Ravenstar Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 I would think that the Yarkovsky effect is quite pertinent at the subatomic level but not as much at the macro.. yup, i think I get it. Would this not be related to the Heisenberg Principle (which i translate into laymanese as "the act of observing a particle affects the particle) but on a larger scale? It's all about the effect of photons on matter, right? (Yarkovsky would be Newtonian physics, Heisenberg—Quantum) Basically it's a dishonest and incorrect interpretation of physics to try to support their stupid hypotheses—which relies on the ignorance of the audience in physics.. especially astrophysics. Forgive my lack of scientific understanding... I do try to comprehend it honestly, the best i can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I would think that the Yarkovsky effect is quite pertinent at the subatomic level but not as much at the macro.. yup, i think I get it. Would this not be related to the Heisenberg Principle (which i translate into laymanese as "the act of observing a particle affects the particle) but on a larger scale? It's all about the effect of photons on matter, right? (Yarkovsky would be Newtonian physics, Heisenberg—Quantum) Basically it's a dishonest and incorrect interpretation of physics to try to support their stupid hypotheses—which relies on the ignorance of the audience in physics.. especially astrophysics. Forgive my lack of scientific understanding... I do try to comprehend it honestly, the best i can. Not a problem Raven. To answer your questions. "I would think that the Yarkovsky effect is quite pertinent at the subatomic level but not as much at the macro." Please read about how the Yarkovsky effect can move multi billion-ton asteroids. That's very much a macroscopic effect. One photon impacting an asteroid has very little heating effect. Trillions of photons continuously impacting the sunlit side of the asteroid over millions of years builds up to a very great heating effect. This uneven heating of the whole asteroid causes it to re-radiate this heat energy in an uneven fashion. That, combined with the zero friction of the deep space vacuum, is what moves these mountains thru space. "Would this not be related to the Heisenberg Principle (which i translate into laymanese as "the act of observing a particle affects the particle) but on a larger scale? It's all about the effect of photons on matter, right? (Yarkovsky would be Newtonian physics, Heisenberg—Quantum)" Yes and no. Quantum physics provides the in-depth explanation for the individual events (the photons interracting with matter), but Yarkovsky died in 1902, three years before Einstein's annus mirablis of 1905. http://en.wikipedia....ovich_Yarkovsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein (Please scroll down about 1/3 of the page) So, by definition, Yarkovsky's work is considered to be Classical (pre-Einstein) Physics. And, Yes, that website is nothing but a dishonest, incorrect and half-arsed attempt to say Goddidit! Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 Thanks 1 photon... millions of photons... although I will never understand the math I can see how heat energy from photons (any energy really) would move asteroids. It's basic cause and effect... and we know the cause (photons/radiation), and through math have figured out the effect. But!!!! He's an scientist with a Doctorate!!! (cough*engineer*cough) lol He is a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Here's an update for you, Ravenstar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_RQ36 1999 RQ36's orbit brings it uncomfortably close to Earth. After being discovered in 1999, it was targeted for radar ranging in 2005. This gave the astronomers enough data to calculate it's orbit with great accuracy. Their calculations covered a twelve -year period. When it returned in 2011, it was found to have deviated from it's projected path by 160km. That's in line with the Yarkovsky effect. Now, let's, for the sake of argument, apply these figures to the Creationist claims about asteroids being pushed out to the orbit of Mars, ok? In fact, let's cut them a bit of slack and double the value of the Yarkovsky effect. 1999 RQ36 deviated 160km in 12 years, which yields 13.333 km per year. Ok, let's be generous about this by rounding up and doubling this figure. Let's say that it's actually, 28 km per year. Now, multiply 28 by 6,000 and the result is 168,000 km. Oops! That's only a quarter of the distance to the Moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon But the average distance from Earth (where these bozos say the asteroids originated) to Mars is a minimum of 54,000,000 km. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon (See, Closest Approaches, Relative & Absolute) So, 54,000,000 divided by 168,000 yields 321.428. 'Nuther oopsie! The Yarkovsky effect, even when rounded up and doubled, can only move these asteroid 1/300th of the distance to Mars within the whole 6,000 year time frame the Creationists are using. Oh and let's not forget... they're not even using it are they? Nope. They're going with the Crookes Radiometer effect http://en.wikipedia....okes_radiometer which doesn't work in the vacuum of deep space! Smell something? BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts