XitStrategy
New member
Geez, you could have at least chosen a skill that gives you opportunity to practice!
toldailytopic: How old is the earth?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Barbarian asks:
Speaking of which, you never did explain where the numbers for that "model" come from. Why a sixth power?
(Stipe dodges the question)
I just wanted to see if you had any idea what the numbers were about. Clearly you don't, so we've got the answer we need. You just cut and paste as usual.
Barbarian chuckles:
That was pretty funny from the cut-and-paste king.
The "model" you presented, for example. You don't even know where the numbers came from or how the equation was derived.
I think everyone is on to you, Stipe. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. You don't even know how to explain the equation in your "model."
Barbarian chuckles:
What's wrong with what you say is, that it ignores tidal friction, without which the off-center tidal bulge would not exist. And without that, there would be no recession of the moon.
Until I rubbed your nose in it, with numerous scholarly sources, you denied it outright.
Barbarian suggests:
And you haven't yet told us your particular field of expertise. What did you say it was?
Unemployed, then. O.K.
Speaking of which, you never did explain where the numbers for that "model" come from. Why a sixth power?
(Stipe dodges the question)
I just wanted to see if you had any idea what the numbers were about. Clearly you don't, so we've got the answer we need. You just cut and paste as usual.
Barbarian chuckles:
That was pretty funny from the cut-and-paste king.
The "model" you presented, for example. You don't even know where the numbers came from or how the equation was derived.
I think everyone is on to you, Stipe. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. You don't even know how to explain the equation in your "model."
Barbarian chuckles:
What's wrong with what you say is, that it ignores tidal friction, without which the off-center tidal bulge would not exist. And without that, there would be no recession of the moon.
Until I rubbed your nose in it, with numerous scholarly sources, you denied it outright.
Barbarian suggests:
And you haven't yet told us your particular field of expertise. What did you say it was?
Unemployed, then. O.K.
So you want to discuss the evidence I provided now?
When you figure out your "model" well enough to explain the equation to us, let me know.
As I said, if you ever figure it out, tell us about it. But if you don't even know how they got it, what makes you think it's right, considering all astronomers and physicists disagree with it?
If you don't know, it might be best for you to admit that you don't know, and go on.
If you don't know, it might be best for you to admit that you don't know, and go on.
I know how he got it. You haven't even opened the link I gave you which explains why you think your latest dodge is going to be effective.
You're bluffing. You have no idea about the nature of this disagreement apart from being led utterly astray by your precious TO link.
You need to go away and have a good long think about how you approach a conversation and a debate. Pandering to popularity and the establishment is sucking the very soul out of you - brains first.
Come back when you've learnt how to respond to what people have said rather than mimicking another's reply in your ignorance. :up:
But you aren't going to explain how, because...?
Barbarian suggests:
If you don't know, it might be best for you to admit that you don't know, and go on.
Call my bluff then; explain it. :yawn:
Stipe, I've shown your numerous links to scholarly sites that show you that you're wrong. You cling to that "model", even though you can't even explain it to us.
I think I'll stick around and see how long you'll dodge the question before you wise up.
I think astrophysicists are a more reliable source on astrophysics than an English teacher. Go figure. The fact that you can't even explain your "model" is sufficient evidence for your knowledge on it.
C'mon, Stipe. Explain the equation, or admit you don't know what you're talking about.
If you don't understand it well enough to explain it, what makes you think it's right?
C'mon Stipe. Admit you don't understand it. Or explain the equation.
C'mon Stipe. Admit you don't understand it. Or explain the equation.
Stripe understands the concept barbarian. Anyone who reads browns essay understands the point he is making. The equations are not explained except he shows where you plug one into another and how you integrate it and how you eliminate terms due to small size compared to other terms. he doesnt explain why the starting equations are used.
Ridgenet.net has a page called earth moon equations. It gives values for force and velocity and period and momentum for different values of earth moon distance. The current lunar angular momentum is 2.88 times 10 to the 34th power. At half that distance, it gives 2.04 times 10 to the 34th power.
I figured out the nuts and bolts pretty easily, and I'm not much of a mathematician.
Barbie hasn't even bothered to click on the link and is arguing numbers that do not even apply.
Still haven't figured it out, Stipe? When you do, explain it for us.
It's like saying "does the slope of a road affect the speed of an automobile?"
Yep. But it's not the most important factor.
Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit
Williams, George E.
Reviews of Geophysics, Volume 38, Issue 1, p. 37-60
Over the past decade the analysis of sedimentary cyclic rhythmites of tidal origin, i.e., stacked thin beds or laminae usually of sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone that display periodic variations in thickness reflecting a strong tidal influence on sedimentation, has provided information on Earth's paleorotation and the evolving lunar orbit for Precambrian time (before 540 Ma). Depositional environments of tidal rhythmites range from estuarine to tidal delta, with a wave-protected, distal ebb tidal delta setting being particularly favorable for the deposition and preservation of long, detailed rhythmite records. The potential sediment load of nearshore tidal currents and the effectiveness of the tide as an agent of sediment entrainment and deposition are related directly to tidal range (or maximum tidal height) and consequent current speed. Hence the thickness of successive laminae deposited by tidal currents can be a proxy tidal record, with paleotidal and paleorotational values being determined by analysis of measured records of lamina and cycle thickness. The validity of the findings can be investigated by testing the primary, observed values for internal self-consistency through application of the laws of celestial mechanics. Paleotidal and paleorotational values provided by late Neoproterozoic (~620 Ma) tidal rhythmites in South Australia are validated by these tests and indicate 13.1+/-0.1 synodic (lunar) months/yr, 400+/-7 solar days/yr, a length of day of 21.9+/-0.4h, and a relative Earth-Moon distance a/a0 of 0.965+/-0.005. The mean rate of lunar recession since that time is 2.17+/-0.31cm/yr, which is little more than half the present rate of lunar recession of 3.82+/-0.07cm/yr obtained by lunar laser ranging. The late Neoproterozoic data militate against significant overall change in Earth's moment of inertia and radius at least since 620 Ma. Cyclicity displayed by Paleoproterozoic (2450 Ma) banded iron formation in Western Australia may record tidal influences on the discharge and/or dispersal of submarine hydrothermal plumes and suggests 14.5+/-0.5 synodic months/yr and a/a0=0.906+/-0.029. The combined rhythmite data give a mean rate of lunar recession of 1.24+/-0.71cm/yr during most of the Proterozoic (2450-620 Ma), suggesting that a close approach of the Moon did not occur during earlier time. Concentrated study of Precambrian tidal rhythmites promises to illuminate the evolving dynamics of the early Earth-Moon system and may permit the lunar orbit to be traced back to near the time of the Moon's origin.
So we can actually go back and test to see if physics is right about the recession. Turns out, it is. The actual recession, based on observable tidal data, is much smaller than creationists had hoped it would be.
It's like saying "does the slope of a road affect the speed of an automobile?"
Yep. But it's not the most important factor.
Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit
Williams, George E.
Reviews of Geophysics, Volume 38, Issue 1, p. 37-60
Over the past decade the analysis of sedimentary cyclic rhythmites of tidal origin, i.e., stacked thin beds or laminae usually of sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone that display periodic variations in thickness reflecting a strong tidal influence on sedimentation, has provided information on Earth's paleorotation and the evolving lunar orbit for Precambrian time (before 540 Ma). Depositional environments of tidal rhythmites range from estuarine to tidal delta, with a wave-protected, distal ebb tidal delta setting being particularly favorable for the deposition and preservation of long, detailed rhythmite records. The potential sediment load of nearshore tidal currents and the effectiveness of the tide as an agent of sediment entrainment and deposition are related directly to tidal range (or maximum tidal height) and consequent current speed. Hence the thickness of successive laminae deposited by tidal currents can be a proxy tidal record, with paleotidal and paleorotational values being determined by analysis of measured records of lamina and cycle thickness. The validity of the findings can be investigated by testing the primary, observed values for internal self-consistency through application of the laws of celestial mechanics. Paleotidal and paleorotational values provided by late Neoproterozoic (~620 Ma) tidal rhythmites in South Australia are validated by these tests and indicate 13.1+/-0.1 synodic (lunar) months/yr, 400+/-7 solar days/yr, a length of day of 21.9+/-0.4h, and a relative Earth-Moon distance a/a0 of 0.965+/-0.005. The mean rate of lunar recession since that time is 2.17+/-0.31cm/yr, which is little more than half the present rate of lunar recession of 3.82+/-0.07cm/yr obtained by lunar laser ranging. The late Neoproterozoic data militate against significant overall change in Earth's moment of inertia and radius at least since 620 Ma. Cyclicity displayed by Paleoproterozoic (2450 Ma) banded iron formation in Western Australia may record tidal influences on the discharge and/or dispersal of submarine hydrothermal plumes and suggests 14.5+/-0.5 synodic months/yr and a/a0=0.906+/-0.029. The combined rhythmite data give a mean rate of lunar recession of 1.24+/-0.71cm/yr during most of the Proterozoic (2450-620 Ma), suggesting that a close approach of the Moon did not occur during earlier time. Concentrated study of Precambrian tidal rhythmites promises to illuminate the evolving dynamics of the early Earth-Moon system and may permit the lunar orbit to be traced back to near the time of the Moon's origin.
So we can actually go back and test to see if physics is right about the recession. Turns out, it is. The actual recession, based on observable tidal data, is much smaller than creationists had hoped it would be.
Barbarian. You say tidal friction is the most important cause of lunar recession. I get you to admit that the the lunar gravitational pull on the earth has an effect on tidal friction. Since you admit that, wouldnt a doubling of lunar gravitational pull double the amount of tidal friction? BTW... a car with an engine speed of 2000 rpm at the top of a 10% grade will not go much faster at the bottom of the grade than a car going 30 mph at the top of the grade that lets off the gas pedal.
- Status