Moons: their origin, age, & recession

You went to a creationist website and saw some stuff... You didn't need to phone him, his argument is old and has been heard many times before. He presents another model... big deal.You're not breaking new ground here, Calypsis.The biggest issue here is, we've been to the moon. We have lunar samples. Geophysicists have determined the age of the samples to be over 4 Billion years old, just like they do here on Earth.So you can speculate all you want about inverse ratios, the fact is we have the rocks and they've been dated. The rest of Young's argument (I mean really 1.4 Billion -vs- 4 billion...? Who gives a shit...?) only entertains creationist looking for something, anything, as a point for them. If you read other sources that explain that the tidal dissipation was smaller in the past (something still only speculated) you can see how Young's result aren't accurate.But you don't have to, you can argue for Young's position all you want - the fact remains, the rocks have been dated, case closed on the age of the moon issue. Interesting that this story is probably a complete lie, even though I found it a fun read.Any professor would calmly explain it to you, unless you were acting like an ass about it. The rocks have been date, the rest is speculation about tidal forces and things like that. It's an old tired argument, like a geocentric solar system. Young should review his work again and see why no one else gets his same results.Unless...you don't think...could there be a conspiracy???- Oni

Seems like someone doesn't like to play well with others.You're whole post is assuming a inverse 6th power ratio, no other physicist concludes the same as Young... so who's really giving opinions here, Calypsis?Are we to believe ONE physicist over THE REST OF THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY...? What was that argument about Einstein that you gave cavediver in your other thread...?Stay consistent! ...to annoy the shit out of me. Well, if they had said the UNIVERSE then you'd be right. Luckly for us, they didn't. They said the lunar samples, and earth as well.The universe is a bit older.- Oni

I'll be patiently waiting, because I am under the assumtion that neither a file or the name of the person who 'documented it' exist. Oh you're gone alright.Anyway, Calypsis, I'm totally willing to accept that Young is right. But you haven't explained why he's right and not the others. Why is there a concensus on the age of the moon (that happens to be the same as the dating of the lunar samples; all the numbers match) that is different from Youngs?Why is Young right and everyone else wrong?Again, all you did was show another model. Nothing ground breaking, new models for all sorts of things spring up from time to time. But they must hold up to scrutny, and thus far the concensus is against Young. Why do you think he's right?- Oni

No you haven't. You've seen nothing of the sort, HOWEVER, this thread is about Young and his shitty equations. So can you deal with the topic YOU started?- Oni

Yes, love to. Can you explain why Young's equation are right yet do not match any others? Why is he right? Please explain...- Oni

Evolutionist??? What are you talking about? This is a discussion on planetary formation, what does evolution have to do with it? You're on the wrong thread, dude.You do understand that evolutionary biologist have no formula for planetary formation, right? And I'll repeat my original question, as cavediver has requested as well, why the constant (k)...? You have yet to answer this...Just answer where (k) comes from so we can continue from there.Why do you keep evading this question?- Oni

...have nothing to do with planetary formation. Why do you keep bringing this up?- Oni

Yes. What's you're point? Thank you, but again, WHY does DeYoung feel it's a constant when there is a concensus that it is NOT a constant?Again I'll ask, WHY does DeYoung present it as a constant?What's his reason for it being a constant when it is understood that it is NOT a constant?DeYoung is assume that the rate has always been 4 cm/year... Why is that...?The way I understand it, the further the moon moves away from the earth the more constant its recession seems to become, but it wasn't always at that rate, nor is the rate constant. Now, where am I wrong - and why is DeYoung's assumtion right? Please explain...That's the evidence I've been asking for, will you continue to evade that question?Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

No you haven't supplied any information that explains WHY k is considered a constant.Lets take a look at your links to see IF ANY explains why (k) is a constant.Starting with your OP Message 1 (no link given) k is simply considered a constant and not explained as to why...Moving forward.From Message 71: *Note: Still no reason for k being a constant.In Message 121 you give this link: Creation.com/moon recessionFrom that link:

quote:

---

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.36—38 Therefore, k = 1.42 x 1050 m7/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.

---

*Note: Again, k is simply assumed to be a constant, and no reason given as to why.In Message 135 you give this link: AiGFrom that link:

quote:

---

The constant k can be found using the current measured rate of lunar recession: 3.8 cm/year. Thus, k = r6dr/dt = (384,401km)6 x (.000038km/year) = 1.2 x 1029 km7/year. The lunar recession equation is then solved for the extreme case (the upper limit on age of the moon):

---

*Note: Yet again, k is simply assumed to be a constant, and no reason given as to why.Finally, in Message 144, which is the post I'm responding to, you say you give links that explain it. Looking back at all your posts, which I have quoted, you can see that you haven't.Then, being the dishonest bitch that you seem to be, you give up and say: Is that your argument? To not explain what you're talking about, not deal with questions directly and then tell us to make a phone call? How fuck'n pathetic can you be?If you have any balls, deal with this question straight and honestly (which you haven't answered yet):From Message 79 which you didn't reply to:

quote:

---

WHY does DeYoung feel it's a constant when there is a concensus that it is NOT a constant?

​

Again I'll ask, WHY does DeYoung present it as a constant?

​

What's his reason for it being a constant when it is understood that it is NOT a constant?

​

DeYoung is assume that the rate has always been 4 cm/year... Why is that...?

​

The way I understand it, the further the moon moves away from the earth the more constant its recession seems to become, but it wasn't always at that rate, nor is the rate constant. Now, where am I wrong - and why is DeYoung's assumtion right? Please explain...

​

That's the evidence I've been asking for, will you continue to evade that question?

---

Stop being evasive and deal with your OP. This thread is not about observing moons forming, or any other nonsensical argument that you've spun off into (all off-topic).- Oni

Thanks, Slevesque. Which link did this come from? Not questioning you, but I failed to see it and would like to read it in-full.Any-whoo...the change in k would yelled a different result (different from DeYoung's model) and would therefore change DeYoung's conclusion. Further, we could then dismiss DeYoung's model as being merely his take on the moons age.This would lead any honest person to question DeYoung's age of the moon, if he did not, as the quote above states: "make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration."That was my only point, a point that shows that Calypsis' OP is wrong. Further proven wrong by the dates of the lunar rocks (that has repeated oh-so many times to, Calypsis).- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Thanks again, slevesque.This particular statement strikes me as a possible problem that can lead to further inconsistencies in any proposed model:

quote:

---

A globally open ocean would experience the least friction with land and would therefore dissipate energy at the lowest rate. Accordingly, investigators searched for continental configurations which would provide minimum resistance to the tides. Hansen proposed two models, one with a single polar continent and another with a single equatorial land mass. Piper and Webb proposed that the present continental arrangement on earth is abnormal and that one continent is normal. Bowden pointed out that ‘particularly the Americas which are strung from north to south across the path’ of the tides are responsible for a high energy dissipation rate.

​

Reconstructing ancient continental configurations is ‘exceedingly difficult’, yet attempts have continued to link plate tectonics with past oceanic energy dissipation. From a creationist perspective, doubts exist about whether plate tectonics has occurred in the conventional sense.

---

Seems like too many variables (in the creationist opinion) to be able to accept any model that doesn't agree with a 6000 year old universe/planet a priori.As it states in the link:

quote:

---

According to Genesis 1:14—18, God spoke the moon into existence as a unique celestial body on Day 4 of the Creation Week.

---

Once that is believed, nothing can be shown as evidence to sway someones opinion.- Oni

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. 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? Well that's because it's OFF-TOPIC. Not to mention wrong, see Volcanos on the moon. 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

I have been allowed one summation on this thread. So here it is.The OP states that the time frame of 4.5 Billion years is wrong, due to DeYoung's equation... And specifically because of DeYoung's equation.DeYoung's equation uses k as a constant. But if we can all agree (even Calypsis) that it wasn't always constant, then DeYoung's conclusion of 1.4 Billion years is wrong.We then foucs on other physicist equations and the concensus is 4.5 Billion (give or take a few weeks or so).That, coupled with lunar rock dating, which also matches the 4.5 Billion year time frame, leads any honest person to conclude that DeYoung's time frame of 1.4 billion years is wrong.The OP is shown to be wrong many times by many different souces.Peace out...- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.