Talk:Recession of the Moon

Attribution

Some content from http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_universe αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved discussion

From EvoWiki: The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to see what Creationwiki has to say on this claim and a responce to the statements talk origins makes about this claim, goto http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=CE110 . I would really like for Thomas to look at this link since he is a physicist and since creationwiki uses physics to show why young earth is true and refutes talk origins responces to the claim. --24.174.229.213

Your supposed refutation at creationwiki doesn't take into account the fact that the arrangement of the plates millions of years ago actually reduces the rate at which the moon recedes. --81.174.168.212

My supposed refutation? Maybe you should read what I said. After that, you may like to look at what talk origins said in their comment 2. and what creationwiki responded with, because it looked like to me that they did take the arrangement of plates into account and gave the 2 possible plate arrangements which would be able to fit the 4.5 billion year old earth. The following is copied from the http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=CE110 .

2. The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years [Eicher 1976].

This is a pure fabrication developed to try to save uniformitarian time scales from the laws of physics. Talk Origins is accurate in pointing out that factors such as continental location effect tidal drag. However to reduce it to a rate that will allow the Earth / Moon system to be 4.5 billion years old requires assuming one of two unrealistic continental positions.

One continent at one of the poles.

[Illustration would be here]

Based on description of model.

This is unrealistic, not only because it goes against the Earth's actual conditions, but also because it is unstable. Continental crust in this position would be a significant weight imbalance. On a rotating planet; like the Earth; such an imbalance would be pulled to the equator by centrifugal force in well under the 4 billion years. It would have to remain there for this model to work.

That is untrue. There is nothing "unstable" about having all of the continental landmasses at the poles. The Earth's surface is an isopotential; due to the oblateness of the crust, the combined effects of gravity and the centrifugal force are always perpendicular to the surface---and there is no net force pulling things towards the equator. If you imagine "starting up" an Earthlike planet with a huge extra mass at the poles, the result will be that the crust flexes and becomes oblate, *not* that the mass slides out to the equator. -bm

One continent concentrated near the equator.

[Illustration would be here]

Based on description of model.

While this model is stable, it too is unrealistic as the continents actually go nearly pole to pole, and would do so even if they are combined into a single continent. While the contents would have moved, the above position is not based in fact. It is simply a necessity if one insists that the Earth / Moon system 4.5 billion years old.

Furthermore, paleontological evidence (see below) does not support a rate of change in the Earth rotation rate of only 0.02 milliseconds / year. (2 seconds / 100,000 years) PhoteK

Hmm... this page doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe that's why vandals target it? --tk (t) 09:48, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Please Note

Please note that with the rate of recession the moon should be further from the earth than we currently observe if the moon is 4.5 billion years old. The creationists are working backwards from the present and have found that the moon would have been touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago at the rate of recession when accounting for the slowing of the rate. However, if the rate were constant (which is scientifically not so) then there would be no issue. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.188.90.42 / talk / contribs}

Theia

Should there be some mention of Theia/other possible 'early Solar System planetary/asteroid snookering'? Anna Livia (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)