Global Warming & the Flood

Not a problem. I know how that goes. I'm sorry, this is laughable. I don't know enough about hydrogeology to comment on the possibility of an additional crust collapsing, but I CAN comment on pushing anything into orbit.I've already posted about the astronomical amounts of energy required to push any significant mass into space. How much mass are we talking here? How much mass would be ejected to orbit or beyond? I don't care if it falls back down as rain - we've gone over that. How much mass would be thrown to low Earth orbit or above? Not a problem - I won't comment on comets or anything like that. All I want to know is how much mass was ejected into LOE or above during this event.I'll calculate some kind of rough numbers for the collapse of this additional crust. Can you give me an estimate of the amount of water covered by this additional crust? It could help me make a more accurate calculation. That's all well and good - you dismiss any energy that would be released during a fall back to Earth. But you still have to deal with the massive explosions necessary to propel even a relatively small mass into space. Your scenario doesn't just destroy the world once, it annihilates it over and over again. Yes, the "fountains" could have acted as some sort of propellant and altered the rotaion of the planet, or slightly altered its orbit - but you would be talking about amounts of energy and water that dwarf even our previous discussions. We are again stepping into the realm of planetary annihilation, not global flood. Heat propagation doesn't just magically "stop" at a few hundred miles. The energy necessary to do what you propose would be astronomical. So, thjen, where is the evidence? Where do we see that the Earth was shattered into asteroidal fragments only a few thousand years ago, and somehow reconstituted itself in such a short timeframe without heating itself to a molten ball od slag? How did life, let alone a little boat, survive such an event?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This has nothing to do with evolution.This is simple physics and geology. What Walt Brown proposes is flatly impossible.For instance, saying that some mass was ejected above the atmosphere and then fell to earth as muddy snowballs that killed and froze living things is preposterous. A simple calculation would show that, if a mass is propelled out of the atmoshere, it will NOT land as anything approaching "frozen." The energy of the fall is simply too great, and friction with the air and the impact itself (assuming the mass doesn't simply burn up entirely) ensure that the word "cold" will never enter the description of such an event.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Yeah. I noticed all the frozen critters at ground zero Tunguska.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay, I'm getting some numbers together.Let's just assume that there was a second crust, and that this crust was 66% of the mass of the current continental crust - just to give you the benefit of the doubt. We can change that assumption later if you want.Next, let's assume that this crust covered the entirety of the Earth's oceans, or at least an equivalent amount of water.The mass of the continental crust is roughly 2.23e22 kilograms. 66% of this is 1.47e22 kilograms.The average depth of the oceans of the Earth is roughly 4000 meters.The energy of a mass of 1.47e22 Kg falling 4000 m is about 5.76e26 Joules. That's the equivalent of 1.38e11 megatons of energy. That's about 2.69 megatons per square meter of the Earth.That's one hell of an earthquake.If you remember, we calculated how much energy it would take to eject 30% of the water in the world's oceans to low-Earth-orbit. We came up with 2.8e28 Joules. That's over 2 orders of magnitude greater than the entirety of the energy released from a continental shelf falling - and not nearly all of that energy would be converted directly to making these "fountains." The amount of waste heat would be incredible, not to mention the global earhquake this would cause.Now let's calculate the energy required to change the velocity of the Earth, whether its orbit or its rotational period. I'm going to ignore any other forces beyond the mass of the Earth for this - I'm only going to calculate the energy required to change the velocity of the mass of the Earth. KE = 1/2 m*v^2. If we were to change the velocity of the Earth by just 1 meter per second, we would require 2.99e24 Joules. Our "falling crust" model has enough energy to do it, but only assuming nearly perfect efficiency, that the water jet is somehow one-directional (there are no additional jets), and that all of this energy is somehow funneled directly into squirting a massive stream of water directly into space.I'm sorry, TheLiteralist. You're talking about events that simply aren't possible. If they had happened, we certainly wouldn't BE here. The Earth would be a fragmented, uninhabitable mess.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Hi rahvin,Thank you for the time and effort of the calculations. I am not sure how you arrived at the 66% assumption.The current continents, according to Walt Brown's model, represent a remnant of the original crust. Supposedly, each continent has basement rocks (granite?) covered with sedimentary rock layers. In general, the basement rocks represent large fragments of the original crust, while the sedimentary rock layers represent portions of the "missing" crustal areas that were blasted, eroded and deposited.If we say that 1/2 (very rough estimate) of each continent is basement rock and 1/2 is sedimentary rock layers, and since the current contintents represent 1/4 of the earth's surface (area wise), then perhaps (if we "reformed" the sedimentary rock layers into "continents") that would cover roughly 1/2 of the earth's surface.Whew! So, I think a very rough estimate, would be that 1/2 of the original crust left and never came back.So the original crust might roughly equal 200% of the current crust. Therefore, an amount equal to the current contintents got blasted away?As to the unidirectionalness of it...maybe lets forget about moving the earth in any one direction. The earth is spinning...so the jet might not affect the orbit very much...but it WOULD move the earth (but all the movements might put the earth back near square one, so to speak...althought the fountain would weaken with time, meaning there would be a net change in orbital location...I would think).The point is, though, is that I don't think that ALL the fountain's energy would turn to heat (overlooking for this part of the discussion...the return of any material...focussing instead on material permanently ejected).Sorry for the "stream-of-consciousness" post.If you can get something out of it, you're good! But anyway, I'm appreciating your calculations...but I think using a figure of 100% of the the mass of the current continents (as far as what got blasted away) might be closer to what the model requires...I think!--Jason

Oh yeah...I almost forgot (it's sort of a side issue?) Well, unlike many YECs (probably because I am not trying to convince the public school system to teach creationism?), I have NO problem invoking the miraculous in the event.For instance, I could consider Noah's ability to survive the Flood a miracle.Also, remember that most of us YECs (including me) consider like 98% of the fossils to represent the living population on the earth moments before the flood events began. An incredibly richly inhabited planet, no? (some would say too populated, of course)(AbE: now that I think about it...if half the crust got blasted away...that would probably mean that half of the living creatures got blasted away, too. So, would the fossils represent 1/2 of the population moments before the Flood -- really even less because many would not fossilize???)I actually do consider the current earth to be a severely fragmentmented and not-nearly-as-habitable mess when compared to its preflood self.--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-30-2005 08:14 PM

Sorry. I actually missed THIS post. Well, in my previous post I provide the estimate of 100% of our current continental crust (not oceanic crust, btw) got blasted OUT of the earth system permanently.Walt Brown makes the (arbitrary?) assumption that 1/2 of the oceans waters were BELOW the crust while about 1/2 were on top of the original crust as original seas.I think he has SOME water leaving permanently...but most of the water (I would think) would stay in the earth system.Hope this helps with the calculations some.--Jason

All those comets and asteroids launched ballistically like that would, unfortunately for Walt and the rest of us, remain in orbits that intersect Earth's. We'd have an asteroid storm every year on FountainOfTheDeep Day, and be bombarded out of existence.

Okay. I am ignoring returning material for this part of the discussion. Although, I guess ultimately I am looking for a net effect (heat wise).--Jason

I'm still having energy problems with this. Water doesn't store pressure; it's incompressible. Water under pressure in a system is like a lever - you press down on it here, it goes up over here. In fact that's literally how hydraulic machines operate and generate mechanical advantage.So, consider a lever with one mass on one side, and the same mass on the other. Like a balanced teeter-toter, nothing happens. Certainly one mass is not ejected into space, no matter how long you let the whole thing sit. If you pick up one mass, suspend it, and then drop it back onto the lever, like circus acrobats, it is indeed the case that the mass on the other side will be launched into the air - only as high as the distance you dropped the first mass from.If you have a model where water pressure blasts the mass of the continents into space, then you have an enormous amount of energy you need to explain. It can't be stored in the deep waters from creation (God's control-alt-delete plan, I guess), because water doesn't store pressure. The weight of the remaining continents alone isn't enough to do it either, because they're not falling far enough. Something would have to press down on the remaining continents to "squeeze" the water and ejecta mass up into space, and such an impact would have catastrophic consequences for the Earth. We're talking planet-blender stuff. We're talking Chapter One of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, only with more chunky bits. We're talking a great disturbance in the Force.Which obviously didn't happen, since we're all on planet Earth.A word of advice - don't make the mistake of thinking "hrm, the weight of the continents provides an incalculable amount of energy, therefore it must be enough energy to do whatever I propose." We can calculate the energy needs of a given scenario, it's fairly simple in fact, so I suggest you do the math before one of us does.

So most of us have no arguement with you then, we have NO problem with what you want to teach in church.However, this is the science side of the site. Here evoking a miricle is an explicit admission that, within the natural world that science deals with, the flood (for example) isn't possible. So it doesn't (as you note) belong in a science classroom.If the world's YEC's would stand up and honestly admit this there would be little or no further reason to discuss all these things. There would be no legal fights going on and this site might not exist.However, why would you waste your time and the time of others if you think a miracle is the answer to anything? Why ask about dry land sediments for example. They too can be a miracle. Anything you like can be a miracle there is not need to ask questions or discuss what we do know.If your God can perform these miracles why would He bother with a flood or finding water under the crust? He can just magic water up from nothing. The answer, of course, is that only those who want this stuff taught in a science classroom make up such utter rubbish to try to pretend there is any science there. You are honest and realize that it is, as science, rubbish (though why you are bothering with it needs to be explained). Those who push this stuff are clearly either dishonest or rather ignorant/stupid.

Couldn't you turn the water into steam which would expand to 1500 (IIRC) times the original volume blasting the crust away into space?Could be exciting.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

With a ridiculous input of energy? Sure, I guess you could do that. But wasn't that my point? That the energy has to come from somewhere?

Does the steam have to go somewhere?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Relevance to my points? Not to be snide but others can address the explosion model; I'm choosing to concentrate on the energy input aspect.