From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 02:45:12 EDT
Glenn Morton wrote:
> Allen replied:
> On the other hand, The hotspot may be moving on it's own, independent of the
> movement of the athenesphere of the upper mantle. [end Allens reply]
>
> It does have some movement but it is a minority of the movement. A recent
> article in Geology pointed out that it moves at 44 mm per year. But it
> won't move an thousands of kilometers per year.
Assuming that this measurement is based on data only a few millennia and not
millions of years, one would not expect to find it moving at the same rate now
as it might have in the past. If it was moving fast during the flood cataclysm
it was doing so because of whatever it may have been that was also causing the
plates to move and sink into the mantle. Nothing like that is happening now, so
one would not expect it to be moving fast now.
> Allen asked:
> Is this at the 10^22 poise coefficient? I'm sure you know that Baumgardner
> proposes that the coefficient drops dramatically under special conditions.
> What are the calculations for lower coefficients that baumgardner proposes.
> [end allen reply
>
> Baumgardner's view is neither good science nor does it solve problems. Two
> examples. The approach in question creates bigger problems than it solves.
> To move the plates as they suggest requires the release of 10^28 joules of
> energy. That much energy would vaporize the earth.
If I were to take the gas in my car and release all its energy in 0.5 seconds,
I'd blow my car to pieces. However, if I take that gas and release the energy
in the engine over many hours, I can safely travel for several hundred miles.
Therefore, the question is how fast is that 10^28 joules released and what kind
of dissipation system is there available to deal with the heat. I've seen your
calculations before on things like this and you only deal with the input of
heat, but not how dissipation changes with increase in heat. For instance, if
the earth were to receive 1 degree more of energy per day the earth would then
radiate 1 degree more energy shortly afterward.
I suspect that your claim of "vaporizing the earth" would only happen if that
energy were released in just a few seconds and ignores any, to be expect,
increases in energy dissipation.
> Does Baumgardner have a means to cool the earth? No, he appeals to the
> miraculous.
I don't know if Baumgardner still proposes this or not, however, I know that he
is now also proposing steam geysers that shoot above the atmosphere from areas
of exposed mantle. He's done some calculations on the amount of heat that would
be dissipated directly into space, by-passing much of the insulating effect of
the atmosphere.
> I wrote:
> But Allen, these are changes due to the decay of radionuclides after they
> come to the surface. it isn't the same as merely a chemical change.
>
> Allen replied
> [snip] So, this assumption that measured radiogenic argon is the in situ decay
> of 40K into 40A is COMMONLY false.
> [end of allens reply]
>
> I said it wasn't perfect. But why would there be more argon on the older
> islands? You still havn't explained it. You have, above, only explained why
> you don't think it should be a problem. Explain it. How does it happen in
> the flood?
It's not perfect, for sure. It's fatally flawed. If isometric dating if true
some of the time (T) And false some of the time (F) then the system is false.
T AND F = F (it's not T OR F)
I thought I had provided an explanation earlier. The hotspot magma source may
well have had more argon in its upper area when the first of the islands were
formed, than it did later when the later islands were formed.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 02:45:47 EDT