Deep Impact

I asked the questions because Dr. Brown's theory adresses them and provides some answers. His ONE theory based on only TWO assumptions explains dozens of these types of questions and explain observable features of the earth and universe. No computer simulations (data imput by man) no invisible exploded planets. He uses physics, measurable data and observation. Your theories rely way too much on the unobservable and contains assumptions based on assumptions.

Are all comets on a 3.2 million year orbital path? I think not. Perhaps there are some assuptions incorrectly made here. Perhaps someone put some flawed data into their computer model. Comets are far too fragile to have survived 3.2 million years.

I will leave you now with your science fiction fantasies, but will be watching carefully for the next time you change your theory because technology revealed truths that could no longer be denied. Truth/reality always rises to the surface, and evolutionary science will scramble to revise their lie to fit the latest data.

I just read up on what Dr. Brown has to say about the orbits of comets. It appears that there is a huge uncertainty used to calculate these orbits which is the mass of the solar system outside the planetary region. If the equivalent of Jupiter's mass is thinly spread within the 40-600 AU range from the sun, the orbital period would be much shorter. We know there is mass out there, but we do not know how much. I bet you are off by about a Jupiter's worth of mass in your calculations program, but heck, you can put in whatever fits your model, right? Again, the facts will speak for themselves soon enough. The ALMA project should help us out there.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Astrodelugeologist</i>
<br />can you imagine any possible mechanism (within the laws of physics) that would cause a comet to traverse a 3.2-million-year orbital path in less than 3.2 million years?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">See my next answer to Unworthy1. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Unworthy1</i>
<br />It appears that there is a huge uncertainty used to calculate these orbits which is the mass of the solar system outside the planetary region.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Exaggeration does not serve your cause. It is a relatively small uncertainty.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the equivalent of Jupiter's mass is thinly spread within the 40-600 AU range from the sun, the orbital period would be much shorter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To determine how much this matters, let's assume there is a ring of material at an average distance of 320 au (the middle of your range) with a total mass of one Jupiter. This would change the effective mass of the Sun by one part in 1000 (Jupiter's mass). By direct calculation, this would in turn change the previously inferred orbital period (3.2 million years) downward by 20% to 2.6 million years. It therefore does not help your contention.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We know there is mass out there, but we do not know how much.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But we can set limits to how much because it would start to show up in several ways. For example, anything that produced accelerations within the solar system would show up reflexively in pulsar timing data. And no matter how thinly a Jupiter mass is spread, it would still scatter sunlight and absorb starlight, which would be visible as night sky illumination and absorption lines in stellar spectra, respectively.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No computer simulations (data imput by man)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You have a strange idea about what simulations are. Computers help us apply the universal law of gravity to visualize its predicted effects. No "data" is involved in such simulations, expect perhaps as arbitrary trial parameters.

Perhaps you are thinking of the orbit computation process? That does start with observations of comet positions at specific times.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your theories rely way too much on the unobservable and contains assumptions based on assumptions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have no idea what "assumptions" you mean. Do you? Apparently, findings derived from reasoning, observations, and experiments are "assumptions" to you.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Are all comets on a 3.2 million year orbital path?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Only "new" (Oort cloud) comets have measured periods that are all consistent with 3.2 million years. Long-period and short-period comets were once new, but have since been modified by the planets.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Comets are far too fragile to have survived 3.2 million years.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Isn't that an example of what you are complaining about, an assumption lacking justification?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I will leave you now with your science fiction fantasies ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It was your choice to get informed or remain uninformed. I see you have made it. If you later change your mind, feel free to return. -|Tom|-

I really have to give you some credit Tom. When faced with dogmatic responses, very wild theories, and even huge mistaken assumptions about your theory, you've continued to argue in a mature manner. I like that.

Personally I do believe in some sort of "God" or divinity, or maybe just a higher intelligence to the universe(I'm a Deist), but I agree quite strongly that it has no place in this science, or any science. The universe says what is says and we must listen, even if we don't like what we hear.

Unworthy1,

Even Jesus said it's about your actions above and beyond everything else. If you live a good life, follow the rules set forth, and whatnot, then why does it matter if your theory is right or not? I say let the science show what it will. If it supports the bible, so be it, and if it doesn't, so be that as well. "God" doesn't need anyone to stand up for "him". If "god" exists, nothing Mr. Van Flandern theorizes can ever damage that. Why not let it play out and just see where things go? Life is too short to assume we know all the answers. Even as sweeping as Meta Model is, there's far more it doesn't specifically cover than what it does. Why would you even WANT to go to a heaven occupied by a god who would damn people for believing in a scientific theory? If we're wrong for our beliefs, so be it, but the observational evidence, the calculations, and even the underlying philosophy of most of the theories presented on this board are strong enough to merit serious discussion. Discussion requires an open mind though. Otherwise it's just seperate parties talking AT each other, not TO each other.

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by brantc</i>
<br />Take the Grand Canyon for instance. In the theory that I subscribe to, it was created by a large "lightning bolt" (not God) just like Valles Marineris on Mars and rilles on other bodies through out the solar system.
The major problem with current other theories is where is the dirt????? A flood would have not created those features. A large electrical discharge from planets coming close together, would not only dig the trench but also lift the dirt off of the planet(comets and asteroids). Plasma discharge would cause crystalline dust from melting and cooling on a comet<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Valles Marineris and the Grand Canyon are VERY different features. They don't even look anything alike. If the Grand Canyon were formed by a giant arc, it would be glass. The whole continental US would be volcanic glass. At the very least, we'd see odd fusions of materials one only really sees in the presence of such extreme energy, such as lightning strikes or comet impacts. Carbon fuses into rocks, and things like nitrogen, sulfur, silicon, iron, etc. would all be mixed together in a very strange blend. Where is the dirt? It's in the ocean!

I don't think you're appreciating the electrical complications of discharge of that magnitude.

First of all, you'd have to arc across a vacuum. The voltage involved would be of proportions of such magnitude as to be almost unimaginable.

Secondly, the strike would not hit Colorado. Just like lightning on Earth, conductive areas are preferable to non-conductive areas. If a massive static discharge from a passing body hit the Earth, it probably would hit the ocean, assuming it ever reached the surface(more likely it would float the electrons across the void of space and they would be gobbled up by our atmosphere.

Thirdly, whatever object either supplied such a source of power, or which stole that many electrons from Earth, would have to have been incredibly massive, and pass very close to Earth. Tidal forces alone would have devastated Earth from an object that huge passing that close by. A body of that size passing so close MIGHT explain the great flood concept, but I see no supportable evidence that it sent a giant lightning bolt at us.

Point four would be that a giant planet-to-planet electrical discharge would be such an extreme event that I doubt even microbial life would survive it. You're talking about an event which involves energy levels that bedwarf even the impact of a "planet-killer" comet.

"Regret can only change the future" -Me