20 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayThe thing is, it was not an 'it' as if it were a single event. You do realize the moon is FULL of craters, literally millions of heavy hits. There would have been no mistaking the view had it happened when people were around. I don't think you comprehend the tremendous amount of energy that is expended when an asteroid hits a planet. Earth has had its share of hits too but we have weathering here that obscures 99% of those hits. Otherwise Earth would look just like the moon. Also you can see the same kind of impacts on Mercury, the closest planet to the sun. And on every body in space with not much atmosphere. Literally dozens of worlds with heavy hits looking pretty much just like Luna. The whole point here is there WAS nobody to see those hits because Earth was getting hit just as hard, the evidence is solid on that and if it had happened only a few thousand years ago, we would not be here, period. ONE asteroid was enough to be the final straw for the already stressed dinosaurs, think of what it would have been like of a thousand of them hitting Earth. Humans would have had zero chance of surviving such multiple huge hits.
As I pointed out to you, the odds are someone seeing it were more than likely not good
and if they did, did they record it? Would they have been literate enough to record it?
Historically speaking you've produced a monk was it, no matter who is right about the age
of the earth you'd think it would be a little more common than not if it was noticeable
wo ...[text shortened]... the other side of the moon being smoother, I'd thought it would have
been the other way around.
Here are some images of just one of those moons, Ganymede:
http://www.space.com/24685-ganymede-photos-largest-jupiter-moon.html
It shows clearly multiple huge hits. All the big bodies in the Solar System got hits like that including Earth but our planet has an atmosphere and weather that erases most of them, just like Titan, which also has an atmosphere and we don't see craters there, at least where the probe landed.
20 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseThere is only enough dust on the moon to account for about 6,000 years. 😏
The thing is, it was not an 'it' as if it were a single event. You do realize the moon is FULL of craters, literally millions of heavy hits. There would have been no mistaking the view had it happened when people were around. I don't think you comprehend the tremendous amount of energy that is expended when an asteroid hits a planet. Earth has had its share ...[text shortened]... n, which also has an atmosphere and we don't see craters there, at least where the probe landed.
20 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseCorrect for all we know it could have been a shower of hits, none of that again dates
The thing is, it was not an 'it' as if it were a single event. You do realize the moon is FULL of craters, literally millions of heavy hits. There would have been no mistaking the view had it happened when people were around. I don't think you comprehend the tremendous amount of energy that is expended when an asteroid hits a planet. Earth has had its share ...[text shortened]... n, which also has an atmosphere and we don't see craters there, at least where the probe landed.
the moon as near as I can tell.
20 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayYou have to really use your imagination and think about the massive heat load that would leave the moon hot enough to measure today, a lot hotter than the 200 odd degrees F we see maximum today which just comes from the sun since it gets the full dose of 1355 watts per square meter on the surface of the moon and when you consider the surface area of sunlight collection means the moon as a whole gets hit with 20 trillion watts of light energy and it rotates about 16 km/hr taking 28 days to go one revolution so the backside and frontside both get lit up with that 20 trillion watt light bulb🙂
Correct for all we know it could have been a shower of hits, none of that again dates
the moon as near as I can tell.
But 20 trillion watts is nothing compared to the heat energy released by a big asteroid, say 10 km across hitting the moon at full speed which could be 80,000 km per hour or 25 km per second. Remember the kinetic energy formula? K=MV^2 divide by two, so an asteroid 1.6 km diameter would mass about 1 trillion kg and would come in to hit the moon with something like 25,000 meters per second, using those numbers we arrive at 3 E20 joules or watt seconds which puts the amount of energy ten MILLION times all the energy given to the moon but in an area a couple miles across.
Does that give you an idea of the amount of energy we are talking about?
Think about that much concentrated energy, far more than any hydrogen bomb humans ever made and we made some big ones, The Russians made (Soviet empire times) an H bomb 100 megatons, a huge device but it would be like a match compared to the amount of energy in that asteroid strike,
That is why I say the heat would not dissipate in so short a time as 6000 years. You have a millions of suns worth of energy concentrated in a circle maybe a mile across.
Get the picture? And that would just be ONE hit. There are thousands of such hits on the moon which is why I said it would be red hot from that and how it was born.
I know for a fact radiation does not cool down stuff very fast, we use that fact in our sputtering tools.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy don't you stop this nonsense? Nobody gives a crap about that shyte. 😏
You have to really use your imagination and think about the massive heat load that would leave the moon hot enough to measure today, a lot hotter than the 200 odd degrees F we see maximum today which just comes from the sun since it gets the full dose of 1355 watts per square meter on the surface of the moon and when you consider the surface area of sunligh ...[text shortened]... r a fact radiation does not cool down stuff very fast, we use that fact in our sputtering tools.
Radioisotope dating
21 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseWell lets blow up a nuke on the moon and find out. 🙂
You have to really use your imagination and think about the massive heat load that would leave the moon hot enough to measure today, a lot hotter than the 200 odd degrees F we see maximum today which just comes from the sun since it gets the full dose of 1355 watts per square meter on the surface of the moon and when you consider the surface area of sunligh ...[text shortened]... r a fact radiation does not cool down stuff very fast, we use that fact in our sputtering tools.
21 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayFor the kind of energy I am talking about, a nuke on the moon would be more like striking a match. Try to wrap your mind around these huge numbers.
Well lets blow up a nuke on the moon and find out. 🙂
I get it. You just don't WANT to contemplate energy of that order which keeps you from having to deal with the idea that maybe the YEC folks just MIGHT be wrong.
21 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseI've always acknowledge the YEC could be wrong.
For the kind of energy I am talking about, a nuke on the moon would be more like striking a match. Try to wrap your mind around these huge numbers.
I get it. You just don't WANT to contemplate energy of that order which keeps you from having to deal with the idea that maybe the YEC folks just MIGHT be wrong.
With respect to your numbers...cannot prove them wrong unless we could start bouncing
rocks and other odds and ends off the moon.
21 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is hilarious. You seem to take as fact that the craters on the moon were caused by meteorites. Why wasn't your response to sonhouse: "We don't know how it all began, so you can't possibly know how those craters got there." Maybe God made the moon fully mature, craters and all. Maybe the craters appeared by some other process. According to you, anyone who thinks they were made by meteorites is just guessing in the dark and there is no real value to his guess as it is no different from anyone elses guess.
As I pointed out to you, the odds are someone seeing it were more than likely not good
and if they did, did they record it?
Yet you oddly seem to give credence to the idea that craters were in actual fact caused by meteorites. Can't keep your story straight can you?
21 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJaySo can we take if that you not only reject most of biology, history, geology, astronomy, but also most of physics? We already knew you reject relativity and probably quantum mechanics, but this latest statement suggests you reject even Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics.
With respect to your numbers...cannot prove them wrong unless we could start bouncing rocks and other odds and ends off the moon.
Given that you reject physics, how would bouncing rocks off the moon help to confirm anything? Surely it is entirely plausible in your 'reject all science' mind that what could produce one amount of heat today could do something completely different tomorrow?
21 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayYou don't believe basic physics? That formula, the kinetic energy one K= (MV^2)/2 is correct, it predicts how much energy a given object has at a certain mass at a certain velocity.
I've always acknowledge the YEC could be wrong.
With respect to your numbers...cannot prove them wrong unless we could start bouncing
rocks and other odds and ends off the moon.
That has been proven a thousand times over. Don't take my word for it. Google the subject and see what work the US military has done making cannon and such and how much energy they have when masses are accelerated at 10,000 g's for a brief period out of electromagnetic guns. They have already done those experiments slamming such projectiles into targets to see what happens, how deep does a mass penetrate, how much energy does it have and so forth and that formula I just gave works for 22 rifles, 50 cal. machine guns, meteorites and asteroids, its a matter of scaling them up.
For instance, they were able to calculate the rough mass and size of the Chicxulub asteroid that hit the Yucatan by the size of the crater it made, which wasn't even found till oil men went over the land there looking for oil using magnetometers flying out of aircraft and scanning back and forth over hundreds of miles of territory and the magnetometer readings showed an anomaly, a circle of change in the magnetic field 180 miles across which was a mystery till they started digging and found that anomaly was a buried crater 67 million years old, geologists later figured the mass, velocity and even the angle it must have hit at to produce the pattern they found.
Then looking further afield, they found 700 meter high mounds of rubble at the island of Burmuda that proved to have come from the Yucatan, which showed the huge effect of that strike.
So we DO know about the energy given off by such strikes and it happened literally hundreds of thousands of times on the moon.
In short, WAY too many strikes to have happened in just a few years or a few hundred years. More like billions of years. Nobody reported flashes on the moon except that one in the year 900 AD so for all the time mankind was here there was never a hint that anything ever hit the moon till we made telescopes and could see the damage for ourselves and then the astronauts walked around on the moon and brought back several hundred pounds of moon rocks which showed clearly being shocked by violent collisions. We knew none of that till Galileo showed us those craters. Boy did HE get in trouble for that🙂
21 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseHow many times has it been done on the moon? It isn't that I disbelieve it here, it is I wonder
You don't believe basic physics? That formula, the kinetic energy one K= (MV^2)/2 is correct, it predicts how much energy a given object has at a certain mass at a certain velocity.
That has been proven a thousand times over. Don't take my word for it. Google the subject and see what work the US military has done making cannon and such and how much energ ...[text shortened]... We knew none of that till Galileo showed us those craters. Boy did HE get in trouble for that🙂
about it there. It is no different than dropping a stone and a feather with air they fall at
different rates without it they drop the same rate.
21 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you think conditions on the moon are so different if you drop a feather there you are going to create a crater a mile across? BTW, that experiment HAS been done on the moon. A craft at the end of it's useful life was crashed deliberately into the moon and it made an encouragingly large flash.
How many times has it been done on the moon? It isn't that I disbelieve it here, it is I wonder
about it there. It is no different than dropping a stone and a feather with air they fall at
different rates without it they drop the same rate.
I imagine you do know ballistics have shown to have X amount of damage from Y amount of mass hitting at Z speed down't you? Why would you try to rationalize away the thought that a million times the mass and a thousand times the speed would not make a crater on ANY planet? You have seen perhaps the close ups of Mercury? Same kind of strikes there as Luna.
I don't see why you, as you proclaim to not be certain Earth to be 6K years old, you would continue to put up these barriers to imagining the world shaking energy of such strikes and the implications for the age of Earth, Luna and the whole ball of wax.
BTW Hinds, I hear you breathing hard in the background waiting to pounce on any hint of my getting through to Kelly.