iNFAMOUS Report post Posted April 17, 2020 Though there are many "Time keepers" in the universe for us to observe, as seen in the prior links, we really only really need one for this point, but don't let this stop you, go find as many as you want. (Here is a list of 101 more of them, if you'd like to check them out.) AGE OF EARTH Top 10 Evidences For a Young Earth - CLICK HERE "5 Evidences The Earth IsLess Than 10,000 Years Old" 8:17 Spoiler Moon Math The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment Apollo missions 11, 14, and 15, the crews left retroreflectors on the surface of the Moon. These are a series of small concave, half cube mirror reflectors, that always return a laser beam back to its origin, on principle of physics. Visit this link to learn more. CLICK HERE The entire purpose of this was to accurately (to the millimeter) observe the moon's orbit, and distance. After monitoring the Moon's orbit for 50 years now, they have learned it's traveling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8cm, or 1.5 inches a year. They admit that figure is "Anomalous", and it would be, if there weren't 100's if not 1000's of other examples that are also anomalous to the what they are trying to believe. I suppose an evolutionist would just ignore this, and move on... For those of us with an open mind, and who are willing to read the cards as they lie, the obvious data makes perfect sense compared with everything else we find. The Earth is much younger than they teach. For this example, I have kept the math linear, even though in reality the effects are much greater, as I will explain. It is a very easy one to calculate and understand why this refutes the belief of such an old Earth. Especially, when you consider the Moon is the major factor that raises and lowers the tides. We can easily calculate how much the Moon's distance to Earth effects our tide to the foot by comparing the current highest possible tide, and the lowest possible tide for any given year. We use the closest the Moon gets to Earth in orbit, with the farthest it gets. Then we can add back the years at the rate of 1.5 inches a year, and see just how high the tides would have been. I have kept this calculation linear for simplicity, but it the real results are actually quadrupled. For even further accuracy, you would also need to factor in how much stronger the suns gravity would be if we added the mass back to it, of which it would have burnt up. Highest perigee & perihelion tide 7.2 feet with the moon at a closest distance of 221,524mi Lowest apogee & aphelion tide -2.0 feet with the moon at a farthest distance of 252,088mi Difference of perigee and apogee 30,564feet Range of tide 9.2 feet 30,564 /9.2 = 3322.174 So about every 3,322.174ft = 1 foot in tidal height The average moon travel away from the Earth is calculated to be 1.5 in per year by NASA since 1969 1.5 x 100,000 years = 150,000in / 12 = 12,500ft 12,500 / 3322.174 = 3.76 ft So every 100,000 years = 3.76 feet 1 million years = 37.6 feet high 2 million = 75.2ft 5 million = 188ft 10 million = 376ft 100 million years = 3,760 feet high 1 billion years = 37,600 feet high, or 7 miles high. However, the Moon would have crashed into the Earth long before that anyway, when it reached the Roche limit around 9,500km. If you don't know what a Roche limit is, it's when something gets too close in orbit to its host, that it breaks up and smashes into it. Even at 1 million years, that frequent surge would have been a terrible thing. The 2010 tsunami of Japan was big at 128 feet, and just look what it did. Now let's consider the 10 million year mark. Even evolutionists have been backed into a corner to admit that the probability of evolution being a sound theory is impossible without at least a billion years. At 10 million years the tides would swing 376 feet which would devastate the planet. Just to throw another wrench in there, evolutionist say the Moon came from the Earth, which is spinning incredibly fast at 1000mph, and also on a 23.5 degree tilt, so due to the law of conservation of angular moment, the moon should also be spinning. However, as another wonder of God, we call a "Tidal lock", the same face of the moon is always looking back at us. In addition to all this math done, it was done as if it was a linear effect, but its not. The tidal attraction to mass would be hyperbolic, just like 2 magnets as they get closer. The effect would actually be 4 times stronger with every bisection. This is due to the "Inverse square law", meaning all those figures are grossly understated. It would actually be much worse. Just go back to the math and "quadruple" each "Foot high" result, to get the real answer. Now, if you think to yourself "Perhaps the rate at which the moon is traveling away from Earth, is increasing in distance as time goes on?" The answer to that, is that it is incredibly consistent, but you are correct. It is true to say that it is not a constant. However, the variation is that it is actually decreasing its rate of separation in distance as time goes on, adding yet another layer to confirm a young Earth, and confound the evolutionist's agenda. "The more I study science, the more I believe in God. ~ Albert Einstein" Sun Math Our Sun, is a running engine. It's mass is made out of it's own fuel. As she burns, it gets used, thereby it's mass decreases. This is all measurable from here. To say it remains unchanged, is really something unreasonable. Gravity is extremely consistent, the matter of which the sun is comprised of is quite uniform, the fusion process, or burn rate is consistent, and it is located in a very stabile environment, (the vacuum of space). According to NASA, It rips through 600 million tons of hydrogen per second, and resets its "Solar cycle" every 11 years or so. Here are a couple of statements from their website. ''The Sun consumes about 600 million tons of hydrogen per second. (That's 6 x 10 to the 8th power, tons.) For comparison, the mass of the Earth is about 1.35 x 10 to the 21st power tons. This would mean the Sun consumes the mass of the Earth in about 70,000 years. ~Dr. Louis Barbier - (NASA) "It is incorrect to say that the Sun is shrinking and it has been since the "creation" of the Universe. The Sun is not shrinking at a consistent rate. The data that were used to derive that were both wrong and misinterpreted. See the Skeptic Friends Network. Dr. Eric Christian Go to the next link below this to find, and click on that "skeptic Friends" links. you have to see their response for yourself. Then about the solar cycle he says this: The periodicity of the 11 year solar cycle is complicated by the fact that there is no well-timed event that you can actually use as a basis for your periodicity. However, the Sun is much more regular than the "7 to 18 year range" that you mention. You can look at this image to see the best long term measure of solar activity (the sun spot number). There are modern observations that give a better measure of solar variability, but we've only got data for two or three cycles worth. The actual long term period is slightly more than 11 years and is remarkably stable. There are scientists who look at the statistics of solar activity and may have found other periodicities, but for the general public, there is effectively no difference between 10.8 and 11.7 years, especially given the broad and irregular temporal structure of both solar min and solar max. Dr. Eric Christian (October 2003) This is all on their website! - CLICK HERE So NASA is saying, In a surprisingly consistent manner it burns up 600 million tons of hydrogen (which has mass, as matter does) per second, in an energy transfer from a gas through a fusion burning process, and converts and expels the matter into heat and light energy, thereby removing the matter it has, and it does this at a surprisingly constant rate, but isn't "shrinking" at a constant rate... Really? How many of Newton's laws does that break? Let's say even if the pull of gravity on the surface and size of the sun, inverted anywhere close to the same rate at which it burnt the fuel, allowing for the diameter to expand as fuel burnt, so that it's diameter remained roughly the same, or even pulsated in size. Gravity would still decrease significantly, over the span of even 1 million years. GRAVITY, IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR ORBIT. Orbit is very important to our seasons and temperature. So is the the perfect balance of heat delivered, the ellipsis of the orbit, the 23.5 degree tilt of the earth which gives us seasons, the moon to provide the tides which fuel our oceans, and weather systems, to create the storms that shield the sun even more, and to provide the nitrogen and rain for our soil to feed the plants, which give off oxygen to allow the mammals to breathe and in return exhale the carbon dioxide which the plants need in return for the photosynthesis that could not happen if the sun were not mediated in so many specific ways and at just the right volume or they would all burn up. WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE GRAVITY PART! Not magnetic protection, chemical, or any of the other thousands and thousands of variables that need to be in place for us to survive. It could not work if just that one thing were changed, by only 1 million years at a constant burn rate of 600 Million tons per second. The fact is, that it's being used up, and therefore it's features are decreasing, not remaining completely unchanged from an unlimited supply of energy from nowhere. At some point you have to admit that our very existence as we know it, to be happenstance from and explosion of NOTHING is absolutely absurd! The sooner you can admit this is ridiculous, the sooner you will realize the existence of a grand designer makes WAY more sense. The next step is making sure the Bible, out of all the other biblically spawned religious lies, is His one true operating manual left for us, and the rest really aren't. Good news is, that's actually easy to do. That is up to each of us to decide, based on research, fueled by the guarantee that we will one day die, and since there is a designer of all this, what is the point of it? Faith was never meant to be blind. Here is a bunch of work, data, and even charts complied found on the sun. CLICK HERE There is math all over the universe, with whatever calculations you want to perform to show that Newton's law of conservation is at work, you will find that energy does dissipate and it can be measured, and added against time. Doing this against millions of years will give you staggeringly large, and very impossible results to support these evolutionary theories to our existence, as we know it. This math shouts that creation is very young, and people are just trying to find a way to say it doesn't. It is amazing that some who are accustomed to these fields still have the deliberate nerve to search for anything that disproves a creator, and can actually ignore the glaring data because they don't want God, or don't want to be ostracized by their peers. Evolution is indeed a religion, and it requires defiance, bullying, or a lack of understanding to just accept what is handed to you, and just as I say to anyone in a cult belief. THINK FOR YOURSELF, go crunch some numbers and search the nitty gritty, as well as the beginnings to these ideas. The beginning is always the uprooter. If it has no record or explanation for everyone prior to that start date how can it be the truth? Some more unavoidable math. Sun Shrinking. Space Theory A good way to make a point is to hyperbolize; to exaggerate the scenario, so as to better reveal the degree of its effects. This is done for us when it comes to studying the largeness of creation, with the expanse of space, or the smallest forms of life, with microbiology. In doing this we should eventually come to a point where we realize that, we couldn’t possibly explain how anything began. Not only is it irreducibly complex, and also has a definite beginning, but where did it come from? In that moment, you should realize it isn't just because we don’t understand. It's safe to say, we will never make a galaxy, or even build a single celled organism into motion, even if we robbed Peter to pay Paul! We are not in charge of existence, and we were put here. Nothing in this incomprehensibly large space, or these unbelievably small atomic structures found in this precise universe was a matter of chance, at all. So who is in charge, and how do we know that? Life is NOT an accident, and we do NOT exist without meaning or purpose. There are glaring facts of things that exist, that could not exist if the beginning was not so long ago. The rate of decay is far too quick for the features of any given astronomical body, but as evolutionists state, Darwin's theories make no sense without trillions and trillions of years. Consider how every single explanation from evolutionists on how stars form, require other stars to already exist! A cosmic chicken and the egg scenario. Not to mention we have never seen a star form, they just point to gassy nebulas where we cant see inside of, and say it happens there of course. They have tried to sell the theory of “Dark matter” and “Dark energy”, but even that is too far of a stretch for mainstream astrophysicists to buy. These videos by Mike Psarris are the best videos I have ever seen produced. They're available for purchase in very high definition at: Creation Astronomy. From Atheist to Creationist Astrophysicist Mike Psarris' Amazing testimony Spoiler How can we see stars so far away? "Distant Starlight Vs. The Biblical Timeline. (The Short Version)" 13:47 Spoiler "(Undebunkable) Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design - but by whom?" 10:07 Spoiler "Distant Starlight: Does It Disprove Biblical Creation? (The In-Depth Version)" 1:18:15 Spoiler Evolutions Horizon Problem, According to an Evolutionist "The horizon problem - why does the universe look the same in all directions" 2:37 Spoiler What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy Vol 1-3 Spoiler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
