Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moons: their origin, age, & recession
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 181 of 222 (528738)
10-06-2009 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 7:32 PM


Re: Nope
Let's see if the whiz kid professor knows as much about physics as he says he does:
Speaking of the moon; what is the gravitational force necessary to keep the moon in orbit around the earth in the first place? The moon has a mass of 7.349 x 10^22 kg. Its mean distance from the earth is 384,000 km. It completes one revolution in 27 days, 7 hrs, and 43 min.
This is a classic textbook problem that I gave to my students a few yrs ago before I retired. The answer should be in Newtons.
I'll check back tomorrow and see if there is an answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 7:32 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by hooah212002, posted 10-06-2009 7:44 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 187 by lyx2no, posted 10-06-2009 8:47 PM Calypsis4 has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 182 of 222 (528739)
10-06-2009 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 7:40 PM


A horse named Gish
.....and it's galloping away at an ever alarming trate.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 7:40 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 183 of 222 (528740)
10-06-2009 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by slevesque
10-06-2009 5:41 PM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
I think they do adress the possibility that k is not constant:
Then you quoted the article I made available to them:
"In this view, it is therefore ‘necessary to make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration’.54 This is tantamount to saying that the proportionality constant k in equations (1) and (2) is actually variable,55 and must be adjusted to bring lunar chronology in line with that of the earth.56 The extremely speculative nature of such an adjustment was emphasized by Mignard who said, ‘even if we have sound reasons to accept a substantial reduction of the dissipation in the past, we are still lacking evidence of what the Moon’s orbit looked like 3 or 4 billion years ago’."
slavesque, they had access to this information but they don't care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by slevesque, posted 10-06-2009 5:41 PM slevesque has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 184 of 222 (528745)
10-06-2009 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 6:13 PM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
Do you even bother proofreading your own posts?
'yelled different results'
Not when I'm in a rush...my bad, but I'll leave 'yelled' instead of 'yield' if it bothers you even in the slightest.
However, getting back to the subject at hand, do you concede that DeYoung's conclusion (1.4 B year old moon) is wrong?
I'd like to continue to bring to your attention the fact that you still haven't shown WHY DeYoung considers k a constant. Will you ever address that? No matter, I'll exhaust this entire thread repeating that you're being evasive.
What disturbs me about this debate is the nit-picking on this matter.
Are you fuck'n serious? You just nit-picked the spelling of one word in my post and have the stones to tell others they're nit-picking?
On top of that I have repeatedly brought out direct observational evidence (i.e. William Herschel and his fellow astronomers, et al) that reported volcanic activity on the moon and there is extensive sightings that are just being brushed aside as if it is all of no importance.
Well that's because it's OFF-TOPIC. Not to mention wrong, see Volcanos on the moon.
As done by those who had already concluded the long age time span before they ever set their eyes on the rocks. All of the dating methods are based upon certain assumptions. That's the problem with them.
The truth is there, that the critics don't care. They wish to save their ridiculous theory no matter what it takes.
Save the conspiracy theories for someone who cares (even though I'm a big fan of them).
You have been shown the evidence, now man-up and admit you're wrong. Or defend your position with some substantial evidence, not one guys conclusion (DeYoung) and another guys testimony (William Herschel).
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 6:13 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:26 PM onifre has not replied

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4614 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


(1)
Message 185 of 222 (528746)
10-06-2009 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 6:13 PM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
Hey Hey Hey Calypsis4
Calypsis4 writes:
I made it clear from the get-go that I knew that the accelaration rate of the moon's orbit changed in time.
First off we are talking about K:
where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year)... ....The present value of the recession rate is 4.4 0.6 cm/yr, or (4.4 0.6) x 10^—2 m/yr.
NOT the moons orbit......the moons rate of recession
We are talking about Message 236
Could you please point out in that post where you talk about the rate of the moons orbit? You do not. You mention K is a constant, but k is not what you are now claiming it is. Please explain?
Try searching that post for orbit and tell me what you get
What disturbs me about this debate is the nit-picking on this matter.
I am having difficulty believing that you really have a grasp on what your O.P. talks about....really.....
I can see only 2 possibilities here(Please someone correct me if I am wrong):
1. You have pulled this information from elsewhere and do not fully understand it. Perhaps a book like your living fossils stuff.
2. You are intentionally trying to deceive by confusing K with acceleration rate of the moon's orbit.
Either way you got some explaining to do.
Calypsis in regards to moon rocks writes:
As done by those who had already concluded the long age time span before they ever set their eyes on the rocks. All of the dating methods are based upon certain assumptions. That's the problem with them.
The truth is there, that the critics don't care. They wish to save their ridiculous theory no matter what it takes.
It is hard for me to take you seriously when you want me to take old observations of volcanism on the moon as superlative and radiometric dating as biased because their results must adhere to a biological theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 6:13 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 186 of 222 (528751)
10-06-2009 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 11:53 AM


Re: empirical
I would kindly suggest you look up the definition of 'empirical investigation'.
I'm glad you agree that not seeing something is irrelevant to the discussion over whether that something happened, and that instead evidence of those things happening can be studied instead.
That was my point.
Have a nice day.
You too. If you feel like answering why you think the fact that "No one has EVER observed a moon being captured by a planet, & no one has ever seen a moon develop in orbit around a planet since the days of Galileo until now." is of any importance to this discussion, I'll be waiting...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:53 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 187 of 222 (528753)
10-06-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 7:40 PM


Re: Nope
Speaking of the moon; what is the gravitational force necessary to keep the moon in orbit around the earth in the first place? The moon has a mass of 7.349 x 10^22 kg. Its mean distance from the earth is 384,000 km. It completes one revolution in 27 days, 7 hrs, and 43 min.
Using your figures, 2 1020N. That's by a 15 year old boy in less then 3 minutes. Is that's your idea of a physics challenge?
Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling and grammar.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 7:40 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:23 PM lyx2no has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 188 of 222 (528777)
10-06-2009 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Coyote
10-06-2009 5:11 PM


Re: More preaching
Aren't you on the wrong section of this website? Preaching goes in the Faith section.
Stop preaching to me about this.
You see, it works both ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2009 5:11 PM Coyote has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 189 of 222 (528779)
10-06-2009 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by lyx2no
10-06-2009 8:47 PM


Re: Nope
Using your figures, 2 1020N. That's by a 15 year old boy in less then 3 minutes. Is that's your idea of a physics challenge?
Good for him. Now maybe he can work out the formula in the topic post and see that the moon is not 4.5 billion yrs old or anything close to it.
For those that are interested: Dr. Don DeYoung discusses this matter before a large crowd on this video clip:
Our Created Moon Jan 1, 2006 | Answers in Genesis
Part 2 is the section that concerns the topic at hand. I hope those of you that watch it will view the whole thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by lyx2no, posted 10-06-2009 8:47 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by slevesque, posted 10-06-2009 11:58 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 190 of 222 (528780)
10-06-2009 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by onifre
10-06-2009 8:04 PM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
Are you fuck'n serious?
I don't know how you are getting away with things like this but you will now join the ranks of the non-existent.
Bye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 8:04 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:14 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 191 of 222 (528787)
10-06-2009 11:46 PM


For the record - Hooah212002 and Onifre have been "suspended" from this topic
See here and upthread.
Also see here and upthread.
A topic specific "suspension" is not an available option. The closest available is a forum wide "suspension".
Certainly, other admins may lift these "suspensions" earlier, but I see doing it after this topic is completed and closed.
There has also been a good supply of dubious behavior from others in this topic. If you realize that you are another topic "problem", you might consider a self imposed suspension.
Be nice. Post messages of substance.
Adminnemooseus

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 192 of 222 (528791)
10-06-2009 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 11:23 PM


Re: Nope
I don't want to listen to the whole video, could you give the exact time he talks about this ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:23 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:34 AM slevesque has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 193 of 222 (528795)
10-07-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4
10-05-2009 10:32 PM


A few years ago I got into a heated debate with an astronomer from Princeton about the supposed 4.6 billion yr age of earths moon. I stated that I felt the figure was an error because mathmatically, when one considers the 4 cm per yr recession of the moons orbit around the earth then if one computes the time frame then the moon would have been touching the earth about 1.7 billion yrs ago.
The professor found what he thought was an error in my math ...
To summarize. You made a silly mistake about a subject that you know nothing about, namely astronomy.
You showed it to a guy who does know something about astronomy, namely a professor of astronomy.
He pointed out your mistake.
You are angry about this.
Have I missed something, or is that it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 10-05-2009 10:32 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 194 of 222 (528797)
10-07-2009 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 11:26 PM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
Some concluding remarks about the matter:
The focus of the dissension in the matter is on the constant k. But I never insisted that k is absolute or never changes.
The skeptics don't like our conclusions but they look to other assumptions to make things turn out nicely for evolution. But in their minds the 4.6 billion yr figure must be saved at all cost. They maintain that k is not a constant after all and that maybe continental distribution somehow changed tidal breaking in the oceans.
But does this fix things for them? We need to understand that a different distribution brings no certainty that k would be smaller and if hypothetically it were larger the difficulty increases many fold. But k has to be substantially smaller for their idea to work and the 4.6 billion yr rescued.
Interesting that research on tidal rhythmites seem to be consistent with k as it concerns geologic time. Quote: "The tidal rhythmites in the Proterozoic Big Cottonwood Formation (Utah, United States), the Neoproterozoic Elatina Formation of the Flinders Range (southern Australia), and the Lower Pennsylvanian Pottsville Formation (Alabama, United States) and Mansfield Formation (Indiana, United States) indicate that the rate of retreat of the lunar orbit is d/dt k2 sin(2) (where is the Earth-moon radius vector, k2 is the tidal Love number, and is the tidal lag angle) and that this rate has been approximately constant since the late Precambrian." Source: C.P. Sonett, E.P. Kvale, A. Zakharian, M.A. Chan, and T.M. Demko, Late Proterozoic and Paleozoic Tides, Retreat of the Moon, and Rotation of the Earth, Science 273 (1996): p. 100—104.
This will undoubtedly go right over the heads of my opponents but it is extremely significant in this argument.
The formulas that seem to favor a 4.6 billion yr age are unrealistic. That coupled with the direct eyewitness testimony of the dozens of observers to volcanic activity on the lunar surface (be sure and view the entire DeYoung video!) is stunning. It is being overlooked but it is one of the biggest reasons why I reject the 4.6 billion yr age for the moon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:26 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Izanagi, posted 10-07-2009 12:32 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2009 12:33 AM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 200 by Izanagi, posted 10-07-2009 12:52 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 203 by Kitsune, posted 10-07-2009 3:16 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2009 4:12 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(1)
Message 195 of 222 (528803)
10-07-2009 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:14 AM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
They maintain that k is not a constant after all and that maybe continental distribution somehow changed tidal breaking in the oceans.
Not somehow. Hansen produced two models by which he showed that having a single continent does in fact change the tidal dissipation. Tidal dissipation mostly occurs in shallow seas. A single continent has less beach area, and less shallow sea area, which means that tidal dissipation would be lower than what it is now.
So if Hansen could prove a single continent Earth in history, then everything falls neatly into place.
And lo and behold, we do have evidence of a single continent Earth. One is the way South America and Africa seemed to fit together. And interestingly enough, the mid-Atlantic Ridge also roughly corresponds to the shape. That is only some of the observable evidence and certainly some that we can see with our own eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:14 AM Calypsis4 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