I understand that specific point but GPT's comment isn't quite the point I'm making.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.
Halley's Comet did NOT become Halley's comet until long after its component parts were launched from earth.
I HAVE seen these videos before and I have read the entire book, which I own two copies of.@Clete Please get the time to review this strong evidence that comets have their origin in the earth:
I don't understand this sentence.I understand that specific point but GPT's comment isn't quite the point I'm making.
Then you are denying the obvious discovery's that have been made in the last 20 years or so.First of all, I do not believe that comets are collections of loosely bound rocks, dust and ice
Yes, there is.but leaving that aside and granting the notion for the sake of argument, the point I am making is that there wouldn't have been any rock or dust.
Again, you make this claim repeatedly. It's simply not true.That material would have been vaporized before it got 100 meters off the ground if the required kinds of energies were applied in the near instantaneous manner that being released from a pressure vessel would require.
Your surety is unfounded since it does indeed say just that. That is why Bryan Nickel includes that in his videos. Bryan consults with Dr. Brown to verify the accuracy of his video work.I'm pretty sure Dr. Brown's material doesn't have anything in it about gaseous clouds of material condensing back into rocks, dust and water ice that then accreted into comets.
Clearly, you have only skimmed the book, since there are many things that you missed.I HAVE seen these videos before and I have read the entire book, which I own two copies of.
Again, concentrate on the part of the video that talks about the orbits of two particular comets. FOCUS on the facts that are presented there!I'm telling you, I understand the theory and I'm telling you that it (the formation of what would become comets and asteroids) cannot have happened the way the theory proposes.
Why? Is it again because you find it incredible?It makes logical sense but it is not practicable.
False.That is, it cannot happen in reality.
Again with your repeated "false facts".The forces involved would have effects other than to send trillions of tons of material intact into orbit around the Sun. I would, instead melt and/or vaporize the material.
I do not merely make the claim, I make an argument to support it. An argument you've not responded to except to claim that it "simply isn't true".Again, you make this claim repeatedly. It's simply not true.
I do not believe you.Your surety is unfounded since it does indeed say just that. That is why Bryan Nickel includes that in his videos. Bryan consults with Dr. Brown to verify the accuracy of his video work.
Yeah, I know it doesn't. Nor does it say anything else similar to that or else you'd have pointed out weeks ago.Note that it does NOT say that "it condensed back into rock".
As I said, there would have been no wet rock to pile up and then freeze into place.It says that comets and asteroids (as well as TNO's) are "flying rock piles held together with water ice". See Prediction #20 on page 340 of In the Beginning, 9th edition as one example.
Precisely!Note also that Dr. Brown calls them "rock piles" twelve times throughout the book.
Again, this portion of the theory is a solution in need of a problem; it is based, at least in part, on conventional wisdom in regards to what comets and asteroids are made of; and it completely ignores the physics involved in "launching" large masses of material into space using what would have been the equivalent of a very inefficient shot gun blast.I've probably already quoted this, but here it is again in Dr. Brown's summary of "The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects" (from Page 339 of In the Beginning, 9th edition):
SUMMARY: The fountains of the great deep launched rocks and muddy water into space. As rocks moved farther from Earth, Earth’s gravity became less significant to them, and the gravity of nearby rocks became increasingly significant. Consequently, many rocks, assisted by their mutual gravity and surrounding clouds of water vapor that produced aerobraking, merged to become asteroids. (Isolated rocks in space are meteoroids.) Drag forces caused by water vapor and thrust forces produced by the radiometer effect concentrated most smaller asteroids in what is now the asteroid belt. Larger asteroids were acted on longer by more powerful forces which pushed them out beyond Neptune’s orbit. All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, comets, and trans-Neptunian objects) resulted from the explosive events as the flood began.
If there were some sort of jet that could accelerate that material into orbit, that would be different but that isn't the way pressure vessels work. It would be no different that shooting a projectile out of a pistol. As soon as the bullet leaves the barrel (i.e. the pressure vessel) then the energy is finished accelerating the projectile. A bullet is going as fast as its going to go the moment it leaves the barrel because the force of the pressure gets pushed out in all directions and is no longer being focused on the back end of the bullet. The same would be true of these materials being sent off the surface of Earth into orbit around the Sun. Whatever momentum that would be needed to achieve such an orbit will have had to be imparted to that material as it was being pushed out of the pressure vessel, which, at those speeds, could not have been more than a few microseconds because at 18 miles a second, which is the minimum speed it would have needed, it would be a fully out of our atmosphere and into space in less than 1 second.
I read every syllable of it. Every single syllable.Clearly, you have only skimmed the book, since there are many things that you missed.
It is irrelevant because the material could never have made it off the planet in the form of rock and dust (much less liguid water or ice) given the proposed method of getting it there.Again, concentrate on the part of the video that talks about the orbits of two particular comets. FOCUS on the facts that are presented there!
No, because the stresses involved in applying those kinds of energies in the short periods of time would have vaporized the material rather than delivering it intact into an orbit around the Sun.Why? Is it again because you find it incredible?
Saying it doesn't make it so.False.
Again with your repeated "false facts".
It is not relevant to my argument.Focus on the correlation and try to disprove that.
About this specific point.I continue to find it incredible that you think that Dr. Brown is SO profoundly wrong about this.
Who says it's debris? Are the rings of Saturn "debris"? How about the rings around Jupiter and Neptune and Uranus? If you call them debris, do you also believe that material came from Noah flood? If you don't call them debris then on what basis do you call the asteroids debris, which are nothing more than a ring around the Sun (a full third of which is contained within a single body (Ceres) by the way).I find his explanation far more credible than yours (i.e., that God created a whole lot of planetary debris in His very good creation).
This entire post argues MY point!!!!Clete, you keep hinting at a belief that the acceleration was instantaneous.
The HPT does not assert that it was.
Consider the rail-mounted guns developed by the Germans in WW2.
View attachment 12169
View attachment 12170
They were designed to launch projectiles long ranges without vaporizing them in the process.
They did so by having extremely long barrels.
The HPT asserts that there was a roughly 60-mile "barrel" that was the crack in the earth's crust that would have accelerated the supercritical fluids from beneath the crust to escape velocities and higher.
In other words, your "immediate acceleration would vaporize the material" objection doesn't apply to at least most of the material ejected with the Fountains, even accounting for the spikes in pressure caused by the "fluttering" of the crust as the SCFs escaped.
You can accelerate something quite a lot over a distance of 60 miles, even without super high amounts of energy being applied constantly.
The "rocket science" of it all is here.
More technical notes links:
How much power would it take to accelerate 3.3×10^22 kg of mass to 18 miles per second in 3.3 seconds (18 miles X 3.3 seconds = 60 miles)?
That's simply incorrect.From ChatGPT.... "Is there any know material that could remain in a solid state after having been subjected to that much power?"
Subjecting any material to such an immense amount of power—approximately 4.20×10304.20 \times 10^30 watts—over such a short time would likely vaporize, or even ionize, any known material. This amount of power is orders of magnitude beyond what typical materials, or even the most resilient substances like diamond or tungsten, could withstand while remaining in a solid state. (Emphasis added)Here’s why:
- Energy Density: The energy density in this scenario is extraordinarily high. The energy applied to the material would cause it to heat up almost instantly to temperatures far beyond what any known material can tolerate without melting, vaporizing, or breaking down into plasma.
Sorry, Chat GPT... you don't know what you're talking about.
- Material Limits: Even the toughest materials known, such as graphene, carbon nanotubes, or synthetic diamonds, would likely break down. At such energy levels, the bonds between atoms would be disrupted, leading to disintegration at the atomic level.
Again!!! Nuclear Fusion "context" is an explosion that produces temperatures of 100 MILLION DEGREE
- Nuclear Fusion Context: To put this in perspective, the power involved here is comparable to the energy released in a massive nuclear explosion, which causes materials to transition to plasma almost immediately.
Don't confused me with the facts... I've already made up my mind.... got it.It is irrelevant because the material could never have made it off the planet in the form of rock and dust (much less liguid water or ice) given the proposed method of getting it there.
You're talking about accelerating something with a mass of 330,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg up to that velocity.
I'm pretty sure there was no one object that large that was ejected, nor does HPT claim there was.
The problem you seem to be having here is that you're trying to have one giant object be accelerated, which will obviously result in ridiculous amounts of energy being required.
You keep just increasing the complexity and, in so doing, you make the problem worse for the theory, not better. You are literally suggesting that this material was sent up as though shot from a garden sprinkler head rather than a gun barrel.Try doing the math for a 2000 kg object (the mass of an average car).
Also keep in mind that some objects did NOT reach escape velocity, while others were flung much farther than the rest.
Oh, and let's not forget that the full amount of energy stored in earth was released over the course of at least 40 days, up to 150 days.
I'm not convinced that any such change actually occurred.@Clete I'm curious what your replacement theory is with regards to the change in the lunar cycle (from 30 days to about 29.5). Per HPT, it was the impacts with earth debris (that you say does not exist) that caused it. What is your story?
It appears that you simply ignore any evidence contrary to your beliefs.I'm not convinced that any such change actually occurred.
Saying it doesn't make it so and ChatGPT, while it is what I quoted in my post, is not the source of this objection but rather only serves as a corroborating witness to what I've heard others say in response to these ideas for a long long time.That's simply incorrect.
Sorry, Chat GPT... you don't know what you're talking about.
Well, its the energy that creates the temperature, not the other way around. Indeed, the temperature is just one measure of the energy. That's the whole point here. Temperature is just matter in motion. You impart sufficient energy to a mass and eventually, its sufficient to overcome the electromagnetic force that is holding the electrons in the atom.Again!!! Nuclear Fusion "context" is an explosion that produces temperatures of 100 MILLION DEGREESCELSIUS!!!
Saying it doesn't make it so.Again, Chat GPT is just completely wrong.
I am not simply blowing it off!You'd be much better served by believing the Ph.D that's spent a great deal of his life analyzing this issue and has spelled it out very clearly in his book. Dr. Brown spends almost 40 pages explaining in great detail why comets and asteroid have their origin in the earth. But you just blow it off as "can't happen in the first place".
You're over reaction is both silly and telling. I've quoted ChatGPT maybe a dozen times in my whole life and almost all of them have been here on this one thread. It's a resource and a pretty darn good one. Your blowing it off as "just completely wrong" with no evidence or even argument to support such a position is, intellectually dishonest and a waste of time.P.S. Since when was Chat GPT your all knowing source of information?
That was a lie.It appears that you simply ignore any evidence contrary to your beliefs.
This is your evidence?Genesis 7-8 describe 150 days as precisely 5 months. That is NOT what we observe today.
Energy does not need to produce heat. Expanding (i.e., energy releasing) SCW is VERY, VERY COLD! It turns into KINETIC energy (due to the EXTREME expansion) and NOT heat.Well, its the energy that creates the temperature, not the other way around.
The energy involved in the bursting forth of the great deep was spread out over a VAST area... i.e., the entire surface of planet earth. It was primarily KINETIC energy. Equating energy to heat is simply wrong.Indeed, the temperature is just one measure of the energy. That's the whole point here. Temperature is just matter in motion. You impart sufficient energy to a mass and eventually, its sufficient to overcome the electromagnetic force that is holding the electrons in the atom.
I'm am genuinely shocked, disapointed, and ashamed of you, RD.Don't confused me with the facts... I've already made up my mind.... got it.