|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
I am not going to tell you how granite is made. But only let you know that moon has no granite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Only a f*cking idiot such as yourself Barbarian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
So then you agree that your silly Himalayas idea is truly stupid. I would talk to you again when you can talk in decency.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Because the moon is made from the same materials as Earth. No, it is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
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:Gravitational Force: Fg = gravitational_constant (masscentral body massorbiting body) / distance2 If the central body's mass is significantly greater than the orbiting body's mass, then we can safely ignore the orbiting body's mass. Gravitational force can be changed by changing the distance or by changing the mass of the central body. Changing the mass of the central body happens far less often than changing the distance, though it can happen such as in the case of the sun losing mass by "burning".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. Take your argument one at a time.In geology or in astronomy, a tiny bit change could be very significant. A model for the moon is that it goes away from the earth a little bit at a time, but continuous for a long time. And we see the significant consequence. If the sun continued to lose its mass and/or the earth continued to gain mass, that would certainly be a process which made the earth go away from the sun continuously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Thanks for the digging. I did not change since then except my age.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
And it is rather odd that you would go to clutching your pearls and suffering from the vapors over being told the simple truth that your silly Himalayas idea is truly stupid, which is what you yourself had just said! BTW, I cannot help but notice that you completely avoid the kinetic energy part of that "idea". Is that because you do not know what kinetic energy is? When talk about Geology, the difference between me and everyone else here is like the difference between a Ph.D. and school kids. Do you know the Himalayan Mountains once simply drop straightforward down a few thousand feet? The feature is called "tectonic erosion". If you care to learn, you may look it up. I do believe that had some significant effect to the orbit of the earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Did I talk to you a lot about granite? You should know that I am not kidding around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Maybe you could tell us what the composition of the moon has to do with the flood. There has not been a flood on the moon. The moon rocks are bone dry and moon rocks can not change like the same rocks would do on the earth. So the moon rocks stopped generating water soon after their formation. Is it enough?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
The earth's rotation is slowing down at the rate of about 2 milliseconds per day per century, so in the century since 1900 the mean solar day has become 2 ms longer. In all past discussions of this, you have insisted that changing the rate of the earth's spin would change its orbit about the sun and would do so drastically. Have you finally realized how utterly wrong that idea of yours is or are you still holding to it? Your stuff read much better now. And thanks for giving so much information. It is tooo long, and I don't know how to respond to all of them. So, I just pick some: There is no butterfly effect in the geologic process. Even it has, the rate would be too slow to see the impact. What I am talking about is a single simple process, but continued for millions of years. If the earth rotation slowed down 2E-3 sec. per year, then in 2E8 years (back to the Jurrasic time), the earth would be 1E5 sec. slower in spinning. The same consideration applies to the mass change of the earth. The earth is gaining weight since the beginning. I don't think there is any fusion reaction at the center of the earth. The center of the earth is solid, with a density like that of gold. This comes from seismology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
and then something happened that suddenly changed the earth's orbit? Seriously, this is a highly likely event in the earth history. It might have happened more than once. The reason is trivial. The earth was hit by asteroids, moons, planets many many times. A sudden change of orbit must be the consequence. Look at the geologic recent, how much orbit shift took place by the hit that killed dinosaurs 60 m.y. ago? We do not know because we do not know the direction of hit. A careful study on the rate change of some key geological processes may reveal something about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
You can ask me that question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
You really have no clue why the subsidence of a mountain would have far less effect than a mountain-sized asteroid hitting the earth at high velocity? Really? Your ignorance is absolutely mind-boggling. Inhuman even. Some possible data for you: Mass: The area of Tibet, 30 km thick.Density: in average 3.0 Speed of fall: Hmm.. I am not sure on this. Roughly 3 km in 5 million years. Notice this is an average speed. Landed on the surface of earth's mantle (not a entirely solid material). I care less about the spin of earth. But would that change the orbit of the earth (just a little bit)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
If you were to speed the earth up in its orbit (eg, have it go twice as fast), will it stay in that orbit? No. It won't. That is the point. A collision between asteroid and earth would have 50% (?) chance to push the earth away from the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
There has not been a flood on the moon. The moon rocks are bone dry and moon rocks can not change like the same rocks would do on the earth. So the moon rocks stopped generating water soon after their formation. WHERE did I dodged the question? I gave MORE than it is needed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024