The leap second and the creationist

Phew. That's a relief.

Talk Origins has a full refutation here, with lots of references to primary sources. This isn't a "new" argument. Creationists just keep repeating the same ol' same ol', and expect people not to notice.

BTW, the Faulkner link isn't working.

Although it may seem to the casual reader that the Earth-moon system is fairly simple (after all, it's just Earth and the moon), this is only an illusion. In fact, it is frightfully complicated, and it has taken over 100 years for physicists to generate the mathematical tools, and physical models, necessary to understand the problem. Slichter's dilemma, as I called it, was a theoretical one. He lacked the mathematical tools, and the observational knowledge, to solve his problem. But those who came after got the job done. Slichter's dilemma is today, essentially a solved problem. Once all of the details are included in the physical models of the Earth-moon system, we can see that there is no fundamental conflict between the basic physics and an evolutionary time scale for the Earth-moon system.

I've read that the moon being so close is what killed the dinosaurs. The taller ones that didn't duck quick enough, anyway.

But theory and observation, theory and evidence go hand in hand in the empirical sciences, and this is no exception. Tides, and the Earth's rotation leave behind tell-tale clues about Earth's past. So, when Lambeck (1980) or Stacey (1977) say that tidal dissipation must have been lower in the past, that's neither an idle guess, nor a knee-jerk reaction. It is an attitude consistent the evidence.

My own conclusion is that my intuitive expectations have been fulfilled, and creation "science" has lived up to its reputation of being either pre-falsified, or easy to falsify once the argument is evident. As for the real science, remember that science is not a static pursuit, and the Earth-moon tidal evolution is not an entirely solved system. There is a lot that we know, and we do know a lot more than we did even 20 years ago. But even if we don't know everything, there are still some arguments which we can definitely rule out. A 10,000 year age (or anything like it) definitely falls in that category, and can be ruled out both by theory and practice.

ID/creationists have obviously learned how to slip through the cracks in being held accountable for their misconceptions when getting their "educations." Either that or they are deliberately abusing their credentials to pull up the ladder of education behind them and let youngsters flounder in the sea of junk science they shower down upon the unlucky ones who come under their influence. AiG and the ICR are the oldest and most abusive in this regard.

The "physicists" among ID/creationists are among the stupidest examples of being purveyors of sheer bullshit; Jason Lisle being one of the worst. They bollix up the most basic concepts so badly that one has to wonder why they never got caught by their advisors in graduate school. The only reason that I can think of for how they get away with it is that they manage to exploit overextend advisors by taking on the routine grunt work on team projects.

The business of research is filled with a tremendous amount of paperwork and proposal writing in order to keep grant money flowing to support ongoing research and graduate students. Principle investigators also have to travel and communicate their work to others. Departmental obligations take up more time.

I have a hunch that most of these crackpot creationists like Lisle and Faulkner kept their heads down and managed to slip into an easy ride compared to the other members of the research teams who carried most of the work and contributed to the more fundamental aspects of the research.

Education does have to allow for some "slop" in what people learn; just getting a PhD doesn't mean one's education is finished by any stretch of the imagination. Getting through a good research program can be both an exhilarating and humbling experience. You began to understand just how much you still have to learn; but you should have developed the ability to chart your future course.

But ID/creationists, as soon as they get those letters after their names, tend to pass themselves off as seasoned researchers at the top of their game. They then settle into their sectarian subcultures as celebrities and superstars with young people hanging on their every word of "advice." However, not one of them can articulate a research program and compete for peer-reviewed funding on their own; they have no clue.

Scott F said:BTW, the Faulkner link isn't working.

Scott F said:BTW, the Faulkner link isn’t working.

Kent Hovind also says in one of his videos that the moon and earth were within touching distance of each other once upon a long time ago

Matt Young said: You can be very bright, do good work in grad school, and still be a jerk. Holding creationist or other easily falsifiable ideas is not necessarily a sign of unintelligence. It may, however, be a sign of poor intellectual development -- still operating on an infantile black-and-white level, where answers are right or wrong (no gray scale), and the authorities (professors, for example) have the answers but withhold them.

Mike Elzinga said: Perhaps I wasn't being clear. The scientific community certainly has its share of jerks; and some of them are Nobel Laureates. I have met a few of these characters during the course of my career; they can pop up just about anywhere. But these jerks, while intelligent and scientifically competent, are dealing with other competent, adult scientists who can be tough right back at them when necessary. ID/creationists take jerkism to a different level. If they are really as intelligent and knowledgeable as their advanced degrees are supposed to suggest, then they know without doubt that they are spreading misconceptions that become disabling stumbling blocks for people trying to learn science - to say nothing of the bad attitudes they instill in the people they influence. What makes such jerkism worse in my opinion is that it is directed at kids; and not just kids within their sectarian sphere of influence, but all kids. By lending their "credentials" - and incompetence in scientific research - to grassroots political forces who meddle in public education, they dilute the quality of education in many school districts in those states where politicians pander to sectarian bigotry and ignorance. ...

Joe Felsenstein said:

Mike Elzinga said: Perhaps I wasn't being clear. The scientific community certainly has its share of jerks; and some of them are Nobel Laureates. I have met a few of these characters during the course of my career; they can pop up just about anywhere. But these jerks, while intelligent and scientifically competent, are dealing with other competent, adult scientists who can be tough right back at them when necessary. ID/creationists take jerkism to a different level. If they are really as intelligent and knowledgeable as their advanced degrees are supposed to suggest, then they know without doubt that they are spreading misconceptions that become disabling stumbling blocks for people trying to learn science - to say nothing of the bad attitudes they instill in the people they influence. What makes such jerkism worse in my opinion is that it is directed at kids; and not just kids within their sectarian sphere of influence, but all kids. By lending their "credentials" - and incompetence in scientific research - to grassroots political forces who meddle in public education, they dilute the quality of education in many school districts in those states where politicians pander to sectarian bigotry and ignorance. ...

(Sigh) let me add my usual complaint here. No, all creationists are not jerks, most are just as good people as non-creationists. After all, young-earth creationists make up one-quarter of the population in the U.S. And if you include old-earth creationists, the fraction of the population rises above 45%. Any generalization about their personalities being different from the rest of the population is unjustified. What we are talking about here is creationists who hold advanced degrees, particularly those who use them in arguing against evolution. This is far smaller number of people, particularly since advanced degrees are much scarcer among creationists. I really wish that opponents of creationism would not make generalizations about the level of honesty of "creationists" without qualification. It enables (jerky) advocates of creationism to turn to their audience and say "look, those evolutionists are slandering you and claiming you are not good people!" An easy win for them, since yes, that's what we said here.

I do not know the nature of the “direct computation,” but I would bet that it is based on the radius of the moon’s orbit increasing at a constant rate. Not obviously a good assumption; an article from Cornell University (which has a scientific reputation at least as distinguished as that of AIG) notes,

Dave Lovell said:

I do not know the nature of the “direct computation,” but I would bet that it is based on the radius of the moon’s orbit increasing at a constant rate. Not obviously a good assumption; an article from Cornell University (which has a scientific reputation at least as distinguished as that of AIG) notes,

Surely a much bigger problem for any assumption of a constant rate is that as time is wound back to a "collision" the moon has to pass through a geostationary orbit. Apart from a bit of north-south tidal movement resulting from the slight misalignment of the rotational axes of the Earth and Moon, there would be no tides and so the separation rate would drop to almost zero.

A scientist who ignores the evidence is a jerk.

A scientist who ignores a scientific consensus is a jerk.

A scientist who places his own religious preconceptions before the truth is a jerk.

A scientist who uses his scientific credentials to promote his unscientific religious agenda is a jerk.

Anyone who does these things is generally a jerk, but a trained scientist really has no excuse for such behavior.

Dave Lovell said:

I do not know the nature of the “direct computation,” but I would bet that it is based on the radius of the moon’s orbit increasing at a constant rate. Not obviously a good assumption; an article from Cornell University (which has a scientific reputation at least as distinguished as that of AIG) notes,

Surely a much bigger problem for any assumption of a constant rate is that as time is wound back to a "collision" the moon has to pass through a geostationary orbit. Apart from a bit of north-south tidal movement resulting from the slight misalignment of the rotational axes of the Earth and Moon, there would be no tides and so the separation rate would drop to almost zero.

No, all creationists are not jerks, most are just as good people as non-creationists.

I am not a physicist, but it seems to me I have not seen a particular resolution to the problem concerning the changing length of the earth's day over time in relation to the moon's changing orbit.

The moon is orbiting the earth in the some direction that the earth is rotating. Currently the moon's orbit of the earth takes 27 days. At some time in the past, let's say when the moon was half the distance it is now, the moon would be traveling a much smaller distance in its orbit, and because it was much closer then than it is now and subject to a great gravitation pull from the earth, it would have been orbiting the earth at a much greater velocity. I think, without doing the math, that the moon would be orbiting the earth eight times faster than it is now.

In any case, because the moon would be moving in its orbit much faster than it is now, the tides on the earth would have been fewer over a given period of time. Extending this further, if the moon would be even closer so that its orbit matched the rotation of the earth it would be geosynchronous and there would be just one non-moving tide directly under it on the earth.

The point I am making is that when the moon was a lot closer at some point there would have been only a few tides per year. Of course the tides would have been enormously high because of the moon's closeness, and consequently the tidal drag would have been considerably greater, but that should be balanced out by the fewer tides, and also that the tides would be much slower than they are now.

It seems to me that, because of the above, the net tidal effect over time, even billions of years ago, would not be much different than it is now, and the movement of the moon away from the earth would not be much different from what it is now. That means 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been 163,843 miles from the earth. Even if my figures are off by quite a bit, there should still be a lot of room for the accepted age for the earth/moon system.

If I am not figuring this out correctly, could someone explain why.

I just looked up geosynchronous orbit -- its radius is around 36 000 km, above Roche's limit of 20 000 km. I do not know whether there would be tides or not, because the orbit of the moon is not equatorial, and the moon would be mighty close to the earth.

I think that the moon would still drift outward, because tidal friction is tidal friction, unless atmospheric friction would drag it inward. Atmospheric friction is what causes artificial satellites to crash; they are not subject to Roche's limit because they are too small and not held together by gravity. But maybe someone more knowledgeable can attack that question.

Mr. Persuitte and I crossed in the mail. He is on the right track, but his numbers are wrong. The orbital period is proportional to the 3/2 power of the radius, not the cube. (There would actually be 2 tides, one toward the moon, and one on the other side of the earth, but that does not affect the conclusion. Galileo, I think, made the same mistake.) Additionally, a geosynchronous orbit is not the same as a geostationary orbit, and the moon would not be in a geostationary orbit. As a believer in experiential learning, I suggest that he go back and rework the problem.

Matt, thanks for the response. As I said, I am not a physicist, and I don't feel qualified to do the math. The point I am making is, basically, back in deep time, the moon would have been closer to the earth and consequently orbiting the earth much faster. As a result there would have been fewer tides per year than now, and considerably fewer and slower the further back in time. The question is how high would the tides have been and what would have been the net effect in slowing down the earth. Also, would this scenario limit how close the moon could ever have been to the earth?

Joe Felsenstein said: (Sigh) let me add my usual complaint here. No, all creationists are not jerks, most are just as good people as non-creationists. After all, young-earth creationists make up one-quarter of the population in the U.S. And if you include old-earth creationists, the fraction of the population rises above 45%. Any generalization about their personalities being different from the rest of the population is unjustified. What we are talking about here is creationists who hold advanced degrees, particularly those who use them in arguing against evolution. This is far smaller number of people, particularly since advanced degrees are much scarcer among creationists. I really wish that opponents of creationism would not make generalizations about the level of honesty of "creationists" without qualification. It enables (jerky) advocates of creationism to turn to their audience and say "look, those evolutionists are slandering you and claiming you are not good people!" An easy win for them, since yes, that's what we said here.

Evolution is a hypothesized theory, an unexplainable, farfetched idea. The supposed outcome of it - man – was never observed being formed. To expect a thinking person to accept it as factual science is nonsensical. It is a false religion, maneuvered into our captive-audience children in the governmental public schools, against most of our, wishes. Religion is the act of having faith in something. Our children are being duped into having faith in unscientific evolution, under the guise of proven science. I want it removed from the schools. I am appalled, stunned and cannot understand how supposedly thinking people have even bitten on this bait. Some don't realize this is simply a handy tool used to subject our children to the atheistic idea of no God. Intelligent design does not have to be taught in the schools, but evolution should not be taught because it is not a proven fact. A growing number of science professors and teachers, having taught this concept to children, tearfully admit they were duped and anguish over the fact they led so many astray. They are trying desperately to correct the error they taught, to the extent of writing books about it. Bravo for their courage and humility. Children have quite simply been indoctrinated/brainwashed about a false theory/idea from youth onward. Put yourself in the child's place. What vulnerable child could possibly refute this theory while under the dominating teacher's influence? If that child is taught differently at home, the confusion and stress it causes the child is excruciating for him/her to bear, and undermines the rights of the parents to teach their child as they wish. Children lose heart when they grow up thinking they are nothing but evolved animals. Actually, they are intricately woven created human beings. The theory that the evolving man gets better and smarter at each level is an ideal climate for the idea of racism to blossom- one level better than the other. However, the creation of human beings, of man/woman, by God allows no racism. All are created equal- no mention of race or color is made since all are brother and sisters, descended from the original human beings (Acts17:26- NKJV). We need our schools to return to using Classroom time for teaching basics so our children will be employable after finishing high school. Research now shows that sex and drug education encourages promiscuous behavior rather than discourages it, as is certainly evidenced by the downturn of our national teen culture. Including these courses in the public schools, has led us to be the sickest nation of teens/young adults in the world. Promiscuity, minds dominated by sex (not love), young teen single parenthood, abortions, fatherless children, malnourishment, addictions, STDs resulting in sterility, depression, suicide, murders in school, homosexuality, etc., are exhibited damaging effects realized in their pre-adult lives and carried into their adult lives. Before the above nonsense courses were force-fed daily to our captive children, and God and prayer forced out, our nation led the world in teen academics and teen morality, and teens were healthy. Consequently, that led to a vibrantly blessed nation. Observe what we have allowed to shamefully happen to a great percentage of those teens and the sick status of our nation. There is no excuse for us. Get the hurtful courses out and get God back in. We've discouraged and deprived a highly significant percentage of three generations of children who have ended up damaged by evolution/health courses being force fed to them. It doesn't take a lot of brains to connect the dots for a thinking people. The money spent on just these two courses could be used to add productive, decent, courses to educate and turn our children's minds optimistically on their future. And guess what? Their behavior would improve too. Let's fight to remove these classes from the schools now and give back to children the "sweet mystery of life" to discover for themselves at the proper adult times of their lives, and help equip our children with a healthy and high academic future. Let's turn it around.

Sure, all things being equal, a moon with a shorter orbital period would cause fewer tides. But If the moon were in a closer orbit, the day would be shorter, and there would be more tides per unit time, not fewer. And of course the geosynchronous orbit would be closer than it is now. Of course that depends on the balance between rotational and orbital periods.

I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that the "eyewitness" evidence we have is that which goes back to Roman, Greek and Babylonian calendars. Back to 2500 years ago, the rotation of the Earth and revolution of the Moon were recorded as being pretty much the same as they are today. A month was close to 29.5 days, and a year was close to 365.25 days. This last was observed to be within one tenth of one percent of today's value (less than .25/365.25). Are these observations consistent with the YEC theory of the Moon's orbit?
I understand it's better than that, for the timing of ancient eclipses provides more precision.

As has been pointed out before, articles such as this one on moon recession invoke the uniformitarianism that YECs claim to reject in a context where uniformitarianism does NOT apply.

Also, I believe the planetary collision that formed the moon happened when Earth was still molten and BEFORE it had oceans. Something liars at AiG fail to discuss, let alone refute.

I believe that very ancient corals (much much older than 6,000 years) 'point' to when - with the moon closer - Earth spun somewhat faster and a year contained around 400 days.
(The YEC 'theory' is that the moon was formed entirely separately from Earth a la Genesis 1 and the two were NEVER either in direct contact or in very close proximity - thus if you say the moon was at (almost but not quite) the same distance from Earth at 4,000 BC ie a little closer they would just 'shrug' and insist that this still does not prove an ancient solar system.
PS Found this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-rotation-summer-solstice/)

TomS said: I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that the "eyewitness" evidence we have is that which goes back to Roman, Greek and Babylonian calendars. Back to 2500 years ago, the rotation of the Earth and revolution of the Moon were recorded as being pretty much the same as they are today. A month was close to 29.5 days, and a year was close to 365.25 days. This last was observed to be within one tenth of one percent of today's value (less than .25/365.25). Are these observations consistent with the YEC theory of the Moon's orbit? I understand it's better than that, for the timing of ancient eclipses provides more precision.

John Harshman, thanks for your comments. I realize the earth would have been rotating faster way back then, but it would not have been so much faster to have the effect you stated. "If the moon were in a closer orbit, the day would be shorter, and there would be more tides per unit time, not fewer."

The tidal effect on the recession rate of the moon is greater than its effect on slowing the earth's rotation. That is because the earth weighs so much more than the moon.

Your argument totally ignores how much faster the orbital speed of the moon would have been then. The faster rotational speed of the earth would certainly have added a few more tides, but not nearly as many as to make up for the far fewer tides as a result of the greatly increased orbital speed of the moon.

You even refuted your own argument when you said, "And of course the geosynchronous orbit would be closer than it is now." The closer the moon is to being in a geosynchronous orbit, the number of moving tides would be closer to approaching zero.

How then, could the number of tides be more per unit time when the moon is closer?

Don't forget that the Earth also has tides from the Sun as well as from the Moon.

ashleyhr said: I believe that very ancient corals (much much older than 6,000 years) 'point' to when - with the moon closer - Earth spun somewhat faster and a year contained around 400 days. (The YEC 'theory' is that the moon was formed entirely separately from Earth a la Genesis 1 and the two were NEVER either in direct contact or in very close proximity - thus if you say the moon was at (almost but not quite) the same distance from Earth at 4,000 BC ie a little closer they would just 'shrug' and insist that this still does not prove an ancient solar system. PS Found this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-rotation-summer-solstice/)

John Harshman said: Sure, all things being equal, a moon with a shorter orbital period would cause fewer tides. But If the moon were in a closer orbit, the day would be shorter, and there would be more tides per unit time, not fewer. And of course the geosynchronous orbit would be closer than it is now. Of course that depends on the balance between rotational and orbital periods.

John, I was new to making comments here, so my comment to your posting ended up down the line. Please look there.

However, since the earth and moon are only thousands of years old as the Bible clearly indicates, the long-term change in the earth-moon system is no problem.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.

Dave Persuitte said: Your argument totally ignores how much faster the orbital speed of the moon would have been then. The faster rotational speed of the earth would certainly have added a few more tides, but not nearly as many as to make up for the far fewer tides as a result of the greatly increased orbital speed of the moon.

You even refuted your own argument when you said, "And of course the geosynchronous orbit would be closer than it is now." The closer the moon is to being in a geosynchronous orbit, the number of moving tides would be closer to approaching zero.

A mathematical model of the variations in the length of the solar day was developed by F. R. Stephenson and L. V. Morrison,[13] based on records of eclipses for the period 700 BC to 1623 AD, telescopic observations of occultations for the period 1623 until 1967 and atomic clocks thereafter. The model shows a steady increase of the mean solar day by 1.70 ms (± 0.05 ms) per century, plus a periodic shift of about 4 ms amplitude and period of about 1,500 yr.[13] Over the last few centuries, the periodic component reduced the rate of lengthening of the mean solar day to about 1.4 ms per century.[18] The main reason for the slowing down of the Earth's rotation is tidal friction, which alone would lengthen the day by 2.3 ms/century.[13] Other contributing factors are the movement of the Earth's crust relative to its core, changes in mantle convection, and any other events or processes that cause a significant redistribution of mass. These processes change the Earth's moment of inertia, affecting the rate of rotation due to conservation of angular momentum, sometimes increasing earth's rotational speed (decreasing the solar day and opposing tidal friction). For example, glacial rebound shortens the solar day by 0.6 ms/century and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake is thought to have shortened it by 2.68 microseconds.[19]

Ignoring solar tides, there are two high tides per lunar day, and they occur 12 hours and 25 minutes apart. That means there are currently about 705 high tides per year.

As one goes deeper and deeper in the past, and looking at it as if it were a movie in reverse, the moon would be nearer and nearer to the earth, moving faster and faster in its obit, until, theoretically it would be at geosynchronous, or more correctly geostationary orbit, at which time the moon would be orbiting the earth keeping pace with the earth's rotation. The moon would then be fixed at one location above the earth at this time, and, disregarding the sun-caused tides, there would be one enormously high non-moving lunar tide on one side of the earth and another on the other side of the earth.

That would be the case no matter HOW much faster the earth was rotating then. So, the net effect from now, with its 705 high tides per year, to that theoretical time in the far past when there would be two permanently fixed high tides when the moon is in geostationary orbit, the number of tides per year must have consistently decreased over that time.

So, still looking at it as a movie in reverse, some point in time long before the moon reached the geostationary orbit, there must have been a time when there were only the two tides per year, and they would have been very slow and drawn out. And long before that, there would have been only four slow and drawn out tides per year. Etc., etc.

Because of the increase in the velocity of the moon as it neared the earth, there could never have been a time when there were more tides per day than there is now.

Let me add one more thing to my last post. It is very unlikely that the moon was ever so close to the earth as to be at a geostationary position, but the example still holds. The backwards movie of the example would just begin at some point between where the moon is now and where it was when it formed, though it obviously would be very close to the earth.

Dave,

Your contention and its proof would be correct if there were a monotonic function of tides/year from current situation to geosynchronous orbit (which orbit would be much closer than the geosynchronous orbit of today). But can you assume that the function is monotonic? I'm not sure of that, and you need to show it to complete your proof. It all depends on the function relating lunar distance to earth rotational speed. I don't know that function. Do you? One could certainly come up with functions that would cause there to be maxima in the tides/year function.

Tom S

As I understand it (and I see on re-reading his article that Matt Young says the same), astronomers believe the moon formed ie coalesced (beyond the Roche Limit presumably) very soon after the formation of Earth, following a collision between Earth and another (ex) planet of the early solar system.

I was assuming YECs argued that the moon has always been a similar (slightly smaller) distance from Earth as now (ie no less than its distance 6,000 years ago) and also that the lunar recession rate has always been constant. However, they appear - possibly and unless I am reading too much into their arguments - to agree that once (but 6,000 years ago when 'created' and not millions/billions of years ago) the moon was a lot closer to Earth than now, and also that the rate of recession used to be faster than now but has slowed. See these articles:
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/moon/lunar-recession/ (NB the only reference is to YEC apologist sources - specifically a book by Jason Lisle for crying out loud - and there are of course no references to any peer reviewed science papers at all)
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth#20110326 (see 'evidence' 66)

When they addressed CMI's evidence 66, Rationalwiki stated:
"Using a linear equation to model Moon recession is too simplistic to give anything even close to correct results.
Moving a satellite into a higher orbit, or away from the primary object, requires energy input. Recession of the Moon is caused by tidal friction, which converts the rotational energy of the Earth into the potential energy of the Moon, and tidal friction in turn depends on the layout of the continents, which was different in the past.
Evidence from tidal rhythmites — sediment deposits that show a thinly layered structure with each layer corresponding to one Moon orbit, similar to tree rings — indicates that 2.45 billion years ago the Moon was just 10% closer to the Earth than at present".
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe

In the Faulkner article, which was not very detailed, he claimed in effect (completely ignoring Roche Limit implications) that the moon and Earth would have been 'in contact' much later than scientists believe the moon was actually formed (by a collision not ex nihilo) and that mile high tides would have thus occurred then and for a considerable period of time after 'contact' (yes I think the Earth did have oceans by 1 billion years ago). But he says - because scientists don't believe Earth once had mile high tides ergo 1 billion years ago is 'fiction' and hey presto Earth and the moon are both young.

To address Tom's point where he says: "I was not intending to “prove” even hundreds of thousands, let alone billions of years for the Earth-Moon system". All I can say is that my previous comment was not specifically addressed to anything Tom said and was not aware of suggesting or implying that his comment sought to 'prove' billions of years. Tom was saying how similar things were a few thousand years back - whereas I was referring to a much earlier point in time.

TomS said: I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that the "eyewitness" evidence we have is that which goes back to Roman, Greek and Babylonian calendars. Back to 2500 years ago, the rotation of the Earth and revolution of the Moon were recorded as being pretty much the same as they are today. A month was close to 29.5 days, and a year was close to 365.25 days. This last was observed to be within one tenth of one percent of today's value (less than .25/365.25). Are these observations consistent with the YEC theory of the Moon's orbit? I understand it's better than that, for the timing of ancient eclipses provides more precision.

There isn't much to the article. There are no calculations. What he says is what drives the need for leap seconds is the slowing down of the Earth's rotation caused by tides. That means, so he says, that the Moon is moving away from the Earth. Therefore, this cannot have been going on for billions of years.

If one takes the relevant astronomical observations over the last 2700 years, we have an average rate of slowing down of the Earth rotation of about 17 milliseconds per day per millennium. A crude extrapolation of that would make the length of the day 1 billion years ago to be 19 hours 20 minutes. This is not a killer to "deep time". If he means anything other than this, something as complicated as what real scientists do, let him at least give a hint at what he is talking about.

No, what I did was not a proof that the Earth is billions of years old. All I did was to say that he did not present any difficulty to the Earth being billions of years old.

John, you said "It all depends on the function relating lunar distance to earth rotational speed. I don't know that function. Do you?"

Yes, I do. And so should you. The function relates to the fact the the earth is considerably more massive than the moon; thus its effect on the moon's recession, and hence its orbital speed, was ALWAYS be greater than its effect on slowing down the earth's rotation.

Right, now, for example, the moon is receding from the earth at about 1.5 inches per year, whereas the earth's rotation speed is reducing by about 0.000015 seconds each year.

If, at the beginning, the earth's rotation was, say, 12 hours per day, that is only half of what it is now, but beginning at that same time, instead of being twice what it is now, the moon's orbital speed would have been many times more than it is now.

Therefore, unless there was a drastic change in the moon's orbital speed having nothing to do with earth/moon dynamics, there was no time such that, quoting you, "If the moon were in a closer orbit, the day would be shorter, and there would be more tides per unit time, not fewer."

Finally, there is a long-term secular (non-periodic) slowing in the earth’s rotation caused by the tidal interaction of the earth and moon. As the earth slows its rotation, the moon spirals away from the earth. Therefore, in the past the earth spun more rapidly and the moon was much closer to the earth. Direct computation shows that the earth and moon would have been in contact about 1.3 billion years ago. Even a billion years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth that tides would have been a mile high. No one—including those who believe that the earth is far older than a billion years—thinks that tides were ever that high or that the moon and the earth touched a little more than a billion years ago.

Dave Persuitte said: John, you said "It all depends on the function relating lunar distance to earth rotational speed. I don't know that function. Do you?" Yes, I do. And so should you. The function relates to the fact the the earth is considerably more massive than the moon; thus its effect on the moon's recession, and hence its orbital speed, was ALWAYS be greater than its effect on slowing down the earth's rotation. Right, now, for example, the moon is receding from the earth at about 1.5 inches per year, whereas the earth's rotation speed is reducing by about 0.000015 seconds each year.

Nicely done Matt.

Also, Mike Elzinga, concerning your June 30, 2015 11:00 AM posting.

The moon is currently receding from the earth at 1.5 inches per year. If that rate were constant--and Mike take note--it would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been about 163,000 miles from the earth instead of the current 240,000 miles. Of course, it certainly wasn't constant. The question is how much different from that figure was it in deep time. My point is that, because the moon orbited the earth much faster in deep time there would have been fewer and slower, but much higher, tides, per unit time, let's say over one year, and the braking action of the higher tides would have been balanced out by some degree by there being fewer, and slower tides.

John, you ignore the fact that when the moon was closer to the earth, it would have taken less time to complete one orbit, not only because its orbit around the earth was smaller, so the moon had less distance to travel to make one complete orbit, but also being closer to the earth, the moon would have orbited the earth at a much faster velocity according to Newton's law.

The moon orbits the earth in the same direction that the earth rotates, and the tides are the result of the earth's surface moving--rotating--under the moon, causing one tide on the surface facing the moon and another tide on the opposite surface. with a particular spot on the earth having a tide twice every 24 hours and 50 minutes.

Way back when the moon was orbiting faster, a given spot on the earth's surface would have taken longer to "catch up" to the moon than it does now, thus causing fewer tides back then than now. The extreme case would be if the moon were so close to the earth that it would complete one orbit in one of the earth's days so that the moon was always above one spot on the earth (though of course the moon would appear to wobble back and forth because its orbit does not align with the earth's equator). In that case there would be one extremely high tide on the side of the earth facing the moon and another on the opposite side. If that had occurred (disregarding the tides caused by the sun or other influences), there would have been no lunar tidal braking (except that caused by the above-mentioned wobble) and the moon would not recede.

Looking back in time, there must have been some point when the pair of tides came once every two days, and even further back, once every four days, and even further back once every week, all the time with the tides getting somewhat higher and higher, but also slower and slower when impinging on the continents.

At some point as we go back in time, the pair of tides would occur once a month, then once every two months, and so on.

So the question is, how would the fewer, but higher, tides affect the braking action on the earth's rotation and the recession of the moon? I am not qualified to do the math, but I would tend to think that--and Mike, this bears on your posting--over the past 4.5 billion years it would be well within a reasonable amount such that the moon would never have been so close as to touch the earth, or even being in geostationary orbit.

Dave Persuitte said: John, you ignore the fact that when the moon was closer to the earth, it would have taken less time to complete one orbit, not only because its orbit around the earth was smaller, so the moon had less distance to travel to make one complete orbit, but also being closer to the earth, the moon would have orbited the earth at a much faster velocity according to Newton's law.

Dave Persuitte said: Also, Mike Elzinga, concerning your June 30, 2015 11:00 AM posting. The moon is currently receding from the earth at 1.5 inches per year. If that rate were constant--and Mike take note--it would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been about 163,000 miles from the earth instead of the current 240,000 miles. Of course, it certainly wasn't constant. The question is how much different from that figure was it in deep time. My point is that, because the moon orbited the earth much faster in deep time there would have been fewer and slower, but much higher, tides, per unit time, let's say over one year, and the braking action of the higher tides would have been balanced out by some degree by there being fewer, and slower tides.

TomS said:

Dave Persuitte said: Also, Mike Elzinga, concerning your June 30, 2015 11:00 AM posting. The moon is currently receding from the earth at 1.5 inches per year. If that rate were constant--and Mike take note--it would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been about 163,000 miles from the earth instead of the current 240,000 miles. Of course, it certainly wasn't constant. The question is how much different from that figure was it in deep time. My point is that, because the moon orbited the earth much faster in deep time there would have been fewer and slower, but much higher, tides, per unit time, let's say over one year, and the braking action of the higher tides would have been balanced out by some degree by there being fewer, and slower tides.

The article does not, as I recall, specify anything other than a constant rate. It only says that a straightforward calculation would have the Moon catastrophically close to the Earth 1-1.3 billion years ago. He does not support that contention.

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said:

Dave Persuitte said: Also, Mike Elzinga, concerning your June 30, 2015 11:00 AM posting. The moon is currently receding from the earth at 1.5 inches per year. If that rate were constant--and Mike take note--it would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been about 163,000 miles from the earth instead of the current 240,000 miles. Of course, it certainly wasn't constant. The question is how much different from that figure was it in deep time. My point is that, because the moon orbited the earth much faster in deep time there would have been fewer and slower, but much higher, tides, per unit time, let's say over one year, and the braking action of the higher tides would have been balanced out by some degree by there being fewer, and slower tides.

The article does not, as I recall, specify anything other than a constant rate. It only says that a straightforward calculation would have the Moon catastrophically close to the Earth 1-1.3 billion years ago. He does not support that contention.

This is a highly nonlinear problem on its face; and it neglects a lot of known history and mechanisms. Here are some back-of-the-envelope calculations about the energies involved, based on the current distances and rates of rotation in the Earth/Moon system. Using GMm/r, we can calculate the depth of the potential well in which the Earth/Moon system sits if there were no rotational orbital energy involved. That turns out to be about - 7.7x10²⁸ joules. Using (1/2)Iω², we can calculate the energy tied up in the rotation of the Earth and in the orbit and rotation of the Moon (the Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit of the Earth). If I haven't made any arithmetic errors, that turns out to be about 2.6x10²⁹ joules of energy tied up in the rotation of the Earth and about 3.8x10²⁸ joules tied up in the orbit and rotation of the Moon. The part tied up in the Moon's rotation about its own axis is negligible; about 3.2x10²³ joules. That means that the "effective depth" of the potential energy well in which the Moon sits is roughly -7.7x10²⁸ + 3.8x10²⁸ = - 4x10²⁸ joules. Assuming that the energy in the rotation of the Earth can be transferred to the orbit of the Moon without loss by heating into space - a very generous assumption, there is more than enough energy in the Earth's rotational motion to eventually kick the Moon out of orbit as the Earth's angular momentum decays. The data about the Moon's recession at the moment provides only an estimate of the rate of energy transfer during the interval of time that we have data; it tells us very little about the rates at earlier times. We have to know more about what the system was like back then. Besides, none of these calculations take into consideration how the Earth/Moon system was formed in the first place; and from what we know now, it was very likely a massive collision between the Earth and another body fairly early on in the formation of the solar system. The Moon condensed out of the debris hurled into orbit; and that means that, in order to condense, the debris was in an orbit where tidal forces were insufficient to keep tearing it apart as it formed. Faulkner and Lisle are using the same trick with the Moon's orbit as they use with the decay of the Earth's magnetic field. They don't tell their audiences what we know about the history of the magnetic field or the Moon's orbit.

Dave Persuitte said: So the question is, how would the fewer, but higher, tides affect the braking action on the earth's rotation and the recession of the moon? I am not qualified to do the math, but I would tend to think that--and Mike, this bears on your posting--over the past 4.5 billion years it would be well within a reasonable amount such that the moon would never have been so close as to touch the earth, or even being in geostationary orbit.

Mike Elzinga said: As with all ID/creationist junk science, it is important to check their understanding of introductory level science; in this case, physics. The Earth/Moon system is a bound system, sitting in a gravitational well produced by their mutual interaction. In order to separate a bound pair of bodies - i.e., increase the distance between them - energy must be added to the system from outside the system. This is really basic stuff that Faulkner and Lisle are getting wrong. Tidal forces within the system are primarily dissipative over the long haul; energy ultimately leaves the system in the form of heat. The moon doesn't drift away because tidal forces slow the Earth's rate of rotation. It is not a process that "lifts" the Moon out of a potential well. Over time, tidal forces decrease the total energy of the system; and that causes the system to settle deeper into their mutual gravitational potential well. Dissipative forces result in gradually changing elliptical orbits to circular orbits over time. A circular orbit produces the least tidal massaging of the two bodies orbiting each other; but there are still dissipative tidal forces if one or both bodies are rotating relative to the other. The energy tied up in rotation supplies the energy that massages the material of the two bodies generating heat that radiates into space. That slows down the rotation of each of the individual bodies, but it doesn't lift one of them out of the mutual potential well that binds them together.

Scott F said: Hey, Mike. This line of argument had me confused. As I read it, it seems like you're arguing that the Earth and Moon cannot be moving away from each other. The increase in orbital energy "must" come from "outside" the system? What about energy transfer inside the system? You then go on to suggest that the tidal forces can only dissipate energy in the form of heat. Unless I'm misunderstanding your intent here, it seems to run counter to the evidence that the Moon is, in fact, receding from the Earth. Can you help clear up my confusion?

As the earth slows its rotation, the moon spirals away from the earth.

Other phenomena that have not been mentioned are the dragging effects of magnetic fields inducing dissipative eddy currents within the orbiting bodies, and the drag provided by solar winds and micro meteors.

Faulkner is doing what ID/creationists usually do by not presenting the entire picture; but rather, without qualification, selecting a single phenomenon out of numerous other known phenomena

harold said:

Faulkner is doing what ID/creationists usually do by not presenting the entire picture; but rather, without qualification, selecting a single phenomenon out of numerous other known phenomena

Which is the way they always do it. No evidence for a 6000 year old Earth or the activity of a "designer" is ever presented. They're always ultimately reactive and defensive. Their presuppositions are always taken as the default. The implication is always "if there is anything wrong with science then post-civil rights style politicized right wing authoritarian American 'Biblical literalism' wins by default". Then they can't even find anything wrong with the science, but claim that they have. Faulkner is even open about it. "The moon is thousands of years old". Stated as a given with no support. Then he goes on to make a fake argument against the mainstream position. Because the need for a leap second demonstrates that his position is at odds with observable reality, and that agitated him.

The thought just occurred to me:

Could someone make an app which would take care of the Earth-Moon system back a couple of billion years?

TomS said: All that a creationist has to do is to throw out the bait, and you guys dive into the calculations and the measurements which show, when all things are considered, the Earth-Moon system is billions of years old. The audience sees "this is really deep stuff that our champion made the atheists work hard to defend themselves."

Just Bob said:

TomS said: All that a creationist has to do is to throw out the bait, and you guys dive into the calculations and the measurements which show, when all things are considered, the Earth-Moon system is billions of years old. The audience sees "this is really deep stuff that our champion made the atheists work hard to defend themselves."

Yep, it's a "Nyaa nyaa, made you look," which means (in their 3rd grade mentality) they WON, regardless of the "looking" proving their original contention completely wrong. And their audience can't follow that proof anyway, so it doesn't count.

This Moon orbit thing is but a small part of what is wrong with ID/creationist thinking. I have said many times here on Panda's Thumb that The Fundamental Misconception of all ID/creationism is their notion of a "second law of thermodynamics" that says everything is decaying and coming all apart. This is what lies behind Faulkner's assertion about the Moon's orbit.

In reality, we live in a universe in which the condensation of matter is winning out over matter being blown apart. In every system of condensing matter, there are phenomena that are pushing against condensation. In star formation, nuclear ignition releases energetic photons that collide with incoming matter and retard the inflow to condensation. Yet enough energy, in the way of neutrinos, gets out so that condensation continues. Lighter atoms condense into heavier atoms and energy gets away. Atoms combine into compounds, compounds condense into liquids and solids; and energy gets away.

The debris kicked out of supernovae is shockwave-compressed into even heavier elements which find their way into later generation stars and solar systems. Solar systems and planets condense out of this material against competing processes that would tear the systems apart. And energy gets away.

All this takes place all the way down to the molecular level where we find molecules condensing into complex structures that hang at the threshold of coming apart, but have the advantage that they are able to explore a vast array of complexity that results in living organisms. This results from a complex interplay of processes that compete with condensation and allow this vast complexity and beauty to emerge. And all this because of the real second law of thermodynamics.

In the ID/creationist world, all this is blasphemy. The universe was formed perfectly by a deity and then cursed into decay after some naive chick ate some forbidden fruit. That is the ID/creationist "second law of thermodynamics." The ID/creationists' world is a dismal world decaying and coming all apart. And it is "calculated" to be coming apart at a rate that "proves" the universe to be 6000 years old. Any processes they can single out that will fit that scenario will be held aloft and championed as support for their ID/creationist dogma and world view. Everything else will be ignored; and that is almost all the rest of science.

How many of them have some doubts deep down popping up to haunt them every now and then? Methinks they are plenty.

Maybe explains much of their behaviour?

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said: I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that the "eyewitness" evidence we have is that which goes back to Roman, Greek and Babylonian calendars. Back to 2500 years ago, the rotation of the Earth and revolution of the Moon were recorded as being pretty much the same as they are today. A month was close to 29.5 days, and a year was close to 365.25 days. This last was observed to be within one tenth of one percent of today's value (less than .25/365.25). Are these observations consistent with the YEC theory of the Moon's orbit? I understand it's better than that, for the timing of ancient eclipses provides more precision.

There are piles of data going back to the Babylonians and Greeks; and some of the ancient Greeks actually came fairly close to proposing models of the solar system that would seem quite modern to us. There was even enough data back then to pick up what is known as the "precession of the equinoxes." Unfortunately, a philosophical predisposition toward the circle being perfect led, for a long time, to the Ptolemaic system with its epicycles and equants, and with the Earth at the "center" of everything. Even with good data, it was still hard to shake that philosophical mindset. One doesn't hear much about this history from ID/creationists. Jason Lisle, for example, even goes to the extreme of proposing that light travels at infinite speed toward every point in space, and at c/2 away from every point, in order to build a "theory" that supports his literal reading of Genesis. More specifically, he states that any observer will see the speed of light as being c/(1-cos(θ)), where θ is the angle between the line from the observer to the photon and the line along the direction of the photon's velocity vector. The implications of such ID/creationist "theories" supporting their sectarian apologetics are quite bizarre; in fact, quite humorous when one works out the specifics in the cases where light interacts with matter. Danny Faulkner makes stuff up, but as near as I can tell so far, he is not as bizarre as Lisle.

SLC said: Lisle's proposal depends on the interferometer being a two way device. I haven't researched this but I recall from sophomore physics that an early measurement of the speed of light in the 18th century used a device called a toothed tweedle which, if I remember correctly, is a one way device. If so, Lisle's proposal was falsified more then 300 years ago.

Rolf said: How many of them have some doubts deep down popping up to haunt them every now and then? Methinks they are plenty. Maybe explains much of their behaviour?

TomS said:

Rolf said: How many of them have some doubts deep down popping up to haunt them every now and then? Methinks they are plenty. Maybe explains much of their behaviour?

As far as I can tell, their concept of a proof is a combination of premises and a conclusion, where the conclusion is something wanted to be true. (Whatever may be the relation between the premises and conclusion. Typical examples: the premises are irrelevant; the premises are dependent on the conclusion; the premises are inconsistent with the conclusion.)

I have been trying to understand where Faulkner and Lisle go off the rails on their estimate of the age of the Earth from the rate of lunar recession; and I think I have found it here, a little past the midpoint of the page under "Creation In-Depth: Recession of the Moon."

Lisle - and probably Faulkner, since he referenced Lisle - believes he can calculate it from the height of the tidal bulge being proportional to the 1/r⁶ dipole of the Earth/Moon system. This is completely wrong.

The height of the tidal bulge has nothing to do with it. The Earth is spinning within the bulge; and it is the friction at the interface of the spinning Earth and that bulge that provides the torque. If the bulge is higher, it is simply tilted less.

That torque is the same torque that is applied to the Moon's orbit; therefore, the rate of decrease in the Earth's angular momentum is the same as the rate of increase of the orbital angular momentum of the Moon's orbit.

Unlike Lisle and Faulkner, I actually have done the correct calculation. The Earth's rotation is decreasing at 1.7 plus or minus .005 ms/century. The Moon is moving away at about a rate of 3.825 plus or minus 0.004 cm per year.

If the rate of decrease in angular momentum of the Earth is transferred to the increase in angular momentum of the Moon's orbit, the predicted rate of recession comes out to be about 3.866 cm per year; within less than 1% of the observed value.

Furthermore, when one calculates the percentage of the lost rotational kinetic energy of the Earth that gets transferred to the Moon's orbit, one gets only 3.7%; which means the most of that energy loss by the Earth is dissipated, as I mentioned earlier.

At the current rate of transfer of momentum and energy to the Moon's orbit, it will take about 9.9 billion years to eject the Moon from its orbit.

As always happens when I have dug into the "details" of ID/creationist physics, I find many egregious errors and a profound lack of understanding of the basics.

As I began reading this thread, there arose the increasingly urgent question "Has anybody realized the implications of the fact that circular orbits are so rare in Nature as to be considered evidence of recent divine (or perhaps "intelligent") origin?"

Then, suddenly, there was actual Physics.

There needs to be a collection of Mike Elzinga's essays. It could be turned into an instructional video and distributed online.

Addendum: I am a Time Geek and in fact operate a Stratum 2 Network Time Protocol server that handles a very modest 100-300 queries per minute. The Leap Second was of great interest to the community.

Since critics of biblical creation cannot accept this conclusion, they are forced to adopt secondary assumptions to make the evidence fit. Some have suggested that k may not be constant in time; perhaps the different distribution of continents in the past affected the tidal breaking of the earth’s oceans. This speculation does not necessarily solve the problem though. First, a different continental distribution does not guarantee that k would be smaller; if it were larger, then the problem would be even worse. Second, k would have to be substantially smaller in order to ameliorate the problem. Third, ...

Re "At the current rate of transfer of momentum and energy to the Moon’s orbit, it will take about 9.9 billion years to eject the Moon from its orbit."

So if the Earth/Moon pair stay in roughly the same orbit around the sun for another 5 billion years (approximately), they'll still be paired together with the red giant sun absorbs both?

Henry J said: Re "At the current rate of transfer of momentum and energy to the Moon’s orbit, it will take about 9.9 billion years to eject the Moon from its orbit." So if the Earth/Moon pair stay in roughly the same orbit around the sun for another 5 billion years (approximately), they'll still be paired together with the red giant sun absorbs both?

TomS said: I was reminded of the ad hoc speculation by some YECs that c (the speed of light) might not be constant, as a way of dealing with the distant star light problem. "This speculation does not necessarily solve the problem though. First, [it] does not guarantee that [c] would be [larger], if it were [smaller], then the problem would be even worse. Second, [c] would have to be substantially [larger - by a factor of a hundred thousand, not just a mere 3 or 4] ...".

That figure of of 1.7 milliseconds per day per century comes in part, I believe, from data going back to Babylonian eclipse records. I wonder whether Lisle bothered to check his theorizing with the eyewitness accounts of the eclipses. Or, like the hypotheses about the varying speed of light, is this a speculation that only makes a measurable difference once it cannot be measured?

BTW

One might wonder how impressed the YEC people in the pew would be with an argument that the Moon cannot be older than 1.5 billion years. It seems to me as relevant to them as an argument that evolution only works flawlessly back 500 million years and within phyla (i.e., the Cambrian Explosion). Are they supposed to be distracted by the show of elementary calculus?

TomS said: BTW One might wonder how impressed the YEC people in the pew would be with an argument that the Moon cannot be older than 1.5 billion years. It seems to me as relevant to them as an argument that evolution only works flawlessly back 500 million years and within phyla (i.e., the Cambrian Explosion). Are they supposed to be distracted by the show of elementary calculus?