Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Lunar Recession & the Age of the Earth-Moon System!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    A Study of The Biblical Flood by Marion R. Fox Copyright 2000 Page 409 (in its entirety) Page 424 (citations) Lunar Recession and the Age of the Earth-Moon
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 17, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      A Study of The Biblical Flood
      by Marion R. Fox
      Copyright 2000
      Page 409 (in its entirety)
      Page 424 (citations)

      Lunar Recession and the Age
      of the Earth-Moon System

      The Moon is receding from the Earth due to tidal friction (cf. Pages 242 through 247). Kaula and Harris state:

      > "Considerable work has
      > been done since 1970
      > on determining the
      > acceleration rate n(m)
      > of the moon's orbit.
      > ...A dissipation of 1/Q
      > consistent with an
      > n(m) of about -40 arc
      > sec/century brings the
      > moon back to the earth
      > within 0.9 x 10(9) yr."
      > (page 363)

      Kahn and Pompea admit that the atheist has a problem with lunar recession:

      > it is a generally accepted
      > characteristic of lunar
      > orbital evolution that it
      > preceeded most rapidly
      > when the Earth and moon
      > were closer together.

      > Tidal forces were then
      > greater because the
      > tidal torque is
      > proportional to a (-11/2).

      > This means that the orbit
      > would have quadrupled
      > in size in the first 10Myr
      > if the moon originally
      > had been near the Roche
      > limit.

      > However, when the
      > present astronomically
      > determined rate of the
      > Moon's recession is
      > extrapolated back in
      > time, the moon
      > approaches the Roche
      > limit less than 10(9) yr
      > ago, according to Kaula,
      > and the lunar surface
      > melt would have
      > occurred due to tidal
      > energy dissipation.

      > There is no lunar or
      > terrestial (sic) geologic
      > evidence to support
      > such a close approach
      > at that time, since the
      > youngest rocks on the
      > Moon were crystalised
      > 3.25 x 10(9) yr ago.

      > This represents a time
      > scale problem which
      > has not been
      > satisfactorily explained.
      > (page 610)

      The most obvious explanation of this "time scale problem" is to admit that the Earth is quite young.

      Kahn, Peter G.K.; Pompea, Stephen M. "Nautiloid growth rhythms and dynamical evolution of the Earth-Moon system." Nature. Vol. 275, October 19, 1978, pages 606-611.

      Kaula, William M.; Harris, Alan W. "Dynamics of lunar origin and orbital evolution." Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics. Vol. 13, 1975, pages 363-371.

      -----------------------------
      -----------------------------

      The above is the Marion Fox position as espoused in his book.

      My comments:

      This is posted for reference as there is an interesting discussion regarding moon recession on the SMCoffeeShop list. It is not being posted for purposes of proposing that anyone accept the above claims.

      DBWillis has indicated he has had recent personal contact with Marion Fox regarding moon recession claims, but he has yet to reveal the explict details of such contact. Marion Fox has not made his own personal appearance to deal with the issue.

      Among other criticisms that might be made of some of the details of the above claims, I find the following totally without support, even if the above claims were otherwise supported by the relevant science:

      > The most obvious
      > explanation of this
      > "time scale problem"
      > is to admit that the
      > Earth is quite young.

      I don't think there was anything in the Fox analysis that would lead to such a conclusion, but it does seem to be a popular "default" conclusion proposed by "young-earth, creation-science" types whenever they find some unresolved question in the scientific mainstream.

      I also found it rather curious that Fox, in his 2000 publication would rely on materials from a "dynamic" investigation that were 22 and 25 years old.

      I intend to try and post other materials from the discussion on the SMCoffeeShop list to this list as time allows.

      Todd Greene, who is more informed on the actual details of the relevant science, is encouraged to post here as he may see fit and have somewhat more to offer than he has submitted to the other list.

      Even DBWillis may wish to contribute here, though he has already lost in his efforts to make somewhat out of the issue; sorely lost!

      Others are also welcome to add to the discussion as they see fit.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.