Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 78 (9007 total)
 59 online now: anglagard, AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, Hyroglyphx, jar, PaulK (6 members, 53 visitors) Newest Member: Funkaloydb Post Volume: Total: 881,309 Year: 13,057/23,288 Month: 782/1,527 Week: 83/138 Day: 7/25 Hour: 2/2

 Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

EvC Forum Science Forums Big Bang and Cosmology

# Moons: their origin, age, & recession

Author Topic:   Moons: their origin, age, & recession
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009

 Message 1 of 222 (528360) 10-05-2009 10:32 PM

A few years ago I got into a heated debate with an astronomer from Princeton about the supposed 4.6 billion yr age of earths moon. I stated that I felt the figure was an error because mathmatically, when one considers the 4 cm per yr recession of the moons orbit around the earth then if one computes the time frame then the moon would have been touching the earth about 1.7 billion yrs ago.

The professor found what he thought was an error in my math and ridiculed me when I replied that his formula did not consider the very necessary factor of a change in recessional velocity because of the change in gravitational pull as the moon got further from earth. For the sake of those not adept in physics I posted something I felt at least some of the readers could grasp: the law of inverse varition r1/r2 = t2/t1. He scoffed at me and challenged me with the standard lunar recession formula among evolutionist astronomers):

DF / DR = 2Gm1m2 / R3

Quote: "DF / DR represents a change in the force (DF) with respect to a change in distance (DR). That variation in force, or tidal gradient, is what produces the distortion in the shape of both Earth and the moon."(talk/origins).

But I knew that did not comport with reality because the moon's recession would be changed by the inverse square law as it receded further and further from earth. But 'the force of gravity changes with the square of the distance, such that if the distance is reduced by 1/2 the force of gravity increases by a factor of four'. (Creation/Wiki).

I phoned Dr. Don DeYoung, the head of the physics dept. at Grace College in Indiana & asked his opinion about the matter and he told me that the evolutionist formula for lunar recession as far as the age of the moon is in error. Here is why:

1. Since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance.

So dR/dt = k/R^6,

where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)^6 = 1.29x1050 m^7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf^7 — Ri^7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = the Roche Limit, t = 1.37 x 10^9 years.

2. It can be restated this way:

'To compute the moon’s recession time to its present orbit, we first integrate equation (1). Over the time interval 0 to t, the moon’s distance from the earth increases from the Roche limit r0 to its present orbit at distance r:in which t is the maximum age of the earth-moon system. The present value of r is 3.844 x 10^8 m. For an object orbiting a planet, the Roche limit r0 is where R is the radius of the central body (the earth in this case); p(sub)m is the density of the central body; and ñm is the density of the orbiting body, in this case the moon. With R = 6.3781 x 10^6 m for the earth; p(sub)m = 5515 kg/m^3; and p(sub)m = 3340 kg/m^3, we find that r0 = 1.84 x 10^7 m. This is less than 5% of the moon’s current orbital radius.

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. Therefore, k = 1.42 x 10^50 m^7/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.

From equation (2), the time for the moon to recede from r0 to r is 1.3 Ga. Without introducing tidal parameters, to be discussed below, this is the moon’s highest allowable evolutionary age.' The Astromony Book by Dr. Jonathan Henry.

So the upper limit of the age of lunar recession for the moon in its recession from the earth is no more than 1.2 or 1.3 billion yrs ago.

The Roche Limit (closest the moon could have ever been to the earth) was also taken into consideration because had the lunar body been any closer to earth than that it would have disintigrated. Actually, the earth and moon would have pulled each other apart.

So the change in velocity over time is seen by this:

So the velocity of lunar recession changes with the 6th power of the distance.

George Darwin stated, ‘Thus, although the action [rate of lunar recession] may be insensibly slow now, it must have gone on with much greater rapidity when the moon was nearer to us.' Darwin, G., The Tides, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, pp. 278–286, 1898

So the law of inverse variation DOES play a very important factor in determining how far back one can take the formula to determine the length of the time of lunar recession. The evolutionary time scale as it concerns the age of the moon is in error.

Interesting that the last time I approached the Princeton astronomer with these facts he didn't attempt to refute it.

Edited by Calypsis4, : change from 'an increase' to a 'change'.

 Replies to this message: Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 10-06-2009 12:40 AM Calypsis4 has responded Message 4 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2009 12:41 AM Calypsis4 has responded Message 7 by hooah212002, posted 10-06-2009 12:55 AM Calypsis4 has responded Message 12 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 1:19 AM Calypsis4 has responded Message 25 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2009 8:33 AM Calypsis4 has responded Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2009 12:10 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Posts: 4754
Joined: 11-11-2003

 Message 2 of 222 (528383) 10-06-2009 12:20 AM

Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Moons: their origin, age, & recession thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003

 (2)
 Message 3 of 222 (528386) 10-06-2009 12:40 AM Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis410-05-2009 10:32 PM

Calypsis4 writes:

quote:
I stated that I felt the figure was an error because mathmatically, when one considers the 4 cm per yr recession of the moons orbit around the earth then if one computes the time frame then the moon would have been touching the earth about 1.7 billion yrs ago.

And you would be wrong. The reason your professor didn't refute them (assuming your story is even true and not a plagiarised claim from elsewhere), is because he realized that you wouldn't accept any information that contradicted your preconceived notion.

This is a claim long since refuted:

The moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe.

The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System

In short, you assume a static earth in the earth-moon system. There are structures in the geology of earth that are dependent upon the moon which show that the moon really has been around more than your "1.7 billion year" claim. 650 million years ago, for example, the moon was only receding at a little under 2 cm/yr. From 2.5 BYA to about 650 MYA, the recession was about 1.27 cm/yr.

So, despite what Darwin said, the moon was receding faster in the past. It was receding more slowly.

What does that do to your model?

And more importantly, is there any sort of evidence you would accept that would result in you saying you were wrong? If so, what would it be?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 10-05-2009 10:32 PM Calypsis4 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 5 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 12:46 AM Rrhain has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 741 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 (1)
 Message 4 of 222 (528388) 10-06-2009 12:41 AM Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis410-05-2009 10:32 PM

Standard creationist nonsense
Standard creationist nonsense.

Rebutted here:

The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System
by Tim Thompson Source

Conclusions

I don't know if there are other, "authoritative" creationist sources for the "speedy moon" argument. But if there are, it is unlikely that their arguments presented differ much from those seen here. I spent quite a bit more time reviewing the actual science of the Earth-moon tidal interaction because once it is well developed, the flaw in the creationist arguments becomes so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to refute them. The most remarkable aspect of this, I think, is the somebody like DeYoung, who certainly has legitimate qualifications (a PhD in physics from Iowa State University), would offer up such a one-equation model as if it was actually definitive. That kind of thing works as a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation, to get the order of magnitude, or a first approximation for the right answer, but it should have been clear to an unbiased observer that it could never be a legitimate realistic model. It is also of considerable interest that both DeYoung and Brown published their refutations of evolution only after evolution had already refuted their refutations! Barnes didn't do all that much better, having overlooked Hansen (1982) for two years. My own conclusion is that my intuitive expectations have been fulfilled, and creation "science" has lived up to its reputation of being either pre-falsified, or easy to falsify once the argument is evident.

As for the real science, remember that science is not a static pursuit, and the Earth-moon tidal evolution is not an entirely solved system. There is a lot that we know, and we do know a lot more than we did even 20 years ago. But even if we don't know everything, there are still some arguments which we can definitely rule out. A 10,000 year age (or anything like it) definitely falls in that category, and can be ruled out both by theory and practice.

I don't know where you keep coming up with these silly unscientific arguments, but I can assume why.

You need to support your belief in the face of scientific evidence that contradicts that belief. Because they have no scientific data to present, creationists misrepresent that data, and ignore anything that doesn't support their beliefs.

And they want to teach this in the public schools! Its bad enough that they teach this nonsense in their religious venues, raising up another generation of scientific illiterates.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 10-05-2009 10:32 PM Calypsis4 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 6 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 12:50 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009

 Message 5 of 222 (528389) 10-06-2009 12:46 AM Reply to: Message 3 by Rrhain10-06-2009 12:40 AM

 Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds

Seventh graders? Say, fella, I've got this bridge I'd like to sell you.

You show me a class of 7th grade students who can do college level physics.

You just lost your credibility with me. Besides that, the math holds. Figure it out for yourself.

 This message is a reply to: Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 10-06-2009 12:40 AM Rrhain has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 9 by hooah212002, posted 10-06-2009 1:06 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 10-06-2009 1:45 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009

 Message 6 of 222 (528391) 10-06-2009 12:50 AM Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote10-06-2009 12:41 AM

Re: Standard creationist nonsense
 My own conclusion is that my intuitive expectations have been fulfilled, and creation "science" has lived up to its reputation of being either pre-falsified, or easy to falsify once the argument is evident.

That's merely an opinion. No data. I have looked at both sides of the argument and the formula's involved. When it comes down to the actual step-by-step, DeYoung, Barnes, & Johnson et al got it right.

 This message is a reply to: Message 4 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2009 12:41 AM Coyote has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3188
Joined: 08-12-2009

 (1)
 Message 7 of 222 (528392) 10-06-2009 12:55 AM Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis410-05-2009 10:32 PM

So, it appears as though you have plucked some quotes and made them into your own post. Quite nice.

Now, do YOU understand any of it?

Secondly: did YOU personally contact these gentlemen? (the astronomer and Dr. Don Deyoung)

I'm sorry, but this whole post smells afoul of being plucked from somewhere else, passed of as your own work. IOTW, plagiarism.

for example:

 ...From equation (2), the time for the moon to recede from r0 to r is 1.3 Ga. Without introducing tidal parameters, to be discussed below, this is the moon’s highest allowable evolutionary age.' The Astromony Book by Dr. Jonathan Henry.

ok, what all did you derive from his book? The whole post? Did you put it in your own words, understanding it? A quick google search shows me its a creation book, so I doubt the validity of it already. However, I am no physicist and I have been out of school for some time so i cannot check the math myself.

also

 Quote: "DF / DR represents a change in the force (DF) with respect to a change in distance (DR). That variation in force, or tidal gradient, is what produces the distortion in the shape of both Earth and the moon."(talk/origins).But I knew that did not comport with reality because the moon's recession would be changed by the inverse square law as it receded further and further from earth. But 'the force of gravity changes with the square of the distance, such that if the distance is reduced by 1/2 the force of gravity increases by a factor of four'. (Creation/Wiki).

That's 2 improper acknowledgements right there. Where, exactly, did you gather this info from? (hint: a link works wonders)

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 10-05-2009 10:32 PM Calypsis4 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 8 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:02 AM hooah212002 has responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009

 Message 8 of 222 (528394) 10-06-2009 1:02 AM Reply to: Message 7 by hooah21200210-06-2009 12:55 AM

Dearest Hooah:

I gave my sources but you accuse me of plagiarism.

 Now, do YOU understand any of it?

Hint: I taught science for 26 yrs including biology and physics.

From now on you will be ignored. Don't bother. I won't even read it.

 This message is a reply to: Message 7 by hooah212002, posted 10-06-2009 12:55 AM hooah212002 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 10 by hooah212002, posted 10-06-2009 1:16 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded Message 11 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:19 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3188
Joined: 08-12-2009

 (1)
 Message 9 of 222 (528396) 10-06-2009 1:06 AM Reply to: Message 5 by Calypsis410-06-2009 12:46 AM

 Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds

 Seventh graders? Say, fella, I've got this bridge I'd like to sell you. You show me a class of 7th grade students who can do college level physics. You just lost your credibility with me. Besides that, the math holds. Figure it out for yourself.

You do realize that is his signature and not a response to you, right?

 This message is a reply to: Message 5 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 12:46 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3188
Joined: 08-12-2009

 (1)
 Message 10 of 222 (528400) 10-06-2009 1:16 AM Reply to: Message 8 by Calypsis410-06-2009 1:02 AM

The only line in your post that appears to be in your own words:

 So the law of inverse variation DOES play a very important factor in determining how far back one can take the formula to determine the length of the time of lunar recession. The evolutionary time scale as it concerns the age of the moon is in error.

Maybe I am mistaken, but you have formatted your post to appear as though YOU did this work:

 A few years ago I got into a heated debate with an astronomer from Princeton about the supposed 4.6 billion yr age of earths moon......

 I phoned Dr. Don DeYoung, the head of the physics dept. at Grace College in Indiana.......

Then you just go on listing references to other peoples work or quotes other people said.

What is it you are trying to accomplish here?

 This message is a reply to: Message 8 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:02 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009

 Message 11 of 222 (528401) 10-06-2009 1:19 AM Reply to: Message 8 by Calypsis410-06-2009 1:02 AM

More against the 4.6 billion yr age
It was because of the NASA moon landings that we have accurate measurements of the lunar regression of 4 cm per yr.

Our astronauts left mirrors on the lunar surface which reflect lasers back to earth for a high degree of accuracy.

But there are many more reasons for us to reject the 4.6 billion yr age of the moon. Here is a big one:

"A transient lunar phenomenon (TLP), or lunar transient phenomenon (LTP), is a short-lived light, color, or change in appearance on the lunar surface.

Claims of short-lived phenomena go back at least 1,000 years, with some having been observed independently by multiple witnesses or reputable scientists. Nevertheless, the majority of transient lunar phenomenon reports are irreproducible and do not possess adequate control experiments that could be used to distinguish among alternative hypotheses. Few reports concerning these phenomena are ever published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and rightfully or wrongfully, the lunar scientific community rarely discusses these observations." Wikipedia.

How typical of evolutionist believers! They can't stand it when others come up with facts that fly in the face of their intolerant views about age and dates. There is a plethora of evidences (as mentioned above) some of which were entered into public records and recorded by scientists of decades to centuries ago. Ignored by the 'scientific community'. Another reason why I have lost confidence in them...most of them.

 This message is a reply to: Message 8 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:02 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 10-06-2009 1:52 AM Calypsis4 has responded Message 22 by Larni, posted 10-06-2009 7:35 AM Calypsis4 has responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 (1)
 Message 12 of 222 (528402) 10-06-2009 1:19 AM Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis410-05-2009 10:32 PM

 A few years ago I got into a heated debate with an astronomer from Princeton about the supposed 4.6 billion yr age of earths moon.

 I stated that I felt the figure was an error because mathmatically, when one considers the 4 cm per yr recession of the moons orbit around the earth then if one computes the time frame then the moon would have been touching the earth about 1.7 billion yrs ago.

You went to a creationist website and saw some stuff...

 I phoned Dr. Don DeYoung, the head of the physics dept. at Grace College in Indiana & asked his opinion about the matter and he told me that the evolutionist formula for lunar recession as far as the age of the moon is in error. Here is why:

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 the last time I approached the Princeton astronomer with these facts he didn't attempt to refute it.

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 10-05-2009 10:32 PM Calypsis4 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 13 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:22 AM onifre has responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009

 Message 13 of 222 (528403) 10-06-2009 1:22 AM Reply to: Message 12 by onifre10-06-2009 1:19 AM

 You're not breaking new ground here, Calypsis.

Neither are you. You're just giving opinions. I am not interested.

The Geophysicists who say the universe is 4.6 billion yrs old are in error. The facts speak otherwise. I have only just begun.

Have a nice evening.

 This message is a reply to: Message 12 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 1:19 AM onifre has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 14 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 1:39 AM Calypsis4 has responded Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 10-06-2009 1:10 PM Calypsis4 has responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 (2)
 Message 14 of 222 (528407) 10-06-2009 1:39 AM Reply to: Message 13 by Calypsis410-06-2009 1:22 AM

 Neither are you. You're just giving opinions. I am not interested.

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!

 I have only just begun...

...to annoy the shit out of me.

 The Geophysicists who say the universe is 4.6 billion yrs old are in error.

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 13 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:22 AM Calypsis4 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 18 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 2:01 AM onifre has responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003

 (1)
 Message 15 of 222 (528408) 10-06-2009 1:45 AM Reply to: Message 5 by Calypsis410-06-2009 12:46 AM

Calypsis4 responds to me:

quote:
You show me a class of 7th grade students who can do college level physics.

That's the point. People like you seem to want to present nonsense like this "moon is receding too fast" argument as if it had actual evidence to support it. And it's because resolution of the question requires sophisticated techniques that are beyond the abilities of most people that this idea of "teaching the controversy" is ridiculous.

There is no controversy.

And that applies to your "moon is receding too fast" claim. Your model doesn't align with reality.

quote:
Besides that, the math holds.

Except it doesn't gibe with the actual evidence we have for the observed rate of lunar recession. It has changed over time and was much slower in the past. Your model has an increasing recession rate.

Your model doesn't work. It doesn't matter how pretty the math is. Since the evidence indicates that the moon is not receding in accordance to your equation, that necessarily means that your equation is false.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

 This message is a reply to: Message 5 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 12:46 AM Calypsis4 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 17 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:53 AM Rrhain has responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)