Evidence for God from Science

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: Please explain the derivation of this formula - no traditional geologist says the continents are moving because they are acted upon by gravity which is what this formula asserts.

OF course gravity enteres into the equation, don't be silly. You will find that the coefficient of friction is in large part caused by the pressure created when gravitational forces cause the plates to bear down on the lower divisions of the lithosphere.

Please explain how the force of gravity pulling something down causes it to move sideways at a high velocity according to the formula presented earlier.

The force of gravity is one of the variables involved in countering the unknown force that caused pangea to break apart. I have seen the mass of the water in the global flood, and an asteroid hypothesized.

Gravity is the force involved in the resistance to movement by any mechanism of continental drift.

Also Sandy_mcd I think you may be slightly confused by that formula because you see the word acceleration, and are assuming that formula is measuring that force of causing the continents to move.

This is not the case it is measuring the acceleration (which actually simply denotes a change in speed in this case a reduction) involved in the rate the speed of the continents change from the frictional forces while they are coming to rest.

Jbuza wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: Please explain the derivation of this formula - no traditional geologist says the continents are moving because they are acted upon by gravity which is what this formula asserts.

OF course gravity enteres into the equation, don't be silly. You will find that the coefficient of friction is in large part caused by the pressure created when gravitational forces cause the plates to bear down on the lower divisions of the lithosphere.

Please explain how the force of gravity pulling something down causes it to move sideways at a high velocity according to the formula presented earlier.

The force of gravity is one of the variables involved in countering the unknown force that caused pangea to break apart. I have seen the mass of the water in the global flood, and an asteroid hypothesized.

Gravity is the force involved in the resistance to movement by any mechanism of continental drift.

When calculating the distance that the continents traveled in those 6 hours they leave out any resistance which might occur on the other end.

Jbuza wrote:Also Sandy_mcd I think you may be slightly confused by that formula because you see the word acceleration, and are assuming that formula is measuring that force of causing the continents to move.

This is not the case it is measuring the acceleration (which actually simply denotes a change in speed in this case a reduction) involved in the rate the speed of the continents change from the frictional forces while they are coming to rest.

And what happens to the energy dissapated by these frictional forces?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:When calculating the distance that the continents traveled in those 6 hours they leave out any resistance which might occur on the other end.

I completely agree. at least from that formula. I would have to read it at least once more to comprehend everything in it, but I do believe you are right.

And what happens to the energy dissapated by these frictional forces?

Some heat energy is released, and some work energy is released in the mechanical changes the surface make to each other.
Also the possibility exists that this could create some turbulence and wave activity within the molton regions of the lithosphere.

sandy_mcd wrote:....Ever hit a rock with a hammer ? [Warning: Wear safety goggles and take all necessary precautions.] Does it shatter or does it bend and fold like this ?

Depends on the state of the material we begin with. If it was soft, it might look like the pic, if we compressed and squeezed it.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote:[We in all are widom have decreed this is so, no more research.

Ahhhhh !!! There are more scientists doing more research now than at any time in the past. Unfortunately, what you are doing is not research. You are like the old Greek philosophers, sitting around and talking about how things must be, rather than looking and seeing how they are.

No that is not accurate, but thanks for the kind words. IT is a matter of seeing how things are, and sitting around and trying to interpret how they came to be. There have been several proposed scenarios on how these observations came to be. Seems pretty consistent among observations that a pangea existed, and that it broke apart by some force. You display your lack of understanding of how science works, and fail to comprehend that it doesn't require your stamp of approval.

Yes there are more scientists doing more research, in fact there are more people breathing air than ever before. I'm not sure what your point is here. Perhaps it is just an attack, not to sure.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:When calculating the distance that the continents traveled in those 6 hours they leave out any resistance which might occur on the other end.

Yes, and they fail to interpret the drifting of all the continents also. I think the work brings up some interesting points, but it is far from all encompassing. There seems to have been pretty minimal collisions involved int he slowing of the America's and Africa compared to some continents.

I saw some observations of parts of the American North West where parts of it are drifting west and parts of it drifting north. Thought that was interesting.

Jbuza wrote:Also Sandy_mcd I think you may be slightly confused by that formula because you see the word acceleration, and are assuming that formula is measuring that force of causing the continents to move.

This is not the case it is measuring the acceleration (which actually simply denotes a change in speed in this case a reduction) involved in the rate the speed of the continents change from the frictional forces while they are coming to rest.

No, I am not "slightly" confused, I am mightily confused. I am hoping someone here will enlighten me. Let me enclose some material from the website referenced and point out what I am most confused by and would love to see explained in simpler terms I can understand.

First Newton's law asserts that continents drifted by friction force at deceleration. Second Newton's law defines this deceleration equal to

a=F/m=gk (1)

(F is friction force, m is mass, a is acceleration, a=dv/dt, g is earth's gravity acceleration).

OK, this part makes sense to me only if it refers to vertical acceleration and motion as gravity pulls towards the center of the earth. The term g is a vector and the term k is a constant. [See, e.g., this page which describes the same equations for an object slowly sinking in a swimming pool: http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/2d.html] If I am wrong, please explain in simple terms (pictures most welcome) why.

According to Newton's laws continents drifted during time

t=(2d/gk)1/2 (2)

where d is distance went by continent of mass m. The initial velocity v0 of continental drift according to Newton's laws is equal to

=gkt (3)

Here I have not worked through the equations but am willing to accept them as following from Newton's laws for now.

If friction coefficient between molten basalts is about k~0.001, then a~0.001 m/s2. Since today distance between Western coast of Africa and Eastern coast of South America is about 4.5 - 5 million meters, then both South America and Africa went about d» 2,300,000 meters relatively to Atlantic reference frame. And time required for motion of South America under deceleration of friction force a~0.01 m/s2 to its full stop, according to Newtonian mechanics (2), is equal to

~ 6 hours (4)

Here is where I am totally lost. If the first equation describes the vertical acceleration of the continent floating on a viscous liquid, then how does the motion described now refer to a horizontal displacement of the continents?
Have I adequately explained what I am confused by ? The frictional force given by the first equation is vertical, yet it is then used as a decelerating force in the horizontal direction. Can anyone enlighten me ?

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Also Sandy_mcd I think you may be slightly confused by that formula because you see the word acceleration, and are assuming that formula is measuring that force of causing the continents to move.

This is not the case it is measuring the acceleration (which actually simply denotes a change in speed in this case a reduction) involved in the rate the speed of the continents change from the frictional forces while they are coming to rest.

No, I am not "slightly" confused, I am mightily confused. I am hoping someone here will enlighten me. Let me enclose some material from the website referenced and point out what I am most confused by and would love to see explained in simpler terms I can understand.

First Newton's law asserts that continents drifted by friction force at deceleration. Second Newton's law defines this deceleration equal to

a=F/m=gk (1)

(F is friction force, m is mass, a is acceleration, a=dv/dt, g is earth's gravity acceleration).

OK, this part makes sense to me only if it refers to vertical acceleration and motion as gravity pulls towards the center of the earth. The term g is a vector and the term k is a constant. [See, e.g., this page which describes the same equations for an object slowly sinking in a swimming pool: http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/2d.html] If I am wrong, please explain in simple terms (pictures most welcome) why.

According to Newton's laws continents drifted during time

t=(2d/gk)1/2 (2)

where d is distance went by continent of mass m. The initial velocity v0 of continental drift according to Newton's laws is equal to

=gkt (3)

Here I have not worked through the equations but am willing to accept them as following from Newton's laws for now.

If friction coefficient between molten basalts is about k~0.001, then a~0.001 m/s2. Since today distance between Western coast of Africa and Eastern coast of South America is about 4.5 - 5 million meters, then both South America and Africa went about d» 2,300,000 meters relatively to Atlantic reference frame. And time required for motion of South America under deceleration of friction force a~0.01 m/s2 to its full stop, according to Newtonian mechanics (2), is equal to

~ 6 hours (4)

Here is where I am totally lost. If the first equation describes the vertical acceleration of the continent floating on a viscous liquid, then how does the motion described now refer to a horizontal displacement of the continents?
Have I adequately explained what I am confused by ? The frictional force given by the first equation is vertical, yet it is then used as a decelerating force in the horizontal direction. Can anyone enlighten me ?

The frictional force is determined by the vertical acceleration of the continental plate into the magma. It is this vetical acceleration that creates the force that is a drag to the horizontel movement.

Think of it this way. IF there were no vertical acceleration of the continent into the magma, there would be very little drag created because the weightless continents would not be pressed against the magma by a force. If gravity was 5 times as much there would be much much greater pressure between the plates and magma and a much larger force would be needed to accelerate them laterally.

Jbuza wrote: a=F/m=gk (1)

t=(2d/gk)1/2 (2)

=gkt (3)
The frictional force is determined by the vertical acceleration of the continental plate into the magma. It is this vetical acceleration that creates the force that is a drag to the horizontel movement.

Think of it this way. IF there were no vertical acceleration of the continent into the magma, there would be very little drag created because the weightless continents would not be pressed against the magma by a force. If gravity was 5 times as much there would be much much greater pressure between the plates and magma and a much larger force would be needed to accelerate them laterally.

Nope, I hate to sound stupid (but I am used to it by now); however I still don't understand.
Let me rework the equations in general and then for this case:
F=ma (force,mass, acceleration)
a=f/m (rearranging above)
v=at +a_0 (velocity, acceleration,time,initial velocity)
v=at (velocity, acceleration,time,no initial velocity)
d=1/2 at^2 +a_0t (distance,acceleration,time,initial velocity)
d=1/2 at^2 (distance,acceleration,time,no initial velocity)
t=(2d/a)^1/2 rearranging above equation
Note: a, v, and d are vectors; they have a direction.
These are all basic physics equations. Are there any problems with them ?

Now let's consider the specific case for friction as presented above:
a=F/m=gk
This is, as you describe above, the vertical force which creates the friction. The acceleration is in the vertical direction.
We can then substitute using this value of a into the rearranged equation for distance above:
t=(2d/a)^1/2
a=gk, so
t=(2d/gk)^1/2
which is the same equation given from the reference.
The quantity a is acceleration and has a vertical direction; therefore this time t is for distance d in a vertical direction. How can these equations then apply to horizontal motion ?

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote: a=F/m=gk (1)

t=(2d/gk)1/2 (2)

=gkt (3)
The frictional force is determined by the vertical acceleration of the continental plate into the magma. It is this vetical acceleration that creates the force that is a drag to the horizontel movement.

Think of it this way. IF there were no vertical acceleration of the continent into the magma, there would be very little drag created because the weightless continents would not be pressed against the magma by a force. If gravity was 5 times as much there would be much much greater pressure between the plates and magma and a much larger force would be needed to accelerate them laterally.

Nope, I hate to sound stupid (but I am used to it by now); however I still don't understand.
Let me rework the equations in general and then for this case:
F=ma (force,mass, acceleration)
a=f/m (rearranging above)
v=at +a_0 (velocity, acceleration,time,initial velocity)
v=at (velocity, acceleration,time,no initial velocity)
d=1/2 at^2 +a_0t (distance,acceleration,time,initial velocity)
d=1/2 at^2 (distance,acceleration,time,no initial velocity)
t=(2d/a)^1/2 rearranging above equation
Note: a, v, and d are vectors; they have a direction.
These are all basic physics equations. Are there any problems with them ?

Now let's consider the specific case for friction as presented above:
a=F/m=gk
This is, as you describe above, the vertical force which creates the friction. The acceleration is in the vertical direction.
We can then substitute using this value of a into the rearranged equation for distance above:
t=(2d/a)^1/2
a=gk, so
t=(2d/gk)^1/2
which is the same equation given from the reference.
The quantity a is acceleration and has a vertical direction; therefore this time t is for distance d in a vertical direction. How can these equations then apply to horizontal motion ?

ALL this means is that the force that is causing the continents to slow is a function of weight (which is a function of gravity) and a frictional constant.

The acceleration of gravity is used to determine the frictional coefficient. This value determined by gravity and friction is used in further equations as a deceleration value.

The force gk is created by the vertical acceleration. The actual direction of the force of this frictional coeffecient would be east for the americas and west for africa along the horizon. The friction that deccelerates the continents during there travel time is caused by the vertical acceleration of the continents.

IF we could have accelerated the continents more along the vector of gravity, we would find that the travel time would decrease because the acceleration gk would increase frictional forces.

It is the force that is being solved for in the acceleration equation not the vectors. IT simply determines that there is a force between the curst and the magma, and that force is what will cause the deceleration of the crust.

I'm sorry if I have continued to be unable to explain it.

Jbuza wrote: I'm sorry if I have continued to be unable to explain it.

So in summary you think that the continents could have moved close to their current location in a span of 6 hours.

A few questions. Don't you think that anyone who lived during this event would have experienced devastating conditions? Wouldn't this cause catastrophic conditions?

Also how can the flood cause the movement of the continents, isn't there something wrong with this timeline?
You said that the continental break-up occurred after the flood to explain how animals returned to the locations where their fossils are found.

Also what do you surmise the scar would look like on the Atlantic floor basin, from such a rapid expansion?

And again back to the energy from such a catastrophe, would it not generate tremendous amounts of heat?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote: I'm sorry if I have continued to be unable to explain it.

So in summary you think that the continents could have moved close to their current location in a span of 6 hours.

IT appears that the writer of this article belives that to be the case from newtoninan mechanics. I'm not to sure about his conclusion, and think that the variables involved are hard to measure with precision. Further the mecahnisms are not fully understood. I think he does clearly demonstrate that the continents had speed and slowed. I simply am not sure how long it took. I think that it is reasonable that they were moved by some force, and that they moved much faster in the past. I like the explanations about occilation dampening. There are some observations that seem to indicate that the plates cannot have moved through ages in their present directions and speeds.

Bgood wrote:
Don't you think that anyone who lived during this event would have experienced devastating conditions? Wouldn't this cause catastrophic conditions?

IT would seem like that would be the case. IT is unclear what allt he effects would be, but earthquakes and rapid mountian uplift would be par tof the end result.

Bgood wrote:
Also how can the flood cause the movement of the continents, isn't there something wrong with this timeline?
You said that the continental break-up occurred after the flood to explain how animals returned to the locations where their fossils are found.

Yes my personal theory of the force that moved the plates, would disallow the mechanism of water. Further I do not know what the mechanism might be (an asteroid has been proposed). Some have proposed that it happened during the flood, that seems at least plausible. I don't believe it because I think that aniamls migration from the ark throughout the earth would be unexplainable without pangea until after the flood.

Bgood wrote:
Also what do you surmise the scar would look like on the Atlantic floor basin, from such a rapid expansion?

IT is entirely possible given the forces involved that a higher speed could actually cause less friction. It is largely not understood. It isn't even clear that the continets have moved. IT could have been the oceans that widened and little activity may have actually occoured between the continentla plates and the lithosphere beneath them.

Bgood wrote:
And again back to the energy from such a catastrophe, would it not generate tremendous amounts of heat?

Yes I think that IT would generate a great deal of heat and work. It is entirely possible that the oceans could have warmed, and that would drive some huge hurricanes and cyclones. Their could have easily been abundant volcanic activity, But yes I think it is clear from physics that there would have been some heat generated. It very well could be that currents exist in the magma and there is always friction generated at these zones of interaction. Without a doubt heat is put into the ocean from geological activity and solar radiation. Most of this is lost by evaporation, and heat must be continualy applied or the ocans would freeze

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote: I'm sorry if I have continued to be unable to explain it.

So in summary you think that the continents could have moved close to their current location in a span of 6 hours.

IT appears that the writer of this article belives that to be the case from newtoninan mechanics. I'm not to sure about his conclusion, and think that the variables involved are hard to measure with precision. I don't think it can be solidly proven how long it took the continents to reach present location. I simply am not sure how long it took. I think that it is reasonable that they were moved by some force, and that they moved much faster in the past. I like the explanations about occilation dampening. There are some observations that seem to indicate that the plates cannot have moved through ages in their present directions and speeds.

Why do you like certain explanations over others? Do you really understand them?

Jbuza wrote:

Bgood wrote:Don't you think that anyone who lived during this event would have experienced devastating conditions? Wouldn't this cause catastrophic conditions?

IT would seem like that would be the case. IT is unclear what allt he effects would be, but earthquakes and rapid mountian uplift would be par tof the end result.

Why would this not be documented in the bible? A global cataclysm after a global flood seems noteworthy.

Jbuza wrote:

Bgood wrote:
Also how can the flood cause the movement of the continents, isn't there something wrong with this timeline?
You said that the continental break-up occurred after the flood to explain how animals returned to the locations where their fossils are found.

Yes my personal theory of the force that moved the plates, would disallow the mechanism of water. Further I do not know what the mechanism might be (an asteroid has been proposed). Some have proposed that it happened during the flood, that seems at least plausible. I don't believe it because I think that aniamls migration from the ark throughout the earth would be unexplainable without pangea until after the flood.

Also what problems do you have with the slower drift proposed by mainstream science besides the fact that it took such a long time.

Jbuza wrote:

Bgood wrote:
Also what do you surmise the scar would look like on the Atlantic floor basin, from such a rapid expansion?

IT is entirely possible given the forces involved that a higher speed could actually cause less friction.

You're correct friction is independent of the velocity, however if as the author asserted that friction alone caused the slowdown of the plates then,
a.)Where did all this heat go?
b.)Why does it continue to drift?

Jbuza wrote:It is largely not understood. It isn't even clear that the continets have moved. IT could have been the oceans that widened and little activity may have actually occoured between the continentla plates and the lithosphere beneath them.

Are you proposing that the diameter of the Earth has inflated?

Jbuza wrote:

Bgood wrote:
And again back to the energy from such a catastrophe, would it not generate tremendous amounts of heat?

Yes I think that IT would generate a great deal of heat and work. It is entirely possible that the oceans could have warmed, and that would drive some huge hurricanes and cyclones. Their could have easily been abundant volcanic activity, But yes I think it is clear from physics that there would have been some heat generated. It very well could be that currents exist in the magma and there is always friction generated at these zones of interaction. Without a doubt heat is put into the ocean from geological activity and solar radiation. Most of this is lost by evaporation, and heat must be continualy applied or the ocans would freeze

The heat generated by the Earth and from the Sun is at an Equilibrium now. Do you think that an asteroid impact would have generated heat far in excess of what we receive now?

Jbuza wrote
I like the explanations about oscillation dampening.
Bgood wrote
Why do you like certain explanations over others? Do you really understand them?


IT sounds pretty, and look at the shiny words they used. LOL I like the explanation of oscillation dampening because I feel that it explains and predicts observations. IT proposes that continental drift creates disturbances in the magma, shock waves set up when the continents stopped. IT explains some observations of “drift” in the midwest that couldn't be explained by uniform drift. IT proposes that the plates are shifting about on a turbulent layer of magma. I think it works.
--------------
Bgood Wrote
Why would this not be documented in the bible? A global cataclysm after a global flood seems noteworthy.


Not too sure. IT is clear that the Bible doesn't include most of the events of the time span it covers.
-----------------
Bgood
Also what problems do you have with the slower drift proposed by mainstream science besides the fact that it took such a long time.

I don't believe it demonstrates the force required for mountain building. It is largely based upon uniform geology. And of course the one you are asking me to omit.
----------------
Bgood
You're correct friction is independent of the velocity, however if as the author asserted that friction alone caused the slowdown of the plates then,
a.)Where did all this heat go?
b.)Why does it continue to drift?

First as I mentioned before convection currents in the magma could be creating this force all the time, so it may not be extra. The friction would do mechanical work on both surfaces perhaps create some oscillations within the lithosphere, but yes there is heat. IT would dissipate.

Oscillation dampening causes the plates to continue to shift
------------------
Bgood
Are you proposing that the diameter of the Earth has inflated?

No I don't think it has. Doesn't seem possible for that to happen without a change in gravity. I think that for every sinking or displacement of mantel there must be a corresponding eruption or uplift. It could be that areas opened between the plates. There appears to be some disagreement as to the actual workings of continental drift.
---------------
Bgood
The heat generated by the Earth and from the Sun is at an Equilibrium now. Do you think that an asteroid impact would have generated heat far in excess of what we receive now?

IT would definitely add heat to the system no question about that. But to a certain extent the hotter the oceans and the atmosphere become the quicker they are going to cool.
-----------------

Jbuza wrote:Jbuza wrote
I like the explanations about oscillation dampening.
Bgood wrote
Why do you like certain explanations over others? Do you really understand them?

IT sounds pretty, and look at the shiny words they used. LOL I like the explanation of oscillation dampening because I feel that it explains and predicts observations. IT proposes that continental drift creates disturbances in the magma, shock waves set up when the continents stopped. IT explains some observations of “drift” in the midwest that couldn't be explained by uniform drift. IT proposes that the plates are shifting about on a turbulent layer of magma. I think it works.

Wait, drift creates disturbances which in turn causes drift? Is it some sort of perpetual motion device?

Jbuza wrote:--------------
Bgood Wrote
Why would this not be documented in the bible? A global cataclysm after a global flood seems noteworthy.
Not too sure. IT is clear that the Bible doesn't include most of the events of the time span it covers.

How convenient, so what is your evidence for this great slide other than speculation?

Jbuza wrote:-----------------
Bgood
Also what problems do you have with the slower drift proposed by mainstream science besides the fact that it took such a long time.
I don't believe it demonstrates the force required for mountain building.

Based on what?

Jbuza wrote:It is largely based upon uniform geology. And of course the one you are asking me to omit.

Then, please explain the rift formation in the atlantic ocean in terms of your opposing theory.

Jbuza wrote:----------------
Bgood
You're correct friction is independent of the velocity, however if as the author asserted that friction alone caused the slowdown of the plates then,
a.)Where did all this heat go?
b.)Why does it continue to drift?
First as I mentioned before convection currents in the magma could be creating this force all the time, so it may not be extra. The friction would do mechanical work on both surfaces perhaps create some oscillations within the lithosphere, but yes there is heat. IT would dissipate.

And this could not take place gradually as it does now?

Jbuza wrote:Oscillation dampening causes the plates to continue to shift
------------------
Bgood
Are you proposing that the diameter of the Earth has inflated?

No I don't think it has. Doesn't seem possible for that to happen without a change in gravity. I think that for every sinking or displacement of mantel there must be a corresponding eruption or uplift. It could be that areas opened between the plates. There appears to be some disagreement as to the actual workings of continental drift.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, stating earlier that the continents may not have moved at all. This still doesn't explain the mid ocean rift.

Jbuza wrote:---------------
Bgood
The heat generated by the Earth and from the Sun is at an Equilibrium now. Do you think that an asteroid impact would have generated heat far in excess of what we receive now?

IT would definitely add heat to the system no question about that. But to a certain extent the hotter the oceans and the atmosphere become the quicker they are going to cool.
-----------------

And you think such an event would be survivable?
Again beyond speculation where is the empirical evidence for this?