David Siemens wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David F Siemens [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
>Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 8:18 PM
>To: glenn.morton@btinternet.com
>Cc: allenroy@peoplepc.com; asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Creation Ex Nihilio and other journals
>
>
>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.
I don't know if anyone else has answered this. You are off by a factor of 5
orders of magnitude in your estimate of Chicxulub. Consider this:
"Computer models of explosions with energies of 1,000 megatons--about
20 times the energy of the largest nuclear bonbs but only 1/100,000 the
energy of the KT impact--have shown that the fireball never reaches pressure
equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere. Instead, as the fireball
expands to altitudes where the density of the atmosphere declines
significantly, its rise accelerates and the gas leaves the atmsophere at
velocities fast enough to escape the earth's gravitational field. The
fireball from an even greater asteroid impact would simply burst out the top
of the atmosphere, carrying any entrained ejecta with it, sending the
material into orbits that could carry it anywhere on the earth." ~ Walter
Alvarez and Frank Asaro, "An Extraterrestrial Impact," Scientific American
Oct. 1990, p. 80
>
>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
This is irrelevant. No one cares the largest crater found in Europe. The
largest crater found on earth is Chicxulub at 300 km. Sudbury is 200 km and
Vredefort is 140 km in diameter.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>
>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 : Thu Jan 18 2001 - 15:12:24 EST