FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-23-2003, 09:26 AM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SouthEastern US
Posts: 1,165
Default

Metros:

I checked out Setterfields site:
http://www.setterfield.org/earlyhist.html

and couldn't make it past this initial statement concerning the speed of light. I'd appreciate comments on this statement.
I don't remember any mention of 'C' changing or varying during any of my studies.



A Clue from Light from Distant Galaxies

These two papers cite observational evidence that indicates light-speed, c, has dropped exponentially from an initial value of the order of 4 x 1011 times its current speed. The evidence comes from light emitted by galaxies near the frontiers of the cosmos, which has a signature in it that reveals the value of c at the moment of emission. This signature allows the behaviour of light-speed over time to be determined astronomically, in addition to the ground-based observations over the last 350 years. These two papers demonstrate that the atomic clock, whereby the age of the rocks, the fossils, the planets and stars have all been determined, ticks at a rate dependent upon c. Thus when c was 10 times its present value, the atomic clock ticked off 10 years in one ordinary orbital year. This process includes all radiometric clocks, which are used to determine the age of the geological strata. (Despite the behaviour of the atomic clock, it is shown in the second paper [5] that chemical reaction rates, and hence primary biological processes, remain basically independent of c.) As the behaviour of c with time has thereby been established from observation, it is then possible to correct the atomic clock to read actual orbital time. When this is done, an interesting scenario emerges.
Smilin is offline  
Old 05-24-2003, 11:28 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: hobart,tasmania
Posts: 551
Default Gulf of mexico

Wasn't there some evidence along with siberian blast that these formed by something with more energy than a meteorite
SULPHUR is offline  
Old 05-24-2003, 11:14 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: St Louis MO USA
Posts: 1,188
Default

About twenty of us were kicked off the Baptist Board one day about a year ago. They decided atheists could no longer post there. How do you guys do it? In addition to booting me they booted Scigirl, Rufus, Arrowman, Crazyfingers, and at least a dozen other infidels.
cricket is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 12:40 AM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: no longer at IIDB
Posts: 1,644
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Meatros

In any event, I was wondering how scientists figure out how much damage a certain size meteor will do to an area. On the sites I've been to they speculated about how much damage a __ big meteor would do, but I haven't seen much on *how* they come up with the number. (I see no reason to disbelieve the number, I'm just curious).
First of all, one needs to know the density, volume, and velocity of the meteor (or, at least, be able to approximate such). This is simple enough; we are able to observe the size and velocity of the meteor, and we can identify the likely composition (and, therefore, density) thereof.
Then, using a couple physics equations (which I don't know offhand) involving the energy converted to heat when the meteor enters the atmosophere (this involves knowing the angle of entry, which can easily be estimated), and then, knowing the kinetic energy of the meteor (1/2 [density x volume] x velocity^2), we can calculate how much energy will be released.
Through other equations, we can approximate how this energy will be dispersed, and then, by relating it to our knowledge of the results of natural disasters, meteorology, geology, and so forth, we can estimate the actual effects resultant.

If you want a great example of this, which makes me chuckle to this day, I suggest you read Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's "Lucifer's Hammer", which has a sample analysis fairly early on.
NonHomogenized is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 03:53 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: hobart,tasmania
Posts: 551
Default asteroids

when does a meteorite become an asteroid
SULPHUR is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 11:21 AM   #36
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Snyder,Texas,USA
Posts: 4,411
Default

Your question is the wrong way around, Sulphur: an asteroid becomes a meteorite when it hits our atmosphere (or some other object.)
Coragyps is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 09:39 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 748
Default

Meatros -

The earth is only part of the problem. The moon is covered by literally MILLIONS of craters, many of them extending over 100 miles in diameter. If the moon has that many, imagine how many must have hit the earth in that same 6,000 year period (taking into consideration that the smaller ones would have burnt up in our atmosphere)?
Roland is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 11:28 PM   #38
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 172
Default

Coragyps,

A minor note on your, "an asteroid becomes a meteorite when it hits our atmosphere (or some other object."

Simply hitting our atmosphere does not make a meteorite out of an asteroid. Only when a natural occurring object strikes another BODY is it considered to be a meteorite. If an asteroid (or other natural body) encounters our atmosphere and the ram pressure heats the atmospheric gases to an incandescent temperature, which, in turn, could cause the surface of the asteroid to melt, that glowing PHENOMENON is called a meteor. A meteor (the phenomenon) may collide with earth, but it is only as a companion to its host, the asteroid, comet, or ejected material.
Minnesota is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 05:00 AM   #39
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Snyder,Texas,USA
Posts: 4,411
Default

Minnesota - D'oh! I should think before I type!

Roland - Don't you know? Henry Morris of ICR has explained all those craters on the moon - they're the result of misses in a battle between God and Satan.
Coragyps is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 06:37 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Roland
Meatros -

The earth is only part of the problem. The moon is covered by literally MILLIONS of craters, many of them extending over 100 miles in diameter. If the moon has that many, imagine how many must have hit the earth in that same 6,000 year period (taking into consideration that the smaller ones would have burnt up in our atmosphere)?
Damn good point. Currently I'm getting the old "ignore", "Dodge", and "misdirect".
Meatros is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:27 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.