Earth Tilt Question

[juvenissun]

So did you get your degree in geology directly from God?

I have learned geology for 30+ years in total. But I only learned it 8 years in formal school. So, if I get a diploma of geology for my career of learning, who should be the one to give it to me?

 

[Orogeny]

Do you know you can make the same high grade coal from low grade coal in two ways: Heat it up real quick and then stop. Or, heat it very very slowly for a much longer time.

In what way does this relate to the thread?

 

[juvenissun]

In what way does this relate to the thread?

If you can not see it, then wait and hope somebody else (whom I care to explain things to) will ask the same question.

 

[Papias]

Juvie, "learning" from creationist sites is learning distortions and often outright lies. It is negative learning because it makes it harder to learn real geology afterwards.

So 30 years (22 creationist and 8 real) gives 8 - 22 = negative 14 years. So you've got some cathing up to do if you even want to make it to zero.

That's apparently why it was posted earlier that you don't know the basics of geology, stuff that even a freshman would know:

Originally Posted by Papias http://www.christianforums.com/t7425695-12/#post53908432
· Not knowing that there is zero evidence of a worldwide flood
· Not knowing that a worldwide flood would leave tons of obvious geological evidence.
· Not knowing that there are all kinds of geologic structures that refute flood geology.
· Not knowing that flood geology was rejected by Christian geologists over 100 years ago.
· Not knowing that multiple dating methods have agreed on the dates for thousands of samples.
· Not knowing that nearly all scientists agree that evolution occurred.
· Not knowing that nearly all geologists agree on the age of the earth.
· Not knowing that nearly all geologists currently reject flood geology.
· Not knowing that the early solar system was a mess of impacts, as shown by craters on the surfaces of dozens of bodies in our solar system.
· Not knowing that most impacts on earth from that time have long been erased by known geologic mechanisms (See quote #1 below).
· Not knowing that there are well over 150 impact structures on the earth, even after all that geology (see quote #2 below).
· Not knowing that the constellations rotate in the sky each year.
· and so on.....

Then you contradict yourself in the same paragraph:

Juvie wrote:

I still talk to you because I still feel your attitude is acceptable.

and:

From the beginning, you seems to be more interested in trapping me than to talk about issues.

Well, which is it?
***************************

Nonetheless, all that was a red herring. You didn't respond to the question of the post, which was:

Now, back to our list:
Juvie, on #8, after spending well over a month thinking about post #302, can you now see that real pole shifting (like the chilean quake or your actions yesterday) has nothing to do with a global flood?
***************************************************

• Earth tilt thread question #1 (ETQ #1)Doe Juve think that the earth is about 6,000 years old, as described by a literal reading of the geneologies in genesis (see post #161)? ****answered - he does - correction - unclear again. He says the ages are literally correct, but that they aren't literally correct. See other thread. *******
• ETQ2: Which Bible has Juve chosen as the one correct Bible, and why does he feel this one Bible is correct and the others wrong? (See post #161)
• ETQ3: Juve, would you like to change your enthusiatically favororable review of this site?
  World Mysteries - Science Mysteries - Pole Shifting
• ETQ4: What are you talking about in this quote:

May be. But at least they think it that way. You do not even think that way. This is similar to a church goer and one who does not attend any church. (maybe just drop this one, it appears to be just another example of Juvie's word salad.)

• ETQ5: Can you clarify which ideas you see as "good ideas" in your pseudoscience pole shifting web page?
• ETQ6: So you are saying that birds were created before any land animals, etc? Do you think the fossil record agrees with the order in genesis?
  ETQ7: How are you resolving the literal difference between the plants made before humans in Gen 1, and plants literally only after humans in Gen 2, without adding words that are not in the text? Or do you think it is OK to add words when you want to? Of course, if Juve decides it is OK to see Genesis figuratively, then these two stories can be seen as just two sides of the same story.
  
  ETQ8: You said you were evaluating all models of the origin of Earth tilt. We've seen that the flood idea of Earth tilt not only has too many problems to count, but has been dropped even by creationists. So why not tentatively accept the leading scientific explanation, the theia impact?

 

[juvenissun]

I still talk to you because I still feel your attitude is acceptable.

and:

From the beginning, you seems to be more interested in trapping me than to talk about issues.

Well, which is it?

You do not understand.

Can you see the above two quotes may have no problem to co-exist? The acceptance is on the way you talk, but not on the intention of your talk. In other words, it may mean that you talk politely, but your intention is not friendly.

Also, I do not lie. I never lie in this forum.
I said to you that I am a geologist, because you did not deny it.
I said to some others that I am not a geologist (to them), because they refused to accept it (I call it stupidity).
To the nature of this forum, I was not lying in either case.

It is not a concern whether I am a geologist or not. All geological arguments I made are valid, and have not been successfully challenged (except to Orogeny whom I refused to reply his geological question even he is one of few geologists I have seen so far in this forum).

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie, "learning" from creationist sites is learning distortions and often outright lies. It is negative learning because it makes it harder to learn real geology afterwards.

So 30 years (22 creationist and 8 real) gives 8 - 22 = negative 14 years. So you've got some cathing up to do if you even want to make it to zero.

You are wrong (even you are kidding). I always study geology in a secular way. It is a science, so there is no other way to study it. In recent years, a small part of my study is guided by very simply "idea" described in the Bible. But all the methods and data are still so-called secular. Secular scientific understanding reflects the truth of the Bible. I do not have to learn/study any science in any other way.

When I graduated from my Ph.D. program, I did consider to joint ICR. And they were recruiting their first formal geologist at that time. However, I did not go because I felt their mission did not emphasize scientific research.

 

[Orogeny]

It is not a concern whether I am a geologist or not. All geological arguments I made are valid, and have not been successfully challenged (except to Orogeny whom I refused to reply his geological question even he is one of few geologists I have seen so far in this forum).

picard.jpg

"All the geological arguments I made are valid and have not been challenged except by this geologist! I refuse to reply to him because he is a geologist!"

You kill me, Juve.

BTW, I've yet to see you make a 'geologically valid' argument. Would you like to try again now?

 

[Harry3142]

The tilt of the earth is raising questions with scientists.

1. Since it is now known from satellite observation that the angle of the earth's tilt is increasing over time, what is the maximum angle attainable by the planet?

2. We are being told by astronomers that from the earth's perspective the sun will be viewed as being in the center of the Milky Way in December, 2012. Since as a photographer I recognize the word 'perspective' as denoting actual movement of this planet, either in its revolution around the sun or in its angle of rotation, so as to make this view possible, what will be the position of this planet that causes this particular perspective to be possible?

3. Since astronomers are also saying that this same view occurs every 26,000 years, it would be logical to infer from that a progression of the planet itself that has as its result the repeating of the same view. Is this due to a continuing movement of the planet beyond this view, or does this view signal a return of the planet to a prior position on its axis so that the progression toward the 'sun in the center of the Milky Way' point in time begins anew?

4. If the view already described is caused by the earth's tilt having reached its maximum point, then are we to expect a gradual reversal of angle so that it returns to its point of origination, or are we to expect, as some believe, that the earth will correct its angle via a planetary 'seizure'? Will this activate the primitive gyroscope that is the metal core of this planet, and cause it to bring the earth back to its point of origination in a more violent manner?

Have a nice day-

 

[Orogeny]

The tilt of the earth is raising questions with scientists.

What kind of questions? Source, please.

1. Since it is now known from satellite observation that the angle of the earth's tilt is increasing over time, what is the maximum angle attainable by the planet?

Current Earth axial obliquity: 23.5 degrees
Range of Earth axial obliquity: 22.1-24.5 degrees

Wiki

We are being told by astronomers that from the earth's perspective the sun will be viewed as being in the center of the Milky Way in December, 2012. Since as a photographer I recognize the word 'perspective' as denoting actual movement of this planet, either in its revolution around the sun or in its angle of rotation, so as to make this view possible, what will be the position of this planet that causes this particular perspective to be possible?

Why does your experience as a photographer offer you a unique perspective on this issue (not an attack, just seeking to understand your perspective)?
As to your question: The position of the planet will be such that the center of the milky way, the sun, and the Earth fall upon a line that describes a ray radial to the center of the galaxy.

Since astronomers are also saying that this same view occurs every 26,000 years, it would be logical to infer from that a progression of the planet itself that has as its result the repeating of the same view. Is this due to a continuing movement of the planet beyond this view, or does this view signal a return of the planet to a prior position on its axis so that the progression toward the 'sun in the center of the Milky Way' point in time begins anew?

It is important to understand that the earth does not follow a circular orbit around the sun (although it is very, very nearly circular). Its orbit is ellipsoid, the eccentricity of which follows a 100k year cycle. Not only that, but the earth also 'wobbles' on its axis, with variations both in obliquity (tilt, the angle between the earth's rotational axis and a line perpendicular to its orbital plane) and precession (a motion in which the earth's axis describes a cone as it rotates through its cycle). It is these motions that control the apparent position of the sun relative the the galaxy center.

The best way to think of this is to imagine the earth as a very large top. You spin the top on a table, and the path it describes on the table is essentially elliptical. As it describes this path, you can also see it wobbling from side to side (tilt). look closer, and you will notice that the top of the top (you know, the little nob you use to spin the thing) describes a cone as it spins (precession).

4. If the view already described is caused by the earth's tilt having reached its maximum point, then are we to expect a gradual reversal of angle so that it returns to its point of origination, or are we to expect, as some believe, that the earth will correct its angle via a planetary 'seizure'? Will this activate the primitive gyroscope that is the metal core of this planet, and cause it to bring the earth back to its point of origination in a more violent manner?

The earth will not have reached its maximum obliquity in 2012. When it does, however, it will simply reach its maximum, and then the tilt angle will begin to decrease. This cycle from maximum tilt to minimum and back to maximum occurs over approximately 42,000 years.

The 'seizure' hypothesis put out by some would require an enormous alteration to the angular momentum of the planet which is not, to my knowledge at least, possible sans outside influence. Such an adjustment would indeed be quite violent, as our personal momentum is similar to that of the planet. If the planet's momentum suddenly shifted, we would all receive quite a jostle.

As to the earth's core as a gyroscope: Gyroscopes work by rotating a mass within an object, which imparts an increased angular momentum to the object, making its direction of motion more difficult to change. The earth's core acting as a gyroscope would imply that it rotates at a different speed than the rest of the earth. I am not aware that this is the case. If i am wrong, please provide a source detailing the core's motion.

Have a nice day

Thanks, you too.

 

[juvenissun]

The tilt of the earth is raising questions with scientists.

1. Since it is now known from satellite observation that the angle of the earth's tilt is increasing over time, what is the maximum angle attainable by the planet?

2. We are being told by astronomers that from the earth's perspective the sun will be viewed as being in the center of the Milky Way in December, 2012. Since as a photographer I recognize the word 'perspective' as denoting actual movement of this planet, either in its revolution around the sun or in its angle of rotation, so as to make this view possible, what will be the position of this planet that causes this particular perspective to be possible?

3. Since astronomers are also saying that this same view occurs every 26,000 years, it would be logical to infer from that a progression of the planet itself that has as its result the repeating of the same view. Is this due to a continuing movement of the planet beyond this view, or does this view signal a return of the planet to a prior position on its axis so that the progression toward the 'sun in the center of the Milky Way' point in time begins anew?

4. If the view already described is caused by the earth's tilt having reached its maximum point, then are we to expect a gradual reversal of angle so that it returns to its point of origination, or are we to expect, as some believe, that the earth will correct its angle via a planetary 'seizure'? Will this activate the primitive gyroscope that is the metal core of this planet, and cause it to bring the earth back to its point of origination in a more violent manner?

Have a nice day-

There are standard answers to your questions. I think all of them are easy to find with the help of Internet. But, the real answers are beyond science. Because we do not know the answer.

We can do exercises on these questions, if you like to dig into any of them. But we will not find out the answer. This is a good example on the limitation of science.

For example, this easy-found link answered part of your question 1. But if you asked: how do we know that? Then the answer is not "observed", but is "calculated" or "extended" from limited observation. In other words, it is only a model based on some simple assumptions. Would I take it as a true answer? I say, it makes sense, but I don't know if it is true.

 

[Orogeny]

There are standard answers to your questions. I think all of them are easy to find with the help of Internet. But, the real answers are beyond science. Because we do not know the answer.

Yes we do, as I demonstrated in the post directly above yours.

We can do exercises on these questions, if you like to dig into any of them. But we will not find out the answer. This is a good example on the limitation of science.

No it is not. We have scientific answers to all of these questions, and I posted them. Pay attention.

For example, this easy-found link answered part of your question 1. But if you asked: how do we know that? Then the answer is not "observed", but is "calculated" or "extended" from limited observation.

Contradictory much? We observe and measure the motions of the Earth. We see the effects of these motions on sedimentary deposits in the rock record. The motions have been directly observed in the modern as well as indirectly observed in the ancient. We then fit equations to our observation.

In other words, it is only a model based on some simple assumptions.

No, it is observed reality that fits directly with physical theory.

Would I take it as a true answer? I say, it makes sense, but I don't know if it is true.

I say observation and physics tell us the 'true answer', the answers that I posted. This 'no direct observation' junk that you creationists spout every time you don't agree with something is a load of nonsense. You've never directly observed your heart, but you can be quite certain it is there and functioning because you are alive, and you can feel your pulse when you put your fingers to your neck.

 

[Papias]

Juvie, I see you didn't respond to my question, which was:

Juvie, on #8, after spending well over a month thinking about post #302, can you now see that real pole shifting (like the chilean quake or your actions yesterday) has nothing to do with a global flood?
***************************************************

• Earth tilt thread question #1 (ETQ #1)Doe Juve think that the earth is about 6,000 years old, as described by a literal reading of the geneologies in genesis (see post #161)? ****answered - he does - correction - unclear again. He says the ages are literally correct, but that they aren't literally correct. See other thread. *******
• ETQ2: Which Bible has Juve chosen as the one correct Bible, and why does he feel this one Bible is correct and the others wrong? (See post #161)
• ETQ3: Juve, would you like to change your enthusiatically favororable review of this site?
  World Mysteries - Science Mysteries - Pole Shifting
• ETQ4: What are you talking about in this quote:

May be. But at least they think it that way. You do not even think that way. This is similar to a church goer and one who does not attend any church. (maybe just drop this one, it appears to be just another example of Juvie's word salad.)

• ETQ5: Can you clarify which ideas you see as "good ideas" in your pseudoscience pole shifting web page?
• ETQ6: So you are saying that birds were created before any land animals, etc? Do you think the fossil record agrees with the order in genesis?
  ETQ7: How are you resolving the literal difference between the plants made before humans in Gen 1, and plants literally only after humans in Gen 2, without adding words that are not in the text? Or do you think it is OK to add words when you want to? Of course, if Juve decides it is OK to see Genesis figuratively, then these two stories can be seen as just two sides of the same story.
  
  ETQ8: You said you were evaluating all models of the origin of Earth tilt. We've seen that the flood idea of Earth tilt not only has too many problems to count, but has been dropped even by creationists. So why not tentatively accept the leading scientific explanation, the theia impact?

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie, I see you didn't respond to my question, which was:

Juvie, on #8, after spending well over a month thinking about post #302, can you now see that real pole shifting (like the chilean quake or your actions yesterday) has nothing to do with a global flood?

I did respond. You could not see it. Now, a shallower response:

Many things happened on earth could change the tilting of the earth.
If something which is big enough to cause a global flood, it will certainly change the tilting of the earth.

Is this clear enough to you?

 

[Orogeny]

There is no evidence for a global flood.

Is this clear enough to you?

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:

If something which is big enough to cause a global flood, it will certainly change the tilting of the earth.

If a giant cosmic snake ate the Earth, that could cause a tilting of the Earth.

See how pointless your statement was? It also simply avoided the question, which was whether or not you understand by now that the New Agey, pseudoscientific idea of a naked eye observable pole shift has nothing to do with either evidence or pole shifting recored in geologic time. That was the question.

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie wrote:



If a giant cosmic snake ate the Earth, that could cause a tilting of the Earth.

See how pointless your statement was? It also simply avoided the question, which was whether or not you understand by now that the New Agey, pseudoscientific idea of a naked eye observable pole shift has nothing to do with either evidence or pole shifting recored in geologic time. That was the question.

Papias

You are right on that one.

You need to identify the question first, before giving any argument. We are not talking about a global flood. We are talking about what can change the tilting of the earth.

 

[Orogeny]

So what you're saying is that you didn't answer the question. Here it is again, so that you can try again:

After spending well over a month thinking about post #302, can you now see that real pole shifting (like the chilean quake or your actions yesterday) has nothing to do with a global flood?

ETA: Notice that this question is in a YES/NO format. That means that your next post should start with the word YES or the word NO. Or if you like, you can merely copy/paste one of these sentences:

YES, I now see that real pole shifting has nothing to do with a global flood.

NO, I do not see that real pole shifting has nothing to do with a global flood.

See how easy I just made this for you? Just copypasta. You don't even have to type anything.

 

[juvenissun]

So what you're saying is that you didn't answer the question. Here it is again, so that you can try again:

After spending well over a month thinking about post #302, can you now see that real pole shifting (like the chilean quake or your actions yesterday) has nothing to do with a global flood?

ETA: Notice that this question is in a YES/NO format. That means that your next post should start with the word YES or the word NO. Or if you like, you can merely copy/paste one of these sentences:

YES, I now see that real pole shifting has nothing to do with a global flood.

NO, I do not see that real pole shifting has nothing to do with a global flood.

See how easy I just made this for you? Just copypasta. You don't even have to type anything.

Thank you. That is what I meant. My given answer was better than that.

 

[Orogeny]

 

[Papias]

Thanks Juvie and Orogeny for helping bring some clarity to question #8. Maybe now the logical place to move on to would be ETQs 3 and 5?

Papias

***************************************************

• Earth tilt thread question #1 (ETQ #1)Doe Juve think that the earth is about 6,000 years old, as described by a literal reading of the geneologies in genesis (see post #161)? ****answered - he does - correction - unclear again. He says the ages are literally correct, but that they aren't literally correct. See other thread. *******
• ETQ2: Which Bible has Juve chosen as the one correct Bible, and why does he feel this one Bible is correct and the others wrong? (See post #161)
• ETQ3: Juve, would you like to change your enthusiatically favororable review of this site?
  World Mysteries - Science Mysteries - Pole Shifting
• ETQ4: What are you talking about in this quote:

May be. But at least they think it that way. You do not even think that way. This is similar to a church goer and one who does not attend any church. (maybe just drop this one, it appears to be just another example of Juvie's word salad.)

• ETQ5: Can you clarify which ideas you see as "good ideas" in your pseudoscience pole shifting web page?
• ETQ6: So you are saying that birds were created before any land animals, etc? Do you think the fossil record agrees with the order in genesis?
  ETQ7: How are you resolving the literal difference between the plants made before humans in Gen 1, and plants literally only after humans in Gen 2, without adding words that are not in the text? Or do you think it is OK to add words when you want to? Of course, if Juvie decides it is OK to see Genesis figuratively, then these two stories can be seen as just two sides of the same story.
  
  ETQ8: You said you were evaluating all models of the origin of Earth tilt. We've seen that the flood idea of Earth tilt not only has too many problems to count, but has been dropped even by creationists. So why not tentatively accept the leading scientific explanation, the theia impact?

Clear answer given by Juvie - He is sticking to the idea that the imperceptible documented pole shifts have something to do with a global flood, even after spending over a month thinking about this, see post #302. He also still seems to be denying the possibility of the theia impact.

NO, I do not see that real pole shifting has nothing to do with a global flood.

Thank you. That is what I meant. My given answer was better than that.

Post #378