Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pre-flood physics?
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4404 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 27 of 79 (74587)
12-21-2003 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by johnfolton
12-21-2003 4:10 PM


Walt Brown is a dope. He is the fool who even worse than Hovind figured the Earth's rotational slowdown as 1 second per day per year. lOL LOL LOL
Also Ron Waytt is an ex California cop who even other creationists call a fraud.
Somehow this ex-cop not only found the Ark (but no one else has seen it LOL) he also claims to know where Paul's ship was wrecked.
Again, the worlds archeologists cannot find stuff but this ex-cop somehow claims to have found what would be 2 of the biggest finds in history. What a crock!!!!!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by johnfolton, posted 12-21-2003 4:10 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by JonF, posted 12-21-2003 7:39 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied
 Message 30 by JonF, posted 12-21-2003 8:10 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4404 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 40 of 79 (74675)
12-22-2003 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by johnfolton
12-22-2003 9:48 AM


You asked how this supersonic steam erupting laterally out from under the granite mantle could lose its heat in the vacuums of the upper atmosphere, In the book of Revelations it talks of the atmosphere being rolled back, were talking of a whole lot of ash coming up from the cavitation of the granite and basalt rock, likely how God cause the windows of heaven(water canopy) to be opened, even today we need dust to cause a raindrop, in the formation of the 45,000 miles plus basalt under the ocean mountain range, the sediment blasted out with the waters was deposited all across the earth, from what I heard it averages over 1 mile in depth across the entire planet, as evidenced in the Grand Canyon, Hudson Canyon, Amazon Canyon, etc... with all the ash being blown up into the upper atmosphere laterally, as the super sonic steam cooled it returned to the earth as rain, snow, etc...its not all that uncommon for whitesquall, macro-down bursts, micro-down bursts when hot humid air is rising, or along along a storm front, however, think most asteroids likely consists of water, and from my point of thinking, when God caused our sun to shine only 13,000 years ago(core harmonics evidencing it a very young star), the waters on Mars, the moons, etc...because of gravity escaped too, thus I don't personally think all the water based asteroids came from the Genesis World Flood, but where the lateral blasting of water became more a vertical blast, don't see why some rocks were not launched into outer space, etc...even today they don't understand in totality what happened in the tungsla explosion in the early 1900's, but even here they feel that the atmosphere rolled back, what I feel likely happened when God caused the fountains of the deep to erupt, as we all know there is a lot of water down under the earth, filling the fractured rock, don't think Walt Brown thought up the water under the earth, its like biblical, and many scientist feel that mars has evidence it too, has waters, seas, likely water is under ground, and the oceans of water that escaped contributed to the asteroid belt. If one looks at Europa, one of the moons of our solar system, it is an icy world, meaning that the however, the planets were created in the beginning, they didn't come into being as a molten piece of rock, the reason there are scientists that believe there is more water under the oceans in the inner earth that exists within the oceans themselves. If the earth was formed as a molten piece of rock, no water should exists down below the granite mantle, challenging the perceived molten rock planet formation theory to be flawed.
GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Helioseismology does not evidence the Sun as a young star. You are referring there to data first taken back in the early 1970's and people not understanding that data. This was in the infancy of helioseismology.
There are NO water based asteroids, period.
oops I saw the name Walt Brown in your post. Really don't need to read anything more then - he is a buffoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by johnfolton, posted 12-22-2003 9:48 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4404 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 46 of 79 (74693)
12-22-2003 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by johnfolton
12-22-2003 4:08 PM


Eta_Carinae, I would assume that they are more into the study of the sun, since the russian scientist finding were confirmed by the british scientists, although core harmonics, don't believe its changed, the core of the sun gives off the same harmonics that its core density is evidence of a very young star, think due to the closeness of the sun they are also studying the outer surface higher occilations harmonics, and other things like them neutrinoes in coal mines, though all these other things doesn't change the core harmonics, etc...the sun gives off light particles and leaves the dense particles behind, is not this what the density of the core is all about, white dwarfs, etc...
P.S. Is not the core harmonics occilations what they are using to study other stars in the known universe, all we can say is the sun is a very young star, I realize to the evolution people tends to exagerate when it come to the age of the sun, like moon rocks that dated 5 billion years old, doesn't mean the sun was a star, 5 billion years ago, all we know is that God created the heaven in the beginning and if the sun was 5 billion years old a star its core harmonics should be a whole lot deeper, and should be giving off a whole lot more neutrinoes, etc...
More GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You might want to re-evaluate the neutrino thing. Already been solved!
The Sun is approx. 4.6 Gyr old.
You have no clue (or the person you are quoting) about stellar physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by johnfolton, posted 12-22-2003 4:08 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4404 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 47 of 79 (74694)
12-22-2003 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by johnfolton
12-22-2003 4:08 PM


Arrgh - double post (first time I have ever done that.
[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 12-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by johnfolton, posted 12-22-2003 4:08 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4404 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 70 of 79 (75105)
12-25-2003 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by johnfolton
12-25-2003 12:19 PM


Whatever - please read this:
1) The neutrino problem has been solved. There are enough neutrinos being produced as predicted by theory.
2) The 160 MINUTE OSCILLATION was a FALSE detection.
For one thing a homogeneous Sun would have a 167 minute period.
Also 160 minutes is the 9th harmonic of 24 hours. Leading to possible false results from variations in the Earth's atmosphere.
Another result is that the group in the Crimea pushing that result noticed the result go away for a decade or so. So they hypothesised that their result was linked to the 22 year solar cycle.
BUT they never hinted this was related to a young Sun. In fact they argued that the result was indicative of a l=3 g-mode oscillation which implied the solar core was rapidly rotating.
NOTE THAT if the Sun was homogeneous as you suggest the result (if TRUE) would not go away.
The current modern data and theoretical calculations show that this 160 minute period is NOT of solar origin. It is also seen (at times) in other objects and is thus likely to be an artifact. And for many years this period has not been observed.
It is not observed in the most sensitive data from the SOHO project.
I guess you got this erroneous info from a web page by some guy called Keith Davies
Page not found - https://creationdiscovery.org/
A typical creationist ill-researched or downright fraudulent source.
If you want to find out more why not search on the name Christensen-Dalsgaard. He is referenced from way back in 1976 on that page, and taken out of context.
He is very active to this day in this field AND if you follow his work history on
NASA/ADS
you shall see what the current work involves AND WHY THE IRRESPONSIBLE MISQUOTING AND USING 30 YEAR OLD DATA AND RESULTS IS WRONG.
Of course that doesn't stop people like Keith Davies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by johnfolton, posted 12-25-2003 12:19 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Coragyps, posted 12-25-2003 1:00 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4404 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 75 of 79 (75128)
12-25-2003 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by johnfolton
12-25-2003 2:29 PM


No it could not be very young.
Why do I get the feeling that 'whatever' could lead me down the path of frustration that 'buzsaw' did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 12-25-2003 2:29 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024