The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-02-2013, 10:05 PM   #26
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
You are not hearing me. I never mentioned the solar wind.

What I'm saying is that electrical currents (electrons) can and do flow from the sun to the planets -- and that this is the source of the electricity in lightning.
You're full of ****. We both know you are talking about the "Electric Universe theory" which indeed does idiotically claim the solar wind is electrically charged.

Quote:
In other words, much of the sun's output is electrical -- in addition to visible light, x-rays etc

With regard to earth -- the electricity collects in the ionosphere -- then some of it works its way down through the atmosphere by a process that is not yet understood. We see it in the form of lightning.

These electrical currents could be measured if you placed your equipment properly. In short -- the idea could be tested.

I'm still waiting for you or someone to explain the source of the electricity in lightning. Now that the static charging model is dead -- there is no model.

MHG
Lot's more bull****. Where's the evidence to back your position?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 08:56 PM   #27
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Didja go to the link I provided regarding volcanoes and plate tectonics on Venus?

Of course not.

You can't even get the science right, dork.
You did not answer my question. I asked you why after 4.5 billion years Venus is still hot like a young planet. Earth has cooled. Mars has cooled. But nearly the entire surface of Venus is vulcanic.

I asked you why? and you regurgitated something you saw on line about plate tectonics. But that explains nothing.

Again -- I'm asking you: why is Venus still so hot over the entire planet -- even the poles?

Clearly - you don't have a clue. Why not just admit it?
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 08:59 PM   #28
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,313
Default

Feydakin

As I've shown -- the static charging model for lightning has collapsed. There is no current model to account for lightning.

In the absence of a model -- there is nothing to defend. So why are you so defensive?

In the absence of a model -- you should be openly curious to explore and test new ideas.

So how come you are so closed minded?
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 05:56 AM   #29
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Again -- I'm asking you: why is Venus still so hot over the entire planet -- even the poles?
Runaway greenhouse effect.

If you're going to claim something else entirely, you need to present the evidence and data, and how it explains Venus' current state better than the accepted theory.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 06:25 AM   #30
orinjkrush
...
 
orinjkrush's Avatar
 
Hey, no hurling on the shell, dude,

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: FrontRangeAbove8500ft
Posts: 5,217

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ben Garland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Feydakin

As I've shown -- the static charging model for lightning has collapsed. There is no current model to account for lightning.

In the absence of a model -- there is nothing to defend. So why are you so defensive?

In the absence of a model -- you should be openly curious to explore and test new ideas.

So how come you are so closed minded?
Is this what Tesla was tapping into? (Am willing to entertain new ideas.)
orinjkrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 02:20 PM   #31
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Runaway greenhouse effect.

If you're going to claim something else entirely, you need to present the evidence and data, and how it explains Venus' current state better than the accepted theory.
If you've been following this thread -- you will recall that a few posts back W*gs denied vociferously that he ever claimed that Vulcanism over nearly all of the Venusian planet was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect.

Now he states (above) that it is. Obviously he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

For the record -- there is no chance that a greenhouse phenomenon can heat up the core of a planet -- and cause vulcanism like what exists on Venus. No chance.

At least 60% of the sunlight reaching Venus is reflected away by the dense cloud cover -- so only 40% of the sunlight is available for the greenhouse effect.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 02:31 PM   #32
orangeatheist
Champion of the Godless
 
orangeatheist's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
OK but the origins of Venus is only part of it.

The thread needs to be about the present science paradigm, why it is inadequate, and why we need to move ASAP to the next paradigm.

The Big Bang and the associated ice comet model are the equivalent of the flat earth model of the 15th century -- just before Copernicus.
Woah, woah, woah there cowboy! Not so fast! You can't just go making unsupported assertions and think you can get away with it.

This thread IS about the history of Venus and I'd like you to stick to the topic. Isn't that why we had to remove ourselves from the 9/11 thread? You want to keep a thread on-topic, let's do just that. If you want to open a separate thread on the problem with "the present science paradigm," be my guest. But this is MY thread now and I make the rules. You should show the decency and integrity to follow them. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
I start with this principle - the present model will not allow us to become sustainable on the planet. We will continue to destroy earth -- unless we change our economy and especially the way we use energy. We must become much more efficient.
Not only an unsupported assertion, but also wholly irrelevant to the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
The present Big Bang cosmological paradigm cannot provide for this. It is deficient because it does not incorporate electromagnetism. It is strictly based on gravity.
Not only an unsupported assertion, but also wholly irrelevant to the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Yet many electromagnetic phenomenon -- including a range of discoveries made in only the last 20 years -- are crying out to be explained and accounted for.
Off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
But let us start with Venus.
Which is what you should have done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
You need to understand how anomalous the planet is. 100% of the planet is volcanic. The surface temperatures are extreme -- and are the same at the poles and at the equator. How is this explained?
1.) Define what you mean by the phrase "Venus is 100% volcanic." Then, please provide the relevancy of this statement.
2.) Agreed that the surface temperatures are extreme. Please provide the relevancy of this statement.
3.) Agreed that Venus has a uniform temperature. Please provide the relevancy of this statement.
4.) If you don't know how these observations are explained, then say so. If you are using these questions as a trap, please restrain yourself. If you have some sort of observation about Venus which incorporates a substantiated observation that Venus is 100% volcanic (active? dormant?), that the surface temperatures are extreme and that the planet has uniform temperature, then please state it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Why is Venus so hot?
That's the same question you asked above regarding surface temperature. Do you know the answer? Or are you genuinely puzzled and are looking for the most scientific answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
W*gs says its because of a runaway greenhouse effect -- but this is unproven.
Doesn't matter what W*gs says. Do you have a theory you'd like to offer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
W*gs makes pronouncements -- but does this make it so? Hell no.
You ask questions with the pretense of having some sort of secret answer. Please provide your answer and, take your own advice: Don't merely pronounce it. Provide the provable evidence for your theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
There is no way a greenhouse effect can cause vulcanism over 100% of a planet. No way. Venus is not that much closer to the sun than earth.
Is there a claim on the table that the greenhouse effect causes vulcanism? If so, I haven't seen it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
And when you rule this out -- you are left with a major unexplained phenomenon.
So, are YOU admitting you don't have an explanation, either?
orangeatheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 02:32 PM   #33
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orinjkrush View Post
Is this what Tesla was tapping into? (Am willing to entertain new ideas.)
Yes, I believe Tesla was trying to tap into the free electricity that originates with the sun -- the same electricity that works its way down through the atmosphere as lightning.

Here's the tower he built on Long Island to download electricity from the ionosphere. Notice the array is pointed straight up -- not parallel with the surface of the earth like microwave antennae. This tends to refute the claim he was trying to transmit electricity from place to place via the atmosphere.

Tesla was a fabulously successful independent scientist. He received a fortune i royalties from his patented inventions -- especially AC/DC. But he sunk every dime he owned into this Long Island project. He ran out of cash before he was able to perfect it.

According to the story - Tesla went to his banker JP Morgan for a loan -- but Morgan turned him down. Morgan apparently learned that electricity was about to become too cheap to meter -- and decided to pull the plug. Tesla went broke and ended up living in a cheap hotel room. He died penniless.

Here is a photo of the tower he built. It was later repossessed and torn down.

Had Tesla succeeded we would now be driving hydrogen powered cars. We would live in a very different world.
MHG
Attached Images
File Type: jpg tesla tower cerca 1900.jpg (26.6 KB, 41 views)
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 02:36 PM   #34
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,313
Default

Orangeatheist,

You will have to be patient. I must first lay the groundwork for the Venus discussion -- which will follow.
MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 02:36 PM   #35
orangeatheist
Champion of the Godless
 
orangeatheist's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
If you're going to claim something else entirely, you need to present the evidence and data, and how it explains Venus' current state better than the accepted theory.
Pretty much sums it up.

Mark, I will ask that you refrain from discussions regarding Tesla here unless it is directly relevant to the history of Venus. If you wish to open a separate thread for a Tesla discussion you are free to do so. But restrain yourself here.

We are two pages in and you still have not offered your theory for the history of Venus. Please do so now.
orangeatheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 02:37 PM   #36
orangeatheist
Champion of the Godless
 
orangeatheist's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Orangeatheist,

You will have to be patient. I must first lay the groundwork for the Venus discussion -- which will follow.
MHG
No, you can lay your "groundwork" as you present your theory. Please do so.
orangeatheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 02:44 PM   #37
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,313
Default

Why lightning produces x-rays...

This post is key for what will follow. It's vitally important to understand this.

One of the leading scientists who has been studying lightning is Joseph Dwyer. He works in Florida -- which has frequent lightning storms -- even in winter. Dwyer set up a really cool procedure.

He sends up small rockets into thunder storms. The rockets have a wire spool that unreels -- creating a lightning rod. The lightning travels back down the wire -- where he has instruments to study the lightning.

Some years back Dwyer discovered that lightning bolts generate x-rays.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ce-technology/

The mechanism is now well understood. This is not mhgaffney talking -- this is mainstream science.

It's very simple: As lightning moves from the sky to the earth it passes through increasingly dense air - -- which causes resistance. The lightning slows down slightly.

As this happens -- according to the law of conservation of energy -- the lightning must release energy -- which it does by releasing x-rays.

My next post will make the jump to the next paradigm.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 02:52 PM   #38
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
If you've been following this thread -- you will recall that a few posts back W*gs denied vociferously that he ever claimed that Vulcanism over nearly all of the Venusian planet was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect.

Now he states (above) that it is. Obviously he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

For the record -- there is no chance that a greenhouse phenomenon can heat up the core of a planet -- and cause vulcanism like what exists on Venus. No chance.

At least 60% of the sunlight reaching Venus is reflected away by the dense cloud cover -- so only 40% of the sunlight is available for the greenhouse effect.

MHG
Wow. You are truly ****ing clueless.

The reason the surface of Venus is hot is due to a runaway greenhouse effect. That temperature is still far below the temperature required to create active vulcanism.

The surface of Venus is also volcanic in nature - as opposed to Earth's surface, which is a combination of volcanic, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock. That's because there is no liquid water on the surface of Venus. Likewise, there doesn't appear to be any plate tectonics on Venus - the heat generated by radioactive processes seems to continue to heat Venus' mantle until the crust disintegrates and the entire surface subducts and overturns, basically. Quite a different process than what occurs here on Earth.

BTW, the Venusian surface is ~300-600 million years old and there could be current volcanic activity.

For more information regarding the runaway greenhouse on Venus, read this article. It will get you started.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 02:55 PM   #39
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeatheist View Post
No, you can lay your "groundwork" as you present your theory. Please do so.
introducing the plasma discharge comet model...

OK -- but if you want to understand my views about Venus you will have to do some reading. Are you ready for that?

This scientific paper dates to the early 1980s. The Plasma Discharge Comet Model has replaced the dirty snowball comet which dates to ~1950.

This new model is far superior because it accounts for electromagnetism -- and accurately predicts the shape of the cometary coma and tail as the comet approaches the sun. The snowball model cannot begin to do this.

The new cometary model is based on a new model of the solar system -- which also accounts for electromagnetism. It can explain the lightning we see on earth -- and which has been found on the other planets.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/ori1.html
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 03:01 PM   #40
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Wow. You are truly ****ing clueless.

The reason the surface of Venus is hot is due to a runaway greenhouse effect. That temperature is still far below the temperature required to create active vulcanism.

The surface of Venus is also volcanic in nature - as opposed to Earth's surface, which is a combination of volcanic, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock. That's because there is no liquid water on the surface of Venus. Likewise, there doesn't appear to be any plate tectonics on Venus - the heat generated by radioactive processes seems to continue to heat Venus' mantle until the crust disintegrates and the entire surface subducts and overturns, basically. Quite a different process than what occurs here on Earth.

BTW, the Venusian surface is ~300-600 million years old and there could be current volcanic activity.

For more information regarding the runaway greenhouse on Venus, read this article. It will get you started.
Well - at least we agree that a runaway greenhouse effect cannot cause vulcanism.

Where is the evidence that the surface of Venus is 300-600 million years old? This is the sort of thing W*gs does a lot. He makes a pronouncement -- and we are supposed to take it on faith.

No one has ever visited the surface of Venus. Nor do we have any rock samples. Therefor, there is not a scintilla of actual evidence for this claim. It is pure hokum -- something that Big Bang scientists are really good at.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 03:04 PM   #41
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Why lightning produces x-rays...

This post is key for what will follow. It's vitally important to understand this.

One of the leading scientists who has been studying lightning is Joseph Dwyer. He works in Florida -- which has frequent lightning storms -- even in winter. Dwyer set up a really cool procedure.

He sends up small rockets into thunder storms. The rockets have a wire spool that unreels -- creating a lightning rod. The lightning travels back down the wire -- where he has instruments to study the lightning.

Some years back Dwyer discovered that lightning bolts generate x-rays.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ce-technology/

The mechanism is now well understood. This is not mhgaffney talking -- this is mainstream science.

It's very simple: As lightning moves from the sky to the earth it passes through increasingly dense air - -- which causes resistance. The lightning slows down slightly.

As this happens -- according to the law of conservation of energy -- the lightning must release energy -- which it does by releasing x-rays.

My next post will make the jump to the next paradigm.

MHG
Off topic. Stick to the origins of Venus, please.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 03:13 PM   #42
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Well - at least we agree that a runaway greenhouse effect cannot cause vulcanism.
I didn't say it did. It does cause the surface of Venus to be very hot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney
Where is the evidence that the surface of Venus is 300-600 million years old? This is the sort of thing W*gs does a lot. He makes a pronouncement -- and we are supposed to take it on faith.

No one has ever visited the surface of Venus. Nor do we have any rock samples. Therefor, there is not a scintilla of actual evidence for this claim. It is pure hokum -- something that Big Bang scientists are really good at.
Ever hear of impact crater analyses? I'll even help you out:

The Age of Planetary Surfaces: How Do We Discover It?

Read up on them before you keep making an ass of yourself.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 03:32 PM   #43
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,064
Default

Not McCanney again...

James McCanney's Nonsense

DDSS, folks.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 05:11 PM   #44
orangeatheist
Champion of the Godless
 
orangeatheist's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post

OK -- but if you want to understand my views about Venus you will have to do some reading. Are you ready for that?

This scientific paper dates to the early 1980s. The Plasma Discharge Comet Model has replaced the dirty snowball comet which dates to ~1950.

This new model is far superior because it accounts for electromagnetism -- and accurately predicts the shape of the cometary coma and tail as the comet approaches the sun. The snowball model cannot begin to do this.

The new cometary model is based on a new model of the solar system -- which also accounts for electromagnetism. It can explain the lightning we see on earth -- and which has been found on the other planets.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/ori1.html
Thank you, Mark. But since this is an old paper which was produced between 1979-1981 (over 30 years ago), you must have links to peer reviewed journals which support this "new cometary model based on a new model of the solar system," right? Scientists can propose all sorts of "models" but if they don't stand up to peer review and the further analysis such review brings, they're not worth much. I mean, anyone can just come up with a model and write a book, have a few radio show chats and open a website, right? I mean, I run into fruitloops all the time who have crazy theories but just because these people have a theory doesn't mean the theory holds merit. People like Michael Behe, Walt Brown, David Rohl, Ron Wyatt have all floated out unconventional ideas but none of them have stuck, largely because they fail in the court of peer review. Other outlandish ideas, like Alfred Wegener's "Continental Drift" theory, have been proposed to a skeptical scientific community but the weight of the evidence behind the theory and its ability as a successful model to explain facts and withstand peer review have made them stand the test of time (and other scientists!).

W*gs has posted a link to a peer who has reviewed James McCanney's "new model" and it's not very favorable, to say the least. McCanney says he has an M.S. in Physics. The reviewer, Phil Plait, has a PhD in Astronomy and notes that McCanney says of his peers: "...NASA is lying to you, scientists are lying to you, I am lying to you. And, of course, only he knows The Truth." That sounds more like an ideologue than a serious scientist.

So, at any rate, you're off on a bad foot unless you can produce some peer reviewed material that supports McCanney's "new" model. Can I hope to see some forthcoming?

EDIT TO ADD: And does this "new model" somehow have something to do with the history of Venus? Could it be you are taking the long road to telling us that Venus is actually a comet? But first, we have to accept this new "paradigm" before you'll actually spit it out?

Last edited by orangeatheist; 02-04-2013 at 05:21 PM..
orangeatheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 05:17 PM   #45
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,549

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Debating Gaffney...............

DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 05:24 PM   #46
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeatheist View Post
EDIT TO ADD: And does this "new model" somehow have something to do with the history of Venus? Could it be you are taking the long road to telling us that Venus is actually a comet? But first, we have to accept this new "paradigm" before you'll actually spit it out?
Yep. We gotta accept a whole lot of nonsense before we even get to Venus.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 09:12 PM   #47
underrated29
Ahoy
 
You lika da sexy

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,175

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

I love how gaffe always qualifies his history lessons with ---

"and then _____ found out that it was going to be cheaper, or clean energy, or cure cancer and stupidness , or whatever from happening so they stopped funding, or pulled the plug, or had him killed, or exiled, or turned into a Jew." ----- everytime. Without fail.
underrated29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 08:15 AM   #48
orangeatheist
Champion of the Godless
 
orangeatheist's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Yep. We gotta accept a whole lot of nonsense before we even get to Venus.
But here's my problem with this strategy: I do not have a PhD in Astronomy and cannot in good conscience pass judgement either way on these "new paradigms" that Mark is offering. That is why I need to see how peers in the appropriate scientific fields are receiving these new ideas. If the inventor of the idea (in this case, McCanney's "Plasma Discharge Comet Model") has simply made up his theory and by-passed peer-review and published independently (either in book form, over radio interviews or on a self-published website) then what hope does the non-specialist have of ascertaining the validity of the claim? In fact, by-passing peer-review is the hallmark of a person who fears failure with peer-review because they (secretly? unconsciously?) know their idea doesn't hold water.

So, that is why I need Mark to offer the scientific journals which have reviewed McCanney's "new model" over the past 30 years (and not merely a link to McCanney's own website) for sustainability.
orangeatheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 08:28 AM   #49
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,064
Default

I enjoyed Plait's takedown of McCanney's "comets gain mass" claim...

Quote:
Imagine McCanney's scenario: an asteroid the size of the Moon is moving through the solar system. It gains mass, so much so that in roughly one year (the time Hale-Bopp spent in the inner solar system) it gains enough mass to equal the mass of Mercury. It does this by having small particles slam into it as it plows through the solar wind and other material.

OK, so let's think about this. What happens when a particle hits the surface of that object? The particle is moving pretty fast, and that motion has energy (called kinetic energy). That energy has to go somehwere, and in a collision like this the energy is released as heat. Kinetic energy depends on the mass of the object and its velocity. The mass might be small for each particle, but there are a lot of particles; enough, according to McCanney, to more than quadruple the comet mass! Also, the velocities of collision are quite high. Near the Earth, such collisions are typically 40 or 50 kilometers per second. But let's be generous to McCanney, and say the velocities are much lower, say, 10 km/sec. You'll see why this is generous in just a minute.

The amount of energy released as heat is easy to calculate in this case; it's roughly 1038 ergs. An erg is a small unit, but 1038 is an awful lot of them. The total energy released by the Sun every second is only about 4 x 1033 ergs, so the energy the comet "feels" from impact is more than 25,000 times the Sun's total energy output! Another way to think about it: a one megaton nuclear bomb (about 50 times the explosive energy of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki) releases about 4 x 1022 ergs, so the amount of energy absorbed by the comet as it gains all that mass is the same as dropping 2,500,000,000,000,000 nuclear bombs on it. Since the mass is gained in less than a year, that's the same as exploding 80 million nuclear bombs per second on the comet.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking a comet wouldn't do so well under such treatment.

Obviously, that's so much energy that it would easily vaporize the comet. The amount of energy it takes to totally destroy an object can be calculated in a number of ways. One way is to use what's called its gravitational binding energy. I won't go into details, but I'll point out a terrific page that describes it (using the Death Star from Star Wars as an example!). It turns out that to vaporize a comet of the Moon's mass, it would take about 1036 ergs, or one-hundredth the heat released by the impacts. So, ironically, the heat caused by McCanney's mass gain is actually enough to destroy the comet itself!

I'll note that a comet is not held together by just gravity, but also by molecular bonds and other forces. This means it would take more energy to vaporize one. It could conceivably be a much closer contest between the amount of energy holding the comet together, and the amount trying to tear it apart. However, this amount of heat generated is still enormous (enough to make the comet shine as brightly as 80 million nuclear bombs per second, remember), and I already showed comets are not hot, but cold. And of course, the solar wind is neutral, and comets lose mass. Don't forget those! So McCanney is wrong on all these counts.

Remember too I was generous with the collision velocity. The higher the velocity, the higher the kinetic energy, and the more heat generated per impact. In reality, the velocities are much higher, resulting in a heat energy more than ten times what I calculated! So that's what I meant by being generous. The numbers are even worse for McCanney's theory than I calculated, making him even more wrong. If that's possible.

Conclusion: if Hale-Bopp had gained mass the way McCanney claimed, the heat of this would have torn it apart. And if they were as big as he claims, we'd know it. McCanney is wrong.

Last edited by W*GS; 02-05-2013 at 08:32 AM..
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 10:53 AM   #50
BroncoLifer
Living the Dream
 
BroncoLifer's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boulder County
Posts: 1,486

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeatheist View Post
For a point of reference, here is a brief history of the formation of our solar system, including Venus as accepted by mainstream science:



As an aside, Alex Fillipenko rocks. He's an excellent teacher who obviously loves what he does.I bought his Astronomy course from The Learning Company (96 lectures on 16 DVDs!) - excellent course and well worth the cost (when it's on sale, not the regular "retail" price).
BroncoLifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:01 AM.


Denver Broncos