Fixed.Looking at the sky and imagining how the earth was formed belongs in religion, not science.
Birth of Earth
- Thread starter sureshbansal
- Start date
Here is some more interesting evidence supporting planetary growth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prkt8attugY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prkt8attugY
Here is some more interesting evidence supporting planetary growth.
Job 38:13, "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Surely you know for you were already born! You have lived so many years!" Ah the arrogance of man.
I'm trying to think of all the logical fallacies that could possibly be applied to this statement, I think I've got a good list:
1. Affirming the Consequent
2. Beggin the Question
3. Proof by Example
4. Informal Fallacy
5. Cherry Picking
Then I got bored :shrug:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I thought it was meant to be a mouldy orange.
More evidence of planetary growth from OTHER planets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGFsMMS2GOQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGFsMMS2GOQ&feature=related
You're aware that Neal Adams is a comic book artist right?
I assume you're also aware that according to multiple studies that have been done, there is precisely zero evidence for any change in earths moment of inertia in the last 620 million years?
Although, in this instance, he may actually almost be right, given that Ganyemede is primarily water-ice and rock, and water has a tendency to expand when it freezes.
Irrelevant illogical ad hominem fallacy. If a comic book artist says 2+2=4 that does not mean 2+2 does not equal 4.
You're a pathetic joke.
Those studies have been thoroughly and utterly debunked as pseudoscientific garbage.
What is the nature of theses studies? I know one of the more accurate ways to determining the rate that the Earth' spin is slowing but do not know how the moment of inertia can be shown to not have changed. If it has changed there are two factors making the rotational rate change. It clearly does change annually (reducing slightly by net movement of mass towards the axis) as snow and ice accumulate on Arctic and near arctic lands in winter there as the summer reduction in Antarctica is not fully compensating. When Greenlan was green instead of covered in ice a mile deep in some spots that water on average was further from the axis, slightly increasing the moment of inertia. I should think that the Indian plate colliding with the Asia plant and throwing up the Himalayas would have made a slight change also.
Thus your statment seems false or at best is a claim we do not know if there has been change or not. If you cannot support your statements, can you give reference to some moment of inertial studies?
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it hard to believe "precisely zero" change also as it changes cyclicly every year, but your satatment is equally strange / unsupported as how do you know what studies he was referring to?
No, it's completely relevant.
Do you not think that you should be aware of an authors background when you're citing them?
Do you not think that you should be aware of the fact that the author your citing has no provable qualifications in the field of Geology, when having a discussion of Geology?
I would have thought that those two points would have been the first two things to check personally.
No they haven't.
You've produced a single paper that substantially supports the studies, and offers an alternative explanation of the results IF certain specific conditions are met.
Once again, you're engaging in lies, fallacies, and personal attacks.
Ugh. Good god. Maybe I should have been more precise with my wording.
The exact quote, available elsewhere on this forum, that I was referring to was this:
"The late Neoproterozoic rhythmite data do not support significant change in Earth’s moment of inertia and radius over the past 620 My"
From this:
GEOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE PRECAMBRIAN HISTORY OF EARTH’S ROTATION AND THE MOON’S ORBIT by George E. Williams
Which was accepted for publication in Rev. Geophys., Vol. 38, No. 1, p. 37 - 59 and which, inspite of OIM's ramblings is one of five papers written by the same author, cited as supporting evidence in the paper that he claims debunks this one.
Here's the Harvard ADSABS: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000RvGeo..38...37W
He knows which studies i'm referring to, because he's abused me for disagreeing with him elsewhere in this forum.
He thinks that because I disagree with him, I must be some kind of religous fundamentalist.
And I didn't say that there was precisely zero change, I said that there was precisely zero evidence for a change (in otherwords, there is no evidence to support a change).
In the second ref abstract I found:
" provided information on Earth's paleorotation and the evolving lunar orbit for Precambrian time ..." but changes in "paleorotation" is very little due to changes in the moment of inertia.
I already knew that atomic clocks and months of stellar observations and / or "optical radar" ranging of the corner cubes left on the moon gave current changes in ROTATION rates, and that the ancient eclipse reports give the data of the change in a few thousand years and some about the tidal growth bands (but I think they depend on knowleges of sea temperatures - did not read you link)
But I CAN NOT THINK OF HOW to measure changes in MOMENT of Inertia except the current seasonal changes, which are surely small compared to some ice age and plate tectonics changes. That is my interest - how can non current changes be measured?
Last edited by a moderator:
Because, if you read the paper, essentially what it says is that these sediments record daily, monthly and annual variations, effectively giving us a relatively direct measure of how many days there are in a month, and how many days there are in a year.
Using one underlying assumption - that there's been no secular variation in the length of a year, a reasonable assumtpion on the face of it, you can then determine how long each day is, and what the orbital period of the moon is, and thus the variation in the moment of inertia.
The research is actually quite intriguing.
I should point out, however, before OIM starts jumping up and down, frothing at the mouth, and wetting his pants with excitement There was, however, a paper written by S K Runcorn that suggested that it may be possible for the moment of inertia to have varied if, and only if G had varied in a specific way to give the illusion that there had been no variation in the moment of inertia.
I'm not surprised. I find 99% of what Trippy says hard to believe and there's a reason for that. His statements aren't true.
I know what studies he was referring to because he told me.
Once again you fail to understand the cause but I'm not surprised since you fail to understand numbers higher than 1 and you aren't capable of recognizing ad hominem fallacies.
William's hubris and fundamentalism are debunked here: http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/MazumderESR2004.pdf