-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Moon and tides?
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
I don't have the orginal papers here at home but see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
If the moon were always receding at its current rate their would be no problem. The creationist calculation assumes that it was receding faster in the past. However, both theorectical calculations based on continental drift and paleonotological evidence from tidal rhytmites, that should not even exist in the YEC model are consistent with rates of recession that were slower between 2.5 billion and 650 million years ago.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
If the moon were always receding at its current rate their would be no problem. The creationist calculation assumes that it was receding faster in the past. However, both theorectical calculations based on continental drift and paleonotological evidence from tidal rhytmites, that should not even exist in the YEC model are consistent with rates of recession that were slower between 2.5 billion and 650 million years ago.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
This is not accurate:
As the moon moves farther away from the earth the earth's gravity will have less and less of an impact on the moon.
Upvote
0
Yes, but 95 miles compared to 240,000 miles is only aprox 0.04% of the distance. Its not really enough to make any of a difference, especially of the moons eliptical orbit varies more than 95 miles on its own.
Upvote
0
evoultion says that the earth is 3.5 billions years old right?
I did the calculation myself(check it if you want):
6inches(distance that the moon is moving away from the earth each year) X 3.5 billion years(that's right is it not?)
= 33,143,929.14miles or 53,340,000km
(assuming the conversion cacluator I was using is correct)
I did the calculation myself(check it if you want):
6inches(distance that the moon is moving away from the earth each year) X 3.5 billion years(that's right is it not?)
= 33,143,929.14miles or 53,340,000km
(assuming the conversion cacluator I was using is correct)
Upvote
0
Yesterday at 11:47 PM Jon said this in Post #6
evoultion says that the earth is 3.5 billions years old right?
I did the calculation myself(check it if you want):
6inches(distance that the moon is moving away from the earth each year) X 3.5 billion years(that's right is it not?)
= 33,143,929.14miles or 53,340,000km
(assuming the conversion cacluator I was using is correct)
The moon is currently receding from the earth at 3.8 cm per year. See Dickey, J.O. et al. Lunar laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo Program, Science 265: 482-490, July 22, 1994, for the data.
In 4.5 billion years this amounts to 171,000 km. The current earth moon distance is 384,000 km. This would put the moon at 213,000 km 4.5 billion years ago, which is not really a problem. Yes the earth moon gravitation coupling would have been stronger when the moon was closer but the force that actually applies torque to the moon is tidal and tidal forces depend greatly on the shape of the continents and shape and depths of the ocean. As I said above theorectical calculations are consistent with a slower rate of recession in the distance past and observations of tidal rhytmites provides support for the theory.
I think Tim explains this pretty well on the talk origins page I linked to above.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
according to http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_recede.html
the moon is receding at 6 inches per year.
the moon is receding at 6 inches per year.
Upvote
0
Edit: Re reading the page you see that they make an over estimated assumption on purpose. Even if the moon receded at 6 inches a year, it would still make Mr Hovind wrong. However, the moon recedes at much less than 6 inches a year.
Upvote
0
They just pull that out of the air. It even says so on the site: "Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year."
Upvote
0
Matson doesn't say that 6 inches per year is what the rate is. He says Let's assume that it is, which is different. Dickey et. al. measured the rate using laser ranging.
In any case Tim Thompson has written a much more detailed analysis.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
In any case Tim Thompson has written a much more detailed analysis.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
Plus, the rate isn't constant over time. A lot of the recession is caused by tidal effects, as stated above.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
The moon did not "bounce" off from the Earth...
The current theory is that a Mars sized planet hit the Earth and blew the surface of the planet into orbit where it then condensed into the moon.
This happened about 4.5 billion years ago or so.
Upvote
0
Hmm...I'm not here to argue for or against, just listening in, but I'm curious that you can say that the 'moon did not "bounce" off from the Earth'...and then say that the current theory says otherwise? Isn't that just a theory, just like saying that the moon bounced off the earth is a theory? How can you disprove one by stating another that hasn't been proven?
Just curiousity on my part -- I'd like to hear more about the reasons for the moon not bouncing, and Mars doing so.
Just curiousity on my part -- I'd like to hear more about the reasons for the moon not bouncing, and Mars doing so.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
We are both saying the same thing. The reason I use the term: "bounced" is because the moon most likely is moving way from the earth at the same consistant rate as it was at the beginning.
I would rather think they just seperated from each other. But that theory does not have much support. Most likely the moon hit the earth and put it into about a 23 degree tilt, and the moon is what keeps the earth in that tilt position and that is the reason for our seasons up here in the north.
They say there is a connection between the spindown rate of the earth, and the receding rate of the moon. That the one is transfered to the other in some way.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
Today at 06:31 PM walkaways said this in Post #16
Hmm...I'm not here to argue for or against, just listening in, but I'm curious that you can say that the 'moon did not "bounce" off from the Earth'...and then say that the current theory says otherwise? Isn't that just a theory, just like saying that the moon bounced off the earth is a theory? How can you disprove one by stating another that hasn't been proven?
Just curiousity on my part -- I'd like to hear more about the reasons for the moon not bouncing, and Mars doing so.
Well, there was never a "bounce theory" the collision model may have been simplified to that when it was explained to him...
When you talk about a mass the size of the moon even grazing the Earth it would melt the crust. Masses the size of the Earth or the Moon just simply don't bounce like little rubber balls.
Upvote
0
Melchior
Active Member
And that recession from earth is exactly what has been stated several times already, the tidal bulge is slightly advanced of the middle point between the moon and the earth.
This has the effect of transfering momentum energy from the earth to the moon. This causes the earth to slow down its spin, and the moon to increase in its orbit speed. This increase in orbitial speed causes the orbit of the moon to move out proportionaly.
Scientist have not yet come to a conclusion on the initial state of the earth moon system right after the initial impact. I have heard theories ranging from a fast spin on both the earth and the moon (like 4 hour days) to the moon spinning in the opposite direction from the earth prior to tidally locked. Some of the theories explain why the moon would have had very little recession early in the earth/moon history.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
