Moons: their origin, age, & recession

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 and ridiculed me when I replied that his formula did not consider the very necessary factor of a change in recessional velocity because of the change in gravitational pull as the moon got further from earth. For the sake of those not adept in physics I posted something I felt at least some of the readers could grasp: the law of inverse varition r1/r2 = t2/t1. He scoffed at me and challenged me with the standard lunar recession formula among evolutionist astronomers):DF / DR = 2Gm1m2 / R3Quote: "DF / DR represents a change in the force (DF) with respect to a change in distance (DR). That variation in force, or tidal gradient, is what produces the distortion in the shape of both Earth and the moon."(talk/origins).But I knew that did not comport with reality because the moon's recession would be changed by the inverse square law as it receded further and further from earth. But 'the force of gravity changes with the square of the distance, such that if the distance is reduced by 1/2 the force of gravity increases by a factor of four'. (Creation/Wiki).I phoned Dr. Don DeYoung, the head of the physics dept. at Grace College in Indiana & asked his opinion about the matter and he told me that the evolutionist formula for lunar recession as far as the age of the moon is in error. Here is why:1. Since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance.So dR/dt = k/R^6,where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)^6 = 1.29x1050 m^7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf^7 Ri^7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = the Roche Limit, t = 1.37 x 10^9 years.2. It can be restated this way:'To compute the moon’s recession time to its present orbit, we first integrate equation (1). Over the time interval 0 to t, the moon’s distance from the earth increases from the Roche limit r0 to its present orbit at distance r:in which t is the maximum age of the earth-moon system. The present value of r is 3.844 x 10^8 m. For an object orbiting a planet, the Roche limit r0 is where R is the radius of the central body (the earth in this case); p(sub)m is the density of the central body; and m is the density of the orbiting body, in this case the moon. With R = 6.3781 x 10^6 m for the earth; p(sub)m = 5515 kg/m^3; and p(sub)m = 3340 kg/m^3, we find that r0 = 1.84 x 10^7 m. This is less than 5% of the moon’s current orbital radius.From equation (1), the proportionality constant k is the product of the sixth power of the distance r, and the current recession rate. The present value of the recession rate is 4.4 0.6 cm/yr, or (4.4 0.6) x 10^—2 m/yr. Therefore, k = 1.42 x 10^50 m^7/yr. With this value for k, the right hand side of equation 1 equals the present recession rate dr/dt, when r = the moon’s current orbital radius.From equation (2), the time for the moon to recede from r0 to r is 1.3 Ga. Without introducing tidal parameters, to be discussed below, this is the moon’s highest allowable evolutionary age.' The Astromony Book by Dr. Jonathan Henry.So the upper limit of the age of lunar recession for the moon in its recession from the earth is no more than 1.2 or 1.3 billion yrs ago.The Roche Limit (closest the moon could have ever been to the earth) was also taken into consideration because had the lunar body been any closer to earth than that it would have disintigrated. Actually, the earth and moon would have pulled each other apart.So the change in velocity over time is seen by this: So the velocity of lunar recession changes with the 6th power of the distance.George Darwin stated, ‘Thus, although the action [rate of lunar recession] may be insensibly slow now, it must have gone on with much greater rapidity when the moon was nearer to us.' Darwin, G., The Tides, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, pp. 278—286, 1898So the law of inverse variation DOES play a very important factor in determining how far back one can take the formula to determine the length of the time of lunar recession. The evolutionary time scale as it concerns the age of the moon is in error.Interesting that the last time I approached the Princeton astronomer with these facts he didn't attempt to refute it. Edited by Calypsis4, : change from 'an increase' to a 'change'.

Seventh graders? Say, fella, I've got this bridge I'd like to sell you.You show me a class of 7th grade students who can do college level physics.You just lost your credibility with me. Besides that, the math holds. Figure it out for yourself.

That's merely an opinion. No data. I have looked at both sides of the argument and the formula's involved. When it comes down to the actual step-by-step, DeYoung, Barnes, & Johnson et al got it right.

Dearest Hooah:I gave my sources but you accuse me of plagiarism. Hint: I taught science for 26 yrs including biology and physics.From now on you will be ignored. Don't bother. I won't even read it.

It was because of the NASA moon landings that we have accurate measurements of the lunar regression of 4 cm per yr. Our astronauts left mirrors on the lunar surface which reflect lasers back to earth for a high degree of accuracy.But there are many more reasons for us to reject the 4.6 billion yr age of the moon. Here is a big one: "A transient lunar phenomenon (TLP), or lunar transient phenomenon (LTP), is a short-lived light, color, or change in appearance on the lunar surface.Claims of short-lived phenomena go back at least 1,000 years, with some having been observed independently by multiple witnesses or reputable scientists. Nevertheless, the majority of transient lunar phenomenon reports are irreproducible and do not possess adequate control experiments that could be used to distinguish among alternative hypotheses. Few reports concerning these phenomena are ever published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and rightfully or wrongfully, the lunar scientific community rarely discusses these observations." Wikipedia.How typical of evolutionist believers! They can't stand it when others come up with facts that fly in the face of their intolerant views about age and dates. There is a plethora of evidences (as mentioned above) some of which were entered into public records and recorded by scientists of decades to centuries ago. Ignored by the 'scientific community'. Another reason why I have lost confidence in them...most of them.

Neither are you. You're just giving opinions. I am not interested.The Geophysicists who say the universe is 4.6 billion yrs old are in error. The facts speak otherwise. I have only just begun.Have a nice evening.

Still interested in buying that bridge I see.Look, you are losing this argument. You are only giving opinions. I don't care for your opinions. Really? Where are your facts? Shall we ignore the testimony of the hundreds of people who recorded seeing volcanic activity on the lunar surface? It appears to me that you are ignoring them just like your 'scientific' comrades are doing.But I intend to give a lot more evidence about the young age of the moon than I already have. Just tune in tomorrow; same time, same place.Bye.

You blew it again, pal. You don't read carefully.Quote: "From equation (1), the proportionality constant k is the product of the sixth power of the distance..."If you will check my documentation you will discover that it was Dr. Jonathan Henry that made that quote. Besides that, Dr. DeYoung told me that the '6th power of the distance' was not original with him. He gave me the name of the scientist who documented it. I am looking for that file. So far, that's the only point you've been right about. I should have said 'moon'.Sleep tight. I'm gone.

You need to do some reading. Evolutionist assumptions are that the moon has been a dead celestial object for nearly 3 billion yrs. But numerous sightings of volcanic activity strongly suggest otherwise.

Ditto what I told the previous poster.

"Shall we ignore the testimony of the hundreds of people who recorded seeing volcanic activity on the lunar surface?" That's plural: claims. There are many of them as indicated by the color points on the Lunar map: This reply just reinforces something we have observed in most adherents of evolution: you & those of your mind set won't receive evidence against your theory no matter what it is nor who the sources are.Quote: "Reports of transient lunar phenomena range from foggy patches to permanent changes of the lunar landscape. Cameron[1] classifies these as (1) gaseous, involving mists and other forms of obscuration, (2) reddish colorations, (3) green, blue or violet colorations, (4) brightenings, and (5) darkenings. Two extensive catalogs of transient lunar phenomena exist,[1][2] with the most recent tallying 2,254 events going back to the 6th century. Of the most reliable of these events, at least one-third come from the vicinity of the Aristarchus plateau.A few of the more famous historical events of transient phenomena include the following:On June 18, 1178, five or more monks from Canterbury reported an upheaval on the moon shortly after sunset. "There was a bright new moon, and as usual in that phase its horns were tilted toward the east; and suddenly the upper horn split in two. From the midpoint of this division a flaming torch sprang up, spewing out, over a considerable distance, fire, hot coals, and sparks. Meanwhile the body of the moon which was below writhed, as it were, in anxiety, and, to put it in the words of those who reported it to me and saw it with their own eyes, the moon throbbed like a wounded snake. Afterwards it resumed its proper state. This phenomenon was repeated a dozen times or more, the flame assuming various twisting shapes at random and then returning to normal. Then after these transformations the moon from horn to horn, that is along its whole length, took on a blackish appearance."[3][4] In 1976, Jack Hartung proposed that this described the formation of the Giordano Bruno crater.During the night of April 19, 1787, the famous British astronomer Sir William Herschel noticed three red glowing spots on the dark part of the moon.[5] He informed King George III and other astronomers of his observations. Herschel attributed the phenomena to erupting volcanoes and perceived the luminosity of the brightest of the three as greater than the brightness of a comet that had been discovered on April 10. His observations were made while an aurora borealis (northern lights) rippled above Padua, Italy.[6] Aurora activity that far south from the Arctic Circle was very rare. Padua's display and Herschel's observations had happened a few days before the sunspot number had peaked in May 1787.In 1866, the experienced lunar observer and mapmaker J. F. Julius Schmidt made the claim that Linn crater had changed its appearance. Based on drawings made earlier by J. H. Schrter, as well as personal observations and drawings made between 1841 and 1843, he stated that the crater "at the time of oblique illumination cannot at all be seen"[7] (his emphasis), whereas at high illumination, it was visible as a bright spot. Based on repeat observations, he further stated that "Linn can never be seen under any illumination as a crater of the normal type" and that "a local change has taken place." Today, Linn is visible as a normal young impact crater with a diameter of about 1.5 miles (2.4 km).On November 2, 1958, the Russian astronomer Nikolai A. Kozyrev observed an apparent half-hour "eruption" that took place on the central peak of Alphonsus crater using a 48-inch (122-cm) reflector telescope equipped with a spectrometer..."(Wikipedia)Just some of the enormous amount of evidence that the moon has been quite active and far from the dead orbiting object evolutionists say it is.This is all direct, observational evidence. But shall we just toss our what say, Wm. Herschel & his astronomer friends observed just because his findings disagree with your ridiculous assumptions of deadness?

I see. So I should have asked you instead. The one who believes the world/universe created itself and that life assembled itself by blind natural processes even though you've never seen a single example that nature can do such a thing.I believe I'll pass. The question is; 'do you know what the origin of lunar regression is in the first place'. By the way, since we know that if the moon continues to lose it's orbit around the earth then in several million yrs it will be too far away to effect the tides and life on earth as we know it will come to an end.Do you call that evolution?

The fallacy is yours. I have seen what God can do. So have many of my comrades.

You don't know the origin of lunar regression. No one does. There was no empirical investigation and no witnesses to the origin of the moon, unless one considers Jesus Christ, co-Creator with the Father at the creation.What you and those of your persuasion refuse to acknowledge: the moon could never have been closer than the Roche limit to the earth. If the capture theory is to be taken seriously (I don't) then the moon came at least close enough to be pushed off and away from the earth at an angle that put it in orbit.Please give the readers observational evidence that such a thing could happen. Good grief, you are living in la la land. How can one communicate with such a wishful thinker?

You aren't telling the truth. I documented every statement. Proof: You did not tell the truth in this matter and therefore you will be ignored.