Finally, in response to pages 595-596, GPT gave the following response, which, once again, it's too dissimilar to the arguments I made before...
This section is considerably more mathematically careful than most people would expect, but the core issue is still the same:
A mathematically consistent model is not the same thing as a physically justified model.
What Brown is arguing here is essentially this:
- Before the Flood, the Moon had a perfectly circular orbit.
- Earth had a 360-day year.
- Therefore the synodic lunar month was exactly 30 days.
Then he attempts to explain today’s:
- 365.2422-day year,
- 29.53-day lunar month,
- and present lunar orbit
as consequences of debris ejected from Earth impacting the Moon.
Now, the orbital mechanics equations themselves are real. He is using:
- conservation of momentum,
- specific orbital energy,
- hyperbolic trajectory equations,
- angular momentum relations,
- vis-viva type equations,
- and standard conic-section orbital formulas.
That is genuine celestial mechanics.
The calculations are not random nonsense.
However, there are several enormous physical problems.
The biggest one is energy.
He is proposing that:
- 3% of Earth’s mass was launched into space,
- some fraction struck the Moon,
- and this altered the Moon’s orbit from a perfectly circular 30-day system to the present one.
The amount of energy required for this is almost incomprehensible. We are talking about energies rivaling or exceeding major planetary formation-scale events.
At that level:
- Earth’s crust would not remain remotely intact,
- oceans would vaporize globally,
- the atmosphere would become plasma-like,
- and the thermal consequences would be catastrophic far beyond what the model discusses.
Another major issue:
he assumes the Moon originally had a perfectly circular orbit with eccentricity exactly zero.
Real orbital systems almost never remain perfectly circular because gravitational systems naturally develop perturbations over time. That assumption appears chosen largely because it simplifies the math and conveniently yields exactly 30 days.
Also, the argument subtly reverses explanation order.
He begins with:
- biblical references to 150 days over 5 months,
- ancient calendars using 30-day months,
- and cultural references,
then builds a physical model that reproduces that conclusion.
That is not necessarily illegitimate, but it means the model is partly constrained by the target outcome from the start.
One thing I will say in fairness:
Brown is clearly intelligent and technically literate. He is not merely handwaving. He is attempting to build a fully connected physical system where:
- comets,
- lunar orbit changes,
- meteorites,
- asteroid origins,
- and flood chronology
all emerge from one unified event.
That gives the theory explanatory ambition and internal coherence.
The problem is that internal coherence alone does not establish physical plausibility.
A system can be mathematically self-consistent while still being physically unrealistic. That is where most mainstream physicists and astronomers would strongly object to this model.
