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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moons: their origin, age, & recession
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 151 of 222 (528663)
10-06-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 3:53 PM


Re: Name please.
You were asked to give the "Princeton Astronomers" name. That isn't you. Now provide the name. Or admit you don't have one.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 3:53 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Theodoric, posted 10-06-2009 4:52 PM Huntard has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 152 of 222 (528668)
10-06-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by cavediver
10-06-2009 3:54 PM


Re: Go ahead
You have no ability to address the criticisms levelled at your ideas, yet you have no grace to back down and accept that you are woefully outmatched here.
I am not going to address him directly because I am weary of his attitude. He won't take answers when they are laid right in front of him. He is the one who should 'back down' because he hasn't got a clue about the formation of earths moon or any other moon for that matter and he cannot prove that the formula I posted in the topic is in error.
He doesn't even know of the origin of gravitational forces in the first place! But of course, us 'ignorant' Christians are supposed to swallow the nonsense that nature developed things like F = Gm1m2/r^2 and that the balance of nature 'balanced' itself! Anyone who follows that line of thinking is a fool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2009 3:54 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Briterican, posted 10-06-2009 4:44 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 153 of 222 (528669)
10-06-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 3:16 PM


Re: Go ahead
quote:
you can only ignore this for so long before everyone reading realizes that you just don't have an answer for it. I for one plodded along in this thread hoping you would answer the question. Please do. I don't want to have to read another thread where you ignore the meat of everyone's posts to address non-issues.
You aren't telling the truth. I answered the question more than once but it is ignored. I not only explained it myself but I pointed the readers to the experts who developed the formula. Here is yet another:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/art.../age-of-the-universe-2
You aren't telling the truth.
I am telling the truth.
I answered the question more than once but it is ignored.
Then you aren't understanding what is being asked of you.
I not only explained it myself but I pointed the readers to the experts who developed the formula.
What you did was demonstrate why it is a constant in your equation. The question was why is k assumed to be constant? Like I said before, we understand how it works in your equation, but WHY is it assumed to be constant?
None of that explained why k is constant.
Either you are dodging on purpose, which is dishonest, or you are really just not getting what is being asked of you.
If you can't explain why k is constant, outside of your equation, please do not bother responding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 3:16 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 154 of 222 (528670)
10-06-2009 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 1:10 PM


Is there a topic here?
Some evolutionists believe that the creation is the result of a random arrangement of atoms and molecules over billions of years. But when they consider the development of the human brain by random processes within a time span of less than a million years, they have to admit that this span is just not long enough. Or take the evolution of the eye in the animal world. What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?
Our space ventures have been only the smallest of steps in the vast reaches of the universe and have introduced more mysteries than they have solved. Speaking for myself, I can only say that the grandeur of the cosmos serves to confirm my belief in the certainty of a Creator."
Can you please give me a clue as to what this has to do with the age of the moon.
Just a hint.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:10 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 155 of 222 (528674)
10-06-2009 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 1:12 PM


Re: Name please.
So this was just a plagiarized story.
My name has nothing to do with the issue of your story. In order to give your story any credence at all the name of this supposed Princeton astronomer is very important.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 1:12 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 156 of 222 (528676)
10-06-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 11:48 AM


So the first two answers don't warrant a response? Because why? No creationist tract that deals with them?
Such answers are so pitifully shallow that it's hardly worth answering.
Oh wise one, please give us a "deep" answer.
You might want to include some real science.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 11:48 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 4:33 PM Theodoric has not replied

Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 157 of 222 (528678)
10-06-2009 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by slevesque
10-06-2009 3:41 PM


Re: Go ahead
More angular momentum means it moves faster around the earth, which in turn makes it have a higher orbit.
I am researching into your question. You seem to be more reasonable than Calypsis4 when it comes to considering the evidence. I'll make the effort to learn the answer to your questions, so I hope you will consider objectively whatever answer I do find.
Of course, if anyone does know the answer it will certainly save me a lot of time...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by slevesque, posted 10-06-2009 3:41 PM slevesque has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 158 of 222 (528679)
10-06-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Izanagi
10-06-2009 3:40 PM


Re: Go ahead
Don't presume to know what I will or will not accept.
If and when I see you personally then I will show you as I have done with other skepics, some of whom did accept and others rejected.
Give observable evidence of this.
Look in the mirror. Are the atoms of your body holding together? How about everything else around you? Are those atoms holding together? Now, there is an ancient text of scripture that tells us that God holds all things together. He is the most famous human being that ever lived because of His power before the people. By Him all things consist. You are seeing His power whether you recognize it or not.
Give observable evidence of this.
I have in my files hundreds of answers to prayer that I have made in the last 40 yrs. I am by no means alone in this experience. Which of those should I post? And if I do so will I not be off topic? We will have to finish this particular area of discussion on another thread.
You have observable evidence of the formation of the moons?
No, I have something just as good. But I cannot do it here so don't harp on a point that I cannot reveal on this venue.
The Bible is a written account of the history of the world from creation until the time of Christ. If you can't accept that as authoritative then we are at an impass. Nonetheless, since I have seen miraculous power, instantaneous healings, & supernatural occurrences on a number of occasions, and because true science comports with divine revelation, I utterly reject the skeptics position that the blind forces of natures made all things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 3:40 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 4:49 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 169 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2009 5:11 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 159 of 222 (528681)
10-06-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Theodoric
10-06-2009 4:20 PM


Oh wise one, please give us a "deep" answer.
For someone who is incapable of 'deep' thinking...or perhaps I should say, 'honest' thinking.
Tell the readers how the moons of our solar system developed. Better yet, tell them how the solar system developed from nebulous gases. Then give an illustration from observation.
Edited by Calypsis4, : correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Theodoric, posted 10-06-2009 4:20 PM Theodoric has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 160 of 222 (528682)
10-06-2009 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by slevesque
10-06-2009 3:48 PM


Re: Go ahead
Hi slevesque - I'm sorry but I have to say this: you are far too smart to be a creationist, and you will not last long
Back to your diagram. The degree of acceleration on the Moon caused by the bulge is directly related to the lag angle (angle between the bulge axis NA and the Earth-Moon axis NM). The earth was spinning faster in the past, which increased the lag angle. Now, do you think that this dynamic process is addressed by DeYoung's approach?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by slevesque, posted 10-06-2009 3:48 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by slevesque, posted 10-06-2009 5:38 PM cavediver has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 161 of 222 (528684)
10-06-2009 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 3:44 PM


Man-up and deal with the question honestly
I am not saying that it wasn't different but the explanations for it have been given! Did you even bother to read the extensive articles I provided in previous posts?
No you haven't supplied any information that explains WHY k is considered a constant.
Lets take a look at your links to see IF ANY explains why (k) is a constant.
Starting with your OP Message 1 (no link given) k is simply considered a constant and not explained as to why...
Moving forward.
From Message 71:
Oni writes:
And I'll repeat my original question, as cavediver has requested as well, why the constant (k)...? You have yet to answer this...
Just answer where (k) comes from so we can continue from there
Calypsis writes:
I thought it would be clear by now. Nonetheless, k is a constant = present speed: 0.04 m/year.
*Note: Still no reason for k being a constant.
In Message 121 you give this link: Creation.com/moon recession
From that link:
quote:
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.36—38 Therefore, k = 1.42 x 1050 m7/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.
*Note: Again, k is simply assumed to be a constant, and no reason given as to why.
In Message 135 you give this link: AiG
From that link:
quote:
The constant k can be found using the current measured rate of lunar recession: 3.8 cm/year. Thus, k = r6dr/dt = (384,401km)6 x (.000038km/year) = 1.2 x 1029 km7/year. The lunar recession equation is then solved for the extreme case (the upper limit on age of the moon):
*Note: Yet again, k is simply assumed to be a constant, and no reason given as to why.
Finally, in Message 144, which is the post I'm responding to, you say you give links that explain it. Looking back at all your posts, which I have quoted, you can see that you haven't.
Then, being the dishonest bitch that you seem to be, you give up and say:
Calypsis writes:
Call Don DeYoung and talk to him. You can get in touch with him through Grace College:
Is that your argument? To not explain what you're talking about, not deal with questions directly and then tell us to make a phone call? How fuck'n pathetic can you be?
If you have any balls, deal with this question straight and honestly (which you haven't answered yet):
From Message 79 which you didn't reply to:
quote:
WHY does DeYoung feel it's a constant when there is a concensus that it is NOT a constant?
Again I'll ask, WHY does DeYoung present it as a constant?
What's his reason for it being a constant when it is understood that it is NOT a constant?
DeYoung is assume that the rate has always been 4 cm/year... Why is that...?
The way I understand it, the further the moon moves away from the earth the more constant its recession seems to become, but it wasn't always at that rate, nor is the rate constant. Now, where am I wrong - and why is DeYoung's assumtion right? Please explain...
That's the evidence I've been asking for, will you continue to evade that question?
Stop being evasive and deal with your OP. This thread is not about observing moons forming, or any other nonsensical argument that you've spun off into (all off-topic).
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 3:44 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by slevesque, posted 10-06-2009 4:51 PM onifre has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 162 of 222 (528686)
10-06-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 2:49 PM


Off topic are you serious
You have shown repeatedly that you ahve no qualms about going off topic when you feel it suits your interests(the funny thing it never suits your interests). But when someone follows up on one of you off-topic posts you claim the issue is off-topic. You are the most disingenuous debater we have had here in a long time.
Something you should learn and slevesque has tried to point out to you, volume of posts don't make you point any better. If anything they hurt you. The strength of your argument is incumbent on the quality of your posts. That you are being criticized by another creationist should tell you something. If it does not you have a huge issue with self-awareness.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 2:49 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


(1)
Message 163 of 222 (528688)
10-06-2009 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 4:08 PM


Re: Go ahead
quote:
He won't take answers when they are laid right in front of him.
Do you mean answers like "The Lord Jesus Christ, co-Creator with the Father and King of the universe" ?
quote:
He doesn't even know of the origin of gravitational forces in the first place! But of course, us 'ignorant' Christians are supposed to swallow the nonsense that nature developed things like F = Gm1m2/r^2 and that the balance of nature 'balanced' itself! Anyone who follows that line of thinking is a fool.
Nature didn't develop the fancy formula, we did. We needed it to model and explain the processes that go on in nature in a way that the human mind can comprehend. You are doing a very dangerous thing with this sort of angry, anti-science ranting. You are proposing that *YOUR ad-hoc religious opinions should hold greater weight to us than the objective study of the natural processes that go on in our universe.
*Need I remind you that many of your precious faith based beliefs are not shared by other large portions of the Christian populace (i.e. different denominations, YEC v OEC, etc)
Science has its opposed camps as well, those who support this theory, those who support that. The tremendous difference is that the scientists go where the evidence leads them, and thus those on the losing team eventually bow out (usually not gracefully) and make way for the new ideas about how our universe works. And those new ideas may still be wrong, or incomplete at least. But that's how science works. It's almost always a "best guess" situation. It couldn't be any other way. Unless of course you throw in some supernatural stuff, which is where you guys come in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 4:08 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(2)
Message 164 of 222 (528690)
10-06-2009 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Calypsis4
10-06-2009 4:31 PM


Re: Go ahead
If and when I see you personally then I will show you as I have done with other skepics, some of whom did accept and others rejected.
Why must it be shown personally? Seems a bit suspicious to me...
Are the atoms of your body holding together? How about everything else around you? Are those atoms holding together?
But you see, science can explain that too. The electromagnetic force keeps an atom together and keeps the atoms together in molecules. See, this answers HOW atoms and molecules stay together. HOW does God keep atoms and molecules together in your "God did it" model?
I have in my files hundreds of answers to prayer that I have made in the last 40 yrs.
How have you documented this? Have you made recordings and have video evidence? Regardless, it doesn't show HOW you can prove God created the moon and put it into orbit.
No, I have something just as good. But I cannot do it here so don't harp on a point that I cannot reveal on this venue.
The Bible is a written account of the history of the world from creation until the time of Christ. If you can't accept that as authoritative then we are at an impass. Nonetheless, since I have seen miraculous power, instantaneous healings, & supernatural occurrences on a number of occasions, and because true science comports with divine revelation, I utterly reject the skeptics position that the blind forces of natures made all things.
To quote an aphorism, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Once again I will say that science deals with the HOW, not the WHO or WHY. Science explains HOW things happened, not WHO did it or WHY they did it. All your explanations that say "God did it" only serve to answer the question WHO. I am asking HOW. H-O-W, just in case you are dyslexic and are mistaking who for how. So HOW did God do it and show me observed evidence of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Calypsis4, posted 10-06-2009 4:31 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 165 of 222 (528692)
10-06-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by onifre
10-06-2009 4:35 PM


Re: Man-up and deal with the question honestly
I think they do adress the possibility that k is not constant:
In this view, it is therefore ‘necessary to make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration’.54 This is tantamount to saying that the proportionality constant k in equations (1) and (2) is actually variable,55 and must be adjusted to bring lunar chronology in line with that of the earth.56 The extremely speculative nature of such an adjustment was emphasized by Mignard who said, ‘even if we have sound reasons to accept a substantial reduction of the dissipation in the past, we are still lacking evidence of what the Moon’s orbit looked like 3 or 4 billion years ago’.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 4:35 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 5:03 PM slevesque has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024