|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Good point. So if there was a change in rotation, what evidence would it leave? For example, could it cause plates to separated and subduct and mountain building? What exactly is the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
What is gravity itself were not the same? For example let's call our current gravity 100. What would happen if that was reduced in power or force to say, 97? Would this change the length of a year?
(Conversely, what if the planet lost a small percentage of it's mass for whatever reason in the past suddenly?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
The good news is that I had to learn something to answer your question. So if there was a change in rotation, what evidence would it leave? For example, could it cause plates to separated and subduct and mountain building? According to one website:
quote: By the way, the days are getting longer, so there were more days in a year in the past, not less.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
So if there was a change in rotation, what evidence would it leave? Any varving that reflects the daily, seasonal, and annual development of those layers. As explained by ringo in Message 1083 as well as the Devonian coral I described to you in Message 810 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1:
dwise1 writes: ... ; eg, around 400 million years ago there would have been about 400 days in each year as verified by the varves in Devonian fossil coral reefs. For example, could it cause plates to separated and subduct and mountain building? No, that is utter nonsense. However, such activity which vertically redistributes the earth's mass does have an effect on the slowing down and speeding up of the earth's rotation due to Conservation of Angular Momentum. Mountain building would increase the earth's moment of inertia (the multiple integral of mass times the square of the distance from axis of rotation, so the algebraic formula for calculating the moment of inertia is highly different for different shapes and their relationship to the axis of rotation), which would slow down the earth's rotation. The ongoing rebound of the North American continent from the removal of the weight of the ice cap during the last ice age similarly slows down the earth's rotation. The thrusting up of a portion of the earth's crust due to an earthquake would also slow down the earth's rotation. However, when a portion of the earth's crust drops during an earthquake, that would decrease the earth's moment of inertia which would therefore speed up the earth's rotation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Good point. So if there was a change in rotation, ... Could you please be more specific about what that "good point" was? Here are the choices:
#2
ringo writes: The length of the year depends on the rate of the earth's rotation. The way that that is worded, it could sound like changes in the earth's rotation would cause changes in how long it takes the earth to complete one solar revolution. Here is the correction I offered in Message 1078:
dwise1 writes: Let me correct that to make it clear: "The length of the year measured in the number of days in the year depends on the rate of the earth's rotation." The actual length of the year (31,556,925.216 seconds in the tropical year) does not change, but rather it is the changing length of the day that causes there to be a different number of days in the year. BTW, those are SI seconds, which are constant. See my Message 1080 for a more complete explanation. #3
ringo writes: If the length of a year changed from 360 days to 365 days, there would have to have been some major force to change the rate of rotation. Unfortunately, ringo forgot to describe what that "major force to change the rate of rotation" would have had to do. His description of the event, "the length of a year changed from 360 days to 365 days", should be more than adequate for any reader whose brain is engaged, but you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not a member of that group. 360 days in a year would be the result of a slowly rotating earth, whereas 365 days in a year would be the result of a more rapidly rotating earth. Therefore, that "major force to change the rate of rotation" would have had to have sped up the earth very significantly. Since the earth is instead slowing down over time, such that the number of days in a year is decreasing not increasing, that "major force to change the rate of rotation" would not only have had to have working contrary to what is actually happening, but it would have had to have done it with impossible rapidity that would have had catastrophic effects (that would have left tons of evidence) -- as I demonstrate in Message 1078, it will take about 63 million years for the earth to slow down enough to go from 365.2524 days down to 360 days, so that is not a trivial change. #4
ringo writes: That force would have left evidence. It didn't. Id est, such a massive force working that squeezed 63 million years into an extremely short amount of time should have left massive amounts of evidence. It didn't. #5
ringo writes: So it's reasonable to conclude that the change didn't happen. Do please tell us that this was the "good point".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
dwise writes: creation writes: So if there was a change in rotation, what evidence would it leave? Any varving that reflects the daily, seasonal, and annual development of those layers. As explained by ringo in Message 1083 as well as the Devonian coral I described to you in Message 810 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1:
dwise1 writes: ... ; eg, around 400 million years ago there would have been about 400 days in each year as verified by the varves in Devonian fossil coral reefs. Please tell me the location of these Devonian fossil coral reefs. Thanks. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
What {if} gravity itself were not the same? If you are asserting yet more nonsense like your "fishbowl", then you must have been smoking wombat dung again. You must realize that that stuff is really bad for your breath. If you mean what if the sun's gravity were to change, then, yes, that is what is happening as the sun loses mass due to hydrogen fusion and solar wind and flares. I already discussed that in the message to which you are responding. What part don't you understand? As the sun's mass decreases, its gravity decreases proportionally. As its gravity decreases, size of the planets' orbits increase, which causes an increase in the period of the orbit as per Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion. However, the proportion of the mass lost is extremely small, only a few hundreds of one percent, since the sun had entered the Main Sequence 4.5 billion (109) years ago. That means that over that same time the sun's gravity has decreased by only a few hundredths of one percent (insignificant) and that the size of the earth's orbit would have increased by a similar proportion, as well as the length of the year again by a small proportion. And that is over a period of 4.5 billion years. Over the period of a few millennia the proportions would be vastly less.
For example let's call our current gravity 100. What would happen if that was reduced in power or force to say, 97? Would never happen without some catastrophic ejection of very massive amounts of solar mass. Hydrogen fusion produces helium and energy from the conversion of mass to energy (therefore from the loss of mass). Every second, 600 millions tons of hydrogen fuse to form 596 million tons of helium, resulting in the loss of 4 million tons as energy. You should be able to do the math: 99.3% of the hydrogen mass remains as helium and 0.7% (rounded up) is lost as energy. That gives us an upper limit to the amount of mass that the sun could ever possibly lose due to hydrogen fusion: 0.7%. To convert that to your units, if the original gravity was 100, then after every single hydrogen nucleus has been consumed by fusion, the resultant gravity would be 99.3. It could never ever possibly become 97 without a catastrophe that would wipe out the entire solar system and render this discussion, and all possible discussions, moot. More practically, you could never fuse all the hydrogen in the sun, but only what's in the core which contains half the sun's mass and is where the fusion reaction happens. Since only half the hydrogen could be involved, that would reduce the maximum loss to 0.35% of the sun's mass. However, only about 75% of the sun is hydrogen, so that reduced the maximum loss to .2625%. And even that is a stretch, since we could not possibly fuse every single hydrogen nucleus in the core. So that leaves us with a maximum possible loss of the quarter of a percent of the sun's mass, with the gravity decreasing by the same proportion, etc. That would mean that at most you would see the sun's gravity going from a 100 to 99.75. That is not much. Also, that is over the life of the sun, about 10 billion years.
(Conversely, what if the planet lost a small percentage of it's mass for whatever reason in the past suddenly?) Effectively no effect. When the mass of the second body (earth) is significantly less than the mass of the first body (the sun), then mass of the smaller body is effectively unity and can be ignored in the calculation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Please tell me the location of these Devonian fossil coral reefs. Thanks. Am I supposed to be standing on one foot as I do that? STFW ("Search The Web"). You are just as capable of using Google as I am, so why should I do your work for you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just thought that surely you would know. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The good news is that I had to learn something to answer your question. I started studying "creation science" and its claims in 1981 and my experience has been the same: I have learned so much more science by investigating creationist claims. BTW, in all that time (about 37 years now) I have yet to encountered a single true or valid creationist claim. Though I have encountered far too much creationist avoidance and outright lying. On YouTube I have found a video series which reflects our mutual experiences: Tony Reed's How Creationism Taught Me Real Science. His format in that long-running series is to first present the creationist claim as if he didn't doubt it, only to pronounce, "I had to investigate." His video about the earth's rotation is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNpspB4sWAk. He deals with the tidal rhythmite data at 4:20. Share and enjoy!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
For decades, the nature of the varves of Devonian fossil coral has been presented in connection with the slowing of the earth's rotation. As a result, I know about the evidence, but I do not have links to that data immediately available -- for that matter, far too much of my research material is stored away in boxes.
You know what you want to look for and you know how to perform searches online. We are all equally capable of performing such searches.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
dwise1 writes: Just exactly what would the earth be rubbing against in its orbit around the sun to cause such friction? My apologies for my imprecise terminology.I meant to use the word 'friction' as in it's placeholder-sense in an equation of motion. Not the colloquial usage of physical-rubbing. Friction, in a motion equation, is just a value less than 1 that identifies the intensity of the "slowing of the motion" of any object in motion.In this sense, if the motion is not naturally slowing - that is, the "friction" value in the equation is absolutely equal to "1" - then we have a perpetual motion machine. Something that doesn't slow down, ever. To my knowledge, such a thing has never been identified anywhere. Usually (in our day to day lives) this is physical - something rubbing on another.But it doesn't have to be. It can be wind resistance, heat/energy loss... pretty much anything that "slows the motion" of an object. In my idea of the earth's rotation being slowed (and therefore the period around the sun increasing), I was thinking of anything from space-dust/debris to gravity-from-the-sun-or-even-other-planets not being "perfectly tuned." I looked up my question and found the answer I was expecting (although I didn't think it would be quite so negligible...):
Changes in Earth's Orbit Look at the selected answer (beneath the question). It explains two main factors that both increase the earth's period: 1 - Loss of mass of the sun (as you discussed)2 - Tidal forces (sun's gravitational action on the earth's system) Both, currently, are condensed down to "negligible."But they do exist... which is what I was attempting to get at. Therefore the "constant" of Earth's orbit can very easily be used and discussed as a constant for pretty much anything.But it isn't "absolutely" a constant (like the speed of light in a vacuum or something like that.) Actually, the earth's velocity around the sun is changing all the time, first decreasing for half a year and then increasing the other half. Every actual solar day (ie, noon to noon with "noon" being when the sun is on the meridian as measured by the sundial or the solar observatory) is of different length one day after the other. Yes, understood.In mentioning that the Earth's velocity around the sun is decreasing, I meant "on average" not "absolutely constantly." And again, I'm right about this, just "negligibly so" for basically the same reasons as Earth's period increasing:
Average speed of Earth around the Sun is Decreasing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ringo
ringo writes: I'm telling you that the "red" was red wavelengths of light reflected from the "stuff". If you wash off the "stuff" there will be nothing to reflect red wavelengths. It is pigment so it don't wash off. It has to wear off. -30-. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
good job missing the point of his post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Aussie,
I know my eyes can determine colors but to me a black car is black because that is what color my eye and brain tells me that it is according to what I have been told is the color black. I don't really know what color it is. I only know it matches what I have been told is black. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024