|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moons: their origin, age, & recession | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4644 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined:
|
Hello Calypsis4
Calpsis4 writes: You aren't telling the truth. I answered the question more than once but it is ignored. I not only explained it myself but I pointed the readers to the experts who developed the formula. Here is yet another: http://www.answersingenesis.org/art.../age-of-the-universe-2 Now don't pester me with that useless question again because the issues are addressed in full by those who wrote the articles! That site does not explain why k is a constant ... ....it assumes k is a constant AIG writes: 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) Could you please, as everyone here has now asked. Why is k a constant? Will it continue to be a constant in...100 years...1000 years...10000 years? Thanks,Joe p.s. Since this the 2nd thread you have brought up that you taught 26 years of science, why dont you indulge us and tell us what kind of profiency scores you got on your PRAXIS II tests. Double-Thanks,Joe (prospective integrated science ed teacher)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined:
|
In the past, the moon would have been closer to the earth, and so its gravitationnal pull on the water would have been greater, meaning there would have been greater friction between the earth and the ocean, meaning that, given the same earth then as now, the moon would have actually receded faster in the past.
No... it just means more friction would've have been produced which means that more energy would have been transferred to the moon in the past than now. But that energy would be used to overcome the inertia of shifting it into a ever higher orbit. The lower you are to an object's center of gravity, the more energy that is required to move to a higher orbit. That's why it is harder to move 1000 feet away from the center of earth's gravity from sea level than it is to move 1000 feet away from the center of earth's gravity from 50000 miles above the earth. Which means that the closer the moon was to the earth, the faster it would need to orbit to move it to a higher orbit.
Because of the complex interaction of forces, energy is being created
That might be a poor choice of words. A better choice might be "the energy released from the friction of the ocean floor against the ocean." My apologies for my poor choice of words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5243 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Decent video that addresses your little jpeg game Watched it. Pure theory and nothing more. Anyone who believes that nonsense has a real problem with reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 64 Joined:
|
In the past, the moon would have been closer to the earth, and so its gravitationnal pull on the water would have been greater, meaning there would have been greater friction between the earth and the ocean, meaning that, given the same earth then as now, the moon would have actually receded faster in the past. Really? When I increase the pull upward on something resting on my floor, it LESSENS the friction that has to be overcome to move it and keep it moving. Please show that this worked in the opposite manner in the past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined:
|
I can show you part of it but you won't accept it.
Don't presume to know what I will or will not accept. I accept explanations that are reasoned and logical and are supported by evidence. And I am quite capable of conceding an argument if it turns out my view has flaws in it or an alternative explanation is better than my current one.
2. Stong nuclear force. It is literally God's Almighty power holding all things together. ('upholding all things by the word of His power' Hebrews 1;3).
Give observable evidence of this.
3. The Word of God. Jesus Christ, the most truthful person who ever lived, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6.
Give observable evidence of this.
1. (this part will have to be shown off EvC. Can't do it here.)
You have observable evidence of the formation of the moons? Why is it that you can't show 1.? What's so special about 1. that you can't show it as observable evidence of your claim that God created the moon and put it into orbit around the earth? What I am doing is setting your own standard for science against your own beliefs. I am being fair and objective. If you set a standard for me, it is only fair I set the same standard for you. So show me your observed evidence that God created the moon and placed it in orbit around the earth and let me judge for myself what I will or will not accept.
How did the moon develop by natural processes into what it is now? How did ANY of the moons or planets that they orbit develop by slow and gradual means. Do you have an observation for such a thing?
I have already explained how. Read my post again and open your mind to it. The only person who has shown themselves unwilling to listen to any argument is you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Your [Calypsis'] way of thinking is hopelessly useless to those of us that expect logic and reason in our arguments. It sounds to me that you are trying to say religion has all the answers, but that we must be willing to take it all on "faith". Hogwash.
I'm waiting for the threads on geocentrism, a flat earth, and the demonic theory of disease. When one gets this far out on the fringe they can't be far behind. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
No... it just means more friction would've have been produced which means that more energy would have been transferred to the moon in the past than now. But that energy would be used to overcome the inertia of shifting it into a ever higher orbit. The lower you are to an object's center of gravity, the more energy that is required to move to a higher orbit. That's why it is harder to move 1000 feet away from the center of earth's gravity from sea level than it is to move 1000 feet away from the center of earth's gravity from 50000 miles above the earth. Which means that the closer the moon was to the earth, the faster it would need to orbit to move it to a higher orbit. Ok, I may not be able to explain it adequatly in english, but this is not the issue. What you said is of course true, but it does not apply to the moon which is in orbit. Their is no 'outward' force on the moon making it receed from the earth, in fact the absence of such a force means that it is continuously 'falling down' back on earth, but well since it is in orbit and so this is not readily apparent or intuitive. it is about the conservation of angular momentum, since the earth is loosing some, the moon must be gaining some. More angular momentum means it moves faster around the earth, whichin turn makes it have a higher orbit. Which means it has a higher orbit. I guess you could represent it as if the watr buldge is constantly 'pulling' on the moon and accelerating it. This is why the recession speed would have been greater in the past. Deyoung's calculations are correct, and his comprehension of the phenomenon is also correct (as is said in the very link you gave me). The whole issue depends on if k has been constant or not. PS If it isn't clear, I would guess cavediver could explain it better then me. I speak french and have only two months of university physics lol. He speaks english and has a PhD (I think ... ??) in physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Why not? Is it making them all uncomfortble? No, we love it. It's hilarious watching you revel in your own ineptitude
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5243 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Why is k a constant? Good grief, the intellectual ability on this thread wouldn't fill a thimble. Give documentated data that the 4 cm/yr regression was different in the distant past. Point: I am not saying that it wasn't different but the explanations for it have been given! Did you even bother to read the extensive articles I provided in previous posts? Call Don DeYoung and talk to him. You can get in touch with him through Grace College: Grace College a Christian College in Indiana - Grace College Show some personal initiative and stop bellyaching at me over something you should already know!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Stong nuclear force. It is literally God's Almighty power holding all things together. oh this is too much... so the SU(3) of chromodynamics is your god's power holding everything together. SU(2) electroweak then is satan's attempt at a mockery? And gravitation? Is that the holy spirit? And you say you understand physics...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Here's to hope you have done classical mechanics a bit, cause it'll be easier to explain. What you said is of coure true, but can't be applied this way to this problem.
This is the image from the talkorigins website. Put a coordinate axie x/y on the water buldge on top. We see that the gravitational pull (B) of the moon in the x direction (Bcos(angle)) has to be be countered by the friction force F in the opposite direction in order for the buldge to be in equilibrium. If the force B is higher (as was in the past) then the friction also must be higher for the buldge to be in equilibrium.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
I'll give you my name instead. I find it very childish of you to react like that. Looks like you ain't got a name to me.
It's Gijs Goertz, by the way. Do your worst with it. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5243 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Your [Calypsis'] way of thinking is hopelessly useless to those of us that expect logic and reason in our arguments. It sounds to me that you are trying to say religion has all the answers, but that we must be willing to take it all on "faith". Hogwash. My reply to that: hogwash. The logic and reason went out the window when you and your comrades accepted an accidental world/universe that just happened all by itself and that life arose on this planet by blind natural processes even though there isn't a single example revealing that nature can do such a thing. So nature has never been observed creating planets or moons, or even a single living cell (outside of existing DNA coded cells) but you believe it any way. Again, I say, 'hogwash'. So much for empirical investigation. Do you have any other fairy tales you would like to tell us about? Edited by Calypsis4, : addition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5243 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
I find it very childish of you to react like that. Looks like you ain't got a name to me. It's Gijs Goertz, by the way. Do your worst with it. Why should I? And why should it matter who I am? We are supposed to be dealing with the topic, not personalities. You forgot that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Good grief, the intellectual ability on this thread wouldn't fill a thimble. And your apparent lack of integrity and honesty seem to be pretty damning of your so called christianty. You have no ability to address the criticisms levelled at your ideas, yet you have no grace to back down and accept that you are woefully outmatched here. Even a fellow creationist is having to pull you up on your "contributions". Oh dear...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024