Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pre-flood physics?
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 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 4375 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

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 48 of 79 (74699)
12-22-2003 5:04 PM


Back on subject?
Could I post a vain request that we return to the topic originally posed. Please explain how the physcis allowed for no rainbows?

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-23-2003 12:56 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 55 by sidelined, posted 12-23-2003 7:22 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 49 of 79 (74708)
12-22-2003 6:34 PM


Coragyps, Its interesting that granite is lighter than basalt, however, on the continents this granite mantle is 5 to 10 miles thick, even so, the basalt lavas being heavier are not likely to be as thick as the under laminate layer of granite, with the weight of the water and the effect of the gravitation of the moon, the mid-ocean ridges rose, as the floating ocean mantle gravitated to a stop, after crushing the granite under the continents forming the trenches. If I remember Walt theory the water under the granite mantle is what erupted out of the earth, this water was (trapped) between the granite and the basalt inner earth layer(hydro-plate theory), that the basalt mid-ocean ridges were actually the inner basalt being pressed up, after the above granite mantle had eroded away, the reason for with you have the springs of the ocean (hydro-thermal vents on each side of the mid-ocean ridges, the theory says their is still water compressed under the granite, being pressed out, kind of like a pressure relief valve on a hot water tank, however these thermal vents are venting continually.
P.S. Due to the cavitation erosion of the granite layer, the theory goes that the basalt lava's also outpoured over the entire oceans floor, covering the entire ocean floor. Walts theory can be understood better if one moves a refrigerator with compressed air, the refrigerator float's, this is the reason the kola russian deep well is studying the relationship of fluid mechanics in relation to crustal earthquake movement. I personally don't see how the techtonic plates could float on lava, but can see how the malleability of the inner earth molten lavas basalt's could be molded by the fractured rock and water pressing down by hydraulics, and the mid-ocean ridges rising, and the tidal effects pressing down on the fractured rock and water through weight of the oceans, basalt pressing down on the granite and the waters trapped between pressing down on the malleable inner earth, causing the continental mountains, pressing up, even up until this day. Its believed that there was once a land bridge to Australia, that has since sunk below the wave base, the pressing down of the oceans and the pressing up of the mountains, kjv psalm 104:9, God set the bounds so the water would never again cover the entire earth, etc...

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Coragyps, posted 12-22-2003 7:42 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 50 of 79 (74712)
12-22-2003 7:07 PM


Eta_Carinae, I kind of figured the neutrinoes were being formed by the sun, now I'm not into stellar physics, but what does neutrinoes have to do with the core harmonics of the sun, is the sun burning from the core or from the surface, my leaning is that the core harmonics indicate its core density is that of a young star,though you probably would agree by saying 4.6 billion years is a young star, though I think if the sun was that old its core would of compressed, more than what the deeper harmonics of the sun which are indicating the suns core is not all that dense, etc...
P.S. Its like your all saying because neutrinoes are being given off the sun's core is not getting denser, like what makes a star turn into a black hole, is it not compressing, as the light is given off, over time.

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 51 of 79 (74714)
12-22-2003 7:26 PM


Mr.Jack, To rain you need a speck of dust, it sounds like in Noahs say it never rained, it talks about water above the firmament and water below the firmament kjv genesis 1:7-8, I take the firmament to be where the birds fly kjv genesis 1:20, so a water canopy above where the bird's flew, which changed after the biblical flood, the ash and the temperature of the water being release opened the windows of heaven, causing the rain to come down. It says God stopped the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven and the rain from heaven was restrained. kjv genesis 8:2.

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 52 of 79 (74718)
12-22-2003 7:38 PM


Whatever, I think I now see where you got your screen name. You just post whatever....
What does the Sun have to do with black holes? You are unaware, I suppose, that only stars of about eight times the Sun's mass end up as black holes? And that stars have to weigh quite a bit more than the sun to even end up as neutron stars? And that stars are powered by nuclear fusion? C'mon....

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 53 of 79 (74719)
12-22-2003 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by johnfolton
12-22-2003 6:34 PM


the theory goes that the basalt lava's also outpoured over the entire oceans floor, covering the entire ocean floor.
Boiling the oceans, adding even more heat than that contributed by all that 800-degree steam bursting forth. Can't you see how absurd all this is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by johnfolton, posted 12-22-2003 6:34 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 54 of 79 (74797)
12-23-2003 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Jack
12-22-2003 5:04 PM


Re: Back on subject?
quote:
Could I post a vain request that we return to the topic originally posed. Please explain how the physcis allowed for no rainbows?
This is your punishment, for supplying such a vague topic title.
That said, we can try to get back to the rainbow.
Whatever, might you be interested in taking your side-topic to a new topic (one with a quality topic title). And try to improve your writting quality. As it is, I must judge it as being pretty much babble.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 12-22-2003 5:04 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 55 of 79 (74819)
12-23-2003 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Jack
12-22-2003 5:04 PM


Re: Back on subject?
Mr Jack
In Gen 9:14 it states "And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:"
Since we often see a cloud overhead without a rainbow present we can safely conclude that the literal interpretaton here does not hold and any change in the physics of the rainbow do not have merit.
------------------
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
R.P. Feynman
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 12-22-2003 5:04 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by truthlover, posted 12-23-2003 10:19 AM sidelined has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 56 of 79 (74824)
12-23-2003 8:05 AM


Coragyps, You all have no idea how old the sun is, given the earth is too watery, to have been formed as a molten ball of fire, you can not assume that just because they dated rocks on the moon to be 4.6 billion years old, that the sun has been a star this long, thats like dating the fossils imprints by the sediments that preserved the imprints (proven wrong by Dr. Andrew Snelling), likely the sun has only been a star 13,000 years. I do find it interesting that evolutionists are always dating a rock, and making this leap of faith, that this means the fossils that are buried are as old as the rock sediments, as far as the sun, the evolutionists dated the age of the sun, using a moon rock and say, see, the sun is at least as old as this rock. The bible says God made the heaven and the earth in the beginning, this means its possible this happened 4.6 billion years ago, or longer in relation to the other stars(light takes how many light years to reach the earth), but the sun has only been a star, biblically 13,000 years ago(depending on how you interprete a creation day), and the core harmonics of the sun, is evidence it really is a very young star, granted it will probably never end up a black hole, but this does not mean its core is not compressing, as neutrons, protons, are left behind, etc...
P.S. Given the earth is a watery world, and the evidence that even the polar regions were tropical, it makes sense if it didn't rain the clouds would of rose as a canopy high in the sky.
Whatever, the theory goes that the basalt lava's also outpoured over the entire oceans floor, covering the entire ocean floor.
Coragyps, Boiling the oceans, adding even more heat than that contributed by all that 800-degree steam bursting forth. Can't you see how absurd all this is?
Whatever, Yep, it does sound absurd, this is why I'm interested if they have profile dated the entire basalt ocean floor, if all dates the same age, not getting progressively older, then the lava outpoured suddenly, but then again were talking a whole lot of water to mitigate the temps, and with all the snow coming down forming the glaciers, suddenly, but even so, it would be interesting to see some scientific study that says that they have dated the basalt oceans floor, an age profile across the entire oceans floor, that confirms one way or the other if the basalt was laid down suddenly, or over hundreds of millions of years.
[This message has been edited by whatever, 12-23-2003]
[This message has been edited by whatever, 12-23-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Coragyps, posted 12-23-2003 9:25 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 12-23-2003 9:53 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 61 by Bill Birkeland, posted 12-23-2003 10:35 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 63 by sidelined, posted 12-24-2003 10:36 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 57 of 79 (74838)
12-23-2003 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by johnfolton
12-23-2003 8:05 AM


you can not assume that just because they dated rocks on the moon to be 4.6 billion years old, that the sun has been a star this long,
Doesn't Genesis have the Sun and Moon both being created on the Fourth Day? Snelling would say so - heck, he's probably "proved" it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by johnfolton, posted 12-23-2003 8:05 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 58 of 79 (74842)
12-23-2003 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by johnfolton
12-23-2003 8:05 AM


whatever, try Home Page for starters - there are several other lines of evidence for the ages of ocean crust.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by johnfolton, posted 12-23-2003 8:05 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 59 of 79 (74845)
12-23-2003 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coragyps
12-22-2003 9:56 AM


Brown is utterly full of crap - he makes all that nonsense up.
You should stop beating around the bush. Could you make your position on this topic clear? :-P
edited: had to fix my quote codes again.
[This message has been edited by truthlover, 12-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 12-22-2003 9:56 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 60 of 79 (74847)
12-23-2003 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by sidelined
12-23-2003 7:22 AM


Re: Back on subject?
Since we often see a cloud overhead without a rainbow present we can safely conclude that the literal interpretaton here does not hold and any change in the physics of the rainbow do not have merit.
Great point. Maybe this will just end the whole issue and eliminate the need for whatever's incomprehensible posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by sidelined, posted 12-23-2003 7:22 AM sidelined 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