The Thread Where You Link To Stripe's Best Evidence-Based Posts

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Atheists typically do not want a bar of the clear and simple scientific explanations I provide.

I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to buy the one you're citing, Stipe:

(Stipe's "scientific" explanation)
What is interesting is that global warming is great evidence for an ancient global catastrophe. In order to have all this ice to melt, it had to freeze from water onto the continents. In order to get onto the continents it had to evaporate at vastly increased rates. That means the oceans had to be warmer. But at the same time the continents had to be colder than they are today.

The land is warmer than normal today. And yet increased evaporation is increasing the amount of icecap at the poles.

You have no idea what you're talking about, Stipe.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Feel free to address the issue in the relevant thread. :loser:

BTW, you may want to read and appreciate what I am saying before making yourself look even more stupid. :thumb:
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Feel free to address the issue in the relevant thread.

Your thread. If you didn't want to talk about it, you shouldn't have linked to it.

BTW, you may want to read and appreciate what I am saying before making yourself look even more stupid.

It's very clear, Stipe. You don't need colder continents; you just need to increase evaporation. More snow will follow, and that will increase the depths of continental ice.

The conditions existing today directly refute your claim.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Your thread.
:rotfl:

:mock: Barbie.

If it were my thread I could stop you putting as much spam as possible between the end and your embarrassing episode here:

...there is more mass to the near side than there is to the far side.

Why do you think this is true?

And, as you've seen, he'll just invent some new story to cover anything that you throw at him.


You surprised me on this one, Stripe. I am forced to forfeit one point to you on this, since I did not know about the off-center mass spoken of in the article.

:mock: Barbie's revisionist history.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Understandably, Stipe wants to change the subject; he messed up. But even in his gravitational locking claim, he's wrong.

The change in rotation rate necessary to tidally lock a body B to a larger body A is caused by the torque applied by A's gravity on bulges it has induced on B by tidal forces.

Tidal bulges

A's gravity produces a tidal force on B which distorts its gravitational equilibrium shape slightly so that it becomes elongated along the axis oriented toward A, and conversely, is slightly reduced in dimension in directions perpendicular to this axis. These distortions are known as tidal bulges. When B is not yet tidally locked, the bulges travel over its surface, with one of the two "high" tidal bulges traveling close to the point where body A is overhead. For large astronomical bodies which are near-spherical due to self-gravitation, the tidal distortion produces a slightly prolate spheroid - i.e., an axially symmetric ellipsoid that is elongated along its major axis. Smaller bodies also experience distortion, but this distortion is less regular.

Bulge dragging

The material of B exerts resistance to this periodic reshaping caused by the tidal force. In effect, some time is required to reshape B to the gravitational equilibrium shape, by which time the forming bulges have already been carried some distance away from the A-B axis by B's rotation. Seen from a vantage point in space, the points of maximum bulge extension are displaced from the axis oriented towards A. If B's rotation period is shorter than its orbital period, the bulges are carried forward of the axis oriented towards A in the direction of rotation, whereas if B's rotation period is longer the bulges lag behind instead.

Resulting torque

Since the bulges are now displaced from the A-B axis, A's gravitational pull on the mass in them exerts a torque on B. The torque on the A-facing bulge acts to bring B's rotation in line with its orbital period, while the "back" bulge which faces away from A acts in the opposite sense. However, the bulge on the A-facing side is closer to A than the back bulge by a distance of approximately B's diameter, and so experiences a slightly stronger gravitational force and torque. The net resulting torque from both bulges, then, is always in the direction which acts to synchronize B's rotation with its orbital period, leading eventually to tidal locking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

It's not any difference in density from side to side (Earth is slowly undergoing gravitational locking with the moon, with no great imbalance)

It's what Stipe previously claimed could not exist, the tidal forces on the Moon and Earth.

Stipe doesn't know what he's talking about on that point, either.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Stipe strikes back:
Barbie is a cherry picking moron.

Well, let's take a look at your link:
Stipe writes:
God promised He would never again destroy the earth with water. He has firmly established it and set limits for the oceans so that they will never again cover the earth*. Instead He has it saved up for fire. That won't be pleasant.

Actually, Stipe has made the error of translating "eretz" (land) to mean "the whole Earth." This modern revision leads to the odd conclusion that Israel (eretz Israel) is the entire world.

Don't think so, Stipe.
 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Chock up another one for Stripe:
Stripe--
|||| |||
Athiests--

Eretz mean entire. Eretz Israel--Entire nation of Israel. Stripe still gets this one.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Eretz mean entire.

Nope. And it's Christians, not just atheists, who know that:

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
common, country, earth, field, ground, land, nations, way,

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land) -- X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.


You've been fooled by an ignoramus.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
...there is more mass to the near side than there is to the far side.

Why do you think this is true?

And, as you've seen, he'll just invent some new story to cover anything that you throw at him.


You surprised me on this one, Stripe. I am forced to forfeit one point to you on this, since I did not know about the off-center mass spoken of in the article.

:mock: Barbie.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Stipe can quote-mine with the best to them.

BTW, it doesn't matter if the moon has an imbalance:

Tidal bulges

A's gravity produces a tidal force on B which distorts its gravitational equilibrium shape slightly so that it becomes elongated along the axis oriented toward A, and conversely, is slightly reduced in dimension in directions perpendicular to this axis. These distortions are known as tidal bulges. When B is not yet tidally locked, the bulges travel over its surface, with one of the two "high" tidal bulges traveling close to the point where body A is overhead. For large astronomical bodies which are near-spherical due to self-gravitation, the tidal distortion produces a slightly prolate spheroid - i.e., an axially symmetric ellipsoid that is elongated along its major axis. Smaller bodies also experience distortion, but this distortion is less regular.

Bulge dragging

The material of B exerts resistance to this periodic reshaping caused by the tidal force. In effect, some time is required to reshape B to the gravitational equilibrium shape, by which time the forming bulges have already been carried some distance away from the A-B axis by B's rotation. Seen from a vantage point in space, the points of maximum bulge extension are displaced from the axis oriented towards A. If B's rotation period is shorter than its orbital period, the bulges are carried forward of the axis oriented towards A in the direction of rotation, whereas if B's rotation period is longer the bulges lag behind instead.

Resulting torque

Since the bulges are now displaced from the A-B axis, A's gravitational pull on the mass in them exerts a torque on B. The torque on the A-facing bulge acts to bring B's rotation in line with its orbital period, while the "back" bulge which faces away from A acts in the opposite sense. However, the bulge on the A-facing side is closer to A than the back bulge by a distance of approximately B's diameter, and so experiences a slightly stronger gravitational force and torque. The net resulting torque from both bulges, then, is always in the direction which acts to synchronize B's rotation with its orbital period, leading eventually to tidal locking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

It's not any difference in density from side to side (Earth is slowly undergoing gravitational locking with the moon, with no great imbalance) Stipe just made up a story to cover his earlier error.
 
Top