Moons: their origin, age, & recession

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-2Now don't pester me with that useless question again because the issues are addressed in full by those who wrote the articles!

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)

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!

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 CollegeShow some personal initiative and stop bellyaching at me over something you should already know!

The primary cause of lunar recession is the tides of the earth’s oceans.49,50 Friction between ocean water and the earth causes the earth to lose rotation energy and therefore angular momentum. Momentum conservation requires that the moon gain angular momentum in an equal degree, so the moon accelerates in its orbit, with a resulting recession from the earth.51 Analysis of astronomical and historical evidence dating back 2,700 years to Babylonian civilization shows that the day has lengthened by an average of 1.7 milliseconds per century, consistent with the earth’s slowing rotation rate.50,52As Mignard has observed, unless the moon had a slower recession rate in the past than it does now, the moon’s age is only 1.3 Ga, the maximum age computed above. He continues,‘Such a time scale has now been proved to be unrealistic. what is wrong in the computation of the time scale and how can it be corrected? The solution to this problem is thought to be a reduced rate of dissipation of [tidal] energy in the past .’53In this view, it is therefore ‘necessary to make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration’.54 This is tantamount to saying that the proportionality constant k in equations (1) and (2) is actually variable,55 and must be adjusted to bring lunar chronology in line with that of the earth.56 The extremely speculative nature of such an adjustment was emphasized by Mignard who said, ‘even if we have sound reasons to accept a substantial reduction of the dissipation in the past, we are still lacking evidence of what the Moon’s orbit looked like 3 or 4 billion years ago’.57Slichter, one of the earliest investigators to suggest a slower rate of terrestrial energy dissipation in the distant past, remarked that if ‘for unknown reasons’ this occurred, the dilemma of lunar chronology would be resolved,58 and Goldreich searched for possible causes.59 Lambeck concluded,

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.

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.

What disturbs me about this debate is the nit-picking on this matter.

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.

Calypsis4 writes: Once again; I did. I made my summation early this morning.Have a nice day.