I wrote:
>Not a single number or mathematical equation. Yep, he answered it
specifically, Specifically answered in such a way that no response or
criticism can be given. <
Jim Replied:
>It's a little silly, Glenn, to take a summary e-mail message and jump all
over it like it's the omission of the century. What you want is a technical
tete-a-tete, but I can't be expected to stand here as a go-between. It's an
interesting issue, and one that requires more study, obviously. But more
heat is being generated here by your grinding of axes than by thermal
runaway.<
No actually more heat is being generated by Baumgardner's subduction theory than grinding axes. I could calculate the difference but it is probably of the order of 10^27 joules more for subduction than axes grinding. :-)
What concerns me is the apparent double standard that Christians apply to knowledge. If one believes in a global flood and/or a young earth, we are content when an answer: "The technical details are in my papers for all to see". But if I tried to answer one of your objections to my views with that self-same response, would you be so contented and purring with my response? I don't have to answer that. I have seen you time and again hold my feet to the fire for infinitesimal documentation of my claims (and you should do that). But you should also hold your own side to that same standard of truth and documentation. If you don't, it is called gullibility. It just bothers me that you are so content with John's wave of the hand dismissal of the heat problem with a simple "the technical details are in my papers".
I wrote:
<<Jim. I like you, but you don't have the technical background to verify
Baumgardner's claim so your support of him is based entirely upon your
faith in him and nothing more. How do you KNOW that his technical details
are correct? You can't unless you go back to school and learn physics and
a very detailed branch of physics at that. Thus, you have faith in John
Baumgardner instead of the hundreds of others who say that John is wrong.>>
Jim replied:
>I haven't expressed any faith. I've passed along some relevant data in an
interesting discussion. <<
You suggested that Baumgardner had answered my critique. If you were the lawyer in one of the tobacco suits afflicting the country would you be happy and think it was a specific enough response if a tobacco company researcher said "The details are in my papers?" What illumination does that present to the court? What help is that information to the jury? None.
So far, I've learned that you think the numbers
don't add up, that Baumgardner disagrees and has said the details are out
there, and that this is a matter for further reflection for me.
I've also learned there are "hundreds of others" who claim John is wrong.
I'd like to know who these "hundreds" are. You obviously know, or you
wouldn't have said this. How MANY hundreds? And where are their articles
which name Baumgardner and his tremendous folly? Remember, since you are
interested always in SPECIFIC answers, we're talking about Baumgardner's
numbers vis-a-vis thermal runaway. Where have these "hundreds" refuted
Baumgardner?
I bet I could get every physicist in the country to say that trying to remove from the earth 10^28 joules of energy released during a single year would fry everybody in sight. There are 5 x 10^16 square centimeters on the earths surface. This means that each square centimeter of the earths surface must radiate 10^28 joules/5.11 x 10^16 square cm = 1.95 x 10^11 joules per square centimeter. Spread this out over a year and you have 6203 joules / square centimeter per second. The earth recieves from the sun .13 joules/ cm squared / sec at noon at the equator. Baumgardner's view generate a heat flux of nearly 45,000 times the heat we receive from the sun. Even if you spread this heat removal over 1000 years, the earth would glow with 45 times the heat of the sunlight striking the earth. Do you think you could survive this? If you do, you are a better man than I. I have delicate skin.
They are not publicising this problem and not to do so is meaning that people are accepting their view without proper knowledge of the difficulties. If they can solve this problem, then they MIGHT have a workable scenario. Until they do, put on the sunscreen because you are going to need it.