Mooning Jupiter

Status
Not open for further replies.

ThePhy

New member
Yorzhik said:
I'll ask him. But it will probably only be on the radio show since he doesn't really post here much.
He posts in these forums when he thinks he can score points thereby, as is evident in the recent manganese nodule threads. Whether or not he deigns to respond to this issue here will serve as another indication of his real attitude towards honesty.
It would only be misinformation in the context you are claiming if he refuses to take the new information into consideration.
It was misinformation the moment he said it since it is not new information - the contrary evidence was in two volumes he had already recommended to his audience, plus numerous other places that were easily accessible to him.
 

Jukia

New member
Yorzhik said:
It would only be misinformation in the context you are claiming if he refuses to take the new information into consideration.

We talking about Pastor Bob here? It should be obvious from anyone who listens to him that with respect to "new information" of a scientific nature that conflicts with his religious beliefs he either:
1. ignores it
2. makes fun of it
3. tries to spin it

See the manganese nodules thread. First he told his children that the video was obviously wrong since it claimed the nodules were very old when the Bible is clear that the earth is only a few thousand years old, then he jumped on a comment from one person whe claimed such nodules formed on beer cans and used that comment to "prove" his own beliefs.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So where is the evidence which indicates that the manganese nodules are millions of years old?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
ThePhy said:
In another thread Yorzhik recently made a claim that more properly belongs in this thread. He claimed that in spite of this thread’s demonstration that Io’s heat is not evidence for recent creation, yetI invite Yorzhik to supply the specific arguments or evidence or data that support his contention.
In a previous thread where this topic came up I asked what heating up Io did to the orbits of the entities involved. Do you have that information?
 

Jukia

New member
bob b said:
So where is the evidence which indicates that the manganese nodules are millions of years old?
Sorry if I caused this thread to be hijacked a bit. but the simple answer is that I do not know, however, if Pastor Enyart takes the video as evidence that such nodules can form quickly well then the same video has evidence that they are old, n'est pas?

And if anyone can move this answer and bob b's question to the manganese thread, be my guest, I have no clue how to do that.
 

ThePhy

New member
Yorzhik said:
In a previous thread where this topic came up I asked what heating up Io did to the orbits of the entities involved. Do you have that information?
I don’t recall seeing this particular question before, but I well may have just missed it. The heating does affect the orbit, but there are other orbital influences at work that are so much more massive that the orbital effect of the heating is probably insignificant. For example, there is an ion flow between the upper reaches of Jupiter’s atmosphere and Io (visible in certain wavelengths.) The flow of electrical current in this ion flow is many billions of watts. (And I am speculating on the relative effect of the Io heating, giving an off-the cuff answer)
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
ThePhy said:
I don’t recall seeing this particular question before, but I well may have just missed it. The heating does affect the orbit, but there are other orbital influences at work that are so much more massive that the orbital effect of the heating is probably insignificant. For example, there is an ion flow between the upper reaches of Jupiter’s atmosphere and Io (visible in certain wavelengths.) The flow of electrical current in this ion flow is many billions of watts. (And I am speculating on the relative effect of the Io heating, giving an off-the cuff answer)
How insignificant is insignificant? 1 cm per year? 2? 10? I assume it's orbit is getting higher to conserve angular momentum (or the other moons that affect Io).
 

Johnny

New member
So where is the evidence which indicates that the manganese nodules are millions of years old?
G. J. de Lange, B. van Os and R. Poorter Geochemical composition and inferred accretion rates of sediments and managanese nodules from a submarine hill in the Madeira Abyssal Plain, eastern North Atlantic Marine Geology Volume 109, Issues 1-2 , December 1992, Pages 171-194

A. Martin-Barajasa, Lallier-Vergesb and L. Leclairec, Characteristics of manganese nodules from the Central Indian Basin: Relationship with the sedimentary environment Marine Geology Volume 101, Issues 1-4 , October-November 1991, Pages 249-265

A. Usuia, A. Nishimuraa and N. Mitab Composition and growth history of surficial and buried manganese nodules in the Penrhyn Basin, Southwestern Pacific Marine Geology
Volume 114, Issues 1-2 , September 1993, Pages 133-153

Here's some references to get you started. Not to de-rail this thread, I just didn't want you to go unanswered.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Johnny said:
G. J. de Lange, B. van Os and R. Poorter Geochemical composition and inferred accretion rates of sediments and managanese nodules from a submarine hill in the Madeira Abyssal Plain, eastern North Atlantic Marine Geology Volume 109, Issues 1-2 , December 1992, Pages 171-194

A. Martin-Barajasa, Lallier-Vergesb and L. Leclairec, Characteristics of manganese nodules from the Central Indian Basin: Relationship with the sedimentary environment Marine Geology Volume 101, Issues 1-4 , October-November 1991, Pages 249-265

A. Usuia, A. Nishimuraa and N. Mitab Composition and growth history of surficial and buried manganese nodules in the Penrhyn Basin, Southwestern Pacific Marine Geology
Volume 114, Issues 1-2 , September 1993, Pages 133-153

Here's some references to get you started. Not to de-rail this thread, I just didn't want you to go unanswered.

Since it would be difficult to find your references why not describe for us how the accretion rates were inferred?
 

ThePhy

New member
I note that the Rev. Enyart has found time to post about 40 times since this thread was last touched. So he has time to respond to TOL threads that catch his interest. So I am pinging this in hopes that he will use a bit of that TOL posting effort giving answer to the issues still floating in this thread.
 

Catatumba

New member
ThePhy said:
Io​

Today’s subject of pastoral science is moons, or rather one moon in particular. On Jan 26 of 2001 Bob Enyart spent part of his BEL radio broadcast showing how Jupiter’s moon Io is evidence for a recent creation. The BEL Program is titled “Astronomical Evidence”. Starting at 22:00 in the program, Bob says:
Never go camping with Bob​

Two years later he repeated this claim. On May 28, 2003, in the BEL program titled “There goes a great American”, starting at 50:05 we hear this: Both of these accounts of Io by Bob are collections of misinformation, ranging from scientific nonsense to blatant untruths
.
Evolutionists = Astrophysicists?​

Note Bob’s hatred of evolution bleeds through into his commentary on Io: And I would let a single case of the use of the word “evolutionists” in place of astronomers pass as a slip of the tongue. But both times when he is discussing Io Bob makes that silly assertion. (In my experience, most astrophysicists are rather unconcerned with evolution. Most of them think it a viable theory, but the nitty-gritty details they leave to the biologists and geologists and such.)

Small???​
Bob can fall back on the use of “relatively” if he wants. With that qualifier, if Io is smaller than any other moon, then his statement stands. And indeed it is “smaller”. In our solar system, Io is surpassed in size by 3 other moons, Ganymede (also orbiting Jupiter), Titan (orbiting Saturn), and Callisto (orbiting Jupiter). It is a little bigger than the moon circling the earth, and bigger than more than 100 other “moons” found in our solar system. So Io ranks number 4 in size out of hundreds of "moons". I put “moons” in quotes, because there is not a precise size at which we say “this is a moon, but that slightly smaller orbiting body is not”.

Still cooking after 6000 years​

The most important part of Bob’s claim about Io, which he uses to show it must have been recently created, is: Bob makes this claim, but he says nothing about those three other pesky moons that are bigger than Io, nor about the heat in our moon. A major factor in radiative heat loss (meaning heat loss by emitting infra-red light, which is the mechanism almost all orbiting bodies use) is the ratio of how much hot matter is in the moon to the size of the area the heat can be emitted from. (Warning – a smidgeon of mathematics ahead.) The surface area of a sphere (which is the shape moons take) is proportional to the square of the radius. The volume of a sphere is proportional to the cube of the radius. In simple terms this means if one sphere has 2 times the radius that another sphere has, it will have 4 times the surface area and 8 times the volume.

Splattering wildlife​

To illustrate by something familiar to all of us – think of throwing things out of airplanes. Throw out a little teeny bug – a 0.5 mm long wingless bug. (I realize bugs are not spheres, but the ratios of volume and surface area and radius are equally true for objects that are not spherical). This bug has immense surface area, at least compared to its volume (meaning its volume is really small). The bug’s weight is determined by its mass, which is dependent on how much bug there is – in other words – its volume. But the rate at which it falls through the air is determined by how much surface area the bug’s body has for the friction of the air to slow its fall. For the bug, the fall to the ground is an immense imposition on its time, since it drifts down very slowly. Long after being thrown out of the airplane, it finally wafts onto the ground, takes its bearings with it’s bug compass, and starts the long trek back to its bug home.

Let’s throw out something bigger next time – say a mouse. The mouse is 5 cm long (about 2 inches), or 100 times as long as the bug. That means it has about 10,000 times as much body area to slow it’s fall as the bug had, but its volume (and weight) is one million times that of the bug. That means the mouse is going to actually fall, not drift down. But even for the mouse the fall is casual enough that it has a chance to practice several minutes of aerial ballet, and is not seriously worried about any threat to its life from the fall. It may have some sore muscles on hitting the ground, but will probably be little the worse for wear.

But your Siamese cat dove out of the airplane trying to catch the mouse. Bad idea. 6 times the length of the mouse (sans tail) means 36 times the skin area, but also 216 times the weight. The cat looks in disappointment as it plummets past the mouse doing a pirouette. Soon the cat impacts the ground. After a minute it gets its breath back, checks for broken bones (a couple), limps away, and swears off mice as food.

The cat is lucky. The German Shepard that was after the cat was killed when it hit the ground some seconds before the cat hit. And you should never have grown so attached to your dog that you would jump after it. You were killed, and rather messily. Oh, the horse you were riding on that you rode out of the airplane – hardly recognizable as a horse, even a dead one. And your elephant literally splashed. Gore. All over. Gross.

The point of this macabre scenario is that the same mathematics (actually geometry) that is involved in making smaller animals fall more slowly also affects how fast moons would cool. Small things (animals and moons) have big surface area compared to their volume. For small animals that means lots of air friction to slow the fall of the light weight. For small moons that means lots of surface area to radiate the heat of the small moon away. Big animals, relatively little surface area, lots of weight, fall fast. Big moons, relatively little surface area to aid in cooling, lots of hot material inside, stays hot a long time. Or I could have avoided all the above and just said a big round hot rock sitting by itself will cool more slowly than a small one. Big moons stays hotter longer than small ones.

God’s Selective Residual Heat​

The billy-goat gruff of moons is Jupiter’s Ganymede, with a radius of 2631 km. Titan comes in with a radius of 2575 km. Callisto has 2400 km. And then we come to Io’s 1815 km radius. Our moon is close behind, with a radius of 1738 km. Doing the math and seeing how these sizes would affect cooling rates, we find that Ganymede’s cooling rate would be 0.57 times that of Io, Titan’s is 0.59 times that of Io, and Callisto’s is 0.65. Our moon would cool at 1.06 times that of Io. These figures presume similar compositions for the moons, which is not strictly true. But the point is clear, if Io has substantial residual heat from a recent creation, then several other moons should likewise. And they don’t.

I will leave it to Bob to explain why his God chose to play favorites with hot moons and cold moons. But for real science, the answer is known.

5 important facts​

To lay the necessary scientific foundation, I need to briefly discuss some relevant concepts:
1. Io’s Orbital Radius
2. Jupiter’s Gravity
3. Centrifugal Force
4. Balancing Forces

Io’s Orbital Radius​

Io orbits at a distance of 422,000 km from the center of Jupiter. By contrast, our moon orbits at a distance of 384,000 km from the center of the earth. (Of interest, but not of particular import to the point being made, is that even though Io is much farther from Jupiter’s center than our moon is from the earth’s center, yet Io is closer to the surface of Jupiter than our moon is to the earth. This is because Jupiter is really big compared to the earth.) I need to note that the above orbital radii are nominal distances, since both Io and our moon do not travel in perfect circles.

Jupiter’s Gravity​

Jupiter is big, so the strength of Jupiter’s gravity at Io’s distance is about 300 times as strong as the strength of the earth’s gravity at the moon’s distance.

Centrifugal Force​

Centrifugal force is the force that pulls a rotating object away from the center. Centrifugal force increases as the distance from center increases (all else being the same), and it increases as the square of rotational speed.

Balancing Forces​

To maintain its orbit, Io’s centrifugal force must exactly counteract Jupiter’s gravity. Therefore, Io orbits Jupiter 17 times as fast as our moon orbits the earth. Io zips completely around Jupiter in a couple of days. This means Io’s centrifugal force is about 300 times as strong as our moon’s centrifugal force.

But there is an important point to consider here. The distance from the center of Jupiter to the near side of Io is slightly less than the distance to the far side. This means the strength of Jupiter’s gravity on the near side is slightly higher than on the far side.

But at the same time, the far side of Io is feeling a stronger centrifugal force opposing gravity than the near side does. This is because the far side is farther away from Jupiter, yet it orbits Jupiter in the same time as the near side. It is similar to attaching a rock to the end of a string and swinging it around your head. If you let the string out a little but keep turning at the same rate, you will feel more tug on the string.

The differences felt by the near and far sides of Io are also felt by our moon, but since the gravitational field and orbital speeds are so much less, the differences are seldom of import.

Squashing a moon​

This differential of gravitational pull on Io’s near side and centrifugal force on Io’s far side actually pulls Io into a slightly squashed shape.

The Musical moons​

Even on Io, this squashed shape would not be important, except that Io has buddies. Io is the innermost of 4 large moons that circle Jupiter. Io and the next two moons out (Europa and Ganymede) maintain an interesting orbital relationship to each other. While Ganymede, quite a distance from Jupiter, orbits Jupiter once, Europa makes 2 trips around Jupiter, and Io makes 4. These 3 moons maintain a resonance in their orbits, like octaves in music.

Since Io zips around Jupiter the fastest, it is regularly imposing itself between Europa and Jupiter or Ganymede and Jupiter, and then continuing on to the far side of Jupiter and back again. Europa and Ganymede are very small compared to Jupiter, but the gravitational pull they have on Io as it swings under them pulls it very slightly up towards them, and away from Jupiter. Then as Io speeds on, it moves on around Jupiter where the only nearby gravity is Jupiter’s own, so Io is pulled down into its natural orbital distance.

This periodic (every couple of days) tug-of-war that Io undergoes is the source of its heat. Remember that Io is already in a gravitational field 300 times the strength of our moons. So even minor orbital perturbations cause strengthening and lessening of the other tug-or-war between gravity and centrifugal force that distorts Io’s shape. The net result is that Io is constantly being stretched, then relaxed, then stretched, and relaxed.

This constant changing in the forces felt across Io causes a type of tide. To get a feeling for the magnitude of this tide, remember that on earth the ocean tides are normally about a yard high. There are also tides in the land on earth, but they are extremely small (about 0.5 mm or 1/50th inch). But on Io, with no ocean, the tide is strictly on the land, and is the height of a 30-story building, 300 feet. This major incessant stretching and relaxing of the shape of Io generates immense internal frictional heat. This heating of Io has (and will) continue as long as Io’s orbit is oscillating closer to and farther from Jupiter.

Who knew what when?​

Bob portrays NASA as having to come up with some quick excuses when volcanoes were first spotted on Io: Bob’s knowledge of scientific history is no better than his understanding of science itself. Did the volcanoes on Io catch the scientific community by surprise? Yeah, some of them, me included. But I, and the vast majority of scientists do not, and can not, keep up with all the expanding frontiers of science. That does not indict the astronomical community, nor NASA. In fact, directly contradicting Bob’s claim was an interesting article that was published in the journal Science and sent to thousands of subscribers, BEFORE the volcanoes were ever seen. This article is in the Mar 2nd issue, 1979. That is about a week before the first voyager spacecraft reached Io and spotted the first volcano. The article is titled “Melting of Io by Tidal Dissipation”. The abstract reads: Within the body of the article is this: So we have the publication and dissemination of thousands of copies of a major peer-reviewed scientific journal specifically addressing the likelihood of volcanoes on Io, before a single one had ever been seen. How well does that comport with the broadcast claim from a particular pastor that: “And of course after the fact NASA has to say, ‘Oh yeah, well, we knew that.’ Well they didn’t know that. They had to come up with a reason why it’s still hot”? Bob’s claim of ignorance on NASA’s part comes almost a quarter century after the data falsifying it was widely available. Ignorance or intentional deception? You decide.

The Icing on The Cake​

Bob himself turned out to be one of his own worst enemies on this. Because on the BEL recording of May 28, 2003, less than a minute after Bob finished giving his corrupted version of Io’s lunar science, he highly recommended the purchase of a Creationist Book written by a PhD Creationist, Dr. Walt Brown: I took Bob’s recommendation and padded Dr. Brown’s pocket with a bit of my money. Most interesting. Dr. Brown talks a little about Io and its heat. What does he say? It is caused by tidal interaction with Jupiter. I must admit, it was delicious listening to Bob expound nonsense about Io, then turn right around and give effusive praise to a text from a Christian fundamentalist scientist who disagrees with what Bob just said. The end of a perfect day.
Did you guys know that after all that fine and careful thought, that, Jupiter was actually the worldly renown and most famous star of David. :dog:
 

ThePhy

New member
Hand Delivery

Hand Delivery

Pertinent to this thread, I recently hand-delivered to Bob Enyart two documents. One was a copy of the 1979 article from Science detailing the expectation that the moon Io would be hot, and may even have volcanoes. I pointed out to him the publication date of this article that flatly belied his claim that “after the fact NASA has to say, ‘Oh yeah, well, we knew that.’ Well they didn’t know that.” He had no immediate response to that paper.

The second paper I delivered to him did evoke a response. This paper was a zeroxed page from Walt Brown’s “In the Beginning”, a book Bob highly recommends. On the page was the simple statement that Io’s heat was caused by tidal interaction with Jupiter. Bob acknowledged that explanation might be a valid rebuttal to his claim.

It is instructive to note that the paper from Science, which was the more technical of the two, and far predated Walt Brown’s seemed less impressive to Bob than Walt’s non-technical assertion that confirmed the Science article. When one has to make their judgments based on a popular simplified rendition of a technical subject, then that pretty clearly says one should avoid pretending to have much technical understanding on the subject. Even (and especially) ministers.

This misinformation that Enyart twice broadcast on his show still stands as a testament to his lack of research on the subject before expounding about it, as well as his technical incompetence.

Enyart proclaims that judgment should be swift. Except when it involves his own technical missteps. 5years and waiting, Bob. Are you going to admit to the same audience you misinformed that you were in fact wrong? And, ala your incessant demands in the “Manganese Nodule” thread that evidence be removed from the Old Earth evidence column, can you admit that contrary to your broadcast assertions, Io’s heat does not stand as evidence for a young earth?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top