Moon moving 2 cm.
Micah Hewitt
moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
zqa...@Prodigy.com
Roger Schlafly
Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
a foot in 15 years.
250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
An odd one
Roger Schlafly wrote:
you know, by the creationist's explaination the moon would be only about 32000
miles away!! imagine how bit it would be in the sky then!!
The trees have eyes and the birds sing the blues.
Boikat
Micah Hewitt wrote:
> I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> zqa...@Prodigy.com
It's an old one, and rubbish for two reasons. One is that they assume a
constant rate, which is false. The other is that they haven't done the
math. It's very apperent that with an estimated age of 4.5 billion years
age, the 2 cm rate of regression is not any sort of problem at all, since it
means that the moon would have been closer by a mere 9 billion cm, which
comes out to 90,000 km closer, or still 3910000 km away. Not a problem.
Boikat
Thomas Paine
>I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
>moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
>run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
>roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
>the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
>would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
>refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
>zqa...@Prodigy.com
>
Interesting how the ICR fundies argue that science assumes the speed of light
always constant; and then used an "unconstant" speed to prove a YE.
They also do the same stupid arguement with various dating techniques to try
and ccast doubt on the ages of fossils.
But when it comes to their own pet speculations...moon movement, sun
expansion, moon dust accumulation etc...they always (wrongly) assume a linear
change.
I've heard of people who can talk out of both sides of their mouth...but to
lie out of both sides must be a major accomplishment.
Gavin Tabor
I'm always reminded of the `1984' terms _doublethink_ and _blackwhite_
when listening to this sort of drivel.
Gavin
--
Dr.Gavin Tabor
email : ga...@ic.ac.uk
home page : monet.me.ic.ac.uk/people/gavin/gavin.html
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Imperial College,
London SW7 2BY
Tarjei Straume
Gavin Tabor wrote:
> Thomas Paine wrote:
> >
> > In article <35C974...@earthlink.net>, Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> > >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> > >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> > >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> > >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> > >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> > >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> > >zqa...@Prodigy.com
> > >
> >
> > Interesting how the ICR fundies argue that science assumes the speed of light
> > always constant; and then used an "unconstant" speed to prove a YE.
> > They also do the same stupid arguement with various dating techniques to try
> > and ccast doubt on the ages of fossils.
> >
> > But when it comes to their own pet speculations...moon movement, sun
> > expansion, moon dust accumulation etc...they always (wrongly) assume a linear
> > change.
> >
> > I've heard of people who can talk out of both sides of their mouth...but to
> > lie out of both sides must be a major accomplishment.
>
> I'm always reminded of the `1984' terms _doublethink_ and _blackwhite_
> when listening to this sort of drivel.
Anyway, let’s get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical theories about its
origin. The first is that is was a part of the earth and then separated; the other that
it has an external origin and somehow ended up in its present orbit around the earth.
I believe in theory number one, and the moon’s gradual movement away from the earth
would perhaps lend support to it?
Tarjei
Adam Noel Harris
:
:
:Micah Hewitt wrote:
:
:> I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
:> moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
:> run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
:> roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
:> the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
:> Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
:> would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
:> refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
:> zqa...@Prodigy.com
:It's an old one, and rubbish for two reasons. One is that they assume a
:constant rate, which is false. The other is that they haven't done the
:math. It's very apperent that with an estimated age of 4.5 billion years
:age, the 2 cm rate of regression is not any sort of problem at all, since it
:comes out to 90,000 km closer, or still 3910000 km away. Not a problem.
391,000 km.
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
jeremy howard todd
>Anyway, let's get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical
>theories about its origin. The first is that is was a part of the
>earth and then separated; the other that it has an external origin and
>somehow ended up in its present orbit around the earth.
>I believe in theory number one, and the moon's gradual movement away
>from the earth would perhaps lend support to it?
The moon's movement away from the earth is a consequence of
the law of conservation of angular momentum. If I understand it
correctly (which I'm not sure of ;) the tides created by the moon
create friction on the earth's surface as they follow the moon while the
earth rotates under them. This is very, very gradually slowing down the
earth's rotation and lengthening the day. However, angular momentum
(such as that created by the earth's rotation) is like mass/energy; it
can neither be created nor destroyed, so the loss of angular
momentum in the earth's rotation has to be made up for somewhere, in
this case by the moon. By moving away from the earth, its orbit gains
the angular momentum needed to make up the difference. It's more
complicated than that, of course, but that's the general idea.
Incidentally, this is related to the effect that eventually
"locks" orbiting bodies facing their primaries; for example, the moon
rotates in the exact same length of time as it orbits, presenting us the
same view at all times. The four major moons of Jupiter (and other
planets I assume, but I don't know offhand) do the same thing.
Eventually (in a loooooooooong long time) the same thing will
happen with the earth, and we and the moon will be locked in a constant
stare-off (like Pluto and its moon, Charon). Of course, the sun will
most likely go nova before this happens; it happened so much faster with
the moon because the earth is about 80 times as massive.
-jht
--
Jeremy Todd Database Programmer _,/
jht...@uiuc.edu ITCS Systems Development <__ \_.---.
http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~toddjh/ College of ACES, UIUC \_ / \
Zupfe Boy and Night Owl (And Kangaroo Aficianado) \)\ /\.\
========================================================= // \\
"M-O-O-N, that spells moon" - Tom Cullen ,/' `\_,
David Johnston
> >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
>
> is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> a foot in 15 years.
> 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
They have faith. What do they need with math? I mean if they used math
they'd know that something like that wouldn't be a linear function
anyway.
Amanda & Adam Crowl
Roger Schlafly wrote:
> Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
>
> It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> a foot in 15 years.
> 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
It's not a simple linear progression - the closer they are together the greater
the energy loss. The problem with the Creationist model is it uses a very
simplified model of the Earth that is inconsistent with what we do know about
tides and their energy dissipation. When more realistic models of oceans and
continents are used what emerges is we're living in an epoch of higher energy
losses than the past, a kind of resonance between tides, the Moon's orbit and
the Earth's spin.
I've got a few references I can give, but I have to dig them up. Watch this
space.
Adam
Boikat
Adam Noel Harris wrote:
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> :
>
[snip]
> :means that the moon would have been closer by a mere 9 billion cm, which
> :comes out to 90,000 km closer, or still 3910000 km away. Not a problem.
> ^^^^^^^
> 391,000 km.
>
Doh!!! Still not a problem. :}
Henke Clan
Growth lines in corals and mollusks also give a nice record of the lengths of
months and days on Earth since at least the Ordovician, which of course is related
to how far away the Moon was from the Earth over time and the speed of the Earth's
rotation over time. For example, 435 million years ago, there were 405 days/year
instead of 365.25. The number of days/month 435 million years ago was closer to
31. See Mintz, Leigh W., 1977, "Historical Geology, 2nd ed., p. 92-93. If "Flood
geology" was real, why would we expect a Pennsylvanian rugose coral to have more
daily growth lines/year than a Tertiary hexacoral?
Kevin
Steve Henderson
Tarjei Straume <tast...@online.no> wrote:
}
}
}Gavin Tabor wrote:
}
}> Thomas Paine wrote:
}> >
}> > In article <35C974...@earthlink.net>, Micah Hewitt
<va...@earthlink.net> wrote:
}> > >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
}> > >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
}> > >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
}> > >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
}> > > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
}> > >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
}> > >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
}> > >zqa...@Prodigy.com
ICR discussion snipped for bandwidth
}Anyway, let’s get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical theories
}about its origin. The first is that is was a part of the earth and then
}separated; the other that it has an external origin and somehow ended up in
}its present orbit around the earth.
}I believe in theory number one, and the moon’s gradual movement away from the
}earth would perhaps lend support to it?
}
}Tarjei
}
My understanding is that the current theory postulates a collision between
the proto-earth and something roughly Mars sized, knocking off a very large
(and molten) chunk that formed the moon.
Enslaved, illogical, elate,
He greets the embarrassed Gods, nor fears,
To shake the iron hand of Fate
Or match with Destiny for beers.
An American (Rudyard Kipling)
Use ashland at ccnet dot com to email me.
may...@andrews.edu
jht...@students.uiuc.edu (jeremy howard todd) wrote:
> Tarjei Straume <tast...@online.no> writes:
> >Anyway, let's get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical
> >theories about its origin. The first is that is was a part of the
> >earth and then separated; the other that it has an external origin and
> >somehow ended up in its present orbit around the earth.
>
> >I believe in theory number one, and the moon's gradual movement away
> >from the earth would perhaps lend support to it?
>
> the law of conservation of angular momentum. If I understand it
> correctly (which I'm not sure of ;) the tides created by the moon
> create friction on the earth's surface as they follow the moon while the
> earth rotates under them. This is very, very gradually slowing down the
> earth's rotation and lengthening the day. However, angular momentum
> (such as that created by the earth's rotation) is like mass/energy; it
> can neither be created nor destroyed, so the loss of angular
> momentum in the earth's rotation has to be made up for somewhere, in
> this case by the moon. By moving away from the earth, its orbit gains
> the angular momentum needed to make up the difference. It's more
> complicated than that, of course, but that's the general idea.
>
> Incidentally, this is related to the effect that eventually
> "locks" orbiting bodies facing their primaries; for example, the moon
> rotates in the exact same length of time as it orbits, presenting us the
> same view at all times. The four major moons of Jupiter (and other
> planets I assume, but I don't know offhand) do the same thing.
>
> Eventually (in a loooooooooong long time) the same thing will
> happen with the earth, and we and the moon will be locked in a constant
> stare-off (like Pluto and its moon, Charon). Of course, the sun will
> most likely go nova before this happens; it happened so much faster with
> the moon because the earth is about 80 times as massive.
Another interesting thing about this whole issue is that it disproves young
earth creationism, although apparently the young earthers brought it up to do
just the opposite (since fossil evidence indicates that the day has been
lengthening for approximately the amount of time that radiometric data
suggest). The tidal-locking that you mentioned is also difficult to fit into
a young- universe model.
--vince
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Reyn
>>
>> (like Pluto and its moon, Charon)
hmn... I thought Pluto wasn't a planet but just a very large ice dwarf.
Pluto shares that area of the solar system with many millions of ice clumps
ranging probably from a few feet in size to the size of Pluto. so Pluto and
Charon aren't planet and moon, but just two ice dwarfs on steroids.
-Reyn
Mike Noren
: I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
: moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year.
True; it does. At the same time the rotation of the earth slows
somewhat, as rotational energy is transferred from the earth to the
moon via tidal forces.
: If time was
: run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
: roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
: the old earth positition.
I'm not sure how long ago one would extrapolate the moons creation to,
but it's not supposed to be a problem (i.e. it's bigger than the 5B
years since the moons creation). I do know that the growth rings of
Silurian corals (several hundred million years old, severely
contradicting the bible) support the notion that the moon was a lot
closer, and orbited a lot faster, back then.
I seem to remember that the moon, at the time, is estimated to have
occupied about one arc second of the sky when seen from the Earth - it
must have been an impressive sight indeed. The tides of the time
probably were equally impressive.
Other than this, I can't really help you. Have you looked in the
talk.origins faq's? There should be something on this subject in
there.
Michael Norén, Doctoral student, Tel: Int +46 (0)8 6664236
Swedish Museum of Natural History, Fax: Int +46 (0)8 6664125
Dept. of Invertebrate Zoology
P.O.B. 50007 "Nihil umquam facile"
S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
Bill Jefferys
>Replying to Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net> :
>I'm not sure how long ago one would extrapolate the moons creation to,
>but it's not supposed to be a problem (i.e. it's bigger than the 5B
>years since the moons creation). I do know that the growth rings of
>Silurian corals (several hundred million years old, severely
>contradicting the bible) support the notion that the moon was a lot
>closer, and orbited a lot faster, back then.
IIRC the year was about 400 days (meaning the Earth rotated about 10%
faster than now) in Devonian times. The Moon would have been
proportionately closer (of order 10% with a factor of order unity that I
am too lazy to calculate right now).
>I seem to remember that the moon, at the time, is estimated to have
>occupied about one arc second of the sky when seen from the Earth - it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^It now occupies 1800 arcseconds!
>must have been an impressive sight indeed. The tides of the time
>probably were equally impressive.
I think you may mean one degree of arc, not one arcsecond. The Moon's
apparent diameter is now about 1/2 degree.
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
Email: replace 'warthog' with 'clyde' | Homepage: quasar.as.utexas.edu
I report spammers to frau...@psinet.com
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Mike Noren
: >I seem to remember that the moon, at the time, is estimated to have
: >occupied about one arc second of the sky when seen from the Earth - it
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^It now occupies 1800 arcseconds!
: >must have been an impressive sight indeed. The tides of the time
: >probably were equally impressive.
:
: I think you may mean one degree of arc, not one arcsecond. The Moon's
: apparent diameter is now about 1/2 degree.
Arrgh! Yes, correct!
: Bill
John R Nickolls
Steve Henderson wrote:
> In article <35C9D4CD...@online.no>,
> Tarjei Straume <tast...@online.no> wrote:
<snip>
> }Anyway, let’s get back to the moon: There have been twp astronomical theories
> }about its origin. The first is that is was a part of the earth and then
> }separated; the other that it has an external origin and somehow ended up in
> }its present orbit around the earth.
> }I believe in theory number one, and the moon’s gradual movement away from the
> }earth would perhaps lend support to it?
> }
> }Tarjei
> }
> My understanding is that the current theory postulates a collision between
> the proto-earth and something roughly Mars sized, knocking off a very large
> (and molten) chunk that formed the moon.
>
> Enslaved, illogical, elate,
> He greets the embarrassed Gods, nor fears,
> To shake the iron hand of Fate
> Or match with Destiny for beers.
> An American (Rudyard Kipling)
>
> Use ashland at ccnet dot com to email me.
According to my information, the density of the Moon is not the same as that of
the Earth, so a common origin is unlikely. Also, had the Moon formed closer to
Earth, it would be expected to orbit in an equatorial plane, like the satellites
of other planets. (But instead orbits more or less in the plane of the Ecliptic.)
Capture theory is interesting, but begs the question where did the Moon roll in
from, and how come it ended up in such a good orbit?
Isaac Asimov, in Asimov on Astronomy (where I just got some of this info) suggests
that the Earth-Moon system is in reality a double planet. There is an argument
which shows that the Moon is quite unique amonst planetary satellites in relation
to size, orbit etc.
Any good?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John R Nickolls/Paratechnics
PO Box 931 Manurewa Auckland New Zealand
Tel: +64-9-268 1743 Fax: +64-9-268 2376
http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~nickolls
Tarjei Straume
John R Nickolls wrote:
<previous dialogues snipped>
> According to my information, the density of the Moon is not the same as that of
> the Earth, so a common origin is unlikely.
Not if the earth and the moon condensed from the same mass of hot gases and liquids
and their differences in density occurred after the separation.
> Also, had the Moon formed closer to
> Earth, it would be expected to orbit in an equatorial plane, like the satellites
> of other planets. (But instead orbits more or less in the plane of the Ecliptic.)
I don’t know why this should exclude the possibility that the earth and moon have
been one single body at some point.
> Capture theory is interesting, but begs the question where did the Moon roll in
> from, and how come it ended up in such a good orbit?
A less likely theory, but still a theory nevertheless. And it’s the only alternative
to the earth and moon having been one single mass.
> Isaac Asimov, in Asimov on Astronomy (where I just got some of this info) suggests
> that the Earth-Moon system is in reality a double planet. There is an argument
> which shows that the Moon is quite unique amonst planetary satellites in relation
> to size, orbit etc.
>
> Any good?
Well yes. I have never been a particular fan of Asimov (an arrogant
ultra-rationalist), but he obviously was on to some interesting ideas about the Big
Bang and the possible future destiny of the physical universe. And he may not have
been too far from the truth about the moon either.
Tarjei
John R Nickolls
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Thanks, Tarjei.
I can't necessarily explain it all, just passing on what I've come across. You're right
about Asimov having "a bit of an attitude", but he was a clever guy, and at least
approached his chosen subjects very systematically.
He speculates about a double planet:
"It is possible then, that there is an intermediate point between the situation of a
massive planet far distant from the Sun, which develops about a single core, with
numerous satellites formed, and that of a small planet near the Sun which develops about
a single core with no satellites? Can there be a boundary condition, so to speak, in
which there is condensation about two major cores so that a double planet is formed?
Maybe Earth just hit the edge of the permissible mass and distance; a little too
small, a little too close. Perhaps if it were better situated the two halves of the
double planet would have been more of a size. Perhaps both might have had atmospheres
and oceans and - life. perhaps in other stellar systems with a double planet, a greater
equality is more ususal.
What a shame if we have missed that...
Or, maybe (who knows), what luck!"
By the way, there is the more off-the-wall suggestion that the Moon is in fact
artificial. More on that if you think you can stand it, otherwise I'll keep quiet.
Regards,
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John R Nickolls
Bill Jefferys
>Steve Henderson wrote:
>> My understanding is that the current theory postulates a collision between
>> the proto-earth and something roughly Mars sized, knocking off a very large
>> (and molten) chunk that formed the moon.
[This is the Giant Impact theory.]
>According to my information, the density of the Moon is not the same as that of
>the Earth, so a common origin is unlikely. Also, had the Moon formed closer to
>Earth, it would be expected to orbit in an equatorial plane, like the
>satellites of other planets. (But instead orbits more or less in the plane of
>the Ecliptic.)
The Giant Impact theory mentioned above is the best one yet going. It
explains the different densities since only the outer parts of the Earth
plus the asteroid would be incorporated into the Moon. Furthermore, as the
Moon moved out, its orbital plane would move away from the Earth's
equatorial plane to being closer to the ecliptic, just as we observe. This
is not a problem for the Giand Impact theory.
>Capture theory is interesting, but begs the question where did the Moon roll in
>from, and how come it ended up in such a good orbit?
Capture theory is now generally disregarded.
>Isaac Asimov, in Asimov on Astronomy (where I just got some of this info)
Asimov is way out of date.
Bill
----
John R Nickolls
Bill Jefferys wrote:
> At 5:52 PM -0400 8/7/98, John R Nickolls wrote:
> >Steve Henderson wrote:
> >> My understanding is that the current theory postulates a collision between
> >> the proto-earth and something roughly Mars sized, knocking off a very large
> >> (and molten) chunk that formed the moon.
>
> [This is the Giant Impact theory.]
>
> >According to my information, the density of the Moon is not the same as that of
> >the Earth, so a common origin is unlikely. Also, had the Moon formed closer to
> >Earth, it would be expected to orbit in an equatorial plane, like the
> >satellites of other planets. (But instead orbits more or less in the plane of
> >the Ecliptic.)
>
> The Giant Impact theory mentioned above is the best one yet going. It
> explains the different densities since only the outer parts of the Earth
> plus the asteroid would be incorporated into the Moon. Furthermore, as the
> Moon moved out, its orbital plane would move away from the Earth's
> equatorial plane to being closer to the ecliptic, just as we observe. This
> is not a problem for the Giand Impact theory.
>
> >Capture theory is interesting, but begs the question where did the Moon roll in
> >from, and how come it ended up in such a good orbit?
>
> Capture theory is now generally disregarded.
>
> >Isaac Asimov, in Asimov on Astronomy (where I just got some of this info)
>
> Asimov is way out of date.
>
> Bill
Thanks Bill, I learned something there.
Reyn
>
>By the way, there is the more off-the-wall suggestion that the Moon is in
fact
>artificial. More on that if you think you can stand it, otherwise I'll
keep quiet.
this sounds so weird that I really want to know about that theory. fire
away!
-Reyn
bo...@my-dejanews.com
> : moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year.
>
> True; it does. At the same time the rotation of the earth slows
> somewhat, as rotational energy is transferred from the earth to the
> moon via tidal forces.
>
> : If time was
imply
...
bo...@my-dejanews.com
"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
>
> is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> a foot in 15 years.
> 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
a linear extrapolation is inappropriate here.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> >>I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> >>moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> >>run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >>roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >>the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> >> Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >>would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >>refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >>zqa...@Prodigy.com
> >
> >It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> >is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> >The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> >in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> >a foot in 15 years.
> > 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> >The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
> >
> >
32000
> miles away!!
references please
bo...@my-dejanews.com
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
> >
> > Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> > >I have recently run into the creationist argument that the moon is
> > >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> > >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> > >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> > >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> > >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> > >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> > >zqa...@Prodigy.com
> >
> > It is true that the moon is slowly slipping away. The earth's rotation
> > is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> > The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> > in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> > a foot in 15 years.
> > 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> > The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
>
> they'd know that something like that wouldn't be a linear function
> anyway.
"they" do know. Roger doesn't.
bo...@my-dejanews.com
ill...@nonsense.com (Thom Ass Pain) wrote:
> In article <35C974...@earthlink.net>, Micah Hewitt <va...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> >zqa...@Prodigy.com
> >
>
> always constant;
Interesting how the Darwinian fundies argue that science assumes the speed of
light was not a physical limit during the inflationary epoch.
...
She rings like a bell through the night
And wouldn't you love to love her?
She rules her life like a bird in flight
And who will be her lover?
name that tune
efo...@lib.drury.edu
>
> In article <35CA19...@telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> > Roger Schlafly wrote:
> > >
> > > Micah Hewitt wrote in message <35C974...@earthlink.net>...
> > > >moving away from the earth at the rate of 2 cm per year. If time was
> > > >run backward, it would infer that the moon would have hit the earth
> > > >roughly a billion years ago, which obviously is not true, which refutes
> > > >the old earth positition. I am not familiar with this 2 cm information.
> > > > Any information on where I can find out more about it, if it is true,
> > > >would be helpful. Even more helpful would be someone with a tidy
> > > >refutation to this young earth argument. If possible, e-mail me at
> > > >zqa...@Prodigy.com
> > >
> > > is also slowing down. I don't follow your arithmetic, though.
> > > The moon is about 250,000 miles away. There are 5280 feet
> > > in a mile. If the moon is moving away at 2 cm/yr, then it moves
> > > a foot in 15 years.
> > > 250,000 x 5280 x 15 = about 20 billion
> > > The earth is only about 5 billion years old, so this is not a contradiction.
> >
> > They have faith. What do they need with math? I mean if they used math
> > they'd know that something like that wouldn't be a linear function
> > anyway.
>
> "they" do know.
Not all of them
" The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies
this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be
much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from
the earth."
>
> ...