Moons: their origin, age, & recession

The one who believes the world/universe created itself and that life assembled itself by blind natural processes even though you've never seen a single example that nature can do such a thing.

You've never seen a god do it, either. That ol' special pleading fallacy again

Well, given that I explained it in my post, I would have thought you could have answered that yourself

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.

He gave me the name of the scientist who documented it. I am looking for that file.

I'm gone.

Said the person who plagiarised his opening post.

"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 m 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 ASTRONOMY 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.

The fallacy is yours. I have seen what God can do. So have many of my comrades.

You don't know the origin of lunar regression.

no witnesses to the origin of the moon

If the capture theory is to be taken seriously

Good grief, you are living in la la land. How can one communicate with such a wishful thinker?

Shall we ignore the testimony of the hundreds of people who recorded seeing volcanic activity on the lunar surface?

Because the evil evilutionist pseudo-scientists are hiding it in their lair,

I have seen what God can do.

So can you deal with the topic YOU started?

"My mommy always said there were no monsters, no real ones, but there are. ..."Rebecca 'Newt' Jordan (July 27, 2179)

..why then do we see active volcanic activity on Io? Don't the same rules apply?

No you haven't. You've seen nothing of the sort