theory, then you should definitely not believe HPT as a whole.
Silly. It's just math. I simply asked it to calculate how much mass it would take to make a spherical shell of the same density as the disk of material that we call the asteroid belt. It did the math and came up with about 11 times as much material would be needed. So, that would end up being about 44% or so of the mass of the Moon that would have left the Earth to make what would eventually become the asteroid belt, which currently is only about 4% of the mass of the Moon.
I've used it quite a lot for various things. It's right a lot more than not IF you ask the questions correctly. The prompt (i.e. the question you ask) is enormously important and if you ask the same question a second (or sometimes a third time) in the same exchange, it gets better at figuring out what it is you're actually asking.Be careful with ChatGPT.
It can get things right.
It can get things wrong.
It can also get things wrong, and be highly confident that it's right.
In other words, take what it says with a pinch of salt, and verify what it outputs to be correct, instead of just automatically assuming that it's correct.
Actually, math and data analysis is one of the things it does best and most reliably, which is why it limits the amount of data analysis you can do with it without paying for it. Anything like math or reporting straight facts is the sort of thing the free version of ChatGPT should mostly be used for precisely because it doesn't call for it to act too much like a human being. Asking it questions that don't require it to offer opinions or to take a side or to be intuitive in any way is the best practice.Just because you're asking it to do math equations doesn't mean that it (a Large Language Model (LLM)) can do the math correctly.
I've seen similar accusations, but I've never been able to get ChatGPT to give me blatantly false answers like that. The closest I've come is on one of the AI image generator apps where if you asked for an image of George Washington, you'd get an image of a black man dressed in 18th century military uniform or something similar. An issue that I'd bet been fixed and that only ever existed because of the political bias of those behind the scenes. In short, don't trust ChatGPT with anything that touches anything remotely associated with politics or any social issue.LLMs do hallucinate (meaning, they confidently state things that are incorrect). A simple example of this is where it will confidently assert that 2+2=5.
It appears, again, that you simply do NOT understand Dr. Brown's theory at all. Either you have not read his book carefully or really paid careful attention to the videos.3. Structural Integrity:
- Even if it were possible to launch such a large object, the forces involved in accelerating Halley's Comet to the required speeds would likely cause it to break apart. Comets are generally loosely bound agglomerations of ice, dust, and rocky material, which are not well-suited to withstand the stresses of such a launch.