rationalskepticism.org

Just A Theory wrote:Hi Florian, welcome back to the forum. When you last vanished, we were discussing the Earth-Moon system and you contended that the three-body problem was unsolvable.

I've addressed that assertion here.

I did not remember that. The numerical solution you describe is what we call a simulation. I do a lot of this stuff (for molecular modelling, anyway), and you have to be aware that it is highly dependent on the initial parameters (initial velocities for example), and the slightest difference in the initial parameters will lead to enormous differences in the final results. So such a simulation will have increasing errors. The prediction will be good at the beginning and totally wrong at the end.

But that's not even part of the problem we have with the expansion model.

You said:

Just A Theory wrote:
Thus, we have the debunking:

The Earth was rotating faster at some point in the past ie. the day was shorter
The Moon was closer to Earth in the past but has receded and slowed the Earth's rotation
Expansion models assume Earth's rotation is a constant speed
The assumption is false, the expansion model is false

There is no assumption that Earth's rotation is a contant speed, not at all. I do not know where you got that?

The problem we have at hand is actually much worst that a simple 3-body problem, because it is an 3-evolving-body problem. The velocity and mass of all three bodies is allowed to change and we do not know how to predict that change because the system is not a closed one and we do not know the input to the system.

Just A Theory wrote:Based on my post, the Wu paper that has been referenced multiple times within the thread should be considered correct. i'll repeat the relevant conclusion for you in case you've forgotten.

Here, we use multiple precise geodetic data sets and a simultaneous global estimation platform to determine that the ITRF2008 origin is consistent with the mean CM at the level of 0.5 mm/ yr, and the mean radius of the Earth is not changing to within measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm/ yr.

I explained a lot of times why the model used in Wu's paper does not apply to a growing Earth. Plate tectonics is embedded in their model because they assume that any horizontal relative displacements correspond to the motion of a rigid plate at the surface of a undeformable globe. Instead, they should consider that horizontal relative displacements are mostly due to the addition of globe surface at mid ocean ridges.

I still have to find someone of this forum that can understand that...