Fun with the Flood math.

[ikester7579]

2nd April 2003 at 01:33 PM Smilin said this in Post #139

I'll give you a hint in your experiment.

Attach small sticky balls to your yarn ball.
When you swing the ball around, you'll notice they
fly off. Why?

If small sticky balls aren't held in place on your ball or yarn..
then the simple rotation of the Earth around the sun acts to LAUNCH everything from the Earth not hold it in place.

What is missing from your experiment?

Okay,let me rephrase the test with more detail so you might understand.
The ball represents things that orbit around the earth, satalites, moon, water etc... The string that holds the ball in place represents gravity. As gravity holds in place the things mentioned. The speed of which you turn around and how the ball stays inplace represents how things stay in orbit. If you turn to slow the ball is no longer being extended straight out from you. If you turn to fast the ball will start to feel heavier which represents how things can fly out of orbit if the speed is not right.  Sorry I did not mention this in more detail.

A better thing to use would be a rubber band in place of string. Because as you spin faster you can see it stretch showing how things can fly out from orbit. And yes I do know what holds us on this earth.

 

[ikester7579]

2nd April 2003 at 02:20 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #142

 





Your post clearly makes it sound like you think that the pink glow in sky at sunrise and sunset comes from energized hydrogen. Notto is right to say that this is bunk. As Notto explained the pink glow is due to differential light scattering. When the light path through the atmosphere is lengthened red light get through prefentially because light scattering is dependant on the inverse fourth power of wavelength. This is why the sunset is so beautiful when there is dust or smoke in the air. The red glow from emission of excited hydrogen atoms in nebulea is a completely different phenomonon . There are some other severve problems with your mettalic hydrogen firmament but I don't have time to address them right now. Maybe later. Meanwhile, I don't think it is wise to say that someone whose explanation is essentially correct is being betrayed by ignorance.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

This theory sounds good. But no one has really did an actual test to see if the scattered light theory is actually true or a theory. If there has been a test done in a "atmospheric chamber" to simulate the upper atmosphere, sun lite, the given gases present, the barometric pressure, dust etc... I'd like to see it. If not just like everything else it becomes a theory, Just like the dust particle theory making the sky glow pink. Has there been a test using dust particles and sun light in a controlled state to prove this? Besides why would dust particles glow pink when hit by sun light?

On the other hand The test for the pink glow of hydrogen when energized has already been done and is no longer theory. Whether you want to believe it is up to you. I myself have seen the test done. But I know here at this forum that does not hold water. Only what theories mentioned by you and others are accepted with or with out proof. Example is what I just explained above. One person said it(scattered light and dust that glows pink) and everyone else jumps on the band wagon to accept it as fact even when there's no double blind test to prove any of it. It just sounds good and like it might work, that's all.

 

[ikester7579]

2nd April 2003 at 02:42 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #145



Here's a million dollar question: What is preventing the energy from the Sun and/or heat energy within the Earth's atmosphere from melting this shell of frozen hydrogen?

Ever heard of heat transfer? Just like the cpu in your computer gets hot and the cooler with a fan(or liquid cooled in some cases) transfer heat through "metal" fins into the air. The "metalic" canopy transfer heat in the same manner. The dark side of the earth would be the cool side and the heat can transfer that way, Also the air underneath the canopy was cold do to how high the canopy was in our atmosphere. So you see there's enough ways to cool it to keep it at the tempature required. 

 

[ikester7579]

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

No, more like it takes the brains of four who don't believe to even come close to making a creationist look remotely stupid.

Look, you are so right. Everytime I post here it's like a hornets nest being stirred. First one shows up, then presto 3-5 more pop in out of the air. Almost like magic. Always the same ones. Once in a while a new one comes. Makes me wonder that their evidence is so that it takes that many.   Right now no one is in here. I post and see how many show up in a hurry lol.

 

[ikester7579]

Yeah Look, It's more like this. [move]  God created the heavens and the earth ___________????  [/move]

 

[Arikay]

Ok dockey Ikester.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Okay,let me rephrase the test with more detail so you might understand.
The ball represents things that orbit around the earth, satalites, moon, water etc... The string that holds the ball in place represents gravity. As gravity holds in place the things mentioned. The speed of which you turn around and how the ball stays inplace represents how things stay in orbit. If you turn to slow the ball is no longer being extended straight out from you. If you turn to fast the ball will start to feel heavier which represents how things can fly out of orbit if the speed is not right.  Sorry I did not mention this in more detail.

This is an incorrect explaination of why satellites orbit and fall out of orbit. Objects in orbit are in "freefall" The tangential velocity of the satellite keeps it from falling into the object it orbits and gravitational attraction keeps it from flying off into space. The rotational rate of either body on its axis has nothing to do with it. Your ball on a string analogy is simply wrong. Here is a web site with two pages that explain basic orbital physics complete with a presentation of the math involved.
 
http://www.cord.edu/dept/physics/p128/lecture99_28.html
http://www.cord.edu/dept/physics/p128/lecture99_29.html

It is correct that if the satellite loses velocity for some reason it will fall to earth but the velocity of the satellite is not affected by the rotational rate of the earth. 

(If there are only two object they around their common center of mass, which may be well inside the larger object and objects in system orbit the common center of mass of the system but that doesn't really affect the explanation of orbits.)

This theory sounds good. But no one has really did an actual test to see if the scattered light theory is actually true or a theory. If there has been a test done in a "atmospheric chamber" to simulate the upper atmosphere, sun lite, the given gases present, the barometric pressure, dust etc... I'd like to see it.

The wavelength dependance of light scattering is a well documented fact that is used in many branches of science.  With objects small compared the the wavelength of the light the scattering depends upon the inverse forth power of wavelength and is known as Raleigh scattering with larger objects it more complicated. Overall red light penetrates objects more than blue light.  Here is an experiment you can do yourself. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you have already done it at some time in you life. Go into a dark room with a good bright flashlight. Put the light against the palm of your hand. Notice the color of the light comming through. Do you think it is red because of emmissions from excited hydrogen atoms in your hand?

It is a fact that longer wavelengths of light are scattered less than shorter wavelengths. It is a fact that this is why the sky is blue and sunsets are red. Here are websites explaining it.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Flagstaff/science/skyblue.htm

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html
(added in edit: Lack of light scattering is why the sky is black on the moon as someone has already pointed out. )

Ever heard of heat transfer? Just like the cpu in your computer gets hot and the cooler with a fan(or liquid cooled in some cases) transfer heat through "metal" fins into the air. The "metalic" canopy transfer heat in the same manner. The dark side of the earth would be the cool side and the heat can transfer that way, Also the air underneath the canopy was cold do to how high the canopy was in our atmosphere. So you see there's enough ways to cool it to keep it at the tempature required.

What? This whole "metallic canopy" idea is total nonsense. It's almost too silly to be worth commenting on.  Did you ever hear of things getting hot as they fall through the atmosphere? I don't think this metastable metallic hydrogen canopy could exist in the first place but if did it would ignite when heated by friction while falling through the atmosphere burning up all the oxygen in the air and cooking the earth to death. It's pretty easy to ignite hydrogen. 

No, more like it takes the brains of four who don't believe to even come close to making a creationist look remotely stupid.

I don't recall that anyone said you look stupid. However, it is taking quite a bit of effort to correct your misunderstandings of basic physical science, especially since you cling to them so stubbornly.  If you continue to cling to totally incorrect ideas long after you are shown they are wrong you may indeed look stupid. It is up to you.

Right now no one is in here. I post and see how many show up in a hurry lol.

When you post something fundamentally wrong on a debate board you can expect to be corrected.


The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

Frum, ive been over most of this with him quite a few times before (well, not the orbiting part). I even still have a pdf on my computer of a study on light scatering and how it works. Most of its way above my head but what I did understand was enough.

 

[Smilin]

Thanks Frum for sparing me the explanation of how the string in his orbiting ball is not gravity.

 

[Smilin]

4th April 2003 at 02:54 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #184

No, more like it takes the brains of four who don't believe to even come close to making a creationist look remotely stupid.

Noones ever insenuated you were stupid. Everyone's treated you kindly and with proper etiquette. Please don't insenuate that again.

However, I do find the notion of a metallic hydrogen canopy fascinatingly stupid... but at least I got a lesson in how it is formed.

The guilty party is the one who used the 'ball and string experiment' in an attempt to demonstrate how a very dense canopy could remain suspended in the Earth's atmosphere. The person teaching that notion is the truly stupid one.

 

[ikester7579]

4th April 2003 at 11:32 AM Smilin said this in Post #190



Noones ever insenuated you were stupid. Everyone's treated you kindly and with proper etiquette. Please don't insenuate that again.

However, I do find the notion of a metallic hydrogen canopy fascinatingly stupid... but at least I got a lesson in how it is formed.

The guilty party is the one who used the 'ball and string experiment' in an attempt to demonstrate how a very dense canopy could remain suspended in the Earth's atmosphere. The person teaching that notion is the truly stupid one.

Funny! First you say no one called me stupid. Then you say the guilty party is the one who came up with ball and string experiment(which was "me" by the way). So in one sentence you say one thing and the other? And for the record. You have not read some of the posts that were personal attacks. Not so much on this thread but others. But I'm not getting into it because as far as I'm concerned the thread it was done in has already died.

 

[ikester7579]

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.

Here's a pic of the machine that the metalic hydrogen experiment was done on. In this machine they were able to produce the results I spoke of for the metalic canopy. So it has been done. And here's where you can read about the experiment. http://www-phys.llnl.gov/H_Div/GG/metalhydrofact.html

 

[Arikay]

So, Ikester, are you saying that there used to be a machine like that around earth?

There is a reason why it takes a machine to make the metalic hydrogen, and why they then cant take it out and play with it.

 

[Terry.Trent]

you get around on the flood thing, don't you Arikay.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

5th April 2003 at 05:01 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #192

Here's a pic of the machine that the metalic hydrogen experiment was done on. In this machine they were able to produce the results I spoke of for the metalic canopy. So it has been done. And here's where you can read about the experiment. http://www-phys.llnl.gov/H_Div/GG/metalhydrofact.html

From that article:

The Livermore team's shock-compression experiments create conditions representative of those inside Jupiter, which is 90 percent hydrogen.

Earth's upper atmosphere... Conditions inside Jupiter... Yeah, I can see how those would be exactly the same.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

5th April 2003 at 05:44 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #195



From that article:

The Livermore team's shock-compression experiments create conditions representative of those inside Jupiter, which is 90 percent hydrogen.

Earth's upper atmosphere... Conditions inside Jupiter... Yeah, I can see how those would be exactly the same.

And by the way, this was fluid metallic hydrogen and not solid metallic hydrogen.  This whole solid metallic hydrogen firmament thing is so absurd that it is silly to even discuss it. However, if we didn't discuss it I suppose someone might continue to take it seriously.  To paraphrase HL Menken, no one ever went broke overestimating the gullibility of the young earth creationist.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 12:44 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #195



From that article:

The Livermore team's shock-compression experiments create conditions representative of those inside Jupiter, which is 90 percent hydrogen.

Earth's upper atmosphere... Conditions inside Jupiter... Yeah, I can see how those would be exactly the same.

Your from Jupiter?

 

[ikester7579]

I'd like to know where you get that 90% hydrogen theory. If no one has really gone there and confirmed that it's a theory. Again something that you and others are trying to say is fact. The experiment shown has been done. Jupiter?

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 01:26 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #196



And by the way, this was fluid metallic hydrogen and not solid metallic hydrogen.  This whole solid metallic hydrogen firmament thing is so absurd that it is silly to even discuss it. However, if we didn't discuss it I suppose someone might continue to take it seriously.  To paraphrase HL Menken, no one ever went broke overestimating the gullibility of the young earth creationist.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

  I never said it was solid. So don't put words in my mouth.

And here we go. Use someone's words to make personal attacks. And speaking of gullibility,  I seem remember lucy and peltdown man being debunked. Why was this even done to misguide people anyway? And why are there scientist still believing this? Gullible, me?Hmmm.

 

Tempature does effect the strength of a magnet. If the earth were surrounded by metalic hydrogen it would have to conduct a "magnetic field". This would not only hold the liquid hydrogen together, but enable it to be "thin" enough to allow light to pass through(most metals, like gold, in their purest states are transparent in thin layers ex: A thin layer of gold is used on visors of astronauts to block the sun's harmful rays while in space). When a liquid metal becomes magnetized it becomes a semi solid state. Now the question is, While in this semi solid state, can the pressure and the tempature be reduced and the hydrogen still maintain it's semi solid state because it has been magnetized? This would explain why the earth was created before light was introduced! It would have been cold enough(absolute zero) to create the metalic hydrogen in the upper atmosphere.

I heard the product JB. Weld(which can be bought in most auto parts stores) is a form of liquid metal. I have also read on one web site that it is attracked to a magnet. Now what I plan on doing is taking this liquid metal and see what affect a magnet has on it(that is if what that one web site says is true). Like when put a thin piece of paper and a magnet placed under it, will it spread out into thin layer? Can you put two magnets(attracking poles) at each end and stretch it into a thin layer like it would have been around the earth.

If any of you can think of another liquid metal that is attracked to magnets let me know. I think this experiment will be interesting.

Also here's a link on how cold affects a magnet. http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/magstren.htm

I just tried mercury. It's not attracted by a magnet.

 

[Arikay]

Ikester, I believe its called spectometry. It allows us to see what basic elements make up things, including things we can not touch or visit.

Well, the standard Hydrogen Canopy theory (that you linked to along time ago) says that the canopy was solid crystalized hydrogen.