|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2016 : 18:23:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Pahu
Small Comets |
Please. Didn't you look at the titles?Richard Monastersky, “Comet Controversy Caught on Film,” Science News, Vol. 133, 28 May 1988, p. 340.
Richard A. Kerr, “In Search of Elusive Little Comets,” Science, Vol. 240, 10 June 1988, pp. 1403–1404.
Richard A. Kerr, “Double Exposures Reveal Mini-Comets?” Science, Vol. 243, 13 January 1989, pp. 170–171.
Richard Monastersky, “Small Comet Controversy Flares Again,” Science News, Vol. 137, 9 June 1990, p. 365. |
Question marks and the repeated use of "controversy" means that this is far from settled science. Note also the reliance on Science News and other non-peer reviewed articles.
The fact is that you can't find scientific reports on these tiny comets since 1990 because expected evidence for them wasn't found. Not least of which is the fact that a 100-ton comet would be at least six meters across, yet the U.S. and Russia can track items in orbit as small as 10 cm, or 1/60th the size of these mythical comets.For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. |
Broken record, Pahu. Yawn. The rate of small, non-existent comets hitting Earth isn't a "dating technique," because those comets don't exist. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2016 : 06:38:41 [Permalink]
|
Hot Planets
Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune each radiate away more than twice the heat energy they receive from the Sun (a). Uranus (b) and Venus (c) also radiate too much heat. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from nuclear fusion (d), radioactive decay, gravitational contraction, or phase changes (e) within those planets. This suggests that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off (f).
a. H. H. Aumann and C. M. Gillespie Jr., “The Internal Powers and Effective Temperatures of Jupiter and Saturn,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 157, July 1969, pp. L69–L72.
“Jupiter radiates into space rather more than twice the energy it receives from space.” G. H. A. Cole, The Structure of Planets (New York: Crane, Russak & Co., Inc., 1978), p. 114.
M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Puzzle That Is Saturn,” Science, 18 September 1981, p. 1351.
Jonathan Eberhart, “Neptune’s Inner Warmth,” Science News, Vol. 112, 12 November 1977, p. 316.
b. Ibid.
c. “The Mystery of Venus’ Internal Heat,” New Scientist, Vol. 88, 13 November 1980, p. 437.
d. To initiate nuclear fusion, a body must be at least ten times as massive as Jupiter. [See Andrew P. Ingersoll, “Jupiter and Saturn,” Scientific American, Vol. 245, December 1981, p. 92.]
e. Ingersoll and others once proposed that Saturn and Jupiter could generate internal heat if their helium gas liquefied or their liquid hydrogen solidified. Neither is possible, because each planet’s temperature greatly exceeds the critical temperatures of helium and hydrogen. (The critical temperature of a particular gas is that temperature above which no amount of pressure can squeeze it into a liquid or solid.) Even if the temperature were cold enough to permit gases to liquefy, what could initiate nucleation? When I mentioned this in a private conversation with Ingersoll in December 1981, he quickly acknowledged his error.
f. Paul M. Steidl, “The Solar System: An Assessment of Recent Evidence—Planets, Comets, and Asteroids,” Design and Origins in Astronomy, editor George Mulfinger Jr. (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1983), pp. 87, 91, 100.
Jupiter would have rapidly cooled to its present temperature, even if it had been an unreasonably hot 20,000 kelvins when it formed. Evolutionary models require too much time. [See Edwin V. Bishop and Wendell C. DeMarcus, “Thermal Histories of Jupiter Models,” Icarus, Vol. 12, May 1970, pp. 317–330.]
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences50.html]
|
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2016 : 07:00:07 [Permalink]
|
Notice that there is no footnote for the following claim:Originally posted by Pahu
Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from ... gravitational contraction... |
According to modern astronomers, that's exactly where Jupiter's "extra" heat comes from, the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism.
So, just more lies from Pahu. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2016 : 07:44:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Notice that there is no footnote for the following claim:
|
How can Pahu present that which does not exist? Your not suppose to bring that up. If your going to insist he play with rules like using logic, reason and requiring evidence because you do, how can you expect Pahu to do the same when it's clear he doesn't? It's never going to happen when he's making claims up. No delusional claim can be discussed or lie demonstrated true with those requirements. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2016 : 01:44:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Hey, if we played by Pahu's rules, I could probably prove that Pahu doesn't exist.
|
No probable about it. Just claim he doesn't, then ignore questions about your claim and your done. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2016 : 08:05:48 [Permalink]
|
Solar Wind
The Sun’s radiation applies an outward force on particles orbiting the Sun. Particles less than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have been “blown out” of the solar system if it were billions of years old. Yet these particles are still orbiting the Sun. (a) Conclusion: the solar system appears young.
a. After showing abundant photographic evidence for the presence of micrometeorites as small as 10^-15 g that “struck every square centimeter of the lunar surface,” Stuart Ross Taylor stated:
“It has been thought previously that radiation pressure would have swept less massive particles out of the inner solar system, but there is a finite flux below 10^-14 g.” Stuart Ross Taylor, Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1975), p. 90.
Large lunar impacts are continually churning up and overturning the lunar surface. Therefore, for these micrometeorite impacts to blanket the surface so completely, they must have been recent. [For more details see: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets3.html#wp13549779 ]
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences51.html]
|
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2016 : 15:18:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Pahu
Solar Wind
The Sun’s radiation applies an outward force on particles orbiting the Sun. Particles less than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have been “blown out” of the solar system if it were billions of years old. Yet these particles are still orbiting the Sun. (a) Conclusion: the solar system appears young. |
Totally ignores the Poynting–Robertson effect and the Yarkovsky effect, both of which have been known for at least 80 years, and which cause small objects to spiral in towards the Sun. They can then collide with other objects, ensuring that the inner solar system never runs out of tiny particles to be "blown out" by the solar wind.| Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. |
Misconceptions, omissions and lies are not "dating techniques." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2016 : 06:35:58 [Permalink]
|
Poynting-Robertson Effect
Dust particles larger than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter form a large disk-shaped cloud that orbits the Sun between the orbits of Venus and the asteroid belt. This cloud produces zodiacal light (a). Forces acting on these particles should spiral most of them into the Sun in less than 10,000 years. (This is called the Poynting-Robertson effect. ) Known forces and sources of replenishment cannot maintain this cloud, so the solar system is probably less than 10,000 years old.
This is how the Poynting-Robertson effect works: Rain falling on a speeding car tends to strike the front of the car and slow it down slightly. Likewise, the Sun’s rays that strike particles orbiting the Sun tend to slow them down, causing them to spiral into the Sun. Thus, the Sun’s radiation and gravity act as a giant vacuum cleaner that pulls in about 100,000 tons of nearby micrometeoroids per day. Disintegrating comets and asteroids add dust at less than half the rate at which it is being destroyed (b).
A disintegrating comet becomes a cluster of particles called a meteor stream. The Poynting-Robertson effect causes smaller particles in a meteor stream to spiral into the Sun more rapidly than larger particles. After about 10,000 years, these orbits should be visibly segregated by particle size. Because this segregation is generally not seen, meteor streams are probably a recent phenomenon (c).
Huge quantities of microscopic dust particles also have been discovered around some stars (d). Yet, according to the theory of stellar evolution, those stars are many millions of years old, so that dust should have been removed by stellar wind and the Poynting-Robertson effect. Until some process is discovered that continually resupplies vast amounts of dust, one should consider whether the “millions of years” are imaginary.
a. “For decades, astronomers have speculated that debris left over from the formation of the solar system or newly formed from colliding asteroids is continuously falling toward the sun and vaporizing. The infrared signal, if it existed, would be so strong at the altitude of Mauna Kea [Hawaii], above the infrared-absorbing water vapor in the atmosphere, that the light-gathering power of the large infrared telescopes would be overkill. ... In the case of the infrared search for the dust ring, [Donald N. B.] Hall [Director of the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy] was able to report within days that ‘the data were really superb.’ They don’t tell an entirely welcome story, though. ‘Unfortunately, they don’t seem to show any dust rings at all.’ ” Charles Petit, “A Mountain Cliffhanger of an Eclipse,” Science, Vol. 253, 26 July 1991, pp. 386–387.
To understand the origin of zodiacal light, see http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html#wp3635737.
b. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 60–61.
Harold S. Slusher and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System: A Study of the Poynting-Robertson Effect and Extinction of Interplanetary Dust, ICR Technical Monograph No. 6, revised edition (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).
c. Stanley P. Wyatt Jr. and Fred L. Whipple, “The Poynting-Robertson Effect on Meteor Orbits,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 3, January 1950, pp. 134–141.
Ron Cowen, “Meteorites: To Stream or Not to Stream,” Science News, Vol. 142, 1 August 1992, p. 71.
d. David A. Weintraub, “Comets in Collision,” Nature, Vol. 351, 6 June 1991, pp. 440–441.
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences52.html ]
|
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1486 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2016 : 10:17:44 [Permalink]
|
| Pahu, the Bible is wrong. Get over it. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2016 : 14:23:58 [Permalink]
|
| Pahu, If being delusionally wrong about the age of the earth was a currency you'd be a billionare but all it really is is pitiful and sad. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 06/29/2016 18:41:48 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2016 : 06:09:00 [Permalink]
|
Supernova Remnants
In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen (b). So, the Milky Way looks young.
In A.D. 1054, Chinese observers (and perhaps Anasazi Indians in New Mexico and Arizona) witnessed and described a supernova. It was visible in daylight for 23 days and briefly was as bright as a full moon. Today, the remnants from that explosion comprise the Crab Nebula.
a. “An application of the present results to the [Milky Way]Galaxy yields one supernova per 26 (± 10 estimated error) years in very good agreement with the evidence from historical supernovae.” G. A. Tammann, “On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies,” Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.
A more recent technique that surveyed thousands of galaxies, including smaller galaxies, concluded that... the time between [supernova] explosions is 100 years or more.”Michael S. Turner, “Yes, Things Really Are Going Faster,” Science,Vol. 299, 31 January 2003, p. 663.
b. Keith Davies, “Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994), pp. 175–184.
“Where have all the remnants gone?” Astronomy Survey Committee of the National Research Council Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 166.
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences53.html#wp1606721] |
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2016 : 09:40:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Pahu
In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. |
The above assumes a very old universe. Radioastronomy wouldn't work if the universe were young. In other words, if the above-quoted claims are correct, then the universe cannot possibly be young. And if the claims are not correct, then they cannot possibly form the basis of a valid argument. In still other words, the above argument is self-refuting.| However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen (b). |
Unfortunately, Davies misinterpreted his own source material.
Moderation Notice
Pahu, you now have one (1) more chance to do something other than copy-and-paste here. |
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Science Disproves Evolution
