Lunar Rescission
The distance between the Earth and the Moon is about 384,000 km. (2. 239,000 miles) Do to tidal forces it is getting father from the Earth at a rate of about 3.8 cm/yr. (1.5 inches/yr)
This occurs because Moon’s gravity causes a small bulge in the Earth, and because of Earth’s rotation this bulge leads the Moon. As a result the Moon pulls on the bulge against Earth’s rotation. This speeds up the Moon, while slowing the Earth rotation.
The current rate of slowing of the Earth rotation rate is about 8.836 milliseconds / year. This is often mistakenly projected back in a strait line (light blue line) but physics shows that rate would be higher when Moon was closer.
When the observed rate of slowing of the Earth rotation rate is projected back based on the laws of physics governing tidal forces, it climes sharply at it nears the 1.2 billion year mark. This is because if the Moon is closer tidal forces are greater and slow down rate greater.
Moon's recession rate would also be faster than its current rate of 3.82 cm/yr. such that it would be at Earth's surface just 1.2 billion years ago. Now according the Evolutionary geology the Earth and Moon is supposed to be 4.5 billion years, so tidal drag is evidence against an old Earth.
Eugene Poliakow's paper “Numerical modelling of the paleotidal evolution of the Earth-Moon System” is an effort to calculate the affect continental movement based actual estimates of past continental movement. Because of limitations of the methods used to estimating past continental movement, it only projects back 600 million years, but this is enough to evaluate the results.
The following chart shows the results.
| T, 106 yr | dR. cm/yr | Dt, s/cent |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 2.91 | 1.59 |
| 10 | 2.68 | 1.46 |
| 50 | 1.83 | 0.98 |
| 100 | 0.81 | 0.43 |
| 200 | 0.34 | 0.18 |
| 300 | 0.46 | 0.24 |
| 350 | 0.80 | 0.42 |
| 400 | 0.57 | 0.30 |
| 450 | 1.54 | 0.80 |
| 500 | 2.53 | 1.31 |
| 570 | 2.19 | 1.11 |
The way to judge the validity of a mathematical model is to see how well it produces known data. Poliakow’s calculations give ( as seen in the above chart) a figure of 2.91 cm/yr as the Moon’s recession current rate and 1.59 seconds / century as the rate of the slowing of Earth’s rotation. The problem with these figures is that they both differ significantly from the values actually observed. The Moon’s recession current rate has actually been measured at 3.82 cm/yr, which is nearly a 3rd larder than Poliakow’s model indicates. Furthermore the slowing of Earth’s rotation has been measured at 0.8812 seconds / century which is just 55% of what Poliakow’s model indicates.
At first glance the fact that Poliakow’s model over estimates the deceleration rate of Earth’s rotation would seem to be a plus but limiting factor of the age of the Earth - Moon system is the position of the Moon, not the Earth rotation rate. Since the Moon’s recession rate is actually higher than in Poliakow’s model, the error would be a clear negative. The real problem is the decencies between the model and real world data shows there to be fundamental flaw in the model. It means that Poliakow over looked a one more major factors that could easily nullify his results.
The final flaw in this model is that it does not produce results constant with paleontological evidence. Any old Earth model for evolution of the Earth – Moon system would have to agree with both present system data and paleontological evidence, but Poliakow’s model disagrees with both.
Made from data at Impact
origin of the moon
There is paleontological Evidence claimed as independent evidence for an old Earth, but like any other dating method this interpretation assumes conditions similar today, while ignoring the potential affect of a global flood on the data. This claim is based on the fact that tidal forces from the Moon are slowing the Earth rotation rate.
It is claimed that stromatolites, fossil tidal rhythmites, and fossil bivalves and coral all have growth indicators showing more days in a year at the time when they lived. However when one looks closely at this data, the claim is shown not to be valid.
The first clue is the fact that the degree of scattering in the data. It is not what would be expected if it were really the result of lunar rescission. It should produce a clear curve but it does not. Now scattering often occurs in data, but in this case there is no reason for the scattering.
Stromatolites.
Stromatolite - Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
Stromatolites are produced by the activity of cyanobacteria and living colonies produce 356 layers in year. Fossil "colonies” have been found with 450-800 layers in apparent agreement with the slowing of the Earth rotation through the geologic ages.
The main problem is that fossil stromatolites may not have formed from cyanobacteria. Some contain no evidence of the cyanobacteria and carbonate precipitation can result in some very stromatolites like structures, rendering the number of layers.
The data shows four pairs of data points. The older three seem to be pre-Flood and may have been formed during the creation week. The forth seems to be an early Flood deposit. The relationship in each pair shows no trend but there is a trend among the pairs, particularly among the three older pairs. This could simple represent a change in precipitation patterns
Tidal Rhythmites.
Tidal Rhythmites are produced by tidal action, so called fossil tidal rhythmites are assumed to indicate moon's position in the past. The simple fact is that the same patterns occur in varves. So are they rhythmites or varves? Even experts have a hard time telling them a part in the geologic record. If they are varves then the patterns are meaningless for determining past lunar positions or the number of days in a year. Now rhythmites or varves look similar and varves can formed at the same time by hydrological shorting. Just what one would expect during a global flood. More information is needed for a proper model.
Bivalves and Coral.
Coral - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
Bivalvia
- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coral and bivalves normally produce one growth ring per day, normally it is 365. Do to the slowing of Earth rotation coral would have had more rings in the past on an old Earth . Fossil coral and bivalves have been found with 357-450 growth rings. The extra growth rings are assumed to indicated more day per year.
As with most such claims the effects of a global flood are not considered. Furthermore before the Flood there were probably smaller, if any seasonal variations, this could have resulted in longer lived specimens. Since longer lived specimens would be heavier, they would tend to be hydrologically sorted out early in the Flood. If this occurred one would expect to find a general trend with significant scattering as the data shows.
The above comparison between growth rings and alleged age, shows significant variation out side the trend. One even has only about 357, so are we to assume that it is from the future?
When this paleontological evidence is compared to real tidal force data it shows that it is not what is predicted by old age model.
When it is compared to a strait line projection of the current slowing rate of slowing in the Earth rotation, all but 6 of the data point are above the line and one is below it.
When it is compared to a projection of current rate of slowing in the Earth rotation based on the laws Physics, 9 of 17 coral and bivalves are above the curve, 7 are on it, and 1 is below it. The rest of data points that are less dated as less than 1.2 billion are scattered around curve.
The fact is that the degree of scattering proves among the coral and bivalves are more consistent with specimens of different ages being hydrologically sorted. It also shows that some of the “Stromatolites” and “tidal rhythmites” must have had more than one ring per day. Furthermore, all possible curve fits to the data that are consistent with 4.5 billion years require some specimens to have more than one ring per day. This shows that all of the specimens could have had more than one ring per day.
Lunar Rescission sets a maximum age for the Earth / Moon system of about 1.2 billion years, and attempts to solve this problem require unrealistic assumptions, so the Earth / Moon system can not be 4.5 billion years.
Abiotic
origin of stromatolites
Abiological origin of described stromatolites older than
3.2 Ga
How
Long Would It Take the Moon to Recede from Earth to Its Present Position?