>1. I still have Glen's questions to me concerning
>my ideas on Noah's flood. I am waiting for
>feedback on the ozone level in the lower and
>upper atmospheres within the last 14,000
>years but I will give a partial response
>now.
I doubt this data is available for the upper atmosphere. We didn't even know
of ozone's existence up there prior to this century and I can't think of a
proxy measurment, but I may be wrong here.
[snip]
>He also said fish subjected to water ozygenated
>with ozone showed a tranchient decay decline
>in longevity such as one sees after the flood
>for the listed patarichs. At a few parts per
>billion ozone is highly toxic. Patten's idea
>is that some ozone was carried down into our
>lower atmosphere by an ice dump that occured
>at the time of Noah's flood.
If that caused our lives to become shorter, why didn't longevity rise again
after the ozone was dissipated? Pre-industrial levels of ozone in the lower
atmosphere are low.
>A. I think as Mars
>passed by the earth it caused tides in the magma
>which caused the earth's crust closest to Mars to
>flex. This caused many of the caves in Portugal,
>Spain, France, and Italy to become blocked.
>According to "Images of the Ice Age" by Paul G
>Bahn page 56 many caves with drawing and
>movable art made by man, were blocked around
>10,000 B.C. to 12,000 B.C.
The book is by Bahn and Vertut. They do not say that every cave was blocked
nor do they say how many were blocked. I am quite familiar with Don Patton's
ideas and have corresponded with him years ago. He wants planets to come near
the Roche limit (the breakup point) and postulates that that what caused the
flood. If some planet sized object came careening near the earth, it would do
more damage than just close a few caves. It would be unlikely that the Moon
would still be orbiting the earth. Remember that the planet would not just
affect the earth. The moon being much smaller would be more greately affected
by the planets gravitation. The moon most likely would be sent flying away
from the earth.
Secondly, the tides raised even by a moon-sized object close to earth will
raise huge tides which would kill all life. Walter S. Olson, trying to explain
the unconformity at the base of the Cambrian, wrote (2.89 earth radii is the
Roche limit for the Moon).
"Gerstenkorn calculates that the moon after its capture in a
retrograde orbit approached the earth as close as 2.89 earth
radii before changing its orbit and retreating to its present
distance. At that time the tides were 8,000 times higher than at
present, attaining amplitudes comparable with the present mean
ocean depth. Field observes that the energy dissipation in such
tides achieved a level equal to the present insolation (1.7 x 10
^24 ergs/sec.) Some 50,000 years before minimum passages and at a
maximum it attained levels a thousand times as great.
"The erosive power and heating effect of such tides can
account for all the phenomena associated with the Infracambrian
deposit. Anyone who has seen the effects of storm tides on the
shore line will have a faint idea of the effect of tides with
amplitudes of thousands of feet. The tides would eventually
sweep across the interior and, laden with sediments and rock
fragments, abraid the land surface and reduce the continents to
peneplains. The detritus would fill any existing deep basins and
be swept over the edges of the continental shelves and dumped
into the oceans.
" The tidal friction would raise the ocean temperatures to
unprecedented levels, . . ."~Walter S. Olson, "The Origin of the
Cambrian-Precambrian Unconformity", American Scientist, 54:4,
1966, p. 461-462.
If this happened just a few thousand years ago, we would not be here today.
>B. The ark may have started out in Turkey or Spain,
>or Italy, etc. But I'm pretty sure it ended up
>inside Turkey which is completely surrounded
>by mountains. I think it took the water about
>a year to drain out of the mountain openings
>in Turkey. AT 6500 B.C. the oldest know town
>is in Turkey.
>C. Although the passing speed of Mars and earth
>would have been around 135,000 mph the ccw spin
>of the earth on an inside pass by Mars would
>have greatly diminished the passing speed of
>Mars on a particular spot on the earth. Mars
>would have gone from a half a million miles
>away to it's closest point to a half a million
>miles distant within 7 hours. At it's current
>spin rate, the closest spot on the equator
>would have tended to follow Mars as it passed
>by. In 7 hours that spot on the equator would
>have traveled 7,000 miles.
>D. If the moho is more oil like than glue like the
>earth's crust may have disengaged from the mantle and
>thus core of the earth. This would have allowed the
>earth's crust to better (but not completely) follow
>Mars as it passed by. USA Today Dec 20-22, 1996
>page 3A under "Science Top 10:" listed the
>discovery that the core of the earth spins quicker
>than the crust of the earth. This would seem to
>say that this part of Patten's idea is plausable.
The Moho is neither like glue nor oil. It is the seismic reflector which marks
the change from crust to mantle. The Moho is defined by a certain type of
seismic reflection. Seismic reflections occur at changes of material. The
moho is a boundary NOT a material. It simply marks the change of material.
>3. Glen wrote:
>> Please explain. What is an ice dump?
>An ice dump is caused by a smaller icy satellite
>getting within roche's limit of another planet.
>The gravity of the larger planet pulls the smaller,
>in this case icy satellite apart. In our case,
>because of our protective Van Allen belts, it's
>felt the ice would have descended, I think over
>the magnetic North pole due to the Northern location
>of the icy satellite.
First off, Patton doesn't understand that in order for an object to spiral
down a magnetic line of force, the object must be small and it must be
electrically charged. Neither is likely to be the case for such an icey body.
Secondly, the energy of an object falling from a height is mgh where m is the
mass of the object g is the gravitational force and h is the height. If you
plug in values appropriate to a comet breaking up and hitting the earth, you
will find that all of the ice will be melted and about 50% of it turned to
steam. What water is left will be at 212 degrees fahrenheit. Patton tries to
say that an icy object from space falling at the North pole explains the
glacial ages, the rapid freezing of mammoths and I guess now the closing of
caves in Portugal. Unfortunately, he did not do his physics correctly. The
ice would be steam.
math.
1 gram of ice (.01 kg), 100 miles up (160,000 meters). g~ 9.8 m/s^2
1 gram of ice = 1 cubic centimeter of water.
energy=mgh=.001*9.8*160,000=1568 joules.
15680 joules*.238 calories /joule = 373 calories.
Starting at 0 degrees centigrade, it taks 1 calorie to raise 1 gram of water 1
degree. Thus to go from 0 to the boiling point (100 deg. C) requires 100
calories, leaving us 273. But it takes 580 calories per gram to turn the
water to steam. Thus 273/580=47% of the water will be turned to steam. It
is hard to see how steam can freeze the mammoths.
Having just gotten back from a Christmas trip with lots of mail to answer, I
will stop here. Think about what happens to ice. Even if you start with ice
at absolute 0 you still have 35% of it turned to steam and the rest turned to
hot water.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm