Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:hmmm perhaps you can see that this would require some rather empty claims.

Forget the force required to start the continents in motion, we can do that next. Lets look only at the heat generated by the motion of the crust.

What ever the final heat generated will be it will require one simple calculation.

The heat generated = the kinetic energy of the continents as it drags across the surface of the Earth.

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * velocity^2 * mass

Let's look at these two equations.

KE = 1/2 * velocity^2 * mass

We know the mass roughly of the continents.
We know the velocity (according to your theory it has to account for 3000km in 6000 years.)
Therefore we have Kinetic Energy.
The heat generated equals this!

Care to calculate these empty claims???

How much do you think the continental crust weighs?

It would appear the continental crust has buoyancy. Perhaps continental crust is as weightless with respect to the liquids it floats on as a rubber ball is with respect to water.
-----------------
What is the cooefficient of friction (static and kinetic) between Crust and Magma.

Unknown variables.

Dry surfaces
1. For low surface pressures the friction is directly proportional to the pressure between the surfaces. As the pressure rises the friction factor rises slightly. At very high pressure the friction factor then quickly increases to seizing
2. For low surface pressures the coefficient of friction is independent of surface area.
3. At low velocities the friction is independent of the relative surface velocity. At higher velocities the coefficent of friction decreases.
Well lubricated surfaces
1. The friction resistance is almost independent of the specific pressure between the surfaces.
2. At low pressures the friction varies directly as the relative surface speed
3. At high pressures the friction is high at low velocities falling as the velocity increases to a minimum at about 0,6m/s. The friction then rises in proportion the velocity 2.
4. The friction is not so dependent of the surface materials
5. The friction is related to the temperature which affects the viscosity of the lubricant
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/ ... _frict.htm

----------------
What is the static friction which would need to be countered in order to put the crust into motion.

Same problem unknown variables
---------------
How much energy would this generate?

Unknown
--------------
Now that we have the applied force we can calculate kinetic friction.

Yes, but that will do little good if we can not demonstrate clearly that the applies force can be known
--------------
What is the energy generated by this motion?

IT would have to be the same as the energy used to generate the motion
-------------
What is the volume of water in the Atlantic Ocean at this time?

Unknown
--------------
We can assume a less than 10km wide crack in the earth.

I would say it would be safe to assume a much much smaller crack than that
--------------

Jbuza wrote:How much do you think the continental crust weighs?

It would appear the continental crust has buoyancy. Perhaps continental crust is as weightless with respect to the liquids it floats on as a rubber ball is with respect to water.

It doesn't matter, heat energy = kinetic energy no matter what. When the motion comes to a stop all the kinetic energy has been transfered to heat.

Jbuza wrote: -----------------
What is the cooefficient of friction (static and kinetic) between Crust and Magma.

Unknown variables.

Dry surfaces
1. For low surface pressures the friction is directly proportional to the pressure between the surfaces. As the pressure rises the friction factor rises slightly. At very high pressure the friction factor then quickly increases to seizing
2. For low surface pressures the coefficient of friction is independent of surface area.
3. At low velocities the friction is independent of the relative surface velocity. At higher velocities the coefficent of friction decreases.
Well lubricated surfaces
1. The friction resistance is almost independent of the specific pressure between the surfaces.
2. At low pressures the friction varies directly as the relative surface speed
3. At high pressures the friction is high at low velocities falling as the velocity increases to a minimum at about 0,6m/s. The friction then rises in proportion the velocity 2.
4. The friction is not so dependent of the surface materials
5. The friction is related to the temperature which affects the viscosity of the lubricant
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/ ... _frict.htm

Again none of this matters when the motion has ceased than all the energy has been transfered to heat.

Jbuza wrote: ----------------
What is the static friction which would need to be countered in order to put the crust into motion.

Same problem unknown variables
---------------
How much energy would this generate?

Unknown
--------------
Now that we have the applied force we can calculate kinetic friction.

Yes, but that will do little good if we can not demonstrate clearly that the applies force can be known

Not true kinetic energy is simply 1/2 * velocity^2 * mass.

Jbuza wrote: --------------
What is the energy generated by this motion?

IT would have to be the same as the energy used to generate the motion

We know the amount of energy from the above equation.

Jbuza wrote: -------------
What is the volume of water in the Atlantic Ocean at this time?

Unknown
--------------
We can assume a less than 10km wide crack in the earth.

I would say it would be safe to assume a much much smaller crack than that
--------------

Doesn't matter the water covered the whole planet did it not?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:...We know the mass roughly of the continents.
We know the velocity (according to your theory it has to account for 3000km in 6000 years.)
Therefore we have Kinetic Energy.
The heat generated equals this!

Care to calculate these empty claims???

Some materials when under exteme conditions take on super proerties. Superconductivity, superfluidy, etc.
"Superfluids are among the most peculiar and counterintuitive of all materials. They have no viscosity, which allows an object travelling in a pure superfluid to move without friction. Similarly, they can flow effortlessly through narrow channels and pores that are virtually impermeable to conventional liquids."
"...the ground-state condensate of an ideal Bose-condensed system would clearly not be a superfluid because there is no reason why the atoms should not undergo collisions that would lead to the usual frictional effects."
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/11/3
In a merged world, atomic level changes were in effect, for example, no decay! So, the sky is the limit in possibilities here, where normal physical only world physics really just do not apply!!!!!

So what is your point?

Jbuza wrote:So what is your point?

If you mean me, my point is that the continents in the merged past could move in a day, or a few months, or whatever, and no more heat would be produced than the heat that we see in the earth since then. I even wonder if the earth was hot below then, or if the heat came as a result of the sliding? We don't know that much about the center of the earth.

Bgood... How does the Below fit into your Calculation?

Gen 7:11 In the six8337 hundredth3967 year8141 of Noah's5146 life,2416 in the second8145 month,2320 the seventeenth7651, 6240 day3117 of the month,2320 the same2320 day3117 were all3605 the fountains4599 of the great7227 deep8415 broken up,1234 and the windows699 of heaven8064 were opened.6605

Sorry I should Expand
If there was a Layer of Water under the Earths Crust would that In Turn effect the outcome of your Calculations?

dad wrote:

Jbuza wrote:So what is your point?

If you mean me, my point is that the continents in the merged past could move in a day, or a few months, or whatever, and no more heat would be produced than the heat that we see in the earth since then. I even wonder if the earth was hot below then, or if the heat came as a result of the sliding? We don't know that much about the center of the earth.

Actually I was asking Bgood what his point was.

I completely agree wiht you we know very little about the workings of the earth and the drift mechanism.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:hmmm perhaps you can see that this would require some rather empty claims.

Forget the force required to start the continents in motion, we can do that next. Lets look only at the heat generated by the motion of the crust.

What ever the final heat generated will be it will require one simple calculation.

The heat generated = the kinetic energy of the continents as it drags across the surface of the Earth.

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * velocity^2 * mass

Let's look at these two equations.

KE = 1/2 * velocity^2 * mass

We know the mass roughly of the continents.
We know the velocity (according to your theory it has to account for 3000km in 6000 years.)
Therefore we have Kinetic Energy.
The heat generated equals this!

Care to calculate these empty claims???

I was not trying to say that the continents do not have kinetic energy. Apparently they still do have some kinetic energy.

Can you demonstrate that the only work done was lateral movement and frictional stopping?

There seems to be many mountians than could have been pushed up from continental drift. And the forces could have caused heating of magma and uplife within the plates. The floating about of the continents on magma could setup ripples in this liquid.

I don't think you have demonstrated a heat problem, sorry.

I refute your specific claim that the heat generated is the same as the momentum of the continents because it is empty.

Further it isn't even clear that the expanse of the oceans was slowly created by movement of crust ocross the magma beneath. IT is an unknown theorized process. Perhaps oceanic sinking merely displaced areas.

bizzt wrote:Bgood... How does the Below fit into your Calculation?

Gen 7:11 In the six8337 hundredth3967 year8141 of Noah's5146 life,2416 in the second8145 month,2320 the seventeenth7651, 6240 day3117 of the month,2320 the same2320 day3117 were all3605 the fountains4599 of the great7227 deep8415 broken up,1234 and the windows699 of heaven8064 were opened.6605

Sorry I should Expand
If there was a Layer of Water under the Earths Crust would that In Turn effect the outcome of your Calculations?

No, as kinetic energy is simply calculated from mass times velocity squared multiplied by the distance traveled.

As for dad's super conductor comment, this would be all fine if the object in question were still in motion. However it is not, so the energy had to have dissapated.

The point Jbuza is that there is alot of heat being generated here, not only would it cook the oceans, but also make the make the atmostphere like an oven.

Finally to dad's point that the earth's core may have had different properties in the past, I can only respond with,

Why is every problem posed solved with this explanation?

So the mantle was rock solid before the flood and now its molten because of the continental breakup???

That means there was no magnetic field, which protects us from harmful radiation, yet people lived many times longer, prediluvian.

Is this because it's pre split???

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: The point Jbuza is that there is alot of heat being generated here, not only would it cook the oceans, but also make the make the atmostphere like an oven.

Would you like to demonstrate this, or are you just claiming it because you can. You need to demonstrate that no additonal work was done. A while ago you talked about daily earthquakes and such, and their is clearly the impact of mountians, so your assumption that it was all released as heat is well silly.

"Superfluids are among the most peculiar and counterintuitive of all materials. They have no viscosity, which allows an object travelling in a pure superfluid to move without friction. "

Doesn't matter. If the continents were moving as fast as creationism needs them to move, and then they slowed down to the present level of movement, the energy required to brake them would have been released as heat.

And given the mass of the continents, it would have boiled the oceans.

BTW, the impact on mountains is also released as heat.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: heat energy = kinetic energy no matter what.

Are you sure? Would it be safe to say that if I drop a five pound rock perhaps waves would radiate out into the ground causing a non heat force.

I don't think it is accurate to say that all work ends up in heat. If the available energy moves a rock vertically 2500 feet this energy isn't being released as heat it is being stored in the rock with repsect to gravity.

The Barbarian wrote:

"Superfluids are among the most peculiar and counterintuitive of all materials. They have no viscosity, which allows an object travelling in a pure superfluid to move without friction. "

Doesn't matter. If the continents were moving as fast as creationism needs them to move, and then they slowed down to the present level of movement, the energy required to brake them would have been released as heat.

And given the mass of the continents, it would have boiled the oceans.

BTW, the impact on mountains is also released as heat.

Why is that because you say it is so? Can you actually demonstrate this is so? Energy in will equal energy out, and some of this will be lost as heat, but it isn't accurate to say it all will be.

Further it is unknown to what extent the continents have actually moved, they may have remained pretty stationary with respect to lower parts of the lithosphere, and it could be that other areas of the earth were rearranged.

Perhaps displacement of the crust by water, perhaps not. IT is largely unknown.

You have yet to show how the oceans would be boiled off. You just keep claiming it.

36,120,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water in the oceans

8 BTUs to raise 1 gallon 1 degree

Evaporation of 1 gallon of 80 degree water creates a loss of 1048 BTUs
250,000,000,000,000 gallons per day are evaporated from the oceans at there current temperature, that would be expected to at least double as one approached 80 or 90% of boiling.


energy value of all the world's coal is about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 BTUs

Burning all the coal reserves in the world under a kettle containing all the oceans would serve to raise the temperature of the volume of the ocean about 3 degrees, if you could do it without evaporation carrying the heat away.

OF course since a great deal of that energy would be lost through evaporation and radiation into space I'm not sure it would have much of an impact. IT would only take a few days for the ocean to lose the heat gained by the burning of the worlds coal.

OF course the hotter the oceans got the more evaporation would take place.

I am not convinced by empty claims about boiling oceans from rapid drift. Whatever drift really is.