Jump to content


Photo

Does The Moon Disprove The Reason Behind The Earth's Wobble?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
21 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 January 2009 - 05:50 PM

This is a branch off thread from here: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1939

In this thread it was discussed that the moon does not pull upon the earth while in orbit over the oceans of the earth. This is because liquid is not solidly attach to the earth, and is able to move on it's own when pulled upon by the moon's gravity (which is why we have high and low tides). Which makes sense, but also got me to pondering other claims made by science.

Now since claims that the earth wobbles because a meteor struck it, and of course that is what they say killed the dinosaurs. But let's ponder another idea that can be mathematically proven using what we already know about gravity and how it works. Now I'm not a math wizard so the math to this would have to be worked out by someone else well versed in both math and gravity. But here is my idea about the earth's wobble and what caused it.

Right now we have the land masses as we can observe in their current positions. But as science would claim, they were all once together in what was called the super continent. Now, having all the land bunched up on one side of the planet, while the other side was just water. That would make the moon really pull upon this planet for a longer period of time on the side with land. While on the side with water, it would not.

Now since it is known that the moon helps keep the current axis tilt of our planet. If the pull of the moon upon our planet is changed by relocation of land masses. Then we would have a planet that would be pulled into a tilt while the moon is on one side (where the land is). But while on the other side (where the water is), our planet would try to go back to zero tilt.

So as long as the super continent was there, the earth had a wobble because of the time period (longer than we have today) in which the moon pulled upon this planet while on the super continent side, and then released it's pull while on the water side.

Now someone who knows the math, could come relatively close. Could figure out if this could be true or not.

Now the next branch off thread from this will be: Does the Bible support Pangaea? You will be surprised at the answer.

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 January 2009 - 08:32 PM

Pangea:

Posted Image

As the moon orbits the earth, and all the land is on one side of the earth during the super continent era as shown in the picture above. The moon can only pull upon the earth's crust less than 50% of it's orbit. The rest of the time the moon's gravity is pulling upon water, which is not directly connected to the earth.

Posted Image

Notice how the moon orbits the earth. It's pull upon it would make it tilt. But with the super continents in place, the period of time that the pull takes place today would be lessened by 20-40% Earth is tilted 23.44 degrees, So everytime the moon is over water, the eath would try and go back to zero tilt. Only to be pulled back as soon as the moon get back over land. That would cause a wobble.

To give an idea of how the moon pulls upon the earth, here is an animation showing how the gravity of the moon actually affects the earth's orbit around the sun. Instead of allowing it to be almost a straight line, it has a small circular motion.

Attached File  orbit.gif   8.71KB   4 downloads

#3 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 January 2009 - 10:49 PM

I don't think gravity pulls on water any differently than it pulls on land.

Besides, the moon would still be pulling on the Earth's crust as there is at most 7 miles between the surface of the water and the crust underneath. When calculating gravitation the distance between the centers of the two masses in question must be used. So 7 miles is what 11km. The distance between the center of the Earth and the center of the moon is something like 350,000km so we're we're talking about a change that's somewhere in the thousandths of a percent range.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 January 2009 - 03:02 AM

I don't think gravity pulls on water any differently than it pulls on land. 

Besides, the moon would still be pulling on the Earth's crust as there is at most 7 miles between the surface of the water and the crust underneath.  When calculating gravitation the distance between the centers of the two masses in question must be used.  So 7 miles is what 11km.  The distance between the center of the Earth and the center of the moon is something like 350,000km so we're we're talking about a change that's somewhere in the thousandths of a percent range.

View Post


Liquid (water) moves independent of solid (land) when pulled upon by gravity. If this were not so, we would not have tides.

Plus you have contridicted another member (one of your peers) here who goes by the user name: "numbers". Who used this same argument that I am to support his idea on the moon's decaying orbit, and basically old earth. So in making the comment that you have, means only one of you can be right.

You see, I took his idea and made this thread.

But here is where we debated this: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1939

So is this an example of how the rules change from one thing to another to support evolution (ideas and evidence conforming to the accepted theory)? Or is one of you wrong?

#5 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 January 2009 - 06:19 PM

Liquid (water) moves independent of solid (land) when pulled upon by gravity. If this were not so, we would not have tides.

Plus you have contridicted another member (one of your peers) here who goes by the user name: "numbers". Who used this same argument that I am to support his idea on the moon's decaying orbit, and basically old earth. So in making the comment that you have, means only one of you can be right.

You see, I took his idea and made this thread.

But here is where we debated this: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1939

So is this an example of how the rules change from one thing to another to support evolution (ideas and evidence conforming to the accepted theory)? Or is one of you wrong?

View Post


Water is indepedent of the solid earth mass. You don't see bulges in Earth's crust as the moon rotates around it which would be neccessary for what you're saying to be true.

#6 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 January 2009 - 12:12 AM

Water is indepedent of the solid earth mass.  You don't see bulges in Earth's crust as the moon rotates around it which would be neccessary for what you're saying to be true.

View Post


I never said that the earth's crust has bulges because of the moon. Do you know what the current belief is about why the earth's orbit wobbles?

#7 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 January 2009 - 08:20 PM

I never said that the earth's crust has bulges because of the moon. Do you know what the current belief is about why the earth's orbit wobbles?

View Post



I think there are multiple ideas about it.

Are you saying the moon pulls on land differently than water???

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 January 2009 - 10:53 PM

I think there are multiple ideas about it.


The main idea is the a big rock from space hit this planet, killed all the dinos, and left the earth in a wobble.

Are you saying the moon pulls on land differently than water???

View Post


Geez, how many ways do I have to explain this? Water is fluid so it is not actually part of the earth because it can move very easily independent from the earth. Land (earth's crust) has a more direct connection to the planet as a whole. And anything that pulls upon it would have "more" of an affect upon it then something that can easily move independent of it.

Example: You fill a glass full of water. The water is a representation of our oceans. The glass is the earth. Now if you turn the glass over, the water flows out of it, correct? What that shows is that water can move independently of the glass because fluid is not a solid like the earth is.

So when the moon pulls upon the oceans, it moves indepedently from the earth. Because of this, gravity loses it's surface area pull that it had when it was over land. Now I never said that it totally disappears. It's less pull. Which means the moons gravity affect is less also. Understand. Now if that is wrong, then you need to correct the member named "numbers". For I am going by what he claimed. And I would be interested in seeing you do this so I can see who;'s pulling my leg here.

#9 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 28 January 2009 - 10:40 AM

The main idea is the a big rock from space hit this planet, killed all the dinos, and left the earth in a wobble.
Geez, how many ways do I have to explain this? Water is fluid so it is not actually part of the earth because it can move very easily independent from the earth. Land (earth's crust) has a more direct connection to the planet as a whole. And anything that pulls upon it would have "more" of an affect upon it then something that can easily move independent of it.

Example: You fill a glass full of water. The water is a representation of our oceans. The glass is the earth. Now if you turn the glass over, the water flows out of it, correct? What that shows is that water can move independently of the glass because fluid is not a solid like the earth is.

So when the moon pulls upon the oceans, it moves indepedently from the earth. Because of this, gravity loses it's surface area pull that it had when it was over land. Now I never said that it totally disappears. It's less pull. Which means the moons gravity affect is less also. Understand. Now if that is wrong, then you need to correct the member named "numbers". For I am going by what he claimed. And I would be interested in seeing you do this so I can see who;'s pulling my leg here.

View Post


I've been out of town so I haven't been able to correct your misunderstanding of what was said in the moon recession thread. Basically you are suggesting that water has a shielding effect on gravity which is incorrect, there is nothing that blocks gravity or diminishes its effect other than distance, and the distance from the ocean to the ocean floor is negligible as was already pointed out.

What I said in the moon recession thread was that tidal bulges affect how fast the moon recedes. Since the location of the continents affects tidal bulges and tidal energy dissipation, as the location of the continents changes, so does the rate of lunar recession, it has nothing to do with water stopping gravity.

For more details I'd recommend http://en.wikipedia....al_acceleration as a starting point.

#10 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 January 2009 - 08:19 PM

I've been out of town so I haven't been able to correct your misunderstanding of what was said in the moon recession thread.  Basically you are suggesting that water has a shielding effect on gravity which is incorrect, there is nothing that blocks gravity or diminishes its effect other than distance, and the distance from the ocean to the ocean floor is negligible as was already pointed out.

What I said in the moon recession thread was that tidal bulges affect how fast the moon recedes.  Since the location of the continents affects tidal bulges and tidal energy dissipation, as the location of the continents changes, so does the rate of lunar recession, it has nothing to do with water stopping gravity.

For more details I'd recommend http://en.wikipedia....al_acceleration as a starting point.

View Post


It's like de_skud said:

You are missing the point altogether (although you did tell ikester his calculations was incorrect and therefore you have the correct ones), you are using the assumption that your calculations from pre-recorded history are correct. You can in no-way prove that assumption because; first-You weren’t around to make the observations and second- You have absolutely no idea what, if any, outside influences may have effected those measurements that you weren’t around to make.

The tidal records may show that ASSUMPTION might be correct, or it might not! It is nothing more then a best guess scenario because you have no way of proving your assumption.

So, therefore, you are taking a "Blind Leap of Faith" on the calculations to prove your world view is correct.



#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 January 2009 - 10:23 PM

Now since claims that the earth wobbles because a meteor struck it, and of course that is what they say killed the dinosaurs


The storytellers do.Even some of the old earth evolutionary paleoentologists like Robert T. Bakker said "If a meteor killed the dinosaurs then that layer would be full of dino fossils"..."At the K/T boundary not a single bone has ever been found"..."The dinosaurs were long extinct before the meteor impact"

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:11 AM

Nice point. Never thought of that.

#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 January 2009 - 10:32 AM

You should also be aware that Bakker and every other paleoentologists also accept dino. fossils way above the K/T boundary as reworking.

How you get a fossil to violate the law of superposition and erode it into higher strata is beyond me,but thats the exuse.



Enjoy.

#14 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 04 February 2009 - 11:47 PM

Right now we have the land masses as we can observe in their current positions. But as science would claim, they were all once together in what was called the super continent. Now, having all the land bunched up on one side of the planet, while the other side was just water. That would make the moon really pull upon this planet for a longer period of time on the side with land. While on the side with water, it would not.

Now since it is known that the moon helps keep the current axis tilt of our planet. If the pull of the moon upon our planet is changed by relocation of land masses. Then we would have a planet that would be pulled into a tilt while the moon is on one side (where the land is). But while on the other side (where the water is), our planet would try to go back to zero tilt.

So as long as the super continent was there, the earth had a wobble because of the time period (longer than we have today) in which the moon pulled upon this planet while on the super continent side, and then released it's pull while on the water side.

Now someone who knows the math, could come relatively close. Could figure out if this could be true or not.

Now the next branch off thread from this will be: Does the Bible support Pangaea? You will be surprised at the answer.

View Post

There's a problem with this idea much more straightforward than the one you and tharock have been arguing about. Your hypothesis rests on the idea that the moon could pull the Earth away from its normal position, and then when the moon stopped pulling, the Earth would spring back, leading to a wobble. Unless I'm missing something subtle with angular momentum, the Earth wouldn't have any reason to spring back. The moon would pull it into a tilted position and it would stay that way, leading to a permanent tilt but no wobble.

#15 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 February 2009 - 12:25 AM

There's a problem with this idea much more straightforward than the one you and tharock have been arguing about. Your hypothesis rests on the idea that the moon could pull the Earth away from its normal position, and then when the moon stopped pulling, the Earth would spring back, leading to a wobble. Unless I'm missing something subtle with angular momentum, the Earth wouldn't have any reason to spring back. The moon would pull it into a tilted position and it would stay that way, leading to a permanent tilt but no wobble.

View Post


We could assume that, but could we ever prove that?

If we base our answers on feasibility instead of observation. Then we are assuming how it should work. Not how it's supposed to work. So until there is an observation of how it does work, any idea that is feasible is a possibility.

#16 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 05 February 2009 - 12:58 PM

We could assume that, but could we ever prove that?

If we base our answers on feasibility instead of observation. Then we are assuming how it should work. Not how it's supposed to work. So until there is an observation of how it does work, any idea that is feasible is a possibility.

View Post

I think you're missing the point. What I'm saying is not "it might not have happened the way you describe." What I'm saying is "the way you describe violates fairly basic laws of physics." This isn't an issue of assumptions or feasibility, it's an issue of your hypothesis contradicting things we know about how the world works. I guess you could say "how do you know the laws of physics were the same back then? You weren't there!" if you really wanted to. If you're willing to ignore physics in the distant past, though, all this hypothesizing seems a bit silly, since anything could have been caused by anything (literally).

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 February 2009 - 06:54 PM

"the way you describe violates fairly basic laws of physics."


It is a bit silly isn't it? You want to know how many times I say that about the Big Bang theory and it gets ignored? How many laws of physics does it break to compress "all" matter in the known universe into a dot the size of a period on this page? All of them.

The workarounds for that:

1) There were no laws.
2) Gravity so intense existed and that caused it.

Problem with number one is that you would now have to explain how each law came to be, in what order, and why.
Problem with number two is that this claim would be the "only" instance that ever happened. Which makes the whole theory unfalsifiable.

But yet it is accepted, but it's:
1) Not testable in any way.
2) Not observable in any way.
3) Breaks "all" known laws of physics.

It basically breaks all known methods of science as well. The only thing that it fits into is a world of fantasy and imagination.

If you're willing to ignore physics in the distant past, though, all this hypothesizing seems a bit silly, since anything could have been caused by anything (literally).


Yep, and if you don't believe in Big Bang, then what other alternative is there besides intelligent design? And if you do believe in big bang. Then you also believe in something that breaks your own rules.

#18 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 08 February 2009 - 10:16 PM

*sigh*

Firstly, I can not believe in the big bang but still believe in evolution. Maybe the universe exploded from a dot, or maybe God created it in some non-dot state. Either way, it has no bearing on how life developed on our little planet Earth billions of years after this creation event.

Secondly, you seem to have this idea that the big bang is a special scenario in which we suspend the laws of physics and just blame gravity because we can't think of another reason. In fact, when you start putting lots of matter in a very small space, the laws of physics break down in the sense that the equations stop making sense. It's not that we're assuming the laws go away; it's that the laws themselves predict a breakdown at ultra-high density. This actually happens in black holes, too, so don't say it's the only time this ever occurred.

Third, even if physicists do suspend their own laws when theorizing about the origin of the universe, it's because they have excellent reason to expect that these laws must have been different. Your moon theory is not at all the same, since there's no particular reason to believe that the laws of physics were any different in the (relatively) recent past.

#19 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 February 2009 - 03:13 AM

Contradicting oneself doesn't often help. I'll add some bold.

*sigh*

Firstly, I can not believe in the big bang but still believe in evolution. Maybe the universe exploded from a dot, or maybe God created it in some non-dot state. Either way, it has no bearing on how life developed on our little planet Earth billions of years after this creation event.

Secondly, you seem to have this idea that the big bang is a special scenario in which we suspend the laws of physics and just blame gravity because we can't think of another reason. In fact, when you start putting lots of matter in a very small space, the laws of physics break down in the sense that the equations stop making sense. It's not that we're assuming the laws go away; it's that the laws themselves predict a breakdown at ultra-high density. This actually happens in black holes, too, so don't say it's the only time this ever occurred.

Third, even if physicists do suspend their own laws when theorizing about the origin of the universe, it's because they have excellent reason to expect that these laws must have been different. Your moon theory is not at all the same, since there's no particular reason to believe that the laws of physics were any different in the (relatively) recent past.

View Post

It is first asserted that laws are presently broken down, and then it is said that there is no reason to believe they were different recently.

And I've never seen a law predict its own breakdown, except in the case of flawed proposals that contradict themselves from the get-go. Must be part of quantum philosophy, or something.

#20 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 March 2009 - 11:58 PM

The main idea is the a big rock from space hit this planet, killed all the dinos, and left the earth in a wobble.
Geez, how many ways do I have to explain this? Water is fluid so it is not actually part of the earth because it can move very easily independent from the earth. Land (earth's crust) has a more direct connection to the planet as a whole. And anything that pulls upon it would have "more" of an affect upon it then something that can easily move independent of it.

Example: You fill a glass full of water. The water is a representation of our oceans. The glass is the earth. Now if you turn the glass over, the water flows out of it, correct? What that shows is that water can move independently of the glass because fluid is not a solid like the earth is.

So when the moon pulls upon the oceans, it moves indepedently from the earth. Because of this, gravity loses it's surface area pull that it had when it was over land. Now I never said that it totally disappears. It's less pull. Which means the moons gravity affect is less also. Understand. Now if that is wrong, then you need to correct the member named "numbers". For I am going by what he claimed. And I would be interested in seeing you do this so I can see who;'s pulling my leg here.

View Post


The moon's gravity does not differentiate between water and Earth mass. The moon would still pull on the Earth the same whether it was dry or covered in water. The oceans don't weaken the grip gravity has on the Earth.

Unless I'm missing something subtle with angular momentum, the Earth wouldn't have any reason to spring back. The moon would pull it into a tilted position and it would stay that way, leading to a permanent tilt but no wobble.


Or would it continue to rotate. It's been a long time since I took a basic mechanics class.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users