Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 7 of 222 (528392)
10-06-2009 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4
10-05-2009 10:32 PM


So, it appears as though you have plucked some quotes and made them into your own post. Quite nice.
Now, do YOU understand any of it?
Secondly: did YOU personally contact these gentlemen? (the astronomer and Dr. Don Deyoung)
I'm sorry, but this whole post smells afoul of being plucked from somewhere else, passed of as your own work. IOTW, plagiarism.
for example:
...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.
ok, what all did you derive from his book? The whole post? Did you put it in your own words, understanding it? A quick google search shows me its a creation book, so I doubt the validity of it already. However, I am no physicist and I have been out of school for some time so i cannot check the math myself.
also
Quote: "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).
That's 2 improper acknowledgements right there. Where, exactly, did you gather this info from? (hint: a link works wonders)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 10-05-2009 10:32 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:02 AM hooah212002 has replied

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


(1)
Message 9 of 222 (528396)
10-06-2009 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 12:46 AM


Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds
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.
You do realize that is his signature and not a response to you, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 12:46 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 10 of 222 (528400)
10-06-2009 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 1:02 AM


The only line in your post that appears to be in your own words:
So 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.
Maybe I am mistaken, but you have formatted your post to appear as though YOU did this work:
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 phoned Dr. Don DeYoung, the head of the physics dept. at Grace College in Indiana.......
Then you just go on listing references to other peoples work or quotes other people said.
What is it you are trying to accomplish here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:02 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


Message 20 of 222 (528416)
10-06-2009 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 2:01 AM


Sleep tight. I'm gone.
So that's your M.O., eh? Just make a random ass post, don't back it up when questioned about it, then leave? How proffesional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 2:01 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 29 of 222 (528466)
10-06-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Larni
10-06-2009 8:50 AM


Re: More against the 4.6 billion yr age
That's very interesting!
When did this happen? I wads always told at school that the moon was a dead rock; can't these emissions eventually form an atmospher?
Why don't we get told about these things at school?
Because the evil evilutionist pseudo-scientists are hiding it in their lair, all the while propagating false evidence and lying to the public in order to amass their fortune shoving the lie that is evolution down our throats.
Even Nasa is lying about this phenomena.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 10-06-2009 8:50 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Larni, posted 10-06-2009 9:44 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 38 of 222 (528481)
10-06-2009 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 1:53 AM


Shall we ignore the testimony of the hundreds of people who recorded seeing volcanic activity on the lunar surface?
Maybe we should ignore Nasa? In all the years they have had telescopes and satellites watching the moon, no volcanic activity has been documented. The moon has been dormant for at least 2.5 billion years.
Who am I kidding, you don't believe the people who currently study the world and universe around us, you only believe what people claim to have seen centuries ago.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:53 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 41 of 222 (528489)
10-06-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by onifre
10-06-2009 9:46 AM


So can you deal with the topic YOU started?
That's a rhetorical question, yes? We all know this will turn into a Gish Gallop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 9:46 AM onifre has not replied

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


(1)
Message 50 of 222 (528504)
10-06-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:08 AM


But Jesus Christ did. I take His word seriously whether you do or not. But that is not the topic of this post
1: Keep your preachy faith shit out of the science section. Facts and evidence only please. Thank you.
Now comment on the historical sightings of volcanic activity on the moon. Comment on the active volcanic activity of such moons as Io. Why is the moon supposedly 'dead' of such activity while Io is even more volcanic than earth?
2: I, and practically every respondent have commented on your lack of knowledge regarding astronomy, you're just not reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:08 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


Message 51 of 222 (528505)
10-06-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 10:16 AM


Really? Then why is it that so many of Jupiters 62 moons have little or no such activity? Why is Europa covered with water/ice on most of its surface? The moons of Jupiter are so very different from one another...as if they were made that way.
So your whole tangent is insistent upon your belief that all moons in the universe be identical to ours? Please go read a book on astronomy. I hear Stephen Hawking knows a thing or two.
{ABE}News flash Captain Kirk: there is a hell of alot more matter flying about in the cosmos than plain old rock.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 10:16 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 178 of 222 (528734)
10-06-2009 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 6:13 PM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
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.
That's because it IS NOT important.
Please refer to Message 38 where I do address that. You should stop saying we are not addressing you and read the responses given.

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

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


(1)
Message 180 of 222 (528737)
10-06-2009 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 7:32 PM


Re: Nope
So not just the formula, but the evidence from history of the volcanic activity on the moon and also the lack of evidence for the evolutionary development of moons from scratch (er, excuse me, gases) and the fact that many moons are in retrograde motion contrary to the laws of physics doesn't phase those who are determined to believe in an accidental world/universe.
Ahh, the willful ignorance surely is astounding. There are no fucking active volcanoes on the moon. The moon was NOT MADE FROM GAS. You are like a 3 year old that keeps asking "why? Why? Why? Why? Can I get a toy? Can I get a toy? can I get a toy? Can I get a toy?" until you finally tell them what they want to hear to shut 'em up.
Why are you here?

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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024