Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1066 of 1482 (841521)
10-14-2018 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1061 by ICANT
10-13-2018 5:13 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:
Well it is your story but I would have my T bar in my truck.
In the story, you don't have a truck. Don't read things into the story.
ICANT writes:
A cube would be interchangeable by changing its position but try that with your kitchen cabinets and you will have a funny looking set of cabinets.
Not at all. If I say I want a cabinet 12 inches deep, most people will know what I mean. If I say I want a cabinet 36 inches high, most people will know what I mean. If I say I want a cabinet 6 feet long or 6 feet wide, most people will know that width and length are interchangeable in that context.
If I say I want a patio 30 feet wide and 6 feet deep, most people are going to want clarification.
ICANT writes:
In building if the bottom of the foundation is 75 feet below the surface of the sitem that 75' is included in the height of the building.
No it isn't. The height is usually determined from ground level up. Similarly, the height of a flagpole doesn't include the depth of the foundation.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1061 by ICANT, posted 10-13-2018 5:13 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1067 of 1482 (841527)
10-14-2018 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1063 by ringo
10-14-2018 2:25 PM


Re: Creation
"Revelation 11:2a-3b
They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. ...And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days
Divide 1,260 days by 42 months and you will get a 30-day month. Twelve months of 30 days equals 360-days in a year. What is the meaning of this divine number in contrast with the fact that we know the time required for the earth to circle the sun is approximately 365.25 days?
When 1,260 Days = a time, times and half a time
In the Book of Revelation
Revelation 12:6
The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days
Revelation 12:14
The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach
In verse 6 above, the time given is 1,260 days. But in verse 14, the time given is described as a time, times and half a time. This is most often interpreted as 3 and one-half years or 42 months. So verses 6 and 14 as noted above yield a 30-day month. Twelve months of 30 days equals 360-days in a prophetic year. The answer is that the Bible has been written with a "PROPHETIC YEAR" defined as 360 days in length. This is only applied to biblical prophecy. And it is important that to attain the 360-day year, you must let the Bible interpret the Bible.
When 1,260 Days = a time, times and half a time
In the Book of Daniel
Daniel 7:25
He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time
Daniel 12:7
The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a time"
In both Daniel 7:25 and Daniel 12:7, the time given is described as "a time, times and half a time." This is most often interpreted as 3 and one-half years or 42 months. When the prophecy of the 70-weeks is interpreted using the 360-day prophetic year, divine guidance appears to be revealed in human events from ancient history into the 21st century. In each 42-month period foretold, the earth is to be directed by unrestrained evil. The 360-day year makes for a good relationship between the books of Daniel and Revelation.
Genesis Supports the 360 Days per Year
Based on the book of Genesis, the calendar at the time of Noah consisted of 12 months of 30 days. At the beginning of the flood, the water came forth on the 17th of the month. Five months later on the 17th day of the month, the book of Genesis reveals that 150 days had passed. Dividing 150 days by 5 months supports that the early calendar contained 12 months of 30 days length. Therefore, the book of Genesis supports the 360 days per year calculation. Here are the supporting Scriptures.
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened
Genesis 8:3
The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days (150 days)the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month (5 months later)the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat
Since the book of Genesis is attributed to Moses by conservative scholars, it is credible that the 360 days per year was in use at the time of Moses."
From 3rd link I posted...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1063 by ringo, posted 10-14-2018 2:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1068 by ringo, posted 10-14-2018 3:52 PM creation has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1068 of 1482 (841531)
10-14-2018 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1067 by creation
10-14-2018 3:35 PM


Re: Creation
Thanks for making an effort. This is more like the way we operate around here.
creation writes:
"Revelation 11:2a-3b
They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. ...And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days
Divide 1,260 days by 42 months and you will get a 30-day month. Twelve months of 30 days equals 360-days in a year. What is the meaning of this divine number in contrast with the fact that we know the time required for the earth to circle the sun is approximately 365.25 days?
Two problems with this one. First, it's not about the actual length of a physical year. Second, it's about the future, not the past.
creation writes:
Daniel 7:25
He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time
Daniel 12:7
The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a time"
In both Daniel 7:25 and Daniel 12:7, the time given is described as "a time, times and half a time." This is most often interpreted as 3 and one-half years or 42 months. When the prophecy of the 70-weeks is interpreted using the 360-day prophetic year, divine guidance appears to be revealed in human events from ancient history into the 21st century. In each 42-month period foretold, the earth is to be directed by unrestrained evil. The 360-day year makes for a good relationship between the books of Daniel and Revelation.
Again, we're talking about an actual physical year, not a made-up "prophetic year".
creation writes:
Genesis Supports the 360 Days per Year
Based on the book of Genesis, the calendar at the time of Noah consisted of 12 months of 30 days. At the beginning of the flood, the water came forth on the 17th of the month. Five months later on the 17th day of the month, the book of Genesis reveals that 150 days had passed. Dividing 150 days by 5 months supports that the early calendar contained 12 months of 30 days length. Therefore, the book of Genesis supports the 360 days per year calculation. Here are the supporting Scriptures.
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened
Genesis 8:3
The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days (150 days)the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month (5 months later)the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat
So the calendar that they used was inaccurate. The Julian calendar that was in use until a few centuries ago was also inaccurate. Even the Gregorian calendar that we use today needs to be adjusted every once in a while.
The calendar is an attempt to codify the actual physical year. It has nothing to do with the actual length of a physical year.
I'm asking for evidence that the actual physical year was 360 days at any time in the past.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1067 by creation, posted 10-14-2018 3:35 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1069 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2018 1:59 AM ringo has replied
 Message 1074 by creation, posted 10-18-2018 9:04 AM ringo has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1069 of 1482 (841594)
10-16-2018 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1068 by ringo
10-14-2018 3:52 PM


Re: Creation
Hi ringo,
ringo writes:
The calendar is an attempt to codify the actual physical year. It has nothing to do with the actual length of a physical year.
I'm asking for evidence that the actual physical year was 360 days at any time in the past.
The calendar does not arrange any laws or rules into a systematic code.
Mankind does that
There is no evidence of a actual physical year of 360 days in the distant past. Just like there is no evidence of a actual physical year of 365.25 days in the distant past.
If there was a very long period of light as the cmbr suggests and the Hebrew text of the Bible suggests there was a duration of indefinite existence that light existed without an interruption of darkness.
So called Bible Scholars try to tell me the universe is only 6k years old. Because they refuse to believe what the Bible says.
The Bible does not teach, state or can be used to prove any such 6k claim.
No one knows when the beginning was not even our best scientist.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1068 by ringo, posted 10-14-2018 3:52 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1070 by ringo, posted 10-16-2018 11:46 AM ICANT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1070 of 1482 (841604)
10-16-2018 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1069 by ICANT
10-16-2018 1:59 AM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:
There is no evidence of a actual physical year of 360 days in the distant past. Just like there is no evidence of a actual physical year of 365.25 days in the distant past.
We have ways of measuring the length of a year. We have ways of determining how much the length of a year changes with time. If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to adjust our clocks and calendars to keep in step with the cosmos.
There could not have been a large change in the length of a year without some correspondingly large physical force to change the earth's rotational speed - and that would definitely have left evidence. No evidence of a major change is equivalent to evidence of no change.
ICANT writes:
... the Hebrew text of the Bible suggests there was a duration of indefinite existence that light existed without an interruption of darkness.
No it doesn't.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1069 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2018 1:59 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1096 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2018 2:42 PM ringo has replied

  
Aussie
Member
Posts: 275
From: FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006


(2)
Message 1071 of 1482 (841606)
10-16-2018 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1058 by ICANT
10-13-2018 4:43 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT... You are living up to your EVC name here. People are begging you to learn and you are consistently responding "ICANT."
Are you telling me that red stuff that I got on my hands today when I put ink in my printer was just wavelengths of light?
I used gasoline and lacquer thinner trying to get those light wavelengths off and I still have red stains on my hands.
How do I get them off?
YES ICANT! YES! Red is all about wavelengths of light! The pigment in the printer ink that spilled onto your hand absorbed all the short and medium length wavelengths (Violet/Green) of light that we can see with our eyes. The only wavelengths of light it couldn't absorb were the longer ones. Those long wavelengths were reflected back to a certain type of photosensitive cell in your retina called "cones." This triggered a chemical reaction that resulted in an electrical impulse being sent to your brain that recognized that pigment was reflecting "Red" wavelengths. This is the same reason that sunset is also red. Color vision is simply our brain discriminating varying wavelengths of light reflecting onto our retina.
This is high school level knowledge "ICANT." I typed this information from memory, without "Googling." You are seriously writing a book, and it covers scientific information?
Change your name to ICAN and try to catch up on basic knowledge. It's sadly clear you are not getting any scientific knowledge by revelation.
Edited by Aussie, : changes rods to cones

"...heck is a small price to pay for the truth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1058 by ICANT, posted 10-13-2018 4:43 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1095 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2018 2:29 PM Aussie has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1072 of 1482 (841609)
10-16-2018 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1058 by ICANT
10-13-2018 4:43 PM


Re: Creation
Are you telling me that red stuff that I got on my hands today when I put ink in my printer was just wavelengths of light?
I used gasoline and lacquer thinner trying to get those light wavelengths off and I still have red stains on my hands.
As ringo said what you got on your hands was stuff that reflected the red wavelengths of light. Color is just light, what color you see is dependent on what wavelengths are reflected back at you. Think of what happens if you shine an ultraviolet light on something, it will change color from what it was when it was exposed to white light. it is reflecting back some of the wavelengths of the ultraviolet light.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1058 by ICANT, posted 10-13-2018 4:43 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1073 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-16-2018 3:11 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1073 of 1482 (841610)
10-16-2018 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1072 by DrJones*
10-16-2018 2:23 PM


Re: Creation
Think of what happens if you shine an ultraviolet light on something, it will change color from what it was when it was exposed to white light. it is reflecting back some of the wavelengths of the ultraviolet light.
The shift in color we see when certain substances are exposed to ultraviolet light is fluorescence rather than reflection.
from Wikipedia:
quote:
Fluorescence is the emission of light by a substance that has absorbed light or other electromagnetic radiation. It is a form of luminescence. In most cases, the emitted light has a longer wavelength, and therefore lower energy, than the absorbed radiation. The most striking example of fluorescence occurs when the absorbed radiation is in the ultraviolet region of the spectrum, and thus invisible to the human eye, while the emitted light is in the visible region, which gives the fluorescent substance a distinct color that can be seen only when exposed to UV light. Fluorescent materials cease to glow nearly immediately when the radiation source stops, unlike phosphorescent materials, which continue to emit light for some time after.
A few years ago I was camped in SE Arizona with friends and we were using UV lights to attract insects. We could see many scorpions running around because they glowed (fluoresced) bright bluish green. We were bent over watching one large scorpion when it suddenly reached up and grabbed a moth out of the air that had been attracted to our blacklight.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1072 by DrJones*, posted 10-16-2018 2:23 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1074 of 1482 (841662)
10-18-2018 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1068 by ringo
10-14-2018 3:52 PM


Re: Creation
You are not in a position to say the calendar God used in Gen was not accurate for that day. A prophetic year is basically a real year in the future. It is also the way God counts time here, since it was that way and will again be that way one day. Hope you didn't think the 365 day year was here for long.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1068 by ringo, posted 10-14-2018 3:52 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1075 by ringo, posted 10-18-2018 11:43 AM creation has replied
 Message 1099 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2018 4:00 PM creation has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1075 of 1482 (841670)
10-18-2018 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1074 by creation
10-18-2018 9:04 AM


Re: Creation
creation writes:
You are not in a position to say the calendar God used in Gen was not accurate for that day.
Nobody said anything about a calendar that God used. We're talking about the calendar used by the people who wrote the Bible. An YOU are not in any position to claim that that calendar was accurate.
creation writes:
A prophetic year is basically a real year in the future.
But we're talking about the past.
creation writes:
It is also the way God counts time here, since it was that way and will again be that way one day.
You don't know how God counts time. You might as well make pronouncements about what the Easter Bunny thinks.
creation writes:
Hope you didn't think the 365 day year was here for long.
We have no reason to think that the length of a day was much different at any time during history or that it will change much while humans are still around.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1074 by creation, posted 10-18-2018 9:04 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1076 by creation, posted 10-19-2018 9:16 AM ringo has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1076 of 1482 (841685)
10-19-2018 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1075 by ringo
10-18-2018 11:43 AM


Re: Creation
Or you in any position to claim they were wrong about hen and the future. You are a denizen of the present only.
Both the future and the past have 360 day years It is also the year used for prophesy.
We do know how God counts time, because He gave us Scripture which was verified true by Jesus.
I have every reason to know it will change for humans. Just as we know lions will eat grass. You have no reason to doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1075 by ringo, posted 10-18-2018 11:43 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1077 by ringo, posted 10-19-2018 12:08 PM creation has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1077 of 1482 (841697)
10-19-2018 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1076 by creation
10-19-2018 9:16 AM


Re: Creation
creation writes:
Both the future and the past have 360 day years
We have no reason to think that that is true. The length of the year depends on the rate of the earth's rotation. If the length of a year changed from 360 days to 365 days, there would have to have been some major force to change the rate of rotation. That force would have left evidence. It didn't. So it's reasonable to conclude that the change didn't happen.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1076 by creation, posted 10-19-2018 9:16 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1078 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2018 1:56 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1081 by creation, posted 10-21-2018 9:19 AM ringo has replied
 Message 1100 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2018 4:04 PM ringo has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1078 of 1482 (841701)
10-19-2018 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1077 by ringo
10-19-2018 12:08 PM


Re: Creation
We have no reason to think that that is true. The length of the year depends on the rate of the earth's rotation. If the length of a year changed from 360 days to 365 days, there would have to have been some major force to change the rate of rotation. That force would have left evidence. It didn't. So it's reasonable to conclude that the change didn't happen.
I already explained it creation 11 days ago (Message 810 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1), but he refuses to learn anything:
DWise1 writes:
The year has never ever been 360 days long, but it will be some time in the future. The earth's rotation is slowing down on the whole, currently at an average rate of about 2 milliseconds per day per century. Hence the earth had a more rapid rotation in the past and will have a slower rotation in the future. A more rapid rotation would mean more days in a year, not fewer as you just claimed; eg, around 400 million years ago there would have been about 400 days in each year as verified by the varves in Devonian fossil coral reefs.
So then you are correct that the year has not changed from 360 days to 365 days. Though it has changed from 400 days to 365.2425 days over a period of about 400 million years.
The length of the year depends on the rate of the earth's rotation.
Let me correct that to make it clear: "The length of the year measured in the number of days in the year depends on the rate of the earth's rotation."
The actual length of the year (31,556,925.216 seconds in the tropical year) does not change, but rather it is the changing length of the day that causes there to be a different number of days in the year.
To see the effect of the slowing of the earth's rotation over historical time, let's take that rate of 2ms/day/century back 10,000 years into pre-history. 10,000 years is 100 centuries, so the length of a day 10,000 years ago would have been only a fifth of a second (200ms = 0.2 sec) shorter. That would translate to the length of the year having been 365.2433 days 10,000 years ago. Practically no difference.
To reiterate: The number of days in a year has never ever been 360, but rather that will happen some time in the future when the length of the day is 87658.13 seconds. Since that is 1258.13 seconds longer, dividing by the rate of 2ms/day/century yields 629,065 centuries = 62,906,500 years. So we will have to wait about 63 million years into the future before the year will be 360 days long.
Refer to my page on the false creationist "leap second" claim created (and apparently abandoned) by Walter Brown: DWISE1'S CREATION / EVOLUTION PAGE: Earth's Rotation is Slowing.
Edited by dwise1, : Removed embedded newline from my page's title
Edited by dwise1, : Corrected the length of the tropical year in seconds, which was off by 0.76 seconds. Sorry about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1077 by ringo, posted 10-19-2018 12:08 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1079 by Stile, posted 10-19-2018 2:19 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 1101 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2018 4:15 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1079 of 1482 (841704)
10-19-2018 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1078 by dwise1
10-19-2018 1:56 PM


Re: Creation
dwise1 writes:
Let me correct that to make it clear: "The length of the year measured in the number of days in the year depends on the rate of the earth's rotation."
Thanks... I needed that.
So, because the earth was spinning faster on it's own axis (regardless of how long it takes to travel around the sun)... this means the length of the year when measured in "days" or "the number of full revolutions the earth makes while spinning on it's own axis" was "more days" in the past.
And the earth's rotation on it's own axis is slowing simply because everything slows - friction. The earth is not a perpetual motion machine, it has to slow down.
Okay, I get that.
But what about this part:
The actual length of the year (31,556,925.9747 seconds in the tropical year) does not change...
Is this meant along the lines of "in the context of this discussion..." or as an absolute statement?
It's just... if that's an absolute statement... wouldn't that make the earth's rotation around the sun a perpetual motion machine?
I would assume that this value, as well, would actually be increasing.
That is... the earth's velocity around the sun is decreasing (ever so slightly) and therefore, the amount of time it takes to go around the sun is increasing.
Just like the moon is slowly moving further away from earth (due to friction) - so is the earth moving further away from the sun (due to friction).
I do admit it may certainly well be increasing incredibly insignificantly... and quite possibly so insignificantly that it has no effect on the "number of days in a year" decreasing context.
But, in an absolute sense, this value is increasing as well, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1078 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2018 1:56 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1080 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2018 3:46 PM Stile has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1080 of 1482 (841705)
10-19-2018 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1079 by Stile
10-19-2018 2:19 PM


Re: Creation
I discuss a lot of that on my page about Walter Brown's leap-second claim: DWISE1'S CREATION / EVOLUTION PAGE: Earth's Rotation is Slowing.
Basically, leading up to 1900 astronomers suspected that the earth's rotation was not constant so they made many precise observations and by 1920 had confirmed their suspicion. Since seconds were defined as a division of a day, if the length of a day was changing then so would the length of a second. Since so many formulae in physics and astronomy depend on the length of a second being constant, they had a major problem on their hands.
To make a long story short, astronomers used those precise observations to arrive at the length of a second as 1/86400-th of a day in 1900 (though defined as a fraction of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time) and thus established the "ephemeris second" in 1956. Around that time, physicists were working on atomic clocks, which they calibrated using the ephemeris second, ending up with the "atomic second" which is virtually identical to the ephemeris second in length. In 1967 the atomic second was adopted as the international standard second (SI second), which was adopted for the new Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) which replaced GMT.
While administering UTC, the "Time Lords" (International Bureau of Time (BIH), US Naval Observatory (USNO), and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)) tried different schemes to keep UTC in sync with noon of the mean solar day. They finally settled on adding a "leap second" to UTC when necessary, which ended up being about every 18 months since by that time each day was about 2 ms longer than the standard day from 1900.
Leap seconds is something that I worked with professionally for about 20 years, since it is an integral part of GPS and we worked with GPS receivers. In 1979, Walter Brown published his false claim based on his misunderstanding of what leap seconds are, resulting in him assuming a rate of deceleration of the earth's rotation hundreds of times to great. That claim was refuted within a few years, but creationists continue to use it even when its falsehood is explained to them (which elevates them from being just plain wrong to being deliberate liars).
Is this meant along the lines of "in the context of this discussion..." or as an absolute statement?
First, I may have grabbed the wrong figure. The ephemeris second is defined as the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time. Wikipedia defines the current mean tropical year as 365.24219 days of 86400 SI seconds, which is 31,556,925.216 SI seconds. That differs from my statement by 0.759 SI seconds. Not off by much, but I will go back and correct my message.
It's just... if that's an absolute statement... wouldn't that make the earth's rotation around the sun a perpetual motion machine?
In the classic two-body problem, I guess it would be. However, there are external forces at work which change the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, but to my knowledge they would not change its period, so AFAIK the period of the earth's orbit should remain constant. If we have an astronomer or astrophysicist on staff then he/she should chime in on this.
There's another factor, which is that the sun's mass is diminishing at a rate of 4 to 5 million tonnes per second, which would cause the sun's gravity to diminish proportionally and the size of the earth's orbit to increase which should affect the period of the orbit, increasing it I would think. However, the mass lost over the past 4.5 billion (109) years the total mass lost was just a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's total mass, so its gravity has diminished by just a few hundredths of one percent, which has resulted in the earth's orbital radius increasing by less than 100,000 miles (my own estimates place that figure at about 66,000 miles). All that said, within the human timescale that should make the earth's orbital period a constant value for all practical purposes.
I would assume that this value, as well, would actually be increasing.
That is... the earth's velocity around the sun is decreasing (ever so slightly) and therefore, the amount of time it takes to go around the sun is increasing.
Just like the moon is slowly moving further away from earth (due to friction) - so is the earth moving further away from the sun (due to friction).
I don't see how you arrive at that. Just exactly what would the earth be rubbing against in its orbit around the sun to cause such friction? Also, according to orbital mechanics if the earth were to be slowing down in its orbit it would drop to ever lower orbits, sending it spiraling into the sun. That has not happened, last I've heard.
Tidal forces and other factors cause the earth's rotation to increase or decrease, with decreasing being dominant (eg, tidal forces which accelerate the moon in its orbit). That has an effect on how long it takes for the earth to make one rotation on its axis, but not on how long it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun.
Stating the length of a year in days which are changing only makes it appear the period of the earth's orbit is changing. That is just an illusion. Measure the length of the year in units that are constant, such as SI seconds which are based on cesium-131, and you should see no change in the length of the year ... outside of miniscule changes due to solar mass loss and perturbations which have nothing to do with the earth's rate of rotation.
BTW, we constantly monitor and measure the earth's rotation -- the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS).
... the earth's velocity around the sun is decreasing ...
This warrants further discussion.
Actually, the earth's velocity around the sun is changing all the time, first decreasing for half a year and then increasing the other half. Every actual solar day (ie, noon to noon with "noon" being when the sun is on the meridian as measured by the sundial or the solar observatory) is of different length one day after the other.
That is because of the dynamics (or the kinematics?) of the earth's elliptical orbit as described in Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion in which the orbiting body sweeps out equal areas in equal times. When the earth is closer to the sun, its orbital velocity is greater and it moves farther along its orbit. When the earth is farther away from the sun, its orbital velocity is less and it doesn't move as far.
How does that affect the length of the solar day? The earth completes one rotation in one sidereal day, but it has also moved about one degree along its orbit so it must continue to rotate by that much in order for the sun to again cross the meridian -- on average, a sidereal day is about four minutes shorter than a solar day (if you divide 360° by 24 hours, that comes to four minutes of time per one degree of rotation). However, since the distance the earth travels along its orbit changes day after day depending on how far the earth is from the sun (which is constantly changing in an elliptical orbit), then that changes the angle traversed which in turn changes how much longer the earth needs to rotate to finally hit solar noon.
This daily variation of the solar day is well known and well studied and gives us the equation of time, a graph that you will find on the higher quality sundials. This variation also leads to the definition of the mean solar day -- at the top of that page is a graphic showing the difference between sidereal and solar days that I described above.
Again, I discuss all this on my page, DWISE1'S CREATION / EVOLUTION PAGE: Earth's Rotation is Slowing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1079 by Stile, posted 10-19-2018 2:19 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1082 by creation, posted 10-21-2018 9:28 AM dwise1 has replied
 Message 1092 by Stile, posted 10-22-2018 10:06 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024