U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 12-16-2011, 11:29 AM
 
1,672 posts, read 756,700 times
Reputation: 254
Doug Batchelor claims the moon is distancing itself from earth by 800ft every thousand years. Prove that's not correct. And if you can't, then you are simply wrong.

Uh oh, there's silence now. Ok I'll be back later to see what you will say next. I trust Doug Batchelor and know for a FACT he's not lying. PROVE IT!

So far you've only claimed that because of the "a" word it's irrelavent. lol. The little pieces would have the same constant speed as the big one, and because of the fact that he presents, there is a huge lack of time for the "a" word...right?

 
Old 12-16-2011, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Katonah, NY
15,485 posts, read 7,398,201 times
Reputation: 15292
This is about the formation of the moon.

Formation

Main article: Giant impact hypothesis
Several mechanisms have been proposed for the Moon's formation 4.527 0.010 billion years ago,[nb 6] some 30–50 million years after the origin of the Solar System.[11] These include the fission of the Moon from the Earth's crust through centrifugal forces,[12] which would require too great an initial spin of the Earth,[13] the gravitational capture of a pre-formed Moon,[14] which would require an unfeasibly extended atmosphere of the Earth to dissipate the energy of the passing Moon,[13] and the co-formation of the Earth and the Moon together in the primordial accretion disk, which does not explain the depletion of metallic iron in the Moon.[13] These hypotheses also cannot account for the high angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system.[15]
The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth–Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact: a Mars-sized body hit the nearly formed proto-Earth, blasting material into orbit around the proto-Earth, which accreted to form the Moon.[16] Giant impacts are thought to have been common in the early Solar System. Computer simulations modelling a giant impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system, and the small size of the lunar core; they also show that most of the Moon came from the impactor, not from the proto-Earth.[17] However, meteorites show that other inner Solar System bodies such as Mars and Vesta have very different oxygen and tungsten isotopic compositions to the Earth, while the Earth and Moon have near-identical isotopic compositions. Post-impact mixing of the vaporized material between the forming Earth and Moon could have equalized their isotopic compositions,[18] although this is debated.[19]
The large amount of energy released in the giant impact event and the subsequent reaccretion of material in Earth orbit would have melted the outer shell of the Earth, forming a magma ocean.[20][21] The newly formed Moon would also have had its own lunar magma ocean; estimates for its depth range from about 500 km to the entire radius of the Moon.[20]
 
Old 12-16-2011, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
7,884 posts, read 4,260,367 times
Reputation: 1505
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Ducky View Post
Prove to me that's wrong! Show me the math. I've shown you my math, now it's your turn. So far, noone has presented their math but me.
You have already been given that. Go back and read post 16.
 
Old 12-16-2011, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Dallas, Texas
1,803 posts, read 1,083,556 times
Reputation: 940
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Ducky View Post
Prove to me that's wrong! Show me the math. I've shown you my math, now it's your turn. So far, noone has presented their math but me.

And yes this is relevant because if the moon is leaving earth at a certain rate of speed and distance per time that puts it to earth millions of years ago then that's enough to disprove what your saying because of the lack of time. I said prove something he said is false and you haven't really done that, but accuse him of lying, without the proof.

The speed, and distance the moon is separating from earth is crucial. These little pieces that left earth must have that constant speed of separation... right?

God's not finished here yet.
The moon is currently floating away at a rate of 3.8 cms a year. This is accomplished with lasers that we can fire at mirrors we placed on the moon when we were up there. (Isn't science fun? Lasers!) This is a verifiable fact that has been tested and proven.

Currently the moon is 384,403 km away, or 38,440,300,000 cms away. Let's assume the rate has remained the same this whole time. If we divide 38,440,300,000 cm by 3.8 cm/year, we get 10,115,868,421 years. That's over 10 billion years since the earth last "touched" the moon.

By the way, if we keep the same 3.8 cm per year rate, over a 1000 year period, the moon will move 124 feet every thousand years. Not 800.

Again, David Batchelor has lied to you. He is a charlatan, and you've been willingly duped.
 
Old 12-16-2011, 11:41 AM
 
1,672 posts, read 756,700 times
Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
You have already been given that. Go back and read post 16.


Thanks for bringing Sanspeur's math to my attention. If that's correct, and I'm going to research it, then Doug Batchelor has been proven to be false, as far as I'm concerned. He did say 800 feet every thousand years. And... I need to insert foot, because I said I knew for a FACT that he wasn't lying. That would be a pretty big lie I would think.
 
Old 12-16-2011, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Dallas, Texas
1,803 posts, read 1,083,556 times
Reputation: 940
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Ducky View Post


Thanks for bringing Sanspeur's math to my attention. If that's correct, and I'm going to research it, then Doug Batchelor has been proven to be false, as far as I'm concerned. He did say 800 feet every thousand years.
Check my post for the full math.
 
Old 12-16-2011, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,274,157 times
Reputation: 3617
Default Here it cometh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Ducky View Post
Ok, it's something like 800 ft every thousand years. So now I'll do the math and come back with how long ago the earth would have touched the earth. This ought to be good.
I'll also be checking into this, but have no time now.

This thread also reminds me that you Christian fundies will happily utilize partial facts very selectively, in a Convenience Mode, to "prove" your point(s), or part(s) of it. You rarely, if ever, go the full technical distance.

I'm reminded of the so-called "facts" you spring on us about how the position of the earth is Exactly Right to Sustain Godly Life, that if we were, let's say, but a few thousand miles closer or further from the sun, we'd all be frozen or toast.

Which is, of course, equally egregious & technically nonsensical, since otherwise, according to this hairbrained thinking, literally everything on the planet would die with the predictable temperature changes that accompany annual seasons. Or positions on the earth's surface. Ever hear of "seasonal temperature variations", guys? Or latitude differences? COuld a polar bear survive in the Amazonian jungle? Or an Amazonian parrot survive in Greenland?

You guys make me laugh. Often, and out loud!

And now comes some over-simplified reference to the micro-changing orbit of the moon relative to the earth. (For instance, do you know, for a fact, that the radius distance has always increased? Oh. OK: you DO know everything that you spout is a FACT, huh?

Or....just perhaps.... it decreased for a while? Hmmm? Or (horrors?) stabilized for a few hundred million years. Right? You tell us, after all, that your mystical god adjusted the theory of time, but only during Genesis, so as to make it look like everything happened billions of years ago. (to which, as usual, I'd ask: WHY?) But which is it? Everything is subject to change on a whim, or it's not. Which is it? Hmmm?

Your quote mining and selectivity is telling. Your acceptance of some quack-a-loon's "theories" is also telling, while you simultaneously, fully and totally dismiss the volumes of easily provable and reproducible evidence that hundreds of thousands of honest scientists ("NO! I tell you, they ALL lie!") have amassed.

I'll be gettin' back to yah, as no doubt will others here. You know, to correct your limited thinking. Be prepared. Get your Facts Fabrication machine all warmed up: you're gonna need it!
 
Old 12-16-2011, 11:45 AM
 
1,672 posts, read 756,700 times
Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fillmont View Post
The moon is currently floating away at a rate of 3.8 cms a year. This is accomplished with lasers that we can fire at mirrors we placed on the moon when we were up there. (Isn't science fun? Lasers!) This is a verifiable fact that has been tested and proven.

Currently the moon is 384,403 km away, or 38,440,300,000 cms away. Let's assume the rate has remained the same this whole time. If we divide 38,440,300,000 cm by 3.8 cm/year, we get 10,115,868,421 years. That's over 10 billion years since the earth last "touched" the moon.

By the way, if we keep the same 3.8 cm per year rate, over a 1000 year period, the moon will move 124 feet every thousand years. Not 800.

Again, David Batchelor has lied to you. He is a charlatan, and you've been willingly duped.
Ok. I trust what your saying is true. I really do. But I will of course have to dig a little deeper.
 
Old 12-16-2011, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
7,884 posts, read 4,260,367 times
Reputation: 1505
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Ducky View Post
Doug Batchelor claims the moon is distancing itself from earth by 800ft every thousand years.
Doug Batchelor is a scientifically illiterate moron.

Quote:
Prove that's not correct. And if you can't, then you are simply wrong.
The distance increases by approximately 3.8 centimetres per year. This is just basic stuff that kids learn dude.

Quote:
Uh oh, there's silence now.
I think it's more a case that most people are lost for words when they read your scientifically illiterate comments.


Quote:
Ok I'll be back later to see what you will say next. I trust Doug Batchelor and know for a FACT he's not lying. PROVE IT!
Here you go!
Lunar Distancing (http://www.autodynamicsuk.org/Lunar%20Distancing.htm - broken link)
 
Old 12-16-2011, 11:48 AM
 
1,672 posts, read 756,700 times
Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
I'll also be checking into this, but have no time now.

This thread also reminds me that you Christian fundies will happily utilize partial facts very selectively, in a Convenience Mode, to "prove" your point(s), or part(s) of it. You rarely, if ever, go the full technical distance.

I'm reminded of the so-called "facts" you spring on us about how the position of the earth is Exactly Right to Sustain Godly Life, that if we were, let's say, but a few thousand miles closer or further from the sun, we'd all be frozen or toast.

Which is, of course, equally egregious & technically nonsensical, since otherwise, according to this hairbrained thinking, literally everything on the planet would die with the predictable temperature changes that accompany annual seasons. Or positions on the earth's surface. Ever hear of "seasonal temperature variations", guys? Or latitude differences? COuld a polar bear survive in the Amazonian jungle? Or an Amazonian parrot survive in Greenland?

You guys make me laugh. Often, and out loud!

And now comes some over-simplified reference to the micro-changing orbit of the moon relative to the earth. (For instance, do you know, for a fact, that the radius distance has always increased? Oh. OK: you DO know everything that you spout is a FACT, huh?

Or....just perhaps.... it decreased for a while? Hmmm? Or (horrors?) stabilized for a few hundred million years. Right? You tell us, after all, that your mystical god adjusted the theory of time, but only during Genesis, so as to make it look like everything happened billions of years ago. (to which, as usual, I'd ask: WHY?) But which is it? Everything is subject to change on a whim, or it's not. Which is it? Hmmm?

Your quote mining and selectivity is telling. Your acceptance of some quack-a-loon's "theories" is also telling, while you simultaneously, fully and totally dismiss the volumes of easily provable and reproducible evidence that hundreds of thousands of honest scientists ("NO! I tell you, they ALL lie!") have amassed.

I'll be gettin' back to yah, as no doubt will others here. You know, to correct your limited thinking. Be prepared. Get your Facts Fabrication machine all warmed up: you're gonna need it!
I understand and agree. But when I am proven wrong, I have absolutely no problem admitting it... because truth is very important to me - more than pride. Thanks for your rebuke, and I oppologize.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top