Universal flood: why would the crust switch with the water below?

Home Forums General Discussion Universal flood: why would the crust switch with the water below?

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20709
    John Brown
    Participant

    Have a question. The world flood model suggests a comet slowed the earth’s spin for a temporary period as it zoomed past, reducing the centrifugal forces acting on the crust. As the crust moved back toward the center of earth’s gravity, it forced water out of the earth’s deeper layers (I believe you’re suggesting the mantle and maybe outer core).

    Here’s the question: if the centrifugal forces were lessened, they would have been lessened for material in the mantle as well, right? So why wouldn’t the mantle, including the water there, move toward the core as well and keep its same position relative to the crust? What’s the explanation for the crust and water below it switching places when the same force is acting on them?

    #20717
    Courtney SnellCourtney Snell
    Moderator

    This is a great question that the book does not entirely explain. This one subject of the mechanism that caused the crust to sink, like so many other individual subjects discussed in the book, could easily employ the space of an entire chapter if one were to add detail to the process. An attempt will be made here to shorten that explanation, but still present the necessary components.

    There are multiple forces involved in the process including gravity and centrifugal force. Gravity pulls things toward the center of an object and the centrifugal force from the spinning object pulls things away from the center of the object. The component that adds to the ability of continents to float on the surface of the underground oceans is displacement. Much like a very large ship made of steel can float on the ocean.

    All of these components, and others, were in perfect balance before the comet flyby and are now again today. A fourth component came into play as the unbalancing process began which is the answer to your question and it is a simple matter of density. The crust is more dense than water. When the crust sunk, it displaced the less dense water. We use the analogy of a bucket of water swinging in a circle over our head; the water stays in the bottom of the bucket. Drop a rock in the bucket of water and it sinks to the bottom, under the water because it is denser than the water. The bucket analogy demonstrates centrifugal force well, but the force of gravity is a little harder to see, although it is absolutely there and exerts a greater force on a higher density object when the equilibrium changes.

    To put it another way, the water, crust, and everything else all basically slowed at the same rate. The reason the crust sunk was its density in relation to the water beneath it. Centrifugal and gravitational forces affect objects differently based on their density.

    #21136
    John Brown
    Participant

    If this is true, then why are there currently any oceans at all? Why wouldn’t the denser matter underneath them right now not sink to the bottom of the bucket and displace them?

    Do you have a formula that relates gravity and these centrifugal forces and allow someone to see or plot this?

    #21300
    Courtney SnellCourtney Snell
    Moderator

    We do not yet know what the complete specific structure is throughout the entire center of the Earth. Science has confirmed that there are liquids and solids within and we know approximately where they reside in relation to each other. We also know that the crust is floating on that liquid. As for the forces that allow that to happen, among other things like surface tension, the displacement of the floating crust overcomes the gravitational pull of gravity on it. If it had a lower displacement value, as in our rock example, it may very well sink and your suggestion of an Earth that had only oceans on its outer side might then be reality. However, we also don’t know if there is additional solid structure under-girding parts of the crust in a supporting role as well. There is obviously much for Millennial Science to discover about the interior of the Earth. We envision that the UM will give you and others the basic information to further the research through experimentation, observation and other scientific study methods described and used in the UM, as well as those methods yet to be found, to be able to find answers to more unanswered scientific inquiry.

    As to your question relating to a mathematical formula on gravity that would “allow someone to see or plot” the massive global wide event of the universal flood, there were far too many different activities going on during that time, including significant widespread hyprethermal activity, to attempt to explain even parts of the activity in mathematical terms. Even if that were possible, the UM wouldn’t then be a book that could target junior high through the first two years of college level work.

    We encourage you to continue your reading of the Universal Model and expect that you will find the answers to many as yet unanswered questions in your mind, as so many others have.

    #21336
    Rose Allred
    Participant

    I disagree with your statement. I think that you underestimate 11th grade coursework and definitely college level coursework. By 11th grade most students have long since begun pairing mathematics with science and by then formulas are a common aspect to scientific experiments. As lovely as your metaphors are, they just don’t hold up to the large concepts you are purporting and definitely don’t act as credible enough evidence to sway me from a traditional course for my home-schooled children. As of now this Universal Model seems more likely to stunt my children’s education by teaching them materials that may hinder them in college prep (especially considering how much of this goes against what will be asked on the ACT and SAT.)

    #21353
    Brooke MckayBrooke Mckay
    Moderator

    Rose you are correct, if you were to teach only UM principles and Models to your children and then send them to take the ACT or SAT tests you can most likely expect them to fail the science portions on those tests. If a child’s goal is to attend a university that requires good scores on either of these tests I would highly advise they receive education on the false theories that are being taught as fact in public schools today since questions about them will more than likely be what is on those tests.

    Personally, I feel that until these false theories being taught as fact are removed from education period I would teach and show the physical scientific evidences for both the modern science theories, there aren’t many, and the UM models so that they can decide for themselves and be prepared for all that the science world has to offer right now. Being a homeschool Mom myself, my desire has been to lead my children in their discovery of truth and show them how fun and exciting learning can be. It is not fun to learn false theories but if they want to know the difference between truth and error in science or be prepared for standardized tests to attend a university that teaches these concepts, then for sure they should learn the basics of what those that support these theories believe.

    It has been simple for my elementary age children when shown the evidences for let’s say a magma centered Earth verses a water centered one, which one makes more sense based on the observable scientific evidence available. I agree with you that some older kids, high school and up through college, are perfectly capable of understanding formula or math based science but the majority of the people in the world are not, and the UM was written in a way that hopefully the majority of the world will be able to comprehend the amazing simple discoveries found inside. It doesn’t take a college degree or even a high school degree to understand the truth in simple scientific concepts like how rocks are made, where the Earth gets its energy field, how auroras are made, how fossils are made, why the speed of light isn’t constant, why the sun is hotter in its outside corona than its surface, I could go on and on. 🙂 My point is yes, sending your kids out into a world, or into an exam, where scientific truth and error both exist before you have allowed them to see both sides, is a huge disservice to them.

    #30317
    cah84058@gmail.com
    Participant

    Answers to the original question are not very satisfying. I think you need to provide more convincing answers if you want to be taken seriously.

    Charles Hart

    BS Physics BYU 1975, MBA Harvard 1979. Now retired.

    #30318
    cah84058@gmail.com
    Participant

    Answers to the original question are not very satisfying. I think you need to provide more convincing answers if you want to be taken seriously.

    Charles Hart

    BS Physics BYU 1975, MBA Harvard 1979. Now retired.

    Update: What I would really like to see is the force equations acting on the water and crust during the comet flyby.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.