Did the Flood really happen?

No shit, Sherlock! It wasn't in response to your completely unspecified "longevity issue", nor was I even talking to you. Jeez! At least try to follow the conversation.Rather, it was in response to jar's Message 2212 which in turn was in response to ringo's Message 2211: My response shared other similar absurdities that we encounter whenever we take any creationist claim seriously. Though it could serve as yet another cautionary example to you of what not to do -- and which you will ignore yet again (you can always tell a creationist; you just can't tell him anything).Do please try to pay attention.

Yes, the earth's spin is slowing down at a rate of about 2 milliseconds per day per century (ie, after 100 years, the mean solar day is about 2 ms longer). As I just explained in my Message 2210, this discrepancy between the International Standard Day (SI -- which is kept by atomic clocks) and the mean solar day (to which Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) is synchronized) requires the periodic addition of a leap second about every 18 months for the same reason we have leap years. My site on this explains the history of that in much more depth (yes, Juvenissun, I know that you will never dare to go anywhere near it).That led to a creationist PRATT which was probably started by Walt Brown (his 1979 presentation of it is the earliest that I know of). Because he didn't understand how leap seconds work, he came up with a rate for the slowing of the earth's spin that was hundreds of times too great. That claim was soundly refuted in 1982, after which Brown apparently dropped his claim, though creationists continue to spread it all over the Internet even after they learn how utterly false it is (there is no underestimating the magnitude of creationist dishonesty). Not because of changes in the earth's rotation, but rather the length of the year would be only be changed by changes in the earth's orbit that would affect its orbital period. The number of days in that year would have been greater since the days were shorter so more of them fit in an unchanging year, but that would not have changed the length of the year itself.So then the answer to your question is, "No, of course not." But then three minutes later in Message 2225 you state that you realize that changes in the earth's spin would not affect the length of the year. So I hope we can put that point of confusion for you to rest. I fail to see what the moon is supposed to have to do with this.As for the Precambrian, that covers a helluva long time period: 4.6 billion to 541 million years ago, spanning four billion years (ie, 1 billion = 1000 million = 10⁹ -- Europeans use a different definition for "billion"). Given the rate at which the earth's spin is slowing (ie, 2 ms / day / century), the length of a day 4 billion years ago would have been about 12 hours. Given that the length of the in the Devonian (about 400 million years ago) was about 22 hours, I estimate the length of a day at the end of the Precambrian (541 million years ago) to have been about 21 hours 18 minutes. That's not even a question. But taking a guess that you wanted to know how the lengthening of day lengths over time would affect the length of the year, we already know that answer to that one: no effect at all. And three minutes after having asked that question, you conceded that changing the rate of the earth's rotation would have no effect on the length of the year.

Only the ones who insist that the Noachian Flood was real and actually happened would be the "utterly stupid" ones.Far more posts than that have been posted about all kinds of fictional topics, so why should the Noachian Flood be any different? What about all the posts about Star Trek? Or about the works of Tolkien? Or about the works of Shakespeare? All utterly stupid people by your estimation? What an incredibly impoverished mind you must have!

And yet it is beyond your own ability to perform such a simple calculation. Did you drop out of school before having reached the third grade? Or were you home-schooled and the moment your mommy saw the word "multiplication" she decided that she would not teach you any of that filthy sex education stuff and so you received no further instruction in math? No, not circles, but rather ellipses. Refer to Kepler's First Law of Planetary Motion, which corrected the major mistake made in the Copernican system.I am not practiced in LaTEX, so I will used pseudo-C notation in the following. I'm sure that someone else will kibitz that into LaTEX in response.The period of a smaller body's orbit about a much more massive body is given by: Solving for the semi-major axis, a, we get: Now for 120 years (T_current) to contain 950 orbits (T_old) instead of 120, we have: Therefore, the "old" period would have to have been 0.1263 of the current period: We do need the "old" year length in seconds for the calculation of the "old" semi-major axis.So then plugging in the "old" seconds into the formula for the "old" semi-major axis we get: For comparison, Mercury's semi-major axis is 28,583,820.5 miles and its orbital period is 88 days. So you propose to place the earth inside the orbit of Mercury.That ain't gonna fly, kiddo!Now that we have eliminated this dead end for you, you can turn your attention elsewhere, hopefully to something more productive.Edited by dwise1, : kibitz into LaTEX

Oh darn! Here I thought that you had actually learned something, but now you are doubling down on abject ignorance ... yet again!Changes in the earth's spin would not affect the earth's orbit. Period! Not in the particular case that you are talking about here, nor in any of the other cases/messages where you have made that mistake.OK, then. Explain to us in detail just exactly how changing the earth's spin is supposed to change the period of its orbit!You want to claim that changing the earth's spin will change the length of the year? So Show us! Explain it to us!

Yes, I see exactly where it went wrong.I made the mistake of trying to provide actual information, the results of an actual pertinent calculation, to a creationist.I made the mistake of forgetting what a f*cking idiot you are. How do you even tie your shoes in the morning? The period of an orbit (AKA TIME) depends on the size of the orbit (AKA DISTANCE). IOW, Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion:

quote:

---

The ratio of the square of an object's orbital period with the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit is the same for all objects orbiting the same primary.

---

Besides, the original question was how big of an orbit would be needed to get the orbital period that you need. That's DISTANCE!Or are you stumbling over big words that you are too mentally deficient to understand? Like "orbital period" which means "how long it takes (AKA TIME) to complete one orbit (AKA ONE YEAR). Or "semi-major axis" which is a measurement of an ellipse and hence which gives you the size of the orbit.The length of an orbit's year is directly related to the size of the orbit. That's how it works! Increase the size of the orbit and you make its year longer. Decrease the size of the orbit and you make its year shorter. That's how it works! And there is no possible amount of self-deception you can apply that will change it.You have received the answer. Accept it.If you choose to reject it, then you dare not continue to make your demonstrably false assertions. Because every time you do, you will be pointed back to the answer that you received and reject and you will be called out for deliberately asserting falsehoods.Edited by dwise1, : Third Law

And what ad hoc false assertions will you make up for that nonsense? And then reject all explanations of why you are completely wrong.If you are going to try to talk about science, then learn something about science!If you refuse to learn, then just stick with theology where you can just make up any stupid shit you want to. You can get away with that in theology, but not in science.

I already explained that to you, but being an idiotic creationist you ignored it in order to maintain your precious ignorance.Earthquakes can raise or lower sections of the crust, which would slow down or speed up the earth's spin because of the effects of angular momentum. No effect on the earth's orbit which would require changes to its linear momentum. Although analogous, angular momentum is completely different than linear momentum.Besides, this was that "particular case" that you emphasized as being the one that you accepted was wrong. So now you are backing away from your admission about this one too?Complete and utter disgusting dishonesty. Have you ever noticed that people don't like creationists? Ever wonder why that is? It's because creationists are such f*cking dishonest creeps.Edited by dwise1, : creepsEdited by dwise1, : Removed possible ambiguity in the last sentence

The moon also does not have any limestone. Nor should it. The conditions that would produce a lot of granite (a molten core and magma) or limestone (zoeplankton living in seas) do not and have not existed on the moon.You really need to sit down and have a long talk with a geologist. Oh yeah, I forgot, the moment you see a geologist you run away as fast as you can.

What question? Your brain-dead stupid ad-hoc nonsense that a planet inside the orbit of Mercury would have to have a climate that is benevolent to human life and to liquid water? Sheer idiotic lunacy!And I did indeed answer it by pointing out what completely and utter nonsense it was. Here is my answer again since you refused to read it the first time (Message 2247): Now, if you have a valid explanation for your silly scenario, then do present it. But if it's nothing but stupid made-up bullshit nonsense (which is all that you have been presenting here and which is the stuff of theology and not of science -- this is a science forum so you should take your made up bullshit nonsense (AKA theology) to a theology forum), then why waste everybody's time? Especially when you will only refuse to listen yet again.Edited by dwise1, : the stuff of theology, not of science

So then you agree that your silly Himalayas idea is truly stupid.And then you will completely reverse yourself and double down on idiotic lunacy. Yet again.

First, please stop projecting. You are the stupid one here. Comparing your (pl) postings here, jar is by far your mental and intellectual and moral superior.Second, could you please try to write in English instead of in gibberish? Just what the hell is (my emphasis added) " ... say that moon has the sample composition as the earth" supposed to mean? That makes absolutely no sense at all. The only thing that makes even less sense are your many instances of ad hoc bullshit lunacies.Jar says that the moon has been found to have the same composition as the earth because we have found that the moon does have the same composition as the earth. The same elements and compounds in the same proportions are found on the moon as well on the earth. Only a f*cking idiot such as yourself would insist that that must include geologic formations produced by processes on the earth that do not operate on the moon.Edited by dwise1, : added my emphasis

Not even close:

quote:

---

Kinetic energy: K = (1/2) × mass × (velocity)²

---

Of course, that link is provided for lurkers, since you would never ever follow it for fear of accidentally learning something.

---

Marcus Lycus: If I've told you once, I've told you a hundred times; do not fan the girls when they're wet! But you'll never learn, you'll be a eunuch all your life.
       (A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, 1968, )

First, that relationship between orbital elements holds true regardless of the mass of the central body (so long as that mass is sufficiently greater than the orbiting body; eg, the sun vis--vis any individual planet, any individual planet vis--vis any individual satellite be it natural or artificial).And since you are doubtlessly totally ignorant of universal gravitation: Second, we are comparing two different orbits at roughly the same point in time, since your ad hoc pipe dream involves a rapid change of orbits.Third, the effects on the sun's gravity even over extended periods of time has proven to be insignificant. Yes, as per Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation as given above.Would it be enough to make any kind of noticeable difference? Only if the change in mass is great enough.Would the change in mass be great enough to make any kind of noticeable difference? No.

1. My first question was for the mechanism for the earth losing mass, so I looked it up:
   1. The earth's mass is 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 metric tonnes (5.972×10²¹). The earth's mass includes the mass of its atmosphere and all particles suspended in the atmosphere.
   2. The earth gains mass through meteoric particles falling to the earth's surface or residing in its atmosphere as fine particles or smoke (see 1a above). That amounts to about 40,000 metric tonnes per year (4.0×10⁴). That additional mass would increase the earth's mass by an order of magnitude of O(-17) (about 10 quintillionths). If you were to try to add that to the earth's mass in a spreadsheet or on a calculator, it would very likely be lost in the round-off error.
   3. The earth losses mass primarily through the escape of atmospheric hydrogen and helium into space. That mass amounts to 50,000 metric tonnes per year. Note that this loss is of the same order of magnitude as the earth's mass gain.
   4. Combining losses and gains gives us a rate of mass loss for the earth of 10,000 metric tonnes per year. That amount is so insignificant compared to the total mass of the earth as have effectively no effect on gravitational force.
      
   ​
2. Because the earth's mass is significantly less than the sun's, it plays so little part in the gravitational force between it and the sun that we can ignore it. That is to say, changes in the earth's mass (which are already insignificant) have no significant effect on the sun's gravitational force on the earth.
   ​
3. The effects of the sun's loss of mass from its "burning" are so insignificant as to be negligible. You know that already from my Message 2177.
   1. Even over an extended period of time, the nearly 5 billion (10⁹) years that the sun has existed, the change in the sun's mass amounts to a loss of a few hundredths of one percent.
   2. Since gravitational force is directly proportional to the mass of the central body (here, the sun) -- refer again to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to see that -- , that means that that loss of mass by a few hundredths of one percent results in a decrease in gravitational force by a few hundredths of one percent.
   3. That slightly lower mass over 5 billion years means that 5 billion years ago the ancient sun's gravitational force would have been a few hundredths of one percent greater.
   4. That slightly greater gravitational force for the ancient sun would have resulted in the earth's orbit to have been smaller by about 60,000 miles. That would mean that the size of the earth's orbit 5 billion years ago would have been 0.999355 that of the earth's current orbit.
   5. Plugging that old semi-major axis from 5 billion years ago back into the formula for the orbital period (Message 2235), we find that that smaller orbit due to the greater solar mass resulted in a year that was about 8353 seconds shorter -- that's a bit more than two hours shorter.

There's your answer. And of course you will completely ignore it. The false religion you have chosen to follow (not to be confused with actual Christianity) can only survive through the ignorance of its followers. Therefore you must do everything you possibly can to preserve your precious ignorance. That means that you must avoid ever learning anything and above all to avoid thinking.So why am I casting these pearls before swine such as yourself? Maybe if I annoy the pig enough it will finally wake up and start to think, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.Rather, this is not really for you, but rather for the lurkers. The many visitors to this forum who read these topics. You are too pig-stubbornly clinging to your ignorance and can therefore never learn, but those lurkers can learn.

I need your help in some research I am conducting. It will require honesty on your part, which you will undoubtedly find very difficult since that is a completely alien concept to creationists and especially to you, but do please try nonetheless.You are obviously scientifically illiterate. Since I have been scientifically literate for as far back as I can remember, I cannot comprehend how scientific illiterates think that things work. I have asked scientific illiterates several times, but they only become very hostile and uncommunicative.Please answer the following few questions as to your own understanding. If you have recently learned that how you thought about them is wrong, then indicate that but also describe how you used to think about them.The questions: Your honest answers can go a long way towards removing misunderstandings between us.