Secular Acceleration of the Moon

AlphaNumeric said:
Look what I found. More recent, more citations and an abstract which categorically states the opposite to what you do. Plus, when you search the journal website for the paper you linked to (ie the author and year of publication) it doesn't give it in the results.

That enough of a peer reviewed scientific response for ya?
Click to expand...
The bulk of peer-reviewed papers disagree with those post hoc assumptions.

E.G.:

"The implications of employing the present rate of tidal energy dissipation on a geological timescale are catastrophic. Around 1500 Ma the Moon would have been close to the Earth, with the consequence that the much larger tidal forces would have disrupted the Moon or caused the total melting of Earth's mantle and of the moon." (Williams 2000)

Lambeck, K., The Earth's Variable Rotation: Geophysical Causes and Consequences, Page 449, 1980

Williams, G.E., Geological Constraints on the Precambrian History of the Earth's Rotation and the Moon's Orbits, Reviews of Geophysics, Volume 38, Number 1, Pages 37-59, 2000
 
Last edited:
From your paper:

These figures are the only available direct estimates
of I/I0 for the Precambrian and argue against significant
overall change in Earth’s moment of inertia since ;620
Ma.Moreover, they rule out rapid Earth expansion since
that time by endogenous (noncosmological) mechanisms,
particularly the hypothesis of rapid expansion
since the Paleozoic...
Click to expand...

The
suggested increasing mean rate of lunar recession since
2450 Ma is consistent with increasing oceanic tidal dissipation
as Earth’s rotation slows [see Hansen, 1982;
Webb, 1982]. The present high rate of lunar recession
may reflect the near resonance of oceanic free modes
and tidal frequencies [Lambeck, 1980; Su¨ndermann,
1982; Brosche, 1984].
Click to expand...

This tidal
scenario suggests that a close approach of the Moon has
not occurred at any time during Earth history (Figure 15,
curve d). The findings, while tentative, are consistent
with other tidal histories [e.g., Hansen, 1982; Webb,
1982].
Click to expand...

The available Proterozoic rhythmite
data are consistent with an overall low rate of tidal
friction and the long-term stability of the Moon’s orbit.
Click to expand...

So your own paper disagrees with you.
 
OilIsMastery said:
You are lying again. The direct quote does not contradict itself.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's you that's lying (again).

First off, all of the wuotes I provided are direct quotes from your own paper, and they all disagree with what you say.

Second, you're quoting the Author out of context (no surprises there).

The preceeding sentence
Tracing the history of Earth’s tidal deceleration and
the evolution of the Moon’s orbit is a major challenge
for geology.
Click to expand...
combined with the fact that the sentence you're quoting clearly state or imply that, as with all good introductions (Which is, after all, what you're quoting) is discussing the reasons for the work.

Clearly, when viewed in the context of the rest of the paper, especially when the author explicitly rules out the possibility of an expanding earth of the scale that you've discussed, and explicitly states in his conclusions, that based on the information we have, it appears that the model you're claiming this quote disproves is the correct one.

So, once again, you're lying, and you're misrepresenting the Authors work.
 
Good grief, OIM. Reaching back nearly half a century to find a paper that purportedly proves your misguided concepts (purportedly because the paper is not available at the website you posted; even the abstract of the paper is not available) is not just cherry-picking. You just picked the whole orchard!

Slichter's paper was published when plate tectonics theory was in its infancy. Slichter did see one way out of the dilemna of the time scale of the Earth-moon system posed in his paper. The discrepancy would be solved if "for some unknown reason" the tidal torque was much less in the past than in the present. While he couldn't find such a reason, scientists in the intervening 45 years have.

The way out is through plate tectonics. The current configuration of the continents does a very good job of impeding the tides. This current configuration is anomalistic. In the past we have rarely had even one set of continents that spans over 100 degrees of latitude. We now have two. The Americas span 138 degrees of latitude and Europe/Asia/Africa span 116 degrees. This configuration creates a lot of tidal friction. Past configurations, not near so much.
 
D H said:
Good grief, OIM. Reaching back nearly half a century to find a paper that purportedly proves your misguided concepts (purportedly because the paper is not available at the website you posted; even the abstract of the paper is not available) is not just cherry-picking. You just picked the whole orchard!

Slichter's paper was published when plate tectonics theory was in its infancy. Slichter did see one way out of the dilemna of the time scale of the Earth-moon system posed in his paper. The discrepancy would be solved if "for some unknown reason" the tidal torque was much less in the past than in the present. While he couldn't find such a reason, scientists in the intervening 45 years have.

The way out is through plate tectonics. The current configuration of the continents does a very good job of impeding the tides. This current configuration is anomalistic. In the past we have rarely had even one set of continents that spans over 100 degrees of latitude. We now have two. The Americas span 138 degrees of latitude and Europe/Asia/Africa span 116 degrees. This configuration creates a lot of tidal friction. Past configurations, not near so much.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you 2000 AD was not a half a century ago. It was 8 years ago. So far I have provided the most contemporary reference for secular acceleration. Expanding Earth 1-Plate Tectonics-0. Furthermore, absolute truth is eternal so the date of the paper is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
You got the score backwards on that 2000 paper. Expanding Earth 0. Do you even read the papers you cite?
George E. Williams said:
Hence the rhythmite data and the astronomical and astrometric observations together ar-
gue against significant change in Earth’s radius by any mechanism at least since ~620 Ma.
Click to expand...
 
OilIsMastery said:
The bulk of peer-reviewed papers disagree with those post hoc assumptions.
Click to expand...
No, the bulk of peer reviewed papers agree that the Earth and Moon have not changed in size and mass by a significant amount for billions of years, that the Moon's rate of retreat from the Earth is not constant and it's always been outside the Roche Limit of the Earth since it's formation.

Clearly the 'bulk' of papers say that because those are the mainstream models. If the majority of scientists thought differently the mainstream models would be different. That's practically a tautology.
 
D H said:
Hence the rhythmite data and the astronomical and astrometric observations together argue against significant change in Earth’s radius by any mechanism at least since ~620 Ma.
Click to expand...
Mazumder and Arima are puzzled by your unquestioning fundamentalist religious faith in tidal rythmite data.

"Determination of absolute Earth-Moon distances and Earth's paleorotational parameters in the distant geological past from past from tidal rhythmite data, however, is ambiguous because of the difficulties in determining the absolute length of the ancient lunar sidereal month."

The length of the month is of course increasing over time as the Earth expands and the rotation of the Earth slows as predicted by Kant (1754).

"...analysis of ancient tidal rhythmite data, however, is not straightforward."

"It is important to note that all the periods [Earth's orbit and year] were likely of different duration in the geological past."

"This implies that slow Earth expansion might have occured if G varies (Runcorn 1964, pg. 825)."

Read it and weep...:bawl:

Mazumder, R., and Arima, M., Tidal Rhythmites and Their Implications, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 69, Pages 79-95, 2005
 
OilIsMastery said:
Mazumder and Arima are puzzled by your unquestioning fundamentalist religious faith in tidal rythmite data.

"Determination of absolute Earth-Moon distances and Earth's paleorotational parameters in the distant geological past from past from tidal rhythmite data, however, is ambiguous because of the difficulties in determining the absolute length of the ancient lunar sidereal month."

The length of the month is of course increasing over time as the Earth expands and the rotation of the Earth slows as predicted by Kant (1754).

"...analysis of ancient tidal rhythmite data, however, is not straightforward."

"It is important to note that all the periods [Earth's orbit and year] were likely of different duration in the geological past."

"This implies that slow Earth expansion might have occured if G varies (Runcorn 1964, pg. 825)."

Read it and weep...:bawl:

Mazumder, R., and Arima, M., Tidal Rhythmites and Their Implications, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 69, Pages 79-95, 2005
Click to expand...

Unfortuntaely for you, Mazumder and Arima elsewhere in that paper explicitly state that the research that has been done into tidal rythmite data is correct and accurate.

Once again, you're being blatantly dishonest, and misrepresenting peer reviewed science to support your own views.
 
OilIsMastery said:
So you admit so-called "pseudoscience" is a real possibility. Welcome to the science club.

It is self-evident that G varies: http://www.dinox.org/

Attempts to find and solve for G have been an utter failure, which is to say it's a myth.

Gillies, G.T., et al., The Newtonian gravitational constant: recent measurements and related studies, Reports on Progress in Physics, Volume 60, Pages 151-225, 1997
Click to expand...

You're being dishonest about Steve100's post.

Steve100 is simply pointing out to you the same thing I must have half a dozen times already - the use of cautious language in the paper.

The entertainment of an idea does not imply acceptance of that idea, as can be gathered from the context of the rest of the paper.
 
OilIsMastery has now demonstrated with a blinding consistency that he is a liar, a fool and a blaggard. Each of these points has been amply demonstrated on multiple threads, in a variety of contexts, by a range of people. I suggest that there is no longer anything to be gained by feeding his appetite for self-humilitation and therefore propose that all of us cease to respond in anyway to any of his posts in future.
Deprived of the food of controversy his small intellect will soon dry up, wither away and be carried by the wind of indifference into the darkness forever.
 
Ophiolite said:
OilIsMastery has now demonstrated with a blinding consistency that he is a liar, a fool and a blaggard. Each of these points has been amply demonstrated on multiple threads, in a variety of contexts, by a range of people. I suggest that there is no longer anything to be gained by feeding his appetite for self-humilitation and therefore propose that all of us cease to respond in anyway to any of his posts in future.
Deprived of the food of controversy his small intellect will soon dry up, wither away and be carried by the wind of indifference into the darkness forever.
Click to expand...
Great. Wonderful. I am all of those things you call me. However this is not a thread about me. It's about the secular acceleration of the moon and how it cannot be accounted for by tidal forces.

"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time -- the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963).

"The implications of employing the present rate of tidal energy dissipation on a geological timescale are catastrophic. Around 1500 Ma the Moon would have been close to the Earth, with the consequence that the much larger tidal forces would have disrupted the Moon or caused the total melting of Earth's mantle and of the moon." (Williams 2000)

"This was a mystery for decades that surprised mainstream planetary scientists. It is now explained away by assuming that tidal forces were not as great during the Mesozoic as they are today." (McCarthy, 2003)

However there is no reason to believe tidal forces have changed since the Mesozoic unless Earth expansion is taking place.

Slichter, L. B., Secular Effects of Tidal friction upon the Earth's Rotation, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 68, Number 14, Jul 1963

Lambeck, K., The Earth's Variable Rotation: Geophysical Causes and Consequences, Page 449, 1980

Dickey, et al., Lunar Laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo Program, Science, Volume 265, Number 5171, Pages 482-490, Jul 1994

Williams, G.E., Geological Constraints on the Precambrian History of the Earth's Rotation and the Moon's Orbits, Reviews of Geophysics, Volume 38, Number 1, Pages 37-59, 2000
 
OilIsMastery said:
Your post has no scientific content James. Not one scientific reference. That is an emotional response pure and simple.
Click to expand...
You seem incapable of realising that in a debate it is relevant to call the debating methodology of one of the debaters into question. Saying "You are misquoting me" or "You put words in my mouth" doesn't need a scientific reference yet it is very much a relevant comment. Your repeated use of the above "That is an emotional response" is evidence that you do not want to discuss the short comings in your debating style. Further more, you say it even when the post you're responding to isn't emotional but a statement of fact. James is asking you to not repeat false statements. That isn't emotional, it's a logical thing to say if someone wishes to streamline or improve a debate. Why repeat falsified claims?

Could it be you have too much of an emotional connection to them and you're unwilling to be scientific about it? Given your love of lying in threads like this, much of your posts have no scientific content.
 
Your post has no scientific content James. Not one scientific reference. That is an emotional response pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes. And no.

It is a request once again for you to show some integrity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top