|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moons: their origin, age, & recession | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
I think we have shown without a shadow of a doubt that the whole OP is a sham. He is just a troll. He has no arguments and knows nothing about the subjects he has attempted to bring up. At least slevesque and some other creationists know something about the topics they bring up.
All this guy has is godidit and insults. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4635 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined:
|
Good grief, the intellectual ability on this thread wouldn't fill a thimble.
Prove it, do not just say it please
Give documentated data that the 4 cm/yr regression was different in the distant past.
Several items have been pointed out to you already. Why don't you start with that we have dated moonrocks Point: I am not saying that it wasn't different ..... Are you now conceding that it may have been different? ..... but the explanations for it have been given! No they have not. Like I said. YOUR LINK TO AIG ASSUMES K IS CONSTANT BUT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY 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! No, I am not going to call anyone.Please Calypsis, show me you are a true Christian and address the questions instead of bearing false witness and attacking people personally. Until we address K being a constant (and by we I mean you) there is no reason to continue this attempted gallop any further. Thanks,Joe +
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I think they do adress the possibility that k is not constant: Thanks, Slevesque.
In 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’. Which link did this come from? Not questioning you, but I failed to see it and would like to read it in-full. Any-whoo...the change in k would yelled a different result (different from DeYoung's model) and would therefore change DeYoung's conclusion. Further, we could then dismiss DeYoung's model as being merely his take on the moons age. This would lead any honest person to question DeYoung's age of the moon, if he did not, as the quote above states: "make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration." That was my only point, a point that shows that Calypsis' OP is wrong. Further proven wrong by the dates of the lunar rocks (that has repeated oh-so many times to, Calypsis). - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The Bible is a written account of the history of the world from creation until the time of Christ. If you can't accept that as authoritative then we are at an impass. Nonetheless, since I have seen miraculous power, instantaneous healings, & supernatural occurrences on a number of occasions, and because true science comports with divine revelation, I utterly reject the skeptics position that the blind forces of natures made all things.
Aren't you on the wrong section of this website? Preaching goes in the Faith section. This is the science section. If you don't have scientific evidence to support your positions just say so. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4635 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
This One
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.50,52
Its not actually giving a reason why k is constant. Its just trying to dismiss a variable k.
As 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 .’53 In 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’.57 Slichter, 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,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Here is a list for the Princeton University department of astrophysics.
Do you want to tell us who this "astronomer" is or should I just email all of them asking for a comment. I am sure they would love to visit the forum and discuss your accusations that you completely baffled them. # Neta A. Bahcall# Adam Burrows # Renyue Cen # Christopher Chyba # Bruce Draine # Jeremy Goodman # J. Richard Gott, III # James E. Gunn # Edward B. Jenkins # Gillian R. Knapp # Russell M. Kulsrud # Robert Lupton # Jeremiah P. Ostriker # Roman Rafikov # David N. Spergel # Anatoly Spitkovsky # James M. Stone # Michael A. Strauss # Scott D. Tremaine # Edwin L. Turner Very nice of the university to give me their email addresses. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Hi slevesque - I'm sorry but I have to say this: you are far too smart to be a creationist, and you will not last long Hehe, Dr. Adequate told me something similar not so long ago. I do have to say that I sometimes feel like the 'odd man out' with my fellow creationists around here ...
Back to your diagram. The degree of acceleration on the Moon caused by the bulge is directly related to the lag angle (angle between the bulge axis NA and the Earth-Moon axis NM). The earth was spinning faster in the past, which increased the lag angle. Now, do you think that this dynamic process is addressed by DeYoung's approach? So in the past, the lag angle would have been greater, and so not only would the gravitational force B exterted by the moon on the buldge would have been greater because of the smaller distance, but it's ''x'' component would have been greater also since the angle between B and the buldge would have been smaller. The fact that the moon would have been closer also reduces this angle. All this would imply that the friction force would have had to be even greater than in the present for the buldge to remain in equilibrium. I couldn't tell you if this is adressed by DeYoung's approach though. The talkorigins.org article seems to be criticising DeYoung approach because he considers the tidal dissipation to be constant. In this regard, I guess his calculations are a bit simplistic because within the line of reasoning I did above, the friction force would have been greater and so the tidal dissipation would also have been higher. ( Unless I misunderstand the term 'tidal dissipation') The talkorigins article, however, suggests that the tidal dissipation should have been smaller in the past. They refer to Stacey's book 'physics of the earth' (1977) for this. I don't know how they arrive at this conclusion. Maybe since we know that the moon is 4Billions years old, then it means that the tidal dissipation must have been smaller in the past. Or is the buldge even in equilibrium ? I have a hard time imagining that it isn't, since it would mean it is either accelerating or decelerating, with the later been more probable I guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
It comes from the same link Calypsis gave. The moon's recession and age - creation.com
You probably stopped at the equations I would guess, in which they use a constant k. This discuss a variable k further down the article.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
You probably stopped at the equations I would guess, in which they use a constant k. This discuss a variable k further down the article. Thanks again, slevesque. This particular statement strikes me as a possible problem that can lead to further inconsistencies in any proposed model:
quote: Seems like too many variables (in the creationist opinion) to be able to accept any model that doesn't agree with a 6000 year old universe/planet a priori. As it states in the link:
quote: Once that is believed, nothing can be shown as evidence to sway someones opinion. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5234 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Any-whoo...the change in k would yelled a different result Do you even bother proofreading your own posts? 'yelled different results' Really? Gosh, I'm glad you said that. Where did I say that it wouldn't? What disturbs me about this debate is the nit-picking on this matter. I made it clear from the get-go that I knew that the accelaration rate of the moon's orbit changed in time. That was the whole idea behind my statements concerning the inverse variation law. But it doesn't help the evolutionary theory about the moon unless one fudges the factors. On top of that I have repeatedly brought out direct observational evidence (i.e. William Herschel and his fellow astronomers, et al) that reported volcanic activity on the moon and there is extensive sightings that are just being brushed aside as if it is all of no importance. As I stated earlier; so much for empirical investigation.
...dates of the lunar rocks 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5237 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
The talkorigins article, however, suggests that the tidal dissipation should have been smaller in the past. They refer to Stacey's book 'physics of the earth' (1977) for this. I don't know how they arrive at this conclusion.
From what I have read in the TalkOrigins article and on Wiki, tidal dissipation mostly occurs in shallow seas. This means that the greater the area of shallow seas there are, the greater the tidal dissipation. A consistently multi-continent Earth doesn't allow for a 4.5 billion year old moon. This was "Slichter's Dilemma." But when you factor in a single continent in Earth's history, a single continent Earth would have less shallow seas and thus lower tidal dissipation. This is just a cursory glance through the information though. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
"WERNHER VON BRAUN???"
I declare this thread over based on this obscure corrolary of Godwin's Law: "In any evo-cre argument, initial mention of Dr. von Braun must include the phrase, immediately after his name, 'former SS officer and utilizer of Jewish slave labor" before the phrase 'rocket scientist' may be applied to him." Calypsis has failed to comply. FAIL. And, Cal, the medieval flash on the moon is much better explained by a significant meteor strike. Sky and Telescope dug pretty deeply into this about 20 years ago. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
On top of that I have repeatedly brought out direct observational evidence (i.e. William Herschel and his fellow astronomers, et al) that reported volcanic activity on the moon and there is extensive sightings that are just being brushed aside as if it is all of no importance. That's because it IS NOT important. Please refer to Message 38 where I do address that. You should stop saying we are not addressing you and read the responses given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5234 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Calypsis has failed to comply. FAIL. Another Johnny-come-lately jumps on to the tail end of a big debate and arbitrarily declares all my evidence a failure. Does anyone think I have an ounce of respect for that? Werner Von Braun was a sinner before he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord. I was a sinner (& an evolutionist) before I accepted Jesus Christ. There is no 'fail' with those who have eternal life through Christ. The failure is with those who never come to know Him. So not just the formula, but the evidence from history of the volcanic activity on the moon and also the lack of evidence for the evolutionary development of moons from scratch (er, excuse me, gases) and the fact that many moons are in retrograde motion contrary to the laws of physics doesn't phase those who are determined to believe in an accidental world/universe. Well, I am an ex-evolutionist. Been there, done that. Not going there again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
So not just the formula, but the evidence from history of the volcanic activity on the moon and also the lack of evidence for the evolutionary development of moons from scratch (er, excuse me, gases) and the fact that many moons are in retrograde motion contrary to the laws of physics doesn't phase those who are determined to believe in an accidental world/universe. Ahh, the willful ignorance surely is astounding. There are no fucking active volcanoes on the moon. The moon was NOT MADE FROM GAS. You are like a 3 year old that keeps asking "why? Why? Why? Why? Can I get a toy? Can I get a toy? can I get a toy? Can I get a toy?" until you finally tell them what they want to hear to shut 'em up. Why are you here?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024