You wrote:
>2) In all fairness to Patten he does believe
>the ice particles picked up an electrical
>charge before fluxing in. Sorry about
>leaving that out. Your probably right about
>there being no ice dump on earth. But I
>still want to find out if we had a change
>in the ozone level in the antartic ice.
I was aware of that but for a gram sized object to be deflected by the earth's
magnetic field it must acquire a HUGE charge. The data and equations I will
use come from Martin Harwitt, Astrophysical Concepts. You mentioned the figure
of 135,000 miles per hour. That is about 6000000 cm/sec. The earth's
magnetic field is .5 gauss (p. 38).
When a charged particle is caught in a magnetic field, it spirals along the
magnetic flux line. The radius of this spiral is (p. 193)
R=pc/qB
where p is the transverse momentum, q is the charge, B is the magnetic field
and c is the speed of light. For a 1 gram chunk of ice the momentum is
6000000, c is 3 x 10^8 so the radius of the spiral is
R (cm)= (3.6 x 10^15)/q
To get this radius less than 100 kilometers which would keep the spiraling
chunk of ice from crashing to the earth on its first revolution requires a
charge of 360 million coulombs. This is so large as to be impossible. That
much charge between the moon and the earth would crash the moon into the
earth.
>4) Discounting the gravitational pull of the sun, if
>the earth didn't spin and the moon didn't rotate
>around the earth would the tides rise and fall?
No. There would be a stationary tide until the time that the moon fell into
the earth. The moon's revolution around the earth is necessary for it to
avoid a collision with the earth.
>According to "The New Book of Knowledge" encyclopedia
>1986 edition, the article on tides, they wouldn't.
>The article indicated there would be two stationary
>high tide locations. The highest stationary high
>tide would be located on the side of the earth
>closest to the moon. The second and not as high,
>stationary tide location would be on the side
>of the earth farthest from the moon.
>My point is an increase in gravity gradient
>would not necessarily result in tidal waves
>moving at hundreds or even thousands of mph.
>It's possible for there to be two stationary or
>even slowly moving high tide locations.
You forget that the earth IS rotating about its axis and would have been even
in an encounter with an errant planet. The non-rotating earth and
non-revolving moon are not what actually exists.
>5) It is not required that Mars came even near
>roche's limit of earth. All we know from the
>Biblical text is that as far as Noah could see
>all the Mountains were covered. I believe this
>does not include the mountains Noah couldn't
>see. Concerning Genesis 7:20 David Fasold, who
>has lots of sea experience, in his book,
>"The Ark of Noah" has a convincing argument
>that "15 cubits upward" simply means it was
>15 cubis form the bottom of the ship to the
>top of the water. So perhaps Mars didn't come
>as close as I thought and the gravity gradient
>wasn't increased as much as I thought.
Then it wouldn't do as much damage as you thought.
>5) I will have to do some more research on
>the moho, etc.
>6) Due to the usually resonant orbits or the planets
>and there satelites Patten believes the moon was
>basically on the side of the earth away from Mars and
>was thus pretty much uneffected by earth pass Mars
>made. I think he's right about that.
The earth cannot shield the moon from gravitational interaction with an errant
planet. The force of gravity goes completely through the earth unaffected.
Thus if the moon is moving away from Mars, the pull of gravity will slow it
down. If the moon is moving towards mars it's velocity will speed up. In
either case these speed ups must be precisely timed in order for the moon to
have the nearly circular orbit it does today. The fact that the moon's orbit
is so circular is good evidence that such a planetary encounter never
happened. Also the circularity of Mar's present orbit is good evidence that
it was never wandering around the solar system. Circular or nearly circular
orbits are hard to come by in astronautics. Energy inputs and outputs must be
precisely timed in order to circularize an orbit.
>7) A couple of things I think his modified theory
>explain are A) Why over 12 civilizations had 360
>days in their calendars prior to the 701 B.C. pass
>Mars made by the earth. "The ARk of Noah" by David
>Fasold pages 64-66. "Catastrophism and the Old
>Testament" by Donald Patten pages 221-223.
>B) How Jonathan Swift was able to describe in
>detail the 2 satellites of Mars almost 150 years
>before they were seen with a telescope.
If Mars and its satellites came near the earth, the earth's very strong
gravitational field would have stripped Mars of its two satellites and Swift
would now have no evidence of them. I have written a computer program which
models gravitational interactions in a solar system. If planets or moons get
too close to each other, they are ejected from the solar system entirely.
They never end up in nearly circular orbits like all planets have today.
Close gravitational interactions are what was used to speed up and elongate
the solar orbit of the Galileo space probe and allow it to travel to Jupiter.
It made a couple of passes by the earth if I recall correctly. The same
phenomenon of a close encounter with Jupiter and Saturn was what propelled
voyager to Neptune and then propelled it out of the solar system. Jupiter
propelled one of the voyagers up and out of the plane of the solar system.
These types of interactions do not make for the type of solar system we see
today.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm