Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2283 of 2370 (881584)
08-25-2020 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2279 by Tangle
08-25-2020 3:21 PM


Re: Time scales
You're forgetting, he IS a geologist.
And also a YEC.
I've been hearing rumors to the effect that he's a geologist, but he hasn't demonstrated any knowledge commensurate with that title. Despite Dr. Sheldon Cooper's position that geology is not really a science, it does still require a certain degree of scientific training, something that Juvenissun clearly does not possess as he has demonstrated over and over again ad nauseum.
I have commented before about a YEC I once had a short correspondence with. He said that he was a scientist and was very insistent on that point. So I asked him which scientific field and he said, "All fields." OK, that rotting fish has started to smell. I kept pushing for more information until he finally explained that he had attended a science class once. I never could get him to tell me whether he had stayed awake in class.
It is a sad fact that you must always verify everything that a YEC tells you. I wish that it weren't that way, but it is what it is.
So, if he has claimed that he is a geologist, what does he base that claim on? And why is he so terrified of talking with a geologist? Especially after he had made such a big show of demanding to talk with a geologist.
There is the possibility that he did receive some schooling in geology, but at a creationist school. In that case, he most likely learned less about geology and more about what they rejected about geology. For example, in the 1988 the Institute for Creation Research (ICR -- Morris and Gish's baby) then in Santee, Calif, was up for accreditation renewal of their master's degrees in science and were refused (big legal hassle ensued; read that whole story here). Part of the process involved a visitation committee visiting the ICR to watch their classes in action; I have a copy of their report. They observed a graduate class in microbiology and their ICR guide made sure to point out that they used the same text book as most secular universities do for their graduate microbiology classes. But the difference lay in how this class was using that book. Every student had a black felt marker and the instructor was leading the class through the book page by page telling them which passages to redact out because, "We don't believe that. And we don't believe that either."
So if Juvenissun received his "geology training" in such an institute, then that could explain the lack of width and breadth in his knowledge along with its lack of quality.
That's illustrated with what happened at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (ICC); Robert Schadewald's report was where I first heard of the recently-late Glenn R. Morton. After his presentation of geological evidence that disproves the claims of Flood Geology (part of that article in Message 1 that Juvenissun kept asking about but refused to even look at), the entire geology staff of the ICR, all two or three of them led by John Morris (who claimed to be a petroleum geologist), attacked him verbally with hostile questions. He chopped Morris off at the ankles with two questions:
  1. "What oil company did you work for?" "Well, uh, none. But I taught petroleum geology one semester at a university." At the University of Oklahoma as I seem to recall, but I didn't want to commit that to the quote. And this is yet another instance of a YEC claiming credentials that he doesn't rate.
  2. "How old is the earth?" John Morris: "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." I have that one on my quotes page since it clearly demonstrates the corner that YEC have painted themselves into -- if they ever have to admit that the earth is far from young, then they are taught that that will disprove the Bible and also God (or else that God is a liar who must not be worshiped).
It was after the answer to that second question that Morton told them about having hired several geology graduates of the ICR (actually, from Christian Heritage College when it used to house the ICR) to work for him at an oil exploration company. It turns out that most of what they were taught was "what is wrong with geology", so when they had to work all day long, day after day, with rock-hard geological evidence that "didn't exist and couldn't exist if Scripture were to have any meaning", they all suffered severe crises of faith.
And then you have YEC geologists like Dr Steve Austin, whose PhD Geology from a secular university was financed by the ICR -- they needed an actual PhD Geology on their staff and couldn't find one so they basically bought one. While a graduate student, he wrote geology articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (at first associated with the ICR until there was a falling out) under the pseudonym of Stuart Nevins. I read some of his articles and was very disappointed to see him use deliberate misrepresentations of geology that even first-year undergraduates would know better than to say (and here he was a graduate student?). Since he got his doctorate and have gone to work for the ICR under his own name, I've seen him engaged in such dishonest actions as gathering samples for radiometric dating making certain to cherry-pick ones that would give a false result -- being a trained geologist, he knows how to do that -- so that he can misrepresent them as evidence that the dating methods don't work.
So then what Juvenissun's story is supposed to be, I don't know. But I'm not holding out much hope for him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2279 by Tangle, posted 08-25-2020 3:21 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2291 by Tangle, posted 08-26-2020 3:44 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2284 of 2370 (881585)
08-25-2020 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2273 by Juvenissun
08-25-2020 2:41 PM


Re: Time scales
Sorry, no matter how brilliant your argument is, these words are enough to turn me off.
Which is what demonstrates that you are indeed a f*cking idiot who's just looking for any lame excuse to avoid discussion by clutching your pearls and complaining about the vapors while fluttering your fan.
You presented a silly scenario and expected a normal person to take it seriously. On the face of it, your "question" was nothing but a piece of brain-dead stupid ad-hoc nonsense, so I informed you of that fact.
In my reply to which you are avoiding to reply yourself, I told you (you are forever lifting quotes out of context, typical of the thoroughly dishonest creationist practice of quote-mining):
DWise1 writes:
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.
So why don't you just present your valid explanation for your silly scenario? Oh yeah, because you yourself know that it's just stupid made-up bullshit nonsense.
The solution to your problem is not to resort to hysteria, but rather to come up with valid questions and explanations. And to actually read replies instead of ignoring them. But that would require honesty, a concept that very sadly is completely alien to creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2273 by Juvenissun, posted 08-25-2020 2:41 PM Juvenissun has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2285 of 2370 (881586)
08-25-2020 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2275 by Juvenissun
08-25-2020 2:47 PM


Re: Time scales
Barbarian.
No, I am clean-shaven.
You, however. You ask a question and we hand you the answer, so you shit in our hand.
Who's being the barbarian here? Not me. Look in the mirror.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2275 by Juvenissun, posted 08-25-2020 2:47 PM Juvenissun has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2287 of 2370 (881589)
08-25-2020 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2276 by Juvenissun
08-25-2020 2:49 PM


Re: Time scales
DWise1 writes:
So then you agree that your silly Himalayas idea is truly stupid.
I would talk to you again when you can talk in decency.
Just curious, but what is your native language? Your attempts at English keep coming off as rather odd. Prepositions are usually one of the hardest things to get right in a foreign language.
I "talk in decency" ... sorry, that's just too silly.
I talk to you in a far more decent manner than you deserve. If you wish to be treated with more decency, then you must yourself act far more decently than you have been.
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?
You really need to let us know just how abjectly ignorant you are. Otherwise, we will continue to misinterpret your faulty statements through ignorance as crass indecency to which we respond in kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2276 by Juvenissun, posted 08-25-2020 2:49 PM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2288 by ringo, posted 08-25-2020 9:12 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 2294 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 10:39 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2289 of 2370 (881591)
08-25-2020 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2288 by ringo
08-25-2020 9:12 PM


Re: Time scales
Non-topic sniping hidden. - Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2288 by ringo, posted 08-25-2020 9:12 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2290 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-25-2020 10:54 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2298 of 2370 (881627)
08-26-2020 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2291 by Tangle
08-26-2020 3:44 AM


Re: Time scales
He's a geologist like I'm a theologian.
Juvenissun
Birthday:Aug 7, 1952 (Age: 68)
Occupation:Research and teaching
Faith: Baptist
Marital Status: Married
Geologist.
A YEC but work with OE models. No contradiction at all.
Fundamentalist.
Build conceptual dynamic models
juvenissun | Christian Forums
Who knows on what he's basing his claim to be a geologist. I've seen so many creationists make such false claims before; eg:
  • That creationist who vehemently insisted that he was a scientist solely because he had attended a science class once. Maybe Juvenissun had once attend a geology class so now he's a "geologist".
  • Maybe Juvenissun once watched a PBS show on geology like PBS' "The Making of a Continent" (1983). So with one PBS show under his belt, now he's a geologist?
    BTW, a couple years later I watched that show with my then-four-year-old son. When the episode got to plate tectonics, my son kept saying "I knew that." But then it got to something he didn't know (I seem to recall that it was plate subduction at a plate boundary) and he quietly said "I didn't know that" a couple times before falling silent. I cannot help but think that my 4-yr-old son probably understood more of that program than Juvenissun did.
  • It was on a Yahoo Groups forum where I did most of my first discussion of Kent Hovind's bogus solar-mass-loss claim. Even though I had already calculated the total mass lost in 5 billion years (Hovind's own figure, though he also used 20 billion years which is much more than the currently estimate of the age of the universe so I ignored that one), one creationist, BlueBird (not exact to protect his privacy), refused to accept it and wrote a QuickBASIC program to calculate it. However, his program got stuck in an infinite loop because his loop variable started out as an integer, but when it overflowed BASIC switched it to floating-point, but that format (IEEE 754, I'd assume) didn't have enough precision so adding one to that floating-point variable never changed its value. I tried to explain the problem to BlueBird, but he refused to listen, proclaiming himself to be a "professional programmer" -- I'm a retired software engineer with a BS Computer Science. He knew nothing about the most basic concepts in computer science, but he was a professional solely because he had once been paid for a QuickBASIC program he had written. Ironically, when I converted his program to nested loops that didn't overflow, his program produced lower results than my own calculations had (BlueBird and Hovind needed those results to be much higher). Then suddenly BlueBird had very important business to attend to elsewhere (ie, he ran away like all creationists end up doing).
    So maybe Juvenissun had once been paid by a farmer to figure out where to dig a well, so suddenly he's a "geologist".
  • For decades Kent Hovind has continually bragged about being an expert in science and mathematics because he taught both subjects "in high school for 15 years." That "high school" was three private Baptist schools (one of which he had started), so we know that they had no academic standards regarding teacher qualifications. Also, that was for 13 years, not 15, so we have an example of his expertise in arithmetic. We don't know how much science and math training he had in his own schooling: high school graduate, one year at community college, transferred to an unaccredited Baptist college earning a bachelor's in religion, bought his masters and doctorate in "religious education" from a degree mill.
    In addition, from Glenn R. Morton's presentation at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (see my Message 2283) on geological evidence he had collected while working as a petroleum geologist, John Morris of the ICR challenged him starting by identifying himself as a "petroleum geologist". It turned out that Morris was not a petroleum geologist, having never worked in that profession, but rather he had once taught the subject at a state university.
    Reportedly a famous imposter (I think Tony Curtis portrayed him in The Great Imposter, 1961) said that the easiest profession to fake was a college professor. All he had to do was to read the textbook a few chapters ahead of the class.
    So maybe Juvenissun had once taught a geology class, so that suddenly makes him a geologist.
And of course we have Juvenissun's consistent misconduct here. He always goes out of his way to avoid answering even the simplest questions as if he is trying to hide his own ignorance of geology. After repeatedly insisting that he will only talk with a geologist, but when a geologist does present himself (Minnemooseus in Message 2129) Juvenissun immediately runs away. This guy stinks of fraud.
Edited by dwise1, : removed possible ambiguity by naming Juvenissun explicitly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2291 by Tangle, posted 08-26-2020 3:44 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2312 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:39 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2299 of 2370 (881631)
08-26-2020 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 2294 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 10:39 AM


Re: Time scales
When talk about Geology, the difference between me and everyone else here is like the difference between a Ph.D. and school kids.
Sorry, but you are obviously over-inflating yourself. You come nowhere close to the level of school kids. Maybe if you would stop clinging so desperately to your abject ignorance you might one day achieve the level of school kids. Frankly and sadly, I don't think you have it in you.
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.
No conceivable effect on the orbit of the earth of the kind that you are fishing for. However, it would most definitely have an effect on the rate of spin of the earth, since such an event would change the earth's moment of inertia (the rotational analog to mass in calculating momentum, which is mass × velocity). As I already explained to you (Message 2223 and Message 2248), ... [sigh] ... when you change the earth's moment of inertia then you also change its rate of rotation because of Conservation of Angular Momentum.
Conservation of angular momentum is such a basic and simple concept that I cannot comprehend how you could be so abjectly ignorant of it.
DWise1 writes:
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?
{ crickets }
So you are also abjectly ignorant of kinetic energy? Really? How is that humanly possible? School kids know about kinetic energy! You really do need to start working very hard to try to get up to their level (except I know that you will refuse to because knowledge and learning are against your religion).
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.
 
Seriously, I need to learn how your brain stunted by scientific illiteracy thinks that things work. I presented a few questions to you that I do need honest answers to (despite your demonstrated inability to do anything honestly).
Again from Message 2281:
  1. How does the sun burn? That is to say, what is the process by which it burns? And what does it burn (ie, what is its fuel, oxidizer, etc)?
  2. How does the burning of the sun affect the sun's mass? That is to say, if the burning of the sun causes it to lose mass, how does that loss of mass happen?
  3. In combustion, which is the burning of a fuel in the presence of oxygen, does the mass of the fuel cease to exist?
  4. If you were to speed the earth up in its orbit (eg, have it go twice as fast), will it stay in that orbit?
Until we understand what scientific illiterates such as yourself are not understanding, we cannot help you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2294 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 10:39 AM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2300 by NosyNed, posted 08-26-2020 3:28 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 2309 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:29 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2301 of 2370 (881633)
08-26-2020 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2292 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 10:28 AM


Re: Time scales
Take your argument one at a time.
Sure, I'm game (don't shoot me! -- old joke: if a hunter suggests you do something, never respond with "I'm game")
Of course, you will completely ignore my response and absolutely refuse to learn anything, so I'm doing this for the edification of the lurkers and of the other forum members -- this forum page reports the presence of 6 members and 49 visitors.
In geology or in astronomy, a tiny bit change could be very significant.
Yes, that is the case in basic chaos theory. However, that applies to the effects of minor differences in initial conditions which then amplify into large effects at much later stages of the system. It's popularly known as "the Butterfly Effect". That is not what we are dealing with here.
There are also certain systems in which changes in some factors have much more effect than others. You can use partial differentiation to see how the different dependent variables affect their multiple variable function, or at the very least differentiate that function with respect to an individual variable -- but since you appear to be extremely challenged even by simple algebra, I very much doubt that you have any clue about calculus.
For example, the rate of a fusion reaction is dependent on a number of factors. I've seen that function. I noticed that the rate of fusion is directly proportional to the temperature raised to the fourth power. That makes the rate of a fusion reaction very sensitive to changes in temperature -- eg, differentiating that function we find changes in that rate to be directly proportional to the cube of changes in temperature. That is a case of a system being sensitive to small changes, basically on a curve similar to an exponential curve.
Gravitational force is different, because it is directly proportional to the central body's mass. Here's the formula again since your copying lost the mark-up (to copy the mark-up tags, go into Peek Mode):
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".
As someone able to read algebra (which I assume you cannot do according to your performance so far) can see, gravitational force is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the central body and the orbiting body. If you were to double that mass, then you would only double the gravitational force. If you were to decrease that mass by a factor of 0.9996, then you would decrease gravitational force by that same factor. Since 0.9996 is very close to one, then that amounts to virtually no change!
BTW, that factor of 0.9996 is the effects of solar mass loss over the past five billion years. As I have already told you.
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
Which we have found to cause one of the factors affecting how fast the earth rotates, albeit a major factor. Some of the factors slow the earth's rotation down and some speed it up (your collapsing Himalayas would speed it up), but the overall effect is that the earth's rotation is slowing down.
The fact that the earth's rotation is not constant came to be suspected by astronomers in the late 19th century so they started making very meticulous measurements. By the 1920's, they had confirmed their suspicions and started working out a much more accurate form of time-keeping using astronomical measurements, which by 1951 led to the establishment of astronomical time whose second was based on the length of the mean solar day in 1900, which was when all those meticulous measurements were made. The development of atomic clocks in the 1950's and 1960's led to an atomic standard for time which adopted the astronomical second as its standard. That second from 1900 then became the International Standard second (SI second).
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?
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.
First, your idea that the earth is gaining mass is incorrect as we already established in Message 2280 so then you have no excuse for not knowing better. While the earth is gaining about 40,000 tonnes of mass per year through meteoric infall, it is also losing 50,000 tonnes of mass per year through losses in the core (I think through fission reactions) and primarily through hydrogen and helium lost from the atmosphere into space. That results in a net loss of earth mass of 10,000 tonnes per year.
So then the earth is losing mass, not gaining it. Do please try to make some kind of effort to get something right.
Second, the mass of the sun is so much greater than the mass of the earth, so the former swamps out the latter (since you seem challenged by English, that means that the sun's mass swamps out the effects of the earth's mass, especially with regard to the earth's orbit).
 
Certainly as the sun loses its mass over time, then the earth's orbit would move farther out over time. The only question is: by how much?
I have already told you that in Message 2177, Message 2280, and on my web page, Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim. The amount of the loss of solar mass over a period of five billion years (1 billion = 109) caused the earth's orbit to increase its size (ie, its semi-major axis which represents its radius -- its an ellipse thing that you would not understand) by less than 60,000 miles. So in another 5 billion years, we would expect the earth's orbit to change by another 60,000 miles.
 
We've been through all this several times already. Why do you still refuse to learn anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2292 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 10:28 AM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2304 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:04 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2302 of 2370 (881634)
08-26-2020 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2300 by NosyNed
08-26-2020 3:28 PM


Re: Definitions
I've already tried but it's impossible to try to reason with Juvenissun.
He seems to also have gotten his ideas about orbital mechanics from Sandra Bullock's movie, Gravity, in which the space junk debris cloud was ripping through low earth orbit much faster than the various spacecraft in that same orbit. That's not how it works, yet he seems to think otherwise. I've asked him that question directly two times now. No response.
I think he's read stuff about seismic events affecting the length of the day and muddled it all up in there.
That may well be the case, though his confusion seems to run far deeper.
Do you remember several months ago how somebody (creation?) tried to argue that the year used to literally be 360 days long and then something happened that suddenly changed the earth's orbit? He based it on how so many ancient calendars had 360 days. What he forgot was that those calendars also had intercalary days added at the end of the official year, usually in the form of a festival, to make up the difference and so the seasons would work out right. It turns out that they were really in love with the number 360 for its unique mathematical properties so they chose it for their calendars despite having to tweak it. Then Roman politicians politicized those intercalary days, declaring more of them to keep their people in power longer or fewer to get their opponents out of office sooner. So Julius Caesar established the Julian Calendar in 46 BCE, of which the later Gregorian Calendar is a refinement.
At no point was the actual physical year literally 360 days long, though it will be some time in the future.
Edited by dwise1, : qs and my reply

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2300 by NosyNed, posted 08-26-2020 3:28 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2305 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:16 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2307 of 2370 (881639)
08-26-2020 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2303 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 5:38 PM


Re: Time scales
ringo writes:
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?
No, it is not enough! ringo asked you a direct and sincere question. You dodged that question to avoid answering it.
How's 'bout you just answer his question? You make us wonder what you are trying to hide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2303 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 5:38 PM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2311 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:37 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2308 of 2370 (881640)
08-26-2020 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2306 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 6:18 PM


Re: Definitions
NosyNed writes:
It maybe an idea to ask Juve if he know the difference between orbiting and rotating. I think he's read stuff about seismic events affecting the length of the day and muddled it all up in there.
You can ask me that question.
OK, so answer it already.
And while you're at it, please answer my simple questions which I now present to you for the third time:
Again from Message 2281:
  1. How does the sun burn? That is to say, what is the process by which it burns? And what does it burn (ie, what is its fuel, oxidizer, etc)?
  2. How does the burning of the sun affect the sun's mass? That is to say, if the burning of the sun causes it to lose mass, how does that loss of mass happen?
  3. In combustion, which is the burning of a fuel in the presence of oxygen, does the mass of the fuel cease to exist?
  4. If you were to speed the earth up in its orbit (eg, have it go twice as fast), will it stay in that orbit?
My questions are pertinent to NosyNed's message because he's asking the same kind of question: Why are you so confused and why are you coming up with such crazily stupid stuff?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2306 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:18 PM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2310 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:36 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2314 of 2370 (881650)
08-26-2020 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2304 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 6:04 PM


Re: Time scales
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.
It was as long as it needed to be. Besides, it is very difficult to tell how extensive your abject ignorance is, so we don't know whether the very basic knowledge that we leave out isn't one of the many things that you do not know. Therefore, we are forced to make our messages much more complete. We cannot afford to assume anything about what you know and what you don't.
There is no butterfly effect in the geologic process. Even it has, the rate would be too slow to see the impact.
What you wrote was invoking the butterfly effect, so I had to address it and show that it doesn't come into play here. I assume that we now agree on this point.
What I am talking about is a single simple process, but continued for millions of years.
Which I did address. So is this your concession that you agree with my treatment of the subject? Since you say nothing about it, that must be the case.
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.
Ah, but what if the earth rotation slowed down 2,000,000 seconds per minute? Then what impossible consequences would that have?
Earth's rotation is not slowing down 2 milliseconds per year, nowhere near that impossible rate -- and just where in the hell did you get that impossibly false rate from? The actual rate is 2 ms per day per century, which means that after 100 years the day will be 2 milliseconds longer than it had been one hundred years before. I've already told you that multiple times and now have explained the history of it to you (which is on my web page about the creationist leap second claim, but which you would never ever dare to even look at for fear of possibly learning something).
Leap seconds are a very real thing; I know that because I worked with them in conjunction with GPS receivers which I worked with for the last two decades of my career. They actually work in exactly the same way that leap years work. A year is 365.25 (approx) days long, so you have three years that are 365 days long and then every fourth year you add a day to bring everything back into sync (actually, it's a quarter day minus about 11 minutes, which is why the Gregorian correction is needed).
Leap seconds are just the same thing. Every single day that goes by, Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, which is the time that we set our clocks to) drifts away from Atomic Time by 2 ms per day. After 18 months, we have drifted away from official time by one second, so we add a "leap second" to sync mean solar time back up with atomic time. It's just that simple.
OK, some basic math here. Every UTC day is 2 ms longer than a day in official atomic time. One day goes by and we're off by 2 ms. A second day goes by and we're now 4 ms off. A third day and it's now 6 ms that we are off. And so on and so on. The accumulation of 2 ms cumulative error per day over a period of 18 months amounts to an accumulated error of about one second.
Well, some stupid creationists (eg, Walt Brown) misinterpreted the leap second as meaning that adding that leap second every 18 months meant that the earth's rotation was slowing down at the rate of one second every 18 months, which is absolutely ridiculous.
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.
As I just now demonstrated, that is all nothing but complete and utter stupid nonsense.
Really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2304 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:04 PM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2320 by Juvenissun, posted 08-27-2020 11:59 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2315 of 2370 (881651)
08-26-2020 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2312 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 6:39 PM


Re: Time scales
You must have a lot time to waste in this writing. Have nothing better to do?
Well, part of agonizing the swine is the satisfaction of making them squeal.
You are trying to fraudulently promote yourself as being a geologist.
Everything that you have posted has demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
Even geologists normally demonstrate that they know what they are talking about.
You on the the other hand have demonstrated repeatedly and consistently that you have absolutely no fucking idea what you are blathering on about.
 
So then, you want to claim that you are an actual geologist. So then just what the fuck do you base that claim on?
If you had any actual credentials, you should have absolutely no problem answering that question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2312 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:39 PM Juvenissun has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2316 by jar, posted 08-26-2020 8:43 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2333 of 2370 (881690)
08-27-2020 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2320 by Juvenissun
08-27-2020 11:59 AM


Re: Time scales
No, you did far more than that. You grossly inflated the rate in order to arrive at very bogus conclusions :
Juvenissun writes:
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.
At the actual rate at which the earth's rotation is actually slowing down, then 200 million years ago (your 2E8) the earth's rotation would have been faster (not slower) by one hour, which is 3600 seconds. That means that by misrepresenting the rate at which the earth is slowing you inflated your result by a factor of 27.78. Very dishonest of you!
This argument just emphasized on that a tiny change may become significant through the geologic time.
Except that it doesn't work as you wish it would, as you need it to work in order to justify long lifespan that the story reports for Noah. This tiny change in the length of the earth's rotational period does result in hours of difference over long periods of geologic time, such as 12 hours [i]over the past four billion years (ie, 4,000 million years -- not everybody reading this uses the US billion).
You require enormous change over short periods of time in order to support your apologetics for the Story of Noah. Nothing that you have tried to invoke will do that. In fact, you have tried almost everything you can except for the actual answer: It's a story! Instead of wasting your time and effort on this story, you should do something far more constructive, such as figuring out ways in which Thor's hammer, Mjlnir, can be lifted by someone or something that is not worthy (Cap: "The elevator is not worthy.").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2320 by Juvenissun, posted 08-27-2020 11:59 AM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2338 by Juvenissun, posted 08-27-2020 4:59 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 2334 of 2370 (881691)
08-27-2020 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2317 by Pollux
08-26-2020 9:54 PM


Re: Himalaya erosion
Eroding mountains will not affect the length of the year, because all the eroded particles are still orbiting at the same rate, and they are tiny fraction of the Earth's mass. There is a measurable effect on the ROTATION of the Earth from quakes and redistribution of mass, but it is also tiny.
For example, one of the factors slowing the earth's spin down is the ongoing (and slow) rebound of the northern hemisphere as it recovers from the weight of the ice cap during the last ice age. That is changing the earth's moment of inertia, increasing it, which results in a corresponding decrease in the earth's spin due to conservation of angular momentum.
Juvenissun's main problem is that he does not understand physics, not even the most basic and simple physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2317 by Pollux, posted 08-26-2020 9:54 PM Pollux has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024