Fun with the Flood math.

[look]

2nd April 2003 at 04:24 PM Arikay said this in Post #160

Yep those four people are mad at the lack of research that goes into some of these creationist arguments

Tsk,tsk...I gave you the footnotes, you find the research papers and try to refute these scientist's work!

 

[Arikay]

Um, Footnotes mean nothing when an elemetary school kid can refute the claims that the sky is blue because of of glowing oxygen

Maybe you should research things before you post them. Nah.

 

[Smilin]

2nd April 2003 at 04:32 PM look said this in Post #161

Tsk,tsk...I gave you the footnotes, you find the research papers and try to refute these scientist's work!

I gave you the the link, and a portion of the published paper on the formation of metallic hydrogen.

Given the paramaters needed to form it... it's your turn to prove that such a thing could occur on Earth.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

2nd April 2003 at 09:09 PM look said this in Post #159

Lookit dat!!! I've got 4 people on my tail! Hehehe
[move]____________ [/move]

I am getting a wiff of troll here guys. How about you?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Pete Harcoff]

2nd April 2003 at 04:05 PM Smilin said this in Post #157

<snip>

I stand corrected,
if metallic hydrogen was formed (by this method, the Earth would be pulverized by the pressure, then cooked by the extreme heat)

Big explosion to follow....

Actually, that's for the formation of liquid metal hydrogen. Solid metal hydrogen requires supercooling to about 20K.

See this article

 

[Pete Harcoff]

2nd April 2003 at 04:48 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #164

I am getting a wiff of troll here guys. How about you?

Maybe. It's worth investigating and discussing the claim for any lurkers who might think it's a valid argument. So far, it seems the claim of a metal hydrogen canopy is full of some glaring holes.

 

[Smilin]

Thanks Pete..

Another 'impossible scenario'..

How could someone even suggest this as a theory to support a global drizzle?????

 

[Smilin]

2nd April 2003 at 05:17 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #166



Maybe. It's worth investigating and discussing the claim for any lurkers who might think it's a valid argument. So far, it seems the claim of a metal hydrogen canopy is full of some glaring holes.

yep.. many young,impressionable minds pass through here.

I'd hate to know they were brainwashed by such nonsense.

 

[notto]

2nd April 2003 at 03:32 PM look said this in Post #161

Tsk,tsk...I gave you the footnotes, you find the research papers and try to refute these scientist's work!

There may not be issues in the work listed in the footnotes, but the person who put together the article you posted certainly did not apply the work correctly to support his point. The article you posted is what is being refuted, not the work of legitimate scientists whose work is used to try to support this poorly constructed article of "research".

 

[look]

The most important thing to remember is, "What was once thought impossible, turns out to be quite possible." Just because our present technology is not capable of reproducing what God did, doesn't mean it is impossible.

What is a troll, btw?

 

[notto]

2nd April 2003 at 04:35 PM look said this in Post #170

The most important thing to remember is, "What was once thought impossible, turns out to be quite possible." Just because our present technology is not capable of reproducing what God did, doesn't mean it is impossible.

And here we have the creationist U turn. We will explain what we can by using misquotes, applying bad scientific reseach, ignoring what science tells us about the world and the natural laws that govern it, and if that doesn't work, we can always say that God Did It.

Why even bother trying to come up with a rational scientific explaination for the water if the end of the argument is still going to be irrational (supernatural)? Why not just come out and say that God created the water and the flood out of thin air and then covered his tracks when he was done? At least then the argument is credible from a theological standpoint. Why make God jump through all the hoops if at the end of the "scientific" explaination, we still have a "and then a miracle happened and God changed physical laws". Why not just put that at the beginning of the explanation?

 

[look]

2nd April 2003 at 05:15 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #165



Actually, that's for the formation of liquid metal hydrogen. Solid metal hydrogen requires supercooling to about 20K.

See this article

That's an old paper. I found one as recently as May 2000. See link

Metallization of hydrogen using heavy-ion-beam implosion of multilayered cylindrical targets

N. A. Tahir, D. H. H. Hoffmann, A. Kozyreva, and A. Tauschwitz
Institut für Kernphysik, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Schlossgarten Strasse 9, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany

A. Shutov
Institute for Chemical Physics Research, Chernogolovka, Russia

J. A. Maruhn
Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Frankfurt, D-60054 Frankfurt, Germany

P. Spiller, U. Neuner, J. Jacoby, M. Roth, and R. Bock
Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, Planckstrasse 1, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany

H. Juranek and R. Redmer
Fachbereich Physik, Universität Rostock, Universitätsplatz 3, 18051 Rostock, Germany

Received 12 May 2000; published 19 December 2000

Employing a two-dimensional simulation model, this paper presents a suitable design for an experiment to study metallization of hydrogen in a heavy-ion beam imploded multilayered cylindrical target that contains a layer of frozen hydrogen. Such an experiment will be carried out at the upgraded heavy-ion synchrotron facility (SIS-18) at the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt by the end of the year 2001. In these calculations we consider a uranium beam that will be available at the upgraded SIS-18. Our calculations show that it may be possible to achieve theoretically predicted physical conditions necessary to create metallic hydrogen in such experiments. These include a density of about 1 g/cm3, a pressure of 3–5 Mbar, and a temperature of a few 0.1 eV.

©2000 The American Physical Society

URL: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v63/e016402
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.63.016402
PACS: 51.50.+v, 51.60.+a, 51.70.+f

Judging from that paper, the pressure would amount to .072 PSI and the density and temperature I don't have any idea what that would translate to in everyday terms. It's beginning to appear that indeed it may be possible to get the canopy without all of the adverse effects alot of people are predicting. Why shoot something down, when your knowledge may be outdated. Our knowledge is doubling every 18 months.

However, this paper is a huge improvement over what was discussed in the 1996 paper.

I'm going to search for more up to date papers.

 

[Arikay]

Now, tell us, how does this show that the canopy was metalic hydrogen?

 

[notto]

"Employing a two-dimensional simulation model, this paper presents a suitable design for an experiment to study metallization of hydrogen in a heavy-ion beam imploded multilayered cylindrical target that contains a layer of frozen hydrogen. Such an experiment will be carried out at the upgraded heavy-ion synchrotron facility (SIS-18) at the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt by the end of the year 2001. In these calculations we consider a uranium beam that will be available at the upgraded SIS-18. "

Yeah, all environments that we commonly find in nature and outer space. Now you just need to deal with the radiation emminating from a stable environment such as this.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Our calculations show that it may be possible to achieve theoretically predicted physical conditions necessary to create metallic hydrogen in such experiments. These include a density of about 1 g/cm3, a pressure of 3–5 Mbar, and a temperature of a few 0.1 eV.

[/B]©2000 The American Physical Society

Judging from that paper, the pressure would amount to .072 PSI and the density and temperature I don't have any idea what that would translate to in everyday terms.

You're a little off on the pressure. Mbar means millions of bar. You must be thinking of mbar which means 0.001bar, so you have the required pressure low by a billion fold.

The density of 1 g/cm3 is the same as that of water.&nbsp; eV = electron volts = 1.6 * 10^-19&nbsp;Joule.&nbsp;Plasma temperatures are sometimes given in eV but I don't know how to convert it to normal terms.



The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[notto]

2nd April 2003 at 07:03 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #175



You're a little off on the pressure. Mbar means millions of bar. You must be thinking of mbar which means 0.001bar, so you have the required pressure low by a billion fold.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

I guess look has been betrayed by his ignorance! Nice catch!

 

[look]

2nd April 2003 at 06:34 PM notto said this in Post #171




And here we have the creationist U turn. We will explain what we can by using misquotes, applying bad scientific reseach, ignoring what science tells us about the world and the natural laws that govern it, and if that doesn't work, we can always say that God Did It.

Why even bother trying to come up with a rational scientific explaination for the water if the end of the argument is still going to be irrational (supernatural)? Why not just come out and say that God created the water and the flood out of thin air and then covered his tracks when he was done? At least then the argument is credible from a theological standpoint. Why make God jump through all the hoops if at the end of the "scientific" explaination, we still have a "and then a miracle happened and God changed physical laws". Why not just put that at the beginning of the explanation?

Because a miracle is something, that is at present, out of the range of our technology. It wasn't too long ago when man (the best scientists of the time) thought travel to the moon was impossible. The same with the automobile and avaition. You should be open to possiblities, not close-minded. You have to keep in mind that our knowledge is doubling every 18 months. At that rate, it won't be long before this elusive hydrogen can be made on a mass production scale. Then what will you say? Are you going to end up as 'ignorant' as the folks who, when presented with the fact the Wright brothers succeeded in getting their plane to fly, adamantly denied it? God is so much smarter than most people give Him credit for. I'm guessing that you and most of my critics are atheists. That's ok. I'm also guessing that my suggestions of creation as described by the Genesis account would force you to revaluate your position of God, if man could prove it scientifically.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to force you to believe in God, I'm simply pointing out that as our knowledge increases, the signature of God becomes more readly apparent. I believe there is no reason we can discuss, in a civil and respectful manner, the different possibilities that are observable to us. You must realize I have not indulged in any derogatory belittlement towards anyone and I would expect the same displayed towards me.

Now, will someone please explain to me what FB meant when he said something about a troll? And lurker?

Peace

 

[notto]

2nd April 2003 at 07:30 PM look said this in Post #177




Because a miracle is something, that is at present, out of the range of our technology. It wasn't too long ago when man (the best scientists of the time) thought travel to the moon was impossible. The same with the automobile and avaition. You should be open to possiblities, not close-minded. You have to keep in mind that our knowledge is doubling every 18 months. At that rate, it won't be long before this elusive hydrogen can be made on a mass production scale. Then what will you say? Are you going to end up as 'ignorant' as the folks who, when presented with the fact the Wright brothers succeeded in getting their plane to fly, adamantly denied it? God is so much smarter than most people give Him credit for. I'm guessing that you and most of my critics are atheists. That's ok. I'm also guessing that my suggestions of creation as described by the Genesis account would force you to revaluate your position of God, if man could prove it scientifically.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to force you to believe in God, I'm simply pointing out that as our knowledge increases, the signature of God becomes more readly apparent. I believe there is no reason we can discuss, in a civil and respectful manner, the different possibilities that are observable to us. You must realize I have not indulged in any derogatory belittlement towards anyone and I would expect the same displayed towards me.

Now, will someone please explain to me what FB meant when he said something about a troll? And lurker?

Peace

I believe in God but creationists try to make God something that his is not. The try to make God into something that would deceive us with the clear evidence that is in creation.

Creationists also try to play in the field of science but do not play by the rules of scientific method or observation. You are correct that we can explain observations. If we fail to be able to explain a phenomena, it is not scientific to say "God Did It". It is scientific to say that we don't know yet. Otherwise we fall into the same trap as those who blamed disease on evil spirits and lighting on the wrath of God.

We are learning things at an astounding rate. In just the past 200 years, we have been able to falsify a literal interpretation of Genesis and a young earth, and a world wide flood, all the while, developing extremely detailed scientific theories for evolution, geology, astonomy, chemistry, and physics, all of which reveal the reality of creation.

As far as producing metalic hydrogen, until we can bend and mold the laws of physics to fit our need, I think no matter how it is produced, it will require lots of pressure, energy, and an environment that would not be possible to duplicate around the earth without destroying it. The metalic hydrogen explaination for a flood phenomena is an ad-hoc explanation that is not supported by observation of the natural world. Do you have any evidence that shows this not to be the case?

You seem to be agreeing at this point, holding out for the possible day when we have the answer. Do you agree that we don't have an explaination for a reasonable way for this hydrogen canopy to exist and fall to earth without first destroying the earth?

I don't believe that I was derogatory to you. You seem to be hanging on to a poorly researched article and refuse to look at it critically because it supports the viewpoint you wish to be true. Of course, you were first to reflect on my ignorance and did not retract, even in light of the fact that I was correct.

 

[look]

2nd April 2003 at 08:03 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #175



You're a little off on the pressure. Mbar means millions of bar. You must be thinking of mbar which means 0.001bar, so you have the required pressure low by a billion fold.

The density of 1 g/cm3 is the same as that of water.&nbsp; eV = electron volts = 1.6 * 10^-19&nbsp;Joule.&nbsp;Plasma temperatures are sometimes given in eV but I don't know how to convert it to normal terms.



The Frumious Bandersnatch

Thanks, FB. My bad. I haven't worked with physics for awhile, so I'm a little rusty!

 

[Smilin]

2nd April 2003 at 08:03 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #175



You're a little off on the pressure. Mbar means millions of bar. You must be thinking of mbar which means 0.001bar, so you have the required pressure low by a billion fold.

The density of 1 g/cm3 is the same as that of water.&nbsp; eV = electron volts = 1.6 * 10^-19&nbsp;Joule.&nbsp;Plasma temperatures are sometimes given in eV but I don't know how to convert it to normal terms.



The Frumious Bandersnatch

1 electron volt = 4.50528e-023 watt-hour