Talk:Moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe (Talk.Origins)
This email was received from Robert Keiller:
Dear authors
"CreationWiki response: This one has proved to be an interesting study. It shows that because of Talk Origins' bias, they failed to properly check their data."
Right so you checked your data then?
Seems not.
Compare your two picture of Hansen's model with this description from Kagan and Maslova: "... a spherical cap with the center either at the equator (the equatorial continent), or at the pole (the polar continent)."
Now, it is inconceivable that Kagan and Maslova, writing in a peer reviewed journal would misinterpret the literature that badly, so I have to conclude that none of you have actually read Hansen's paper!
May I suggest a quick reading of Matthew 7 v3-5?
"However, to reduce it to a rate that will allow the Earth / Moon system to be 4.5 billion years old requires assuming one of two unrealistic continental positions."
Take a look at:
"Numerical modelling of the paleotidal evolution of the earth-moon system", E Poliakow, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union (2004), 2004: 445-452. (Available here http://journals.cambridge.org/)
which shows that reduced tidal interaction with the very continental positions estimated by plate tectonics.
Some parts of the article are currently being reconsidered...
Keiller is right about the correspondence of the second picture with the text "...a spherical cap with the center...at the equator (the equatorial continent)...". That picture shows a continent as a band around the equator, which is not what that text says.
As to the referenced article, I couldn't register successfully; maybe CUP doesn't like the Iceweasel browser. --Oelphick 02:51, 8 December 2006 (EST)
Interesting that a similar comment was mentioned on a blog. If your interested here it is:
Hansen models the continents as "... a spherical cap with the center either at the equator (the equatorial continent), or at the pole (the polar continent)." (quoted from the paper by Kagan and Maslova). This 'refutation' instead describes the latter configuration as a single continuous band around the equator. So 'Technical' that they clearly haven't even read the primary technical source. (Though they feel no contradiction in accusing the TalkOrigins author of failing to check his data!) Besides that there is no critique whatsoever of the underlying mathematical theory other than to attack the simplified nature of the model. However, for a numerical simulation that accounts for the actual supposed continental configurations for the past 600 MYear and similarly concludes that the moon would have receded less rapidly in the past, see "Numerical modelling of the paleotidal evolution of the earth-moon system", E Poliakow, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union (2004), 2004: 445-452. (Available here http://journals.cambridge.org/)
I don't mean to rub anything in but just thought i'd share it. Please remove if it's unnecessary. --Gil 01:52, 10 December 2006 (EST)
Numerical modelling
I couldn't read the article referenced by Keiller, but I am suspicious of results obtained by numerical modelling. This isn't real data; a model can be tweaked until it gives the expected answers. Indeed, if it doesn't give the expected answers, its creators are likely to assume that the model is wrong.
If anyone has managed to read that article, please comment on whether this would be a valid criticism. --Oelphick 03:55, 8 December 2006 (EST)
Work being done
I am am currently working on improving this responce. The reslute will be a better responce
The image that caused this problem was based on the decription at Trueorgins website, they did not mention the cap at the equator. It was a mistake on my part, but correcting it will produce a better reponce. Sorry for the slip up.
Main Article
I moved the non-response portions of this article to a primary paper at - Moon recession. Any changes to this article should also be updated there.--Mr. Ashcraft 11:57, 13 December 2006 (EST)
