Himalayas, quater

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

So, this model of mine is not necessary for Creationism in detail, all that is wanted is, Mount Everest and Himalayas, but also mountains as low as Urals or Pyrenees* did not exist in pre-Flood times. Or at least not Pyrenees**.

However, I wanted to check for how long Himalayas and Mount Everest can have risen as fast as 850 times the present speed.

Could it have gone on up to Younger Dryas, just before Babel in my model? That would be up to 350 after the Flood? No. Not if it started rising in the Flood year with that speed. Unless there really was a time when mountains were indeed higher and more pointed and Tolkien was right on that one:

350 years * 51.8555 meters per year = rise to 18 149.425 m, more than twice the actual height of Mount Everest.

So, I'll settle for just hundred years, instead (and remember this is just a model, it could be wrong in detail, but it serves to give an idea of the initial fast and the later slow of the rise:

51.8555 meters per year * 100 years = 5 185.55 meters (about φ times present height).

8850 - 5 185.55 = 3 664.45 m. In 4877 years, 0.751 m per year. (I'm rounding figures for you, but using unrounded ones into the calculator online).

0.751 / 0.061 = 12.323

12.323² = 151.845 times as fast as now = 9.259 m per year.

If medium the first hundred years was 51.8555, we need to square its ratio to this limit to get initial speed.***

51.8555 / 9.259 = 5.601 times as fast.

5.601² = 31.367 times as fast.

31.367 * 9.259 m/y = 290.425 meters per year.

(290.425 - 9.259)/100 = 2.812 m/y slower each year.

Between that point and the present, the slowing down was slower:

(9.259 - 0.061)/4877 = 0.001886 m = 1.886 mm/y slower each year.

So, that's the model. Where is it most likely to be wrong? Perhaps in being really slower than the start during Younger Dryas which seems to have been a very turbid period. Also, it is possible that in pre-Flood times India was not attached to Tibet and so the time it took to move India to colliding with Tibet where Himalayas are would need to take place before the rapid rise started.

I am not a scientist, but I have here made some real groundwork for creation scientists who want to study post-Flood origeny. I'll actually as Matthew Hunt about the viscosity needed for a 290 meter rise per year at Himalayas not to shell shock all earth with uninterrupted 10 + on the Richter scale. He'll know about viscosity and fluids and stuff ....

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Friday of Pentecost Novena°
29.V.2020

PS - second thought : with the winds up at 8850 m, Mount Everest can't have a very thick snow cap, can it?

* Citing wiki in Pyrenees : Reaching a height of 3,404 metres (11,168 ft) altitude at the peak of Aneto, it extends for about 491 km (305 mi) from its union with Cantabrian Mountains to the Mediterranean Sea (Cap de Creus).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrenees

** Urals have a lower highest point: The Ural Mountains extend about 2,500 km (1,600 mi) from the Kara Sea to the Kazakh Steppe along the border of Kazakhstan. Vaygach Island and the island of Novaya Zemlya form a further continuation of the chain on the north. Geographically this range marks the northern part of the border between the continents of Europe and Asia. Its highest peak is Mount Narodnaya, approximately 1,895 m (6,217 ft) in elevation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Mountains

Could be this too is too high, could be it isn't for Flood waters to have covered it and now be in Oceans and atmosphere. I haven't checked.

*** Or a rought approach to it.

° Second one, a week ago was also in the novena.