|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moons: their origin, age, & recession | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Some concluding remarks about the matter: The focus of the dissension in the matter is on the constant k. But I never insisted that k is absolute or never changes. Your concluding remarks are to admit that "the constant k" is not a constant. One mystery remains, which is why, if you admit that it is not a constant, you call it a constant. I can think of one reason why you would do something so mindbogglingly stupid, but the moderators on this forum would not approve of my explanation.
Interesting that research on tidal rhythmites seem to be consistent with k as it concerns geologic time. Quote: "The tidal rhythmites in the Proterozoic Big Cottonwood Formation (Utah, United States), the Neoproterozoic Elatina Formation of the Flinders Range (southern Australia), and the Lower Pennsylvanian Pottsville Formation (Alabama, United States) and Mansfield Formation (Indiana, United States) indicate that the rate of retreat of the lunar orbit is d/dt k2 sin(2) (where is the Earth-moon radius vector, k2 is the tidal Love number, and is the tidal lag angle) and that this rate has been approximately constant since the late Precambrian." Source: C.P. Sonett, E.P. Kvale, A. Zakharian, M.A. Chan, and T.M. Demko, Late Proterozoic and Paleozoic Tides, Retreat of the Moon, and Rotation of the Earth, Science 273 (1996): p. 100—104. This will undoubtedly go right over the heads of my opponents but it is extremely significant in this argument. Wow. A creationist just mentioned the existence of rhythmites, quoted a paper proving that the Earth is old, and said that this would "undoubtedly go right over the heads of his opponents". Here's a tip. If you wish to make false statements about the age of the Earth, don't mention rhythmites. Hush them up. This proof that the Earth is old is not something you want to talk about. We know that you're wrong, but you could at least pretend that you're right, you don't have to rub everyone's noses into how appallingly wrong you are. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
I don't want to listen to the whole video, could you give the exact time he talks about this ? If you're asking how long he talks: about 39 minutes; 13 minutes per video.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
slevesque writes: I don't want to listen to the whole video, could you give the exact time he talks about this ? Calypsis writes: If you're asking how long he talks: about 39 minutes; 13 minutes per video. Wow. Calypsis can in fact misunderstand everything. There is apparently no sentence in the English language so simple, clear, and plain, that Calypsis can't manage to misinterpret it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Wow. A creationist just mentioned the existence of rhythmites, quoted a paper proving that the Earth is old, and said that this would "undoubtedly go right over the heads of his opponents Is he even capable of thinking on a different level? I don't agree with their evolutionary time scale. I merely pointed out that from their perspective the evidence that they interpret as the lunar regression has not changed since pre-cambrian times. That's over 542 million yrs ago (according to them). So if k has been stable for that long then even from the evolutionists time frame the theory of 4.6 billion yr age of the moon won't work. What my opponents have been harping at all day is our use of the constant k...but as Doc Adequate failed to grasp is that we don't have a time frame in human history that we know that the figure has changed. Guesswork has to be applied to any change in what appears to be stable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 263 Joined:
|
Interesting that research on tidal rhythmites seem to be consistent with k as it concerns geologic time. Quote: "The tidal rhythmites in the Proterozoic Big Cottonwood Formation (Utah, United States), the Neoproterozoic Elatina Formation of the Flinders Range (southern Australia), and the Lower Pennsylvanian Pottsville Formation (Alabama, United States) and Mansfield Formation (Indiana, United States) indicate that the rate of retreat of the lunar orbit is d/dt k2 sin(2) (where is the Earth-moon radius vector, k2 is the tidal Love number, and is the tidal lag angle) and that this rate has been approximately constant since the late Precambrian." Source: C.P. Sonett, E.P. Kvale, A. Zakharian, M.A. Chan, and T.M. Demko, Late Proterozoic and Paleozoic Tides, Retreat of the Moon, and Rotation of the Earth, Science 273 (1996): p. 100—104.
If you're going to use something, try understand the big picture.
Scienceblog.com looks into your source and interestingly enough, it says that earliest date of those formations was from roughly 900 ma. That lies within the late Precambrian but the Precambrian spans 4500 ma (4.5 billion years) to 542 ma. This also closely corresponds to TalkOrigins article on moon recession where they mentioned what the Williams reported lunar recession from 650 ma to now was. TalkOrigins also mentions that Williams calculated the rate of retreat from 2500 ma to 650 ma. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 263 Joined:
|
I merely pointed out that from their perspective the evidence that they interpret as the lunar regression has not changed since pre-cambrian times.
No, it states from the late Precambrian. The Precambrian Eon spanned 4500 ma to 542 ma and the data only goes back as far as 900 ma. Get your facts straight. There's still a couple of billion years that you haven't accounted for. That means the value of k can be variable, and is proven variable by older tidal rhythmites.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Is he even capable of thinking on a different level? I don't agree with their evolutionary time scale. I merely pointed out that from their perspective the evidence that they interpret as the lunar regression has not changed since pre-cambrian times. That's over 542 million yrs ago (according to them). So if k has been stable for that long then even from the evolutionists time frame the theory of 4.6 billion yr age of the moon won't work. What my opponents have been harping at all day is our use of the constant k...but as Doc Adequate failed to grasp is that we don't have a time frame in human history that we know that the figure has changed. Guesswork has to be applied to any change in what appears to be stable. Mad people are funny. But the plain facts are that physics and astronomy are against you. Reality 1, creationists 0. As usual.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4301 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
quote: There is plenty of research out there on tidal rhythmites which are older than this too. For example:
Geological Constraints on the Precambrian History of Earth's Rotation and the Moon's Orbitquote: So we're looking at over half of the earth's geological history and the evidence from sedimentary rock whose deposition rate was influenced by tides, shows us that the moon was nowhere near perilously close. I can't help but notice (as has been observed by at least one other person on this thread) that you will use one kind of evidence to try to support your argument, and reject that same kind of evidence when it doesn't suit your purposes. I don't recall you telling us how old you think the earth is but I assume you believe it to be 6,000 years. Rhythmites, particularly varves, are some of the best evidence that the earth is much, much older than this, though that's a topic for another thread.
quote: Problem is, these are accounts of people looking at the moon and seeing stuff. Some are hundreds of years old. We can't talk to any of these people today and we can't be certain about the reliability of such historical testaments (no doubt difficult for a Biblical literalist to understand but there you go). I've had a look at Herschel's claims and it's difficult to distinguish what he actually saw from what he assumed he saw, since the two are pretty well merged (i.e. he assumed that there were volcanoes on the moon so that's what he thought he was seeing). Nothing he described is incongruous with a meteor impact, so why by your reckoning is this not an acceptable possibility? By the way, you do know that people used to think they were seeing alien-sculpted canals and green vegetation on Mars? Using your brand of epistemology, we should believe this too. I guess the Martians got rid of all the evidence before we built better telescopes and then started sending probes and rovers out there. Clever. Actually, I think the biggest problem you have with your young moon idea is radiometric dates for moon rocks. You made the silliest of hand-waving gestures by saying that they're simply based on preconceived notions. You honestly don't seem to realise that saying, "not true" is not an acceptable attack on any kind of evidenced theory or process. Slevesque tried to tell you this. The fact that you maintain this attitude with Cavediver, a physicist and cosmologist, is an endless source of amusement. Thing is, the decay rates of radioactive isotopes have nothing to do with preconceived notions. This is like saying that we only have a 24-hour day because we programmed our watches with preconceived notions about how long a day ought to be. You need to explain, using evidence, your objections to radiometric dating of moon rocks, or else your whole idea flies out the window. In Message 92 I gave you some dates to look at. Notice that these are dates obtained by two or more methods, and notice that all the dates on the chart show consilience; that is, they agree. Different people, different labs, different methods. I await your detailed reply. Edited by LindaLou, : typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That coupled with the direct eyewitness testimony of the dozens of observers to volcanic activity on the lunar surface (be sure and view the entire DeYoung video!) is stunning. I'd mock you, but the challenge is gone. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi all!
Just a reminder that this thread is in one of the science forums, so arguments should be scientific rather than religious, and of course focused on the scientific evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Calypsis4,
You posted this link to a DeYoung video that is the second in a series of three:
Would you please do two things:
Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Please bring the evidence and arguments into this thread and just use the video as a supporting reference. The Forum Guidelines are clear about this And once again, you have confused me sir. I did. (1) the formula in the topic post, (2) the historical sightings of lunar volcanic activity, (3) the retrograde motion of a number of moons (ex. Triton), and (4) the lack of any visible observance of the gaseous formation of moons. (5) the video was a suggestion in addition to all else I have posted. Why would you ask me to do something I have already done? Nonetheless, thank you, but I am done here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Calypsis4,
The request was to bring the evidence and arguments from the video into the discussion. If the video is only describing the same eyewitness testimony you've already described then you need merely say so. And also, please provide the precise times in the video where the scientific evidence is presented. Are you really done? Should I request summations? I'd really rather you address the issues people are raising.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Are you really done? Should I request summations? I'd really rather you address the issues people are raising. Once again; I did. I made my summation early this morning. Have a nice day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4615 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
Calypsis4 writes: Are you really done? Should I request summations? I'd really rather you address the issues people are raising.
Once again; I did. I made my summation early this morning. Have a nice day. Respectfully, You have not even come close to addressing the issues.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024