Real Science Friday: The Best Astronomy DVD Ever Made

[The Barbarian]

The Moon is receding from the Earth at a known and decreasing rate. Extrapolating backwards, the moon would have been inside the Earth a billion and a half years ago. Thus the Earth-Moon system cannot be as old as evolutionists say it is.

Extrapolation is a dangerous thing. Extrapolating global temperatures from the last few decades would tell you that the average global temperature was well below freezing in the 1500s, and will be above boiling in a thousand years.

The reason this seems so strange is that the slowing of rotation depends on the tides on exposed coastline. And that changes over time, depending on where the plates are.

A billion years ago, the rate was much less. Is there other, supporting evidence for this?

Turns out there is:

Paleotidal records obtained from sedimentary tidal rhythmites may be systematically abbreviated and so may give incorrect paleotidal and paleorotational values. The validity of determined values, including past length of day (l.o.d.), can be assessed by testing for internal self‐consistency through application of the laws of celestial mechanics. Three independent values obtained from the ∼620‐Ma Elatina‐Reynella rhythmites in South Australia (14.1 sidereal months/year, 401 sidereal days/year, and 19.5 years for the lunar nodal period), when employed in different equations that make allowance for lunar and solar tidal effects, each give a lunar semimajor axis in the range of 96.5–96.9% of the present figure. Such self‐consistency strongly supports the validity of the derived l.o.d. of 21.9 hours at ∼620 Ma. The validity of the estimated l.o.d. of 20.9 hours at ∼900 Ma (revised value, Big Cottonwood rhythmites, Utah) and of 17.1–18.9 hours at ∼2.5 Ga (Weeli Wolli rhythmites, Western Australia) cannot be assessed in that way because each data set has only one directly determined value. The derived mean rate of lunar retreat of 2.16 cm/year since ∼620 Ma averts a close approach of the Moon at least since 3 Ga and a lower rate of retreat seems likely during the Proterozoic.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97GL00234.shtml

 

[Granite]

"Been inside the earth"?:doh: :bang:

Yeah, I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

 

[Dr.Watson]

"Been inside the earth"?:doh: :bang:

Yeah, I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

They say a little bit of information is a dangerous thing. With Stipe it certainly is. He knows just enough to mistake himself for an expert, but for anyone else that actually is an expert on the topics he brings up (or at least knows a lot more than he does), he's absolutely impossible to hold a conversation with. He makes absurd comments and when you give up, he claims victory. It's best to ignore him, mock him and speak over him. That's about all he's worth.

 

[Stripe]

Extrapolation is a dangerous thing. Extrapolating global temperatures from the last few decades would tell you that the average global temperature was well below freezing in the 1500s, and will be above boiling in a thousand years.

The reason this seems so strange is that the slowing of rotation depends on the tides on exposed coastline. And that changes over time, depending on where the plates are.

A billion years ago, the rate was much less. Is there other, supporting evidence for this?

Turns out there is:

Paleotidal records obtained from sedimentary tidal rhythmites may be systematically abbreviated and so may give incorrect paleotidal and paleorotational values. The validity of determined values, including past length of day (l.o.d.), can be assessed by testing for internal self‐consistency through application of the laws of celestial mechanics. Three independent values obtained from the ∼620‐Ma Elatina‐Reynella rhythmites in South Australia (14.1 sidereal months/year, 401 sidereal days/year, and 19.5 years for the lunar nodal period), when employed in different equations that make allowance for lunar and solar tidal effects, each give a lunar semimajor axis in the range of 96.5–96.9% of the present figure. Such self‐consistency strongly supports the validity of the derived l.o.d. of 21.9 hours at ∼620 Ma. The validity of the estimated l.o.d. of 20.9 hours at ∼900 Ma (revised value, Big Cottonwood rhythmites, Utah) and of 17.1–18.9 hours at ∼2.5 Ga (Weeli Wolli rhythmites, Western Australia) cannot be assessed in that way because each data set has only one directly determined value. The derived mean rate of lunar retreat of 2.16 cm/year since ∼620 Ma averts a close approach of the Moon at least since 3 Ga and a lower rate of retreat seems likely during the Proterozoic.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97GL00234.shtml

So in order to refute the maths we have to assume the validity of plate tectonics?

"Been inside the earth"?:doh: :bang: Yeah, I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

Hi, coward. :wave:

They say a little bit of information is a dangerous thing. With Stipe it certainly is. He knows just enough to mistake himself for an expert, but for anyone else that actually is an expert on the topics he brings up (or at least knows a lot more than he does), he's absolutely impossible to hold a conversation with. He makes absurd comments and when you give up, he claims victory. It's best to ignore him, mock him and speak over him. That's about all he's worth.

Hi, Watties. :wave:

Any idea on how an aquifer might form yet?

 

[Dr.Watson]

So in order to refute the maths we have to assume the validity of plate tectonics?


Hi, coward. :wave:

Hi, Watties. :wave:

Any idea on how an aquifer might form yet?

Stipe.

You are free to take your childish trolling and insane ramblings elsewhere and let adults engage in scientific discussion here. There is no sand box or coloring books in here.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Extrapolation is a dangerous thing. Extrapolating global temperatures from the last few decades would tell you that the average global temperature was well below freezing in the 1500s, and will be above boiling in a thousand years.

The reason this seems so strange is that the slowing of rotation depends on the tides on exposed coastline. And that changes over time, depending on where the plates are.

A billion years ago, the rate was much less. Is there other, supporting evidence for this?

Turns out there is:

Paleotidal records obtained from sedimentary tidal rhythmites may be systematically abbreviated and so may give incorrect paleotidal and paleorotational values. The validity of determined values, including past length of day (l.o.d.), can be assessed by testing for internal self‐consistency through application of the laws of celestial mechanics. Three independent values obtained from the ∼620‐Ma Elatina‐Reynella rhythmites in South Australia (14.1 sidereal months/year, 401 sidereal days/year, and 19.5 years for the lunar nodal period), when employed in different equations that make allowance for lunar and solar tidal effects, each give a lunar semimajor axis in the range of 96.5–96.9% of the present figure. Such self‐consistency strongly supports the validity of the derived l.o.d. of 21.9 hours at ∼620 Ma. The validity of the estimated l.o.d. of 20.9 hours at ∼900 Ma (revised value, Big Cottonwood rhythmites, Utah) and of 17.1–18.9 hours at ∼2.5 Ga (Weeli Wolli rhythmites, Western Australia) cannot be assessed in that way because each data set has only one directly determined value. The derived mean rate of lunar retreat of 2.16 cm/year since ∼620 Ma averts a close approach of the Moon at least since 3 Ga and a lower rate of retreat seems likely during the Proterozoic.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97GL00234.shtml

So in order to refute the maths

There are no maths, Stipe. Extrapolation is a guess, hoping that the curve won't change when you get outside of the data.

we have to assume the validity of plate tectonics?

Or you could go observe it happening at places like the Mid-Atlantic ridge, the Himalayas, or the San Andreas fault. We can still measure the rate of movement. Or you could consider all the evidence accumulated by Wegener and hundreds of others. "Assumption" applies to your extrapolation, not to conclusions from evidence.

You guys hate that word, don't you?

 

[Granite]

They say a little bit of information is a dangerous thing. With Stipe it certainly is. He knows just enough to mistake himself for an expert, but for anyone else that actually is an expert on the topics he brings up (or at least knows a lot more than he does), he's absolutely impossible to hold a conversation with. He makes absurd comments and when you give up, he claims victory. It's best to ignore him, mock him and speak over him. That's about all he's worth.

That's why the little twerp's been on my ignore list for years. He's a troll and deliberately baits people. He enjoys wasting your time (and his own).

 

[The Barbarian]

You can't get him to admit he's wrong, but when he and his friends drop any pretense at argument, and merely call names, one has the satisfaction of knowing they know they were pwned.

And that's good enough.

 

[some other dude]

Great!

Take your victory lap and get lost.

 

[Stripe]

There are no maths, Stipe. Extrapolation is a guess, hoping that the curve won't change when you get outside of the data.

Uh, no .. there's actually a calculation one can do. A calculation based on stuff like the known recession rate today, masses and equations for gravitational forces.

The extrapolation is based soundly upon good math.

It is correct to say that change to the environment can deviate reality from the extrapolation, but to suggest that there is no math is just plain silly.

Why would you do that?

 

[Stripe]

That's why the little twerp's been on my ignore list for years. He's a troll and deliberately baits people. He enjoys wasting your time (and his own).

And Granite takes every opportunity to mention this instead of just sticking to his ignorance. You're a coward and a hypocrite. Step out from behind your polystyrene wall and face your opponent like a man. :loser:

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
Barbarian observes:
There are no maths, Stipe. Extrapolation is a guess, hoping that the curve won't change when you get outside of the data.

Uh, no .. there's actually a calculation one can do. A calculation based on stuff like the known recession rate today,

That's just an extrapolation. It is meaningful only so long as the gravitational friction has remained the same. And it clearly has not, since we know that the continents have moved around a great deal. Even more devastating to the extrapolation is the presence of tidal rhytmites that clearly show the recession was much less in earlier times.

The extrapolation is based soundly upon good math.

An extrapolation is always based on the assumption that the curve remains the same outside the range of your data. For example, if you took the rate of growth of a child from 12 to 15, and extrapolated that, you'd estimate him to be at 0 height at age 4 or so, and at 5 meters by age 30.

It is correct to say that change to the environment can deviate reality from the extrapolation, but to suggest that there is no math is just plain silly.

You have calculated something, but it's meaningless, unless there is evidence to show that the curve does remain constant. And all the evidence in this case shows that it does not.

Why would you do that?

I wouldn't. But I'm guessing you do it, because it gives you the result you want.

 

[Stripe]

That's just an extrapolation. It is meaningful only so long as the gravitational friction has remained the same. And it clearly has not, since we know that the continents have moved around a great deal. Even more devastating to the extrapolation is the presence of tidal rhytmites that clearly show the recession was much less in earlier times.

There is nothing wrong with the math. If you have reasons why it needs to be tweaked then we can discuss those, but you cannot say there is no math.

An extrapolation is always based on the assumption that the curve remains the same outside the range of your data.

Sure. And with a thing like the orbit of the Earth and the Moon that is not an unreasonable extrapolation. It's silly to assume a child will continue to grow at the same rate, but it is not silly to assume gravity worked in the ancient past as it does today.

The maths is fine. And it is not meaningless.

 

[patman]

"Been inside the earth"?:doh: :bang:

Yeah, I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

Granite,

If you want to have a discussion, poking fun at a few words and ignoring the meat of the topic is a bad way to do it.

Do you see what I mean? I am sure there is a much better answer from your camp than a one liner and some smilies, don't you think?

 

[patman]

So if Patman is complaining that we can't judge the whole DVD by just what's been made available over the Internet, how about we criticize what parts we've seen? That's mostly what's been going on anyway.

Frayed Knot, That is great Very fair approach!

Implying that since we don't have a complete history for how [_______] formed, therefore Creation is true, is simply dishonest.

I edited your quote by adding a "fill in the blank" to bring up a topic...

I actually wanted to address an issue mentioned here a lot. You are the only one willing to discuss things fairly regarding the video, so maybe I'll throw this at you and get your thoughts on it.

The accusation is Spike is using the argument from ignorance in the freely available content. On the contrary, I think he is trying to say that without a verifiable hypothesis, the theory is broken, which is true in science.

So if we expect to see something based on the models of solar evolution, and it isn't there, then the hypothesis either needs rethinking or abandoned. Your camp could argue that it is too soon to abandon it, but is it fair to criticize those who point out where it is lacking?

What do you think, Frayed Knot?

 

[Tyrathca]

If you want to have a discussion, poking fun at a few words and ignoring the meat of the topic is a bad way to do it.

And if you want a discussion stating people aren't allowed to comment and ignoring the meat of the topic is also a bad way to do it...

 

[Stripe]

And if you want a discussion stating people aren't allowed to comment and ignoring the meat of the topic is also a bad way to do it...

:dizzy:

This is the second time you've misread what is a very simple statement.

 

[patman]

:dizzy:

This is the second time you've misread what is a very simple statement.

Have you ever played a video game and couldn't get past a certain stage, and decided to put down the controller before it drives you crazy?

That's where I am right now I no longer wanna be the guy.

 

[Tyrathca]

:dizzy:

This is the second time you've misread what is a very simple statement.

I reworded his simple statement to be a simple statement about how he has acted the majority of this thread.

 

[Tyrathca]

The accusation is Spike is using the argument from ignorance in the freely available content. On the contrary, I think he is trying to say that without a verifiable hypothesis, the theory is broken, which is true in science.

You are conflating hypothesis, prediciton and theory. The model disputed by the video is the Nebular Hypothesis. It makes some predictions but because some of them are faulty and many are unverified it is not a theory.

Overturning the hypothesis, if the video achieved this, would not overturn much of astrophysicists thoughts on the solar system which contradict the creation model.

So if we expect to see something based on the models of solar evolution, and it isn't there, then the hypothesis either needs rethinking or abandoned. Your camp could argue that it is too soon to abandon it, but is it fair to criticize those who point out where it is lacking?

If the video was just about problems with the current model then it would be acceptable, if it were decent it might even get onto a science channel on TV. But from the start it sets itself up as a video of "evolution" vs creation and why he came to believe creation was true (and why we should to).

So it is OK to make criticisms though always expect criticisms of those criticisms (that's how all the sciences work). But if you frame those criticisms as support for your own alternative then that is unacceptable in science and expect the criticism to reflect this. Because even if we were to agree to abandon the Nebular Hypothesis this in no way makes the creation model more acceptable. If the model is wrong then a new model needs to be made which does a better job it doesn't mean we automatically go to already existing model, let alone one which appears to do even worse with predictions about the solar system.

Which is why I asked at the start of the thread:

Where then are the positive arguments for creationism then?

Since that is the crux of the matter. The video makes a lot of claims about why the Nebular hypothesis is wrong but if it makes any arguments for why those details make creationism right it doesn't set aside much space for it (conclusion only really, unless he revisits his points about Jupiter and Saturn in the chapter about the Moon or Mars etc.)

I'm STILL waiting for an answer to that question. Please don't let this thread crack 200 posts before someone gives even a fraction of an answer.