Real Science Radio: Now, Every (Comet) Scientist Works for Walt Brown!
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
gcthomas
New member
To answer your question: nothing, because Hydroplate Theory is not true.
Care to answer my question? How does a body on a hyperbolic orbit fit with your model?
To discuss an idea, you need to show some respect. If you declare that the Hydroplate theory teaches nothing was put into space, you have no respect for it.
How do you think a conversation would go if you asked an opponent to Darwinism: "According to evolution, what evolved?" and he replied: "Nothing."
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
gcthomas
New member
The longer answer had already been implied: anything that falls back to the sun comes back at the same speed as it went. A hyperbolic orbit is not a closed orbit - the speed it would have been ejected at, as I said, would have been greater than escape velocity so it wouldn't return.
I proposed this as a falsifying test for Brown's hypothesis, and you didn't have any objections. So what is your objection now?
The question for you, still, is how could this be accounted for in Brown's or your model?
gcthomas
New member
Why are you asking? Don't you know? It's the model you have supported — don't you know the answers? Please try to engage — it's not much of a discussion it you refuse to respond to anything at all.
We know that you are not interested in a rational discussion of the ideas.
We know that although you might easily find the answer to this question, you won't engage sensibly for fear of finding an answer to your question.
I just don't care enough about what I know to waste time discussing it under these conditions.
And I know that if I ask you a simple question, you'll find something else to talk about.
I was just trying to clarify. :idunno:
It was a straightforward question. You all decided to make it into an issue.
gcthomas
New member
In summary:
1. We have a body that arrived with more energy than an extremely long period comet would have had, to the tune of a 26 km/s velocity excess at the edge of the solar system.
2. Walt Brown has declared "that a true incoming hyperbolic comet will never be seen, because all comets formed in the inner solar system soon after the flood began." and "According to the hydroplate theory, asteroids formed near Earth’s orbit." while"No 'sharp line' separates asteroids and comets. In fact, some comets are also asteroids and some asteroids are also comets."
3. These two points are incompatible: either Walt's theory is correct, and the hypervelocity body managed to pick up 26 km/s excess velocity in the outer solar system well away from the planets (so where?), or one of hydroplate theory's falsifiable predictions has been clearly falsified.
The huge excess velocity tells me that this body came from another solar system. What do you think?
Maybe it came from another solar system. :idunno:
gcthomas
New member
Well done, you may have taken the first step away from delusion. Hydroplate theory must be wrong because this observation falsifies a key idea about the formation of the solar system, but you won't see [MENTION=510]Bob Enyart[/MENTION] or Brown admitting it. Maybe you'll have the intelligence to see what they can't. :nono:
Last edited:
And we might find out more about this subject. :idunno:
Because you are in a position to determine whether they do.
You're desperate to be right, aren't you? :chuckle:
This is a pleasant surprise! You're welcome Tony!
For those who don't know, Tony is the creator of the video series entitled "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science." Here is a link to his YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/qabala/videos
He has over 60 videos (and counting) dedicated to the topic, and all of them are well worth taking a careful look at! His most recent video deals with Walt Brown's "Hydroplate" speculations. Once again, here is a link to that video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrp-0cCh3g0
Tony, it is my understanding that you have at least one more video in the works on this topic, is that correct?
gcthomas
New member
And we might find out more about this subject. :idunno:
Because you are in a position to determine whether they do.
You're desperate to be right, aren't you? :chuckle:
Please, if you are capable of it, argue against the presence of an object that Brown days can't exist. Hyperbolic orbits are not allowed for in hydroplate theory, so his hypothesis is falsified isn't it?
:AMR:
What?
Prediction 36 says: "No incoming comet will ever be seen on a hyperbolic orbit, because cometary material came from Earth as the flood began, not from outside the solar system."
I think it's possible this prediction was a slight overreach, although there would not be enough time under the Hydroplate model for objects to reach Earth from another star, so maybe this object is a problem.
Did evolution get thrown out wholesale when one of its predictions went awry?
What is the basis or underlying assumption for this "prediction"? Why can't meteors or other space debris exist in other solar systems or elsewhere beyond our own system?
gcthomas
New member
I think we agree on this. There doesn't seem to be a mechanism that Brown could use to rescue this — he favours a varying speed of light to allow stars to be seen when so far away, but the speed of asteroids/comets? I think this will remain a big and fundamental issue for him.
It would have been for a similar sort of prediction.
For Walt predicting the rotation rates of asteroids, it isn't critical either way, because of unknown factors. The equivalent for evolution would be the sorts of things 6Days posts about scientists being 'surprised': unexpected observations, but not forbidden by the theories.
The equivalent of Walt's "No incoming comet will ever be seen on a hyperbolic orbit" declaration for evolution would be "No rabbit (or indeed any mammal) fossils will be found in the Precambrian". There would be no way around that sort of discovery within the framework of evolution and geology, but of course there have been no such fundamental problems for evolution.
Reading; it's good for you.
Neither do I.
Not exactly.
A rock flying about between the stars isn't forbidden by the Hydroplate theory. It's just a seemingly failed prediction.
I think you're overreaching.