Glenn and Allen,
I took the occasion to calculate the kinetic energy of a spherical body
of ice (a comet) 500 m in diameter impacting earth at 30 km/sec. The
formula is E=mv^2/2. If measurements are in grams and cm/sec, the result
is ergs. I get about 295 x 10^24 ergs or the equivalent of a 7,000 Mt
bomb. Since the Chicxulub crater is said to be equal to 1000 Mt, caused
by a 10-20 km diameter object entering the atmosphere at 20-60 km/sec, it
seems that they have dissipated much of the energy in the atmosphere
rather than in the impact.
The largest crater found to date in Europe is off the Norwegian coast in
the Barents Sea. It is said to be about 40 km across and probably
produced a temperature of 10,000 C at impact. Sounds more like a barbecue
than a flood, especially at the rate of 3 or 4 impacts per day as
suggested.
Dave
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:21:46 -0000 "Glenn Morton"
<glenn.morton@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> >Behalf Of Allen Roy
> >Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:59 AM
> >To: asanet
> >Subject: Re: Creation Ex Nihilio and other journals
>
> >>From what I remember of that previous conversation, I argued that
> the
> >calculations you presented were badly flawed and I present
> calculations
> >which showed that heat would not be anywhere near the temps you
> claimed.
>
> Somehow I missed your 'equations' last July as that was right as I
> was
> moving to Scotland. I just took a look at them. I got a big laugh
> out of
> the 'precision' with which you calculate things.
>
> Physicists and engineers will be delighted to know that the volume
> of water
> required to cover the continents by 30 feet of water is
> 1.48425503914130532624918453045341 e+6 km^3. Wow, I bet you have
> counted the
> molecules involved to get that precise a figure. Allen that is
> entirely too
> precise to be believable.
>
> And your equations don't even cover the energy of an impact from an
> asteroid. All you did was show what energy was needed to throw water
> up onto
> the continent. Other than this, you have provided no equations and I
> think I
> pointed that out to you during our last discussion. While it is easy
> to
> claim you have shown something, in order to correctly make that
> claim, you
> must actually do it. You have shown no such thing.
> You never even used the kinetic energy of the object. The word
> kinetic is
> not in that post. If you don't account for the kinetic energy of a
> meteor,
> which can be very, very substantial then you have shown nothing. For
> those
> who want to see this deficient calculation see
>
> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200007/0343.html
>
>
>
> glenn
>
> see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
> for lots of creation/evolution information
>
> personal stories of struggle
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 15 2001 - 15:52:52 EST