Moons: their origin, age, & recession

Yeah, when in doubt, ask someone wedded to your own cult for an unbiased answer And this guy is a professor of physics??? Does he even understand what generates the lunar recession? It's not the Earth-Lunar tidal forces, but the Earth's actual tides. The tidal bulges do not align with the Earth-Lunar axis, and this non-alignment creates an acceleration to the Moon in its orbit, which lifts it to a higher orbit. This process is highly dependent on the tidal bulges, their size, and their rotational period. And he uses a constant 'k' in his diff equation To calculate past recession rates you need to know the tidal rotational period at the very least, even after making some reasonable assumptions about the tidal mass being similar. Guess what? When we look at the evidence, we see faster tides (shorter days) and slower recessional rates. Oh big surprise He was probably too busy choking on his laughter while calling for security...

Well, given that I explained it in my post, I would have thought you could have answered that yourself What we do realise is that neither you nor your good professor have any real clue as to the process behind the recession of the Moon. No, as the Moon recedes and the Earth's spin slows, they will eventually tidally lock. As for that's effect on life, I'm sure we'll cope. What the hell has this to do with evolution? You really don't have a clue, do you But can we at least agree that your opening post is highly erroneous and the recession of the Moon is not a problem for the stanadard geological time-scale for the Earth-Moon system?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Err, lunar regression - that thing we have been talking about - the Moon slowly spiralling outwards in its orbit - we don't know the origin of this process??? Err, hello, tidal force, tidal bulges, and all that... What has the origin of the Moon to do with its recession? Why are you changing topic? It's not You can begin by admitting that your opening post was full of fallacious nonsense and has been successfully refuted.Can we at least agree that your opening post is highly erroneous and the recession of the Moon is not a problem for the stanadard geological time-scale for the Earth-Moon system?

"We better get inside - they mostly come out at night... mostly"Rebecca 'Newt' Jordan (July 26, 2179)

Of course not - given Io's proximity, Jupiter exerts massive tidal forces on it that tear its interior to pulp - hence volcanism.Next?

Apart from four tiny moons, Io is the closest to Jupiter. The water should give you a clue - tidal heating is what causes it to be water and not ice. And why would ice be an issue?

What??? I soundly refute your entire opening post, and you say my posts are of no interest to you? Wouldn't it be great in real science if we could just ignore those that claim to have refuted out own work You need to grow up, mate.Now, how about that retraction of your opening post. Interested parties are waiting...

No, I'm not Why would I pretend? Your own stupid equations in your opening post accept that the reason for the recession is tidal forces. Were you pretending? Why would I need to do that?

The exception to what?

Is being hundreds of thousands of miles from those planets a problem? Is that too far but say 10,000 miles would be ok? What is the issue here? Err, 1) the history of recorded science is a single blink of the eye wrt the history of the Solar System so why should we have observed this?, 2) the Solar System is now a very quiet place compared to its early life and so we do not expect to see such captures. Why would capture have to involve passing the Roche limit? Do we need one? Because they were captured that way?
Because collisions have left them orbiting that way? Not really surprising as Evolutionists work on Evolution, where-as astronomers and astrophysicists work on the dyanamics of the Solar System. Don't worry, you'll get there eventually.

really? you think physicists cannot calculate orbital decay mechanics, but can land a probe on Titan You wouldn't recognise correct physics if it fell on your head And the justification for using this value of k for any time other than now is...??? we're waiting...

Science begins with hypothesis.Why would debris/rock not be capable of being gravitationally bound into a moon? What do you think could prevent this?If moons are captured, why could they not be captured into retrograde orbits?Why could a sufficiently large collision not lead to a retrograde orbit?These are fine hypotheses which we can explore (as many have done and we can go dig out the papers if necessary) so why are you raising these hypotheses as major issues?

You would have thought so, wouldn't you... Not if you want to apply your calculations to earlier times, as has been explained.If you dispute this, please explain how your calculations take into account the varying time-period of the tidal bulge?

Why are these such a problem for you? They aren't for planetary scientists...I have never seen such a desperate need for gaps into which you can squeeze your deity...

No, we love it. It's hilarious watching you revel in your own ineptitude