## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote
How does that work exactly? I know how Answers in Genesis thinks it works but all that shows us is that AIG didn't give more than five seconds of thought and no amount of actual testing and evaluation to their hypothesis.

Don't you get tired of embarrassing yourself?

2. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 23rd, 2019)

3. Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote
I am simply illustrating that problem with assuming that we are talking about 24 hour days. It is entirely possible to have a planetary day that lasts millions of years. Life on such a world would be extremely limited but that is not the point. The Bible does not say how long the days are or even how they were measured before the Sun was created.
Morning and evening are terms that are completely foreign to you?

4. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 23rd, 2019)

5. Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote
I am simply illustrating that problem with assuming that we are talking about 24 hour days.
It's not much of a problem assuming that the Earth's rotational speed has not increased. Simple physics.

It is entirely possible to have a planetary day that lasts millions of years.
Not the Earth, unless you have a miracle in mind.

The Bible does not say how long the days are or even how they were measured before the Sun was created.
There was a light source. There was evening and morning. We simply assume that the Earth was rotating much as it is today. Simple. And within the realm of what is physically possible, which your idea is not.

Do you have any idea of how difficult it would be to increase the rotational velocity of a planet even a tiny bit, let alone from almost stationary to the rate it goes at today? Also, to get a day of millions of years is next to impossible. The rotation would have to be extremely well balanced to keep one side of the planet pointed toward the sun for such a long time.

What you're talking about is science fiction. You're just making stuff up with no filter of experience with such ideas.

6. ## The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

genuineoriginal (February 25th, 2019),JudgeRightly (February 23rd, 2019)

7. Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote
How does that work exactly? I know how Answers in Genesis thinks it works but all that shows us is that AIG didn't give more than five seconds of thought and no amount of actual testing and evaluation to their hypothesis.
I recommend you watch this series of YouTube videos, but only if you're truly interested.

Originally Posted by Stripe
It's not much of a problem assuming that the Earth's rotational speed has not increased. Simple physics.

Not the Earth, unless you have a miracle in mind.

There was a light source. There was evening and morning. We simply assume that the Earth was rotating much as it is today. Simple. And within the realm of what is physically possible, which your idea is not.

Do you have any idea of how difficult it would be to increase the rotational velocity of a planet even a tiny bit, let alone from almost stationary to the rate it goes at today? Also, to get a day of millions of years is next to impossible. The rotation would have to be extremely well balanced to keep one side of the planet pointed toward the sun for such a long time.

What you're talking about is science fiction. You're just making stuff up with no filter of experience with such ideas.

https://youtu.be/g1pXf_zsa7g

Basically, the amount of energy required is enough to basically scorch the entire surface of the planet and burn off any life on it.

8. ## The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

Right Divider (February 23rd, 2019)

9. Originally Posted by JudgeRightly
Watched a video a while ago about this very thing... https://youtu.be/g1pXf_zsa7g Basically, the amount of energy required is enough to basically scorch the entire surface of the planet and burn off any life on it.

Slowing the Earth's rotation is a bit easier; it's slowing due to gravity anyway.

I wonder if Kit is going to give this up.

10. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 23rd, 2019)

11. Originally Posted by JudgeRightly
I recommend you watch this series of YouTube videos, but only if you're truly interested.

https://youtu.be/g1pXf_zsa7g

Basically, the amount of energy required is enough to basically scorch the entire surface of the planet and burn off any life on it.
In fact, the Earth's rotation has been slowing down for a long time. It's very gradual, and causes the recession of the Moon. As tidal forces slow the Earth, the energy is transferred to the Moon, moving it to a higher orbit.

It's not a constant rate, since tidal forces change as the position of the continents change. It's currently about 4cm/year, measurable by the mirror array left on moon by an Apollo mission.

There's also fossil evidence for this, in the form of tidal rhythmites, showing increasing length of day over the ages.

There are occasionally smaller effects from tectonic processes:

Sumatran quake sped up Earth's rotation

The devastating earthquake that struck the Indian Ocean on 26 December was so powerful that it has accelerated the Earth's rotation, geophysicists have declared. They estimate that the shockwave shortened the period of our planet's rotation by some three microseconds.

https://www.nature.com/news/2004/041.../041229-6.html

Which further complicates the issue of using this as a sort of clock. But the trend has been for the Earth to slow rotation, mostly from tidal forces from the recession of the Moon.

Equilibrium would be reached when the Earth's rotational period would be the same as the orbital period of the Moon. This "gravitational locking" would mean the moon would always be visible at one place in the sky for one hemisphere, and never visible in the other. The moon is gravitationally locked to the Earth, but the Earth is not yet locked to the Moon. And won't be for a very, very long time.

12. Originally Posted by Stripe

Slowing the Earth's rotation is a bit easier; it's slowing due to gravity anyway.

13. Originally Posted by Right Divider

Don't you get tired of embarrassing yourself?
He asked a question. Seems you are unable to respond with a cogent answer.

14. Originally Posted by Jonahdog
See my comments. And yes, there are cases of the Earth's rotation speeding up. But not by a noticable amount. The trend over billions of years has been to slow it.

15. Originally Posted by Jonahdog
The moon draws up tidal bulges, which get offset by the Earth's rotation such that the moon is drawn toward the closer one, accelerating it in its orbit. The moon's pull on that closer tidal bulge in turn slows the Earth's rotation. Some people think it is friction that slows the rotation, but that's obviously wrong.

Would you like to learn why?

16. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 23rd, 2019)

17. Originally Posted by The Barbarian
The trend over billions of years...
Putting the moon in Nairobi about 1 billion years ago.

18. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 23rd, 2019)

19. (Barbarian notes the moon receding over Billions of years)

Originally Posted by Stripe
Putting the moon in Nairobi about 100 million years ago.
If you assume the rate was uniform over that time, it would be . But as you learned, it's not. Read it again, and think about it carefully. I'm pretty sure you can figure out how you messed up.

20. Barbarian asserts, sans evidence, that the moon has receded over billions of years.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian
If you assume the rate was uniform.
It isn't. The moon was receding faster in the past and the effect is wearing off as time goes on.

You forgot how gravity works, right? The closer it is, the better it works. Think about it carefully. I'm pretty sure you can figure out how you messed up.

21. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 23rd, 2019)

22. Watch, now Barbarian is going to say that the continents lined up carefully to slow the moon's departure.

It's like he totally forgets all the times we've explained all this to him.

Then he just gets flustered and angry before he starts lashing out.

23. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 23rd, 2019)

24. Originally Posted by Stripe
Barbarian asserts, sans evidence, that the moon has receded over billions of years.
Tidal rhytmites left a record of that. And yes, it has receded over that time. But it's not constant, because the tidal forces that transfer energy from the Earth to the Moon vary with the coastlines of continents.

This paleontological evidence comes in the form of tidal rhythmites, also known as tidally laminated sediments. Rhythmites have been subjected to intense scrutiny over the last decade or so, and have returned strong results. Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year. Williams reanalyzed the same data set later (Williams, 1997), showing a mean recession rate of 2.16 cm/year in the period between now and 650 million years ago. That these kinds of data are reliable is demonstrated by Archer (1996). There is also a very good review of the earlier paleontological evidence by Lambeck (1980, chapter 11, paleorotation)

Slichter, Louis B.
Secular Effects of Tidal Friction upon the Earth's Rotation
Journal of Geophysical Research 68(14), July 15, 1963

It isn't. The moon was receding faster in the past
Actually, as you see, it was usually slower, but it varied over time. Average rate was a little more than half the current rate. It isn't gravity pushing the moon outward. It's the tranfer of kinetic energy from the Earth's rotation, to the moon, as a result of the Moon's tidal drag on the oceans:

(best illustration, worst typo)

and the effect is wearing off as time goes on.
In fact, it's much faster than usual now, due to the fragmentation of continents, increasing area of coasts.

You forgot how gravity works; it doesn't push an orbiting body outward. It pulls it inward. The body orbits because the vector of gravity pulling it toward the planet precisely matches the vector moving it forward.

The added energy gained by the Moon (by tidal forces slowing the Earth's rotation) moves it away. The farther out the Moon goes, it gains potential energy (because it takes work to move it to a higher orbit).

BTW, the moon averages about 384,400 km from Earth. Which would be 38,440,000,000 centimeters. At 4 centimeters per year, that would mean 9,610,000,000 years to get to Nairobi, which would be before the solar system formed.

At the actual average, it would be much longer. The actual rate couldn't be much great, because the limiting factor is the amount of energy that can be obtained by tidal forces on the oceans. The mass of the oceans is much less than the mass of the Moon. So it's not going to be feasible to move it that far in a hundred million years as you supposed. By about 2 orders of magnitude.

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•