Hey Hey Hey Calypsis4
Calypsis4 writes:
I made it clear from the get-go that I knew that the
accelaration rate of the moon's orbit changed in time.
First off we are talking about K:
where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year)... ....The present value of the recession rate is 4.4 0.6 cm/yr, or (4.4 0.6) x 10^—2 m/yr.
NOT the moons orbit......the moons rate of recession
We are talking about
Message 236Could you please point out in that post where you talk about the rate of the moons orbit? You do not. You mention K is a constant, but k is not what you are now claiming it is. Please explain?
Try searching that post for orbit and tell me what you get
What disturbs me about this debate is the nit-picking on this matter.
I am having difficulty believing that you really have a grasp on what your O.P. talks about....really.....
I can see only 2 possibilities here(Please someone correct me if I am wrong):
1. You have pulled this information from elsewhere and do not fully understand it. Perhaps a book like your living fossils stuff.
2. You are intentionally trying to deceive by confusing K with acceleration rate of the moon's orbit.
Either way you got some explaining to do.
Calypsis in regards to moon rocks writes:
As done by those who had already concluded the long age time span before they ever set their eyes on the rocks. All of the dating methods are based upon certain assumptions. That's the problem with them.
The truth is there, that the critics don't care. They wish to save their ridiculous theory no matter what it takes.
It is hard for me to take you seriously when you want me to take old observations of volcanism on the moon as superlative and radiometric dating as biased because their results must adhere to a biological theory of evolution.