<a name="20020316.A"> page 20020316.A aka Anyway March 16, 2002 ?
i've pretty much resigned myself to `poise
that the $ are to be made with LIE.
and their4 enought of made for PRIME time
"nightly" includes both intention & ob
to qualify in my mind to be taken WITH SALT
usually in the form of Saltines. {oh my}
So yeah enter here my Boo.. for 2nd 1/4.
and let it go at this.. for me it may well
be back to an "AU" stance prance & Do the EQ dance?

<a name="20020318.6:34"> page 20020318.6:34 aka how2do the QUAKE dance
1:25 14:56:37 35.97N 69.18E 33.0 6.0M A HINDU KUSH
2:25 21:45:07 35.99N 69.22E 33.0 5.0M B HINDU KUSH
3:ed over 3 ho
4:his include aftershocks? If so ho
5 was the epicenter? Was there fo
6:sn't sound like that mu
7:ate: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:23:01 GMT
8:/26 03:45:48 23.54N 123.91E 33.0 6.3M A SW RYUKYU ISL., JA
9: 4:04 A.M. um start with a SIX and then a FIVE 7hrs later not days ninni
mostly, its just write & shake Shake and write
thus when writting in HUB for Gov U cant tell
one from the other.. but if you must be a foot stomper start with 1 TWO.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-03-27 05:13 ]</font>

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=2&start=25&45
hmm? theres THIS D`bait
about the moon reSEED`n 3to4 CM/ Earth year?no?
1:yesy I guess that it does so
2:NO. I dont think that it has been
3:doing this for 4-5 billion years
4:..I.. think the moons very Young
5:LESS THAN 250,000,000 (TWO HUNDRED FIFTY Million)
6:current Earth years old
7:um that means launched this orbit
8: f the sun about the Galatic Center
9: some number around 30 to 40 maybe 36 or 38
anyway what i dont see in the D`b's are
mention of the North South orbital period
or the Perigee Perigee periods
i once had the order correct was it 29.5? 28.7, 28.4 No.. maybe ..

HUb', if I understand your cryptic post, you have concluded that the moon is quite young based on the rate of recession from the earth. What is missing from your analysis is the fact that when the moon was rotating on its axis at a rate much higher than 1 revolution per month, it had a different mechanism of shedding energy through tidal effects than it has today - that is, its rotation was slowed by the energy it gave up to cause tides on earth. There is lots of evidence that earth tides have been occurring for over three billion years to a degree that could only be accounted for by the presence of a large satellite (the moon).

Now that the moon is no longer rotating relative to the earth, the tidal energy arises from the shedding of orbital velocity - or more correctly by having the moon move further up earth's gravity well. There is no mystery here that supports your young moon theory.

[quote]
On 2002-03-27 09:03, DaveC wrote:To: 9 CAUAC 17 CUMKU
5:07 A.M. oh goodie 5AM [Math Time 4me]
& a debait about the age of the moon2
Whoo.. well by age of moon I mean in orbit
and not the age of the Lunar Soil,
that dirt I `poise would be Earth Rock age
as I guess its Earthen rock to start with..
Now about YOUR 'Tideal'{sp} evidence?
How about a link to it 2

Here's one link you can try:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

You can also do a search for "tidal rhythmites" and there is lots of information available about the geological record that the moon has been with us for a long time. Rhythmites are used to determine how fast the moon was receding from the earth in the distant past and by extension is the evidence that it was present in that distant past.

Still using that thingy I made you Hub, I see... lol.

HUb' .. YES, Shirley .. in fact Ijust used
it moments ago to upload a Lunar modle
based upon a recession rate {4cm/y}
I use a constant Velocity Model myself
yet to be entered into the gnuplot arena
however maybe tomorrow or next week..Now how fas does the moon move?

I tried it. appears to be a fast typer 60+WPM me= 1Li/min

1: accordin to this 1e4 constant velocity model
2: it only took 4e9/1e4=4e5 Seconds to reach
3: "INSERTION" IN OTHER WORDS..400,000/60/60/24
4: about 4.5 days. This means that FOUR & 1/2
5: "DAYS" after detachment From Earth the meterials
6: that formed the Moon were at the altitude WHERE
7: LUNAR orbital insertion took place and the Moon
8: has been aproximatly there ever since. < 2.4e8y

1: this chosen form [/~ the insertion ] aka
2: ( Constant Velocity ) Model of Moon Motion
3: depends upon TWO very Large portions of
4: astrolopolis traveling together tward Earth
5: AND the SUN. the First Smaller piece OF 2
6: collides with A fractured Earth & Launces
7: debries4M. The Second Larger ASTroTrailer4.5
8: days later passes near & "inserts" D'bin2orb

1: May as well begin this Constant velocity version
2: Even though i'll not do very well HERE
3: the moon orbits Earth at about 4billion cm R
4: SO their4 its Circumferance must equal about 8PI
5: OR. around 25e9 CM? in 29d*24h*60m*60s=25e5
6: 25e9cm/25e5s 1e4cm/s 10,000 Centimeters/sec
7: and thats my "CURRENT" constant velocity figure 1e4
8: the current Math Model [/~] is the insertion model

`poise
any arguements about anchient tides; i poise there were some allright, from the Sun Not from this Moon?

Hub wrote: "any arguements about anchient tides; i poise there were some allright, from the Sun Not from this Moon?"

But as I'm sure you know, the lunar tide is much higher than the solar tide. The study of rhythmites recognizes and accounts for the effect of the sun on tidal rhythms. The earth would have to have been MUCH closer to the sun than it is for solar tides to have created the geological tidal record. I think the evidence is pretty clear that the moon has been causing terestrial tides for billions of years. The tidal rhythmite data shows pretty clearly that the moon's rate of recession has increased significantly over geologic history.

<a name="20020401.7:58"> page 20020401.7:58 aka Worth a Date "Shirley"
On 2002-04-01 08:20, DaveC wrote: To: 13 AKBAL 1 UAYAB


Bu The earth would have to have been MUCH closer to the sun than it is

[/quote]
8:01 A.M. HUb' and perhaps its the other way?
Maybe the Sun was much closer to the Earth
B4 she lost so much weight? &Yes, the Dates real.. it may be wrong, but its TRUELY real.

Dave, I think he's got you there

"Maybe the Sun was much closer to the Earth"

Yes, I should have been more precise. I should have said the earth would have to have been much deeper in the sun's gravity well. Either way, if the distance between earth and sun had been substantially less a billion years ago than it is today, we wouldn't be here to have this conversation.

The comment about "losing so much mass" relates, I assume, to the matter the sun has lost through conversion to energy. In its 5+ billion years of life, the sun has lost less than 10% of its original mass through fusion. This wouldn't come close to explaining how it could have ever produced tides on earth comparable to lunar tides.

On 2002-04-01 11:12, DaveC wrote: To: Yawn
3:31 A.M. HUb' ? Well tanks? I `poise
anyway its not 5 yet but i'll try some on line math
anyway.. lemme see i read in a book 25,000 mph escape
"VELOCITY" not that I think moon escaped I DONT
i think it does return to Earth from whence it came & soon2
now math 25,000mph*5280ft/mi*12in/ft*2.45cm/in
all that dvided by 60mi/h*60s/m might be ?
38808e5/3600 10.78e5 cm/s 107800000 cm/s .?. yawn#2

The moon's velocity in its orbit around the earth is far below escape velocity which you correctly give as ~ 25000 mph. The moon has an elliptical orbit so the calculation of velocity depends on where in the ellipse it happens to be, but an approximate average velocity can be calculated by assuming the orbit is a circle 240000 miles in radius or 480000 miles in diameter (d).

So it travels PIxd miles in 28 days or

3.1416x480000/28x24 miles in one hour

or about 2244 mph.

You can convert this to cm/sec if you want.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-04-02 08:15 ]</font>

DaveC (and others), do you actually understand all this stuff that comes from Hub? I've never understood a thing he posts. Nothing.

You have to make just a little bit of effort

I think "Grab0raft" has mastered HUb'ish better than the rest of us. I don't profess to comprehend even a tenth of what HUb' says in each post. But I'm trying to learn!

1: Distance of Moon to Earth: Rme = 3.911 x 108 m
2: [I am taking this as center-center, not surface-surface]
3: 2-4-03 rebuttal
4: 2452141 PERIGEE 357172 KM
5: 2452155 APOGEE 406324 KM
6: -----------------------------
7: My translation's of R_me ?= 3.9*10^8M = 3.9e8 [METERS]
8: OR 391,000 kM := 4E8m or 4e10cM (40 Billion centimeters)
sorry i had to use all the lines i have on this
SO no credits 4U see general for top 2 lines

so i'll have to wait untill my calculator has more Sunlight or somethin

"2244mph 5280f/m 12in/ft 2.45cm/in"

That should be 2.54cm/in. It won't help the sunlight problem with your calculator though. Maybe if you did your calculations at some time other than 3-5 a.m. you'd receive more insolation?