Scientists Question Darwinism

[Arthur Brain]

Yes: "his hardcore atheistic stance and fumbling forays into belief and addressing/criticizing that are amateurish and annoying for certain"

He was the one who called Mother Theresa a fascist, right?

I don't know about anyone calling her a "fascist" but I think you may be referring to Christopher Hitchens rather than Dawkins who criticised her strongly where it came to her missionary work and he's not the only one in that regard to be fair and not just atheists. It doesn't seem all black and white when you read up. Either way, you're only referencing hardcore atheists/antitheists.

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

I don't know about anyone calling her a "fascist" but I think you may be referring to Christopher Hitchens rather than Dawkins who criticised her strongly where it came to her missionary work and he's not the only one in that regard to be fair and not just atheists. It doesn't seem all black and white when you read up. Either way, you're only referencing hardcore atheists/antitheists.

Yes, Hitchens. My mistake.

But I can say that atheists in forums are usually as rude as they can be, purposely pushing buttons, calling God an Invisible Sky Fairy or Sky Daddy, or other names meant to incite anger. An atheist has no place ridiculing believers since they can no more prove their POV than a believer can. I fact, believers can make better arguments in favor of there being a God than an atheist can that there is no God.

 

[Stripe]

Tidal forces that transfer energy from the Earth to the Moon vary with the coastlines.

:darwinsm:

Nope and nope.

Did you forget how gravity works?

It's gravity that does the work, as we explained. Would you like to learn why again?

It cannot be friction, because the same process works — albiet on a much smaller scale — without oceans. It would also work much better if the planet were entirely water.

It's amazing that you can't remember all this. Do you like embarrassing yourself?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, Hitchens. My mistake.

But I can say that atheists in forums are usually as rude as they can be, purposely pushing buttons, calling God an Invisible Sky Fairy or Sky Daddy, or other names meant to incite anger. An atheist has no place ridiculing believers since they can no more prove their POV than a believer can. I fact, believers can make better arguments in favor of there being a God than an atheist can that there is no God.

Oh sure, they can be, I've ran into some who think having any sort of belief whatsoever makes a person deluded and needing a 'comfort blanket' etc. Those few have been insufferably arrogant and stuck up their own pompous, bloated...egos. They're not in the main however and that's the point. Most Christians aren't hardcore, fundamentalist zealots where they would wish to enact laws that would reduce freedom and liberty to nothing but they exist.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Tidal forces that transfer energy from the Earth to the Moon vary with the coastlines.

Tidal friction, in astronomy, strain produced in a celestial body (such as the Earth or Moon) that undergoes cyclic variations in gravitational attraction as it orbits, or is orbited by, a second body. Friction occurs between water tides and sea bottoms, particularly where the sea is relatively shallow, or between parts of the solid crust of planet or satellite that move against each other. Tidal friction on the Earth prevents the tidal bulge, which is raised in Earth’s seas and crust by the Moon’s pull, from staying directly under the Moon. Instead, the bulge is carried out from directly under the Moon by the rotation of the Earth, which spins almost 30 times for every time the Moon revolves in its orbit. The mutual attraction between the Moon and the material in the bulge tends to accelerate the Moon in its orbit, thereby moving the Moon farther from Earth by about three centimetres (1.2 inches) per year, and to slow Earth’s daily rotation by a small fraction of a second per year.
https://www.britannica.com/science/tidal-friction

:darwinsm:

Nope and nope.

Yep. Did you forget how gravity works? Gravity isn't pushing the Moon away. It's pulling the Moon toward the Earth. The downward vector of gravity and sideways vector of momentum is what makes the orbit. It was just gravity, it wouldn't slow the Earth or raise the Moon to a higher orbit.

This is caused by tidal friction, transfering energy from the Earth (which therefore slows down) to the Moon, (which therefore is raised to a higher orbit)

It cannot be friction,

I can believe you, or I can believe people who actually know what they're talking about. I'm not trying to embarrass you. I'm just showing you what it is.

Over time, the friction due to tidal forces have taken energy from the Moon’s rotation, slowing it down until it has become locked in synchronous rotation. This means that the Moon’s rotation rate is equal to its orbital period and hence it always keeps the same face towards the Earth. Because of the slightly eccentric orbit of the Moon around the Earth, however, we go get to see about 5/8th of the lunar surface. This is called the libration of the Moon. Tidal friction also means that the Moon is slowly spiralling away from the Earth – called tidal recession– which increases the length of a (lunar) month. Tidal friction also effects the Earth, slowly down the Earth’s rotational period and hence slowing increasing the length of an Earth day
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/HET602-M04A02.pdf

The tidal braking in the earth's rotation is actually caused primarily by friction in the oceans, where ``friction'' may refer to any number of physical mechanisms which have yet to be determined definitively. For example, bottom friction, induced by tidal currents flowing across the seabed, various kinds of wave breaking, and scattering of tidal waves into oceanic internal waves are all thought to play a role.
https://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:

It's a pity he won't think.

Tidal forces that transfer energy from the Earth to the Moon vary with the coastlines.

Cool. Friction across the vacuum of space. :chuckle:

Did you forget how friction works as well?

Gravity isn't pushing the Moon away.

That's right. A gravitational vector is yanking the moon faster in its orbit. No friction is possible across space.

Did you forget all the times this has been explained to you?

[If] it was just gravity, it wouldn't slow the Earth or raise the Moon to a higher orbit.

Physics. It is just gravity. Friction doesn't work in a vacuum. :chuckle:

We can believe you, or we can believe people who actually know what they're talking about. I'm not trying to embarrass you. I'm just showing you what it is.

 

[ok doser]

It's a pity he won't think.

Cool. Friction across the vacuum of space. :chuckle:

obviously, its transmitted via gravity waves

 

[The Barbarian]

It's a pity he won't think.

Cool. Friction across the vacuum of space. :chuckle:

Did you forget how friction works as well?

That's right. A gravitational vector is yanking the moon faster in its orbit. No friction is possible across space.

Did you forget all the times this has been explained to you?

Physics. It is just gravity. Friction doesn't work in a vacuum.

We can believe you, or we can believe people who actually know what they're talking about. I'm not trying to embarrass you. I'm just showing you what it is.

Over time, the friction due to tidal forces have taken energy from the Moon’s rotation, slowing it down until it has become locked in synchronous rotation. This means that the Moon’s rotation rate is equal to its orbital period and hence it always keeps the same face towards the Earth. Because of the slightly eccentric orbit of the Moon around the Earth, however, we go get to see about 5/8th of the lunar surface. This is called the libration of the Moon. Tidal friction also means that the Moon is slowly spiralling away from the Earth – called tidal recession– which increases the length of a (lunar) month. Tidal friction also effects the Earth, slowly down the Earth’s rotational period and hence slowing increasing the length of an Earth day
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/dow...602-M04A02.pdf

The tidal braking in the earth's rotation is actually caused primarily by friction in the oceans, where ``friction'' may refer to any number of physical mechanisms which have yet to be determined definitively. For example, bottom friction, induced by tidal currents flowing across the seabed, various kinds of wave breaking, and scattering of tidal waves into oceanic internal waves are all thought to play a role.
https://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html

Why not just accept the fact and go on, Stripe?

 

[Stripe]

We can believe you, or we can believe people who actually know what they're talking about. I'm not trying to embarrass you. I'm just showing you how gravity and friction work.

Why not just accept the facts?

Start with the fundamentals. Friction cannot operate across a vacuum.

 

[Stripe]

Friction cannot operate across a vacuum.

But, get this, gravity can. :thumb:

 

[Kit the Coyote]

:rotfl:
Don't you get tired of embarrassing yourself?

Do you?

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Morning and evening are terms that are completely foreign to you?

No.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

It's not much of a problem assuming that the Earth's rotational speed has not increased. Simple physics.

Not the Earth, unless you have a miracle in mind.



There was a light source. There was evening and morning. We simply assume that the Earth was rotating much as it is today. Simple. And within the realm of what is physically possible, which your idea is not.

Do you have any idea of how difficult it would be to increase the rotational velocity of a planet even a tiny bit, let alone from almost stationary to the rate it goes at today? Also, to get a day of millions of years is next to impossible. The rotation would have to be extremely well balanced to keep one side of the planet pointed toward the sun for such a long time.

What you're talking about is science fiction. You're just making stuff up with no filter of experience with such ideas.

I understand all these things but remember I am not trying to say there is a six-day creation. I am simply saying that we have no idea how long those days were if they did exist. Or how individual writing about them centuries later would interpret what a day was.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I recommend you watch this series of YouTube videos, but only if you're truly interested.

Watched a video a while ago about this very thing...


Basically, the amount of energy required is enough to basically scorch the entire surface of the planet and burn off any life on it.

I'll add the videos to my queue but I have seen the hydroplate theory before and the issue you raised in response to Stripe's discussion applies to it as well. The physics involved simply don't add up, particularly in the amount of energy released in such an event if you try to squeeze it all into 40 days or a year. Noah and his ark would have been steam broiled.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

:chuckle:

Slowing the Earth's rotation is a bit easier; it's slowing due to gravity anyway.

I wonder if Kit is going to give this up.

It does seem that a simple curiosity and observation that they may not have been 24 hour days is enough to throw the board into chaos. But then I do take a trickster spirit as my avatar so it fits I guess.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'll add the videos to my queue

:thumb:

but I have seen the hydroplate theory before

Not explained like in the above playlist.

and the issue you raised in response to Stripe's discussion applies to it as well.

No, It doesn't.

Well, rather, the energy is there, but it's directed upwards, and the process cools the earth, rather than heats it up.

The physics involved simply don't add up,

Then your math is wrong, or your missing something.

particularly in the amount of energy released in such an event if you try to squeeze it all into 40 days or a year. Noah and his ark would have been steam broiled.

Nope. You're forgetting that when a fluid expands, it cools, drastically.

Ever used a can of air to clean your computer? with the energy being released, does the can get really hot or really cold?

 

[Kit the Coyote]

:thumb:
Well, rather, the energy is there, but it's directed upwards, and the process cools the earth, rather than heats it up.
Nope. You're forgetting that when a fluid expands, it cools, drastically.

Ever used a can of air to clean your computer? with the energy being released, does the can get really hot or really cold?

It cools initially yes but there is still waste heat in the whole event. And there are other problems like where did the water go, the seaworthiness of the ark, etc. I'll look at the videos as I have the time and see.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

So I did some reading on the problems with the hydroplate hypothesis, in particular, the issue of energy release. The proponents of the hypothesis have a problem in that they tried to lump too many eggs in one basket and claim that the 'event' is responsible for most of the debris in the inner solar system asteroids, comets, etc. as well as the craters on the moon. This, unfortunately, give physicists some hard data to calculate the range of how much energy was being released in the 'fountains'.

You come up with figures that rival the energy output of the Sun on a planet a tiny fraction of the Sun's size. Even allowing for a significant portion of that energy being directed at kinetic effects like slinging soon to be asteroids, quite a bit of it would have been transferred into the planet's air and water. This is obvious because if it had not, the planet would have torn itself apart in imitation of Star War's Alderan. That sets a range that must have been transferred as heat energy to the planet that makes it plain that no life would have survived this event no matter how sound the wood used.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So I did some reading on the problems with the hydroplate hypothesis, in particular, the issue of energy release. The proponents of the hypothesis have a problem in that they tried to lump too many eggs in one basket and claim that the 'event' is responsible for most of the debris in the inner solar system asteroids, comets, etc. as well as the craters on the moon. This, unfortunately, give physicists some hard data to calculate the range of how much energy was being released in the 'fountains'.

You come up with figures that rival the energy output of the Sun on a planet a tiny fraction of the Sun's size. Even allowing for a significant portion of that energy being directed at kinetic effects like slinging soon to be asteroids, quite a bit of it would have been transferred into the planet's air and water. This is obvious because if it had not, the planet would have torn itself apart in imitation of Star War's Alderan. That sets a range that must have been transferred as heat energy to the planet that makes it plain that no life would have survived this event no matter how sound the wood used.

Bryan Nickel has worked in the missile division of a US aerospace firm/contractor for 18 years.

Walt Brown has a PhD from MIT from the mechanical engineering in the Heat Transfer division.

You'd think he would know a little about how his theory works, especially when it comes to heat problems.

Coming up in March, there's a series Bob Enyart is going to be doing with Bryan Nickel on the Hydroplate Theory heat problem.

Info here, listen to the show starting at 10m 40s in:
https://kgov.com/bel/20190222

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Yes, it seems they have been revising the hypothesis to try and address the critics observations but it often only makes things worse. Brown has been steadily increasing the size of the crust layer over the waters to try and explain the mass issues with the number of objects he claims were thrown into space and the actual masses of objects out there. But that only makes the energy and heat computations worse.

The entire disaster scenario makes the seaworthiness issue of the ark worse too. A wooden structure the size of the ark would have leakage and structural integrity problems on a flat sea with no wind. Put it in the middle of a tempest this event would create and it would be reduced to splinters in seconds.